My claim is to show that god’s omni attributes contradict with his independence.
1) Christians claim that god is independent from everything and needs nothing. But for that to work god NEEDS the omni attributes. So that leads to contradiction #1 that god NEEDS the omnis to be independent.
2) Assuming that some how that works, why would god need any knowledge to be independent? Humans need knowledge to do things but god NEEDING all knowledge makes no sense so contradiction #2.
3) This is also applicable to god’s power. Why does he NEED all power? Us humans need power. Like power our house, our cars, our bodies, and the list goes on but god NEEDING ANY sort of power makes no sense either, so contradiction #3.
4) Finally his third omni attribute, omnipresence. Why does god need to be everywhere? This is one of the most random ones ever. God needs to be everywhere to be independent? I don’t see the connection. Anyways, in order for god’s other omnis to work he NEEDS to be everywhere! Well, either way the fact that he NEEDS it shows that it’s contradictory. Contradiction #4.
OBJECTIONS:
1) God is one so he has no parts
Then why include those omnis in the first place? So he either has the attributes or not.
2) The bible describes for us what god is and is not.
That’s clearly arguing in circles. Prove it without the bible.
3) The omnis are descriptions of god.
If they’re just descriptions then the omni concepts also describe their contradiction. The problem was contradictory from the beginning. This is the same as solving a contradictory math equation. When all the steps are written down the answer is a contradiction.
4) We don’t know.
The omnis are just assumed to be part of god without proof. With that logic, we can come up with any god with random attributes and apply the same answer, we don’t know.
5) The omnis SEEM contradictory but we haven’t discovered the answer yet.
The problem with this is that the attributes have BEEN defined. We can’t work with vague terms and expect to understand. Once the terms are set we can push to its logical end and see if the concepts are coherent. So, the omni concepts ARE contradictory, they don’t SEEM, because I’ve shown above the problems.
6) I don’t agree with the definitions.
Well, we can examen your different concept down in the comments.
These are the problems I see but if you see any other problem or just want to fix it a bit then I’m glad to talk about it.
This doesn’t make any sense. Independence doesn’t mean “God NEEDS X” is false for all X. You might as well say, “God can’t be independent because God NEEDS to be God in order to be God”. What exactly do you mean when you say “independent”? Can you define it please?
>1) Christians claim that god is independent from everything and needs nothing. But for that to work god NEEDS the omni attributes. So that leads to contradiction #1 that god NEEDS the omnis to be independent.
It’s not really that he NEEDS the omni to be independent. Having inherent traits isn’t the a NEED in the way your defining it. I’m also not sure by what you need by “he needs nothing”.
>2) Assuming that some how that works, why would god need any knowledge to be independent? Humans need knowledge to do things but god NEEDING all knowledge makes no sense so contradiction #2.
Again omni is not a need, it’s a necessary attribute in the way god is defined. A triangle doesn’t NEED 3 sides because by defining a triangle we are describing an 2D object defined by having 3 sides.
>3) This is also applicable to god’s power. Why does he NEED all power? Us humans need power. Like power our house, our cars, our bodies, and the list goes on but god NEEDING ANY sort of power makes no sense either, so contradiction #3.
Again, all power is a consequence of omnipotence. No need involved.
>4) Finally his third omni attribute, omnipresence. Why does god need to be everywhere? This is one of the most random ones ever. God needs to be everywhere to be independent? I don’t see the connection. Anyways, in order for god’s other omnis to work he NEEDS to be everywhere! Well, either way the fact that he NEEDS it shows that it’s contradictory. Contradiction #4.
They believe that defining him as being non contingent, in terms of his own existence. Being non contingent in this way is the better way to put it rather than “independent”. Being every where at once in some sense is a necessary consequence of omnipresence. Not a NEED.
In this whole argument you a essentially just equivocating the necessary traits of a certain entity and calling that necessary trait a NEED. Does a circle need to be round? I would say that it is round because that is how we define a circle. Roundness is the innate quality of how we define a circle in the sane way the omnis are an innate quality to how theists define God.
Lol sorry for the long response and I’m sorry to say I’m actually an non believer myself. I can just see a sort of flaw in the argument.
> Christians claim that god is independent from everything and needs nothing. But for that to work god NEEDS the omni attributes.
Why would god need to be independent of these things? If god is infinite in the way of encompassing everything that exists then that also encompasses these attributes. If god is all of these things, then basically there’s no way to be independent from god (or the object that possesses these attributes and encompasses everything) and so god becomes the (only) fundamentally independent unit.
This might be a bit of an unorthodox view of god, but it is interesting to try and frame the idea in terms of ‘independence’. To go further I feel like I’d need to more about what you mean by god’s independence.
I think you’re equivocating between a priori needs and other needs.
God needs to be omnipotent or He wouldn’t be God, by definition. A husband needs a spouse, or by definition, he wouldn’t be a husband. If that spouse dies, the husband doesn’t cease to exist, he simply ceases to be a husband.
God does not need His creation, as He existed before creation. That is the definition of absolute independence.
Can you clarify what you mean by need? The sense used in 1 seems different than the sense in 2-4 so I’m concerned there is an equivocation occurring.
Also points 2-4 suspiciously look like arguments from incredulity. You say those things don’t make sense but haven’t given any reason why hence it just looks like your own incredulity.
Third and most important is you haven’t supported 1.
Most of your contradictions are between your own arguments.
“God needs his omni attributes to be independent, but he doesn’t need them to be independent! Ha, contradiction!”
I’m pretty sure the concept of needing something doesn’t generally relate to things that you *are* resulting in other things you *are*. I wouldn’t be my current height if I weren’t bipedal, but it’s just weird to say I need to be bipedal in order to be my current height.
(Plausibly) Without my humanness, I wouldn’t exist. For that reason we might say that I need my humanness to exist, but that’s odd. Normally when speaking about what I need, we mean things like food, water, shelter, and so on — things that are independent of me.
I think you’re right that God needs God’s essential properties, in a sense. But when people say God doesn’t need anything else, they mean it in the sense of, depends on something independent of God. So I think this ends up being an equivocation on “need”.