Why GOD must be OMNI-Whatever?

[Veritas Aequitas]

The below was a post addressed to a theist which explained "Why GOD must be OMNI-Whatever [positively].

I have already argued extensively how your supposed God must be omni-whatever all over this 'Philosophy of Religion' section.

1. Generally the point is your supposed God must be an ontological God, i.e. a Being than which no greater can be believed/conceived.

2. If your God is not an ontological God then it will leave room for your God to be an inferior God to another superior God claimed by others, e.g. the Islamic God.

3. If your supposed-God is inferior to another God, then the most superior God will be more powerful and thus can kick the arse of your supposed God.

4. No theist would be want their God's arse to be kicked by another God which is more superior.

5. That is why all theists in the know [not blind and ignorant] will have to claim their supposed God is an ontological god so that there will be no God which is greater than their GOD, i.e. a Being than which no greater can be believed/conceived.

6. An ontological God, a Being than which no greater can be believed/conceived, will have positive qualities no other God can overcome or be greater. These qualities will thus have to be OMNI-, i.e. the maximum none can overtake.
OMNI = in all ways or places.

7. Therefore since your supposed God has the quality of benevolence, it has to have be omnibenevolent.

8. Whatever positive quality your supposed God possessed it must be prefixed with 'OMNI'.

9. Since your supposed God is omnipotent and has to be omnibenevolent, it will have the power to maintain its omnibenevolent qualities and not corrupt it with creating humans who are capable to committing evil.

10. But since in reality, humans supposed created by God are committing evil and violence, therefore your supposed omnipotent God with omni-benevolence cannot exists as real in the first place.

[attofishpi]

The below was a post addressed to a theist which explained "Why GOD must be OMNI-Whatever [positively].

I have already argued extensively how your supposed God must be omni-whatever all over this 'Philosophy of Religion' section.

1. Generally the point is your supposed God must be an ontological God, i.e. a Being than which no greater can be believed/conceived.

2. If your God is not an ontological God then it will leave room for your God to be an inferior God to another superior God claimed by others, e.g. the Islamic God.

3. If your supposed-God is inferior to another God, then the most superior God will be more powerful and thus can kick the arse of your supposed God.

4. No theist would be want their God's arse to be kicked by another God which is more superior.

5. That is why all theists in the know [not blind and ignorant] will have to claim their supposed God is an ontological god so that there will be no God which is greater than their GOD, i.e. a Being than which no greater can be believed/conceived.

6. An ontological God, a Being than which no greater can be believed/conceived, will have positive qualities no other God can overcome or be greater. These qualities will thus have to be OMNI-, i.e. the maximum none can overtake.
OMNI = in all ways or places.

7. Therefore since your supposed God has the quality of benevolence, it has to have be omnibenevolent.

8. Whatever positive quality your supposed God possessed it must be prefixed with 'OMNI'.

9. Since your supposed God is omnipotent and has to be omnibenevolent, it will have the power to maintain its omnibenevolent qualities and not corrupt it with creating humans who are capable to committing evil.

10. But since in reality, humans supposed created by God are committing evil and violence, therefore your supposed omnipotent God with omni-benevolence cannot exists as real in the first place.

I...AGAIN i will give U one more shot. WHERE R U GETTING ALL THIS "OMNI" STUFF FROM - STATE YOUR SOUCE(S).

[Age]

The below was a post addressed to a theist which explained "Why GOD must be OMNI-Whatever [positively].

I have already argued extensively how your supposed God must be omni-whatever all over this 'Philosophy of Religion' section.

1. Generally the point is your supposed God must be an ontological God, i.e. a Being than which no greater can be believed/conceived.

2. If your God is not an ontological God then it will leave room for your God to be an inferior God to another superior God claimed by others, e.g. the Islamic God.

3. If your supposed-God is inferior to another God, then the most superior God will be more powerful and thus can kick the arse of your supposed God.

4. No theist would be want their God's arse to be kicked by another God which is more superior.

5. That is why all theists in the know [not blind and ignorant] will have to claim their supposed God is an ontological god so that there will be no God which is greater than their GOD, i.e. a Being than which no greater can be believed/conceived.

6. An ontological God, a Being than which no greater can be believed/conceived, will have positive qualities no other God can overcome or be greater. These qualities will thus have to be OMNI-, i.e. the maximum none can overtake.
OMNI = in all ways or places.

7. Therefore since your supposed God has the quality of benevolence, it has to have be omnibenevolent.

8. Whatever positive quality your supposed God possessed it must be prefixed with 'OMNI'.

9. Since your supposed God is omnipotent and has to be omnibenevolent, it will have the power to maintain its omnibenevolent qualities and not corrupt it with creating humans who are capable to committing evil.

10. But since in reality, humans supposed created by God are committing evil and violence, therefore your supposed omnipotent God with omni-benevolence cannot exists as real in the first place.

I suggest that instead of STARTING with what you ALREADY BELIEVE is true, and then 'trying to' find absolutely ANY thing, which you hope, think, or believe will back up and support this current BELIEF of yours, you just LOOK AT what thee ACTUAL Truth IS.

If you did this, then you find and SEE just how WRONG you REALLY are here.

[Age]

The below was a post addressed to a theist which explained "Why GOD must be OMNI-Whatever [positively].

I have already argued extensively how your supposed God must be omni-whatever all over this 'Philosophy of Religion' section.

1. Generally the point is your supposed God must be an ontological God, i.e. a Being than which no greater can be believed/conceived.

2. If your God is not an ontological God then it will leave room for your God to be an inferior God to another superior God claimed by others, e.g. the Islamic God.

3. If your supposed-God is inferior to another God, then the most superior God will be more powerful and thus can kick the arse of your supposed God.

4. No theist would be want their God's arse to be kicked by another God which is more superior.

5. That is why all theists in the know [not blind and ignorant] will have to claim their supposed God is an ontological god so that there will be no God which is greater than their GOD, i.e. a Being than which no greater can be believed/conceived.

6. An ontological God, a Being than which no greater can be believed/conceived, will have positive qualities no other God can overcome or be greater. These qualities will thus have to be OMNI-, i.e. the maximum none can overtake.
OMNI = in all ways or places.

7. Therefore since your supposed God has the quality of benevolence, it has to have be omnibenevolent.

8. Whatever positive quality your supposed God possessed it must be prefixed with 'OMNI'.

9. Since your supposed God is omnipotent and has to be omnibenevolent, it will have the power to maintain its omnibenevolent qualities and not corrupt it with creating humans who are capable to committing evil.

10. But since in reality, humans supposed created by God are committing evil and violence, therefore your supposed omnipotent God with omni-benevolence cannot exists as real in the first place.

I...AGAIN i will give U one more shot. WHERE R U GETTING ALL THIS "OMNI" STUFF FROM - STATE YOUR SOUCE(S).

Omnipotent, Omniscient, and Omnibenevolent STILL WORKS PERFECTLY in relation to the word and label 'God'.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I...AGAIN i will give U one more shot. WHERE R U GETTING ALL THIS "OMNI" STUFF FROM - STATE YOUR SOUCE(S).

Why should I bother with your one more shot?
If you don't agree with my rationale just give it a pass, QED.

[attofishpi]

I...AGAIN i will give U one more shot. WHERE R U GETTING ALL THIS "OMNI" STUFF FROM - STATE YOUR SOUCE(S).

Why should I bother with your one more shot?
If you don't agree with my rationale just give it a pass, QED.

..ergo, U like I state, do not do logic (something philosophy requires) your entire premise is based upon OMNI aspect of God, yet U cannot even provide your SOURCE(S). And yes i INSIST.

..ergo, U are a ridiculous muppet.

[attofishpi]

ping

(atto is getting bored)

[Skepdick]

....

If you abstract away all of the social connotation of Gods, ontologies and all the knee-jerk stuff that gets people's panties in a twist, this is the exact argument in Mathematics which proves that there is no such thing as "greatest infinity", or "largest number" or "greatest set".

The paradox, of course is that when you insist that there is an ontological entity which is OMNI-whatever (e.g greatest) then you could always imagine an entity which is more OMNI (e.g even greater) than that - you know, because you are a philosopher/critic and even the best of the best is shit and can always be improved upon. Cantor lost his marbles pursuing absolute infinity.

And so, if god is ontologically OMNI-benevolent, then I can always imagine a greater benevolence!

And if I can imagine a greater benevolence than OMNI-benevolence, then I can make Godel or Anselm's ontological argument all over again to manufacture a more powerful ontological God.

Mathematicians call it a power set (ha! ha! more power!!!). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_set

But really, God cannot be OMNI-whatever, because the OMNI-whatever is conceptually impossible. So we are back to Wittgenstein then... the limits of my language are the limits of my world (God?). If you want your world (God?) to be limitless then you need a limitless language.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I...AGAIN i will give U one more shot. WHERE R U GETTING ALL THIS "OMNI" STUFF FROM - STATE YOUR SOUCE(S).

Why should I bother with your one more shot?
If you don't agree with my rationale just give it a pass, QED.

..ergo, U like I state, do not do logic (something philosophy requires) your entire premise is based upon OMNI aspect of God, yet U cannot even provide your SOURCE(S). And yes i INSIST.

..ergo, U are a ridiculous muppet.

Sources of what??

If 'ontological' see St. Anselm, Descartes and others.
Allah's Allah-u-Akbar is ontological.
Omni-whatever follows from being ontological.

If 'omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresence, omnibenevolent, they are implied from your Bible and Gospels. Just google.

[Veritas Aequitas]

....

If you abstract away all of the social connotation of Gods, ontologies and all the knee-jerk stuff that gets people's panties in a twist, this is the exact argument in Mathematics which proves that there is no such thing as "greatest infinity", or "largest number" or "greatest set".

The paradox, of course is that when you insist that there is an ontological entity which is OMNI-whatever (e.g greatest) then you could always imagine an entity which is more OMNI (e.g even greater) than that - you know, because you are a philosopher/critic and even the best of the best is shit and can always be improved upon. Cantor lost his marbles pursuing absolute infinity.

And so, if god is ontologically OMNI-benevolent, then I can always imagine a greater benevolence!

And if I can imagine a greater benevolence than OMNI-benevolence, then I can make Godel or Anselm's ontological argument all over again to manufacture a more powerful ontological God.

Mathematicians call it a power set (ha! ha! more power!!!). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_set

But really, God cannot be OMNI-whatever, because the OMNI-whatever is conceptually impossible. So we are back to Wittgenstein then... the limits of my language are the limits of my world (God?). If you want your world (God?) to be limitless then you need a limitless language.

The paradox, of course is that when you insist that there is an ontological entity which is OMNI-whatever (e.g greatest) then you could always imagine an entity which is more OMNI (e.g even greater) than that

The definition of an ontological God do not provide for something even greater, i.e.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontological_argument

• Ontological God = A GOD, being or entity than which no greater can be conceived, believed or imagined.

As such once a theist claim his God is an ontological God, logically there is nothing that can be greater than the ontological God by its definition.

[Skepdick]

The definition of an ontological God do not provide for something even greater, i.e.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontological_argument

• Ontological God = A GOD, being or entity than which no greater can be conceived, believed or imagined.

Yeah, that doesn't fly.

Ontology doesn't prescribe imagination, belief or conception.

As such once a theist claim his God is an ontological God, logically there is nothing that can be greater than the ontological God by its definition.

Logically, I can define another God. Lets call him God Version 2.

And I define God Version 2 like this: Greater than the ontological God.

Because the definition said only about conceiving, believing or imagining. It said nothing about defining.

[Veritas Aequitas]

The definition of an ontological God do not provide for something even greater, i.e.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontological_argument

• Ontological God = A GOD, being or entity than which no greater can be conceived, believed or imagined.

Yeah, that doesn't fly.

Ontology doesn't prescribe imagination or conception.

That is the typical definition by theists which included conception and imagination. I don't agree with the above.
However 'believed' is acceptable.

As such once a theist claim his God is an ontological God, logically there is nothing that can be greater than the ontological God by its definition.

Logically, I can define another God. Lets call him God Version 2.

And I define God Version 2 like this: Greater than the ontological God.

Because the definition said only about conceiving, believing or imagining. It said nothing about defining.

That is not logical because your believed God-Version-2 cannot be 'greater' than 'which no greater can be believed'.
Otherwise you are going against the general principles of logic and reasoning.

The theologians [e.g. St. Anselm, Descartes] long ago already had their ass covered on this possible slip.

However the ontological God as reasoned and believed is impossible to be real empirically and philosophically.

[Skepdick]

That is not logical because your believed God-Version-2 cannot be 'greater' than 'which no greater can be believed'.

It is possible!

I can do what no God can - I can believe in contradictions.

I am greater than God.

Q.E.D

[Veritas Aequitas]

That is not logical because your believed God-Version-2 cannot be 'greater' than 'which no greater can be believed'.

It is possible!

I can believe in contradictions.

Your God can't.

I am greater than your God.

You personally can do what you like but it will not be effective in countering theism.

Your logic will not be acceptable by theists from the general logical basis.
To counter theists we need them to accept each premise before we can proceed to the next toward a conclusion, God is an impossibility to be real.

[Skepdick]

You personally can do what you like but it will not be effective in countering theism.

You can't counter theism because theism doesn't want to be countered.

It has nothing to do with arguments - this game doesn't work like you think it works.

Arguments don't magically change minds.

Your logic will not be acceptable by theists from the general logical basis.

From a general logical basis there is no such thing as "greatest" anything, so the fact that you are dealing with people who believe in "greatest" something tells you that you are not dealing with logical people.

To counter theists we need them to accept each premise before we can proceed to the next toward a conclusion, God is an impossibility to be real.

You can't counter theists when instead of making them accept your premise, you accept theirs...