The existence of an almighty being is rationally necessary?

All our rationally coherent concepts have to be accommodated by existence. In other words the potential has to be there in existence to make such things hypothetically possible. So a unicorn is hypothetically possible because there is enough matter and energy in existence to allow for this. Existence has the potential for unicorns.

1) Omnipotence is a coherent concept. Therefore existence must somehow allow it to be hypothetically possible. Existence must accommodate it.

2) Necessarily something cannot be omnipotent if it is not omnipresent (how can it be almighty if it does not have reach or access to the entirety of existence?)

3) Therefore omnipotence is only potentially possible if something can tap into omnipresence or become omnipresent.

4) But logically nothing can become omnipresent from a non-omnipresent state. 3 is impossible. So how does existence accommodate omnipotence?

5) Because 3 is impossible, either a) something has always been and always will be omnipotent, or b) something has never been and never will be omnipotent.

Conclusion: a is necessarily true when omnipotence is a coherent concept. b is necessarily true when omnipotence is an incoherent concept. Given 1, an almighty god necessarily exists.

It depends whether you think the cosmos is finite or infinite, I believe it is infinite, so I don’t believe in an omnipotent being. Omni-present is a subset of omniscience, and omniscient beings need to be able to pervade everything, which is impossible with infinity. That’s why you see so many proofs of God necessitate a finite universe.

According to your unicorn example it is not that existence must accomodate it, but rather that it is hypothetically possible. Which to me means something rather different than the admitedly vague ‘must accomodate’.

If it has the reach or access to the entirety but is not the entirity unless it chooses to be on occasion.

Ibid

I think existence is infinite. Existence prevades everything.
Do we agree that something in existence must necessarily be omnipresent? Is it not the case that something in existence prevades everything (omnipresence)?
Why is it impossible for something omniscient to prevade everything?

A room can accommodate a piano would either mean: a piano can fit in there, or, a piano is already fitted in there) “existence accommodates x” entails either one of two things: “a) existence has the potential for x or b) there is x in existence” If existence does not accommodate it, how could it exist or be a hypothetical possibility?

There are no pockets of non-existence separating different existences. Therefore existence is omnipresent. That thing which is omnipresent can’t suddenly become non-omnipresent. It would be as if existence becomes non-omnipresent which is problematic.

So 1) something x is constantly omnipresent. With that said, how can some other thing y that is not omnipresent, occupy the space of x which is constantly omnipresent? There would be no space for y to take over x. You cannot have 2 omnipresent entities. So something has always been omnipresent and will always be omnipresent.

You’re confounding the equality that existence must pervade itself with intelligent existence being all pervading. There’s no way a single being could know what an infinite number of beings are doing. Only an infinite number of beings can know what an infinite number of beings are doing. Hypothetically, laws could have been structured so that the “creator” (and we’re really barely touching this subject) could control an infinity without being able to control or observe an infinity. There’s a difference between say, an infinite tree, which is impossible… and one tree always being larger than another tree, which is possible. It’s important to understand this distinction.

All knowledge is just information. a) What an infinite number of beings are doing amounts to 1 set of an infinite amount of information. If a is true, why would it be impossible for some entity to possess this information?

I acknowledge this but don’t see how it applies here. Trees can’t be infinite, but knowledge can be infinite. So I don’t think infinite knowledge is problematic in the same way that an infinite tree is.

We are all made of matter. But at the same time we are something else. We have skin, bones and so on.
What I’m trying to say is that we are all a part of that which is omnipresent. In the same way there is no contradiction in saying our knowledge is all a part of the knowledge of that which is omniscient.

I already explained this… no single being can count all the rational numbers. You’re attempt to make it a uniform equality by just calling it “information” is slight of hand and not true when it comes to counting infinity.

The definition of omniscience is to know all that there is to know in existence. Counting all the rational numbers is irrelevant. You’re essentially saying omniscience is impossible because there are things that are not within the realm of knowledge. By definition, an omniscient being is not expected to know what is “beyond existence” or what a “square-circle” looks like and so on.

This isn’t a slight of hand. It’s directly in relation to the definition of omniscience.

If we were having a discussion on omnipotence, a similar line of reasoning to yours would be: because the omnipotent being can’t exist and not exist at the same time, it is not truly omnipotent. But absurdities such as existing and not existing at the same time are irrelevant to things that are knowable or doable in existence. They are therefore irrelevant to what qualifies an entity as omniscient or omnipotent.

All the rational numbers do exist. It’s not the same as a square circle. You’re just wrong, that’s all.

Omniscience = all that there is to know. If there is a rational number that is there to be known, that which is omniscient would know this. Counting all the rational numbers is something else. An action. If the act itself is an absurdity (such as an omnipotent being rendering itself non-omnipotent) then it is irrelevant. If counting all the rational numbers is a rationally coherent action, then that which is omnipotent would be able to do this.

If any action or item of knowledge is absurd/rationally impossible, then it is irrelevant to doing or knowing all that there is to do or know in existence.

And this is where you lose the debate.

I don’t think you paid enough attention to what I said. I’ll make it stand out more:
IF there is a rational number that is there to be known, then that which is omniscient (that which knows all that there is to know) would know this. So obviously the reverse is: If there is a rational number that is not there to be known, then it is not an item of knowledge and therefore irrelevant to something qualifying as omniscient.

You should also support your conclusions. Like if you think you have won this debate, highlight what exactly it is that lead you to this belief.

I already explained it to you. All the rational numbers exist and no single being can count them all, only an infinite number of beings can count all the rational numbers, but no one being would be able to count what an infinite number of beings can count. It’s impossible to be omniscient, this has been known for years now.

The confusion is that could exist as a hypothetical entity is FROM OUR LIMITED KNOWLEDGE PERSPECTIVE. IOW we as little fallible creatures cannot decide for sure that a unicorn cannot or does not exist. This should not be confused with whether it does or can exist. Hypothetically the universe could never have existed at all. This does not mean it does not exist. What we do not know for sure about, but given what we know draw the conclusion that it might be possible is not the same as real potential. Look back a few hundred years and think about what they thought was and was not possible and you will see that this category is different from whatever objectively possible might be…

let alone what must be.

This is a common confusion: if we say something is possible from our perspective - we can find no reason why it couldn’t be the case, then the universe has the potential to have this event or thing.

That’s a category error. What we can imagine is possible is not objective. But that is what you do right here.

Perhaps it just seems coherent and possible to us limited creatures.

There are no pockets of non-existence separating different existences. Therefore existence is omnipresent. That thing which is omnipresent can’t suddenly become non-omnipresent. It would be as if existence becomes non-omnipresent which is problematic.

So 1) something x is constantly omnipresent. With that said, how can some other thing y that is not omnipresent, occupy the space of x which is constantly omnipresent? There would be no space for y to take over x. You cannot have 2 omnipresent entities. So something has always been omnipresent and will always be omnipresent.
[/quote]
Going by your wording, which I quoted you refer to reach. I can reach things that I am not present in. I can have power over things that I am not. Therefore omnipresence is not necessary for omnipotence, since my limited potency is not limited to my presence in the things I can affect and reach and control. In fact ‘reach’ implies movement from where one is to affect something ‘over there’. Since in this example we are speaking about omnipotence, it would seem then that one could become omnipresent if one wish - this being an act and if one could not do it then there is somethign one could not do. But one need only have this power in potentia.

So you’re saying that counting all the rational numbers is something that is rationally coherent?

If you think counting all the rational numbers is something that is rationally coherent so long as there are an infinite number of beings, then I would suggest the following:

You said: no one being would be able to count what an infinite number of beings can count
if that one being is infinite then why not? If the infinite number of beings that you refer to are a part of the one infinite being then what’s preventing the one infinite being from being aware of all the count/number/measure/details of the infinite number of beings that are a part of it?

Necessarily you have to have one singular infinite being (existence) which may include an infinite number of finite beings as a part of it.

I strongly doubt that it’s reached the dogma stage yet but even if it has, dead dogmas are no good.

Your premise fails at step one.

  1. Possible is not necessary.
  2. Omnipotence is a contradiction, whilst impotence is also a coherent concept.
  3. Even if omnipotence is possible does not necessitate god.
  4. If God is a thing then it is a thing that is not another thing. As other things are necessary to define the thing that is god, then an omni-“anything” god is a contradiction as there has to be things not-god.

I see what you mean: I could think that it is hypothetically possible for there to be unicorns on the moon. But until I have full knowledge of the ins and outs of the moon, I will never know this for sure. Magically I get full knowledge of the moon and there are actually no unicorns on the moon. I must conclude that the proposition there are unicorns on the moon is now rationally incoherent. It’s no longer a hypothetical possibility. I fully acknowledge this, BUT this is different to what I’m suggesting.

Continuing on from the above, assume that nothing can enter or exit the moon: a) there are unicorns on the moon= absurdity. b) there can be unicorns on the moon = either rationally coherent or incoherent. If the moon has the resources to produce unicorns then it is coherent and therefore hypothetically possible and we can picture this. If not, then it is incoherent and therefore impossible and we won’t be able to picture it. Without the resources b is then incoherent, and it no longer becomes possible for us to comprehend unicorns on the moon. It would be like comprehending something coming from nothing. Incoherence.

And this is my point regarding the coherent vs. the incoherent. Consider c) there can be unicorns in existence
Our minds are fully dependent on existence. All of the mind’s contents is derived from and provided by existence. If c was impossible, how would it be possible for us to make any sense of unicorns? How would it even be a coherent concept? We can’t think outside of existence. We can’t think beyond it. There is nothing/non-existence/absurdity outside of existence and that is all we’d get when trying to think outside of existence.

The only reason all the hypothetical possibilities are possible and understandable to us at all is because existence is infinite which means the potential is there for infinitely different but coherent universes, concepts and so on for the mind to reflect on.

At some point in existence, there may be another universe identical to ours with the exception that a and b are possible in that universe though impossible in ours. Although the universe may be identical, the point in existence that it would occupy would have to be different. This would yield something like: b is NOT possible at universe z, time t, location pqr.
b IS possible at universe z1, time t location pqr.

And if such an identical universe is not there in existence, the potential is there for it to be (existence being infinite). Which is why the concept is a hypothetical possibility in our minds. The potential is there. existence accommodates it. If it wasn’t, then that would imply that the mind is thinking outside the potential of existence or that the mind can think beyond existence. Outside that, there is only non-existence/absurdity, not unicorns.

So if the mind can picture a unicorn and coherently think about a unicorn existing, it is only because the potential is there for unicorns to exist somewhere in existence.

Yes I agree. And another universe I have in my mind may never come to exist at all, but the potential is there for existence to bring about such a universe.
What I don’t think can be said is that existence could never have existed at all. Thinking of that leads to non-existence/nothingness/absurdity.

I do agree that what may seem coherent now can turn out to be incoherent in the future. But this is why we debate. Prevent dogmas, get closer to the truth (hopefully) and so on.

You can reach those things provided that you have the right sort of connection to them. Some x has to be omnipresent for there to be a connection to everything. How could something else like y connect to x? y is already connected to x because x is connected to everything. But could this relationship be reversed? Also that which is omnipresent would have to be infinite. Can something go from finite to infinite?

I’ll get back to you in detail tomorrow or the day after.

Is it a coherent concept? The rock so heavy not even God can lift it says otherwise.

  1. and 3) are granted with reservations–namely, omnipotence entails being able to exist anywhere and everywhere.

Not sure where you’re getting this from. Why is it logically impossible for something to become omnipresent from a non-omnipresent state?

I think I know what you’re trying to say, but your logic is wrong. If 3) is impossible, then omnipotence is impossible period. What 3) says is that a thing can only be omnipotent if it “can tap into omnipresence or become omnipresent”, and if this is impossible, then omnipotence is impossible.

But maybe in 3) you meant to say that a thing can be omnipotent by way of tapping into omnipresence or become omnipresent, rather than can only be omnipotent if…

In any case, you can’t conclude anything about omnipotence in 5). What you can conclude is that a) something has always been and always will be omnipresent, or b) something has never been and never will be omnipresent. But omnipresence doesn’t automatically imply omnipotence.

I fail to see what the coherency of the concept has to do with proving its existence. If you mean to say that option b) above makes omnipotence impossible when the concept’s coherency mandates its possibility, then I think your confounding two subtly different meanings of “possible”. When you said that unicorns are possible because we can imagine them emerging in this physical universe, what that meant was that there is a hypothetical “possible world” in which unicorns exist. But that doesn’t mean unicorns ever did exist or ever will exist in this world. If they never did exist and never will exist, then ipso facto reality turns out to be a place in which there are no unicorns (never were and never will be). Given that this is the state of our world, it is a world in which the existence of unicorns is impossible, just as it may be a world in which there is no omnipresent and omnipotent god, therefore making the existence of one impossible, but that doesn’t negate the possibility of unicorns in principle–that is, as inhabitants of a hypothetical possible world–which is what I assume you meant when you gave the example of unicorns. Just the same, there may be no omnipresent, omnipotent god, but that doesn’t negate the possibility of the existence of one in a hypothetical possible world. Therefore, there may be no omnipresent, omnipotent god even though the coherency of the concept thereof entails the possibility of one in a hypothetical possible world.