The Being-hood of the Omnipotent

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.”

8 thoughts on “The Being-hood of the Omnipotent

  1. 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.

    That’s one place where I think you might be on shaky ground. It depends on how you define intelligence, but one can argue that computers are becoming more intelligent than their creators. I would also argue that “intelligence can only arise from intelligence” is false. According to evolution, our intelligence did exactly that.

    What you’re doing here, basically, is trying to create a logical argument to prove the existence of God. People have been trying to do that for eons. The arguments always fail on their own logic. The existence of God always ends up being a matter of faith and belief. There’s always some point in the argument that requires being taken on faith. If you don’t, the whole argument falls apart.

    But that doesn’t mean the exercise isn’t a great thing for your mind!

    • That’s the problem with evolution, and the whole bit of nonsense!

      If something causes intelligence, then by definition it is intelligent, or else caused itself by intelligence. I assume you, being one who subscribes to chaos theory, don’t believe in chance, and therefore, skipping over the argument about chance, if intelligence exists, it has to be caused by something intelligent, or else be omnipotent itself.

      I realize the issue you raise with how to define intelligence. The implied definition in the argument is the one that is claimed to be necessary. That is, I established the scope as one in which we assume that we are “intelligent begins,” capable of discovering truth. This axiom, while I treat it with some rhetoric, is never proven, on the grounds that it cannot be proven or disproven, because any process of proof or disproof requires that it is true. This part, among a few other parts of the argument, are believed on the grounds of practicality, and human intuition.

      That being said, the definition of intelligence that this argument uses, is the same one that it depends on. It is, as I’m sure you will agree, quite difficult to put it into words. However, it is clear, that this sort of intelligence, cannot arise arbitrarily.

      I shall improve on this comment and the reasoning behind it later on, but for now take the brilliant words of wisdom I just received from a friend: “a computer is only as smart as the person using it.”

      • The assertion that intelligence is caused by intelligence is just an assertion. The science of evolution shows this to be false. And, if you believe evolution is nonsense we really have nothing further to discuss.

        I don’t “subscribe” to chaos theory; it’s mathematical fact. “Chance” is a whole other discussion.

        • I do apologize for not being clear; I meant chaos theory in the other sense, that is, the ideology that the entire universe is a single physical, chaotic system (which rules out the possibility of chance in the literal sense). I do not deny that chaotic theory is really more like a theorem when it comes to the world of mathematics.

          “The assertion that intelligence is caused by intelligence is just an assertion”

          It’s not an assertion, its the transposition of a logical rule. It doesn’t really have a proof any more than modus ponens has a proof; it IS the proof.

          If something caused intelligence, than either that thing or one of the things before it in the chain of causality ought to be called intelligence, otherwise, we have no reason to believe that the thing it has caused is capable of discovering truth.

          To work more on the definition of intelligence I’m using here:
          A computer is capable of using the rules of logic an math that it has been given to discover truth, but its rules are not “more logical” or more capable of discovering truth than those of the humans that have created it. Therefore, intelligence, in this argument, is that thing at the core of thinking that makes the mental processes valid.

          That being said, I don’t really see how the impossibility of logic arising from an arbitrary, ultimate cause needs further justification. Isn’t it obvious that, in absolute terms, if something is arbitrary, then it is arbitrary not intelligent, and so whatever it causes is caused arbitrarily? If it “by chance,” a model which I think you reject but will entertain anyways for the sake of adding fullness to the argument, causes something intelligent, then it really cannot be called arbitrary in the first place.

          One of the problems with the “chance” model is that it really is factoring in another cause: chance itself. If we believe that something causes something else that happens, “by chance,” to have a particular quality, then we are not really believing that the something caused that quality in the something else, but that “chance” caused the quality. And so, the former model holds. Even if we plug in chance, then chance is the cause, but it is an arbitrary cause, and therefore its effect must be caused arbitrarily, and thus must BE arbitrary.

  2. Modus ponens is a logical rule of inference that states: “P implies Q; P is asserted to be true; therefore Q is true.” Importantly, it is a rule of inference, not a rule of deductive proof. You seem to be asserting that “intelligence implies greater intelligence,” which is fine, but either it’s an axiom of your belief or an implication you must still demonstrate.

    From what I can tell, your arguments just re-assert your belief in different ways. A give away is terms like “ought to be” or “isn’t it obvious.” (Nothing is philosophy is obvious.) Your assertion is based on your perception and belief. Since evolution provides an alternate explanation well-grounded in fact and analysis, I’m not convinced.

    As I said earlier, what you’re calling “chance” is a whole other discussion that involves quantum physics, thermodynamics, entropy and self-organizing systems. It’s far too complicated for me to get into right now. If you’re not already aware of these topics, you might find reading them an eye-opener.

    • “Your assertion is based on your perception and belief. Since evolution provides an alternate explanation well-grounded in fact and analysis, I’m not convinced.”

      We clearly aren’t communicating well. I already showed how the rule about intelligence is not an assertion. I will admit, as I already have, that the scope of logic itself is an assertion, but this is a conclusion that arises from that assertion.

      In any case, this argument has nothing to do with evolution. Evolution, as I’m sure you’ve heard elsewhere, could very well be the effect of an intelligent cause, but it doesn’t really provide an alternative to the metaphysical principal I’ve presented.

      Please don’t just make rhetorical comments about the nature of my arguments as you do when you write “from what I can tell, your arguments just re-assert your belief in different ways. A give away is terms like ‘ought to be’ or ‘isn’t it obvious,'” instead, specifically point out what is lacking in the argument as I have done in yours. To be successful in this, one must first read and understand the argument as best as possible. I cannot argue with something so unspecific, and using such a rhetorical strategy is just demeaning to the whole argument on both sides, as I am sure you are well aware.

      Finally, are you familiar with chaotic theory in the context of physics?

      It seems to me that you’re just reading and not really understanding what I’m writing, but perhaps that’s happening on both sides. I feel like we aren’t communicating well.

      • I’ll be back when time permits, and can go over your arguments point by point then. One thing: not agreeing with your arguments or assertions does not mean I don’t understand them. I do.

        And for what it’s worth, like philosophy and theology, I’ve been studying physics and mathematics for over 40 years. You can assume I’m well-acquainted with chaos theory and it’s applications in physics.

        That’s it from me for now.

        • You comments, however, imply that you do not fully understand the argument yet. I’m sure you recognize that the art of communication is a very difficult one to master. That fault is just as much on my side as yours.

          I’m glad to hear about your experience in physics. In that case, I am sure you realize that the physical application of chaos theory across the entire universe as a single physical system excludes the possibility of “chance.”

          But aside from that, there is simply the metaphysical refutation of chance based on the common model of metaphysics (i.e. going all the way back to Aristotle and beyond). But if “chance” happens to become relevant later on, we can deal with it then. For the present, I thank you for your comments; it has been a pleasure.

Add something to the discussion.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s