RE: The Modal Ontological Argument - Without Modal Logic
February 14, 2014 at 1:28 am
(This post was last modified: February 14, 2014 at 1:29 am by Darkstar.)
(February 14, 2014 at 1:13 am)Rational AKD Wrote:Couldn't they just be in stalemate, then?(February 14, 2014 at 1:02 am)Darkstar Wrote: Fair enough. Just wondering, does your argument give any reason to stop at just one god, or would it justify an infinite polytheism? I still find the notion that omnipotence is even possible (logically or otherwise) to be dubious at best.the argument doesn't, but there is a separate reason that shows multiple omnipotent beings are logically impossible. the reason is the possibility of conflict of wills. if there are 2 omnipotent beings, for example, one of them wants unicorns and the other doesn't. if they are both omnipotent, nothing should be able to stop their wills, thus unicorns should exist and not exist simultaneously. this is incoherent. since this incoherence can't be possible, there can only be one omnipotent being.
How exactly are we defining omnipotence here anyway? Is it in a way that avoids that "can god create a rock he can't lift?" problem? Omnipotence paradox