Proof of an omnipotent being

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
41

Only God is perfect. You cannot have two Perfect or Omnipotent beings. That’s just pure logic.

All non-God beings are imperfect. Some are good, some are evil. Some are very good, some are very evil. The very good beings are not sent to hell forever, because they are, by definition, very good. They are not perfect, so they are not as well off as God is, but they are still very well off all things considered. Only very evil people are sent to Hell. So long as x is very evil and never changes from this state of being very evil, x will suffer hell forever. Again, just pure reason. If x is evil perfection is that x suffers. If x is forever evil (as in he chooses to be evil no matter what), then perfection is that x suffers forever. If x will never repent and reform, then x is forever evil. x cannot pretend repent and reform. If you have a gun to your head, that is not genuine repentance, because it was not done willingly. You have to be willingly good. You have to choose to be good. You are not morally good or evil if you had no choice in the matter.

42

Yeah, and that’s why I don’t like you.

Nobody deserves suffering against their will. NOBODY!!!

This conversation between you and I right now is like an adult teaching a child the word “hello”.

You are so far gone man.

I’ve been to hell. I’ve met all the major players. You actually think you understand some of this shit as ‘proofs’ (which is kinda funny). You don’t know shit dude.

43

That counts Biggie out.

44

Man, you really don’t fucking get it.

From the perspective of a hypothetical (only) perfect being forever … we will necessarily all live in a state of sin forever … which means all of us are in hell forever.

45

Here’s what you did: you quoted me, but failed to show you understood my objection. Then you repeated your position in a new phrasing. IOW you did not respond to the points I made, but more or less simply repeated yourself.

Apart from being an utter waste of someone’s time, in this case mine, it is a perfect strategy to reassure yourself you are making sense via avoidance of actually dealing with objections.

So, I’ll leave you to it.

46

Like I’ve already said. You have imperfect beings that are evil, and you have imperfect beings that are good. The good ones don’t go to Hell. They are not perfect, but this does to mean that they will be in Hell forever.

47

What about Fritzl?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fritzl_case

Can you say that he does not deserve suffering without yourself being evil by saying it? Consider the following:

You are the sheriff in your town. A woman comes to you and says she’s just been raped. She presents irrefutable evidence of this. She shows you how the rapist harmed her and disfigured her and more. You’re the sherif. You can harm the rapist against his will by imprisoning him, or you can do worse. The woman asks that you do worse because she says she’d have rather gone to prison then to have been raped and disfigured and more. You now need to decide whether you should ignore evil (tell the woman nobody deserves to suffer against their will, I’m not harming the rapist in any way shape or form…this includes harming him by putting him in prison), or treat evil as it deserves to be treated. If you decide to ignore this evil, then I also don’t like you. In fact I hate you. If you do otherwise, then I do not hate you. If you do otherwise, I would not then find it impossible/absurd/evil/unreasonable to respect you.

So what would you do?

I do not disagree with this.

Maybe, maybe not.

I know nobody goes to hell unless they truly perfectly deserve it. How do I know this? It’s what pure reason dictates.

48

Here’s what you said:

What is possible to us and what could become as real as us are the same thing for the following reason:

If something is possible, then by definition, it truly is a possibility/hypothetical possibility. It cannot be the case that something is possible, yet that the same time it is impossible/hypothetically impossible can it? It cannot. If something cannot happen or be brought about, then it is hypothetically impossible isn’t it?

We are aware of an infinite number of hypothetical possibilities. If they cannot all be brought about, then they are not all hypothetical possibilities, are they? For an infinite number of things to happen or be brought about, existence would have to be infinite. To deny existence being infinite is to say not all hypothetical possibilities are possible. To say not all possibilities are possible is absurd/paradoxical. It is to say unicorn (a hypothetically possible being) is an absurdity/hypothetical impossibility (like a round square). This is absurd/contradictory/paradoxical. Thus, we must acknowledge existence as being Infinite to account for the infinite number of hypothetical possibilities or semantics, that we are aware of.

You can read more in detail here:

philosophyneedsgod.wordpress.co … at-exists/

Do with your time what you think is best.

49

Perhaps, but from my own frame of mind, what must count first and foremost in regard to the existence of an omnipotent being – especially proof of its existence – is the extent to which in sharing personal experiences in regard to such an entity, one is able to demonstrate to others that what they believe in their head about his/her/its existence is in fact able to be demonstrated empirically.

Where is this omnipotent being? How was he/she/it able to convince you of its omnipotence? Omnipotence in regard to what particular context or set of circumstances?

Otherwise everything comes to revolve around a world of words defining and defending other words up in the deductive clouds. Which is basically how I react to your own arguments here.

Now, in the world that most of us are familiar with, the closest thing to an omnipotent being is probably someone like Donald Trump or Vladimir Putin or Xi Jinping. They are after all the leaders of the most powerful nations on Earth. At least in terms of economic and military might.

And here there are any number of empirical facts that can be established in regard to the actual experiences of those who have been around them. Where the conflicts unfold instead is in our reactions to the political and military and economic powers that they do, in fact, choose to exercise.

But, from my own philosophical vantage point, you don’t go there. You go back up into what I construe to be “general description intellectual contraptions” in regard to the “theoretical” existence of an omnipotent being:

You will either bring this didactic assessment out into the world where human beings make contact with an omnipotent being in a particular set of circumstances with me, or, sure, move on to those here who actually prefer these “academic exchanges”.

50

Certainly Real,

We’re not just talking about a world/reality where for every winner there is a loser. Of course in a world like that we try our best with judgement and punishment (my preferred punishment for anyone is prison - and often times we don’t have that luxury to punish people that way (subdue them)).

The problem here is that you’re talking about GOD!!!

It’s VERY convenient for you to state god is the always one and only transcendent being for all time; with 100% power over everything…

But very INCONVENIENT for you to say that god could have ‘made’ existence so that nobody ever gets their consent violated.

It’s logically possible for every being to be god. You’d use hyperdimensional mirror realities to accomplish this for all beings.

You’re obviously not a very empathic being. It bothers me when I kill microbes and when microbes kill me.

I don’t think you understand that (aside from the extreme hells I’ve been to), earth is a hell realm; We have to kill to live, we’re all having our consent violated, for every winner there is (at a minimum) one loser. That’s a hell realm.

This is a shit world.

You need to understand something else about “God people” (Like yourself)

You always project upon god what you’d do if you were god (the supreme ruler and dictator of existence forever) — you are all too human.

Besides, if god always punished the wicked, then there’s no free will. They’ll eventually change.

Now, if there were REAL free will, everyone could do what they pleased without ANY punishment.

51

Consider science. It consists of empirical observations. There is the philosophy of science. The philosophy of science looks to the dictates of pure reason regarding empirical observations and does its best to adhere to it. This is why science has some level of success or value. It does not go against pure reason on any level. Where it does, the good scientists bring about a paradigm shift in science and replace the old corrupt/absurd/irrational scientific theory with a new one that is no longer paradoxical/absurd/irrational or at odds with the dictates of pure reason.

What I’m trying to say is, you NEVER sacrifice pure reason for empirical observations. You never sacrifice reason. Pure reason is the highest authority in which every good thing adheres to. This includes science. To go against it, is to be irrational/absurd/paradoxical/evil. If pure reason dictates that triangles have three sides, you accept it. If pure reason dictates that Existence is Omnipresent, or Infinite, or Perfect, you accept it. If it does the opposite, you accept it. You always accept/acknowledge pure reason if you seek to be rational and sincere to truth. You do not wait for empirical verification on matters of pure reason because pure reason is what everything should adhere to and not go against. Again, I cite the example of good science doing this. Science can never empirically test whether something can come from nothing. But science, if it is rational, will accept that you cannot have something come from nothing. Why? Because it’s what pure reason dictates.

It is a being that which can do all that is doable. Pure reason convinced me of Its Omnipotence in the same way that pure reason convinced me that you cannot have something come from nothing, or that you cannot have a four-sided triangle. Omnipotence covers all contexts and circumstances in the same way that Omnipresence does. If it didn’t, then by definition it wouldn’t be omnipotence just as if x is four-sided, semantically it is not a triangle.

Semantics determine what is hypothetically possible, what is hypothetically impossible, and what is necessarily true as opposed to just hypothetically possible. We did not empirically test to see if Existence is Omnipresent/Infinite or not, and we will never be able to do so. But we know that semantics are such that if we reject the Omnipresence or Infiniteness of Existence, we run into paradoxes (something coming from nothing). In science, we shift paradigms to form a non-paradoxical scientific theory. Whenever we see a paradox, we know we’ve been wrong somewhere in our reasoning. It is paradoxical to reject Existence as being Perfect for reasons stated in the OP. A paradigm shift is logically/rationally required by those who reject this.

What you describe are empirical matters. So long as they do not contradict pure reason, they are not absurd. If they contradict pure reason, they are, by definition, absurd. For example, if you said Putin or Trump can make it so that there is injustice in Existence, then even though it may look as though that is the case, it cannot be the case because pure reason dictates that Existence is Perfect. Empirical observations are susceptible to doubt and open to interpretation. Pure reason is not. One cannot rationally/reasonably deny pure reason.

What I have proposed, is paradoxical to reject. One does not embrace absurd science unless one is absurd. One does not embrace absurd anything, unless one is absurd. Where there is sincerity to truth, the truth will be acknowledged. Where there is more sincerity to one’s preconceived notions and desires at the expense of truth, the truth will not be acknowledged.

52

Losers are losers because they are evil. It’s not because there is a finite amount of resources and there necessarily has to be some who are winners and some who are losers with regards to this finite amount of resources. Everyone can be a winner if everyone chooses to be good. Not everyone chooses this way. Making choices is a core component of being free-willed (even those choices are evil and you harm yourself by making them)

God has absolute power to the point that anything that happens (to the last atom’s weight) was fully wanted or willed by God. God chooses what you choose. You still choose, but God chooses what you choose. There is 0 room for error or imperfection when it comes to God. God is the way God is. Perfect.

I never said people’s consent gets violated. If you read what I’ve written, I clearly state that those who are evil, effectively consent to being evil. They choose to be evil. If x wanted to be evil and he was not allowed to be, then you could perhaps say his consent was violated.

No it isn’t. By definition, you cannot have two Omnipresent or Omnipotent beings. You cannot have two or more Existences. There is One Existence and it encompasses all beings. Beings cannot be separated by non-existence. Hence the logical necessity of One Omnipresent being. One Existence. One God. One Perfect Being.

I don’t know how empathic a being I am. I am not omniscient with regards to myself. Perhaps in circumstance y, I would do x (which would be the empathic thing to do), perhaps I would do something else. Right now, we’re talking about pure reason. How empathic a being I am is not a matter of pure reason. I am not competing with you with regards to who has overcome the most hardships in life, or who is more empathic, or who is more of a man. If I took your attitude, it would look something like this: I’m ten times the man that you are. I’ve overcome more hardships then your baby mind can ever imagine, and it was easy for me because I’m ten times the man that you are. If you were put in the same circumstance as me, you would break so fast it would make your head spin. You don’t know shit about life. You don’t know shit about how to deal with evil or how to put it in its place. You don’t have a clue. You like evil. I don’t like you. Just so we’re clear, I don’t think I’m ten times the man that you are. I don’t know if I’m a better man or human than you are. I’d have to be Omniscient to know that.

If it is, then per the dictates of pure reason, we’re shit people and it’s what we truly/perfectly deserve.

So long as people can choose, there is free-will. It’s that simple. If evil people can change, as in they authentically, free-willingly become good, rather than pretend good because they think they have a gun to their heads, then that’s good for them. Where they don’t, then that’s bad for them. It’s all Perfect because God is all Perfect.

In that sense, only God is Fully Completely Truly Free. God Is Omnipotent after all. Any being who lacks Omnipotence is arguably not as free. This does not mean that they are not free at all. This does not mean that they make 0 choices in life. Again, God chooses what you choose, but you still choose, because God wanted to you to choose.

53

Umm… yeah, whatever.

If a person is punished for their acts, they will behave differently later. This means there is no freewill. If they are misinformed, then they acted out of ignorance. Since every being acts out of ignorance, per your definition of god, every being besides god goes to hell forever … sin is everything besides god (per your definition)

Your mind is too rigid to really continue this discussion in a meaningful way.

54

I cant verify a single thing about anything

55

Okay, above I zeroed in on this:

Let’s keep that in mind in regard to what I construe to be just more “intellectual contraptions” from you below. Theoretical, scholastic, didactic, pedantic, analytical assessments in which the “proof” of an omnipotent being’s existence is basically contained in a set of “philosophical” assumptions that you make in your head.

This stuff:

Again, if exploring the existence of an omnipotent being through “Pure Reason” is your thing, you’ll find others here willing to go up on the skyhooks with you and haggle over the definition and the meaning of words. There’s a place for that in philosophy venues, sure.

But: I am only curious as to the extent to which you are willing and able to bring those words out into the world that we actually live in relating to the existential relationship of most interest to me: morality here and now, immortality there and then. What of the existence of an omnipotent being then?

And less in regard to “as if x is four-sided, semantically it is not a triangle.”

56

Certainly Real,

I’m going to offer more to this thread.

You say that god made and controls all.

That means that god made your heart, mind and body.

Now. If I make a little toy robot as a robotics student at MIT, and it fucked up, I’d certainly think it was my ignorance, MY ignorance, not the robots ignorance.

And I’d learn from my mistake and hopefully build a better one.

Obviously god made a mistake with hearts and minds, that hell even has to be contemplated.

So what is it?

Does god learn? Or is god perfect for perfectly creating hearts and minds that have to be sent to hell forever? Or even, hell at all?

57

_
Perhaps the omnipotent being is the Universe itself…
we, come from it, after-all. 100% certified star stuff.
it, gave birth, to everything… we are connected to it.

The original 5g…

58

What you call “intellectual contraptions” is actually pure reason. You expose a dogmatic religious person who thinks something along the lines of “Christ/Muhammad will die for my sins” to pure reason (it’s perfection for everyone to get what they truly deserve, it’s not perfection for evil beings that don’t genuinely repent to be forgiven because Muhammad asked for this or Christ died for this), they will respond in similar fashion. They will seek refuge in unknowns, paradoxes and their empirical experiences which they have interpreted at odds with pure reason and in a potently biased and prejudiced manner, just so that they can ‘justify’ their beliefs.

Pure reason is, or at least should be, the foundation for everything. Science, psychology, maths etc. Pure reason tells you what is, what isn’t, what can be, what should be, and so on. Anything that goes against pure reason, is by definition, unreasonable.

Do you know why it is absurd for people to believe that something can come from nothing? Because of the definitions/semantics of the two words ‘something’ and ‘nothing’ and the relation pure reason dictates regarding them. It is not because people have had empirical experiences to back this up. Semantics and pure reason are everything. Semantics tell you that science is an empirical matter and that triangles being three-sided is a matter of pure reason (it cannot be denied, it is 100% true). Where you hit a paradox, you shift paradigms/beliefs. If x suggests something can from nothing, you reject x. Try accounting for where the semantics of Perfection came from in an imperfect existence/being. How can an imperfect being/existence have any idea/semantic of Perfection (a perfect existence/being) independently of a perfect existence/being? It cannot. Why? Because you cannot have something come from nothing. Again, this is pure reason. You would not believe in triangles being four sided. You would not believe something can come from nothing. One should be consistent, unbiased, and unprejudiced in their approach to reason if their intention is to be reasonable.

Existence is Perfect. Treat it that way. It would be unfair/evil to treat It otherwise when pure reason, that which ought to be obeyed or adhered to, is telling you that It is Perfect. Do not believe that you will be wronged by anyone other than yourself, because that which is Omnipotent is Perfect, and so by definition, It will not allow anyone other than yourself to wrong you. And how would you wrong yourself? By treating/viewing Existence as imperfect. By being absurd/paradoxical/unreasonable/evil. Only when you view Existence as imperfect do you allow yourself to be unreasonable. Only then do you allow yourself to try to do in an unjust manner. Which would then make it perfection for you to suffer (and that could come in the form of depression, anxiety, cancer, someone stealing from you, breaking your heart, or any other thing that harms you in any way shape or form).

You view Existence as Perfect, you strive in the cause of Perfection. You gain more from Existence/God. Awe, joy, fulfilment etc. How can you possibly be in awe of Existence, yet at the same time, be anxious or depressed? You cannot.

59

Yes

Yes

Ok

That would be best

You want your robot to do x but it doesn’t do x. That’s you doing imperfectly. God wants x to do y or to be y or to choose y. God gets what God wants. God does perfectly. If God wants x to be misguided, or to choose to be unreasonable/evil, God gets this. If God wants x to be guided, or to choose to be good/reasonable, God gets this. You have this view that because evil beings exist, imperfection exists. No. Evil beings are perfect for one thing. Suffering. That’s perfection. Electricity is good for powering things. Evil is perfect for suffering/Hell. As in it’s perfection for evil to suffer because it’s perfection for everyone to get what they truly/perfectly deserve (including God). By definition, evil deserves to suffer. Evil wants to be evil. Evil chooses to be evil. Evil consents to being evil. It knows what it is choosing. It would not be evil otherwise. So what’s the problem here? Is it not the case that evil wants/chooses/consents to being evil knowingly?

[b]Is it not the case that the rapist is saying it’s ok for a more powerful being to harm a less powerful being against its will and against its best interest? Or should the rapist think, no, I’m not at fault for raping. I was made this way. I have no choice in the matter.

It’s funny because if you point a gun to the rapist’s head and tell him to stop, he will suddenly choose to stop. He will not say I cannot stop raping this woman, I was made this way. He can absurdly blame God for evil choosing to be evil. It does not alter the fact that it’s perfection for evil to suffer. [/b]

60

If the universe had a beginning, then it is not the Omnipotent. Only that which is Omnipresent/Infinite is Omnipotent. That which is Infinite/Omnipresent had no beginning and has no end. But we are all connected to the Omnipresent/Infinite. We have access to an infinite number of hypothetical possibilities, items of thought, semantics, hypothetical possibilities. Only the Infinite/Omnipresent makes this possible.