Originally posted by Creshosk
But alot of the challenges that are presented are nothing more than word play and how things are defined.For example creating things that don't exist or would fall under the definition of something else.
Creating something so heavy that one cannot lift it is not one of these arguments.
Originally posted by Adam_PoEYes it is.
Creating something so heavy that one cannot lift it is not one of these arguments.
In order to lift it you need to move it away from a larger mass.
That's the very definition of lifting something.
http://m-w.com/dictionary/lift
Main Entry: 2lift
Function: verb
Etymology: Middle English, from Old Norse lypta; akin to Old English lyft air -- more at LOFT
transitive verb
1 a : to raise from a lower to a higher position : ELEVATE b : to raise in rank or condition c : to raise in rate or amount
2 : to put an end to (a blockade or siege) by withdrawing or causing the withdrawal of investing forces
3 : REVOKE, RESCIND <lift an embargo>
4 a : STEAL <had her purse lifted> b : PLAGIARIZE c : to take out of normal setting <lift a word out of context>
5 : to take up (as a root crop or transplants) from the ground
6 : to pay off (an obligation) <lift a mortgage>
7 : to move from one place to another (as by aircraft) : TRANSPORT
8 : to take up (a fingerprint) from a surface
intransitive verb
1 a : ASCEND, RISE <the rocket lifted off> b : to appear elevated (as above surrounding objects)
2 of inclement weather : to dissipate and clear
- lift·able /'lif-t&-b&l/ adjective
- lift·er noun
synonyms LIFT, RAISE, REAR, ELEVATE, HOIST, HEAVE, BOOST mean to move from a lower to a higher place or position. LIFT usually implies exerting effort to overcome resistance of weight <lift the chair while I vacuum>. RAISE carries a stronger implication of bringing up to the vertical or to a high position <scouts raising a flagpole>. REAR may add an element of suddenness to RAISE <suddenly reared itself up on its hind legs>. ELEVATE may replace LIFT or RAISE especially when exalting or enhancing is implied <elevated the taste of the public>. HOIST implies lifting something heavy especially by mechanical means <hoisted the cargo on board>. HEAVE implies lifting and throwing with great effort or strain <heaved the heavy crate inside>. BOOST suggests assisting to climb or advance by a push <boosted his brother over the fence>.
The most likely definitions given context are highlighted.
Now as I said any attempt to "Move from the ground" the rock. Would result in nothing more than a headstand. Because there is nothing to move the rock away from. there is no ground. There is nowhere to transport the rock to.
Get it yet?
How can you lift the rock if you can't match the definition? Its because of how people define something, in this case the act of lifting.
Lift it off of what? and if its small enough to fit on earth then itd be dense enough to be more than a black hole. Itd destroy the earth and everything around it. you'd still have no ground to lift it off of.
Originally posted by Creshosk
Yes it is.In order to lift it you need to move it away from a larger mass.
That's the very definition of lifting something.
False; according to the definition that you posted, the term lift means “to elevate; to raise; to transport.” Nowhere is mass mentioned, let alone the contingency that an object of smaller mass must by necessity be elevated, raised, or transported from an object of greater mass:
Originally posted by Creshosk
http://m-w.com/dictionary/lift
Main Entry: 2lift
Function: verb
Etymology: Middle English, from Old Norse lypta; akin to Old English lyft air -- more at LOFT
transitive verb
1 a : to raise from a lower to a higher position : ELEVATE b : to raise in rank or condition c : to raise in rate or amount
2 : to put an end to (a blockade or siege) by withdrawing or causing the withdrawal of investing forces
3 : REVOKE, RESCIND <lift an embargo>
4 a : STEAL <had her purse lifted> b : PLAGIARIZE c : to take out of normal setting <lift a word out of context>
5 : to take up (as a root crop or transplants) from the ground
6 : to pay off (an obligation) <lift a mortgage>
7 : to move from one place to another (as by aircraft) : TRANSPORT
8 : to take up (a fingerprint) from a surface
intransitive verb
1 a : ASCEND, RISE <the rocket lifted off> b : to appear elevated (as above surrounding objects)
2 of inclement weather : to dissipate and clear
- lift·able /'lif-t&-b&l/ adjective
- lift·er noun
synonyms LIFT, RAISE, REAR, ELEVATE, HOIST, HEAVE, BOOST mean to move from a lower to a higher place or position. LIFT usually implies exerting effort to overcome resistance of weight <lift the chair while I vacuum>. RAISE carries a stronger implication of bringing up to the vertical or to a high position <scouts raising a flagpole>. REAR may add an element of suddenness to RAISE <suddenly reared itself up on its hind legs>. ELEVATE may replace LIFT or RAISE especially when exalting or enhancing is implied <elevated the taste of the public>. HOIST implies lifting something heavy especially by mechanical means <hoisted the cargo on board>. HEAVE implies lifting and throwing with great effort or strain <heaved the heavy crate inside>. BOOST suggests assisting to climb or advance by a push <boosted his brother over the fence>.The most likely definitions given context are highlighted.
Originally posted by Creshosk
Now as I said any attempt to "Move from the ground" the rock. Would result in nothing more than a headstand. Because there is nothing to move the rock away from. there is no ground. There is nowhere to transport the rock to.Get it yet?
How can you lift the rock if you can't match the definition? Its because of how people define something, in this case the act of lifting.
Lift it off of what? and if its small enough to fit on earth then itd be dense enough to be more than a black hole. Itd destroy the earth and everything around it. you'd still have no ground to lift it off of.
Omnipotence is the ability to do all things. If some things are impossible to do, then it follows from this that omnipotence does not exist. Get it yet?
Originally posted by CreshoskWhat about the good old "can God heat a Burritto to such a temperature that he can not eat it"?
Yes it is.In order to lift it you need to move it away from a larger mass.
That's the very definition of lifting something.
http://m-w.com/dictionary/lift
Main Entry: 2lift
Function: verb
Etymology: Middle English, from Old Norse lypta; akin to Old English lyft air -- more at LOFT
transitive verb
1 a : to raise from a lower to a higher position : ELEVATE b : to raise in rank or condition c : to raise in rate or amount
2 : to put an end to (a blockade or siege) by withdrawing or causing the withdrawal of investing forces
3 : REVOKE, RESCIND <lift an embargo>
4 a : STEAL <had her purse lifted> b : PLAGIARIZE c : to take out of normal setting <lift a word out of context>
5 : to take up (as a root crop or transplants) from the ground
6 : to pay off (an obligation) <lift a mortgage>
7 : to move from one place to another (as by aircraft) : TRANSPORT
8 : to take up (a fingerprint) from a surface
intransitive verb
1 a : ASCEND, RISE <the rocket lifted off> b : to appear elevated (as above surrounding objects)
2 of inclement weather : to dissipate and clear
- lift·able /'lif-t&-b&l/ adjective
- lift·er noun
synonyms LIFT, RAISE, REAR, ELEVATE, HOIST, HEAVE, BOOST mean to move from a lower to a higher place or position. LIFT usually implies exerting effort to overcome resistance of weight <lift the chair while I vacuum>. RAISE carries a stronger implication of bringing up to the vertical or to a high position <scouts raising a flagpole>. REAR may add an element of suddenness to RAISE <suddenly reared itself up on its hind legs>. ELEVATE may replace LIFT or RAISE especially when exalting or enhancing is implied <elevated the taste of the public>. HOIST implies lifting something heavy especially by mechanical means <hoisted the cargo on board>. HEAVE implies lifting and throwing with great effort or strain <heaved the heavy crate inside>. BOOST suggests assisting to climb or advance by a push <boosted his brother over the fence>.The most likely definitions given context are highlighted.
Now as I said any attempt to "Move from the ground" the rock. Would result in nothing more than a headstand. Because there is nothing to move the rock away from. there is no ground. There is nowhere to transport the rock to.
Get it yet?
How can you lift the rock if you can't match the definition? Its because of how people define something, in this case the act of lifting.
Lift it off of what? and if its small enough to fit on earth then itd be dense enough to be more than a black hole. Itd destroy the earth and everything around it. you'd still have no ground to lift it off of.
Originally posted by Adam_PoESo what are you going to elevate, raise or transport it off of, genius?
False; according to the definition that you posted, the term lift means “to elevate; to raise; to transport.” Nowhere is mass mentioned, let alone the contingency that an object of smaller mass must by necessity be elevated, raised, or transported from an object of greater mass:
Oh that's right. There needs to be something else to do that with or else all you're doing is a hand stand on the rock.
Originally posted by Adam_PoEOnthological argument
Omnipotence is the ability to do all things. If some things are impossible to do, then it follows from this that omnipotence does not exist. Get it yet?
I define omnipotence to be X
Since I cannot conceive of X, X must not exist.
Therefore omnipotence doesn't exist
Nothing would be impossible for an omnipotent being to do. But you're defining the success of different things off of words. Nothing but symantics.
I define a giraffe to be something that can turn invisible at will and fire laser beams from its ass.
Since I can't conceive of anything like that it must not exist. Therefore giraffes don't exist.
Clearly giraffes exist, therefore the way that it is being defined must be wrong.
Originally posted by Bardock42
Yeah, what about that, Creshy?
Originally posted by Creshosk
Like in the humorous play on the "rock too big" with the "burrito too hot".It's not the omnipotence that's the paradox, its the burrito. The burrito cannot exist because beyond a certain point it'd be vaporized before it got to the point of being too hot for an omnipotant person being able to eat it.
quote: (post)
Originally posted by Creshosk
Like in the humorous play on the "rock too big" with the "burrito too hot".
It's not the omnipotence that's the paradox, its the burrito. The burrito cannot exist because beyond a certain point it'd be vaporized before it got to the point of being too hot for an omnipotant person being able to eat it.
couldn't an omnipotent person keep it from vaporizing?
But your answers are really just semantics. You could formulate it a way to not have those little loopholes.
Could an omnipotent God make something (anything) so something (hot, heavy, blue...( whether he has to change the laws of physics for that or not)) that he could not do something (lift, eat, think about, look at ...) with it?
Basically, is God more powerful than the rules of logic? And if yes, how? Can he beat a paradoxon?
We know that omnipotence is paradox. So, how can we attribute it to something?
Originally posted by Jbill311But then would it still be a burrito? Or would it have to be reclassified as something else?
quote: (post)
Originally posted by Creshosk
Like in the humorous play on the "rock too big" with the "burrito too hot".It's not the omnipotence that's the paradox, its the burrito. The burrito cannot exist because beyond a certain point it'd be vaporized before it got to the point of being too hot for an omnipotant person being able to eat it.
couldn't an omnipotent person keep it from vaporizing?
Because no normal burrito would survive at temperatures that this one could.
Originally posted by Bardock42That's why the arguments are just semantic arguments using defenitions of words in certain ways to prove their conclusions.
But your answers are really just semantics.
Originally posted by Bardock42
You could formulate it a way to not have those little loopholes.Could an omnipotent God make something (anything) so something (hot, heavy, blue...( whether he has to change the laws of physics for that or not)) that he could not do something (lift, eat, think about, look at ...) with it?
Basically, is God more powerful than the rules of logic? And if yes, how? Can he beat a paradoxon?
We know that omnipotence is paradox. So, how can we attribute it to something?
I refer you to the "I define somethieng as X" Argument. Changing the way you define something is merely semantics and doesn't change the nature of that thing. Merely because you cannot conceive of something doesn't mean that it cannot be. A man who had never heard of a giraffe, sees one for the first time in his life stands there awestruck, he mutters that he cannot believe that such a creature exists. Is this giraffe then to disappear ina puff of logic because someone couldn't believe that there could be something like that?
Originally posted by Creshosk
That's why the arguments are just semantic arguments using defenitions of words in certain ways to prove their conclusions.I refer you to the "I define somethieng as X" Argument. Changing the way you define something is merely semantics and doesn't change the nature of that thing. Merely because you cannot conceive of something doesn't mean that it cannot be. A man who had never heard of a giraffe, sees one for the first time in his life stands there awestruck, he mutters that he cannot believe that such a creature exists. Is this giraffe then to disappear ina puff of logic because someone couldn't believe that there could be something like that?
No. You are talking nonsense.
Omnipotence is defined as being able to do everything.
That means for something to be omnipotent they must be able to do the following.
"Create something so they have no power over it"
If they can create that though than there are possible things they have no power over. If they can't they are not omnipotent.
It is not semantics or defining anything to change it. It's not about being able to conceive something or not. It is about something being a logical impossibility. The word omnipotence is paradox. We can't use it to describe anything, because the definition of the word creates an unsolvable problem.
Originally posted by Bardock42
No. You are talking nonsense.Omnipotence is defined as being able to do everything.
That means for something to be omnipotent they must be able to do the following.
"Create something so they have no power over it"
If they can create that though than there are possible things they have no power over. If they can't they are not omnipotent.
It is not semantics or defining anything to change it. It's not about being able to conceive something or not. It is about something being a logical impossibility. The word omnipotence is paradox. We can't use it to describe anything, because the definition of the word creates an unsolvable problem.
It's only impossible because you cannot conceive of it happening. I'm sorry but that's the truth.
Back in the middle ages, people thought that it was impossible to travel out into space. To have a horseless carriage, or any number of the things we take for granted today.
That's one of the major problems we face today. There are too many people that just sit down and go "Oh that's impossible." or they go off of only what they think they know.
Instead of daring to explore into what is "impossible" they set up shop and are content with what they think they know. Things that do not exist today, might someday exist or be discovered in the future for example.
Atoms for one thing, we had no evidence of their existence before their discovery. Certainly such a concept would be "impossible" back then. By the very definition of what the word Atom means certainly their composition or the fact that they were indeed made of things was "impossible".
Simply because a person cannot understand how something could be done, does not mean that it could not be done.
Your very post back to me was riddled with evidence of it being nothing more than semantics. "Defined", "Defenition", "word". Defining something in a given way so as to make it impossible is nothing more than semantics. "A rose by any other name would smell as sweet." It doesn't change the nature of what it is, simply to define or claim someing in a given way.
Originally posted by Creshosk
So what are you going to elevate, raise or transport it off of, genius?Oh that's right. There needs to be something else to do that with or else all you're doing is a hand stand on the rock.
You presume that an omnipotent being is limited to lifting an object with his hands.
Originally posted by Creshosk
Onthological argumentI define omnipotence to be X
Since I cannot conceive of X, X must not exist.
Therefore omnipotence doesn't exist
My argument is as follows:
IF all A = B, then no A = not B; IF some A are not B, then not all A = B.
Conception has nothing to do with it.
Originally posted by Creshosk
Nothing would be impossible for an omnipotent being to do. But you're defining the success of different things off of words. Nothing but symantics.
If a being can do all things, then he is omnipotent; if a being cannot do all things, then he is not omnipotent. Symantics has nothing to do with it.
Originally posted by Creshosk
I define a giraffe to be something that can turn invisible at will and fire laser beams from its ass.
Since I can't conceive of anything like that it must not exist. Therefore giraffes don't exist.Clearly giraffes exist, therefore the way that it is being defined must be wrong.
If the abilities to become invisible and to project concentrated beams of light are essential characteristics of a giraffe, then an animal that does not have these characteristics is not a giraffe.
For the purposes of the argument, the giraffe is presumed to exist. What is in question is whether or not the characteristics described above exist, and if so, whether or not they are characteristics of a giraffe.
Originally posted by Adam_PoENothing of the sort but using some sort of telepathy or energy feild would likewise just look like him moving away from the rock.
You presume that an omnipotent being is limited to lifting an object with his hands.
Originally posted by Adam_PoEContradictory if statments.
My argument is as follows:IF all A = B, then no A = not B; IF some A are not B, then not all A = B.
Conception has nothing to do with it.
Wouldn't the argument look more like
p -> q
~q
------
~p
anyway?
Originally posted by Adam_PoE🙄 Yes. But your acceptence of what they can or cannot do is semantics.
If a being can do all things, then he is omnipotent; if a being cannot do all things, then he is not omnipotent. Symantics has nothing to do with it.
Originally posted by Adam_PoEWay to miss the point. I defined a giraffe as a creature that we have not seen, my changing the definition of what a giraffe is in no way effects what a giraffe actually is. It was just an example.
If the abilities to become invisible and to project concentrated beams of light are essential characteristics of a giraffe, then an animal that does not have these characteristics is not a giraffe.For the purposes of the argument, the giraffe is presumed to exist. What is in question is whether or not the characteristics described above exist, and if so, whether or not they are characteristics of a giraffe.
Originally posted by Creshosk
Nothing of the sort but using some sort of telepathy or energy feild would likewise just look like him moving away from the rock.
The challenge is to determine whether or not an omnipotent being can create an object so heavy that he cannot lift it. How he attempts to lift it is irrelevant.
Originally posted by Creshosk
Contradictory if statments.Wouldn't the argument look more like
p -> q
~q
------
~p
anyway?
Wrong on both counts.
Originally posted by Creshosk
🙄 Yes. But your acceptence of what they can or cannot do is semantics.
Either he can do all things or he cannot do all things. Acceptance and semantics have nothing to do with it.
Originally posted by Creshosk
Way to miss the point. I defined a giraffe as a creature that we have not seen, my changing the definition of what a giraffe is in no way effects what a giraffe actually is. It was just an example.
Apparently, you are missing the point, i.e. that your example is poor, and does not support your argument.