God is considered both perfect and omnipotent i.e., able to do anything.

God is considered both perfect and omnipotent i.e., able to do anything. When a being performs an action, its state changes. A being that changes must do so in one of three ways:

1. It changes to a better state. A perfect being can't become any better, by definition.
2. It changes to a worse state. A perfect being can't become worse, because that would imply there was something corruptible and therefore imperfect within it.
3. It changes to a state no better or worse than before. A perfect being cannot change to a state just as good as before, because there's definitionally no state as good as perfection.

Therefore, if God is perfect, not only must he not be omnipotent, he must actually be unable to do anything at all.

A Conspiracy Theorist Is Talking Shirt $21.68

The Kind of Tired That Sleep Won’t Fix Shirt $21.68

A Conspiracy Theorist Is Talking Shirt $21.68

  1. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    Yeah man you nailed it
    Although you forgot the omnipotent part means he can literally do anything

    Why are you making this boring bait thread? Don’t you have something more intellectually liberating to do, besides constantly talk about religion? You’re such a dogmatist

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      I'm glad insufferable neckbeards like OP constantly pester you gays. Nobody on this board spoke of their personal belief or lack thereof before some tradcath discord decided to raid this place 3 years ago and slide every single thread that actually has anything to do with the board's subject matter. It's entirely the fault of all you LARPers that we have people like OP here at all. At first I was just as annoyed with atheists for posting here. Now I realize they're your punishment for hijacking this board. Delicious.

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        The atheist tears are delicious, keep it coming!

        • 6 months ago
          Anonymous

          I'm not atheist though. I just want to talk about history but you gays instead on arguing about off topic bullshit.

  2. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    BOOBA

  3. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    God is the thing that manifests/animates the forms from the immaterial realm into the material realm. He didn't create the immaterial forms and he can't destroy them or create new ones but there's no consciousness/will higher than his because the immaterial world of forms is just the infinite potentialities of the void that preceded God. God is only omniscient in the sense that he knows all the possible forms, and he's only omnipotent in the sense that he has unlimited ability to materially manifest and animate the forms. God has a character/personality that exists independently of any forms that he's animating and his personality can best be described as, "cruel", "sadistic", "domineering", "controlling", "petty", "insecure", "prideful", "hysterical", "deceitful", "intrusive", "entitled", etc God often comes off stupid and lacking in basic understanding/common sense in his personal behavior but he obviously possesses some kind of "divine intellect", this "divine intellect" sometimes seems separate from his personality, like it's something that he has to tap into or activate but that isn't a constant part of his "pure conscious personality". God somehow has the ability to separate pieces of his consciousness from himself and give them limited free will (they're only separate from their perspective but God can still access their mind) and he uses these separated limited free will beings as the frame of reference for material reality, only animating the things that they interact with. I believe he animates/controls everything else in reality except the frame of reference as a hivemind, their minds/consciousnesses aren't separate from his or each others in any sense, and I suspect he only has one "frame of reference" with a semi-separate consciousness at a time.

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      A large part of God's motivations for animating/manifesting forms into the material realm is to define himself in opposition to his "frame of reference", despite the frame of reference being the only thing that's persistently animated God mostly self-identifies with the other people he animates, and he mostly animates other people to abuse and dominate the "frame of reference" through these other, temporarily animated/manifested people. God wants to be able to self-identify as "a king" or "the boss" so he forces his frame of reference to live and self-identify as "a peasant", "a tenant", "worker", "farm equipment", etc and he self-identifies with the people he animates/manifests to dominate and abuse the frame of reference through.

  4. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    What is the difference, if any, between God and Plato's form of the Good, or Plotinus' the One?

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      Traditional Abrahamic understandings of Yahweh have him as a person with wants, a will, thoughts, feelings, etc. He needs to drink blood to survive, he demands genital mutilation and human sacrifice of gentile infants, he doesn't like pork, so on and so forth. He's only really necessary to kickstart the universe, after that he just sort of hangs around poking it and doing stuff in it. This is how he's described in the Bible at least, and there have been various attempts at integrating this view into other philosophies and theologies.

      Plato/Plotinus's One/Good meanwhile isn't a person, it just be-s. It cannot do anything but be, as it must be in a manner such that it is be-ing all of being. To put it another way, it can't sit because otherwise it would be not-standing, and there's nothing that it cannot be doing because it has to be all possible being. Thus, it be-s everything possible, which for it is just to be. It doesn't think, it doesn't feel, it doesn't want, it doesn't even do, it just be-es. Because it is so full of being however it emanates being that then becomes lesser entities. These lesser entities then themselves overflow with being, and create lesser entities themselves. Each lower rung on the hierarchy is capable of more nonbeing (which means not-doing more stuff). The traditional model describe by Plato and Plotinus is of a series of wine jugs (although wine glasses also work) stacked in a pyramid: you pour wine into the topmost, and it overlflows and fills each. The bottommost entities are us humans, who are capable of so much nonbeing that we are even capable of not existing. Everything above us is "a God", as described in the traditional religions of Greece, Rome, Egypt, etc. You can only access a God by accessing the Gods below it, and in doing so you access the Gods above them. This is why Platonism is inherently polytheistic as you can never actually interact with just one deity, you're always interacting with several.

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        idk it all sounds pretty monotheistic to me. The great chain of being allows for a divine hierarchy.
        I think Abrahamic monotheism is a national religion that mixed with these ideas from Plato.

        • 6 months ago
          Anonymous

          Actual religious conflict isn't motivated by abstractions like "monotheism", it's motivated by the real and very meaningful mythological disagreements.
          >Do you believe that the world is run by the israeli tribal deity as described in the israeli holy texts
          >or do you believe that it is run by the Olympians as described by Hesiod and Homer
          Plato believed the latter, the rest is just wordgames.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            the king of the israelites

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        This. The ““god”” of the Abr*hamic religions is the demiurge of Neoplatonism. This “god” has more in common with humanity than most people think. He (already abrahamics anthropomorphize God with gender) has feelings, desires, regrets, likes and dislikes, etc. He has arbitrary batshit opinions on things and is generally about as petty and crude as any pagan god.
        Most importantly, this so-called “god” is a being among beings, a composite, complex entity that is “within” existence rather than being Existence Itself.
        Plato, Plotinus, and Parmenides knew these “gods” could not be the ultimate reality, Plotinus shows us that the Absolute Reality must be simple, uncomposite, immutable, and all-pervading. The “God of the philosophers” is the one true God, it is Being Itself, rather than being another object on the screen, it the screen on which all scenes appear. It has no desires, for desires imply deficiency. No emotions, for it is unchanging. This is the logical conclusion of the teaching of divine simplicity. It is not exclusive to the Greek or western european traditions either. Philosophers like Shankara, Nagarjuna, Chandrakirti, Dignaga, etc. all recognized this truth and wrote about it.

  5. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    The more contradictions you discover, the more "mystery" you encounter! How poetic!

    Religion sure is cool!

  6. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    >When a being performs an action, its state changes
    Why should we assume this is true? This might be true generally for created beings who cannot themselves create but merly transform, but why would you apply the same logic to God who can create outside of time and space out of nothing?

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      Wordswordswords

      Just say "nuh uh" next time.

  7. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    >A perfect being can't become any better, by definition
    Yes he can, perfection is a operative, not an end, state

  8. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    God is:
    >Perfect:
    Yes
    >Omnipotent:
    Of Course
    >Unchangeable:
    Indeed
    >Simple:
    ...this is where you loose me.

  9. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    >When a being performs an action, its state changes
    Why do armchair philosophers always come up with invalid and unsound premises to build nonsense over?

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      philosophers are armchair mathematicians. Theologians are armchair neckbeards

  10. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    heheh that looks like a titty

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *