Why GOD must be OMNI-Whatever?

[Veritas Aequitas]

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...

The magic word here is 'than which no greater' not greatest ['greatest' is vulnerable to infinite regression].

This is why all theists who are aware of the above will have no other choice but cling to the ontological God [as defined], so no one can condemn their God is inferior to another.

[Skepdick]

The magic word here is 'than which no greater' not greatest ['greatest' is vulnerable to infinite regression].

This is why all theists who are aware of the above will have no other choice but cling to the ontological God [as defined], so no one can condemn their God is inferior to another.

"no greater" means exactly the same thing as "greatest"

There is no greater number than 10.
10 is the greatest number.

I hear your definition, I understand it and all that but... here's 11.

[Veritas Aequitas]

The magic word here is 'than which no greater' not greatest ['greatest' is vulnerable to infinite regression].

This is why all theists who are aware of the above will have no other choice but cling to the ontological God [as defined], so no one can condemn their God is inferior to another.

"no greater" means exactly the same thing as "greatest"

There is no greater number than 10.
The greatest number number is 10.
10 is the greatest number.

It's all saying the same thing.

I hear your definition, I understand it and all that but... here's 11.

"no greater than" not do mean the 'greatest'.

"no greater than" means holding the quality of "X+1".
Thus whatever god-X is claim, the ontological God is always X+1.

If it is 10, the ontological God is 11,
If it is 100, the ontological God is 101,
If it is 1,000,000, the ontological God is 1,000,001,
and so on.

[Skepdick]

Thus whatever god-X is claim, the ontological God is always X+1.

My God is X+2

[Veritas Aequitas]

Thus whatever god-X is claim, the ontological God is always X+1.

My God is X+2

If your God is 'X+2' the ontological by definition is [X+2]+1.
Point is the ontological god is always one-up on whatever god is proposed

[Skepdick]

If your God is 'X+2' the ontological by definition is [X+2]+1.
Point is the ontological god is always one-up on whatever god is proposed

If your ontological is [X+2]+1 then my ontological is [X+2]+2

Point is my ontological is always one-up on your ontological.

By definition my definition is one up on your definition.

But if you really want to play this stupid game - my God is Omega (Ω). The Absolute Infinite.

My God is God Proper. The One True Real Philosophically Justified God.

[Veritas Aequitas]

If your God is 'X+2' the ontological by definition is [X+2]+1.
Point is the ontological god is always one-up on whatever god is proposed

If your ontological is [X+2]+1 then my ontological is [X+2]+2

Point is my ontological is always one-up on your ontological.

By definition my definition is one up on your definition.

But if you really want to play this stupid game - my God is Omega (Ω). The Absolute Infinite.

My God is God Proper. The One True Real Philosophically Justified God.

You are the one who is playing the stupid game.

It is not "MY" God.
I am just making reference and explaining what the theologians has been defining and meant as the ontological-God.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontological_argument

If you have any beef with the definition you should take it up with present theologians who rely on this ontological definition.

[Skepdick]

You are the one who is playing the stupid game.

It is not "MY" God.
I am just making reference and explaining what the theologians has been defining and meant as the ontological-God.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontological_argument

If you have any beef with the definition you should take it up with present theologians who rely on this ontological definition.

I don't have any beef with theologians - I have a beef with the definition.

It's not the greatest definition because my definition is greater.

Or in the common parlance of Philosophy: my dick is bigger than your dick and your ego combined.

[Terrapin Station]

Greater/lesser, superior/inferior in the relevant context are subjective assessments. What's greater/superior to one person isn't to another, and there aren't correct answers about that.

Also, you're using "ontological" very oddly. You're doing this in connection with what's know as the "ontological argument." What makes the ontological argument an ontological argument isn't that it's positing a "great(est) being." What makes it ontological is that it's geared towards existence qua existence, and more specifically it's an argument about supposedly necessary properties of existence (of a god).

[attofishpi]

u gotta luv skepdicks zero point (of view)

[bahman]

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.

Because according to Aquinas there is no potentiality in God. Why there should not be potentiality in God? Because otherwise, God is not the cause of creation. He is the main cause and nothing else caused Him which means that He is an uncaused cause. Something that is an uncaused cause cannot have any potentiality.

[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.

Because according to Aquinas there is no potentiality in God. Why there should not be potentiality in God? Because otherwise, God is not the cause of creation. He is the main cause and nothing else caused Him which means that He is an uncaused cause. Something that is an uncaused cause cannot have any potentiality.

Where is the reference to Aquinas' point?

Regardless, the principle is,
logically a cause [caused or uncaused] must have the potentiality to generate its effects.

[bahman]

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.

Because according to Aquinas there is no potentiality in God. Why there should not be potentiality in God? Because otherwise, God is not the cause of creation. He is the main cause and nothing else caused Him which means that He is an uncaused cause. Something that is an uncaused cause cannot have any potentiality.

Where is the reference to Aquinas' point?

Regardless, the principle is,
logically a cause [caused or uncaused] must have the potentiality to generate its effects.

https://iep.utm.edu/aq-ph-th/

[Veritas Aequitas]

Because according to Aquinas there is no potentiality in God. Why there should not be potentiality in God? Because otherwise, God is not the cause of creation. He is the main cause and nothing else caused Him which means that He is an uncaused cause. Something that is an uncaused cause cannot have any potentiality.

Where is the reference to Aquinas' point?

Regardless, the principle is,
logically a cause [caused or uncaused] must have the potentiality to generate its effects.

https://iep.utm.edu/aq-ph-th/

It was your rhetoric in bringing up potentiality.
I did not mention 'potentiality' at all.

Noted the theologians and Aquinas held that;
"God is pure act without any potentiality"; since to attribute potentiality to God would be contradictory to his nature.

As I had stated in my earlier post, whatever of God's acts they have to imply and culminate in having the intrinsic nature of omni-whatever, i.e. omnipotence and omnibenevolence in this discussion.

​

[bahman]

Where is the reference to Aquinas' point?

Regardless, the principle is,
logically a cause [caused or uncaused] must have the potentiality to generate its effects.

https://iep.utm.edu/aq-ph-th/

It was your rhetoric in bringing up potentiality.
I did not mention 'potentiality' at all.

Noted the theologians and Aquinas held that;
"God is pure act without any potentiality"; since to attribute potentiality to God would be contradictory to his nature.

As I had stated in my earlier post, whatever of God's acts they have to imply and culminate in having the intrinsic nature of omni-whatever, i.e. omnipotence and omnibenevolence in this discussion.

​

Yes.