Philosophy Now Forum

bahman wrote: I think you are missing the point because you don't want to accept the fact that we can have Gods.

And I think you're quite wrong about that. The idea of "gods" is actually quite incoherent.

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?

It's incoherent, from a Western perspective. You can have your many super-powered aliens, and even, if you want to, refer to them as "gods." But analytically that has nothing at all comparable in it to the Western idea of what "God" is. So essentially, you're offering a critique that covers the Eastern set of assumptions, but says nothing about what would be true if the Western idea of God is in view.

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

Well, I can't remember for you...you have to remember for yourself.

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.

But you didn't answer about whether you imagined that "omnipotent" would include the absurd, illogical and self-contradictory. If I read you correctly, you think it would: I'm saying it most certainly would not.

I see.

How I wish that were so. It would make my job much easier if you really did.

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

Let me find out if I can summarize, then: in your view, a world in which the "humans" were merely robots, incapable of their own free will, would be every bit as good a world, or better, than a world in which God included "humans" that were free to do as they please? Or at least, to respect your wording, you are unable to locate any reason to think that such human "robots" would not be as good or better than having free agents.

Is that correct? Are you saying that?

Immanuel Can wrote:

bahman wrote:
I think you are missing the point because you don't want to accept the fact that we can have Gods.

And I think you're quite wrong about that. The idea of "gods" is actually quite incoherent.

I think the burden is on you to show that the idea of Gods is incoherent if you believe on that. You have not present anything yet.

Immanuel Can wrote:

bahman wrote:
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?

It's incoherent, from a Western perspective. You can have your many super-powered aliens, and even, if you want to, refer to them as "gods." But analytically that has nothing at all comparable in it to the Western idea of what "God" is. So essentially, you're offering a critique that covers the Eastern set of assumptions, but says nothing about what would be true if the Western idea of God is in view.

Why the idea is incoherent?

Immanuel Can wrote:

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

But you didn't answer about whether you imagined that "omnipotent" would include the absurd, illogical and self-contradictory. If I read you correctly, you think it would: I'm saying it most certainly would not.

Again, you are claiming many things "absurd, illogical and self-contradictory" without any supports/proofs.

Immanuel Can wrote:

bahman wrote: I have no idea/argument to show that creating a robot is worse that creating a human.

Let me find out if I can summarize, then: in your view, a world in which the "humans" were merely robots, incapable of their own free will, would be every bit as good a world, or better, than a world in which God included "humans" that were free to do as they please? Or at least, to respect your wording, you are unable to locate any reason to think that such human "robots" would not be as good or better than having free agents.

Is that correct? Are you saying that?

Yes, that is what I meant.

bahman wrote:Why the idea is incoherent?

One more time... but this is the last. You can only have one Supreme Being. If you have two, you have less-than-supreme beings. That makes them a sort of super-powered alien, but not supreme. You can postulate the existence of a bunch of super-powered aliens if you like...but that would beg the question of their origin and the limitations of their power relative to each other. Being many, they could not be supreme, and could not be the self-existent first cause of anything. They'd be contingent beings...more powerful than humans, perhaps, but very far from supreme.

So the concept "god" does not even refer to the same concept as "God." The latter refers to Monotheism, to the concept of the existence of a Supreme Being, which is necessarily singular. They're two very different kinds of concepts.

Therefore, the question you're posing isn't coherent in reference to the God of Western thought.

bahman wrote:

Immanuel Can wrote:

bahman wrote: I have no idea/argument to show that creating a robot is worse that creating a human.

Let me find out if I can summarize, then: in your view, a world in which the "humans" were merely robots, incapable of their own free will, would be every bit as good a world, or better, than a world in which God included "humans" that were free to do as they please? Or at least, to respect your wording, you are unable to locate any reason to think that such human "robots" would not be as good or better than having free agents.

Is that correct? Are you saying that?

Yes, that is what I meant.

Then I think you're wrong. And I think most people will also think you're wrong. It would surely be a greater thing to create a universe containing volitional agents rather than mere automatons. The latter is so ordinary that even human beings can already perform it...we make mechanisms and robotic entities all the time. But we've never succeeded in anything like the creation of a volitional agent. Clearly, the latter is a far more complicated and impressive feat...immeasurably so.

bahman wrote:

Dubious wrote:

bahman wrote:
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?

To make the obvious self-evident, what doesn't exist (god) cannot cause the existence of something else (gods) in this case. If you can't understand the simple meaning of nothing becomes of nothing in the context of why God didn't create Gods why are you even writing on philosophy forums! Notice this is NOT a question but merely an exclamation of surprise.

Immanuel Can wrote: One more time... but this is the last. You can only have one Supreme Being. If you have two, you have less-than-supreme beings. That makes them a sort of super-powered alien, but not supreme. You can postulate the existence of a bunch of super-powered aliens if you like...but that would beg the question of their origin and the limitations of their power relative to each other. Being many, they could not be supreme, and could not be the self-existent first cause of anything. They'd be contingent beings...more powerful than humans, perhaps, but very far from supreme.

I am sorry but you are not offering anything new.

Immanuel Can wrote: So the concept "god" does not even refer to the same concept as "God." The latter refers to Monotheism, to the concept of the existence of a Supreme Being, which is necessarily singular. They're two very different kinds of concepts.

Again, that can be accepted as a definition of God. You need to provide an argument which shows that the act of creation of another God is logically impossible.

Immanuel Can wrote: Then I think you're wrong. And I think most people will also think you're wrong. It would surely be a greater thing to create a universe containing volitional agents rather than mere automatons. The latter is so ordinary that even human beings can already perform it...we make mechanisms and robotic entities all the time. But we've never succeeded in anything like the creation of a volitional agent. Clearly, the latter is a far more complicated and impressive feat...immeasurably so.

Well, think of complicated robot (creation) which can build simple robots as human produce. So your argument fails. Moreover, robots never perform sin and human does.

Dubious wrote:

bahman wrote:

Dubious wrote: 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?

To make the obvious self-evident, what doesn't exist (god) cannot cause the existence of something else (gods) in this case. If you can't understand the simple meaning of nothing becomes of nothing in the context of why God didn't create Gods why are you even writing on philosophy forums! Notice this is NOT a question but merely an exclamation of surprise.

Thank you for elaboration. English is not my first language so sometimes I have difficulty in understanding people.

bahman wrote:You need to provide an argument which shows that the act of creation of another God is logically impossible.

I did. Repeatedly. But for some reason you're not getting it. So I'll pass now.

Immanuel Can wrote: Well, think of complicated robot (creation) which can build simple robots as human produce. So your argument fails.

Actually, this merely proves my point: that even something like a robot could create a robot shows how simple an activity it is. But please do tell...when have you every heard of anything -- robot or human-- being able to create a being with its own will? So IF God could do that, it's quite clear that that would be a far greater act.

I hate to tell you that if you're right about the robots, it's your argument that you've caused to fail.

Moreover, robots never perform sin and human does.

That is true. But neither does a lump of rock "sin," and we don't think it wonderful for all that. Meanwhile, creating a human being is clearly a far greater deed than creating a rock -- or a robot.

Immanuel Can wrote:... a world in which the "humans" were merely robots, incapable of their own free will, would be every bit as good a world, or better, than a world in which God included "humans" that were free to do as they please?

God seems to be putting all these restrictions on the humans, and not on the robots. They can't sin. Sounds like they're the free ones to me.

Immanuel Can wrote:

bahman wrote: You need to provide an argument which shows that the act of creation of another God is logically impossible.

I did. Repeatedly. But for some reason you're not getting it. So I'll pass now.

All you claimed was that God is by definition is supreme. That is not an argument.

bahman wrote: Thank you for elaboration. English is not my first language so sometimes I have difficulty in understanding people.

My apologies! I wasn't aware of this and will in future, adjust my response to your posts accordingly.

Peace

bahman wrote:

Immanuel Can wrote:

bahman wrote:
I think you are missing the point because you don't want to accept the fact that we can have Gods.

And I think you're quite wrong about that. The idea of "gods" is actually quite incoherent.

I think the burden is on you to show that the idea of Gods is incoherent if you believe on that. You have not present anything yet.

Immanuel Can wrote:

bahman wrote:
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?

It's incoherent, from a Western perspective. You can have your many super-powered aliens, and even, if you want to, refer to them as "gods." But analytically that has nothing at all comparable in it to the Western idea of what "God" is. So essentially, you're offering a critique that covers the Eastern set of assumptions, but says nothing about what would be true if the Western idea of God is in view.

Why the idea is incoherent?

Immanuel Can wrote:

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

But you didn't answer about whether you imagined that "omnipotent" would include the absurd, illogical and self-contradictory. If I read you correctly, you think it would: I'm saying it most certainly would not.

Again, you are claiming many things "absurd, illogical and self-contradictory" without any supports/proofs.

Immanuel Can wrote:

bahman wrote: I have no idea/argument to show that creating a robot is worse that creating a human.

Let me find out if I can summarize, then: in your view, a world in which the "humans" were merely robots, incapable of their own free will, would be every bit as good a world, or better, than a world in which God included "humans" that were free to do as they please? Or at least, to respect your wording, you are unable to locate any reason to think that such human "robots" would not be as good or better than having free agents.

Is that correct? Are you saying that?

Yes, that is what I meant.

If God exists then it is logically and metaphysically possible he could have created a world with only autonomous beings like ourselves. In other words, a world of philosophical zombies that lack consciousness. But he didn't, instead he endowed us with something extra that we recognize as consciousness. This is pretty much an argument for dualism, the idea being that mind and body are different substances that somehow interact.

Noax wrote:They can't sin. Sounds like they're the free ones to me.

You're not wrong, in a sense. Sin always sounds like an opportunity for freedom, but ends up being a cause of enslavement. That much is certainly true.

bahman wrote:All you claimed was that God is by definition is supreme. That is not an argument.

No, I claimed the concepts of God and gods were incompatible concepts. And that is an argument. But since you can't seem to grasp the idea of analytic approaches to philosophy as real arguments, I am forced to give up. The argument will have to be had with someone else.

Ginkgo wrote:If God exists then it is logically and metaphysically possible he could have created a world with only autonomous beings like ourselves. In other words, a world of philosophical zombies that lack consciousness.

Umm...I wonder if you're misunderstanding what "autonomous" means. It's a synonym for "free," not "zombie." Maybe you're confusing it with the word "automaton." Is that possible?

But he didn't, instead he endowed us with something extra that we recognize as consciousness. This is pretty much an argument for dualism, the idea being that mind and body are different substances that somehow interact.

Yes it is.

bahman wrote:

Reflex wrote:

bahman wrote:
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?

Stated another way, the question is why didn't God create gods. "He" did, so the question is based on a false assumption from the get-go. There is "God" and there are "gods." Second, God's omnipotence does not imply omnificence: God is not the personal doer of everything that is done.