NumberTenOx

The number of even integers is infinite. The number of odd integers is also infinite. These sets do not intersect, but they coexist.

Of course numbers are not beings. But I don't see why it's logically inconsistent to believe in multiple GPB's that are equal. Unless by infinite you mean encompassing all of everything (instead of just an unbounded part of everything). That's where the meaning of "infinite" gets fuzzy.

A possible refutation: you might say that given two, equal GPBs, you can conceive of a being that is the union of the two, which would be "greater", and therefore "must" exist. But who is to say whether the union of these beings would be "possible"? Perhaps it's not? Perhaps there are an infinity of infinities, and each GPB can only encompass one infinity? Who knows? Do you know?

Mageth

please explain to me how 2 infinite beings could actually co-exist, and yet both be infinite.

it is impossible

You keep saying it's impossible. Can you explain why it's impossible? (just curious).

Dr Rick

The IPU can only be the IPU if it is the GPB. Every single attribute you ascribe to the GPB is exactly what describes the IPU. If you give the IPU the objective attributes that would not make it the GPB, then it is no longer an IPU

If it was a brick, then it would not be french toast.

Soma

I don't how a monotheist would address this, but from a monistic viewpoint, "God" is everything that exists (and doesn't exist).

Assuming there exist a plethora of GPBs, then they would just be a part of "God."

Clutch

Hey, the hits just keep coming!LOL. Sorry, who was inveighing about "amateurs" here?

On behalf of logicians everywhere: :banghead:

NumberTenOx

Can't argue with that logic.

Clutch

Well, since you asked politely, I'll quote the kids' website to which I referred you.Indeed, the heirarchy of the transfinite suggests that there are an unbounded infinity of infinities.

As I count them, that's rather more than 2.

In all fairness, though, that website is probably for young kids in the enriched programme. No reason why you should have learned something about the notion of infinity before popping off about how well you understand it... it might have endangered your amateur status.

CannibalCorpseLC

i haven't read everyone else's replies yet, thought i will in a minute, but xian's post made absolutely no sense at all. seriously what was the point that you're trying to get across? now that i think about it i'm not even going to bother arguing with u on this thread, because i don't even know where to begin. hell u didn't even know where to begin. oh and for the record, it is logically impossible to be both omniscient and omnipotent at the same time. and when u bring up the fact that god goes beyond our realm of logistics and such, then u surrender knowledge altogether.

Wyz_sub10

This says nothing meaningful.

Yes, there can be only one, if such a being exists.

I'm still not clear on why you think this hinders the argument of the IPU or why you thikn this, in any way, strengthens the case for the J/C god.

It does neither.

It simply says that a unique being must be unique.

Autonemesis

No I am not. "God doing evil" is not equivalent to "god making a rock he cannot lift." Doing evil could be something as uncomplicated as killing an innocent. There is no logical impossibility to contend with here, as in the rock-too-big-to-lift paradox.

Do you mean contradictory attributes like simultaneous omniscience, omnipotence and omnibenevolence? Or do you wish to distance yourself from these attributes, unlike almost all other believers?

That's why your god can't exist. On those occasions when believers can describe their god's attributes with some measure of clarity and disambiguity, the attributes are found to be contradictory. The only way I have ever seen any believer resolve the contradictions, is to inject ambiguity into the attributes. In the end, they punt, and claim that whatever their god does is good because their god did it. But this of course, merely begs the question.