If absolute power corrupts absolutely...

[Schrödinger's Cat]

What does that say of an all-powerful God?

Discuss.

[Lynx]

I can't say if God has been absolutely corrupted. I dare say He does have a bit of a temper.

[ibn Bruce]

I tend not to base philosophical enquiry upon the nature of God upon assertions with no founding.

Regardless, when something is all powerful, and all things are contingent upon that thing, how exactly does corruption occur? If we are discussing things in the context of a single, indivisible God, with no similitude to creation, how is that corruption (a word created by humans to describe each other) can be used to describe the paradigm that is God? Absolute power, in a REAL sense, rather than the Pharaonic sense that is implied in the statement 'absolute power corrupts absolutely', also implies a lack of contingency. A lack of contingency means that nothing is needed by a possessor of such power, and thus 'corruption', also in a Pharaonic sense, cannot occur, for it serves no purpose.



Sorry, just had to be a smart-alec :D

[Coggeh]

I can't say if God has been absolutely corrupted. I dare say He does have a bit of a temper.
A bit ...? :mellow:

[Pogue]

Aaaahh but god is perfect and so can't be corrupted.

[hugsandmarxism]

God, like, totally raped some chick. And he invented aids. And alot of other shit. Yet he loves us and we had better give him money and props so we can come hang with him in heaven. Doesn't that just sound omnibenevolent to you? :rolleyes:

This is moot anyhow, for the reason socialist provided.

[Decolonize The Left]

I tend not to base philosophical enquiry upon the nature of God upon assertions with no founding.

Given that "the nature of God" is an assertion with no founding, this statement is absolutely hilarious!


Regardless, when something is all powerful, and all things are contingent upon that thing, how exactly does corruption occur? If we are discussing things in the context of a single, indivisible God, with no similitude to creation, how is that corruption (a word created by humans to describe each other) can be used to describe the paradigm that is God?

1) How does God have "no similitude to creation?" You're saying that God is not related to, or resembling, creation in any sense? But he is "the creator." Hence he is undoubtedly and irreconcilably tied to creation...

2) You say that corruption is "a word created by humans to describe each other" and hence is not applicable to God.
But God is "a word created by humans to describe" the world... so... what exactly are you saying other than trying to avoid the argument?


Absolute power, in a REAL sense, rather than the Pharaonic sense that is implied in the statement 'absolute power corrupts absolutely', also implies a lack of contingency.

What is the "real sense?" And how is it different from the "Pharaonic sense?" How can you tell the difference, and where did these words come from?


A lack of contingency means that nothing is needed by a possessor of such power, and thus 'corruption', also in a Pharaonic sense, cannot occur, for it serves no purpose.

"Corruption" need not serve a purpose to occur...


Sorry, just had to be a smart-alec :D

So far it looks like you've failed at being such...

- August

[Brother No. 1]

this quote mean for anyone can be corrupted by power. a god corrupted well isnt the Religion corrupt then. Even this so called "all might and holy God or Allah" could be corrupt by this power. But then again does a god exist and if he did why was he or she not there during the cris's of Humanity.

[scarletghoul]

If you take the quote as unquestionable fact and believe in an all-powerful god then yeah, God is all-corrupted. That is obvious. But I wouldn't use this point to argue against a believer, because the initial statement is not fact. Plus God is magical anyway

[Brother No. 1]

Plus the Believer has un-bending loyalty to this "god." its hard to agure with them for they barely want to believe it. right comrade.

[ibn Bruce]

1) How does God have "no similitude to creation?" You're saying that God is not related to, or resembling, creation in any sense? But he is "the creator." Hence he is undoubtedly and irreconcilably tied to creation...

Logically, if one has absolute power, in a sense that nothing is either lost nor gained in the act of creation, one has no ties to creation. Creation exists as a conditional thing, God has no conditional existence. God is pre-eternal, not constrained by anything of creation.


2) You say that corruption is "a word created by humans to describe each other" and hence is not applicable to God.
But God is "a word created by humans to describe" the world... so... what exactly are you saying other than trying to avoid the argument?

God is a paradigm, and an unknown one at that. If we say that God has no similitude to creation, it follows that creation will have no way to conceptualise Him, except in abstract and incorrect forms. 'Whatever we say He is, He is not'.


What is the "real sense?" And how is it different from the "Pharaonic sense?"

The Pharaonic sense refers to power that is not absolute, the power of Pharaoh over his subjects, master over slave etc. All such powers are no 'absolute', if they were, we would not be in a 'revolutionary' forum. Absolute power implies a complete separation as well as control over something. This in turn implies a lack of contingency, as if something created could somehow 'harm' the creator, such power would not be absolute.

The statement 'What does that say of an all-powerful God?' operates on the assumption of existance of said God, therefore my argument is naturally going to be based upon such assumption, where it not, then the entire discussion is pointless. If you want to argue on the existance of God, then there are many other places to do so.


"Corruption" need not serve a purpose to occur...

So corruption is above the laws of the universe? Above cause and effect?


So far it looks like you've failed at being such...
I'll take that as a good thing :D