-
Mutakalem
9-The potential for the emergence of any possible essence is beginningless.
-If the potential for the emergence of any possible essence is beginningless, then God can bring into existence any possible essence.
Therefore, God can bring into existence any possible essence.
Premise 1: The potential for the emergence of any possible essence is beginningless.
The potential for the existence of possible essences is either emergent or beginningless.
If emergent, then possible essences did not accept existence before the emergence of this potential. Entailing that possible essences were not possible essences before the emergence of this potential[1]. This is a violation of identity, and so is impossible.
Thus, the potential for the existence of any possible essences is beginningless.
Premise 2: If the potential for the emergence of any possible essence is beginningless, then God can bring into existence any possible essence.
If the potential for the existence of any possible essence is beginningless, then there must exist at least one beginningless being who is able to bring this possible essence into existence.
This is because of it being impossible for a possible essence to accept existence, without there already existing a being with the ability to actualize this potential[2]. So since the potential is beginningless, then the being with the ability to actualize this potential must also be beginningless.
And given that God is the only beginningless being[3], then God is that being who is able to bring into existence any possible essence.
Therefore, God can bring into existence any possible essence.
Thus, God can bring into existence any possible essence. And since the ability to bring into existence any possible essence is what we mean when we say “omnipotence”, God is necessarily omnipotent[4].
[1] Since possible essences accept existence by virtue of what they are. So if the potential for their existence were emergent, then they were not possible essences before the emergence of this potential. More on the transformation of realities here.
[2] For if there was no being with the ability to bring a possible essence into existence, then that possible essence would not accept existence. This is because a specification cannot emerge into existence without a specifier.
[3] Since God is the only necessary being, and all non-necessary existents are emergent. More on this here.
[4] This same argument is proof that God’s Will pertains to all possible essences as well. Meaning: He is able to will existence for any possible essence.
This is because God’s ability to bring something into existence, is proof that He can will for it to exist. So given that He can bring any possible essence into existence, then He can will for any possible essence to exist. -
JerseyFlight
782
With all the serious problems in the world, why did you choose this topic? Why spend your time on such a useless abstraction? -
Mutakalem
9
If emergent, then possible essences did not accept existence before the emergence of this potential. Entailing that possible essences were not possible essences before the emergence of this potential[1]. This is a violation of identity, and so is impossible.
Is it a bad justification? If so can you tell me why? -
Mutakalem
9
Are you familiar with contingency and emergence VS Necessity?
To put it simple: What I argue here is, either the potentiality of any probable essence (I.E possibility of a flying cow to exist logically (not empirically)) to be actualized (to get created in a universe) existed beginning-less as a concept or it existed and is true (not only discovered by us) at some point only (Emergent).
To say that the potentiality of any probable essence (I.E a flying cow is possible to exist) is emergent this means that before this particular point in time of emergence the Flying cow was rationally impossible to exist because it lacks potentiality to exist, (Like a 2D squared circle) something that is rationally impossible), and after this particular point of emergence the flying cow is rationally possible to exist. (I am talking only about rational possibilities not nomological possibilities (being empirically found)). And this potentiality emergence is absurd, because being rationally possible to exist is a property of identity and no transformation of reality/identity can ever occur; meaning that it's either a 2 dimensional square circle is logically rationale or it's not, we cannot say that after day X it became logically rational, but before that it was irrational, or that the existence of an apple pie after day Y is irrational. This is violating the law of identity saying that y=y but starting from day X y=/=y if for example y is a 2D squared circle that by virtue has a logical irrational existence.
So by showing that the potentiality of any probable essence to actualize as a concept is absurd to be emergent (have a beginning at only some point), then it must be (by law of bi-valence) beginning-less, so it was, is and will always be rationally illogical for a squared rectangle in 2D to exist.
(1) So this is the explanation of "The potential for the emergence of any possible essence is beginning-less".
(2) And Possible existence is one which doesn't hold a logical contradictions in its intrinsic essence (A 2 dimensional square circle, or one which doesn't hold extrinsic logical contradictions (2 guys sitting alone in the same chair in the same time).
(3) If the potential for the emergence of any possible essence is beginningless, then there must be at-least one actualizer that can bring into existence any possible essence.
Because if they are by definition possible, then they MUST have an actualizer that is able and holds this potential to actualize them. Or else they are not possible because they lack actualization (which is a contradiction given that they ARE rationally possible to be actualized).
Therefore: All the potentiality of possible existence MUST need a beginning-less cause to be able to actualize them. -
JerseyFlight
782And this potentiality emergence is absurd, because being rationally possible to exist is a property of identity and no transformation of reality/identity can ever occur; meaning that it's either a 2 dimensional square circle is logically rationale or it's not, we cannot say that after day X it became logically rational, but before that it was irrational, or that the existence of an apple pie after day Y is irrational. This is violating the law of identity saying that y=y but starting from day X y=/=y if for example y is a 2D squared circle that by virtue has a logical irrational existence. — Mutakalem
Fantastic! All these fancy symbols, this must mean that your subject is of the highest value? I mean, you wouldn't go through all this trouble if it wasn't of the utmost importance. Do tell, what would a man lose if this argument never existed? Is there any price to be paid for ignoring a conversation on the power's of Zeus? -
Mutakalem
9
I don't know man, I am just inspecting valid arguments for God.. I mean no harm nor force my beliefs on others.. -
JerseyFlight
782I don't know man — Mutakalem
Is it possible that this entails a waste of your intellectual energy and power? Are there more important issues you could be applying your mind to? -
batsushi7
45Idea of "God" isn't even omnipotent, because it only creates paradoxes, and paradoxes are just meaningless arguments.
God can not be omnipotence, because apparently he cant create another powerful being as himself, or even more powerful. If "God" Was truly omnipotence, he would understand our pain and suffering, and would fix the world, cure poverty, suffer, and every problem in this world, not in afterlife! Perhaps he cant do it in this life, because he isn't omnipotent. Honestly i think God doesn't even know that Africa exists.
God seems to be less omnipotent than human being, or even rock, i mean rock has least one feature "existing", but if we investigate "God" we find literally nothing, no features or even existence. What seems like really primitive "Being" if you can even call "God" as being.
-Never forget how "God" himself kinda failed creating perfect "human being", and created sin baits, what ended up baiting Adam and Eve into sinning, and then poisoned whole humankind with original sin, that every human being suffers from. Honestly i cant call that Good, or omnipotent being, because there are obvious errors.
Every being has it limits. -
JerseyFlight
782
Serious problems you raise here for anyone who claims to be taking the idea of God serious. -
Philosophim
2.6kWow Jerseyflight, you are being a jerk. The man wants discussion, not insults. It might be unimportant to you, the same football is to me. Do I go to football forums and post how they are all wasting their life? No. Come on, lay off the guy. -
Philosophim
2.6kMutakalem, I appreciate your attempt to tackle the issue of God and omnipotence. I think this is a much better way of analyzing omnipotence then the normal, "God can do anything"
-
tim wood
9.3kIt seems to me that under the usual definitions of God, any search for Him as a consequence of logic or even just the usage of words cannot be successful. One clue as to why is that words are descriptive, and God cannot be described - because of how he is defined. Another is that the attribution of absolute qualities, actually any qualities, usually results either in contradiction or undesirable implication. For example, being perfectly good means God can do no evil - oops, there goes omnipotence. And omnipotence means he can create the stone that's too heavy, and so on. And so forth. And nothing new here; all this and more worked and reasoned out at various times and places in the early history of Christianity.
God, then, is a revelatory personal experience inaccessible to reason. The God of religion comes into being when individuals compare notes as to their personal experiences, and their accounts become smoothed and finished in time, in short an edited description of the indescribable,
Nihil est sine ratione, nothing is without reason. God is usually defined as being "without" reason, without a cause: reasonless, causeless. Therefore nothing. That's the 2+2=4 of it. Of course lots of people want 2+2=5, but those same people also want it at the same time to equal 4 - without the consequences. In short, incoherence at the edge of madness. -
Philosophim
2.6k
A fair point tim wood. I'm just trying to lend a positive voice to this thread. Whether we have decided our own beliefs on God is irrelevant. We should welcome people who take the time to post on something they've thought about and are generally passionate about.
When I was young, I was once a passionate believer in God, and philosophy about God was my beginning into exploring God beyond the matter of faith. It is the people who engaged me on these grounds and treated me respectfully which is why I evolved in my viewpoints on God and faith, and lit my passion for philosophy I still enjoy to this day.
Feel free to engage the OP's point, I am putting no skin in this game at this point. =) -
JerseyFlight
782The man wants discussion, not insults. — Philosophim
I have delivered here no insults. This is your emotional response and characterization of the situation. Philosophy is not a feel good game, thought is brutal, it walks against the silk of delusion, it is often sand paper to the heart. There is no more relevant question than the question of thought's relevance. How much time should one give to a discussion on the attributes of Allah? Pick any God you want, at some point you will and must affirm my position. So far from giving the original poster an insult I did him a favor by asking the right questions! -
Philosophim
2.6k
Philosophy is not a feel good game, thought is brutal, it walks against the silk of delusion, it is often sand paper to the heart. — JerseyFlight
A ridiculous excuse to try to justify your desire to be mean to people. You can be intelligent, thoughtful, and respectful of others. You don't care about changing his mind. You're spitting words for the fullfillment of your ego. People who actually wish to change others minds understand that you must talk with people, not at people.
You did not talk with the man. You talked at the man, while completing disregarding his OP. You fool no one with this excuse. And if you've fooled yourself? Then you are far less intelligent then you believe yourself to be. -
JerseyFlight
782People who actually wish to change others minds understand that you must talk with people, not at people. — Philosophim
Life is too short, one cannot go down the rabbit hole with every sophist, one can try to rationally thump them or to make a public spectacle, but it is foolish to indiscriminately spend one's life refuting every child of religion. It is a dilemma that one must solve. Who is one speaking to? It's strange that you attribute a moral fault to me when I did not attack this man in any personal way, I simply attacked the premises that lied behind his position. You might try thinking about the questions I asked him and see where they lead you. -
tim wood
9.3kAn essence that does not (yet, if ever) exist? I think that breaks the idea of essences. Essence, then, runs with existence, and as to existence, as the existence is. I would hold, then, that the essence of a unicorn is a meaningful notion, an existing notion, but too easily reified into an existence other (and thereby a different essence) than it is.
-
Banno
25.3kAre you familiar with contingency and emergence VS Necessity? — Mutakalem
Sure. It's just that your argument is a bit hard to follow. Could it be parsed in the language of possible worlds? That seems to me to be a neat way to sort out the grammatical issues at hand.
-The potential for the emergence of any possible essence is beginningless. — Mutakalem
Possible essence...
So an essence is a property had in any possible world - or if you prefer, in any possible world in which the thing exists.
And from that , I can't see what a possible essence might be. It can't be a property that belongs to something in only some possible worlds, because then it would not be an essence. But if it is a property that belongs to something in every possible world in which it exists, then a possible essence is just an essence.
Beginingless...
There's an ambiguity here, too. Some say the universe had no beginning, and hence we might call it begininless. On the other hand, there are things for which, at least arguably, having a beginning makes no sense - triangles, numbers, and so on - that is, there are things to which the notion of beginning does not seem to apply.
In which sense is "the potential for emergence" beginingless - is it eternal, or not the sort of thing that has a beginning?
And so on. -
Mutakalem
9
1) I mean by possible essence is that anything that can rationally exist (Its possibility in existing in any possible world doesn't make any logical contradictions).
2) Beginning-less means that the fact that it's a possible rational idea that a flying cow could exist in a possible world remains true atemporally as it remains true temporally (no matter time or space, like 1+1=2 is a necessary fact). -
prothero
429This is because God’s ability to bring something into existence, is proof that He can will for it to exist. So given that He can bring any possible essence into existence, then He can will for any possible essence to exist. — Mutakalem
I think making God omnipotent, makes God responsible for the "evil" in the world.
I think the "problem of evil" is a major cause of disbelief or rejection of that conception of God.
I prefer conceptions of the divine which involve persuasion or "lure" but not force or coercion.
God is not omnipotent, in the Bible, in the Koran or in other major religious scripture.
God as omnipotent and omniscient creates unsolvable logical problems for also conceiving of God as loving and relatable (personal). Personally I think God is creative and not too concerned with petty moralism. -
SDBean
9You know what? I just deleted a couple paragraphs of very extremely unlikely but the most probable God scenarios because they all came to the same dead end conclusion; what came before God? I went through all the mental hoops but every time I came up for air I was slightly more nihilistic. The only God worth searching for is an omnipotent one because the other Gods won’t be able to fully answer the question to life the universe and everything making them pretty immaterial. For there to be a real God it must be omnipotent. -
Mutakalem
9
I really think what's evil was defined evil by the ex-nhilo creating God, you cannot use what he created to define it as wrong or right, he's God, he makes whatever he wants in his creation. If he demands something it's his fully right for him to do so, he created every thing. -
3017amen
3.1k
I suppose one could say that the concepts presented in your argument is another version of the infamous Ontological argument(s). The funny thing is (another irony), most atheists try to rely on a priori logico-deductive reasoning to justify their belief in no-God, which is the same type of logic used for your argument. :snicker:
(So if they give you any grief, just ask them what kind of logic they use... .) -
JerseyFlight
782
Hey dingbat. Encourage more supernatural abstractors like Mutakalem will you, so we can have more important threads like this. Know your enemy friend, and don't encourage their stupidity or propaganda. I blame you for the existence of this thread. You are responsible. And what exactly are you responsible for, authoritarian, fascist nonsense like this:
I really think what's evil was defined evil by the ex-nhilo creating God, you cannot use what he created to define it as wrong or right, he's God, he makes whatever he wants in his creation. — Mutakalem
:angry:
"Mutakalem, I appreciate your attempt to tackle the issue of God and omnipotence."
"Mutakalem, I appreciate your attempt to tackle the issue of God and omnipotence."
"Mutakalem, I appreciate your attempt to tackle the issue of God and omnipotence." Philosophim
If I was a moderator I would lock you in an eternal thread with this fella. Don't encourage the fairy worshipers or else you have to entertain them. -
3017amen
3.1kI blame you for the existence of this thread. — JerseyFlight
Blame yourself for relying on deductive reasoning for your belief in no God. :chin:
Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.
Categories
- Guest category
- The Lounge
- General Philosophy
- Metaphysics & Epistemology
- Philosophy of Mind
- Ethics
- Political Philosophy
- Philosophy of Art
- Logic & Philosophy of Mathematics
- Philosophy of Religion
- Philosophy of Science
- Philosophy of Language
- Interesting Stuff
- Politics and Current Affairs
- Humanities and Social Sciences
- Science and Technology
- Non-English Discussion
- German Discussion
- Spanish Discussion
- Learning Centre
- Resources
- Books and Papers
- Reading groups
- Questions
- Guest Speakers
- David Pearce
- Massimo Pigliucci
- Debates
- Debate Proposals
- Debate Discussion
- Feedback
- Article submissions
- About TPF
- Help
More Discussions
- Other sites we like
- Social media
- Terms of Service
- Sign In
- Created with PlushForums
- © 2024 The Philosophy Forum