It's impossible by definition, unless you think it's meaningful to say there can be an impenetrable shield and an unstoppable spear at the same time (who made them is irrelevant as long as they're supposed to exist in the same world). — Πετροκότσυφας

Yes I though of that objection. Even if there's only 1 omnipotent being there is only the possibility of the contradiction unstoppable spear vs impenetrable shield. It never actualizes because the omnipotent being can choose not to do so. It can either make the unstoppable spear or the impenetrable shield but not both.

In the case of multiple omnipotent beings the situation is different. The only way the contradiction isn't actualized is through some kind of pact between omnipotent beings and this will preclude the creation of both the unstoppable spear and the impenetrable shield since their creation would undermine the power of one of the omnipotent beings.

Situation A
Only 1 omnipotent being A
Creating the unstoppable spear (Sp) AND the impenetrable shield (Sh) is a contradiction.

But A can create either Sp OR Sh. A can also destroy the Sp and create the Sh or vice versa. No contradiction.

Situation B
There are two omnipotent beings A and B
To maintain a balance of power A has to modify its actions on B's actions and vice versa. This constraint makes both non-omnipotent.

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

Assume: there are no omnipotent.

1. x is non existent
2. y is non existent
3. If x is non existent then x cannot kill y
4. If x cannot kill y then y cannot be dead
5. If y is non existent then y cannot be killed
6. If y cannot be killed then y cannot be dead
7. y cannot be dead AND y cannot be dead (non contradiction)
So, our assumption that there are TWO omnipotent beings is false. This reasoning can be applied to any number of Gods.

I think this works just fine because 0 is a number and this reasoning can be applied to any number of gods.

Does this prove there are no gods?

You and I can do all of them, we are both all-powerful. I'm not sure where balance of power came from or what does it even mean in this context. — Πετροκότσυφας

Think of USA and the erstwhile USSR. Did they not limit each other's influence. It was a deadlock. In our small world both were all-powerful. Yet they undermined each other.

I think this works just fine because 0 is a number and this reasoning can be applied to any number of gods. — Sir2u

I thought of that. It does seem, prima facie, that even one omnipotent God can't exist (stone paradox). But in the case of one omnipotent being it can choose not to create such a stone and there's no contradiction.

Mad Fool,

Regarding your initial post and the matter of God/s and omnipotence, I can only comment in refererence to my understanding of how the omnipotence of the Christian God is generally conceptualised today in mainstream trinitarian theology, still I hope you might find the essence of this conceptualisation is of some possible interest/help if I briefly outline it ? So here it is...

With respect to the Christian God, the attribute of "omnipotence" is not intended to be viewed in its (typical/standard) QUANTITATIVE sense. Let me explain...

Christians refer to their God as "God the Father Almighty" ( Lat: patrem omnipotentum) and it is very important here to understand that the conception "Almighty" receives its light from the conception "Father" and not vice versa. That is, it is an act of divine omnipotence through which God makes Himself known to humanity as "Father"; or, in other words, the revelation to humanity of God as Father in His Son Jesus Christ ( through the Holy Spirit) IS the act by which we come to know what it means to say that God is "omnipotent ( all-powerful). That is, to know the Father is to know Jesus Christ ( the Son) - and more specifically, the Jesus Christ who DIED then ROSE again ( was resurrected on the third day) and then ascended ( vertically) to the right hand of the Father in the kingdom of heaven.

The point is that to know God the Father is to believe ( through the complementary and mutually re-enforcing supernatural knowledge of faith AND the finite knowledge that is provided by our human reason) that He alone is the one who CIRCUMSCRIBES life and death; that He alone is the one who has power over life and death, and it is in THIS sense that He is spoken of as "omnipotent". Thus, when Christians refer to the omnipotence of God as something that CIRCUMSCRIBES life and death (I.e. ALL THINGS) the predicate "omnipotent" has a QUALITATIVE connotation that is radically distinct from the the typical QUANTITATIVE understanding of the term.

When the term omnipotent is used in its standard, quantitative sense, it generates questions such as:

"If God can do everything (a quantitative descriptor of omnipotence), can he create a rock so big ( again, a quantitative qualifier) that He cannot lift it ?"

This kind of question - like your question regarding the outcome of a violent life and death struggle between two omnipotent hypothetical gods, X and Y - is ill-guided, not only because it assumes a QUANTITATIVE framework for the answer, but because it assumes that omnipotence if first and foremost about FORCE rather than POWER ( and I do not, of course, not mean Power as it is quantitatively/ mathematically defined in classical mechanics as the quotient of Force and Time).

For Christians, God the Father is omnipotent in the precise sense that it is He and He alone who exercises the perogative over the MOST POWERFUL of ALL THINGS known to man; that which man fears most of all, and that from which none can escape. DEATH.

Regards

John

If there is one, then there is a way to make an other one.

If there is one, then there is a way to make an other one. — Vajk

There's too bloody many already thank you.

No, they weren't all powerful, but, eitherway, I'm not sure how this is relevant. — Πετροκότσυφας

Ok. They (USA & USSR) were most powerful on Earth. That's the point. They couldn't make themselves all powerful because they put a check on each other's influence.

Thanks for your post. Interesting POV. However, didn't God create the universe? Even if we interpret omnipotence qualitatively there's no avoiding the quantitative aspect of God's omnipotence. So the matter isn't resolved; at least not as you expected it.

If there is one, then there is a way to make an other one. — Vajk

Imagine 2 omnipotent beings x and y. Either x can limit y's power or not. If it can then y isn't omnipotent. If it can't then x isn't omnipotent.

Imagine Socrates playing chess with God, whos going to win?
The One who knows everything, or the one who knows nothing?
What does the winner get? Everything? Nothing?

(Is it easier to imagine Socrates rather then God because of the writings, paintings, sculptures, etc or you do not belive that those items serves as proofs of his existence?)

If there is one, then there is a way to make an other one.

Why bother?

Because of the cause.

If it is the 1st Cause, then isn't every subsequent caused, less.

If there is one, then there is a way to make an other one.

I think this should be the Origo of this topic, becuse this statment allows everybodey to think whatever they want to think.

It does not say, that x or y omnipotence can do this and that, and x or y can not to his and that, it says bot of them is possible. Perhaps not necessary yet, but still...

It does not say, that x or y omnipotence can do this and that and x or y can not to his and that, it says bot of them is possible.

If both are possible, then neither of them are necessary.

Yet.

What is the opposite of God?

It Depend what do you think/mean about God.

What's the opposite of God, for you.

When I was born I´ve heard a voice, it sad:"Nem hihetsz semmiben"(Hungarian) It means You can not belive in nothing, and it also means You can not belive in anyhing.
Then there was a huge blow. I could not belive it, so I started to laugh, and i was laughing while I was born. What do you think, what should I nominee as an opposite for God? Mankind?!

I think the opposite of God is time...but I like your story.

An other illusion

Time is a menace, destroys everything, fully indifferent to all that occurs in it, & wholly necessary.

I don't believe in nothing.

So what is going to left after time destroyed everything?
Something what you can not belive in?

Same as it was before, just time.

What was first mankind or time?

Depends on what you think "Time" is.

I think Time is an illusion made up by mankind to put happenings in casual order, or something like that.

I think of it as metaphysical, as the opposite of God, order, law, perfection, necessity.

Could you explain time trough Zenon´s paradox of the stone?