7thangel

No, I am implying that we will get different assesments when we compare things from man's perspective and God's perspective, though we are speaking of the same thing.

7thangel

Lets do it this way:

Before the creation of another God:

#1 God "is greater than" any all other thing that exist.

After another God was created.

#2 God "is greater than or equal to" any all other things that exist.

The God in #2 does not anymore represent the God in #1. This is the part where I said there is lack in meaning. Yes we have equal in description of mightiness, yet you lost the distinctive description of God having no equal in might before the other God was created.

In any case, we are speaking here of God with His other qualities of omniscience and omnipresence.

In reality, the only way a being can create another being "equal to itself in all things" is to create itself. Well, how can someone create that which is existing?

Another thing is that the created God cannot create the God who created Him. Such cannot happen in reality. In that itself, there will be no equal in potence. But, of course, I am wrong, if you are a trinitarian, or think like the trinitarians.

Wyz_sub10

I would disagree if this was extended to the definition of 'omnipotent'.

'Omnipotent' would not mean "the most powerful," but rather "having all the power". If another being has equal power (or any power at all that is not derived and *controlled* by the omnipotent being) than the first being cannot be omnipotent.

In the case of you numbers set, each might be the "greatest", but none can have "all the greatness possible".

7thangel

I was explaining to Diana that the omnipotence has boundaries and limitations on the nature of God. That omnipotence does not also include that which does not exist nor illogical. I made the example of the coffee to make a clear representation of what I mean of lacking, because when I speak of God I might be asked a question that complicates explanation.

However, you are right if we "assign" non-omnipotent as the model of comparison. That case, an omnipotent is imperfect according to non-omnipotence. But I refer to perfection according to God's model of perfection.

I just made it plain and simple argument that lacking in power, non-omnipotence, is not good. Even in that very simple sense of telling. And I presumed the implication that all actions are either good or evil, else I would not had equate that imperfection bound us to suffer evil.

Jinto

Fair enough, so can we have God come down here and tell us His model of perfection then? Because, unless you can establish that you have been directly communicating with God, it would seem that any model of perfection you put forth would be merely your model of perfection, not God's.

This is a textbook example of bifurication, not dissimilar to me saying that all particles have either a positive or negative charge. Clearly, neutrons would take great offense at that assertation.

7thangel

I cannot meet the demand because I cannot know all things that pertains to God.

Quote:

This is a textbook example of bifurication, not dissimilar to me saying that all particles have either a positive or negative charge. Clearly, neutrons would take great offense at that assertation.

I will respect your opinion.

Thanks for responding anyways.

Thomas Metcalf

Originally posted by 7thangel :

Huh? I'm not sure how this relates to what I said. Do you understand why God could have created non-omnipotent beings who didn't suffer evil? Or is that to what you were replying?

I have no reason to believe imperfection entails evil-suffering.

Would you present your definition of "omnipotent" or point me to somewhere where you did please?

Darkblade

I do not believe that such a definition clearly exists anywhere in this thread by 7thangel.

Firstly, omnipotent and almighty are synonyms. Omni- and al- both mean “all”, and potency and might both mean “power”. So both words mean all-powerful. In any case, your thought is intriguing. It would seem that free will and omnipotence are incompatible, as least within your definition (I do not know what my “true” definition of omnipotence would be, as I don’t believe that any omnipotent beings exist (I only argue using the term as if it were real).) of omnipotence. Of course, both “free will” and “omnipotence” are both self-contradictory anyway.

Unfortunately, omnipotence is defined as having unlimited power (not being greater than all other things), and I do not see how multiple gods would really limit each other, especially if they were both morally perfect (in which case their goals would all be identical). All the gods could destroy each other instantaneously, as they could destroy themselves. All the gods could do anything else they wanted. The problem here appears to be that you define “competition” as a limit on power, when it really isn’t.

Lets say god A makes a rowboat. Then god B unmakes it. Then god A remakes it. God B then unmakes it and simultaneously takes away god A’s ability to make rowboats. God A then grants itself the ability to make rowboats, and the absolute next moment makes one. And so on… Obviously, these gods would probably become angry with each other, and thus one or both of them would probably eventually destroy the other or remove the other’s omnipotence. It does not matter that this is true. They both would have omnipotence until one of them removed it from (or destroyed) the other. They do not truly limit each other. They merely “compete” with each other. Of course, with multiple morally perfect gods there would be no such problem.

Quantum physics contradicts you. Two electrons are exactly the same, yet they are not the same electron. I suppose you could drag location into this if you want to, but remember that we supposedly coexist in the exact same space as your god, it being omnipresent. So why couldn’t another god?

And if gods need to be created, how did your god come to exist? Or will you claim that your god always existed, being “eternal”? Then why does only your god exist in such a manner? And how exactly does a being like your god existing eternally make sense? And why can’t another eternal god exist? I do not believe that only the “first” god would not be subject to these questions.

I am an atheist, not a trinitarian, and, for the purposes of these arguments, I have been assuming that your god is only one, so I do not believe that I think like the trinitarians either.

Of course, all (or most) of this will fall apart when you spontaneously subsequently “clarify” (redefine) your definition of your god’s omnipotence.

Angrillori

Does not have the ability? Does not have the potence? If he is lacking any specific potence, he is not omnipotent? Think this through!!! How can you write this with a straight face! (I am of course assuming you're writing with a straight face, I guess this would certainly be in line as a great long running joke on all of us eh?)
But I thought you defined perfect as 'lacking nothing'? And here you say God lacks something. Oh I get it, you're still fooling with all of us! ROFL!

Let me make sure I'm straight:

God can do anything, but God cannot lie.

God can do anything, but God cannot choose to not exercise his abilities.

God can do anything, but God cannot create another omnipotent being.

God lacks nothing, but lacks the ability to lie.
And all that in just a couple of posts!

Angrillori

(apologist on)
Take your pick guys:
1) Yeah, when man lies its a lie, but when God lies, its not a lie because God can't lie so its not a lie because God can't lie therefore it can't be a lie.

2)It's not a lie, it's just a 'factual error' in conversation with others. God didn't lie, just offered a 'factual inconsistancy.'

3) 'God works in mysterious ways?'

4)Jesus was referring to the disciples asking his GOD part where he was going. Clearly, they hadn't, they had only asked his human part!

5) It's not a lie if there's a greater plan being served by not telling the truth.
(apologist off)

I'm getting frustrated just reading this. There doesn't even seem to be an attempt to make sense!