Omnipotent = All-powerful, not "the most powerful". — Πετροκότσυφας
What does it even mean for a god or God to be alive or dead? Are gods or God biological beings — Πετροκότσυφας
I assumed you were alluding to unlimited power. You were not. So, why did you object to my definition of omnipotence?Omnipotent = All-powerful, not "the most powerful".
But if you choose to define them in a contradictory fashion, then they're not possible (assuming that contradictions are not possible). It's all really a matter of definition. If your definitions are incoherent, you can't do much with them. — Πετροκότσυφας
Two omnipotent beings contradict each other's omnipotence, this is true — BlueBanana
First of all, you need to label your points as postulates or conclusions. Hard to tell.Omnipotent being = The most powerful being
God(s) is/are omnioptent being(s).
Assume: there are TWO omnipotent beings, x and y.
1. x is omnipotent
2. y is omnipotent
3. If x is omnipotent then x can kill y
4. If x can kill y then y can be dead
5. If y is omnipotent then y can't be killed
6. If y can't be killed then y can't be dead
7. y can be dead AND y can't be dead (contradiction)
So, our assumption that there are TWO omnipotent beings is false. This reasoning can be applied to any number of Gods.
Is my proof sound? Is there another proof that there exists only 1 god. — TheMadFool
God(s) is/are omnioptent being(s). — TheMadFool
No, contradictions are not allowed under the "all-powerful" definition. — Πετροκότσυφας
Under that definition, why can't there be two all-powerful beings? — Πετροκότσυφας
That's why I defined omnipotence as most powerful. I don't see the distinction between ''all powerful'' and ''most powerful''. Can you clarify? — TheMadFool
But not all gods are omnipotent. — BlueBanana
If they're postulates, they're mutually contradictory and thus proof of nothing. — noAxioms
It's only really in monotheistic religions that God is all-powerful, but given that the central tenet of such beliefs is that there's just a single, all-powerful god, your argument here is redundant — Michael
God can want for nothing else god would not be omnipotent. — charleton
If something is all powerful then it can do anything. If something is the most powerful then it can do more than anything else – but not necessarily everything. — Michael
You're right. An all-powerful being can do everything. Wouldn't that make him the most powerful being? — TheMadFool
Well prove to me that there aren't more than 1 omnipotent being.
Yes, but the converse isn't true. The most powerful being might not be all-powerful. — Michael
Then none of the other statements follow from your one postulate of god being the most-powerful and there being two of them.My postulate is omnipotent beings exist. My assumption is that there are two. All propositions in my OP follow logically from there being two omnipotent beings. If they contradict each other that much the better as contradictions are proof that there can only be 1 omnipotent being. — TheMadFool
My example was the most-powerful bunny, which by your definition is God if there's nothing more powerful than it. There's plenty of things it cannot do (not all-powerful), but that doesn't preclude it from being the top of some arbitrary ranking according to power.So you're saying the most powerful being is NOT an all-powerful being? So, in what sense is the most powerful being the most powerful if it's not all-powerful? — TheMadFool
None of the numbered points follow from the postulate you gave — noAxioms
If multiple all-powerful beings are perfectly united in will and purpose then they can co-exist together without destroying one another. — lambda
So you're saying the most powerful being is NOT an all-powerful being? — TheMadFool
So, in what sense is the most powerful being the most powerful if it's not all-powerful?
Why not? — lambda
So, the creation of an unstoppable spear excludes the creation of an impenetrable shield. — Πετροκότσυφας
No, I'm saying that the most powerful being is not necessarily an all-powerful being. — Michael
I see. In my view the most powerful and all powerful exist in the same domail viz. ALL. So the distinction you make fails. — TheMadFool
You need to redefine omnipotent then, since most-powerful carries no implication of 'can do anything'. You asked if the logic was sound, and I responded without preconceptions of what alternate definitions you gave.Let me clarify my argument:
x and y are omnipotent beings.
x being omnipotent can do anything. — TheMadFool
Then they're not Gods. What is the point of an impotent God? — TheMadFool
Secondly, no definition of god I've ever heard includes omnipotence.
Why not?
— lambda
If there are 2 omnipotent beings, say x and y, then x should be able to do something which y doesn't want AND y should be able to block y from doing it. Thus rendering both non-omnipotent.
The distinction I'm making is a semantic one, and is accurate. — Michael
Creating an impenetrable shield isn't doable in principle, so it doesn't affect its omnipotence. — Πετροκότσυφας
The distinction I'm making is a semantic one, and is accurate.
— Michael
You have a point. Consider this though. How can a being be most powerful without being all powerful? The domain of discussion is ALL.
The Godhead, Christ, and the Holy Spirit all share their omnipotence in their trinity, although that even befuddled Aquinas. Allah and Yahweh are omnipotent. — John Harris
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.