Having argued the necessity of the Omnipotent in my previous post, in this, my sub-sequential post, I intent to argue the “being-hood” of the omnipotent as this was not fully addressed in the previous one. I ended with the necessity of the existence of an Intelligent Omnipotent force or being that existed beyond the scope of causality and the natural universe and from there I called it an “Omnipotent Being” without explaining why.
Of course the title of a “Being” that I–along with orthodox theological doctrines–assigned to the Omnipotent is somewhat metaphorical in that such an existing thing, whatever you want to call it, must really be beyond the scope of any title it could be given in the natural universe. Everything we say about the Omnipotent is merely a transposition of the Truth which is beyond words, and even beyond our comprehension. The reason the Omnipotent ought to be called a “Being” is that a “Being” possesses, in some sense, the highest form of existence we know of or can imagine as human beings.
Indeed, it is a logical necessity that the Omnipotent is not only Intelligent, as I have already argued, but also more Intelligent then us, Its “Creation” or “Effect” (It being the ultimate Cause), and furthermore, Intelligent without bound. All this, as I will argue, is necessarily followed by the assignment of the title of Being.
It is necessary that Its Intelligence is higher than ours by the simple and Absolute principle that a lesser intelligence cannot create a higher one. As I argued in my previous post, almost by definition, intelligence can only arise from intelligence. For if ever there were an “intelligence” that resulted from some arbitrary rules (like the laws of physics), we should have no reason to suppose it is actually capable of discovering truth and thus it should not really be called “intelligence” at all. Rather, if an intelligence arises from rules, as it is reasonably plausible that ours has, those rules must not be arbitrary at all but instead be specifically designed by an intelligent force of sorts to create an intelligence capable of discovering truth. And, if we make the decision to believe that this is not the case in our universe, that our intelligence is indeed incapable of discovering truth, then we mustn’t believe in anything. There is not much in the way of logic that can be said about this decision, other that the following two considerations that ought to be made: (1) It is obviously a logical error to reach the conclusion that human intellect is incapable of discovering truth by any chain of logic, because the validity of the chain of logic itself is dependent on the human capability of discovering truth. (2) Less on a logical note and more on a rhetorical note–I believe if one really considers the decision, one will find that he or she knows innately that the right answer is the absolutist’s answer (i.e. that human intellect is capable of discovering truth), after all, no sane man can function outside of absolutism, and it is merely some other sort of desire, not reason, that leads to the relativist’s conclusion. Indeed, it is doubtful that it isn’t a logical error in itself to function on one philosophy (absolutism) and believe in another (relativism). The only problem with using this observation in argument is that the relativist doesn’t believe in logic, and therefore does not “care” that he or she is making a logical error; of course it’s a illogical to disbelieve in logic.
In any case, let us reassume the absolutist philosophy in order that we may continue (because nothing logical can actually be said in the scope of relativism). As I explained, intelligence may only arise from (or be caused by) intelligence, and the “first” Intelligence must therefore be the Omnipotent–beyond causality. The principle that greater intelligence may not arise from lesser intelligence is merely a simpe extension of this basic principle. If intelligence may only arise from intelligence, then logically, greater intelligence cannot come out of lesser intelligence because that would be like “more” intelligence coming from less. The human mind is incapable of imagining an intelligent being that designs another intelligent being whose intelligence is of greater capacity than his own. The question, if this were to happen, would be: “Where did the extra intelligence come from?” Because intelligence may not come from the arbitrary it is also necessarily true that a greater level of intelligence cannot “arbitrarily” come out of a lesser one. It would be as if a portion of the intelligence had come out of the arbitrary, which is impossible by definition.
Finally, it is necessary that the Omnipotent is Intelligent without bound. This part of the argument is much more rhetorical, but I urge you to try to view it from a calculus perspective. If intelligence exists, but may only arise from other intelligence, then there must be an infinite chain of intelligences causing other intelligences. But the Omnipotent is Itself the infinite chain, and therefore is infinite in intelligence. Furthermore, if the Omnipotent is, all as was argued in the previous post, the Absolute Truth, or the Ultimate Reality, and is also the most Intelligent thing in the scope of this Ultimate Reality, then He or She must logically also be the “Ultimate” or “Absolute” Intelligence. It makes little difference whether we prefer to call Him or Her a Being of “Infinite Intelligence” or of “Absolute Intelligence” or whatever else along these lines, as these are merely synonyms.
Having determined the quality of the Intelligence of the Omnipotent to be Infinite or Absolute, it then follows naturally that we should assign Him or Her the highest level of existence we can imagine and yet see this as an insufficient description, hence the title of a “Being.”