Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

The Paradox of Omnipotence

Can God make a boulder heavier than he can lift?

If he can make a boulder heavier than he can lift than he is not all powerful, but if he cannot lift the boulder than he is not all-powerful.


Another one which i would like to no more about is, Does the universe exist when nobody is looking? I read this in a magazine and it incoporates the idea of Quantum Mechanics, for how do you know that your living room exists when nobody is in there?

Originally posted by mattrab
The Paradox of Omnipotence

Can God make a boulder heavier than he can lift?

If he can make a boulder heavier than he can lift than he is not all powerful, but if he cannot lift the boulder than he is not all-powerful.

-anthropomorphising

-"Humans cannot comprehend God"

Originally posted by mattrab
Another one which i would like to no more about is, Does the universe exist when nobody is looking? I read this in a magazine and it incoporates the idea of Quantum Mechanics, for how do you know that your living room exists when nobody is in there?

Total, utter, absolute nonsense.

Originally posted by mattrab
The Paradox of Omnipotence

Can God make a boulder heavier than he can lift?

If he can make a boulder heavier than he can lift than he is not all powerful, but if he cannot lift the boulder than he is not all-powerful.


Another one which i would like to no more about is, Does the universe exist when nobody is looking? I read this in a magazine and it incoporates the idea of Quantum Mechanics, for how do you know that your living room exists when nobody is in there?

Your second theory is like Schrodingers cat something i barely understand as it is.

QUANTUM THEORY does NOT hold that things happen when you "look at them". Quantum theory holds that probability waves collapse with ANY interaction. In fact, to observe the very strange quantum phenomena that are described, scientists need to create situations that we as humans would never come accross in our environments.

NOT looking, interacting, and with anything. Quantum states are remarkably unstable.

Originally posted by mattrab
The Paradox of Omnipotence

Can God make a boulder heavier than he can lift?

If he can make a boulder heavier than he can lift than he is not all powerful, but if he cannot lift the boulder than he is not all-powerful.


Another one which i would like to no more about is, Does the universe exist when nobody is looking? I read this in a magazine and it incoporates the idea of Quantum Mechanics, for how do you know that your living room exists when nobody is in there?


when nobody is looking sounds ridiculous, but it could be very diffrent to other life forms other than humans, colours, shapes and sounds could be warped depending on what species of creature you are

Originally posted by mattrab
...how do you know that your living room exists when nobody is in there? What makes you think you're talking with real people on this forum and not a computer program?

Originally posted by Mindship
What makes you think you're talking with real people on this forum and not a computer program?

thats impossible, since you are all just fragments of my consciousness projected accross space and time.

Originally posted by inimalist
thats impossible, since you are all just fragments of my consciousness projected accross space and time. <--- one of the cooler fragments cool

Originally posted by mattrab
The Paradox of Omnipotence

Can God make a boulder heavier than he can lift?

If he can make a boulder heavier than he can lift than he is not all powerful, but if he cannot lift the boulder than he is not all-powerful.


Another one which i would like to no more about is, Does the universe exist when nobody is looking? I read this in a magazine and it incoporates the idea of Quantum Mechanics, for how do you know that your living room exists when nobody is in there?

God is transcending not omnipotent.

The crazy guy by our movie theater thinks god is omnipotent, and he is sponsored by a missionary group.

Originally posted by Jbill311
The crazy guy by our movie theater thinks god is omnipotent, and he is sponsored by a missionary group.

It's always the crazy guy.

God is trancedent and omnipotent, they are two different predicates of God

Originally posted by mattrab
God is transcendent and omnipotent, they are two different predicates of God

The problem with omnipotent is that it leads to paradoxes. If God is transcendent then it is redundant to say God is omnipotent, and you don't have the paradoxes.

could god microwave a burrito untill it was so hot that He himself could not eat it?

Please, all these arguments against omnipotenence are nothing more than symantics.

Yes, an omnipotant person could create a boulder larger than they could lift. Because in order to lift something you have to move it away from something else. Imagine creating a boulder the size of the universe. Now the only reason you can't lift that is by definition of lifting something. In order to do so you'd have to move its mass away from something else. Any attempt to do so would simply result in doing a headstand on that object.

As I said its all symantic arguments. There are others which are just as ridiculous.

Originally posted by Creshosk
Please, all these arguments against omnipotenence are nothing more than symantics.

Yes, an omnipotant person could create a boulder larger than they could lift. Because in order to lift something you have to move it away from something else. Imagine creating a boulder the size of the universe. Now the only reason you can't lift that is by definition of lifting something. In order to do so you'd have to move its mass away from something else. Any attempt to do so would simply result in doing a headstand on that object.

As I said its all symantic arguments. There are others which are just as ridiculous.

Please tell us more.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Please tell us more. Well for starters, I'm agnostic so this has nothing to do with "god" or any veiled attacks on any theist.

But alot of the challenges that are presented are nothing more than word play and how things are defined.

For example creating things that don't exist or would fall under the definition of something else.

Like creating a "square circle" is another popular dig at omnipotence. Well that one is actually easy to make Just draw a square with rounded corners. Now after that you'd have the one who posed the challenge, challenge the results. But they'd have to go off of definition. A square has for corners and a corner is a 90 degree angle... basically like a "no true scotsman" onthological argument.

There are other challenges but I can't remember them all right now.

Originally posted by Creshosk
Well for starters, I'm agnostic so this has nothing to do with "god" or any veiled attacks on any theist.

But alot of the challenges that are presented are nothing more than word play and how things are defined.

For example creating things that don't exist or would fall under the definition of something else.

Like creating a "square circle" is another popular dig at omnipotence. Well that one is actually easy to make Just draw a square with rounded corners. Now after that you'd have the one who posed the challenge, challenge the results. But they'd have to go off of definition. A square has for corners and a corner is a 90 degree angle... basically like a "no true scotsman" onthological argument.

There are other challenges but I can't remember them all right now.

I'm sorry, I misunderstood you. I thought you were saying that there are more then semantic problems other then omnipotence.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I'm sorry, I misunderstood you. I thought you were saying that there are more then semantic problems other then omnipotence. Sorry, no. There are other examples, however every argument I've come across is nothing more than a semantic argument.

Like in the humorous play on the "rock too big" with the "burrito too hot".

It's not the omnipotence that's the paradox, its the burrito. The burrito cannot exist because beyond a certain point it'd be vaporized before it got to the point of being too hot for an omnipotant person being able to eat it.

Originally posted by Creshosk
Yes, an omnipotant person could create a boulder larger than they could lift.

Than he is not truly omnipotent.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Than he is not truly omnipotent.

That is true. No one could be omnipotent; not even god.

Originally posted by Creshosk
But alot of the challenges that are presented are nothing more than word play and how things are defined.

For example creating things that don't exist or would fall under the definition of something else.

Creating something so heavy that one cannot lift it is not one of these arguments.

it would have to be a question of doing something a human would not be able to have the slightest sliver of understandng

perhaps an omnipotent being could be able to lift this rock, as well as not lift it, in a way that allows it to keep its omnipotence

Originally posted by Jbill311
could god microwave a burrito untill it was so hot that He himself could not eat it?

posted previously

Originally posted by Jbill311
posted previously

Yeah, what about that, Creshy?

quote: (post)
Originally posted by Creshosk
Like in the humorous play on the "rock too big" with the "burrito too hot".

It's not the omnipotence that's the paradox, its the burrito. The burrito cannot exist because beyond a certain point it'd be vaporized before it got to the point of being too hot for an omnipotant person being able to eat it.


couldn't an omnipotent person keep it from vaporizing?

But your answers are really just semantics. You could formulate it a way to not have those little loopholes.


Could an omnipotent God make something (anything) so something (hot, heavy, blue...( whether he has to change the laws of physics for that or not)) that he could not do something (lift, eat, think about, look at ...) with it?

Basically, is God more powerful than the rules of logic? And if yes, how? Can he beat a paradoxon?

We know that omnipotence is paradox. So, how can we attribute it to something?

Originally posted by Jbill311
quote: (post)
Originally posted by Creshosk
Like in the humorous play on the "rock too big" with the "burrito too hot".

It's not the omnipotence that's the paradox, its the burrito. The burrito cannot exist because beyond a certain point it'd be vaporized before it got to the point of being too hot for an omnipotant person being able to eat it.


couldn't an omnipotent person keep it from vaporizing? But then would it still be a burrito? Or would it have to be reclassified as something else?

Because no normal burrito would survive at temperatures that this one could.

Originally posted by Creshosk
But then would it still be a burrito? Or would it have to be reclassified as something else?

Because no normal burrito would survive at temperatures that this one could.

Doesn't matter. Omnipotence is a paradox. That is a fact.

Originally posted by Bardock42
But your answers are really just semantics. That's why the arguments are just semantic arguments using defenitions of words in certain ways to prove their conclusions.

Originally posted by Bardock42
You could formulate it a way to not have those little loopholes.


Could an omnipotent God make something (anything) so something (hot, heavy, blue...( whether he has to change the laws of physics for that or not)) that he could not do something (lift, eat, think about, look at ...) with it?

Basically, is God more powerful than the rules of logic? And if yes, how? Can he beat a paradoxon?

We know that omnipotence is paradox. So, how can we attribute it to something?

I refer you to the "I define somethieng as X" Argument. Changing the way you define something is merely semantics and doesn't change the nature of that thing. Merely because you cannot conceive of something doesn't mean that it cannot be. A man who had never heard of a giraffe, sees one for the first time in his life stands there awestruck, he mutters that he cannot believe that such a creature exists. Is this giraffe then to disappear ina puff of logic because someone couldn't believe that there could be something like that?

Originally posted by Bardock42
Doesn't matter. Omnipotence is a paradox. That is a fact. Simply because you define it in such a way that you cannot conceive of how it can be anything else?

Semantics, nothing more.

Originally posted by Creshosk
That's why the arguments are just semantic arguments using defenitions of words in certain ways to prove their conclusions.



I refer you to the "I define somethieng as X" Argument. Changing the way you define something is merely semantics and doesn't change the nature of that thing. Merely because you cannot conceive of something doesn't mean that it cannot be. A man who had never heard of a giraffe, sees one for the first time in his life stands there awestruck, he mutters that he cannot believe that such a creature exists. Is this giraffe then to disappear ina puff of logic because someone couldn't believe that there could be something like that?

No. You are talking nonsense.


Omnipotence is defined as being able to do everything.


That means for something to be omnipotent they must be able to do the following.


"Create something so they have no power over it"

If they can create that though than there are possible things they have no power over. If they can't they are not omnipotent.

It is not semantics or defining anything to change it. It's not about being able to conceive something or not. It is about something being a logical impossibility. The word omnipotence is paradox. We can't use it to describe anything, because the definition of the word creates an unsolvable problem.

Originally posted by Bardock42
No. You are talking nonsense.


Omnipotence is defined as being able to do everything.


That means for something to be omnipotent they must be able to do the following.


"Create something so they have no power over it"

If they can create that though than there are possible things they have no power over. If they can't they are not omnipotent.

It is not semantics or defining anything to change it. It's not about being able to conceive something or not. It is about something being a logical impossibility. The word omnipotence is paradox. We can't use it to describe anything, because the definition of the word creates an unsolvable problem.

It's only impossible because you cannot conceive of it happening. I'm sorry but that's the truth.

Back in the middle ages, people thought that it was impossible to travel out into space. To have a horseless carriage, or any number of the things we take for granted today.

That's one of the major problems we face today. There are too many people that just sit down and go "Oh that's impossible." or they go off of only what they think they know.

Instead of daring to explore into what is "impossible" they set up shop and are content with what they think they know. Things that do not exist today, might someday exist or be discovered in the future for example.

Atoms for one thing, we had no evidence of their existence before their discovery. Certainly such a concept would be "impossible" back then. By the very definition of what the word Atom means certainly their composition or the fact that they were indeed made of things was "impossible".

Simply because a person cannot understand how something could be done, does not mean that it could not be done.

Your very post back to me was riddled with evidence of it being nothing more than semantics. "Defined", "Defenition", "word". Defining something in a given way so as to make it impossible is nothing more than semantics. "A rose by any other name would smell as sweet." It doesn't change the nature of what it is, simply to define or claim someing in a given way.

Originally posted by Creshosk
So what are you going to elevate, raise or transport it off of, genius?

Oh that's right. There needs to be something else to do that with or else all you're doing is a hand stand on the rock.

You presume that an omnipotent being is limited to lifting an object with his hands.




Originally posted by Creshosk
Onthological argument

I define omnipotence to be X
Since I cannot conceive of X, X must not exist.
Therefore omnipotence doesn't exist

My argument is as follows:

IF all A = B, then no A = not B; IF some A are not B, then not all A = B.

Conception has nothing to do with it.




Originally posted by Creshosk
Nothing would be impossible for an omnipotent being to do. But you're defining the success of different things off of words. Nothing but symantics.

If a being can do all things, then he is omnipotent; if a being cannot do all things, then he is not omnipotent. Symantics has nothing to do with it.




Originally posted by Creshosk
I define a giraffe to be something that can turn invisible at will and fire laser beams from its ass.
Since I can't conceive of anything like that it must not exist. Therefore giraffes don't exist.

Clearly giraffes exist, therefore the way that it is being defined must be wrong.

If the abilities to become invisible and to project concentrated beams of light are essential characteristics of a giraffe, then an animal that does not have these characteristics is not a giraffe.

For the purposes of the argument, the giraffe is presumed to exist. What is in question is whether or not the characteristics described above exist, and if so, whether or not they are characteristics of a giraffe.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
You presume that an omnipotent being is limited to lifting an object with his hands.Nothing of the sort but using some sort of telepathy or energy feild would likewise just look like him moving away from the rock.





Originally posted by Adam_PoE

My argument is as follows:

IF all A = B, then no A = not B; IF some A are not B, then not all A = B.

Conception has nothing to do with it.Contradictory if statments.

Wouldn't the argument look more like

p -> q
~q
------
~p
anyway?


Originally posted by Adam_PoE
If a being can do all things, then he is omnipotent; if a being cannot do all things, then he is not omnipotent. Symantics has nothing to do with it. Yes. But your acceptence of what they can or cannot do is semantics.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
If the abilities to become invisible and to project concentrated beams of light are essential characteristics of a giraffe, then an animal that does not have these characteristics is not a giraffe.

For the purposes of the argument, the giraffe is presumed to exist. What is in question is whether or not the characteristics described above exist, and if so, whether or not they are characteristics of a giraffe. Way to miss the point. I defined a giraffe as a creature that we have not seen, my changing the definition of what a giraffe is in no way effects what a giraffe actually is. It was just an example.

Originally posted by Creshosk
Nothing of the sort but using some sort of telepathy or energy feild would likewise just look like him moving away from the rock.

The challenge is to determine whether or not an omnipotent being can create an object so heavy that he cannot lift it. How he attempts to lift it is irrelevant.




Originally posted by Creshosk
Contradictory if statments.

Wouldn't the argument look more like

p -> q
~q
------
~p
anyway?

Wrong on both counts.




Originally posted by Creshosk
Yes. But your acceptence of what they can or cannot do is semantics.

Either he can do all things or he cannot do all things. Acceptance and semantics have nothing to do with it.




Originally posted by Creshosk
Way to miss the point. I defined a giraffe as a creature that we have not seen, my changing the definition of what a giraffe is in no way effects what a giraffe actually is. It was just an example.

Apparently, you are missing the point, i.e. that your example is poor, and does not support your argument.

Originally posted by Creshosk
It's only impossible because you cannot conceive of it happening. I'm sorry but that's the truth.

Back in the middle ages, people thought that it was impossible to travel out into space. To have a horseless carriage, or any number of the things we take for granted today.

That's one of the major problems we face today. There are too many people that just sit down and go "Oh that's impossible." or they go off of only what they think they know.

Instead of daring to explore into what is "impossible" they set up shop and are content with what they think they know. Things that do not exist today, might someday exist or be discovered in the future for example.

Atoms for one thing, we had no evidence of their existence before their discovery. Certainly such a concept would be "impossible" back then. By the very definition of what the word Atom means certainly their composition or the fact that they were indeed made of things was "impossible".

Simply because a person cannot understand how something could be done, does not mean that it could not be done.

Your very post back to me was riddled with evidence of it being nothing more than semantics. "Defined", "Defenition", "word". Defining something in a given way so as to make it impossible is nothing more than semantics. "A rose by any other name would smell as sweet." It doesn't change the nature of what it is, simply to define or claim someing in a given way.

Again, that is nonsense.

Omnipotence is a logical paradox. Space Travel and Atoms never were. It is true I can not understand a logical paradox now and probably never will and we can think of hypotheticals where logic does not apply, though we can not really imagine it. But the matter of the fact is that by the rules of logic omnipotence is a paradox.

As for it being semantics because I use the word "definition", explain to me how the **** you can even think about something (anything, in this case omnipotence) without using the definition?

Theoretically an omnipotent being, in the sense of being capable of doing anything regardless of human perception of possibility, can create a rock so big it cannot lift it, and then subsequently still be able to lift it, despite it being so big it cannot lift it. All the while the rock is still so big that it cannot lift it, but the omnipotent being can still lift it.

That may not make logical sense, but it doesn't necessarily have to - seeing as the being is omnipotent.

I just gave myself a headache.

There's a better, imo, mutual exclusiveness between the existence of a precognitive omniscient infallible deity and the existence of free will.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Theoretically an omnipotent being, in the sense of being capable of doing anything regardless of human perception of possibility, can create a rock so big it cannot lift it, and then subsequently still be able to lift it, despite it being so big it cannot lift it. All the while the rock is still so big that it cannot lift it, but the omnipotent being can still lift it.

That may not make logical sense, but it doesn't necessarily have to - seeing as the being is omnipotent.

I just gave myself a headache.

There's a better, imo, mutual exclusiveness between the existence of a precognitive omniscient infallible deity and the existence of free will.

Well, it sure doesn't make logical or semantic sense.


Cause rocks that cannot be lifted are usually defined by not being able to be lifted, while a rock that would be lifted would not fit the most rudimentary criteria of such a rock.

I guess one way of looking at it is the fact that the being can choose not to be able to lift it still makes ominpotent and then it can choose to be able to lift it.

Originally posted by Alfheim
I guess one way of looking at it is the fact that the being can choose not to be able to lift it still makes ominpotent and then it can choose to be able to lift it. No. The question is can it create something it can NEVER lift.

Originally posted by Bardock42
No. The question is can it create something it can NEVER lift.

Yes it can, even I can create something I can't lift, but then it's not omnipotent.

Originally posted by Bardock42
No. The question is can it create something it can NEVER lift.
ah.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Yes it can, even I can create something I can't lift, but then it's not omnipotent.

Well, maybe it can also not create it. And it would still not be omnipotent.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Well, maybe it can also not create it. And it would still not be omnipotent.

Maybe it does not exist. The idea of an omnipotent god is just a way of impressing a bunch of sheep herders.

Originally posted by Bardock42
No. The question is can it create something it can NEVER lift. Yes. And yet it can still lift anything. It is after all, an omnipotent being.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Yes. And yet it can still lift anything. It is after all, an omnipotent being.

Which is a paradox.

Meaning it can not logically do that, so it is outside of logic. Which is something we can not comprehend.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Again, that is nonsense.

Omnipotence is a logical paradox. Space Travel and Atoms never were. It is true I can not understand a logical paradox now and probably never will and we can think of hypotheticals where logic does not apply, though we can not really imagine it. But the matter of the fact is that by the rules of logic omnipotence is a paradox.

As for it being semantics because I use the word "definition", explain to me how the **** you can even think about something (anything, in this case omnipotence) without using the definition? There's a difference between using the word definition andd just using a definition.

And the fact of the matter is still that it's not a logical paradox. And it is all symantics.

If you create a rock the size of the universe and its the only rock there then because its so massive the rest is destroyed.

Can you picture that much at least?

Now imagine ANYONE trying to lift it. From the perspective of the rock it won't be moved. If the omnipotant being were smaller than the rock (because they choose to be don't get nitpicky) and tried to use their hands it'd simply look like a hand stand. No different than a person on Earth trying to lift the Earth right?

Now if they tried to use some sort of energy to force, it away, from the perspective of the rock the rock still wouldn't move but the person would look like they were flying.

Based on your name I'm guessing you could pick up on the example of using chi/ki/qi/xi in DBZ to fly. they move away from the Earth, or in this case the rock. But from the rock's perspective it still hasn't moved.

Now even if theywere large enough to wrap a single hand around the rock, they still wouldn't be lifting it because there's nothing to lift it from. itd still look like the rock wasn't moving from its perspective. Much like a rock climber lowering himself down, the rock wouldn't move.

Originally posted by Bardock42
paradox...outside of logic...something we can not comprehend. Now I can comprehend this discussion again.

Originally posted by Creshosk
There's a difference between using the word definition andd just using a definition.

And the fact of the matter is still that it's not a logical paradox. And it is all symantics.

If you create a rock the size of the universe and its the only rock there then because its so massive the rest is destroyed.

Can you picture that much at least?

Now imagine ANYONE trying to lift it. From the perspective of the rock it won't be moved. If the omnipotant being were smaller than the rock (because they choose to be don't get nitpicky) and tried to use their hands it'd simply look like a hand stand. No different than a person on Earth trying to lift the Earth right?

Now if they tried to use some sort of energy to force, it away, from the perspective of the rock the rock still wouldn't move but the person would look like they were flying.

Based on your name I'm guessing you could pick up on the example of using chi/ki/qi/xi in DBZ to fly. they move away from the Earth, or in this case the rock. But from the rock's perspective it still hasn't moved.

Now even if theywere large enough to wrap a single hand around the rock, they still wouldn't be lifting it because there's nothing to lift it from. itd still look like the rock wasn't moving from its perspective. Much like a rock climber lowering himself down, the rock wouldn't move.

First. It is "semantics".

Second. What you are referring to is not "semantics", it is a flawed argument.

Third it is a logical paradox.

Fourth. "Omnipotence" means being able to do anything (everything there is). If something is omnipotent then this being must be able to create something that it can not to something about it (by the definition of omnipotence). But if it can do that then there can be something it is not able to do something about which means it can't be omnipotent. It is a very fundamental paradox.

Let me ask you something, do you understand the problem of "the set of all sets that don't contain themselves"? BEcause it is basically the same.

Originally posted by Bardock42
First. It is "semantics"./quote] Sorry, typoed.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Second. What you are referring to is not "semantics", it is a flawed argument. Point out how its flawed, if you please.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Third it is a logical paradox. Not if it has a solution.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Fourth. "Omnipotence" means being able to do anything (everything there is). If something is omnipotent then this being must be able to create something that it can not to something about it (by the definition of omnipotence). But if it can do that then there can be something it is not able to do something about which means it can't be omnipotent. It is a very fundamental paradox.One of the abilities of being able to do anything would include being able to limit oneself. Simply because it's beyond one person's comprehension doesn't mean that it is beyond everyone's comprehension.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Let me ask you something, do you understand the problem of "the set of all sets that don't contain themselves"? BEcause it is basically the same. Word play really.

Originally posted by Creshosk
Point out how its flawed, if you please.

It isn't. I am just saying that if your point was true, which it isn't, it wouldn't be a point about semantics. It would just point out that the argument is flawed.

Originally posted by Creshosk
Not if it has a solution.

It does not though. Because it is a logical paradox. Because two thing would have to apply at the same time that are mutually exclusive. There are logically impossible things. Something can not exist and not exist for example. Which means that there are things in this universe at least even a very, very powerful being can not do. And because that applies there can not be omnipotence. I don't understand how you can not understand this most simple concept.


Originally posted by Creshosk
One of the abilities of being able to do anything would include being able to limit oneself. Simply because it's beyond one person's comprehension doesn't mean that it is beyond everyone's comprehension.

So the omnipotent person is not able to create such a thing without limiting itself? Does that mean it can't do everything? Doesn't that mean the person is not omnipotent after all?

You are just searching for flaws in the original question. Why? You can make it theoretical.


Originally posted by Creshosk
Word play really.

Are you crazy? The mathematical paradox of the set of all sets is word play to you. Jesus ****ing Christ, why do I humour you?

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Theoretically an omnipotent being, in the sense of being capable of doing anything regardless of human perception of possibility, can create a rock so big it cannot lift it, and then subsequently still be able to lift it, despite it being so big it cannot lift it. All the while the rock is still so big that it cannot lift it, but the omnipotent being can still lift it.



Could he...create a rock so big it cannot lift it, and then subsequently still be able to lift it, despite it being so big it cannot lift it. All the while the rock is still so big that it cannot lift it, but the omnipotent being can still lift it, while, keeping the rock small enough to lift, subsequently not being able to lift said rock, despite it being perfectly liftable- notwithstanding the fact that he still couldn't lift it?

While ensuring that no rules of logic- as we understand them- are broken?

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
Could he...create a rock so big it cannot lift it, and then subsequently still be able to lift it, despite it being so big it cannot lift it. All the while the rock is still so big that it cannot lift it, but the omnipotent being can still lift it, WHILE, keeping the rock small enough to lift, subsequently not being able to lift said rock, despite it being perfectly liftable- notwithstanding the fact that he still couldn't lift it?

While ensuring that no rules of logic- as we understand them- are broken? You just worsened my head ache, you cad, you.

In answer to your question, yes - with the fact that the being is omnipotent as the sole necessary justification.

Well if he's so great how come no-one's heard of him?

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
Could he...create a rock so big it cannot lift it, and then subsequently still be able to lift it, despite it being so big it cannot lift it. All the while the rock is still so big that it cannot lift it, but the omnipotent being can still lift it, while, keeping the rock small enough to lift, subsequently not being able to lift said rock, despite it being perfectly liftable- notwithstanding the fact that he still couldn't lift it?

While ensuring that no rules of logic- as we understand them- are broken?

Awww, you took what I said and make it more understandable.

Like PVS does to you.


Does that mean I am your God? Now, I am not saying I am. That is for you to think about at home. But if I was....if I was...that's what would happen, isn't it?

Originally posted by Bardock42
Awww, you took what I said and make it more understandable.

Like PVS does to you.

I tidied it up. He dumbs it down. Then mentions random gay acts.





Mine are always relevant, like fisting and that.

Originally posted by Bardock42

Does that mean I am your God? Now, I am not saying I am. That is for you to think about at home. But if I was....if I was...that's what would happen, isn't it?

Well...it's not really, is it?

Originally posted by Bardock42
It isn't.So it isn't flawed...

Originally posted by Bardock42
I am just saying that if your point was true, which it isn't, but it isn't true anyway...

Nice.

Originally posted by Bardock42
it wouldn't be a point about semantics. It would just point out that the argument is flawed.But it is. Its relying entirely on "lifting"

Originally posted by Bardock42
It does not though. What's wrong with mine?

Originally posted by Bardock42
Because it is a logical paradox. Simply calling it a logical paradox doesn't make it so.

Likewise calling a question unanswerable doesn't make it so. For example some of the "unanswerable" questions do have answers. Problem is too many people just accept it as being "unanswerable" and then don't bother to try. Which is why I say:

Originally posted by Bardock42
Because two thing would have to apply at the same time that are mutually exclusive. There are logically impossible things. Something can not exist and not exist for example. Which means that there are things in this universe at least even a very, very powerful being can not do. And because that applies there can not be omnipotence. I don't understand how you can not understand this most simple concept.because it sounds like a cop-out to me.

Originally posted by Bardock42
So the omnipotent person is not able to create such a thing without limiting itself? Does that mean it can't do everything? Doesn't that mean the person is not omnipotent after all? Actually its the people who come up with these "logical paradoxes" that limit the beings power. They bind the being to the rules of logic as we understand them.

If we are wrong about our understanding, then its obviously not us who are at fault.

Originally posted by Bardock42
You are just searching for flaws in the original question. Why? You can make it theoretical.Because as I said before. Too many people simply accept that which they were taught, rather blindly. The majority of the populous of the human race just accepts things as they are. Its actually a significantly lower number of the world's populous through history that helped humans progress foreward. If everyone blindly accepted what they were taught previously, we might still have been stuck at a level of progress prior to our current level. For example it was accepted as fact some time ago that the world was flat and that the sun revolved around the earth, that bad smells caused disease. Its only by thinking about things differently than we are taught to blindly accept that we move foreward.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Are you crazy? The mathematical paradox of the set of all sets is word play to you. Jesus ****ing Christ, why do I humour you? And one of those "mathematical paradoxes" helped to show that 1=0. You ever see that one? People gettign clever with word play. Defining something in a way doesn't change the nature of what is.

Originally posted by Creshosk
There's a difference between using the word definition andd just using a definition.

And the fact of the matter is still that it's not a logical paradox. And it is all symantics.

If you create a rock the size of the universe and its the only rock there then because its so massive the rest is destroyed.

Can you picture that much at least?

Now imagine ANYONE trying to lift it. From the perspective of the rock it won't be moved. If the omnipotant being were smaller than the rock (because they choose to be don't get nitpicky) and tried to use their hands it'd simply look like a hand stand. No different than a person on Earth trying to lift the Earth right?

Now if they tried to use some sort of energy to force, it away, from the perspective of the rock the rock still wouldn't move but the person would look like they were flying.

Based on your name I'm guessing you could pick up on the example of using chi/ki/qi/xi in DBZ to fly. they move away from the Earth, or in this case the rock. But from the rock's perspective it still hasn't moved.

Now even if theywere large enough to wrap a single hand around the rock, they still wouldn't be lifting it because there's nothing to lift it from. itd still look like the rock wasn't moving from its perspective. Much like a rock climber lowering himself down, the rock wouldn't move.

You presume that the object must approach or surpass the size of the universe, but this is not necessarily the case; the only contigency is that the object be so heavy that he cannot lift it.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
You presume that the object must approach or surpass the size of the universe, but this is not necessarily the case; the only contigency is that the object be so heavy that he cannot lift it. So when do we get the science lecture to make it applicable?

Are we then to discard other laws of science simply to ensure that this remains a logcial paradox?

Seems rather leading and agenda driven to me to do such a thing.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Something can not exist and not exist for example. Which means that there are things in this universe at least even a very, very powerful being can not do.


That is wrong...things exist that don't exist...it is the borrowed matter theory...it is how black holes evaporate dude.

Anyway...

If you try to bind an omnipotent being to your boudndries of logic...you will end up in a paradox because omniptence is illogical.

Also, if this being did create said rock...couldn't he just go back in time and change the entire universes placement to move slightly to accomodate a movement...thereby not moving the rock at all but moving the universe and thereby...altogether...move the rock by all definitions of it?

Couldn't he also go back in time and stop himself from creating that rock because wouldn't this being cease to be omnipotent IF it could do that?

Omnipotent is a man made word...God may have a different definition for what he is...hell, stephen hawking said that god created this universe and its laws and that God himself has to obey those laws and that god is restricted by that...obviously, God is not omnipotent by our definition of it because of the paradox...

Now this...Because it is a logical paradox. Because two thing would have to apply at the same time that are mutually exclusive. There are logically impossible things. ... Which means that there are things in this universe at least even a very, very powerful being can not do. And because that applies there can not be omnipotence. ...seems (to me) to be saying something different from this...
Which is a paradox.
Meaning it can not logically do that, so it is outside of logic. Which is something we can not comprehend.

My question is this (I'm asking this at large, actually):
Omnipotence generates logical paradox. Does paradox mean, then, there is no such thing as omnipotence? Does Logic Rule? Or does paradox indicate the limits of logic, with omnipotence being something we very limited creatures simply can't grasp, anymore than bacteria could understand calculus?

Originally posted by Mindship
Now this... ...seems (to me) to be saying something different from this...

My question is this (I'm asking this at large, actually):
Omnipotence generates logical paradox. Does paradox mean, then, there is no such thing as omnipotence? Or does paradox indicate the limits of logic, with omnipotence being something we very limited creatures simply can't grasp? I'd go with the latter. I grasp it because I realize that logic is not binding laws of the universe. Merely humans describing their observation and thoughts.

I'm willing to admit that humans can still grow learn and adapt. Our knowledge is flawed.

Originally posted by Mindship
Now this... ...seems (to me) to be saying something different from this...

My question is this (I'm asking this at large, actually):
Omnipotence generates logical paradox. Does paradox mean, then, there is no such thing as omnipotence? Does Logic Rule? Or does paradox indicate the limits of logic, with omnipotence being something we very limited creatures simply can't grasp, anymore than bacteria could understand calculus? Logic is what our language is based on. Our words have to apply to rules of logic. And especially when it comes to omnipotence. Not being able to do something within the range of logic disqualifies someone from being omnipotent anyways.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Logic is what our language is based on. Our words have to apply to rules of logic. And especially when it comes to omnipotence. Not being able to do something within the range of logic disqualifies someone from being omnipotent anyways. And being able to do things that defy logic?

Logic is more like guidelines really.

Originally posted by Creshosk
And being able to do things that defy logic?

Logic is more like guidelines really.

What does that relate to? I do not follow.

Originally posted by Bardock42
What does that relate to? I do not follow. You speak of logic as if they were rules or laws that bind the universe. They're not. They are humans observations and explinations over the period of time that they've been developed.

Or are you to say that logic is infalliable and illogical things cannot exist?

Originally posted by Creshosk
You speak of logic as if they were rules or laws that bind the universe. They're not. They are humans observations and explinations over the period of time that they've been developed.

Or are you to say that logic is infalliable and illogical things cannot exist?

Well, I firmly believe that to be the truth in this universe, yes. But I am agnostic on the issue of logic.

But what I am not agnostic on is words that we achieved by using logic in a universe where logic is not guidelines but binding and even if it wasn't...for omnipotence (a word that we humans defined and that is certainly subject to logic) to apply it has to apply anywhere at anytime about anything.

And we do know that it does not apply where logic is the standards. Therefore it is paradox. It just is.

Answer VVDs revised question:

"Could he (the omnipotent being)...create a rock so big it cannot lift it, and then subsequently still be able to lift it, despite it being so big it cannot lift it. All the while the rock is still so big that it cannot lift it, but the omnipotent being can still lift it, while, keeping the rock small enough to lift, subsequently not being able to lift said rock, despite it being perfectly liftable- notwithstanding the fact that he still couldn't lift it?

While ensuring that no rules of logic- as we understand them- are broken?"

Originally posted by Bardock42
Well, I firmly believe that to be the truth in this universe, yes. But I am agnostic on the issue of logic. If you're without knowledge on the subject of logic then how can you say for certain what is and is not logical? You also did not answer my question. Can illogical things exist?

Originally posted by Bardock42
But what I am not agnostic on is words that we achieved by using logic in a universe where logic is not guidelines but binding Logic is not binding though. Logic is not an end all be all. I ask you again, can illogical things exist or illogical actions take place? If logic was binding then the answer would be no, would it not?

Then wouldn't I simply need to prove that illogical actions take place, or prove the existence of something illogical for that to not be so?

Originally posted by Bardock42
and even if it wasn't...for omnipotence (a word that we humans defined and that is certainly subject to logic) to apply it has to apply anywhere at anytime about anything. The problem then might be with the definition rather than the substance. The problem is you're defining omnipotence as something which is not the definition of omnipotence.

You're defining an omnipotent being as a being who can do all things that are logically possible. and then contrasting it, with the original definition of omnipotence: "All power".

By restricting the being to logical things you are limiting the geings power down from omnipotence into something less powered. And you're using definitions and defining things to do it, even without directly stating what those definitions are.

Originally posted by Bardock42
And we do know that it does not apply where logic is the standards. Therefore it is paradox. It just is. Case in point.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Answer VVDs revised question:

"Could he (the omnipotent being)...create a rock so big it cannot lift it, and then subsequently still be able to lift it, despite it being so big it cannot lift it. All the while the rock is still so big that it cannot lift it, but the omnipotent being can still lift it, while, keeping the rock small enough to lift, subsequently not being able to lift said rock, despite it being perfectly liftable- notwithstanding the fact that he still couldn't lift it?

While ensuring that no rules of logic- as we understand them- are broken?" VVD's revised question is invalid. It commits the "no true scotsman" fallacy and thus is not a valid argument.

The answer is yes. Otherwise we're talking about a potent being rather than an omnipotent being. Something more akin to omnilogistipotent. "All logical power".

an omnipotent being could do thiongs that are illogical and thus probably beyond the comprehension of those too bound up by logic to uderstabd that the way they define things doesn't change what something actually is.

"A rose by any other name."

Originally posted by Creshosk
So when do we get the science lecture to make it applicable?

Are we then to discard other laws of science simply to ensure that this remains a logcial paradox?

Seems rather leading and agenda driven to me to do such a thing.

You are the one who is multiplying entities unnecessarily by presuming that an object must approach or exceed the size of the universe in order to be so heavy that it cannot be lifted.

An ordinary refrigerator magnet is a small object, but it generates enough magnetic force to overcome the gravitational force generated by the entire planet, which is a large object.

Just as it is not the size of the objects, but the strength of the forces generated by them that is relevant in this example, so too is it not the size of the object, but its weight that is relevant in the case of the omnipotence paradox.

Originally posted by Creshosk


VVD's revised question is invalid. It commits the "no true scotsman" fallacy and thus is not a valid argument.

Well. It was a joke reply to Xmarks.

Originally posted by Creshosk

The answer is yes. Otherwise we're talking about a potent being rather than an omnipotent being. Something more akin to omnilogistipotent. "All logical power".

an omnipotent being could do thiongs that are illogical and thus probably beyond the comprehension of those too bound up by logic to uderstabd that the way they define things doesn't change what something actually is.

"A rose by any other name."

Well, I can do something that's illogical. Doesn't add much to the debate, though.



Theoretical omnipotence would allow anything to be achieved.

Within itself, that is possible, if omnipotence did exist.

It doesn't, though. It's just a pointless thought exercise.



'If someone could do anything, could they do anything?'

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
You are the one who is multiplying entities unnecessarily by presuming that an object must approach or exceed the size of the universe in order to be so heavy that it cannot be lifted.Because its the solution to the puzzle. Anything less doesn't cut it.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
An ordinary refrigerator magnet is a small object, but it generates enough magnetic force to overcome the gravitational force generated by the entire planet, which is a large object.

Just as it is not the size of the objects, but the strength of the forces generated by them that is relevant in this example, so too is it not the size of the object, but its weight that is relevant in the case of the omnipotence paradox. If the size doesn't matter then why not have it the size of the universe?

Or do you willing commit the "no true scotsman fallacy" by furthing definging the puzzle to be "Can an omnipotent being create a rock of a certain size and so heavy that it cannot lift it?"

You don't like the answer that solves the problem so you wish to redefine it so that you are right?

Originally posted by Creshosk

Or do you willing commit the "no true scotsman fallacy" by furthing definging the puzzle to be "Can an omnipotent being create a rock of a certain size and so heavy that it cannot lift it?"

You don't like the answer that solves the problem so you wish to redefine it so that you are right?

I don't really think that follows.

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
Well. It was a joke reply to Xmarks. Don't worry, it wasn't you who tried to use a joke seriously.

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
Well, I can do something that's illogical. Doesn't add much to the debate, though.Well it shows that illogical things such as illogical actions can exist despite the existence of logic.

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
Theoretical omnipotence would allow anything to be achieved.

Within itself, that is possible, if omnipotence did exist.

It doesn't, though. It's just a pointless thought exercise.That we know of. I'm not going to say wether something exists or not. because before the discovery of things they still exist even without evidence. Much the way Virii or atoms or electrons did before we had evidence of them. The lack of evidence is not the evidence of the lack of existence. To say otherwise is to comit the ad ignoratiam fallacy.

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
'If someone could do anything, could they do anything?' It's an interesting question, and a bit of a pun.

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
I don't really think that follows.

I don't see why not. The original statement didn't mention the size of them. So when I used a certain size, Adam here came up an basically says that I can't use a rock of that size.

Originally posted by Creshosk

Well it shows that illogical things such as illogical actions can exist despite the existence of logic.

Certainly. I don't think that's the subtlety people are using here, though. It's more to do with whether a logical problem can be logically solved, within logical parameters, despite being illogical. The answer is no, in reality. If we create a (trivial) construct whereby anything can be done regardless, then such matters are pointless.

Originally posted by Creshosk

That we know of. I'm not going to say wether something exists or not. because before the discovery of things they still exist even without evidence. Much the way Virii or atoms or electrons did before we had evidence of them. The lack of evidence is not the evidence of the lack of existence. To say otherwise is to comit the ad ignoratiam fallacy.

Ok. I don't think anyone disputed any of that, though I may be wrong.
Originally posted by Creshosk

It's an interesting question, and a bit of a pun.

I think that's the problem; it's not very interesting. The factual answer is yes, and it doesn't make for great discussion.


Originally posted by Creshosk

I don't see why not. The original statement didn't mention the size of them. So when I used a certain size, Adam here came up an basically says that I can't use a rock of that size.

I imagined Adam was saying it doesn't have to be that size, not that it cannot.

Originally posted by Creshosk

Or do you willing commit the "no true scotsman fallacy" by furthing definging the puzzle to be "Can an omnipotent being create a rock of a certain size and so heavy that it cannot lift it?"

You don't like the answer that solves the problem so you wish to redefine it so that you are right?

Why do you assume that your rock's size is the correct size? if an omnipotent being had to LIFT an object, then wouldn't it also make it a size that could be liftable?

Originally posted by Creshosk
Because its the solution to the puzzle. Anything less doesn't cut it.

If the size doesn't matter then why not have it the size of the universe?

Or do you willing commit the "no true scotsman fallacy" by furthing definging the puzzle to be "Can an omnipotent being create a rock of a certain size and so heavy that it cannot lift it?"

You don't like the answer that solves the problem so you wish to redefine it so that you are right?

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
I imagined Adam was saying it doesn't have to be that size, not that it cannot.

More precisely, the size of the object is not relevant to whether or not it is heavier than his ability to lift, e.g. an omnipotent being could feasibly create a miniscule object that is so heavy that he cannot lift it.

Incidentally, in trying to define an object so heavy that it cannot be lifted as one that approaches or exceeds the universe in size, Creshosk is the one who is arguing semantics, i.e. the meaning of the term lift. He argues that if one succeeds in lifting an object that approaches or exceed the universe in size, then he is not truly lifting it, but pushing away from it, when clearly the point is whether the being is powerful enough to affect the unaffectable object.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
More precisely, the size of the object is not relevant to whether or not it is heavier than his ability to lift, e.g. an omnipotent being could feasibly create a miniscule object that is so heavy that he cannot lift it.

Incidentally, in trying to define an object so heavy that it cannot be lifted as one that approaches or exceeds the universe in size, Creshosk is the one who is arguing semantics, i.e. the meaning of the term lift. He argues that if one succeeds in lifting an object that approaches or exceed the universe in size, then he is not truly lifting it, but pushing away from it, when clearly the point is whether the being is powerful enough to affect the unaffectable object. Restricting the size or any other alterations to the original challegnge is commiting the no true scotsman fallacy.

You seem desperate to disregard my answer without saying why it doesn't fit the criteria of the original problem. Instead you keep redfining the criteria. Is it because I answered an unanswerable question and that bothers you?

Originally posted by Creshosk
Restricting the size or any other alterations to the original challegnge is commiting the no true scotsman fallacy.

You seem desperate to disregard my answer without saying why it doesn't fit the criteria of the original problem. Instead you keep redfining the criteria. Is it because I answered an unanswerable question and that bothers you?

I have placed no restrictions to the size of the object. To the contrary, I have stated that the size of the object does not matter.

I detailed in my previous post why your argument is not valid. Defining an object so heavy that it cannot be lifted as one that approaches or exceeds the universe in size, and then arguing that if one succeeds in lifting said object, then he is not truly lifting it, but pushing away from it, is arguing semantics. Clearly, the point is whether the being is powerful enough to affect the unaffectable object.

To the contrary, it is you who is trying to define the premises in such a way that it suits your argument, e.g. trying to quanitfy the size of an object which by necessity need only be so heavy that it cannot be lifted, not necessarily of a particular size.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
I have placed no restrictions to the size of the object. To the contrary, I have stated that the size of the object does not matter.

I detailed in my previous post why your argument is not valid. Defining an object so heavy that it cannot be lifted as one that approaches or exceeds the universe in size, and then arguing that if one succeeds in lifting said object, then he is not truly lifting it, but pushing away from it, is arguing semantics. Clearly, the point is whether the being is powerful enough to affect the unaffectable object.

To the contrary, it is you who is trying to define the premises in such a way that it suits your argument, e.g. trying to quanitfy the size of an object which by necessity need only be so heavy that it cannot be lifted, not necessarily of a particular size.

1.2.3.) Still nothing as to why my solution does not fit the criteria of the original challenge. Just you trying to change the criteria of the original problem.

I don't get what all this fuss is about. By definition omnipotence entails being able to do anything.

Creating a rock so big it cannot lift it, falls into the realm of anything.
Lifting a rock so big it cannot lift it, falls into the realm of anything.

Ergo an omnipotent being can create a rock so big it cannot lift it and subsequently lift said rock so big it cannot lift it, retaining said omnipotence.

It may not be plausible, it may not be logical, nor comprehensably possible. But omnipotence entails being able to do it.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
An ordinary refrigerator magnet is a small object, but it generates enough magnetic force to overcome the gravitational force generated by the entire planet, which is a large object. Just pointing out that this is a misleading physical assertion.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
I don't get what all this fuss is about. By definition omnipotence entails being able to do anything.

Creating a rock so big it cannot lift it, falls into the realm of anything.
Lifting a rock so big it cannot lift it, falls into the realm of anything.

Ergo an omnipotent being can create a rock so big it cannot lift it and subsequently lift said rock so big it cannot lift it, retaining said omnipotence.

I completely agree

omnipotence entails things like being able to make glass so dirty it is 100% transparent, or making soup so solid that it can work as human blood.

Yes, those things are by definition impossible or don't even make sense. However, were God omnipotent, he should be able to do it.

To be honest, I think this is one of the few acceptable times where the "Humans are incapable of knowing God" argument may be acceptable. If omnipotence exists, clearly our brains and the logical systems it creates are not built to have any way of understanding it

Also NB in general for clarification purposes; I am for all intents and purposes an agnostic - in the sense that I do not think the existence of deities can be proven nor disproven - or atheist - in the sense that I do not intend to believe in deities, unless the existence of such can be conclusively proven. I am equally likewise agnostic towards Santa, and "aSantaist."

My above point was not meant as an argument for the existence of omnipotent beings, but rather that the ascription of such a paradox to an omnipotent being is not particularly applicable.

Originally posted by inimalist


To be honest, I think this is one of the few acceptable times where the "Humans are incapable of knowing God" argument may be acceptable. If omnipotence exists, clearly our brains and the logical systems it creates are not built to have any way of understanding it

Good point.

Is this a paradox?

http://www.cedesign.com/davidmac/assets/images/Terrace.jpg

I would call that an optical illusion

but they are so stupidly cool

http://www.michaelbach.de/ot/mot_feet_lin/index.html

Originally posted by inimalist
I would call that an optical illusion

but they are so stupidly cool

http://www.michaelbach.de/ot/mot_feet_lin/index.html

Well yeah but I thought that some optical illusions are paradoxical because your seeing something that doesnt make any sense.

Maybe that wasnt a good example.

Originally posted by Alfheim
Well yeah but I thought that some optical illusions are paradoxical because your seeing something that doesnt make any sense.

Maybe that wasnt a good example.

not how I would use the word but I see what you are saying

Originally posted by inimalist
not how I would use the word but I see what you are saying

Ok then what do you see as the difference between a "paradox" in an optical illusion and how you would use it?

paradox is a language thing to me.

I'm not saying it is wrong, I am explaining why I called it an optical illusion, you are welcome to call it what you want, paradox does make sense

Originally posted by inimalist
paradox is a language thing to me.

I'm not saying it is wrong, I am explaining why I called it an optical illusion, you are welcome to call it what you want, paradox does make sense

Ok. Anyway I gues im saying that if we can create a paradox with a picture than a paradox can exist...maybe.

You are highlighting the reasons I wouldn't use the term "paradox" in place of "optical illusion"

Some people argue that Omnipotence is beyond our understanding, since it would take an unlimitted mind to understand Infinity, and since our minds are very limitted, we can't grasp that kind of existance.


However, Human Beings Invented the idea of Omnipotence, as we invented many ideas that don't exist in reality.

It may very well be that Omnipotence does not exist, and it is a concept of our imagination and dreams.



Also, if God cannot be defined within the confines of Logic, than maybe God is not logical.

So...there are those who feel Paradox means Omnipotence can not exist, and there are those who feel Paradox means Logic has its limits (which does Not necessarily mean Omnipotence Does exist, only that it can't be ruled out logically).

Since each of these positions reflect a paradigm, my next question is: why did you (the general you) adopt the paradigm you did?

Originally posted by Mindship
So...there are those who feel Paradox means Omnipotence can not exist, and there are those who feel Paradox means Logic has its limits (which does Not necessarily mean Omnipotence Does exist, only that it can't be ruled out logically).

Since each of these positions reflect a paradigm, my next question is: why did you (the general you) adopt the paradigm you did?

None of us have an answer.



All I can conclude is that God cannot be defined within the confines of Logic, therefore God and his existance or lack there of, is illogical.

I think the answer being arrived at is trivial.

Is an omnipotent being omnipotent? Yes.

The more interesting question is whether, and how, such a thing could be possible, by reference to the tools of thought that we are able to comprehend.

Otherwise it's not really worthwhile.

Just to say that something 'impossible' can be done because that is so as part of the terms of the argument isn't really a satisfactory conclusion.

Rejoice, your saviour is here to clear the issue for everyone (sadly the enlightenment can only come in 3 posts....but hey, if I was inspired by God I'd take 10 minimum):

Originally posted by Creshosk
So it isn't flawed...

but it isn't true anyway...

Nice.



Idiocy. I was clearly referring to two separate issues.

When I said you are not referring to "semantics" you are referring to the argument that is is a paradox being flaws.


Then I said that you are wrong about that though.


Seriously, we can't have a reasonable debate if you don't understand the most rudimentary of language rules. My statement made perfect sense and was quite clear and still you misunderstood it (on purpose or not) ... it is irritating.



Originally posted by Creshosk
But it is. Its relying entirely on "lifting"


lift

1. to move or bring (something) upward from the ground or other support to a higher position; hoist.

So there has to be a ground and there has to be a motion between them. The question (WLOG - Without loss of generality) asks whether that omnipotent being is able to create something that it can not possibly separate from something else ever (earth, for example).

That is the question. And that is a logical paradox.



Originally posted by Creshosk
What's wrong with mine?


Your "solution" is not a solution at all. It is stating that the question is not valid to begin with, it doesn't solve it, it tries to bypass it.


Originally posted by Creshosk
Simply calling it a logical paradox doesn't make it so.


No, it being a logical paradox makes it though.

If God is omnipotent then that means he must be able to create a thing that he can not separate from another thing, but since he is omnipotent he must be able to separate that thing from another, but since he is omnipotent he must have been able to create a thing he can't separate, but since he is omnipotent he must be able to separate the thing, but since he is omnipotent he must have been able to create a thing he can't separate ,but since he is omnipotent he must be able to separate the thing, but since he is omnipotent he must have been able to create a thing he can't separate, but since he is omnipotent he must be able to separate the thing......


Originally posted by Creshosk
Likewise calling a question unanswerable doesn't make it so. For example some of the "unanswerable" questions do have answers. Problem is too many people just accept it as being "unanswerable" and then don't bother to try. Which is why I say:


because it sounds like a cop-out to me.


Okay, you know I am not doing that. Do you understand the rules of logic? I get the strong feeling you do not know anything about it and think it is just a few monks that sometime though up logical rules and made up paradoxes because they were too lazy to think about it.

That is a very childish view of logic, there is a reason why it is far higher valued than religion, because it works.

And you must understand just because something sounds like a cop out to you does not make it one.


Originally posted by Creshosk
Actually its the people who come up with these "logical paradoxes" that limit the beings power. They bind the being to the rules of logic as we understand them.


No, they do not. They just say that if a being is omnipotent by our definition it has also have to be so when the rules of logic apply. And that doesn't.

Of course there could be other things as logic though I can not imagine them, but where the rules of logic apply there can not be omnipotence. And because they do apply (or at least could) omnipotence is paradox.


Originally posted by Creshosk
If we are wrong about our understanding, then its obviously not us who are at fault.


Makes no sense, next.



Originally posted by Creshosk
Because as I said before. Too many people simply accept that which they were taught, rather blindly. The majority of the populous of the human race just accepts things as they are.


Maybe, I don't though. As you can see I actually thought about the subject and at least have a mild understanding of logic. So, that can't be it. Also, people that have helped the human progress significantly have thought about the question....


Originally posted by Creshosk
Its actually a significantly lower number of the world's populous through history that helped humans progress foreward. If everyone blindly accepted what they were taught previously, we might still have been stuck at a level of progress prior to our current level. For example it was accepted as fact some time ago that the world was flat and that the sun revolved around the earth, that bad smells caused disease. Its only by thinking about things differently than we are taught to blindly accept that we move foreward.


And you do know how we got over those superstitions, right? Well, I will tell you, the keyword is "LOGIC". Of course you have to think for yourself, but by that you need to have an open mind, you, for example, challenge for challenge's sake, you do not contemplate the question at hand.


Originally posted by Creshosk
And one of those "mathematical paradoxes" helped to show that 1=0. You ever see that one? People gettign clever with word play. Defining something in a way doesn't change the nature of what is.

That is nonsense. If at all that is a mathematical proof, and it isn't because by the rules of mathematics you can not show that 1 = 0.

Originally posted by Creshosk
So when do we get the science lecture to make it applicable?

Are we then to discard other laws of science simply to ensure that this remains a logcial paradox?

Seems rather leading and agenda driven to me to do such a thing.

We don't have to disregard anything. It is a logical paradox. I showed you. Jesus...do you know what a paradox is?

Again, do you understand "the set of all sets that do not contain themselves"? Think about it.



Originally posted by Creshosk
If you're without knowledge on the subject of logic then how can you say for certain what is and is not logical? You also did not answer my question. Can illogical things exist?

I am not without knowledge on the subject of logic.

And, I am not sure whether illogical things can exist, that is deeply rooted with another philosophical problem of free will and predestination. It also depends how statistics plays into the whole thing. It is not an easy thing to answer. Though for arguments sake, and since I know you didn't think deeply about the question and didn't want a sophisticated answer I would say "yes", it is possible for illogical things to exist.

It does not matter though. Because illogical things and logical paradoxes are two very different issues, the latter being the one that is subject of this debate.


Originally posted by Creshosk
Logic is not binding though. Logic is not an end all be all. I ask you again, can illogical things exist or illogical actions take place? If logic was binding then the answer would be no, would it not?

Actually logic is kinda binding (as far as we can see today) possibly with the exception living things, for whatever reason.

Originally posted by Creshosk
Then wouldn't I simply need to prove that illogical actions take place, or prove the existence of something illogical for that to not be so?

No. That would not be enough. Or at least hard to achieve, for how can you prove something to be illogical without knowing all the factors that played into it?

Originally posted by Creshosk
The problem then might be with the definition rather than the substance. The problem is you're defining omnipotence as something which is not the definition of omnipotence.

You're defining an omnipotent being as a being who can do all things that are logically possible. and then contrasting it, with the original definition of omnipotence: "All power".

No, I define it as a being that can do everything. That includes everything that is logically possible. And also everything that is not logically possible. But that it can not be because it is unable to do it while keeping the rules of logic intact.

I feel like debating with a 3 year old (dog)

It is so frustrating.


Originally posted by Creshosk
By restricting the being to logical things you are limiting the geings power down from omnipotence into something less powered. And you're using definitions and defining things to do it, even without directly stating what those definitions are.

I am not though.

Originally posted by Creshosk
Case in point.

That's not a point. That's not even a reasonable statement.

Originally posted by Creshosk
VVD's revised question is invalid. It commits the "no true scotsman" fallacy and thus is not a valid argument.

No it does not. But nice that you learned a logical fallacy, it's cute.

Originally posted by Creshosk
The answer is yes. Otherwise we're talking about a potent being rather than an omnipotent being. Something more akin to omnilogistipotent. "All logical power".



an omnipotent being could do thiongs that are illogical and thus probably beyond the comprehension of those too bound up by logic to uderstabd that the way they define things doesn't change what something actually is.

But could it do it while keeping the rules of ****ing logic intact? Could it? Because it must be able to, but it can't because it is impossible by the rules of logic. Do you not ****ing understand it?

Originally posted by Creshosk
Or do you willing commit the "no true scotsman fallacy" by furthing definging the puzzle to be "Can an omnipotent being create a rock of a certain size and so heavy that it cannot lift it?"


You idiot.

a) he could define it, because people that use the argument don't say that the question is necessarily the paradox but that omnipotence is a paradox, the question is just to make it more clear to halfwits, though, indeed, not even that helps with everyone

b) the question is already can he create a roclk (any ****ing rock) that he cannot lift .... that includes all sizes and all heaviness-es.

Your answer is an idiotic cop out and it hurts to read it if you have at least a slim understanding of logic.

Originally posted by Mindship
My question is this (I'm asking this at large, actually):
Omnipotence generates logical paradox. Does paradox mean, then, there is no such thing as omnipotence? Does Logic Rule? Or does paradox indicate the limits of logic, with omnipotence being something we very limited creatures simply can't grasp, anymore than bacteria could understand calculus?

I lean more to the logic rules side (at least in this universe). Again as I said there are things I might not comprehend. But the problem with omnipotence (a word born in a universe guided by logic)

The point that still stands though is that omnipotence does not apply where logic does. And taking the definition of omnipotence it would have to, don't you agree?


Originally posted by xmarksthespot

Creating a rock so big it cannot lift it, falls into the realm of anything.
Lifting a rock so big it cannot lift it, falls into the realm of anything.

Ergo an omnipotent being can create a rock so big it cannot lift it and subsequently lift said rock so big it cannot lift it, retaining said omnipotence.


I agree that it would be possible in a not logical way I can't imagine.

Now here is the problem, omnipotence, as you said, entails being able to do anything.

Now, anything includes being able to

Creating a rock so big it cannot lift it, falls into the realm of anything.
Lifting a rock so big it cannot lift it, falls into the realm of anything.
Keep the rules of logic intact while doing so.

But can it do that? No, because it is in the realms of logic now and the omnipotent being has to keep them up, it is a paradox though so it can not do it.

I am sure you understand what I am getting at. And though it is a sort of clumsy line of thought, it has to apply to omnipotence, right?

Originally posted by Alfheim
Good point.

Is this a paradox?

http://www.cedesign.com/davidmac/assets/images/Terrace.jpg

No.

At least not in the sense we are discussion paradoxes here.

paradox

1. a statement or proposition that seems self-contradictory or absurd but in reality expresses a possible truth.
2. a self-contradictory and false proposition.

Originally posted by Bardock42



No.

At least not in the sense we are discussion paradoxes here.

paradox

1. a statement or proposition that seems self-contradictory or absurd but in reality expresses a possible truth.
2. a self-contradictory and false proposition.

Well its just seems like a paradox in visual form.

Originally posted by Alfheim
Well its just seems like a paradox in visual form.
It is not a logical paradox though.

I suppose you could call it a paradox, but it would not be the same thing we are talking about. A homonym you might say, with slightly similar characteristics...

Originally posted by Alfheim
Well its just seems like a paradox in visual form.

its not

optical illusions exploit errors in the processing of stimuli in our brain

paradoxes exploit the limits of language and logic to conceptulize things that are outside of human understanding (or to show places where the logic and language we use is limited or becomes self-contradicting)

Originally posted by inimalist
its not

optical illusions exploit errors in the processing of stimuli in our brain

paradoxes exploit the limits of language and logic to conceptulize things that are outside of human understanding (or to show places where the logic and language we use is limited or becomes self-contradicting)

Ah now I got you.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
That is true. No one could be omnipotent; not even god.

Then he sucks, end of. If he exists, that is. Which I highly doubt he does.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Rejoice, your saviour is here to clear the issue for everyone (sadly the enlightenment can only come in 3 posts....but hey, if I was inspired by God I'd take 10 minimum):





Idiocy. I was clearly referring to two separate issues.

When I said you are not referring to "semantics" you are referring to the argument that is is a paradox being flaws.


Then I said that you are wrong about that though.


Seriously, we can't have a reasonable debate if you don't understand the most rudimentary of language rules. My statement made perfect sense and was quite clear and still you misunderstood it (on purpose or not) ... it is irritating. Nor can we if you're going to start resorting to personal attacks. Regardless of what you'd like to believe it is a semantic argument.


Originally posted by Bardock42
lift

1. to move or bring (something) upward from the ground or other support to a higher position; hoist.

So there has to be a ground and there has to be a motion between them. The question (WLOG - Without loss of generality) asks whether that omnipotent being is able to create something that it can not possibly separate from something else ever (earth, for example).

That is the question. And that is a logical paradox. You keep calling it a logical paradox, and it really seems you want to beleive that. Particularly with this definition my solution is perfect.

With a rock the size of the entire universe and NO ground or anything else, you can't move or bring the rock upward from the ground as there is no ground to bring it up from. Thus the rock cannot be lifted, purely based on what lifting is. The fact that you cannot grasp such a simple concept is no skin off my nose, I will not call you an idiot for your inability to understand however.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Your "solution" is not a solution at all. It is stating that the question is not valid to begin with, it doesn't solve it, it tries to bypass it. No, it answers the specific example. You still have not stated how the solution is flawed. It does nothing to bypass the question. It answers it. Though technically its answering a secondary part of the question. the first part of the answer is yes. the solution answers "how?"

Originally posted by Bardock42
No, it being a logical paradox makes it though. Clearly if it can be answered logically then it is not a logical paradox. and if you continue to call it one you're clearly mislabeling the question.

Originally posted by Bardock42
If God I care nothing for God or gods. I'm just using random generic omnipotent being. Makes no difference to me if its God or a god.

Originally posted by Bardock42
is omnipotent then that means he must be able to create a thing that he can not separate from another thing, but since he is omnipotent he must be able to separate that thing from another, but since he is omnipotent he must have been able to create a thing he can't separate, but since he is omnipotent he must be able to separate the thing, but since he is omnipotent he must have been able to create a thing he can't separate ,but since he is omnipotent he must be able to separate the thing, but since he is omnipotent he must have been able to create a thing he can't separate, but since he is omnipotent he must be able to separate the thing...... Repeating yourself repeatedly acheives nothing. Clearly if there is nothing to seperate it from it cannot be seperated from something that's not there. The solution is finalized. You are more than a mere calculator, you are human and thus should be capable of thinking about things in more than one way. If you're not it'd be no different then talking to a computer about an infinite loop error.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Okay, you know I am not doing that. Do you understand the rules of logic? I get the strong feeling you do not know anything about it and think it is just a few monks that sometime though up logical rules and made up paradoxes because they were too lazy to think about it. Of course I know about it, I know what it is and what it isn't I know of the rules of logic, to what they pertain and of course using it to debate.

Originally posted by Bardock42
That is a very childish view of logic, there is a reason why it is far higher valued than religion, because it works. One man's god is no different than another in my eyes. Listen to you preaching in a rather religous tone about logic. Seriously do you even listen to yourself?

Originally posted by Bardock42
And you must understand just because something sounds like a cop out to you does not make it one. How much different is going:

"It just is." from "I'm not going to try, I'm just going to accept it."

Just like your attacks on me a moment ago. "I don't think you know anything about logic." an ad hominem attack is used to discredit a person. Usually when a person is discredited you can just dismiss them as they have no credibility.
Originally posted by Bardock42
No, they do not. They just say that if a being is omnipotent by our definition it has also have to be so when the rules of logic apply. And that doesn't.By our definition omnipotence is defined to be beyond the bounds of our logic. Much like the word supernatural.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Of course there could be other things as logic though I can not imagine them, but where the rules of logic apply there can not be omnipotence. And because they do apply (or at least could) omnipotence is paradox. Circular reasoning is an invalid argument.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Makes no sense, next. Not to you maybe. But if our rules of logic are incomplete or flawed, we wouldn't know it. Can we be faulted for our ignorance if we don't know? You wouldn't tease or laugh at a three year old for not knowing things, or a foreigner of age who doesn't know about specific questions right? Its why we have schools, to provide knowledge to those who do not have it. not to mock and ridicule them.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Maybe, I don't though. As you can see I actually thought about the subject and at least have a mild understanding of logic. So, that can't be it. Also, people that have helped the human progress significantly have thought about the question.... outside the bounds of just accepting it for what other people call it. Obviously they didn't just blindly accept what other people called something.

Originally posted by Bardock42
And you do know how we got over those superstitions, right? Well, I will tell you, the keyword is "LOGIC". Of course you have to think for yourself, but by that you need to have an open mind, you, for example, challenge for challenge's sake, you do not contemplate the question at hand. And on the subject of omnipotence I've pondered the subject for a long time. I have a solution for the question rather than just saying yes, or saying "God is unknowable" or something else that dodges the question. I've thought through the solution to the problem and still have yest to see why my solution does not answer the problem of creating a rock too big/heavy to lift/move. I've seen the question phrased in different ways. But it only starts becoming more than the base for which my solution works when people hear the solution.

I do not understand the hostility of recieving my answer where by the original question needs to be changed just to make my solution not fit.

Originally posted by Bardock42
That is nonsense. If at all that is a mathematical proof, and it isn't because by the rules of mathematics you can not show that 1 = 0. So you haven't seen it. Do you want to google it or should I?

You are a genius

Originally posted by Bardock42
I lean more to the logic rules side (at least in this universe). Again as I said there are things I might not comprehend. But the problem with omnipotence (a word born in a universe guided by logic)

The point that still stands though is that omnipotence does not apply where logic does. And taking the definition of omnipotence it would have to, don't you agree?

I agree that it would be possible in a not logical way I can't imagine.

Now here is the problem, omnipotence, as you said, entails being able to do anything.

Now, anything includes being able to

Creating a rock so big it cannot lift it, falls into the realm of anything.
Lifting a rock so big it cannot lift it, falls into the realm of anything.
Keep the rules of logic intact while doing so.

But can it do that? No, because it is in the realms of logic now and the omnipotent being has to keep them up, it is a paradox though so it can not do it.

I am sure you understand what I am getting at. And though it is a sort of clumsy line of thought, it has to apply to omnipotence, right? But then omnipotence also entails being able to break the rules of logic while simultaneously keeping them intact, illogical as it may be... 131

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
But then omnipotence also entails being able to break the rules of logic while simultaneously keeping them intact, illogical as it may be... 131
Thereby making it a logical paradox doped

Originally posted by The Grey Fox
Then he sucks, end of. If he exists, that is. Which I highly doubt he does.

"He" does not.

And there you have it. Close/

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
But then omnipotence also entails being able to break the rules of logic while simultaneously keeping them intact, illogical as it may be... 131

Originally posted by Bardock42
Thereby making it a logical paradox doped

HAHA!

there is the answer

Originally posted by Bardock42
Thereby making it a logical paradox doped But omnipotence entails the being performing the logical paradox while keeping it non-paradoxical. hmm

Basically one can just write whatever they want, and counter it by adding to the sentences to maintain omnipotence status really.

Originally posted by The Grey Fox
And there you have it. Close/

Originally posted by Bardock42
We don't have to disregard anything. It is a logical paradox. I showed you. Jesus...do you know what a paradox is?But you are disregarding it in odrer to insure it remains a paradox. You have to change and alter rules and definitions to ensure you're right.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Again, do you understand "the set of all sets that do not contain themselves"? Think about it.I'm well aware of Russle's paradox and the cute little barber paradox that spawned from it. It in no way changes what I said.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I am not without knowledge on the subject of logic. Do you know what "agnostic" means? Not what it is, or how it is usually applied, but what it actually means.

Originally posted by Bardock42
And, I am not sure whether illogical things can exist, that is deeply rooted with another philosophical problem of free will and predestination. It also depends how statistics plays into the whole thing. It is not an easy thing to answer. Though for arguments sake, and since I know you didn't think deeply about the question and didn't want a sophisticated answer I would say "yes", it is possible for illogical things to exist.Haha, you're a funny one. Don't think I didn't see that veiled ad hominem in there. This is why debates with me degrade, the other people start showing a level of disrespect that they themselves may not be aware of.

I have thought about the answer. And yes illogical things do exist. People exist, people do things that go against logical outcomes. Emotions exist. Emotions are like a counterbalance to logic.

"Logic without emotion is ruthlessness, Emotion without logic is insanity."
Originally posted by Bardock42
It does not matter though. Because illogical things and logical paradoxes are two very different issues, the latter being the one that is subject of this debate.You see that is where we have a disagreement. You think that by classifying something as a paradox you can just drop it in the "does not exist" bin. What you may be wrong about is something might be a logical paradox or it could simply be illogical. You say omnipotence is a logical paradox, and you try and fail to set up examples. Omnipotence by definition is not a logical paradox, Omnipotence by definition is illogical. Omnipotence by definition is outside the bounds of logic. Not bound within the bounds of logic.

You forget that certain things are set up by logic to be outside the bounds of it. Faith is illogical. and I'm not just talking about religous faith. but having faith in a person to do something because you're relying on your feelings, another thing that is illogical.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Actually logic is kinda binding (as far as we can see today)I noted the parentheticals. They seem to indicate some sort of potential doubt. Do you feel that our rules of logic might indeed be flawed then?

If logic was binding then illogical things would not exist. Things certainly could not exist outside of the thing that bound them.

Originally posted by Bardock42
possibly with the exception living things, for whatever reason. if there are exceptions then the law is not so much a law now is it?

Originally posted by Bardock42
No. That would not be enough. Or at least hard to achieve, for how can you prove something to be illogical without knowing all the factors that played into it?Those would be explinations as to why its illogical. that would not be things to make the thing become logical, just understood.

Originally posted by Bardock42
No, I define it as a being that can do everything. That includes everything that is logically possible. And also everything that is not logically possible. But that it can not be because it is unable to do it while keeping the rules of logic intact.Here is another problem. You are the one setting up the self-contradicting rules.

Simply by saying
"And also everything that is not logically possible."
You have already decided to discard
"keeping the rules of logic intact"

By
"keeping the rules of logic intact"
You then discard
"And also everything that is not logically possible."

Originally posted by Bardock42
I feel like debating with a 3 year old (dog) I'm getting the same feeling. When frustrated the three year old or the dog will lash out, in much the manner you just did. Indirectly calling me a 3 year old or a dog did not go unnoticed.

Originally posted by Bardock42
It is so frustrating. Why? It doesn't make sense and is thus rather illogical to get frustrated because another does not blindly accept your point of veiw. I'm "debating" to have fun. I don't care what the outcome is, whether you change you mind to my point of veiw or we simply agree to disagree on the subject. I certainly do hope that things do not degrade too badly because I like and respect you. You'll note that I have not hurled any insults, except for those you gave to me, at you.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I am not though. Not now that you cefined them above. But you are still restricting the beings power.

Originally posted by Bardock42
That's not a point. That's not even a reasonable statement."Case in point" or my pointing out something that supported the argument I had just made when I pointed out that it supported it?

Originally posted by Bardock42
No it does not. But nice that you learned a logical fallacy, it's cute.Condecension and belittling me serve no purpose. It does commit it, are you familiar with what it is?

Much like "moving the goal posts" By changing the original question after a solution is given to disprove the solution rather than trying to disprove the solution directly is to commit the fallacy.

Person A: "No scotsman likes swiss cheese"
Person B: "My uncle is from scotland and he loves swiss cheese"
Person A: "No TRUE scotsman likes swiss cheese"

When his claim was challenged he changed the statement, by either revealing more to it or by outright changing it simply to make the other person's evidence invalid. The problem is that it does not address the point but merely dodges it and creates a secondary point that is not the first.

Originally posted by Bardock42
But could it do it while keeping the rules of ****ing logic intact?Well this point was covered before. Regardless of your irritation you are trying to limit the beings power.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Could it? Because it must be able to, but it can't because it is impossible by the rules of logic. Do you not ****ing understand it? There's no need to get frustrated with me. I have not attacked you, I have merely presented an opposing point of veiw, so the cursing is uncalled for.

Originally posted by Bardock42
You idiot. Where as you seem intent to hurl insults at me despite my desire to not attack you.

Originally posted by Bardock42
a) he could define it, because people that use the argument don't say that the question is necessarily the paradox but that omnipotence is a paradox, the question is just to make it more clear to halfwits, though, indeed, not even that helps with everyoneAh, but you see you're presenting proof of your claims, and I'm challenging that proof. Without proof you could not reasonably make the claim.

I don't see it as being a logical paradox. Omnipotence by definition defies logic. it is therefore illogical rather than being a logical paradox.

Do you get it now? What I'm trying to do? What my veiw is? Or shall I start insulting you on the basis that I don't agree with you and you did technically start insulting me.

Originally posted by Bardock42
b) the question is already can he create a roclk (any ****ing rock) that he cannot lift .... that includes all sizes and all heaviness-es.My rock fits the question. it is but one example. and if one example of yes exists then the answer is yes.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Your answer is an idiotic cop out and it hurts to read it if you have at least a slim understanding of logic. And yet, you still have not explained why without changing the question. more to the point you've started simply hurling insults at it and me. Try to be more reasonable would you?

Originally posted by Bardock42
Thereby making it a logical paradox doped No, just illogical.

Or are you to say emotions are a logical paradox?

I think the mistaking cause and effect is here now that I think about this more.

Emotions much like omnipotence are the source. Its the resulting actions that lead to the paradoxes themselves rather than the sources being the direct cause..

Originally posted by The Grey Fox
And there you have it. Close/

Originally posted by The Grey Fox
Is that really adding to the conversation? Seems to fit the definition of spam after the first time you posted it really.

I'm saying: CLOSE THE THREAD ALREADY. Hense the 'Close/'

CLose the htread, all you're doing is pwning the guy. Calm down and shuth this thread down... KK?

Originally posted by The Grey Fox
I'm saying: CLOSE THE THREAD ALREADY. Hense the 'Close/'

CLose the htread, all you're doing is pwning the guy. Calm down and shuth this thread down... KK? I'm perfectly calm and see no reason the thread should be closed. It has not broken the rules, except here a little bit by being off-topic. If others wish to add to the future or Bardock wishes to continue, I'm interesting in seeing the answers.

I'll admit that the subject of omnipotence has been rather intruging to me my etire life. and if there is more I might learn then I'm interested in that as well.

Okay, to make things clearer and because I can't possibly reply to you again Creshosk (since I'd have to make the same points over) I will just state my opinion again:

I believe that omnipotence is a logical paradox.

I believe that I can not be sure whether there are things outside of logical paradoxes or not.

I believe going by the fundamental definitions of logic "omnipotence" as we have defined it in our languages, which are subject to logical testing is paradox.

I believe the "stone that he can't lift" question does show the paradox, but even if it does not, by being changed it becomes clear.

I also believe that it is a paradox in the same way "All Cretans lie. I am a Cretan" and "the set of all sets that do not contain themselves" are paradox ... and it is a believe that boarders unquestionable faith really really closely.

And I think I have given enough reasons why I do believe all those.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Okay, to make things clearer and because I can't possibly reply to you again Creshosk (since I'd have to make the same points over) I will just state my opinion again:

I believe that omnipotence is a logical paradox.

I believe that I can not be sure whether there are things outside of logical paradoxes or not.

I believe going by the fundamental definitions of logic "omnipotence" as we have defined it in our languages, which are subject to logical testing is paradox.

I believe the "stone that he can't lift" question does show the paradox, but even if it does not, by being changed it becomes clear.

I also believe that it is a paradox in the same way "All Cretans lie. I am a Cretan" and "the set of all sets that do not contain themselves" are paradox ... and it is a believe that boarders unquestionable faith really really closely.

And I think I have given enough reasons why I do believe all those. Well, as I said, I'd much prefer to agree to disagree than to have it become the flame war that I do not want with you. I like you and see no reason we can't end this amiably.

Though I have a solution to the Cretan example you posted. A better example would be

The next statement is false. The previous statement is true.

Or even simpler

This statement is false.

Originally posted by Creshosk
Well, as I said, I'd much prefer to agree to disagree than to have it become the flame war that I do not want with you. I like you and see no reason we can't end this amiably.

Though I have a solution to the Cretan example you posted. A better example would be

The next statement is false. The previous statement is true.

Or even simpler

This statement is false.

Well, there are many paradoxes. The Cretan one is famous. As is the set one. So I just chose those two.

And it is just frustrating to me, when people obviously misunderstand or disregard my points. I mean, if it is a debate and you can refute one of my arguments fine, but people don't address them at all (not saying you don't, just generally) ............ (though you actually don't)

Originally posted by The Grey Fox
And there you have it. Close/

Could an omnipotent being continue posting despite that definitive ending to the thread?

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
Could an omnipotent being continue posting despite that definitive ending to the thread? That's an easy yes.

I think one problem people are having is still with definition.

A paradox is self-contradictory.

Omnipotence itself is just "All power" That alone is hardly self contradictory.

The proofs against omnipotence are allegedly the paradoxes, not omnipotence itself.

Omnipotence is illogical, but by itself is not self contradictory.

In other words, in order for omnipotence to be a paradox, it by itself would have to contradict itself rather than there being proofs which contradict themselves.

Originally posted by Creshosk
That's an easy yes.



Clearly, since my post itself was proof.

And I am only multipotent.

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
Clearly, since my post itself was proof.

And I am only multipotent. So have we then reached a definitive end? I was hoping to see more varied thoughts on the matter.

Originally posted by Creshosk
So have we then reached a definitive end? I was hoping to see more varied thoughts on the matter.

Doubt the thread is finished.

Originally posted by Creshosk

A paradox is self-contradictory.

Omnipotence itself is just "All power" That alone is hardly self contradictory.

N-no.

"All power" is what is contradictory. Because all power would have to include those logical paradoxes, which makes it a logical paradox by association.

Originally posted by Bardock42
N-no.

"All power" is what is contradictory. Because all power would have to include those logical paradoxes, which makes it a logical paradox by association. No, just illogical.

I'm pretty sure that "guilt by association" is a logical fallicy.

Thus your argument is not a valid one.

Logical paradoxes themselves are not power.

The only possible way to eliminate omnipotence is by making logic omnipotent, and again we will arrive at the same paradox.

That why paradoxes must be interpreted as a limit for language. Thats how new discoveries are made in science. For example, it is possible to create new logical formalisms which will answer questions where the old formalisms would give a paradox.

It is impossible to prove that "God is not omnipotent" or "Omnipotence doesn't exist" with that paradox. The paradox just says logic can't be used solve the problem. Logic do not give you any information about this problem.

Originally posted by Creshosk
No, just illogical.

I'm pretty sure that "guilt by association" is a logical fallicy.

Thus your argument is not a valid one.

Logical paradoxes themselves are not power.

No, a logical paradox. Self contradicting, not illogical. I am not even sure how you would define illogical, really.

No, you see, throwing around logical fallacies is not how you do it. You prove that it is one. Now, you can't do that because it wasn't one.

No they are not power. They are just logical paradoxes....what the hell do you mean. I am not saying omnipotence is a logical paradox because I don't like the idea of omnipotence, I just say it because it is one.

Originally posted by Bardock42
No, a logical paradox. Self contradicting, not illogical. I am not even sure how you would define illogical, really. Things being outside the bounds of logic. Seriously I thought we covered this when I mentioned faith and emotions.

It doesn't contradict itself just by being. It might create self contradictions, but by itself it is not.

Originally posted by Bardock42
No, you see, throwing around logical fallacies is not how you do it. You prove that it is one. Now, you can't do that because it wasn't one. Saying that something is something by associtation of what that thing is IS the definition of the fallacy. Saying that it is a logical paradox because of its association to the paradoxes is commiting the fallacy in its entirety.

Originally posted by Bardock42
No they are not power. Then they are seperate from "Omnipotent" all power.

Omnipotence is water falls because it can make them. Sounds rather silly don't you think? That's why I see Omnipotence is a logical paradox because it makes them being just as bad.

Originally posted by Bardock42
They are just logical paradoxes....what the hell do you mean. I am not saying omnipotence is a logical paradox because I don't like the idea of omnipotence, I just say it because it is one. Where did I say that you didn't like the idea of omnipotence?

It itself is not a logical paradox. All power doesn't contradict itself. It's like saying that wood is table. Wood is not table, wood makes tables.

I'm not sure how else to explain it but you're getting the two concepts confused with one another.

I really rather like Atlantis001's words:
"The only possible way to eliminate omnipotence is by making logic omnipotent, and again we will arrive at the same paradox.

That why paradoxes must be interpreted as a limit for language. Thats how new discoveries are made in science. For example, it is possible to create new logical formalisms which will answer questions where the old formalisms would give a paradox.

It is impossible to prove that "God is not omnipotent" or "Omnipotence doesn't exist" with that paradox. The paradox just says logic can't be used solve the problem. Logic do not give you any information about this problem."

Originally posted by Goddess Kali
None of us have an answer.
All I can conclude is that God cannot be defined within the confines of Logic, therefore God and his existance or lack there of, is illogical. Methinks a better word might be "translogical." Not that I want to get into word games, just that it might better describe an entity which, by common definition, is "transcendent" regarding matter and mind.

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
The more interesting question is whether, and how, such a thing could be possible, by reference to the tools of thought that we are able to comprehend.
Otherwise it's not really worthwhile.
By reference to said tools of thought, omnipotence does appear impossible. But if we go "outside that box," are you saying there's no point, like asking, What happened before the Big Bang?

Originally posted by Bardock42
I lean more to the logic rules side (at least in this universe). Again as I said there are things I might not comprehend. But the problem with omnipotence (a word born in a universe guided by logic)
The point that still stands though is that omnipotence does not apply where logic does. And taking the definition of omnipotence it would have to, don't you agree?I'm not sure. See, the thing is: we do live in a physical universe which seems to correlate very nicely with logic (especially mathematical). On the other hand, empirical science (of which logic is a vital part) presents us with a reliable, but not necessarily valid "as if."

Basically, IMO, this debate ultimately centers on, "Does God exist?" (God not necessarily being the JudeoChristian God, but certainly an entity infinite in every way imaginable and unimaginable, otherwise God wouldn't be truly infinite).

Originally posted by Creshosk
I really rather like Atlantis001's words:
"The only possible way to eliminate omnipotence is by making logic omnipotent, and again we will arrive at the same paradox. I'm not sure eliminating omnipotence via logic makes logic omnipotent, because omnipotence may not exist in the first place. Logic is just showing is why from a "logical" perspective.
It is impossible to prove that "God is not omnipotent" or "Omnipotence doesn't exist" with that paradox. The paradox just says logic can't be used solve the problem. This I agree with, because it strikes me as a "what you see is what you get," approach without additional interpretation.

Originally posted by Mindship
I'm not sure eliminating omnipotence via logic makes logic omnipotent, because omnipotence may not exist in the first place. Logic is just showing is why from a "logical" perspective. It doesn't. You'd have to make logic all binding and thus make it impossible ofor illogical things such as illogical actions to exist.

But by making logic omnipotent to do this you've created the paradox of making something omnipotent to remove omnipotence.

This coming from a patriotic nationistic Yank

Originally posted by The Grey Fox
This coming from a patriotic nationistic Yank Reported.

Originally posted by Creshosk
Reported.

Wow. I'm really sorry for some of you guys.

There is no Paradox of Omnipotence. God can do everything inlcuding making a rock to heavy for him to lift, he just does it.

Originally posted by Jesus4Life
Wow. I'm really sorry for some of you guys.

There is no Paradox of Omnipotence. God can do everything inlcuding making a rock to heavy for him to lift, he just does it.

Then why the over complicated sin verses salvation game?

Well, I am done with this gathering. It is bad for my blood pressure, also...I feel I countered all the points one or the other time or actually agree with them, though the replies make it out as if I don't.

Most irritating.

Why do Christians always run when I ask them questions?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Why do Christians always run when I ask them questions? You are stupid, irritating, annoying and wasteful.

Originally posted by Jesus4Life
Wow. I'm really sorry for some of you guys.

There is no Paradox of Omnipotence. God can do everything inlcuding making a rock to heavy for him to lift, he just does it.

The question is can he then lift it?

Originally posted by Bardock42
You are stupid, irritating, annoying and wasteful.
That is not true, at least not any more then you are.

Oh! you are telling me why they run away? You Germans are almost as offencive as the French.

Originally posted by Mindship


By reference to said tools of thought, omnipotence does appear impossible. But if we go "outside that box," are you saying there's no point, like asking, What happened before the Big Bang?



Nah.

'Outside the box' would be a tool of thought.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Then why the over complicated sin verses salvation game?

It has to do with human interfrence. Our weak minds and sould can not translate the word. Plus after you begin to imagine all the tweaking the Romans did you get farther and farther away from the word.

We are all saved, no matter what. Even those that do not wish to.