Historically many philosophers who are considered great have been monotheistic and their philosophy geared towards a hierarchy with God at the top. Plato,aristotle,descartes,Berkley,kant,newton,and others.
How do you view this?
Where these guys deficient in their logic or where they on to something? — Trinidad

I guess it all boils down to the question, what's the difference between many gods, each with faer own specific mood and one God with different moods?

An explanation is in order: In polytheistic traditions, each god has a specific mood by which I refer to those qualities that are unique to faer e.g. in Hinduism, the poster child of polytheism, Vishnu is the preserver, Brahma is the creator, and Shiva's the destroyer. However, if you take a close look at such schema, all these qualities (creating, preserving, destroying and others) can be found, in varying degrees, in single individuals. A similar pattern can be found in the Greek pantheon I'm told. I suppose that someone, at one time, found out that the Gods were simply personifications of qualities that can be found in one person...monotheism is just a stone's throw away from there.

Another issue is a logical one. Suppose there are two gods, mutatis mutandis my argument should work for greater number of gods. One god, call it A and the other god call it B. Since both are gods then everything true about A should be true about B i.e. A is omnipotent, B is omnipotent; A is omniscient, B is too; and last but not the least A is omnibenevolent just as B is. According to the Leibniz's (controversial) law of the identity of indiscernibles, A = B i.e. there's only ONE god.

A different problem would be this: Imagine if more than one god is possible. All are omnipotent of course. If one commands there to be rain in Seattle and another commands there be no rain in Seattle then, it would have to both rain and not rain in Seattle. This is a logical contradiction. Our assumption that more than one god is possible is false. There can be only ONE god. QED.

If most of the greatest reasoners arrived at the conclusion that there is one god who is omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent, then I think one is well justified in taking very seriously that there is such a being.

And there is. All you have to do is reason carefully and not decide what's what in advance (which most are totally incapable of doing) and God will be discovered.

Most contemporary philosophers do not believe in God. But most of them are hacks (is there a Plato or descartes among them?). And they don't argue against God, they just take it for granted that God does not exist. It's like the soul. They don't argue against the soul, they just assume no soul exists and then wonder how to fit the mind into their naturalist ontology.

Take metaethics. Does morality require God? Yes, of course it does. This has been known for centuries. But the view is dismissed out of hand by most contemporary philosophers on no better basis than the 'Euthyphro' combined with their conviction that no god exists (but that some things are right and others wrong). It's terrible. Contemporary metaethics is consequently a debate between those who think morality is a peice of cheese and those who think it is a kind of dance.

An omnipotent god could make another omnipotent god. So there can be two omnipotent gods. There isn't- there's one. But if there's one, it is possible for there to be more.

People routinely underestimate what an omnipotent being can do.

I come more from a Jungian perspective on God, and a general open questioning approach. However, you have just mentioned there being one omnipotent God and it has lead me to wonder about the contrasting pictures of the wrathful Jahweh of the OT and the picture of the forgiving Christ in the NT. Do you think that the two can be reconciled?

A different problem would be this: Imagine if more than one god is possible. All are omnipotent of course. If one commands there to be rain in Seattle and another commands there be no rain in Seattle then, it would have to both rain and not rain in Seattle. This is a logical contradiction. Our assumption that more than one god is possible is false. There can be only ONE god. QED. — TheMadFool

What logical necessity is there for all gods to be "omnipotent" and to all want contradictory things at the same time?

I think it is perfectly possible for there to be many lower gods ruled by one supreme God and each fulfill his or her own function in harmony with the others.

If most of the greatest reasoners arrived at the conclusion that there is one god who is omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent, — Bartricks

Bartricks here and elsewhere has refused to attempt to reconcile omnipotence and omnibenevolence. I hold they're irreconcilable. And not my idea; I merely indorse the views of heavy thinkers on the subject.

Further, what "great" thinker ever claimed the omni- trifecta and where? I call out Bartricks here, but I call to any who will substantively support his view because Bartricks himself won't. And by the way, the discussion calls for an understanding of what the words mean.

I'll start: omnipotence means able to do all, or anything. Omnibenevolence means all good. Omni/all means all, not some or part. An all good being would be unable to do anything not good, for if he did, then he would not be all good. Hence not all-powerful. It is that simple.

Martin Luther, for one, resolved this in making Jesus the friendly good cop, and God himself the far more remote and dangerous, i.e., all-powerful, bad cop.

Does morality require God? Yes, of course it does. This has been known for centuries. — Bartricks

If true, then obviously simple to present. Present it.

If most of the greatest reasoners arrived at the conclusion that there is one god who is omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent, then I think one is well justified in taking very seriously that there is such a being. — Bartricks

It looks like @Trinidad has been banned from the forum. But I tend to agree with your statement. I'm just not entirely sure about "omnibenevolent". Good or benevolent, yes, but does he have to be "omnibenevolent"?

I am asking because God's supposed omnibenevolence is often used to argue against the existence of God on the grounds that omnibenevolence implies that there should be no evil in the world, etc.

I suppose it also depends on how benevolence is defined.

I'll start: omnipotence means able to do all, or anything. Omnibenevolence means all good. Omni/all means all, not some or part. An all good being would be unable to do anything not good, for if he did, then he would not be all good. — tim wood

I agree that if there is a God, then presumably he is omnipotent. But I don't see why he must be omnibenevolent.

Even if he is omnibenevolent, I think his benevolence would be governed by his will.

Omnipotence itself may have more than one meaning. It would probably mean power that is unsurpassed and unlimited by anything else.

Do you think that the two can be reconciled? — Jack Cummins

Good question. But do they have to be reconciled?

I think that it can be a source of confusion for people. On one hand, the God image represented by Christ appears to be full of compassion, but the God of the OT as angry. Jung, who is coming from a psychological perspectives, believes that the angry God is on the rise in the dark destructive tendencies of humanity. Stepping slightly aside of this, we could interpret it to mean that whatever force behind nature is showing vengeance in the form of climate change and Covid_19. But, I am pointing to this as one way of seeing things and I am not saying that it should be taken too literally.

Also, I do think that your earlier point about the idea of thinking about many gods being ruled by a higher one is interesting, but it is probably more in line with polytheism, or paganism.

I do think that your earlier point about the idea of thinking about many gods being ruled by a higher one is interesting, but it is probably more in line with polytheism, — Jack Cummins

The concept of one God over many did arise in a polytheist context, but I believe it is also discernible in monotheism, though in a slightly different form, e.g., one God over many angels.

I think that it can be a source of confusion for people. On one hand, the God image represented by Christ appears to be full of compassion, but the God of the OT as angry. — Jack Cummins

I believe that they represent two different functions. One teaches humans through fear, the other through love and wisdom. But even the Christian God may be seen as angry when he sends thunderstorms, earthquakes and other natural disasters. After all, it is God who controls meteorological phenomena and nature in general.

Jesus himself is said to be the supreme judge. So, though he may not be angry as such, he certainly judges us in the afterlife and punishes the evildoers according to their deeds. In fact, in early Christianity, he was more often represented as a heavenly ruler than on the cross as became customary later.

It is true that in Christianity God is overseeing the angels, and I was certainly taught the story of Lucifer and the fall of the angels. I believe that it was probably more based on the ideas of John Milton's 'Paradise Lost'. However, I expect that Milton drew upon other sources. Also, I think that many people have interpreted earthquakes and catastrophes as representing the wrath of God.

One idea which I came across by a rather controversial figure, Benjamin Creme, was that Jesus was only the Christ from the time he began his ministry. However, Creme's ideas are very unusual, with an emphasis on Jesus and Buddha being brothers in bringing forth Christ consciousness. However, Creme was expecting the emergence of Maitreya, who he believed was living in East London, since 1977. Creme died a few years ago, in his 90s. Of course, in some ways he was a cult figure, and I don't think that his ideas are really taken very seriously.

I don't see any problem at all - someone who is sometimes wrathful can sometimes be forgiving.

Of course, in some ways he was a cult figure, and I don't think that his ideas are really taken very seriously. — Jack Cummins

And nor should they. Maitreya definitely reminds me of Theosophy. So, it isn't entirely surprising that not many take him seriously. Although, I can easily imagine the New Age crowd of the 1970s being into stuff like that. When people no longer believe in traditional spirituality, they just make up a new one. It becomes a fashion and people just love being fashionable or "cool". Who needs Christianity when you have Theosophy or this or that kind of "Wonder Yoga"? And, unfortunately, there are always those who are ready to exploit the gullible masses.

Personally, I have nothing against new ways of manifesting one's spirituality. But I think that having some knowledge of more traditional forms tends to give you the advantage of having a sense of what is genuine and what is not. Some of my friends keep dragging me to all sorts of venues to meet this or that "guru" and I must say in 99% of cases they turn out to be fake, though I have no doubt that some of them are delusional enough to imagine that they actually have a direct line to God.

What are you on about? Omnipotence implies omnibenevolence, as I have explained numerous times.

If you are omnipotent you are the arbiter of moral goodness (and all normative and evaluative properties - thus she will be Reason). Moral goodness will be constitutively determined by your attitudes. Will an omnipotent being fully approve of herself? Yes, because she's omnipotent and so if she disapproves of anything about herself then she can change it. Being fully approved of by Reason is what being omnibenevolent involves. Thus, if omnipotent, omnibenevolent too.

I've done so numerous times.

1. Moral imperatives are imperatives of Reason.
2. All imperatives have an imperator
3. The imperatives of Reason have a single imperator: Reason
4. Thus, moral imperatives are the imperatives of a single imperator

That imperator will be God. Why? Because they'll be a mind. If you think something mindless can issue imperatives you are insane.
And that mind will be able to do anything because she won't be bound by the imperatives of Reason.
So, omnipotent.

And I have just explained that an omnipotent being will also be omnibenevolent.

And she'll be the arbiter of knowledge too, so omniscient.

An omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent mind is also referred to as God.

Now stick that in your pipe and smoke it, Two Planks.

I definitely went through a big theosophy stage a few years ago. I attended meetings and I went to Creme's last lecture before he died. I was not really convinced of his ideas but I did find transmission meditation, which he developed, as being helpful, as I went to several workshops. But, I do think that it is easy to get carried away with such ideas. But, I do think that time on this forum has enabled me to look at ideas from a far more critical angle than previously. At times, I was floundering in a sea of all kinds of weird and wonderful possibilities.

At times, I was floundering in a sea of all kinds of weird and wonderful possibilities. — Jack Cummins

Unfortunately, that often is the way things tend to go if you are not careful. In my case, I think that knowledge of traditional Platonism has saved me a lot of trouble and wasted time. Our teacher used to tell us how Plato criticized rival systems and made us write essays on this or that system and how it compared to Platonism and I learned quite a lot from that. Of course other systems and traditions can have interesting teachings and practices to offer but once you have developed a certain degree of critical thinking it is very easy to spot dishonest individuals who are trying to take advantage of people's ignorance. And there are literally thousands of them. But I believe that Jung can also be helpful in giving you a sense of sanity and of what you can trust and what you can't.

Omnibenevolence is a misleading term as it suggests 'all benevolent', when in fact it means 'all good'. So in defining God as omnibenevolent one is not making her a utilitarian, just 'all good' (which might involve being a utilitarian but probably not).

As for whether the immoral deeds and sufferings and ignorance that pervades this world is incompatible with the existence of God, there is near universal agreement that they are compatible. We can imagine circumstances under which an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent being would permit suffering and wrongdoing. And that's sufficient to establish their compatibility.

I would admit that such suffering and wrongdoing provides some reason to think God does not exist if other things are equal.

But once we are clear that God has been proved, then the immorality and suffering and ignorance of the world becomes a puzzle, not a problem. For example, I have excellent evidence my phone enables me to post messages here. It is doing so right now. But it is a puzzle to me how. Nevertheless, that I cannot resolve the puzzle is not evidence that my phone is not enabling me to post messages here.

Omnipotence implies omnibenevolence — Bartricks

How does all-potency imply all-goodness? You appear to take this as axiom. I do not, and cannot see how you do. That's the problem.

And elsewhere you have said reason is God. But you also seem to think reason is an attribute of God. Which at best is unclear. In any case we appear to agree that to have reason you have to have something that reasons. The only things I know of that reason are animal minds, preeminently human mind. If in the dynamic collectivity of human wisdom and thinking you place god, then we're on the same page. Are we on the same page? And to be sure, any omni-anything of human mind is speculative at best.

Look, why don't you read what I say? It's beautifully argued. I literally just explained how omnipotence implies omnibenevolence. Read it and weap.

So in defining God as omnibenevolent one is not making her a utilitarian. — Bartricks

Or an all-providing nanny as some think. I definitely agree that God is under no obligation to be good at all times and in exactly the same way people want him to be, just as parents don't have to be good in exactly the same way children imagine they should. Otherwise he would be subject to people's whim and cease to be God. Unfortunately, people tend to have the habit of putting an anthropomorphic spin on God because they are not used to thinking in more abstract terms and forget that they are talking about God and not the neighbor next door.

If God can do anything, he can kill himself? Is this a sin for him?

Look, why don't you read what I say? — Bartricks

I do read, and you just claim without argument or explanation, and against the plain meaning of the words. If you mean to say that by your understanding god can do anything and anything god does is good, that at least is defensible, if not especially sensible. For at the least it calls for defining the good as separate from the interests of those affected by the "good" and for whom the "good" is apparently done.

But your part is simple; simply make the steps clear and I'm done and thank you. But so far its just an oink until your tail feels a twist, and then it's a screech. You're being asked to show that 2+2=4, and it won't do to just repeat that it just is.

I can't say I'm exactly weeping, but well done. :up:

I definitely agree that God is under no obligation to be good at all times — Apollodorus

Then at those times not good, and thus not omni-good. Nor does obligation have anything to do with it. To say that god has anything to do with obligation immediately undermines both the good and the omnipotence.

Great! An endorser. Can you resolve the paradoxical nature of Bartricks's explanations? How the omnipotent is and is not, and the omnibenevolent is and is not?

If God can commit suicide, then all good can leave reality

Yes, good people don't want to control every aspect of other people's lives. Good people let others make their own choices and will offer advice, not restrain and restrict. And good people also do not want to know everything someone is up to. Good people prize free will in others and want to allow them to exercise it and admire the dignity that comes from doing things one's own way.

There are exceptions, of course. Such as when someone is about to do something that will significantly harm an innocent other. And good people also intervene when someone is going to harm themselves through ignorance (a paternalistic attitude towards children is, for instance, appropriate).

But we can use our intuitions about what it is good for us to do to gain insight into why God allows the immorality, ignorance and suffering gs of the world. There's a limit to that, for those intuitions are for us, and so in using them to gain insight into God, their source, we are using them for a purpose for which they were not primarily designed. But they can still give clues, I think.