Given that a all powerful/almighty thing exists (example gods from different religions).

  1. Something almighty has nothing to fear, because they are almighty.
  2. Since it has nothing too fear it cannot be brave.
  3. Since it is not brave, it does not have spirit of self-sacrifice.
  4. The spirit of self-sacrifice creates trust in the power of love. Thus the powerful/almighty thing cannot be brave nor trust in the power of love.

The question is if there's something wrong with this logic

Ps: first question on stack exchange philosophy, and thanks to Morihei Ueshiba for half of the logic here ^.^

  • 3
    In principle, every sentence can be discussed... "Something almighty have nothing to fear. " Why ? May you prove it ? A human being is much more "powerful" than a spider, but the world is plenty of people fearing spiders. Commented Apr 17, 2016 at 11:12
  • Bravery is defined as "the quality that allows someone to do things that are dangerous or frightening : the quality or state of being brave". For an all powerful thing nothings dangerous. Commented Apr 17, 2016 at 11:17
  • "dangerous or frightening"... most of spiders are not dangerous but still people find them frightening. Commented Apr 17, 2016 at 11:19
  • True. Looks like there was a flaw in this logic :/ well well Commented Apr 17, 2016 at 11:23

2 Answers 2


These are the assumptions of your argument:

  • (A1) Some almighty thing exists.
  • (A2) Almighty things have no fear.
  • (A3) Fear is necessary for braveness.
  • (A4) Braveness is necessary for having the spirit of self-sacrifice.
  • (A5) Having the spirit of self-sacrifice creates trust in the power of love.

The deduction is then carried out as follows:

  1. Almighty things are not brave. (A2 & A3)
  2. Almighty things do not have the spirit of self-sacrifice. (1 & A4)
  3. Almighty things do not have trust in the power of love (?)

Conclusion 3 does not follow. For this we would have to add the assumption:

  • (A6) The spirit of self-sacrifice is the only way to get trust in the power of love

(Otherwise you would be making a fallacy of affirming the consequent.)

Now conclusion 3 follows from 2 and A6, and your argument is valid.

But, all of your assumptions are questionable. Some seem to me plain false (A1, A3), and for some I have no idea what they mean (A4, A5. But it might be just me).

  • (A4, A5)It is a part of quote of Morihei Ueshiba Commented Apr 17, 2016 at 11:29

There are at least two assumptions in this argument that religious people would object to:

There are many who would disagree with it, but one of the major points of Christianity argues against this: Jesus (Christians say), being both fully God and fully man, was almighty, yet in some sense fearful, praying "Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me" (Luke 22:42). Certain Christians in one particular prayer, pray to receive courage by meditating on his passion.

There's also the point you say "The spirit of self-sacrifice creates trust in the power of love" ... Many philosophers (more recently Peter Kreeft and Robert Baron come to mind, both of whom quote Aquinas, who in turn takes the idea from Aristotle, Rhetoric ii, 4) define love instead as simply "willing the good of the other." For a finite being, yes, that might require some sacrifice, but for God who can create things ex nihilo, his Love need not take away anything from himself.

Perhaps there are rebuttals in turn for these, but in any case, there are two common objections to the proposition.

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .