|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Jun 11, 2022 12:45:18 GMT
If God is more powerful, than anything else, then there is no x such that x is more powerful, than God.
But, what if x1, x2, ..., xn as a conglomerate or just a group coincidence factors E is more powerful, than God, can it be? Well, I guess it isn't impossible. If that group E: x1, x2, ..., xn works or cooperates, while among them there are no such xi such that xi is more powerful, than God, it doesn't seem to be a contradiction.
However, there have to be another condition or rule that must be accomplishing - there must be nobody who is able to control that group of factors to control God. So, none of mortals or angels cannot be more powerful, than God if they use those factors.
If God isn't omnipotent, then it's not impossible to assume there is evil. Let's say that group of factors E is indeed something, that makes people feel pain or being suffered? God isn't such a powerful enough to destroy that group of factors E, and that group of factors cannot do anything to control God. It's just a spare factor that is a necessary element for a world.
To be enough powerful or to be more powerful, than anyone else - this is a strong argument. If there are no x such as x is more powerful, than God, than God is God, because God is still more powerful, than anyone else.
|
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Jun 30, 2022 21:19:09 GMT
For me, God [ or X] is omnipotent if he/it can change other things, if they exist, and HIMSELF. If he can change himself, he can make himself less powerful: God can make himself a non-god. But if God does not have parts [is not divisible] which can be damaged or removed, he cannot change himself. So, omnipotence presupposes ontological divisibility, which means that change is impossible for a SIMPLE being, regardless of what a person may want to do. The alleged nature of a divine being [simplicity] precludes self-change. Therefore God cannot be said to be omnipotent. Divisible [physical] beings can have only a finite power. // Of course, any person's activity implies a change in oneself. So, if by necessity [the Greek Moira], God's nature is simple, he cannot become a creator, ruler of the physical world, etc. Thus, for an understanding of the universe, we do not need the notion of God at all. [As the Renaissance philosopher, Telesio, put it, the philosophers speak of things according to their own principles, secundum propria principia -- rather than by means of external forces/powers. Slightly later on, the philosophers of nature were called scientists.] Thank you for your detailed reply! I agree about each of counterargument or thesis about that phaenomena of omnipotience. Above I've already answered another participant about some underneath rocks of using the generalization or absolutization. But I forgot to add that Hegel was among the others philosophers who knew that and that's why he warned about it to use parts, instead of to grab the central notion with bare hands, one has to carefully step to it closer a little closer from the different angles... Can't say I agree with you about the parts. The truth is, we don't know what God looks like or His nature. If it was true, many things could be explained, but most of religions, mostly Islam, are against to be certain about of His very nature. Yes, there are countless discussions of the nature of the Holy Trinity, but can't say that I know this so good, and all what I know is that such discussions are not about the nature of Him, but his Personality, or Individuality, or Who is He, rather than What is He? Nevertheless, I agree with about the simplicity of God with one major exception: the simplicity (and the difficulty, the hardness, the complexness, etc) are not so simple terms/notions, and considering this it's better to create a good conceptual explanation to these terms before using it in any further discussions. |
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Jun 30, 2022 22:42:47 GMT
You are ignoring: "If God is free will and we exist as extensions of God then our actions are an extension of God's actions thus we are manifesting free will." Only if your decisions don't bear consequences Consequences are what allow free will to exist considering a series of actions must occur as effects if the will is to manifest any forms at all. Freedom requires form to follow from it otherwise no action would occur. |
|
|
|
Post by MAYA-EL on Jul 1, 2022 6:18:59 GMT
Only if your decisions don't bear consequences Consequences are what allow free will to exist considering a series of actions must occur as effects if the will is to manifest any forms at all. Freedom requires form to follow from it otherwise no action would occur. No you're assuming that Free Will in fact exists But because consequence exists this means that either there are certain people that exist with free will and then others that exist without free will or that Free Will is just a concept and doesn't actually exist . |
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Jul 7, 2022 20:24:43 GMT
Consequences are what allow free will to exist considering a series of actions must occur as effects if the will is to manifest any forms at all. Freedom requires form to follow from it otherwise no action would occur. No you're assuming that Free Will in fact exists But because consequence exists this means that either there are certain people that exist with free will and then others that exist without free will or that Free Will is just a concept and doesn't actually exist . 1. If everything is determined, and this determination is a concept given that only concepts point to relations and determinism is the observation of relationships, then the concept of free will is determined (given we are speaking about it) through the concept of determinism. 2. Free will still exists as free will, even if free will is only a concept, given the evolution of patterns through determinism results in the concept of free will existing thus free will exists. In other terms determinism results in concepts and concepts are real as they are the extensions of the beings through which they exist; the effect is an extension of the cause and as an extension is as real as the concept itself. 3. You are assuming determinism exists as well given it is a concept, based around relations, and as a concept is not real according to your stance on concepts. |
|
|
|
Post by MAYA-EL on Jul 8, 2022 2:50:12 GMT
No you're assuming that Free Will in fact exists But because consequence exists this means that either there are certain people that exist with free will and then others that exist without free will or that Free Will is just a concept and doesn't actually exist . 1. If everything is determined, and this determination is a concept given that only concepts point to relations and determinism is the observation of relationships, then the concept of free will is determined (given we are speaking about it) through the concept of determinism. 2. Free will still exists as free will, even if free will is only a concept, given the evolution of patterns through determinism results in the concept of free will existing thus free will exists. In other terms determinism results in concepts and concepts are real as they are the extensions of the beings through which they exist; the effect is an extension of the cause and as an extension is as real as the concept itself. 3. You are assuming determinism exists as well given it is a concept, based around relations, and as a concept is not real according to your stance on concepts. Everything isn't determined and I'm not anchoring my opinion off of the concept called determinism that you claim me to be doing Let's say that an extension is just as real as a concept, so? That means nothing outside of that It doesn't somehow make both of them suddenly unfold into the real world and somehow magically have more validity. A concept will never have more value then a real thing Example Let's say your trapped on a Island with no food and your starving to death There are 2 things 1 actually exists while the other is just an idea/concept and they are #1 Real food that you can actually eat which is more valuable and important then #2 the concept/idea of swimming in a pool of spaghetti Because one keeps us from dieing while the other one doesn't even slow death down |
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Aug 4, 2022 22:53:28 GMT
1. If everything is determined, and this determination is a concept given that only concepts point to relations and determinism is the observation of relationships, then the concept of free will is determined (given we are speaking about it) through the concept of determinism. 2. Free will still exists as free will, even if free will is only a concept, given the evolution of patterns through determinism results in the concept of free will existing thus free will exists. In other terms determinism results in concepts and concepts are real as they are the extensions of the beings through which they exist; the effect is an extension of the cause and as an extension is as real as the concept itself. 3. You are assuming determinism exists as well given it is a concept, based around relations, and as a concept is not real according to your stance on concepts. Everything isn't determined and I'm not anchoring my opinion off of the concept called determinism that you claim me to be doing Let's say that an extension is just as real as a concept, so? That means nothing outside of that It doesn't somehow make both of them suddenly unfold into the real world and somehow magically have more validity. A concept will never have more value then a real thing Example Let's say your trapped on a Island with no food and your starving to death There are 2 things 1 actually exists while the other is just an idea/concept and they are #1 Real food that you can actually eat which is more valuable and important then #2 the concept/idea of swimming in a pool of spaghetti Because one keeps us from dieing while the other one doesn't even slow death down 1. The concept as inseparable from the thing has the same value as the thing because of this inseparability. Take for example a skyscraper. Concrete is valuable for it. The schematics are valuable for it. Take one away an the skyscraper does not exist. 2. The knowledge of what is edible and what is not, which in turn are concepts, is inseparable from the physical need for food as these concepts direct it. 3. The absence of a complete determinism leaves a void reality called free will. This free will shares some qualities with randomness. |
|
|
|
Post by MAYA-EL on Aug 5, 2022 4:08:32 GMT
Everything isn't determined and I'm not anchoring my opinion off of the concept called determinism that you claim me to be doing Let's say that an extension is just as real as a concept, so? That means nothing outside of that It doesn't somehow make both of them suddenly unfold into the real world and somehow magically have more validity. A concept will never have more value then a real thing Example Let's say your trapped on a Island with no food and your starving to death There are 2 things 1 actually exists while the other is just an idea/concept and they are #1 Real food that you can actually eat which is more valuable and important then #2 the concept/idea of swimming in a pool of spaghetti Because one keeps us from dieing while the other one doesn't even slow death down 1. The concept as inseparable from the thing has the same value as the thing because of this inseparability. Take for example a skyscraper. Concrete is valuable for it. The schematics are valuable for it. Take one away an the skyscraper does not exist. 2. The knowledge of what is edible and what is not, which in turn are concepts, is inseparable from the physical need for food as these concepts direct it. 3. The absence of a complete determinism leaves a void reality called free will. This free will shares some qualities with randomness. Umm no Free part in free will is something that people (often times religious people) don't understand what free means and they confuse it with the ability to make choices And I'm sorry but the 2 are not the same thing |
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Aug 11, 2022 21:11:13 GMT
1. The concept as inseparable from the thing has the same value as the thing because of this inseparability. Take for example a skyscraper. Concrete is valuable for it. The schematics are valuable for it. Take one away an the skyscraper does not exist. 2. The knowledge of what is edible and what is not, which in turn are concepts, is inseparable from the physical need for food as these concepts direct it. 3. The absence of a complete determinism leaves a void reality called free will. This free will shares some qualities with randomness. Umm no Free part in free will is something that people (often times religious people) don't understand what free means and they confuse it with the ability to make choices And I'm sorry but the 2 are not the same thing Choice necessitates free will as choice is the option between two or more phenomena. This "option" necessitates a randomness in what path a series of actions is going to take. Free will and randomness are synonymous. |
|
|
|
Post by MAYA-EL on Aug 12, 2022 16:54:26 GMT
Umm no Free part in free will is something that people (often times religious people) don't understand what free means and they confuse it with the ability to make choices And I'm sorry but the 2 are not the same thing Choice necessitates free will as choice is the option between two or more phenomena. This "option" necessitates a randomness in what path a series of actions is going to take. Free will and randomness are synonymous. No choice does not necessitate free will it just necessitates more then one option |
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Sept 1, 2022 23:31:39 GMT
Choice necessitates free will as choice is the option between two or more phenomena. This "option" necessitates a randomness in what path a series of actions is going to take. Free will and randomness are synonymous. No choice does not necessitate free will it just necessitates more then one option And more then one option necessitates a freedom to pick. |
|
|
|
Post by IM LITERALLY NEO on Sept 2, 2022 0:07:29 GMT
No choice does not necessitate free will it just necessitates more then one option And more then one option necessitates a freedom to pick. |
|
|
|
Post by MAYA-EL on Sept 2, 2022 16:15:45 GMT
No choice does not necessitate free will it just necessitates more then one option And more then one option necessitates a freedom to pick. Exactly that's called the ability to make a multiple choice decision which is not the same as free will. |
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Sept 2, 2022 16:50:01 GMT
And more then one option necessitates a freedom to pick. Exactly that's called the ability to make a multiple choice decision which is not the same as free will. It is free will as there are no rules as to what is picked. |
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Sept 2, 2022 16:53:01 GMT
And more then one option necessitates a freedom to pick. Illusions deceive and as deceiving necessitate free will as a choice between truth and non-truth; one cannot be deceived unless they had a choice. If everything was determined then the phenomenon of free will was also determined, as this phenomenon (free will) is pointed to when discussed. The act of pointing too necessitates it as real. |
|
|
|
Post by IM LITERALLY NEO on Sept 2, 2022 17:09:57 GMT
No, Having More Than One Option Can Also Be The Illusion Of Freedom To Pick, Because Ultimately You Cannot Change The Main Protagonist In The Same Way You Cannot Change The Main Antagonist. Illusions deceive and as deceiving necessitate free will as a choice between truth and non-truth; one cannot be deceived unless they had a choice. If everything was determined then the phenomenon of free will was also determined, as this phenomenon (free will) is pointed to when discussed. The act of pointing too necessitates it as real. |
|
