Angrillori

Only once.

Huh? Wha? Why? Gwa?

Explanation please?
(Or are ya still funnin' with us? If so, good one! Hahahahaha!)

Wyz_sub10

I was referring to the idea that there can be many "greatests" depending on the definition (i.e. "the greatest number in set 'x'"). But if the definition of "all powerful" is "having all the power" then that power cannot be shared. Just like if you wished for all the money in the world, you could never spend any of it.

As I re-read your quote before quoting me, I see I may have misinterpreted what you said.

Yup. "Free will" is also incompatible with omniscience, and is *not* a requirement of omnibenevolence, either. That's strike three for related "free will" to an "omni" being.

Obviously, I do not believe one exists either.

7thangel

Darkblade,

Thanks for the response.

Actually, I am a pantheist Christian. I understand omnipotence to mean God is actually doing all things that exist. I do not believe in free will, and I believe that we have the robot-God relationship. So I am actually speaking of omnipotence as the potence that exist in the realm of reality.

God had made a purpose of the creation. And in such purpose can God only act accordingly. As prophesied in Daniel, God will create a kingdom that has no end, and Christ being the chief ruler, being King of all kings. So within that purpose God cannot do anything to be against it. So, when I say he has no power to destroy His creation, therefore he has no potence to destroy His creation, because it will never happen. I hope this may explain my understanding of omnipotence.

Maybe you are right, that God can make another God with the same potence. But what I fail to understand is the reason for him to make another God, who in all points speak of himself. In such sense, what if there are a million of Gods, when all their actions to the creation be the same thing? We might as well be dealing with one in reality.

Angrillori

It seems neat that, if you re-read the first post in this thread,
That for the purpose of this thread and 7th's definition, we've dismantled God's perfection.

Acording to his proposition, only omnipotent beings were perfect, and clearly, we've established that 7th does not believe in an omnipotent god.

Therefore 7th does not believe in a perfect god, of his own admission.

You're slip-slidin' away 7th. First you admit god's not perfect, next you'll be a clear-thinking, obfuscation eschewing, logic-following, contradiction avoiding atheist! I wish you luck on this journey you've begun!

Darkblade

Thank you, 7thangel, for finally sort of giving your definition of "omnipotence". I am glad you don't believe in free will. You are part of the way there...

The point, I believe, is that if God must create, why create us if he can create other morally perfect, omnipotent beings? It is indubitably cruel; the universe could be flawless and chock full of perfect beings, yet God decided to create a sort of hell on earth, where suffering is the only omnipresent being? Your god is either evil, or its "good" is obviously the true definition of evil. And, by the way, without free will, how can your god expect or deserve anything to happen how it wants it to through acts of human will?

7thangel

This is absolutely ridiculous, lori. First and foremost I do not represent the omnipotence believed by common Christians, and yet you judge me according to such standard. :banghead: I understand that their definition of omnipotence can only exist in illusion. I speak of all potence that exist in reality, why demand things that do not exist? Come on, what cannot exist perfect when we speak of all in reality? What would it lack? Unless you add the illogical that you, atheists, abhor of theist's common definition. Don't judge me with another standard that does not exist.

Secondly, it is stupid for us to demand of any potence which in any case would not affect God's actions. So what if God can create a horse with two heads and one head can talk? What is the point if He can or cannot, He will not change His decisions and act another way anyway. Also, it is God who gives us the will to believe God whether He did it or not anyway.

Angrillori

Interesting. I thought the 'I use a definition only I believe in' excuse only worked for god. 7th, you can call yourself a smurf, but unless you're 3 apples high and blue, you ain't. And claiming you just use a definition 'different from most smurfs' ain't gonna make it so.

More poignantly, I can SAY I'm a Christian, just using a different definition than most other Christians, but, I sure hope that doesn't really make me one!

As neccessarily then can their god. I'm glad you agree with us on this one!
But from here, I think you're losing yourself again.

Huh?

I don't think anyone's asking for anything outside reality, are they? I'm certainly not.

And can't you see, here's your contradiction!!

You say: God is omnipotent because it can do everything in reality.

But god can't lie. (Aren't lies in reality?)
But god can't create omnipotent beings. (Isn't an omnipotent being in reality?)

This means that by your definition of omnipotence, and your own words, your god is not, in your belief, omnipotent.

You can call him a smurf in addition to omnipotent, but later on when you admit he's not 3 apples high and blue, I'll call you on that too!


I'l take a second here as well to question what may have been other definitions of omnipotence you alluded to in previous posts:

Shifted definition of 7th #1:

I like that one because it makes me omnipotent! I can do everything it is in my nature to be able to do too!

Shifted definition of 7th #2:

Circularity aside, this doesn't clear anything up either, since,
A) What can be done?
and B) We established (or, I should say you) established god can't lie and can't create omnipotent beings, thereby god cannot do everything which can be done.

Shifted definition of 7th #3:

The first sentence destroys this. As long as god cannot do some things, you cannot say he can do all things (omnipotent.)

In another perspective, leaving the glaring initial contradiction out, one other concern arises. In this case there is no potence at all, of any sort. I am equal to god in my potency as is every single other person plant or animal in the world. We can do only we are limited to and no more or less.

He does his part of the program in the exact same sense that we do ours, and as they say, we are powerless (potency-less?) to do anything about it.

(And I know it's a fallacy of 'argument from consequences' but still, if god has no free will, and we have no free will, then no one has any free will, and what's the point eh? Are we all some TV show for some ubergod somewhere?)



But I never have 7th, your own standard is weak enough. (Or should I say standards since you sdeem to shift colors faster than a chameleon in a kaleidoscope.) I much prefer to show how one set of your words doesn't mesh with another set of your words. And how they all don't make sense together anyways.

(Note: God gave us the will. The free will? I thought you said....Nevermind, I don't think you'll ever pay atention to what you type.)

Back to what was almost a point by you:

I don't think anyone but you demanded any particualr potence of him. Just pointed out that in one point you said he had all possible potences in reality (Note: That was you demanding potences of him.) and later saying he was lacking certain potences in reality.

Let's not forget that it was you who said: God cannot create omnipotent beings, and non-omnipotent beings aren't perfect.

It was you that then denied your own god's potency, and therefore denied his perfection. No one else here. Smurf you later!

7thangel

You said:

But I never have 7th, your own standard is weak enough.

Why weak? I speak of all the potence that exist.

Perhaps, you did not read my post mentioning what I mean by omnipotent, and yet limited.

Also, I am anticipating omnipotence in relation to God's omniscience where God cannot change His decision. And also of the concept of Free Will

There is really nothing I see that contradicted my view of omnipotence. It is maybe just your cognition, or in fairness to you, my limited explanations.

In any case, I really appreciate your responses.

Angrillori

7th, first off, I apologize, I feel I've been quite short with you, and you're right, I think I am just missing some information here. I really appreciate your civility and demeanor in posting.

I would like to start, if we could, by trying to rephrase your definition of omnipotence, without using the word 'potence.'

I think this'll help a lot.

But keep in mind a couple things. You initiated two premises:
1) God cannot create omnipotent beings.
2) Non-omnipotent beings are not perfect.

The definition of omnipotence has to fit in both of these premises for your argument to even begin to get off the ground.

So, in addition to defining omnipotence without using the word 'potence' I would really appreciate it if you could explain why God can't create beings with this, your own, quality of 'omnipotence,' and please, this too without using the word potence if you could, I think its what's confusing everything.

Finally, explain why this definition of Omnipotence is neccessary for perfection.

I meant that the definition seemed to be contradictory in several places, but I think you're right, a clarification might help, I don't think I was understanding what you were saying.


Thanks and sorry.