Omnipotence,Omniscience,Omnipresence

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.



lordboo
which of these power would you rather have?
Omnipotence(all/unlimited power)

omniscience(knowing everything that can be known,
including thoughts, feelings, life and the universe)

omnipresence( ability to be present in every place at any, and/or every, time)

which would you choose and why?

Supermanluv
The first one gives you the others ....

Erik-Lensherr
Originally posted by Supermanluv
The first one gives you the others .... thumb up

Soljer
As mentioned, omipotence would allow you to benefit from both of the others (though I'd hate to be omnipresent).

According to some theories, omniscience would similarly allow you to benefit from omnipotence. However, most of these 'theories' are made of pure bunk.

DigiMark007
Omnipotence contradicts itself.

The classic "Can God make a stone larger than he can lift" is a good example.

Creshosk
Omnipotence. Though I wouldn't want omnipresence or omniscience.

Soljer
Originally posted by DigiMark007
Omnipotence contradicts itself.

The classic "Can God make a stone larger than he can lift" is a good example.

No it doesn't.

Omnipotence contradicts contradiction...

It contradicts all logic and all logical rules.

It makes it possible for you to make two plus two equal italian red snapper.

Supermanluv
Originally posted by DigiMark007
Omnipotence contradicts itself.

The classic "Can God make a stone larger than he can lift" is a good example.

Onipotence only contradicts itslef due to the limits of human logic and language. True onipotence would be meta physical, where the laws of reason and logic don't really apply.

P.S. Im doing a philosophy degree at university.

Supermanluv
Originally posted by Soljer
No it doesn't.

Omnipotence contradicts contradiction...

It contradicts all logic and all logical rules.

It makes it possible for you to make two plus two equal italian red snapper.

Exactly. True onipotence goes beyond the symbolistic meaining of 'All powerful' that is limited by human language, i.e. like concepts such as Infinity.

Creshosk
Originally posted by DigiMark007
Omnipotence contradicts itself.

The classic "Can God make a stone larger than he can lift" is a good example. Actually that "example" is one that I easily shot down in a thread dedicated to the subject of "Omnipotence is a logical paradox".

The only hard part I had was getting people to understand the answer to that specific example.

Create a rock that's larger than anything else in the universe. Then you can't lift it because there's nothing to lift it from.

The problem you face is Work = Force x Distance

Assuming you're smaller than the rock:
Lifting it with your hands would be akin to doing a hand stand. Lifting it with energy would be akin to flying from it.
Assuming you're larger than the rock:
With it being the only thing other than yourself. you still face a POV problem of being unable to mesure the distaence the rock has been lifted without the possability of it being you that moved.

With no way of mesuring then Force can be infinite, but if the distence is 0 the work is 0. and you have not lifted the rock. Because the big question my solution poses is: What are you lifting it from?

willRules
Originally posted by lordboo
which would you choose and why?


None of the above. I'd rather have Benevolence yes

Creshosk
Originally posted by willRules
None of the above. I'd rather have Benevolence yes That's not a superpower. Reguler humans can be benevolent. smile

willRules
Meh, I still consider it a superpower, but maybe I'm easy to please.....that's sort of the whole point big grin

guy222
Originally posted by lordboo
which of these power would you rather have?
Omnipotence(all/unlimited power)

omniscience(knowing everything that can be known,
including thoughts, feelings, life and the universe)

omnipresence( ability to be present in every place at any, and/or every, time)

which would you choose and why?

omnipotence

DigiMark007
Originally posted by Supermanluv
Onipotence only contradicts itslef due to the limits of human logic and language. True onipotence would be meta physical, where the laws of reason and logic don't really apply.

P.S. Im doing a philosophy degree at university.

Well good for you, I'm sure "university" is thrilled to have you, but it doesn't make you right.

Help explain for me how "true" imnipotence would get around those interesting loopholes, like the one I suggested. You can't, because it doesn't. Using words like subjective reality, metaphysical (one word, btw) existence, and the like do nothing to wash away the contradictions.

If you want to provide valid reasons why it doesn't, be my guest. I'm open to discussion, as well as having my mind changed. But semantic overload (using words and terms that you think your audience won't comprehend fully, and thus not be able to refute) isn't going to work.

...

If you want to talk about post-human concepts that humans can't currently comprehend (like imagining a 5-dimensional cube, which we can't) then that's one thing. But the very fact that it is just that, post human....post "us" and our understanding of reality....means that our opinion is instantly invalidated any time we talk about it because it is quite simply beyond our ability to comprehend, explain, or argue with. So speculation will only get so far before you run into ideas that can't be explained.

Mr Master
Originally posted by DigiMark007

Help explain for me how "true" imnipotence would get around those interesting loopholes, like the one I suggested. You can't, because it doesn't. Using words like subjective reality, metaphysical (one word, btw) existence, and the like do nothing to wash away the contradictions.

If you want to provide valid reasons why it doesn't, be my guest. I'm open to discussion, as well as having my mind changed. But semantic overload (using words and terms that you think your audience won't comprehend fully, and thus not be able to refute) isn't going to work.

...

If you want to talk about post-human concepts that humans can't currently comprehend (like imagining a 5-dimensional cube, which we can't) then that's one thing. But the very fact that it is just that, post human....post "us" and our understanding of reality....means that our opinion is instantly invalidated any time we talk about it because it is quite simply beyond our ability to comprehend, explain, or argue with. So speculation will only get so far before you run into ideas that can't be explained.

thumb up I feel like a child right about now.

King Kandy
Omnipotence.

Newjak
Originally posted by DigiMark007
Well good for you, I'm sure "university" is thrilled to have you, but it doesn't make you right.

Help explain for me how "true" imnipotence would get around those interesting loopholes, like the one I suggested. You can't, because it doesn't. Using words like subjective reality, metaphysical (one word, btw) existence, and the like do nothing to wash away the contradictions.

If you want to provide valid reasons why it doesn't, be my guest. I'm open to discussion, as well as having my mind changed. But semantic overload (using words and terms that you think your audience won't comprehend fully, and thus not be able to refute) isn't going to work.

...

If you want to talk about post-human concepts that humans can't currently comprehend (like imagining a 5-dimensional cube, which we can't) then that's one thing. But the very fact that it is just that, post human....post "us" and our understanding of reality....means that our opinion is instantly invalidated any time we talk about it because it is quite simply beyond our ability to comprehend, explain, or argue with. So speculation will only get so far before you run into ideas that can't be explained. There is a problem with the Paradox of the Rock though.

You see most people talk of the Rock Paradox because if God can always lift a rock then he fails at being unable to actually fail but the Paradox must first assume that the Paradox can exist.

Omnipotence is the ability to to do anything you want. For instance the ability to make Reality be 2+2=7 for no other reason then you want it to be so. So the Paradox of the Rock can not hold true because God(Omnipotent) can make reality equal him not failing at any given point because he chooses not to fail because that is what Omnipotence is. The ability to hold power that that is neither limited in scope or range or power.

So the very concept of Omnipotence doesn't allow for the Rock of Paradox because a being that is not limited to our scope and range can make it so that Paradox's don't even exist.

So conceptually you can not place God within the Scope and limits of the human mind because the human mind can not deal with the concept of infinity or never ending power.


So in reality the Paradox of the Rock contradicts itself because there can never be a failing point for true omnipotence.

Or to put it into a Mathematical concept for you. God will always be able to hold the rock but seeing as he can always make a bigger rock ,because there is no limit to the size he can create, he will never reach that point of failure because he can always go to another level. Therefore the point at which he either fails or doesn't will never come because there is no ending point for it to happen. Thus the concept of Inifinity there can never be an end.

Validus
I have a good feeling about this thread.

http://i1.tinypic.com/68idj7c.gif

DigiMark007
...

ExodusCloak
My head hurts. A bit off topic: If an omnipotent person was confined to follow a set of universal laws they placed down does that still make them omnipotent?

DigiMark007
Originally posted by Newjak
Or to put it into a Mathematical concept for you. God will always be able to hold the rock but seeing as he can always make a bigger rock ,because there is no limit to the size he can create, he will never reach that point of failure because he can always go to another level. Therefore the point at which he either fails or doesn't will never come because there is no ending point for it to happen. Thus the concept of Inifinity there can never be an end.

Your last paragraph here spells out something I'd like to mention (though I read all of it).

You're assuming that "failure" = Can't Lift Rock. What if failure = can't make a rock too big to lift? So sure, an omnipotent being could always lift said rock....or always not, depending on what we're defining as "success". You can't have it both ways....but actually, you can, because you're omnipotent. But not at the same time, thus < Omnipotence.

However, this was your main point:

Originally posted by Newjak
So the very concept of Omnipotence doesn't allow for the Rock of Paradox because a being that is not limited to our scope and range can make it so that Paradox's don't even exist.

But that's begging the question just like Superluv was doing earlier. Can they truly make it so that paradox's can't exist? How? You're stating that they can without showing a way, and saying that "their experience of reality is beyond ours" (or something similar) doesn't validate the answer, because again you're simply assuming that somewhere beyond human thought lies the ability to negate paradoxes....which we can't know. And the burden of proof would lie with those who think it can be done, because in terms of our current (meager wink ) human understanding there's no way to do it.

And appealing to the definition of omnipotence isn't any better, because it's still begging it's own question for paradoxes...it exists as an idea/word/concept/etc. but can't functionally exist in the field of reality.

Originally posted by ExodusCloak
My head hurts. A bit off topic: If an omnipotent person was confined to follow a set of universal laws they placed down does that still make them omnipotent?

Key word: "confined". So no.

ExodusCloak
Originally posted by DigiMark007


Key word: "confined". So no.

Okay confined was the wrong word to use how about..."out of good will" embarrasment

Newjak
Originally posted by DigiMark007
Your last paragraph here spells out something I'd like to mention (though I read all of it).

You're assuming that "failure" = Can't Lift Rock. What if failure = can't make a rock too big to lift? So sure, an omnipotent being could always lift said rock....or always not, depending on what we're defining as "success". You can't have it both ways....but actually, you can, because you're omnipotent. But not at the same time, thus < Omnipotence. They problem is that you assume that failure has to come at some point but if there is no ending point failure can not take place. So there is no both ways about it.

I know you must known the concept of observed probability. That since we have observed that the sun has always risen that we can make an observable guess it will rise tomorrow though there is no true evidence to support it.

So we have Omnipotence(God) that we know can always make a bigger rock

So we have God that can hold anything.

We shall observe that every time the rock gets bigger he holds the rock. So we after seeing this for how many intervals of increase we assume that he will lift the next one. He does so assume that we will lift the very next ten. He does.

At what point do we say he has failed at failing to fail. The hundredth interval, the millionth. The very idea of Observable Probability means we can not assume what will happen next because we can only truly observe what happens that time and since the in order for failure to to take place some point of ending must happen. The very concept of infinity doesn't allow for it. I'll explain more of it later.




Originally posted by DigiMark007

But that's begging the question just like Superluv was doing earlier. Can they truly make it so that paradox's can't exist? How? You're stating that they can without showing a way, and saying that "their experience of reality is beyond ours" (or something similar) doesn't validate the answer, because again you're simply assuming that somewhere beyond human thought lies the ability to negate paradoxes....which we can't know. And the burden of proof would lie with those who think it can be done, because in terms of our current (meager wink ) human understanding there's no way to do it. The reason is that in our Meager human understanding we do understand the Concept of No Limit(Infinity). It is a mathematical principle that must be taken into account. So if the idea of Infinity can exist then so does it mean that the concept of a being of Infinity can exist and a being of Infinity has defined by Math would be without limits thus we must assume if talking about Omnipotence then it can not be without bonds or it is not Omnipotent.


Now I understand what you are trying to say that Omnipotence can not exist because the idea of Unlimited Reality bending power can not exist because we do not understand how it would be wthout such a concept.


But once again if we must allow for the concept Infinity for Math to make sense then we must also take into account that we as humans must embrace that our knowledge is not absolute therefore anything can and could happen. It is the very basis of Science as well.

ExodusCloak
Originally posted by Newjak
They problem is that you assume that failure has to come at some point but if there is no ending point failure can not take place. So there is no both ways about it.

I know you must known the concept of observed probability. That since we have observed that the sun has always risen that we can make an observable guess it will rise tomorrow though there is no true evidence to support it.

So we have Omnipotence(God) that we know can always make a bigger rock

So we have God that can hold anything.

We shall observe that every time the rock gets bigger he holds the rock. So we after seeing this for how many intervals of increase we assume that he will lift the next one. He does so assume that we will lift the very next ten. He does.

At what point do we say he has failed at failing to fail. The hundredth interval, the millionth. The very idea of Observable Probability means we can not assume what will happen next because we can only truly observe what happens that time and since the in order for failure to to take place some point of ending must happen. The very concept of infinity doesn't allow for it. I'll explain more of it later.

That actually makes a lot of sense. If there's no end to the experiment there is no conclusion...so success or failure(Which ever way you look at it) will never be determined.

Newjak
Originally posted by ExodusCloak
That actually makes a lot of sense. If there's no end to the experiment there is no conclusion...so success or failure will never be determined. Pretty much thus a being of infinity can not fail because there is no end point to determine failure.

DigiMark007
I understand how the infinite nature of omnipotence poses a problem for our understanding, and also for the resolution of such paradoxes. But in my mind, all it's doing is postponing the paradox indefinitely...it's not positing a solution to the endeavor (regardless of our criteria for success). So it's not negating the paradox or making it non-existent, it's just entering an infinitely recursive loop by which we can forego the conclusion indefinitely.

And if we stick to the strict definition of omnipotence, whereby "anything" is possible, "resolving the paradox" rests within the realm of Everything.

Akuki
If you're omniscient wouldn't you know how to make the scientific technology to make you omnipotent?

Supermanluv
Originally posted by DigiMark007
Well good for you, I'm sure "university" is thrilled to have you, but it doesn't make you right.

OK, I take it I'm entitled to be rude now as you took the first shot at me ? big grin


Originally posted by DigiMark007
Help explain for me how "true" imnipotence would get around those interesting loopholes, like the one I suggested.

First off, no one is talking about imnipotence, or whatever the hell you
where referring to.

I know your desperate to enforce your seemingly superior intellect, but confusing the word Omnipotence, with a derivative that is closely associated with ones inability to get a hard on (i.e. impotence), is actually very amusing at your expense.

second, surrounding traditionally obvious words such as true, with quotation marks doesn't make you clever. It gives off the impression that your having difficulty quantifying the meaning of the word true, which in itself is pretty retarded also.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
that is we are referring to omnipotence, i.e. the
You can't, because it doesn't. Using words like subjective reality, metaphysical (one word, btw) existence, and the like do nothing to wash away the contradictions.

This is similarly related to my previous point, as your highlighting your inability to comprehend the words I mentioned previously (such as metaphysical, and subjective ). If you understood their actual meanings, you would realise that one doesn't have to apply reason and logistics to the meta physical because it cant be observed and is beyond validation. To suggest that reason should be applied, is presumptuous and quite arrogant. So, i do some research before you start shouting your mouth off.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
If you want to provide valid reasons why it doesn't, be my guest. I'm open to discussion, as well as having my mind changed. But semantic overload (using words and terms that you think your audience won't comprehend fully, and thus not be able to refute) isn't going to work.

It obviously did in this case because you highlighted your ignorance towards their meanings, so your point is completely and utterly mute ! In fact your quite bigoted !


Originally posted by DigiMark007
If you want to talk about post-human concepts that humans can't currently comprehend (like imagining a 5-dimensional cube, which we can't) then that's one thing. But the very fact that it is just that, post human....post "us" and our understanding of reality....means that our opinion is instantly invalidated any time we talk about it because it is quite simply beyond our ability to comprehend, explain, or argue with. So speculation will only get so far before you run into ideas that can't be explained.

Spoken like a true Nihilist ! Using that stance I could refute that everything is meaning less, and that nothing should be speculated about.

I mean for gods sake you speculate about fictional battles on a regular basis, (events that are totally and utterly unquantifiable), then you have a go at me for suggesting that maybe realities beyond reason and logic are possible. So your allowed to postulate about fictional realities, but I'm forbidden to theorise the existence off realities beyond reason? A bit hypocritical if you ask me !

Plus it was you who brought it up the semantic argument in the first place. You thought you be clever and make reference to the fact that omnipotence is an apparent contradiction, ignorant to the fact that there are a few who know other wise.

Supermanluv
Originally posted by DigiMark007
Your last paragraph here spells out something I'd like to mention (though I read all of it).

You're assuming that "failure" = Can't Lift Rock. What if failure = can't make a rock too big to lift? So sure, an omnipotent being could always lift said rock....or always not, depending on what we're defining as "success". You can't have it both ways....but actually, you can, because you're omnipotent. But not at the same time, thus < Omnipotence.

However, this was your main point:



But that's begging the question just like Superluv was doing earlier. Can they truly make it so that paradox's can't exist? How? You're stating that they can without showing a way, and saying that "their experience of reality is beyond ours" (or something similar) doesn't validate the answer, because again you're simply assuming that somewhere beyond human thought lies the ability to negate paradoxes....which we can't know. And the burden of proof would lie with those who think it can be done, because in terms of our current (meager wink ) human understanding there's no way to do it.

And appealing to the definition of omnipotence isn't any better, because it's still begging it's own question for paradoxes...it exists as an idea/word/concept/etc. but can't functionally exist in the field of reality.



Key word: "confined". So no.

The paradox only exists in our minds, due to the limitations set upon by a logistical universe.

Newjak
Originally posted by DigiMark007
I understand how the infinite nature of omnipotence poses a problem for our understanding, and also for the resolution of such paradoxes. But in my mind, all it's doing is postponing the paradox indefinitely...it's not positing a solution to the endeavor (regardless of our criteria for success). So it's not negating the paradox or making it non-existent, it's just entering an infinitely recursive loop by which we can forego the conclusion indefinitely.

And if we stick to the strict definition of omnipotence, whereby "anything" is possible, "resolving the paradox" rests within the realm of Everything. How can you postpone a Paradox either it is taking place or it isn't no in between. If the Paradox isn't happening at that time or any subsequent encounter since it keeps going the Paradox can never take place.

Supermanluv
Originally posted by Newjak
How can you postpone a Paradox either it is taking place or it isn't no in between. If the Paradox isn't happening at that time or any subsequent encounter since it keeps going the Paradox can never take place.

I think he means we would still perceive the event as a paradox, if we saw the entity performing the impossible feat, but thats based on the limitations of our perceptions rather than the limitations of the entity.

willRules
Wow Newjak, I never saw it in that way before. yes

Newjak
Originally posted by Supermanluv
I think he means we would still perceive the event as a paradox, if we saw the entity performing the impossible feat, but thats based on the limitations of our perceptions rather than the limitations of the entity. I think what he is trying to say is that the Paradox will still be at the end and all we are doing is simply waiting for it to happen.

But hence is the problem with a Paradox that draws on a conclusion. It can not evolve the term Infinite because there can be no Conclusion. Once you conclude it then it no longer is Infinite no it becomes Finite.

so The Paradox of the Rock can not actually take place because there can be no conclusion to the question being asked and if there is no conclusion than no answer can be given.

It's actually Mathematical Infinity times anything is Infinity, Infinity subtracted from anything is still Infinity and once you try to place intervals on it then you are only looking at a Finite Amount so once again Infinity means no end.

Thus if Infinity exists which must be assumed in Mathematics then there can be no Paradox to Omnipotence.

Newjak
Originally posted by willRules
Wow Newjak, I never saw it in that way before. yes I hope I didn't sound stupid stick out tongue

Creshosk
The rock example also isn't a valid paradox as it has a solution..

I've already provided the solution to this "paradox".

Part of lifting involves moving something away from something else. Thus it becomes POV as to wether or not the object was lifted.

Supermanluv
Originally posted by Newjak
I think what he is trying to say is that the Paradox will still be at the end and all we are doing is simply waiting for it to happen.

But hence is the problem with a Paradox that draws on a conclusion. It can not evolve the term Infinite because there can be no Conclusion. Once you conclude it then it no longer is Infinite no it becomes Finite.

so The Paradox of the Rock can not actually take place because there can be no conclusion to the question being asked and if there is no conclusion than no answer can be given.

It's actually Mathematical Infinity times anything is Infinity, Infinity subtracted from anything is still Infinity and once you try to place intervals on it then you are only looking at a Finite Amount so once again Infinity means no end.

Thus if Infinity exists which must be assumed in Mathematics then there can be no Paradox to Omnipotence.

Umm your basically ovrcomplicating what i just stated.

Creshosk
Originally posted by Newjak
I think what he is trying to say is that the Paradox will still be at the end and all we are doing is simply waiting for it to happen.

But hence is the problem with a Paradox that draws on a conclusion. It can not evolve the term Infinite because there can be no Conclusion. Once you conclude it then it no longer is Infinite no it becomes Finite.

so The Paradox of the Rock can not actually take place because there can be no conclusion to the question being asked and if there is no conclusion than no answer can be given.

It's actually Mathematical Infinity times anything is Infinity, Infinity subtracted from anything is still Infinity and once you try to place intervals on it then you are only looking at a Finite Amount so once again Infinity means no end.

Thus if Infinity exists which must be assumed in Mathematics then there can be no Paradox to Omnipotence. Really?

So infinity times 0 is still infinity?

Newjak
Edit: Ignore because I am wrong Cresh 0 is an absolute term stick out tongue

Ok now for the real answer.

The problem with that equation is that zero falls in between infinity and is therefore the point in which Infinity is doing nothing but it is not the absence of Infinity. stick out tongue

Creshosk
So what do you think of my solution to this specific paradox?

Newjak
Originally posted by Creshosk
So what do you think of my solution to this specific paradox? It does answer the question but the problem is that you must assume once you get to a certain point that we reach a point where there can be nothing lifted because there can be no room for movement but once again that takes away the idea of Infinity that there can be no such point involving Omnipotence.

There can be no restriction placed on it otherwise the term Infinity can not be applied.

Creshosk
Originally posted by Newjak
It does answer the question but the problem is that you must assume once you get to a certain point that we reach a point where there can be nothing lifted because there can be no room for movement but once again that takes away the idea of Infinity that there can be no such point involving Omnipotence.

There can be no restriction placed on it otherwise the term Infinity can not be applied. I understand that. But it's demonstrating the limitations of the langauge.

The only reason he couldn't lift it is because of the way we define "lift". And its not that there's no room to move it, its that there is no way to measure any movement that might have occured. If I were to pick up an object and move it, you'd be able to tell that I was by its relative position to the environmant around me.

The problem isn't in the activity, the problem is in how we define and explain the activity. Think of it like an ontological argument.

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

The problem is that defining it as X might be incorrect.

You are absolutely right. Omnipotence is "All power" to limit it is to take away from the "all" to "nearly all" or "Everything logical"

Newjak
Originally posted by Creshosk
I understand that. But it's demonstrating the limitations of the langauge.

The only reason he couldn't lift it is because of the way we define "lift". And its not that there's no room to move it, its that there is no way to measure any movement that might have occured. If I were to pick up an object and move it, you'd be able to tell that I was by its relative position to the environmant around me.

The problem isn't in the activity, the problem is in how we define and explain the activity. Think of it like an ontological argument.

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

The problem is that defining it as X might be incorrect.

You are absolutely right. Omnipotence is "All power" to limit it is to take away from the "all" to "nearly all" or "Everything logical" Yeah thats right.

And that is what the fundamental problem of the Paradox of the Rock is.

Ok this is how it is generally represented.

1. Ok if God Exists
-So right off the bat we are to assume that God(Omnipotent Being) exists. No question of belief according to this example we say he does.

2. Than can he make a rock he can not lift and he can not then how can he be all powerful.
- So then now we are saying that a being with unlimited power is trying to make a rock he can not lift.


The Problem: God can always make a bigger rock to lift therefore we can never be sure.

Therefore the "Paradox" doesn't exist because there is no answer.

And this is the problem when Infinity is applied to anything.

Supermanluv
Originally posted by Newjak



so The Paradox of the Rock can not actually take place because there can be no conclusion to the question being asked and if there is no conclusion than no answer can be given.
.

I don't want to be rude, but this doesn't really make any sense.

Anyway I think your just confusing matters by bringing the word Infinity into the mix (Although i understand the comparison you are making).

The point is a paradox's is based on conscious reasoning, which is limited to conscious understanding of logistics.

Omnipotence by its intrinsic nature must apply to all realities whether logistical or not, or the term contradicts itself by limitation. Limits and Omnipotence don't work together as they contradict one another, therefore Omnipotence must work in all realities (Although technically this is deduced by analytical reasoning also, but who ****ing cares).

Can there be a reality without analylitical truths ? Well there's been recent debates as to whether our whole basis of maths maybe entirely false, and quantume mechanics has shown that our universe may produce so called impossible events (i.e. effects happening before causes, e.t.c.). If we can question analytical/objective truths in this version of reality whose to predict what cannot and can exist in the metaphysical ? The answer is, no one !

Newjak
Originally posted by Supermanluv
I don't want to be rude, but this doesn't really make any sense. Anyway I think your just confusing matters by bringing the word Infinity into the mix (Although i understand the comparison you are making). The point is a paradox's is based on conscious reasoning, which is limited to conscious understanding of logistics. Omnipotence by its intrinsic nature must apply to all realities whether logistical or not, or the term contradicts itself by limitation. Limits and Omnipotence don't work together contradict one another, so Omnipotence must work in all realities (Although technically this is deduced by analytical reasoning also, but who ****ing cares). No offense

But it does make sense.

Seeing as the Paradox of the Rock revolves around that only two answers can be given. Since no answer can be given the Paradox can not take place. It is actually pretty simple.

And as to why I put in Infinity it is because Omnipotence is just Infinite Power. Thus anything based on conclusions can not be applied.

Its very simple to understand wink

Supermanluv
Originally posted by Newjak
No offense

But it does make sense.

Seeing as the Paradox of the Rock revolves around that only two answers can be given. Since no answer can be given the Paradox can not take place. It is actually pretty simple.

That's a fallacy though. Avoiding the paradox doesn't allow it to be solved !

Originally posted by Newjak
And as to why I put in Infinity it is because Omnipotence is just Infinite Power. Thus anything based on conclusions can not be applied.

Its very simple to understand wink

That sentence really doesn't make any sense. You can claim it does until the cows come home, but it really doesn't. I maybe reading it wrong, but a simple summarising of its sound like this :

1st bit :
I put Infinity in, because Infinity must be applied to someone who is all powerful.

Great, it confuses things a bit but you are right. But then the second bit of the statement, that you have randomly linked to the previous sounds a bit like this

2nd bit;
What cannot be concluded should never be applied !

WELL DUHHH !

First you stated that no conclusion can be drawn out, then you state that paradox is solved because NO conclusion is reached. That isn't an answer to the paradox, that IS the paradox !

So no it isn't simple what you are trying to convey !

Your either stating the complete obvious, or your getting very confused, and confusing me in the process

Creshosk
Originally posted by Supermanluv
That's a fallacy though. Avoiding the paradox doesn't allow it to be solved ! The very nature of a paradox is that it can't be solved.

"This statement is false."

or

"The following sentence is true.
The previous sentence is false."

If it has a solution then its not a paradox as there would be no contradiction.

The rock "paradox" has a solution that exhibits the limitations on the language.

Newjak
Originally posted by Supermanluv
That's a fallacy though. Avoiding the paradox doesn't allow it to be solved !



That sentence really doesn't make any sense. You can claim it does until the cows come home, but it really doesn't. I maybe reading it wrong, but a simple summarising of its sound like this :

1st bit :
I put Infinity in, because Infinity must be applied to someone who is all powerful.

Great, it confuses things a bit but you are right. But then the second bit of the statement, that you have randomly linked to the previous sounds a bit like this

2nd bit;
What cannot be concluded should never be applied !

WELL DUHHH !

First you stated that no conclusion can be drawn out, then you state that paradox is solved because NO conclusion is reached. That isn't an answer to the paradox, that IS the paradox !

So know it isn't simple what you are trying to convey ! I'm not avoiding the Paradox. The Paradox doesn't exist to begin with.


But just so I don't confuse you again listen.

The Paradox of the Rock needs a conclusion that either God can make a Rock that he can not lift or he fails at being able to do something. If no conclusion can be drawn then yes no Paradox exists because the question can not be concluded.

The Problem (now read carefully) is that Infinity doesn't allow for conclusions. It is that simple. So then when do you conclude that God has Failed at either of things specified. Is the Millionth time or Billionth time that he

A) Makes a big Rock

B) Lifts Said rock

C) Makes a Bigger rock.

I could just quote what you said.

"The point is a paradox's is based on conscious reasoning, which is limited to conscious understanding of logistics."

Limit is the key word in your statement. A Paradox requires a Limitation to be reached but Infinity doesn't allow for that.

Why don you think Scientist don't like working with Infinity. Why do you think Mathematicians don;t like working with Infinity because then nothing can be limited. erm

Supermanluv
Originally posted by Creshosk
The very nature of a paradox is that it can't be solved.

"This statement is false."

or

"The following sentence is true.
The previous sentence is false."

If it has a solution then its not a paradox as there would be no contradiction.

The rock "paradox" has a solution that exhibits the limitations on the language.

Don't try and take the piss because your failing miserably. If you read what i have stated previously I agree with you.

Mister New Jack believes he has solved the paradox by reiterating it in an almost incomprehensible manner. I'm pointing his mistake out.

One cannot solve the paradox by pretentiously stating that the scenario has no conceivable outcome, as New Jacks previous post basically highlight.

As you have stated, (And if you went back and read what i have mentioned previously) you'll see that the reason that the scenario seems unresolvable is because of the limits of human comprehension and not the seemingly impossibility of the feat.

Newjak
Originally posted by Supermanluv
Don't try and take the piss because your failing miserably. If you read what i have stated previously I agree with you.

Mister New Jack believes he has solved the paradox by reiterating it in an almost imcomprehnsible manner. Im pointing his mistake out.

One cannot solve the paradox by pretntiously stating that the scenario has no concievable outcome, as NewJacks previous post basically highlight.

As you have stated, (And if you whent back and read what i have mentioned previously) you'll se that the reason that the scenario seems unresolvable is becasue of the limits of human comprehension and not the seemingly impossibility of the feat. So basically what you said is your right I'm wrong.

And by the way all I did was point out the problem of asking for Finite observations on an Infinite outcome.

So thank you for trying to point out my mistake thankfully I did not make one smile

Air Legend
Did someone really bring the question can God lift a rock so heavy that not even he can lift? Retarded.

Anyways, omnipotence, because with omnipotence you can grant yourself omniscience or omnipresence.

Creshosk
Originally posted by Supermanluv
Don't try and take the piss because your failing miserably. If you read what i have stated previously I agree with you. I'm failing miserably and you agree with me?


no expression

Supermanluv
Originally posted by Newjak
I'm not avoiding the Paradox. The Paradox doesn't exist to begin with.

That's where your wrong my friend, and I'm starting to wish I was Omnipotent so I could convey this to you !



Originally posted by Newjak
The Paradox of the Rock needs a conclusion that either God can make a Rock that he can not lift or he fails at being able to do something. If no conclusion can be drawn then yes no Paradox exists because the question can not be concluded.

No that means that there IS a paradox present.
Paradoxes by nature involve scenarios/problems where no logical conclusion can be met, via logical reasoning. Look it up and you'll see what i mean. Try the Grandfather Time travel paradox on for size. That too has no conclusion, doesn't mean it doesn't exist !

Originally posted by Newjak


Limit is the key word in your statement. A Paradox requires a Limitation to be reached but Infinity doesn't allow for that.

Now that is a fallacy. By Intrinsic nature Paradox don't require limitations to be reached, hence them being paradox's !

Let me put it this way. An unsolvable mystery (i.e. a paradox) by its intrinsic nature doesn't have a solution. Suggesting that there is no mystery because it has no solution, is a fallacy ! And thats what you are doing. Saying there is no paradox becasue there is no solution is wrong. Word it any way you want, thats how it is !

Newjak
Originally posted by Creshosk
I'm failing miserably and you agree with me?


no expression You knwo the odd thing is if he could read he would understand that I'm agreeing with him as well.

His whole thing is that Omnipotence is beyond our logistic understanding which amazingly is generally represented as Infinity no expression

Newjak
Originally posted by Supermanluv
That's where your wrong my friend, and I'm starting to wish I was Omnipotent so I could convey this to you !





No that means that there IS a paradox present.
Paradoxes by nature involve scenarios/problems where no logical conclusion can be met, via logical reasoning. Look it up and you'll see what i mean. Try the Grandfather Time travel paradox on for size. That too has no conclusion, doesn't mean it doesn't exist !



Now that is a fallacy. By Intrinsic nature Paradox don't require limitations to be reached, hence them being paradox's !

Let me put it this way. An unsolvable mystery (i.e. a paradox) by its intrinsic nature doesn't have a solution. Suggesting that there is no mystery because it has no solution, is a fallacy ! And thats what you are doing. Saying there is no paradox becasue there is no solution is wrong. Word it any way you want, thats how it is ! Oddly enough that is not what the Paradox of the Rock states. It states that two exact conclusions can be made. Seriously do you just skim or do actually read what is being said.

Notice how pretty much you. me. and Cresh all agree

I was hoping you would actually understand that and I wouldn't have to point it out to you erm

Supermanluv
Originally posted by Creshosk
I'm failing miserably and you agree with me?


no expression

Your resorting to twisting my words, how childish ! You know very well the two statements where made in a different context, don't suggest otherwise !

Statement 1.:

You are taking the piss now, for no reason please stop !

Statemenet 2:

I was agreeing with you in the first place, so why take the piss !

Supermanluv
Originally posted by Newjak

His whole thing is that Omnipotence is beyond our logistic understanding which amazingly is generally represented as Infinity no expression

Don't start having a go at my inability to comphrehend what you are writing, becasue it would take a ****ing KMC enigma code to try and translate some of the stuff you have posted on the last couple of pages !

Air Legend
Is there anyone here that is actually taking that "Can God Lift a rock so heavy that not even he can lift" seriously.

Supermanluv
Originally posted by Newjak
Oddly enough that is not what the Paradox of the Rock states. It states that two exact conclusions can be made. Seriously do you just skim or do actually read what is being said.

Notice how pretty much you. me. and Cresh all agree

I was hoping you would actually understand that and I wouldn't have to point it out to you erm

You still don't get it do you ?

All paradoxs have two exactly viable outcomes, thats why their frigin paradoxes in the first place ! This Rock scenario isn't unique, and its doesn't prevent it from existing !

Newjak
Originally posted by Supermanluv
Don't start having a go at my inability to comphrehend what you are writing, becasue it would take a ****ing KMC enigma code to try and translate some of the stuff you have posted on the last couple of pages ! Really because I had three people understand it perfectly

Digi did, Cresh did, and willrules did. Apparently you were the only one not getting it. Why do you think that I kept replying to it as the Paradox of the Rock. Oddly enough because that is what it is called. I think I even put Paradox in quotations in you actually take the time to read it.

So I guess maybe we should get you a Decoder so you can read big boy talk and just so you don't get mad that was a joke erm

Creshosk
Originally posted by Supermanluv
Your resorting to twisting my words, how childish ! How was I twisting your words if you said those two statements? Hell I even cropped it to you stating those two exact statements.

"your failing miserably."
and
"I agree with you."

no expression

Originally posted by Supermanluv
You know very well the two statements where made in a different context, don't suggest otherwise ! And yet you put them right next to each other...

Originally posted by Supermanluv
Statement 1.:

You are taking the piss now, for no reason please stop ! Actually the part of the statment inquestion is

"Because your{sic} failing miserably."

Not the fact that I was getting on your case about a mistake you made.

Originally posted by Supermanluv
Statemenet 2:

I was agreeing with you in the first place, so why take the piss !

Because my bladder was full? ermm

Originally posted by Supermanluv
Don't start having a go at my inability to comphrehend what you are writing, becasue it would take a ****ing KMC enigma code to try and translate some of the stuff you have posted on the last couple of pages ! I understood him perfectly. You'll note how I avoided this sort of "go" with him over a misunderstanding that I noticed.

Supermanluv
Originally posted by Newjak
Really because I had three people understand it perfectly

Digi did, Cresh did, and willrules did. Apparently you were the only one not getting it. Why do you think that I kept replying to it as the Paradox of the Rock. Oddly enough because that is what it is called. I think I even put Paradox in quotations in you actually take the time to read it.

So I guess maybe we should get you a Decoder so you can read big boy talk and just so you don't get mad that was a joke erm

So they All believe the Rock paradox doesn't exist and has therefore resolved itself because it has two equally resolvable outcomes that contradict one another ?

Some how I doubt it. Do you even understand the word paradox ?

Have you not heard of the 'Chicken and the Egg' before?

Guess what that has two equally valid explanaitions that contradict one another, doesn't mean Digi, Will Rules and Cresh dont think that the paradox DOESN't exists. Your the only one who does !

Creshosk
Originally posted by Supermanluv
You still don't get it do you ?

All paradoxs have two exactly viable outcomes, thats why their frigin paradoxes in the first place ! This Rock scenario isn't unique, and its doesn't prevent it from existing ! Then I'm affraid I'm going to have to call what I see, and that calling the rock scenerioa paradox is a fallacy.

I'll even do one better for you than you are for Newjak and tell you which one.

"False dilemma"

A situation in which only two options are given where a third option is omitted.

Newjak
Originally posted by Supermanluv
So they All believe the Rock paradox doesn't exist and has therefore resolved itself because it has two equally resolvable outcomes that contradict one another ?

Some how I doubt it. Do you even understand the word paradox ?

Have you not heard of the 'Chicken and the Egg' before?

Guess what that has two equally valid explanaitions that contradict one another, doesn't mean Digi, Will Rules and Cresh dont think that the paradox DOESN't exists. Your the only one who does ! I wasn't saying what their beliefs were just that they actually understood what was being said unlike you who apparently isn't?

And as you said the chicken and the egg have two viable outcomes because guess what there are not an infinite amount of possibilities or intervals going on. erm

Air Legend
What the **** guys. God can create a rock so heavy that not even he can lift.

Creshosk
Originally posted by Supermanluv
So they All believe the Rock paradox doesn't exist and has therefore resolved itself because it has two equally resolvable outcomes that contradict one another ?

Some how I doubt it. Do you even understand the word paradox ?

Have you not heard of the 'Chicken and the Egg' before?

Guess what that has two equally valid explanaitions that contradict one another, doesn't mean Digi, Will Rules and Cresh dont think that the paradox DOESN't exists. Your the only one who does !

The egg came before the chicken. Even if we exclude the idea of dinosaur eggs being viable options that existed long before chickens did, the chicken evolved from the red jungle fowl which was also a bird.

The first chicken was born from an egg laid by a red jungle fowl.

Though I suppose it could be subjective depending on how an individual defines what a chicken egg is.

If "An egg that a chicken is hatched from." the egg came first.
If "An egg that a chicken lays" then its the chicken.

But once again, its a matter of semantics and thus limited by the way a person defines an event, rather than the event itself.

Gecko4lif
Omnipotence - I would do horrible and twisted things with this. It is better for everybody if i dont have it.

omniscience - Would be useful but my brain would exsplode

omnipresence- I would want this the most so i could be like my hero KC flash or the shrike

SnazzySmurph
Originally posted by Newjak
How can you postpone a Paradox either it is taking place or it isn't no in between. If the Paradox isn't happening at that time or any subsequent encounter since it keeps going the Paradox can never take place. Correct, but even if it's imbossible to live to that point in time where the rock will be created that God cannot lift, it doesn't dissolve the possibility.

Even if the limit is imbossible to reach, the limit still exists, and the paradox is still a possibility.

It means that the paradox will never take place, but only due to immeasurable time constraints... besides that, an omnipotent would be granted omniscience, and would therefore know exactly when this failure could occure, thus negating the need for an experiment in the first place... so, could God create this rock?

Air Legend
Originally posted by SnazzySmurph
so, could God create this rock?
Yes there are many ways God can create this rock. One way is he can create a duplicate of himself, one of them not capable of lifting the rock, and therefore be able to satisfy both states simultaneously. The definition of omnipotence people are going by is being able to do anything right? So if God can do anything he can take away his omnipotence can he not? Therefore he can create that rock.
However this is all inconsequential because the word omnipotent is not found in the Bible. God has been reffered to as the Almighty but not as "omnipotent". God cannot do everything; for example he cannot sin or lie, it is against His nature.

Also, nonsense is nonsense even when talking about God. Just because you put the word "God" in front of the question doesn't make it logical, it will still be nonsense. Can God exist and not exist at the same time? Stupid question huh, but it makes the point that nonsense is still nonsense even when talking about God.

Creshosk
Originally posted by SnazzySmurph
Correct, but even if it's imbossible to live to that point in time where the rock will be created that God cannot lift, it doesn't dissolve the possibility.

Even if the limit is imbossible to reach, the limit still exists, and the paradox is still a possibility.

It means that the paradox will never take place, but only due to immeasurable time constraints... besides that, an omnipotent would be granted omniscience, and would therefore know exactly when this failure could occure, thus negating the need for an experiment in the first place... so, could God create this rock? Being omnipotent doesn't automatically give you omniscience.

Though Omniscience is another fun little semantic device.

Someone who's omniscient would know how to solve every paradox. thus negating them.

Newjak
Originally posted by SnazzySmurph
Correct, but even if it's imbossible to live to that point in time where the rock will be created that God cannot lift, it doesn't dissolve the possibility.

Even if the limit is imbossible to reach, the limit still exists, and the paradox is still a possibility.

It means that the paradox will never take place, but only due to immeasurable time constraints... besides that, an omnipotent would be granted omniscience, and would therefore know exactly when this failure could occure, thus negating the need for an experiment in the first place... so, could God create this rock? The problem is that God will never reach an ending point to determine. That is the point. With Infinity no Limit does exist thus a Limit can not be placed which is what the Paradox needs for it to work a measurable, limited outcome.

SnazzySmurph
Originally posted by Newjak
The problem is that God will never reach an ending point to determine. That is the point. With Infinity no Limit does exist thus a Limit can not be placed which is what the Paradox needs for it to work a measurable, limited outcome. If he's omniscient, he'll already know the ending point.

He can skip the in between, and create the rock that he cannot lift with the almighty, incomprehensible equivalent of a snap of his fingers.

Correct?

There is no need for it to take an eternity... that really avoids the question anyhow. The question is about the potential to do so.




In any case, the only correct response to these questions is a solid defense of "Omnipotence is ineffable. I win."

Creshosk
Originally posted by SnazzySmurph
If he's omniscient, he'll already know the ending point.

He can skip the in between, and create the rock that he cannot lift with the almighty, incomprehensible equivalent of a snap of his fingers.

Correct?

Did you see my solution to this "paradox"?

SnazzySmurph
Originally posted by Creshosk
Did you see my solution to this "paradox"? Yes, but that requires a base human POV. It still doesn't eliminate the potential to do so...



It's Ineffable.

Creshosk
Originally posted by SnazzySmurph
Yes, but that requires a base human POV. It still doesn't eliminate the potential to do so...



It's Ineffable. So you're saying that its possible for him to be unable to do something we define based on things other than the way we define them?

SnazzySmurph
Originally posted by Creshosk
So you're saying that its possible for him to be unable to do something we define based on things other than the way we define them? Not neccessarily.

I'm saying simply eliminating the physical nature of the task doesn't eliminate the potential.

It's ineffable, I tell you.

Supermanluv
Originally posted by Newjak
The problem is that God will never reach an ending point to determine. That is the point. With Infinity no Limit does exist thus a Limit can not be placed which is what the Paradox needs for it to work a measurable, limited outcome.

And yet with his limitless powers he can place a limit on infinity !

Creshosk
Originally posted by SnazzySmurph
Not neccessarily.

I'm saying simply eliminating the physical nature of the task doesn't eliminate the potential.

It's ineffable, I tell you. So you can create and be unable to lift a rock without "creating" a "rock" or attempting to "lift" it?

Supermanluv
Originally posted by SnazzySmurph




It's Ineffable.

Exactly !

Suggesting its resolved by placing human terms such as Infinity into the mix, is a fallucy becasue these terms break down and contradict themselves when up against the power of Omnipotence !

Newjak
Originally posted by SnazzySmurph
If he's omniscient, he'll already know the ending point.

He can skip the in between, and create the rock that he cannot lift with the almighty, incomprehensible equivalent of a snap of his fingers.

Correct?

There is no need for it to take an eternity... that really avoids the question anyhow. The question is about the potential to do so.




In any case, the only correct response to these questions is a solid defense of "Omnipotence is ineffable. I win." Except once again there is no ending. there is no final rock all he can do is just keep making a rock that is bigger and bigger thus where does the experiment end? Where is the question solved? How do we represent the data?

All things that can not be done when talking about Infinite.

SnazzySmurph
Originally posted by Creshosk
So you can create and be unable to lift a rock without "creating" a "rock" or attempting to "lift" it? I'm talking about your idea of "Rock > Universe" =

I don't care whether the task is lifting a rock or a task that's beyond our comprehension, so long as it requires God to create the task and God to do it.

It's ineffable.

Creshosk
Originally posted by Supermanluv
And yet with his limitless powers he can place a limit on infinity ! More semanitic arguments. How lovely.

I offer you the same solution to the creating a perftectly round square "paradox".

The perfectly round three dimensional square existed before we gave it a name. We chose to call it a sphere, in order to distinguish it from the much less round versions of this square.

But calling it by any name doesn't change the nature of what it is.

One way to accomplish this task is to pull someone with the present knowledge out of time with himself then change the point in time in the past when people decided to call it a sphere to calling it a square. This temporally dislocated individual will then act as a witness when they are the one called crazy for calling a circle a square.

Then when its obvious that they madea perfectly round square. they can resotre things to the way they were and allow the witness to tell others of their experience. and you can have them repeat this ad nauseum until it's accepted that this being indeed made the square round.

Creshosk
Originally posted by SnazzySmurph
I'm talking about your idea of "Rock > Universe" =

I don't care whether the task is lifting a rock or a task that's beyond our comprehension, so long as it requires God to create the task and God to do it.

It's ineffable. Alright.

Newjak
Originally posted by Newjak
Except once again there is no ending. there is no final rock all he can do is just keep making a rock that is bigger and bigger thus where does the experiment end? Where is the question solved? How do we represent the data?

All things that can not be done when talking about Infinite. Bottom of the Page

SnazzySmurph
Originally posted by Newjak
Except once again there is no ending. there is no final rock all he can do is just keep making a rock that is bigger and bigger thus where does the experiment end? Where is the question solved? How do we represent the data?

All things that can not be done when talking about Infinite. You missed my point...

If he's omnipotent, he's omniscient... if he's omniscient, there's no need for experiment. He'll know exactly how big/heavy the hypothetical rock would need to be, he could make it, and he could attempt to lift it.

But, none of us have this correct.

Why?

Because it's ineffable. smile

Newjak
Originally posted by SnazzySmurph
You missed my point...

If he's omnipotent, he's omniscient... if he's omniscient, there's no need for experiment. He'll know exactly how big/heavy the hypothetical rock would need to be, he could make it, and he could attempt to lift it.

But, none of us have this correct.

Why?

Because it's ineffable. smile At ineffable laughing

anyways the point of Omnisicient is that he knows everything. So all he would know is that he would just keep making a rock that is bigger. There can be no other outcome with Omnipotence. The experiment and task can not be put to an end.

Supermanluv
Originally posted by Creshosk
More semanitic arguments. How lovely.

I offer you the same solution to the creating a perftectly round square "paradox".

The perfectly round three dimensional square existed before we gave it a name. We chose to call it a sphere, in order to distinguish it from the much less round versions of this square.

But calling it by any name doesn't change the nature of what it is.

One way to accomplish this task is to pull someone with the present knowledge out of time with himself then change the point in time in the past when people decided to call it a sphere to calling it a square. This temporally dislocated individual will then act as a witness when they are the one called crazy for calling a circle a square.

Then when its obvious that they madea perfectly round square. they can resotre things to the way they were and allow the witness to tell others of their experience. and you can have them repeat this ad nauseum until it's accepted that this being indeed made the square round.

All well and good, but youre semantic example is related to the physical world. Onimpotent intrinsically applies to the metaphysical, therefore goes beyond the quantative restrictions inplaced upon semantics !

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by Newjak
anyways the point of Omnisicient is that he knows everything. So all he would know is that he would just keep making a rock that is bigger. There can be no other outcome with Omnipotence. The experiment and task can not be put to an end.

But as an omniscient and omnipotent being he would know that logic meant nothing and could skip the experimentation.

Creshosk
Originally posted by SnazzySmurph
You missed my point...

If he's omnipotent, he's omniscient...Not necciserily... Its posible to have the power to do something without having the knowledge of either how to do it, or that you can do it.

Omnipotence doesn't really imply omniscience. they are seperate things. In fact a person can do something without fully knowing exactly what they're doing.

Originally posted by SnazzySmurph
if he's omniscient, there's no need for experiment. He'll know exactly how big/heavy the hypothetical rock would need to be, he could make it, and he could attempt to lift it.

But, none of us have this correct.

Why?

Because it's ineffable. smile Actually saying that it can't be described is what we've been saying and what my solution highlights.

Newjak
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
But as an omniscient and omnipotent being he would know that logic meant nothing and could skip the experimentation. Doesn't that mean the Paradox trying to be established can not exist. stick out tongue

Creshosk
Originally posted by Supermanluv
All well and good, but youre semantic example is related to the physical world. Onimpotent intrinsically applies to the metaphysical, therefore goes beyond the quantative restrictions inplaced upon semantics ! Which is what, you, I, newjak and now smurph are all saying, just in different words.

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by Newjak
Doesn't that mean the Paradox trying to be established can not exist. stick out tongue

Well it could but not for the creature in question.

In theory it could be argued that such an entity as the one being discussed could will the paradox into existence.

SnazzySmurph
Originally posted by Creshosk
Not necciserily... Its posible to have the power to do something without having the knowledge of either how to do it, or that you can do it.

Omnipotence doesn't really imply omniscience. they are seperate things. In fact a person can do something without fully knowing exactly what they're doing.

Actually saying that it can't be described is what we've been saying and what my solution highlights. Fair enough to both points... though, I was under the assumption that we were meant to assume God was omniscient. Anyways...

Cresh and I are right.

It's ineffable.

Leaving now... you should all read Good Omens. Unless you have already.

"The Ineffable Plan"

Supermanluv
Originally posted by Newjak
Doesn't that mean the Paradox trying to be established can not exist. stick out tongue

No.

Becasue the paradox, is only applicable to humans and not the entity in question

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Paradox

Newjak
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Well it could but not for the creature in question.

In theory it could be argued that such an entity as the one being discussed could will the paradox into existence. Yes but then that means he has to allow the Paradox to exist. The whole point of the Rock Paradox is that it has to exist and that there can be no way around it. Which unless the Entity imposes self"limits" than an Infinite Being can not have a Paradox like this.

Supermanluv
Originally posted by Creshosk


Actually saying that it can't be described is what we've been saying and what my solution highlights.

*sighs*

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by Newjak
Yes but then that means he has to allow the Paradox to exist. The whole point of the Rock Paradox is that it has to exist and that there can be no way around it. Which unless the Entity imposes self"limits" than an Infinite Being can not have a Paradox like this.

Hence the ineffability clause.

Newjak
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Hence the ineffability clause. I understand that but the whole point of the Rock of Paradox is that God has no way around the fact. When in reality a being that has no limit to there power has no such constraints on them because they have no limits to place them on.

Because Infinity means no end.

Air Legend
Originally posted by Newjak
I understand that but the whole point of the Rock of Paradox is that God has no way around the fact. When in reality a being that has no limit to there power has no such constraints on them because they have no limits to place them on.

Because Infinity means no end.
Nonsense is nonsense even when talking about God. The rock question is nonsense.

Supermanluv
Originally posted by Newjak
I understand that but the whole point of the Rock of Paradox is that God has no way around the fact. When in reality a being that has no limit to there power has no such constraints on them because they have no limits to place them on.

Because Infinity means no end.

Your first statement contradicts your second. I agree with your first but not your second.

the statement/problems requires that the Entity to implace the limits upon himself. Just because he has Infinite power doens't mean he cannot restrict himslef infinitely becasue infinity doesn't have any limits. The Entity is beyond infinity, by Intrinsic nature, and Infinity is beyond him therefore there is a paradox !

Newjak
Originally posted by Supermanluv
Your firts staemnet contradicts your second. I agree with your first but not your second.

But the statement/problems requires that the Entity to implace the limits upon himself. Just because he has Infinite power doens't mean he cannot restrict himslef infinitely becasue infinity doesn't have any limits. The Entity is beyond infinity, by Intrinsic nature ! How did I.

Yes an Entity could place those Limits upon themselves but at the same time they don't have to and without restrictions there is nothing they can not do such as failing at something.

And I would like to point out Infinity equals without bounds but what you are trying to say is that since the entity could impose limits on themselves they are greater than Infinity.

I hate to tell you this but Infinity can do that as well. It's called constraints. Like using the Interval

Does this interval mean that Infinity no longer exists no it just means that more this moment we are only looking at this specific point.

The same would imply to any Restrictions a Omnipotent being would place on themselves.

Supermanluv
Originally posted by Newjak
How did I.

Yes an Entity could place those Limits upon themselves but at the same time they don't have to and without restrictions there is nothing they can not do such as failing at something.

And I would like to point out Infinity equals without bounds but what you are trying to say is that since the entity could impose limits on themselves they are greater than Infinity.

I hate to tell you this but Infinity can do that as well. It's called constraints. Like using the Interval

Does this interval mean that Infinity no longer exists no it just means that more this moment we are only looking at this specific point.

The same would imply to any Restrictions a Omnipotent being would place on themselves.

So you believe that (And I agree with you), and still don't believe there is NO paradox ? I don't think thats possible ?

Creshosk
I just love linear thinking.

Newjak
Originally posted by Supermanluv
So you believe that (And I agree with you), and still don't believe there is NO paradox ? I don't think thats possible ? That is not a Paradox because as awkward as this would be follow closely.

God=Infinity

God=Restrictions

restrictions=Infinity


Because restrictions does not mean the absence of Infinity it just means at a specific point and time this is what we are working with.

So it is like God deciding not use all of his power doesn't mean it isn't there. So a self-imposed restriction is just God not using all of his power.

Supermanluv
Originally posted by Creshosk
I just love linear thinking.

So you also don't believe there is a paradox either, and that the concept of an actual infinity resolves the entire problem that has troubled philosophers for Milenia ?


If so please could you explain in laymans terms because Im finding it very hard to comprehend Mister New Jack ?

Creshosk
Originally posted by Supermanluv
So you also don't believe there is a paradox either, and that the concept of an actual infinity resolves the entire problem that has troubled philosophers for Milenia ?


If so please could you explain in laymans terms because Im finding it very hard to comprehend Mister New Jack ? The existence of one thing does not mean the nonexistence of another dissimilar concept.

the numbers 1 through 9 existing doesn't mean that infinity doesn't exist.

I'd also like to note that someitmes new knowledge and ways of thinking can shed light on older problems. The philosiphers of old were very inteligent, but they did not have all the answers, in fact some of the answers they did have were wrong. For example they theorized about atoms. but that which we call atoms is a terrible misnomer. As the word atom is derived from atomos which is "a" not and "tomos" cutting. refering to a basic building block of the universe we know know of the existence of not only sub-atomic particles of protons, neutrons and electrons, but of levels bbelow that which those particles are made out of.

The classical elements were at one time beleived to be the basic building blocks, Water, Fire, Earth, Air and Aether. We now know that water air and earth are composed of smaller things, and that fire is a chemical reaction.

So please don't try to use an ad hominem appeal to authority like that comment of yours.

Its only a paradox if there is a contradiction. But there is no contradicition, just a misunderstanding of concepts derived from the limitations on the language.

Supermanluv
Originally posted by Creshosk
The existence of one thing does not mean the nonexistence of another dissimilar concept.

the numbers 1 through 9 existing doesn't mean that infinity doesn't exist.

Never said it didn't so I don't really know why your bringing that up.

Originally posted by Creshosk
I'd also like to note that someitmes new knowledge and ways of thinking can shed light on older problems. The philosiphers of old were very inteligent, but they did not have all the answers, in fact some of the answers they did have were wrong. For example they theorized about atoms. but that which we call atoms is a terrible misnomer. As the word atom is derived from atomos which is "a" not and "tomos" cutting. refering to a basic building block of the universe we know know of the existence of not only sub-atomic particles of protons, neutrons and electrons, but of levels bbelow that which those particles are made out of.

The classical elements were at one time beleived to be the basic building blocks, Water, Fire, Earth, Air and Aether. We now know that water air and earth are composed of smaller things, and that fire is a chemical reaction.

Old news, and also questionably 'relevant'. So far you seem to be side tracking the question.

Originally posted by Creshosk
So please don't try to use an ad hominem appeal to authority like that comment of yours.

Implying that I'm exaggerating. Oh the Irony ! roll eyes (sarcastic)

Originally posted by Creshosk
Its only a paradox if there is a contradiction. But there is no contradicition, just a misunderstanding of concepts derived from the limitations on the language.

I agree with there being various limitations upon the language and symbolism, but that doesn't mean there is no paradox ? Any way how does this relate to New Jack apparent solution involving infinities. Please be more direct this time, and avoid irrelevant history leas sons as its very late where I live and i want to ge this sorted tonight !

Newjak
Originally posted by Supermanluv

I agree with there being various limitations upon the language and symbolism, but that doesn't mean there is no paradox ? Any way how does this relate to New Jack apparent solution involving infinities. I really fail to see why this matters. Seriously I stated that Omnipotence=Infinite Power. Therefore there is no limit to what an Omnipotent being can do. So how can there be The Paradox of Rock involving something that is Infinite(unlimited) when you are asking for something Finite(Limited)

Supermanluv
Originally posted by Newjak
I really fail to see why this matters. Seriously I stated that Omnipotence=Infinite Power. Therefore there is no limit to what an Omnipotent being can do. So how can there be The Paradox of Rock involving something that is Infinite(unlimited) when you are asking for something Finite(Limited)

How is moving an unmoveable rock finite ?

Creshosk
Originally posted by Supermanluv
Never said it didn't so I don't really know why your bringing that up. Its an example relating to your earlier claims that one of newjak's statements contradicted another one of his statements from the same post.

Originally posted by Supermanluv
Old news, and also questionably 'relevant'. So far you seem to be side tracking the question. Its showing how your "milenia philosiphers" are irrealivant.

Originally posted by Supermanluv
Implying that I'm exaggerating. Oh the Irony ! roll eyes (sarcastic) I said ad hominem because of the implication of saying that someone here is not smarter than

and appeal to authority for mentioning these "philosiphers".

I did not say strawman. Please, try not to get the fallacies confused.

Originally posted by Supermanluv
I agree with there being various limitations upon the language and symbolism, but that doesn't mean there is no paradox ? Any way how does this relate to New Jack apparent solution involving infinities. Please be more direct this time, and avoid irrelevant history leas sons as its very late where I live and i want to ge this sorted tonight !

Omni = all
potent = power

all is synonamous with infinite.

in = not
finite = finis = end

If a person is omnipotent there is no end to there power. To put a limitation on their power outside of self imposed limitations is to detract from the concept of "all power" or "endless power".

So trying to seperate infinity from omnipotence is a sham distinction. That's a fallacy.

A self imposed limitation is a false or fake one and doesn't really count. Just because a person who does and can walk sits down doesn't mean they can't walk when they are not walking.

Creshosk
Originally posted by Supermanluv
How is moving an unmoveable rock finite ? you're kidding right?

How is it infinite?

I gave an example of an "unliftable" rock already. and it can have a definte size, and a definite mass, a definite physical existence (that of being a rock)

The rock also has a very definite location.

All of these things are quite finite.

Supermanluv
Originally posted by Creshosk


A self imposed limitation is a false or fake one and doesn't really count.

subjective bullshit, that you cannot pass off to be absolute trust, as your are trying to do.

I've ignored the rest because its irrelevant bullshit, and you example is terrible.

Newjak
Originally posted by Supermanluv
How is moving an unmoveable rock finite ? Because then you are only looking at a Finite point in an Infinite line because no matter what the fact is that God can always make a bigger Rock and can lift it. So when do conclude the God has finally failed because that is the biggest point of the Paradox of the Rock. It tries to prove that a supposedly Omnipotent Being can shown failure one way or the other.

So since we know that God will not be able to Fail because he can never be finished because there is always more he can do. So the Paradox that relies on him failing can not exist because God can not fail.

Supermanluv
Originally posted by Creshosk
you're kidding right?

How is it infinite?

I gave an example of an "unliftable" rock already. and it can have a definte size, and a definite mass, a definite physical existence (that of being a rock)

The rock also has a very definite location.

All of these things are quite finite.

Replace the word rock with Entity and the word immoveable with more powerful, and the paradox returns.

Supermanluv
Originally posted by Newjak
Because then you are only looking at a Finite point in an Infinite line because no matter what the fact is that God can always make a bigger Rock and can lift it. So when do conclude the God has finally failed because that is the biggest point of the Paradox of the Rock. It tries to prove that a supposedly Omnipotent Being can shown failure one way or the other.

So since we know that God will not be able to Fail because he can never be finished because there is always more he can do. So the Paradox that relies on him failing can not exist because God can not fail.

But the problem requires him to fails ! Its supposed to be an impossible task. Thats its intrinsic nature.

The task requires him to pass and fail, therefore impossible and a paradox !

God, i think we'll have to agree to disagree !

Creshosk
Originally posted by Supermanluv
subjective bullshit, that you cannot pass off to be absolute trust, as your are trying to do.

I've ignored the rest because its irrelevant bullshit, and you example is terrible. It seems that you' are reaching beyond your own intelectual capabilities here. You've resorted to nothing less than trolling.

Tell me, because you are not currently walking, that means you can't, right?

Because you're not talking that means you can't. Because you're not siging or reading a book or playing a game... you can't.

Cause hey, is you have the power you have to use it right? Otherwise its the same as you not having it. Obviously as self imposed limitations are just as real as the regular ones.

No I'm sorrym, but that is bullshit and pigheaded thinking. You delved into the realm of subjective bullshit where since you can't counter a point (obviously otherwise you would have) you disregard it as bullshit.

You've shown timke and time again to lack the reading comprehension needed to participate in the conversation. So My patience with your trollish antics has reached a breaking point. Continue to be as obviously oblivious as you are and you will be reported for trolling.

Also, don't request admission into the elites again. If you do I will vote against it.

DigiMark007
Originally posted by Supermanluv
First off, no one is talking about imnipotence, or whatever the hell you
where referring to.

I know your desperate to enforce your seemingly superior intellect, but confusing the word Omnipotence, with a derivative that is closely associated with ones inability to get a hard on (i.e. impotence), is actually very amusing at your expense.

second, surrounding traditionally obvious words such as true, with quotation marks doesn't make you clever. It gives off the impression that your having difficulty quantifying the meaning of the word true, which in itself is pretty retarded also.

I fail to see how I insulted you at all, certainly not enough to warrant you calling me reatrded.

Also, 'i' is next to the 'o' on the keyboard. But yes, I obviously meant that I am impotent, because that's what any logical person would conclude from the passage. I can't get a hard on. lol. Done with the sophomoric laugh? Take your time....

Anyway, if you can't speak civilly to me, you're not worth my time.

Newjak
Originally posted by Supermanluv
But the problem requires him to fails ! Its supposed to be an impossible task. Thats its intrinsic nature.

The task requires him to pass and fail, therefore impossible and a paradox !

God, i think we'll have to agree to disagree ! That just it when does would we deem God to Fail. The Billionth time he lifted a Rock the Trillionth time he lifted a Rock that was bigger than all the others. Because God will always be able to make a bigger Rock and can always lift it. Its the problem of Infinite anything. There can be no end and since in order for him to fail this particular example needs in ending. Either a rock he can not lift or a time when he can no longer make a bigger rock to lift. Since neither will happen how can he fail?

Supermanluv
Originally posted by Creshosk
It seems that you' are reaching beyond your own intelectual capabilities here. You've resorted to nothing less than trolling.

Tell me, because you are not currently walking, that means you can't, right?

Because you're not talking that means you can't. Because you're not siging or reading a book or playing a game... you can't.

Cause hey, is you have the power you have to use it right? Otherwise its the same as you not having it. Obviously as self imposed limitations are just as real as the regular ones.

No I'm sorrym, but that is bullshit and pigheaded thinking. You delved into the realm of subjective bullshit where since you can't counter a point (obviously otherwise you would have) you disregard it as bullshit.

You've shown timke and time again to lack the reading comprehension needed to participate in the conversation. So My patience with your trollish antics has reached a breaking point. Continue to be as obviously oblivious as you are and you will be reported for trolling.

Also, don't request admission into the elites again. If you do I will vote against it.

Putting my inferior intellect aside, the following statement ;

'A self imposed limitation is a false or fake one and doesn't really count. '

Is subjective.

The limitation imposed upon god maybe fake, but does it necessarily mean that it doesn't count, I don't think so ? Its impossible to verify this analytically and empirically so therefore subjective.

And there is no need to get so shirty. I was intending on tolling you all in the Elite group anyway, so your threat is laughable.

batdude123
Kick his ass, Digi!!!!

Supermanluv
Originally posted by DigiMark007
I fail to see how I insulted you at all, certainly not enough to warrant you calling me reatrded.

Also, 'i' is next to the 'o' on the keyboard. But yes, I obviously meant that I am impotent, because that's what any logical person would conclude from the passage. I can't get a hard on. lol. Done with the sophomoric laugh? Take your time....

Anyway, if you can't speak civilly to me, you're not worth my time.

You Insulte me first mate. wink

DigiMark007
As for Newjak's continuing argument, the infinite loop to him makes it so the paradox can never exist. To me it seems like the paradox still exists, you aren't shunting the question simply by making it infinitely recursive...the problem is simply never resolved.

And the focus has been on the rock paradox, but any could be substituted.

...

As for mod business, I've seen a lot of insults flying around directed at all kinds of people...if you can't act respectfully, the thread will be closed, no questions asked. And hopefully they follow suit in the vs. forum if it continues.

Originally posted by Supermanluv
You Insulte me first mate. wink

As I said, I fail to see where. I'm a d*ck about grammar, sure, but I'm an English teacher and do it all the time...in terms of the debate, I stated why I thought you were wrong and nothing more.

As it is, I would've apologized if you thought you were slighted, but flying off the handle with multiple insults didn't exactly make me warm to the idea

Supermanluv
Originally posted by batdude123
Kick his ass, Digi!!!!

*sighs at the obvious cock stroking*

Supermanluv
Originally posted by DigiMark007
As for Newjak's continuing argument, the infinite loop to him makes it so the paradox can never exist. To me it seems like the paradox still exists, you aren't shunting the question simply by making it infinitely recursive...the problem is simply never resolved.



EXACTLY !!!!!!!!!!!!

OMG someone has the balls to admit its crap.

Thankyou I could Kiss You !

batdude123
Originally posted by Supermanluv
*sighs at the obvious cock stroking*

laughing out loud @ this British piece of shit.

Newjak
Originally posted by DigiMark007
As for Newjak's continuing argument, the infinite loop to him makes it so the paradox can never exist. To me it seems like the paradox still exists, you aren't shunting the question simply by making it infinitely recursive...the problem is simply never resolved.

And the focus has been on the rock paradox, but any could be substituted.

...

As for mod business, I've seen a lot of insults flying around directed at all kinds of people...if you can't act respectfully, the thread will be closed, no questions asked. And hopefully they follow suit in the vs. forum if it continues.



As I said, I fail to see where. I'm a d*ck about grammar, sure, but I'm an English teacher and do it all the time...in terms of the debate, I stated why I thought you were wrong and nothing more.

As it is, I would've apologized if you thought you were slighted, but flying off the handle with multiple insults didn't exactly make me warm to the idea And that causes the problem most of the Paradox's about Omnipotence assumes that a being that supposedly can do anything can fail.

So Digi I ask when do we conclude that said Entity failed?

Supermanluv
Originally posted by DigiMark007




As I said, I fail to see where. I'm a d*ck about grammar, sure, but I'm an English teacher and do it all the time...in terms of the debate, I stated why I thought you were wrong and nothing more.

As it is, I would've apologized if you thought you were slighted, but flying off the handle with multiple insults didn't exactly make me warm to the idea

Originally posted by DigiMark007
Well good for you, I'm sure "university" is thrilled to have you,

DigiMark007
Originally posted by Newjak
And that causes the problem most of the Paradox's about Omnipotence assumes that a being that supposedly can do anything can fail.

So Digi I ask when do we conclude that said Entity failed?

wink

I realize it's a trick question, because we can't set a point. But the nature of your scenario will remain indefinitely infinite, so we can conclude that he won't succeed because it will remain in the recursive loop (presumably) forever.

Supermanluv
Originally posted by DigiMark007
wink

I realize it's a trick question, because we can't set a point. But the nature of your scenario will remain indefinitely infinite, so we can conclude that he won't succeed because it will remain in the recursive loop (presumably) forever.

Exactly !

DigiMark007
Originally posted by Supermanluv


Like I said, I'm a d*ck about grammar. You said you were attending university, not a university. It wasn't a personal attack, and to interpret it as such is kind of a reach....especially when you went as far as calling me a bigot, retard, and moron in subsequent posts.

erm

Newjak
Originally posted by DigiMark007
wink

I realize it's a trick question, because we can't set a point. But the nature of your scenario will remain indefinitely infinite, so we can conclude that he won't succeed because it will remain in the recursive loop (presumably) forever. Ah but the question posed isn't can he succeed we know he can do anything for an Infinite amount of Range, Scope, and Time. The question posed is when does he fail at failing.

If there can be no set point there can be no set Failure because Failure is the outcome of something is it not?

batdude123
Originally posted by DigiMark007
Like I said, I'm a d*ck about grammar. You said you were attending university, not a university. It wasn't a personal attack, and to interpret it as such is kind of a reach....especially when you went as far as calling me a bigot, retard, and moron in subsequent posts.

erm

And who would call a mod those things? dontgetit

Supermanluv
Originally posted by DigiMark007
Like I said, I'm a d*ck about grammar. You said you were attending university, not a university. It wasn't a personal attack, and to interpret it as such is kind of a reach....especially when you went as far as calling me a bigot, retard, and moron in subsequent posts.

erm

I can assure that others interpretted it in a simillar vain, so its isn't that much of a reach, actually.

I don't pull my punches when people insult me.

Creshosk
Originally posted by Supermanluv
Putting my inferior intellect aside, the following statement ;

'A self imposed limitation is a false or fake one and doesn't really count. '

Is subjective. No its not. Choosing not to do something is not the same as not being able to do that in the first place. This is not a matter of opinion.

Originally posted by Supermanluv
The limitation imposed upon god maybe fake, but does it necessarily mean that it doesn't count, I don't think so ? Its impossible to verify this analytically and empirically so therefore subjective. Nu uh... subjective means a matter of opinion.

the fact that he can at anytime ignore those limitations means they are not the same as a limitation where he couldn't do something even if he wanted.

Like I gave in examples. Just because you choose not to do something doesn't mean you can't. If you are presently sitting that doesn't mean you cannot stand, and if you are standing that does not mean you cannot sit. You don't need to ALWAYS be doing something to be able to do it. This is a fact, and not a matter of opinion.

Originally posted by Supermanluv
And there is no need to get so shirty. I was intending on tolling you all in the Elite group anyway, so your threat is laughable. Thank you. Now I can tell the ELite's to put you on ignore now that I have a confession of admission of intent to troll. Also I'm going to report this to the moderator that you are trolling.

Supermanluv
Originally posted by Creshosk


Thank you. Now I can tell the ELite's to put you on ignore now that I have a confession of admission of intent to troll. Also I'm going to report this to the moderator that you are trolling.

I'm not actually trolling here, but i will do if you continue. And I've been banned more 10 times previously and i always come back. Your threat is laughable, and u remind of that annoying little kid at school who couldn't understand why he had no friends although he always used to 'tell'.


It is subjective. The limitations imposed by god, are only inferior in your mind, God has intentionally made them as equal as natural limitations. Why?, because he can.

DigiMark007
Originally posted by Newjak
Ah but the question posed isn't can he succeed we know he can do anything for an Infinite amount of Range, Scope, and Time. The question posed is when does he fail at failing.

If there can be no set point there can be no set Failure because Failure is the outcome of something is it not?

My point all along. Setting aside success/failure concepts, "a resolution to the paradox" is well within the realm of All That Is. It should be possible for an omnipotent being, but it isn't. And if it is resolved (say, in this example, he makes a rock too big to lift in order to resolve it) you're cutting off the other possible resolution to the paradox, which is also within the realm of "All."

DigiMark007
Originally posted by Supermanluv
I can assure that others interpretted it in a simillar vain, so its isn't that much of a reach, actually.

I don't pull my punches when people insult me.

Vein.

wink

...

Well, in that case, you have my apologies, as I wasn't intending to insult you. However, the apology has nothing to do with (indeed, it seems in spite of) your reaction to it. Stooping far lower than the other person as soon as you think you've been slighted is hardly a noble or compassionate approach to any situation, and you would do well to correct it.

Newjak
Originally posted by DigiMark007
My point all along. Setting aside success/failure concepts, "a resolution to the paradox" is well within the realm of All That Is. It should be possible for an omnipotent being, but it isn't. And if it is resolved (say, in this example, he makes a rock too big to lift in order to resolve it) you're cutting off the other possible resolution to the paradox, which is also within the realm of "All." The problem is that if he is truly Omnipotent(Infinite Power) he will always be able to lift said rock but once again he will always be able to make a Bigger rock than the one he just lifted and lift that one so I ask once more when do we claim that he has failed.

Which is the whole of the idea. That there can be no perfect being but if said being can not fail then doesn't that make it perfect.

DigiMark007
Originally posted by Supermanluv
And I've been banned more 10 times previously and i always come back.

no expression

...ace move there. It also explains the trolling (not just in this thread).

DigiMark007
Originally posted by Newjak
The problem is that if he is truly Omnipotent(Infinite Power) he will always be able to lift said rock but once again he will always be able to make a Bigger rock than the one he just lifted and lift that one so I ask once more when do we claim that he has failed.

Which is the whole of the idea. That there can be no perfect being but if said being can not fail then doesn't that make it perfect.

I think we've entered our own infinite loop Nj. I'll pull out now since I think I've said all I can.

Supermanluv
Originally posted by DigiMark007
Vein.

wink

...

Well, in that case, you have my apologies, as I wasn't intending to insult you. However, the apology has nothing to do with (indeed, it seems in spite of) your reaction to it. Stooping far lower than the other person as soon as you think you've been slighted is hardly a noble or compassionate approach to any situation, and you would do well to correct it.

If i want lessons in life from you, I'll ask ...

And I appologise for calling you a retard !

Supermanluv
Originally posted by DigiMark007
no expression

...ace move there. It also explains the trolling (not just in this thread).

Only reveal when I want to. I always have done. U and I both know i could be back in a day, if i actaully wanted.

Newjak
Originally posted by DigiMark007
I think we've entered our own infinite loop Nj. I'll pull out now since I think I've said all I can. We have not reached an Infinite loop I say durfist

But the questions simple we know that an Omnipotent being will always succeed but at what point do we determine that being has failed at failing, noting that they keep going higher intervals every time?

It's a legit question Digi stick out tongue

Supermanluv
Originally posted by Newjak
We have not reached an Infinite loop I say durfist

But the questions simple we know that an Omnipotent being will always succeed but at what point do we determine that being has failed at failing, noting that they keep going higher intervals every time?

It's a legit question Digi stick out tongue

No its an unanswearble question, hence being a paradox !

Newjak
Originally posted by Supermanluv
No its an unanswearble question, hence being a paradox ! But the Paradox is founded on him being able to fail but if we can not determine failure then he is indeed a perfect being thus he has no Paradoxs! eek!

Badabing
Originally posted by Supermanluv
I'm not actually trolling here, but i will do if you continue. And I've been banned more 10 times previously and i always come back. Your threat is laughable, and u remind of that annoying little kid at school who couldn't understand why he had no friends although he always used to 'tell'.


It is subjective. The limitations imposed by god, are only inferior in your mind, God has intentionally made them as equal as natural limitations. Why?, because he can. dur

Creshosk
Originally posted by Supermanluv
I'm not actually trolling here, but i will do if you continue. And I've been banned more 10 times previously and i always come back. Your threat is laughable, and u remind of that annoying little kid at school who couldn't understand why he had no friends although he always used to 'tell'. Actually I'm the annoying little kid who has friends and got the sock to admit to socking in front of a mod. stick out tongue

Originally posted by Supermanluv
No its an unanswearble question, hence being a paradox ! I answered it.. hence its not a paradox. wink

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by Creshosk
I answered it.. hence its not a paradox. wink

That doesnt mean that it isnt a paradox. It just means you decided to claim that you had the answer stick out tongue

Creshosk
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
That doesnt mean that it isnt a paradox. It just means you decided to claim that you had the answer stick out tongue I have an answer. Not the answer.

By the definition of lift, you can't lift it if there's nothing to lift it from. doped.

Martian_mind
Um,if god can do anything,can't he just make a rock the size of a pebble that weighs so much he can't lift it?

<< THERE IS MORE FROM THIS THREAD HERE >>