Philosophy Now Forum

Immanuel Can wrote:

bahman wrote: So you want to say that God is not omnipotent. Or maybe arguing that the act of creation of other God is logically impossible. You need to provide an argument to justify that.

"Omnipotent" has to be carefully defined. Does is mean, for example, that God can do rationally-self-contradictory things, or that He can sin? I would say no. I would say that was a very naive and unnuanced definition of what it means to be "able" to do things. For surely the ability to do is enhanced, not diminished, by the ability to act consistently with one's own character and nature, rather than to be swayed by outside things or to participate in rational absurdities.

I agree that omnipotent should be defined carefully. I however don't know how creating a God is self-contradictory. To me imperfect creation is self-contrary considering that God is perfect and Its act should be perfect too. To me God should avoid imperfect creation who It didn't which this is self-contrary so either God is a lesser god or there is not God or there is something else wrong.

Immanuel Can wrote:

bahman wrote: We can accept the following definition for God: God is a being who is omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent. Simply a being who is not supreme being. Of course God is not supreme after creating other Gods.

That triad of labels is a best human attempt to speak of the character of the Supreme Being. But these words do not appear in Torah or in the New Testament anywhere, so we would have to be precise about what is intended when we try to apply them. We might be glossing over a great deal.

We are discussing philosophy here. I don't know that what what is written in Torah and New Testament has to do with our discussion.

Immanuel Can wrote:

bahman wrote: That is not correct.

Show why. Given the implication of "supreme," how can there be two "supreme" beings at the same time?

This is what you said: " It's a contradiction in terms, an absurdity in logic, and an impossibility in practice -- and you can't get more self-contradictory than that." so I think the burden is on you to prove your claims.

Immanuel Can wrote:

bahman wrote: A lesser being cannot be perfect since It cannot perform perfect act because It is not omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent.

You'd better explain what you mean by "perfect act." What is the "perfect" there? Please give me the exact definition you wish to advocate.

Perfect means as good as it is possible to be. Moreover we know that human being is not perfect so God's creation is not perfect regardless of your suggestion that God can create a lesser perfect being. We are simply not a lesser perfect beings.

Terrapin Station wrote: bahman, what are your religious views, exactly? Just curious, since it seems that every thread you start has some connection to philosophy of religion. (Even your phil of mind threads I always suspect are motivated by their relation to phil of religion.)

I believe in God, spiritual world and the life after death.I have extensive spiritual experiences and that is the main reason for my belief. I am constantly seeking the truth since to my opinion I haven't yet understood the truth. To me the journey of seeking the truth is a never ending process. The aim is to become a complete being by practicing all aspects of human beings which to me is never exhaustive process/practice.

bahman wrote: I agree that omnipotent should be defined carefully.

So far so good...

I however don't know how creating a God is self-contradictory.

Oh. That's easy.

Merriam-Webster:


adjective | su·preme |\sə-ˈprēm, sü-\

1. highest in rank or authority

2 . highest in degree or quality : greatest or highest possible

By definition, you cannot have two "supremes." The Supreme Being would necessarily be only one.

bahman wrote: We are discussing philosophy here. I don't know that what what is written in Torah and New Testament has to do with our discussion.

I'm speaking of the Western view of God, which is shaped by Torah and by the New Testament (and for Muslims, by the Koran which they allege to derive from the same sources).

If you talk about the Eastern view, or Panentheist view, or Gnostic view, then very different suppositions apply. So which do you want to talk about: the Western or Eastern view of what a "God" is?

bahman wrote: This is what you said: " It's a contradiction in terms, an absurdity in logic, and an impossibility in practice -- and you can't get more self-contradictory than that." so I think the burden is on you to prove your claims.

See the dictionary definition, as above.

Immanuel Can wrote:

bahman wrote: A lesser being cannot be perfect since It cannot perform perfect act because It is not omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent.

You'd better explain what you mean by "perfect act." What is the "perfect" there? Please give me the exact definition you wish to advocate.

Perfect means as good as it is possible to be.

Sorry; but this is not adequate to clear up the confusion. You need to explain whether you mean absolute, essential perfection, which one can only predicate of God, or perfection relative to a thing's particular form and function, which you can predicate of anything that is a "good" example of its type. Which one concerns you here?

Moreover we know that human being is not perfect so God's creation is not perfect regardless of your suggestion that God can create a lesser perfect being. We are simply not a lesser perfect beings.

Well, let me ask you this: is it more "perfect" to create a being that has no will of its own, or to create one that has such potential? Which would be the "higher" act of creation, in your view?

bahman wrote:

Terrapin Station wrote: bahman, what are your religious views, exactly? Just curious, since it seems that every thread you start has some connection to philosophy of religion. (Even your phil of mind threads I always suspect are motivated by their relation to phil of religion.)

I believe in God, spiritual world and the life after death.I have extensive spiritual experiences and that is the main reason for my belief. I am constantly seeking the truth since to my opinion I haven't yet understood the truth. To me the journey of seeking the truth is a never ending process. The aim is to become a complete being by practicing all aspects of human beings which to me is never exhaustive process/practice.

Thanks for the straightforward answer. That gives me better context for your threads. I don't know how this isn't going to sound arrogant (haha), but it's honest: I don't feel like I'm searching for truth typically. I usually feel that I know what's the deal at this point.

Immanuel Can wrote:

bahman wrote:
I however don't know how creating a God is self-contradictory.

Oh. That's easy.

Merriam-Webster:


adjective | su·preme |\sə-ˈprēm, sü-\

1. highest in rank or authority

2 . highest in degree or quality : greatest or highest possible


By definition, you cannot have two "supremes." The Supreme Being would necessarily be only one.

As I mentioned before you cannot resolve the issue by defining God as supreme being. I stress again, you need to provide an argument to show that the act of creating another God is logically impossible.

Immanuel Can wrote:

bahman wrote:
We are discussing philosophy here. I don't know that what what is written in Torah and New Testament has to do with our discussion.

I'm speaking of the Western view of God, which is shaped by Torah and by the New Testament (and for Muslims, by the Koran which they allege to derive from the same sources). If you talk about the Eastern view, or Panentheist view, or Gnostic view, then very different suppositions apply. So which do you want to talk about: the Western or Eastern view of what a "God" is?

I don't agree. I think we need to agree with a good definition of God. I can define God as omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent being. Do you agree with that?

Immanuel Can wrote:

bahman wrote:
This is what you said: " It's a contradiction in terms, an absurdity in logic, and an impossibility in practice -- and you can't get more self-contradictory than that." so I think the burden is on you to prove your claims.

See the dictionary definition, as above.

That is not a fair answer. Seek a dictionary for what word?

Immanuel Can wrote:

bahman wrote:
Perfect means as good as it is possible to be.

Sorry; but this is not adequate to clear up the confusion. You need to explain whether you mean absolute, essential perfection, which one can only predicate of God, or perfection relative to a thing's particular form and function, which you can predicate of anything that is a "good" example of its type. Which one concerns you here?

I mean absolute as essential perfection.

Immanuel Can wrote:

bahman wrote:
Moreover we know that human being is not perfect so God's creation is not perfect regardless of your suggestion that God can create a lesser perfect being. We are simply not a lesser perfect beings.

Well, let me ask you this: is it more "perfect" to create a being that has no will of its own, or to create one that has such potential? Which would be the "higher" act of creation, in your view?

Of course God has a will and act of creation of a God is absolutely better than creating a human being unless you can argue otherwise.

bahman wrote:

OuterLimits wrote: What does "perfect" mean here?

Perfect means as good as it is possible to be.

OuterLimits wrote: If God creates something, what substance does God create it out of? Itself or something else?

In religious context, it is believed that we are created of matter and soul which both are created by God.

OuterLimits wrote: Does God create the idea in God's own mind that it would be worthwhile to create something or does that idea come from elsewhere?

All ideas are in mind of God.

Perfect <=> Good, but what does that mean?

Matter and soul - where did those come from? Did God create them?

If All ideas are in the mind of God, why does God only do certain things at certain times?

bahman wrote:As I mentioned before you cannot resolve the issue by defining God as supreme being.

You're missing the point. I'm not trying to prove that God exists, at the moment: I'm merely trying to show you what would be entailed in the statement "God exists." Priority one would be to say what one meant by "God." And if one answered, "The Supreme Being," as the Western tradition does, then certain other premises would flow logically from that.

Immanuel Can wrote: So which do you want to talk about: the Western or Eastern view of what a "God" is?

I don't agree.

That's a nonsensical response. You can't "not agree" with anything there. I've asked you a question, not offered a conclusion.

I think we need to agree with a good definition of God.

That's what I'm asking you for: what is your "good definition of God," as you see it?

I can define God as omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent being. Do you agree with that?

It depends. What do you mean by those terms? In particular, what do you think "omnipotent" would entail?

bahman wrote:

Immanuel Can wrote: See the dictionary definition, as above.

That is not a fair answer. Seek a dictionary for what word?

I said "see," not "seek," and look "above," in the last message. The blue text is directly from Webster's Dictionary. And the word was "supreme."

Here it is again:
.Merriam-Webster:


adjective | su·preme |\sə-ˈprēm, sü-\ preem.

1. highest in rank or authority

2 . highest in degree or quality : greatest or highest possible

Immanuel Can wrote:

bahman wrote:
Perfect means as good as it is possible to be.

Sorry; but this is not adequate to clear up the confusion. You need to explain whether you mean absolute, essential perfection, which one can only predicate of God, or perfection relative to a thing's particular form and function, which you can predicate of anything that is a "good" example of its type. Which one concerns you here?

I mean absolute as essential perfection.

But if that's the case, then it is not "imperfect" of God to create things that are merely "perfect" in the second sense. There's no evidence that God has a duty to create other things that are "absolute and essentially perfect" in the way that He is. However, the Torah says that when God made creation, "He saw that it was good." That doesn't mean "He saw that it was another god." It just means, "Good for the purpose God created it," that is, "good" in the second sense I outlined.

From a Western perspective, God has neither obligation, nor analytically, even the possibility of creating a being as great or "good" as Himself.

bahman wrote:

Immanuel Can wrote: Well, let me ask you this: is it more "perfect" to create a being that has no will of its own, or to create one that has such potential? Which would be the "higher" act of creation, in your view?

Of course God has a will and act of creation of a God is absolutely better than creating a human being unless you can argue otherwise.

Whaaaaat? I'm sorry: I really have no clue what you just said. It looks to me totally unrelated to my question.

I'll make is simpler: I just asked you if it was better to create a robot or a free-will-possessing being. Maybe try answering just that, and I then perhaps I can advance the conversation.

...because nothing will become of Nothing!

bahman wrote:

Reflex wrote: "Many of the theologic difficulties and the metaphysical dilemmas of mortal man are due to man’s mislocation of Deity personality and consequent assignment of infinite and absolute attributes to subordinate Divinity and to evolutionary Deity. You must not forget that, while there is indeed a true First Cause, there are also a host of co-ordinate and subordinate causes, both associate and secondary causes.

"The vital distinction between first causes and second causes is that first causes produce original effects which are free from inheritance of any factor derived from any antecedent causation. Secondary causes yield effects which invariably exhibit inheritance from other and preceding causation." (UB, 118:4.1-2)

I have no idea how what you said is related to the topic.

Didn't think you would understand a direct answer to your question.

OuterLimits wrote: Perfect <=> Good, but what does that mean?

What do you mean with "Perfect <=> Good"?

OuterLimits wrote: Matter and soul - where did those come from? Did God create them?

Apparently God created them.

OuterLimits wrote: If All ideas are in the mind of God, why does God only do certain things at certain times?

I don't think that we have a good idea of what God does.

Immanuel Can wrote:

bahman wrote: As I mentioned before you cannot resolve the issue by defining God as supreme being.

You're missing the point. I'm not trying to prove that God exists, at the moment: I'm merely trying to show you what would be entailed in the statement "God exists." Priority one would be to say what one meant by "God." And if one answered, "The Supreme Being," as the Western tradition does, then certain other premises would flow logically from that.

I think you are missing the point because you don't want to accept the fact that we can have Gods. You are trying to say that God by definition is supreme being so we cannot have many Gods. I am saying that lets forget the concept of supreme once other Gods are created. What is wrong with that?

Immanuel Can wrote:

bahman wrote: I don't agree.

That's a nonsensical response. You can't "not agree" with anything there. I've asked you a question, not offered a conclusion.

I am sorry I forgot why I said that I don't agree.

Immanuel Can wrote:

bahman wrote: I think we need to agree with a good definition of God.

That's what I'm asking you for: what is your "good definition of God," as you see it?

I gave the definition of God.

Immanuel Can wrote:

bahman wrote: I can define God as omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent being. Do you agree with that?

It depends. What do you mean by those terms? In particular, what do you think "omnipotent" would entail?

Omnipotent means that God can perform any act. Omniscient means that God knows everything. Omnipresent means that God is present everywhere.

Immanuel Can wrote:

bahman wrote: That is not a fair answer. Seek a dictionary for what word?

I said "see," not "seek," and look "above," in the last message. The blue text is directly from Webster's Dictionary. And the word was "supreme."

I see.

Immanuel Can wrote:

bahman wrote: I mean absolute as essential perfection.

But if that's the case, then it is not "imperfect" of God to create things that are merely "perfect" in the second sense. There's no evidence that God has a duty to create other things that are "absolute and essentially perfect" in the way that He is. However, the Torah says that when God made creation, "He saw that it was good." That doesn't mean "He saw that it was another god." It just means, "Good for the purpose God created it," that is, "good" in the second sense I outlined. From a Western perspective, God has neither obligation, nor analytically, even the possibility of creating a being as great or "good" as Himself.

I think perfection entails both being and act perfect.

Immanuel Can wrote:

bahman wrote: Of course God has a will and act of creation of a God is absolutely better than creating a human being unless you can argue otherwise.

Whaaaaat? I'm sorry: I really have no clue what you just said. It looks to me totally unrelated to my question.

I'll make is simpler: I just asked you if it was better to create a robot or a free-will-possessing being. Maybe try answering just that, and I then perhaps I can advance the conversation.

I have no idea/argument to show that creating a robot is worse that creating a human. Do you have?

Dubious wrote: ...because nothing will become of Nothing!

I have no idea what you are talking about.

Reflex wrote:

bahman wrote:

Reflex wrote: "Many of the theologic difficulties and the metaphysical dilemmas of mortal man are due to man’s mislocation of Deity personality and consequent assignment of infinite and absolute attributes to subordinate Divinity and to evolutionary Deity. You must not forget that, while there is indeed a true First Cause, there are also a host of co-ordinate and subordinate causes, both associate and secondary causes.

"The vital distinction between first causes and second causes is that first causes produce original effects which are free from inheritance of any factor derived from any antecedent causation. Secondary causes yield effects which invariably exhibit inheritance from other and preceding causation." (UB, 118:4.1-2)

I have no idea how what you said is related to the topic.

Didn't think you would understand a direct answer to your question.

I don't understand how your post is related to the topic of this thread. Could you please elaborate?

bahman wrote:

Dubious wrote: ...because nothing will become of Nothing!

I have no idea what you are talking about.

Not unexpected since the gray matter in your brain must have gone through a circumcision ritual. I'm depending on you not to know what this means.

Dubious wrote:

bahman wrote:

Dubious wrote: ...because nothing will become of Nothing!

I have no idea what you are talking about.

Not unexpected since the gray matter in your brain must have gone through a circumcision ritual. I'm depending on you not to know what this means.

Why not elaborate what do you mean?