Omnipotent = All-powerful, not "the most powerful". — Πετροκότσυφας

I wanted to avoid infinity in the discussion to avoid issues that trouble the concept. What does it mean to be ''infinitely'' powerful?

What does it even mean for a god or God to be alive or dead? Are gods or God biological beings — Πετροκότσυφας

If you don't like that then substitute it with, for example, x creating an unstoppable spear and y creating an unpenetrable shield.

Two omnipotent beings contradict each other's omnipotence, this is true. But not all gods are omnipotent.

Another solution: there are different levels of power. Let's say our natural world is level 1 and any being omnipotent on level x is a level x+2 entity. So omnipotent gods are level 2 so they aren't omnipotent on level 2.

Let us go with your definition:
All powerful = capable of doing whatever can be done.

Your definition allows the possibility that some things can't be done e.g. a contradiction isn't possible. My definition is just that. There's a limit to omnipotence in that contradictions aren't possible. When you said

Omnipotent = All-powerful, not "the most powerful".

I assumed you were alluding to unlimited power. You were not. So, why did you object to my definition of omnipotence?

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

Yes, there is a contradiction and that is used to prove that there can be only 1 God. An unstoppable spear created by omnipotent x is only a contradiction in relation to the impenetrable shield created by omnipotent y.

Two omnipotent beings contradict each other's omnipotence, this is true — BlueBanana

Do you accept my proof then?

Do you accept my proof then? — TheMadFool

No, see:

But not all gods are omnipotent. — BlueBanana

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

First of all, you need to label your points as postulates or conclusions. Hard to tell.
Second of all, the soundness (or lack of it) of your logic is hidden by the biases assumed by the reader. I for instance agree to none of your postulates or definitions.

So never mind my preconceptions. You've reduced deism down to a game of Stratego and defined god as the most powerful being, even if just a bunny rabbit, so long as it is at least as powerful as any other being.
I already see a flaw in the soundness in that you've left unstated that there are any beings at all. If there are no beings, there is no most-powerful one that would be the god.

1 and 2 contradict your stated goal: You postulate two identically powerful beings in hope to drive it to contradiction. All very well if it can be done.
3 does not follow, so I assume it is another postulate. 3 also implies that if there are two identically most-powerful beings, they can kill each other.
5 is contradictory with 3. 3/4 says they can be dead if both most powerful, and 5/6 says the opposite.
If these are conclusions, they don't follow. If they're postulates, they're mutually contradictory and thus proof of nothing.

God(s) is/are omnioptent being(s). — TheMadFool

Omnipotence is a relatively novel attribute of deities. None of the gods of polytheistic religions, for example, were claimed to have the power to do anything (as far as I know), and obviously not all of them were claimed to be the most powerful being (although often one of the gods was the most poweful, like Zeus, Odin, or Ra).

The simplest definition of a god is a supernatural being considered divine or sacred. Often they have a role in creating and controlling some part of the world.

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.

If preconceptions are allowed, then Poseidon is not a God because Zeus is more powerful. Sounds an awful lot like a no-true-Scotsman fallacy.

I think you fell at the first hurdle. What is god in the first place and what would it mean for a thing to be omnipotent. Surely it would also involve omniscience and omnipresence. Such a thing is the universe, by definition.
But it would seem from evidence that the universe is no conscious or intentional. If it were intentional then it would not be omnipotent as to have an intention is to lack a result. God can want for nothing else god would not be omnipotent. Since it needs no intention, what would it want with consciousness anyway.

No, contradictions are not allowed under the "all-powerful" definition. — 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?

Under that definition, why can't there be two all-powerful beings? — Πετροκότσυφας

Let x and y be two all-powerful beings.

Both x and y should be able to do anything that can be done. Both you and I accept that contradictions are impossible, even for omnipotent beings.

If you agree then x should be able to create an unstoppable spear. There's no contradiction in that. However, y, also being omnipotent, should be able to create an impenetrable shield.

Now, a contradiction arises. An unstoppable spear and an impenetrable shield. So, our assumption that there are two omnipotent beings is false. There can be only one omnipotent being.

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

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 anything.

I might be the strongest man in the Universe, but there might still be things too heavy for me to lift. I'm the strongest, but not "all-strong".

But not all gods are omnipotent. — BlueBanana

Then they're not Gods. What is the point of an impotent God?

If they're postulates, they're mutually contradictory and thus proof of nothing. — noAxioms

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.

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

Well prove to me that there aren't more than 1 omnipotent being.

God can want for nothing else god would not be omnipotent. — charleton

I don't think power and want are linked in that manner. Perhaps you mean perfection, not omnipotence and that deserves its own thread.

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?

You're right. An all-powerful being can do everything. Wouldn't that make him the most powerful being? — TheMadFool

Yes, but the converse isn't true. The most powerful being might not be all-powerful.

Well prove to me that there aren't more than 1 omnipotent being.

I don't understand the relevance of this question to my comment.

Yes, but the converse isn't true. The most powerful being might not be all-powerful. — Michael

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?

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

Then none of the other statements follow from your one postulate of god being the most-powerful and there being two of them.
For instance, 3: X being omnipotent does not imply that X can kill Y. It just means Y is no more powerful than X. There is also an unstated assumption that X is a living being than can meaningfully be dead or not dead.
5: Inability of Y to be dead similarly does not follow from Y being omnipotent. The logic is not valid at all.

None of the numbered points follow from the postulate you gave.

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

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.

If multiple all-powerful beings are perfectly united in will and purpose then they can co-exist together without destroying one another. So there's nothing contradictory about there being multiple gods as long as those gods are unified in thought, action, purpose, etc.

None of the numbered points follow from the postulate you gave — noAxioms

Your objections to my argument are content based. Can you focus on the structure of the argument - only on what omnipotence entails.

Let me clarify my argument:

x and y are omnipotent beings.

x being omnipotent can do anything.

y being omnipotent can block anything x can do and vice versa.

That means there are things x can't do because y will block it and vice versa.

And that implies that there are things x and y can't do. That makes them non-omnipotent and omnipotent.

So, our assumption that there are TWO omnipotent beings is false. There is only 1 and that is God.

If multiple all-powerful beings are perfectly united in will and purpose then they can co-exist together without destroying one another. — lambda

You're right but they wouldn't be omnipotent.

Why not?

So you're saying the most powerful being is NOT an all-powerful being? — TheMadFool

No, I'm saying that the most powerful being is not necessarily an all-powerful being.

So, in what sense is the most powerful being the most powerful if it's not all-powerful?

It's the most powerful if nothing is more powerful than it. Just as something is the strongest if nothing is stronger than it. But it doesn't then follow that the most powerful being can do anything, just as it doesn't then follow that the strongest being can lift anything.

There might be things too heavy for even the strongest being to lift, and there might be some things that even the most powerful being cannot do.

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.

So, the creation of an unstoppable spear excludes the creation of an impenetrable shield. — Πετροκότσυφας

Exactly, disqualifying one of the two candidates for omnipotence.

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.

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

The distinction I'm making is a semantic one, and is accurate. Whether or not you believe that the terms refer to the same thing isn't relevant.

Let me clarify my argument:

x and y are omnipotent beings.

x being omnipotent can do anything. — 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.

OK, so you're going with more classic definition of omnipotent then. Then we're back to true-Scotsman fallacy. God is not dependent on your insistence of certain qualities. God need not be all-powerful to do any of the acts attributed to God. God needs only be sufficiently powerful, and maybe this universe is a failed practice attempt in a class project in which a C- was given.

Then they're not Gods. What is the point of an impotent God? — TheMadFool

Firstly, gods. Not Gods. With a capital G it's a name, which is the name of Christian god.

Secondly, no definition of god I've ever heard includes omnipotence.

We have come from everything has a spirit, to polytheism, to monotheism. The atheists say just one more God to go. In truth I liked animism (the first) a lot more than any of the others.

Secondly, no definition of god I've ever heard includes omnipotence.

The Godhead, Christ, and the Holy Spirit all share their omnipotence in their trinity, although that even befuddled Aquinas. Allah and Yahweh are omnipotent.

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.

This doesn't work. Omnipotence means only one. 2 beings cannot be all-powerful, and if the other one has any power, neither are omnipotent.

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.

My bad. I should've put some restrictions on the argument. Anyway, can you confine the discussion on omnipotence alone. Set aside all other aspects of the God issue like the qualities of the universe and whether it's a good one or not. Just focus on omnipotence and its logical consequences.

Creating an impenetrable shield isn't doable in principle, so it doesn't affect its omnipotence. — Πετροκότσυφας

Impossible only when there are more than 1 god.

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.

Easy....have all other beings be less powerful; it's purely comparative.

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

I should've worded that better. Definitions of some specific gods include omnipotence, but I haven't heard any general definition for gods or deities that includes omnipotence.

I would say general definitions include the possibility of omnipotence, but it's clearly not a requirement.