Originally posted by Bardock42
Awww, you took what I said and make it more understandable.Like PVS does to you.
I tidied it up. He dumbs it down. Then mentions random gay acts.
Mine are always relevant, like fisting and that.
Originally posted by Bardock42
Does that mean I am your God? Now, I am not saying I am. That is for you to think about at home. But if I was....if I was...that's what would happen, isn't it?
Well...it's not really, is it?
Originally posted by Bardock42So it isn't flawed...
It isn't.
Originally posted by Bardock42but it isn't true anyway...
I am just saying that if your point was true, which it isn't,
Nice.
Originally posted by Bardock42But it is. Its relying entirely on "lifting"
it wouldn't be a point about semantics. It would just point out that the argument is flawed.
Originally posted by Bardock42What's wrong with mine?
It does not though.
Originally posted by Bardock42Simply calling it a logical paradox doesn't make it so.
Because it is a logical paradox.
Likewise calling a question unanswerable doesn't make it so. For example some of the "unanswerable" questions do have answers. Problem is too many people just accept it as being "unanswerable" and then don't bother to try. Which is why I say:
Originally posted by Bardock42because it sounds like a cop-out to me.
Because two thing would have to apply at the same time that are mutually exclusive. There are logically impossible things. Something can not exist and not exist for example. Which means that there are things in this universe at least even a very, very powerful being can not do. And because that applies there can not be omnipotence. I don't understand how you can not understand this most simple concept.
Originally posted by Bardock42Actually its the people who come up with these "logical paradoxes" that limit the beings power. They bind the being to the rules of logic as we understand them.
So the omnipotent person is not able to create such a thing without limiting itself? Does that mean it can't do everything? Doesn't that mean the person is not omnipotent after all?
If we are wrong about our understanding, then its obviously not us who are at fault.
Originally posted by Bardock42Because as I said before. Too many people simply accept that which they were taught, rather blindly. The majority of the populous of the human race just accepts things as they are. Its actually a significantly lower number of the world's populous through history that helped humans progress foreward. If everyone blindly accepted what they were taught previously, we might still have been stuck at a level of progress prior to our current level. For example it was accepted as fact some time ago that the world was flat and that the sun revolved around the earth, that bad smells caused disease. Its only by thinking about things differently than we are taught to blindly accept that we move foreward.
You are just searching for flaws in the original question. Why? You can make it theoretical.
Originally posted by Bardock42And one of those "mathematical paradoxes" helped to show that 1=0. You ever see that one? People gettign clever with word play. Defining something in a way doesn't change the nature of what is.
Are you crazy? The mathematical paradox of the set of all sets is word play to you. Jesus ****ing Christ, why do I humour you?
Originally posted by Creshosk
There's a difference between using the word definition andd just using a definition.And the fact of the matter is still that it's not a logical paradox. And it is all symantics.
If you create a rock the size of the universe and its the only rock there then because its so massive the rest is destroyed.
Can you picture that much at least?
Now imagine ANYONE trying to lift it. From the perspective of the rock it won't be moved. If the omnipotant being were smaller than the rock (because they choose to be don't get nitpicky) and tried to use their hands it'd simply look like a hand stand. No different than a person on Earth trying to lift the Earth right?
Now if they tried to use some sort of energy to force, it away, from the perspective of the rock the rock still wouldn't move but the person would look like they were flying.
Based on your name I'm guessing you could pick up on the example of using chi/ki/qi/xi in DBZ to fly. they move away from the Earth, or in this case the rock. But from the rock's perspective it still hasn't moved.
Now even if theywere large enough to wrap a single hand around the rock, they still wouldn't be lifting it because there's nothing to lift it from. itd still look like the rock wasn't moving from its perspective. Much like a rock climber lowering himself down, the rock wouldn't move.
You presume that the object must approach or surpass the size of the universe, but this is not necessarily the case; the only contigency is that the object be so heavy that he cannot lift it.
Originally posted by Adam_PoESo when do we get the science lecture to make it applicable?
You presume that the object must approach or surpass the size of the universe, but this is not necessarily the case; the only contigency is that the object be so heavy that he cannot lift it.
Are we then to discard other laws of science simply to ensure that this remains a logcial paradox?
Seems rather leading and agenda driven to me to do such a thing.
Originally posted by Bardock42
Something can not exist and not exist for example. Which means that there are things in this universe at least even a very, very powerful being can not do.
That is wrong...things exist that don't exist...it is the borrowed matter theory...it is how black holes evaporate dude.
Anyway...
If you try to bind an omnipotent being to your boudndries of logic...you will end up in a paradox because omniptence is illogical.
Also, if this being did create said rock...couldn't he just go back in time and change the entire universes placement to move slightly to accomodate a movement...thereby not moving the rock at all but moving the universe and thereby...altogether...move the rock by all definitions of it?
Couldn't he also go back in time and stop himself from creating that rock because wouldn't this being cease to be omnipotent IF it could do that?
Omnipotent is a man made word...God may have a different definition for what he is...hell, stephen hawking said that god created this universe and its laws and that God himself has to obey those laws and that god is restricted by that...obviously, God is not omnipotent by our definition of it because of the paradox...
Now this...
Because it is a logical paradox. Because two thing would have to apply at the same time that are mutually exclusive. There are logically impossible things. ... Which means that there are things in this universe at least even a very, very powerful being can not do. And because that applies there can not be omnipotence....seems (to me) to be saying something different from this...
Which is a paradox.
Meaning it can not logically do that, so it is outside of logic. Which is something we can not comprehend.
My question is this (I'm asking this at large, actually):
Omnipotence generates logical paradox. Does paradox mean, then, there is no such thing as omnipotence? Does Logic Rule? Or does paradox indicate the limits of logic, with omnipotence being something we very limited creatures simply can't grasp, anymore than bacteria could understand calculus?
Originally posted by MindshipI'd go with the latter. I grasp it because I realize that logic is not binding laws of the universe. Merely humans describing their observation and thoughts.
Now this... ...seems (to me) to be saying something different from this...My question is this (I'm asking this at large, actually):
Omnipotence generates logical paradox. Does paradox mean, then, there is no such thing as omnipotence? Or does paradox indicate the limits of logic, with omnipotence being something we very limited creatures simply can't grasp?
I'm willing to admit that humans can still grow learn and adapt. Our knowledge is flawed.
Originally posted by MindshipLogic is what our language is based on. Our words have to apply to rules of logic. And especially when it comes to omnipotence. Not being able to do something within the range of logic disqualifies someone from being omnipotent anyways.
Now this... ...seems (to me) to be saying something different from this...My question is this (I'm asking this at large, actually):
Omnipotence generates logical paradox. Does paradox mean, then, there is no such thing as omnipotence? Does Logic Rule? Or does paradox indicate the limits of logic, with omnipotence being something we very limited creatures simply can't grasp, anymore than bacteria could understand calculus?
Originally posted by Bardock42And being able to do things that defy logic?
Logic is what our language is based on. Our words have to apply to rules of logic. And especially when it comes to omnipotence. Not being able to do something within the range of logic disqualifies someone from being omnipotent anyways.
Logic is more like guidelines really.
Originally posted by Bardock42You speak of logic as if they were rules or laws that bind the universe. They're not. They are humans observations and explinations over the period of time that they've been developed.
What does that relate to? I do not follow.
Or are you to say that logic is infalliable and illogical things cannot exist?
Originally posted by Creshosk
You speak of logic as if they were rules or laws that bind the universe. They're not. They are humans observations and explinations over the period of time that they've been developed.Or are you to say that logic is infalliable and illogical things cannot exist?
Well, I firmly believe that to be the truth in this universe, yes. But I am agnostic on the issue of logic.
But what I am not agnostic on is words that we achieved by using logic in a universe where logic is not guidelines but binding and even if it wasn't...for omnipotence (a word that we humans defined and that is certainly subject to logic) to apply it has to apply anywhere at anytime about anything.
And we do know that it does not apply where logic is the standards. Therefore it is paradox. It just is.
Answer VVDs revised question:
"Could he (the omnipotent being)...create a rock so big it cannot lift it, and then subsequently still be able to lift it, despite it being so big it cannot lift it. All the while the rock is still so big that it cannot lift it, but the omnipotent being can still lift it, while, keeping the rock small enough to lift, subsequently not being able to lift said rock, despite it being perfectly liftable- notwithstanding the fact that he still couldn't lift it?
While ensuring that no rules of logic- as we understand them- are broken?"
Originally posted by Bardock42If you're without knowledge on the subject of logic then how can you say for certain what is and is not logical? You also did not answer my question. Can illogical things exist?
Well, I firmly believe that to be the truth in this universe, yes. But I am agnostic on the issue of logic.
Originally posted by Bardock42Logic is not binding though. Logic is not an end all be all. I ask you again, can illogical things exist or illogical actions take place? If logic was binding then the answer would be no, would it not?
But what I am not agnostic on is words that we achieved by using logic in a universe where logic is not guidelines but binding
Then wouldn't I simply need to prove that illogical actions take place, or prove the existence of something illogical for that to not be so?
Originally posted by Bardock42The problem then might be with the definition rather than the substance. The problem is you're defining omnipotence as something which is not the definition of omnipotence.
and even if it wasn't...for omnipotence (a word that we humans defined and that is certainly subject to logic) to apply it has to apply anywhere at anytime about anything.
You're defining an omnipotent being as a being who can do all things that are logically possible. and then contrasting it, with the original definition of omnipotence: "All power".
By restricting the being to logical things you are limiting the geings power down from omnipotence into something less powered. And you're using definitions and defining things to do it, even without directly stating what those definitions are.
Originally posted by Bardock42Case in point.
And we do know that it does not apply where logic is the standards. Therefore it is paradox. It just is.
Originally posted by Bardock42VVD's revised question is invalid. It commits the "no true scotsman" fallacy and thus is not a valid argument.
Answer VVDs revised question:"Could he (the omnipotent being)...create a rock so big it cannot lift it, and then subsequently still be able to lift it, despite it being so big it cannot lift it. All the while the rock is still so big that it cannot lift it, but the omnipotent being can still lift it, while, keeping the rock small enough to lift, subsequently not being able to lift said rock, despite it being perfectly liftable- notwithstanding the fact that he still couldn't lift it?
While ensuring that no rules of logic- as we understand them- are broken?"
The answer is yes. Otherwise we're talking about a potent being rather than an omnipotent being. Something more akin to omnilogistipotent. "All logical power".
an omnipotent being could do thiongs that are illogical and thus probably beyond the comprehension of those too bound up by logic to uderstabd that the way they define things doesn't change what something actually is.
"A rose by any other name."
Originally posted by Creshosk
So when do we get the science lecture to make it applicable?Are we then to discard other laws of science simply to ensure that this remains a logcial paradox?
Seems rather leading and agenda driven to me to do such a thing.
You are the one who is multiplying entities unnecessarily by presuming that an object must approach or exceed the size of the universe in order to be so heavy that it cannot be lifted.
An ordinary refrigerator magnet is a small object, but it generates enough magnetic force to overcome the gravitational force generated by the entire planet, which is a large object.
Just as it is not the size of the objects, but the strength of the forces generated by them that is relevant in this example, so too is it not the size of the object, but its weight that is relevant in the case of the omnipotence paradox.
Originally posted by CreshoskVVD's revised question is invalid. It commits the "no true scotsman" fallacy and thus is not a valid argument.
Well. It was a joke reply to Xmarks.
Originally posted by Creshosk
The answer is yes. Otherwise we're talking about a potent being rather than an omnipotent being. Something more akin to omnilogistipotent. "All logical power".an omnipotent being could do thiongs that are illogical and thus probably beyond the comprehension of those too bound up by logic to uderstabd that the way they define things doesn't change what something actually is.
"A rose by any other name."
Well, I can do something that's illogical. Doesn't add much to the debate, though.
Theoretical omnipotence would allow anything to be achieved.
Within itself, that is possible, if omnipotence did exist.
It doesn't, though. It's just a pointless thought exercise.
'If someone could do anything, could they do anything?'
Originally posted by Adam_PoEBecause its the solution to the puzzle. Anything less doesn't cut it.
You are the one who is multiplying entities unnecessarily by presuming that an object must approach or exceed the size of the universe in order to be so heavy that it cannot be lifted.
Originally posted by Adam_PoEIf the size doesn't matter then why not have it the size of the universe?
An ordinary refrigerator magnet is a small object, but it generates enough magnetic force to overcome the gravitational force generated by the entire planet, which is a large object.Just as it is not the size of the objects, but the strength of the forces generated by them that is relevant in this example, so too is it not the size of the object, but its weight that is relevant in the case of the omnipotence paradox.
Or do you willing commit the "no true scotsman fallacy" by furthing definging the puzzle to be "Can an omnipotent being create a rock of a certain size and so heavy that it cannot lift it?"
You don't like the answer that solves the problem so you wish to redefine it so that you are right?
Originally posted by Creshosk
Or do you willing commit the "no true scotsman fallacy" by furthing definging the puzzle to be "Can an omnipotent being create a rock of a certain size and so heavy that it cannot lift it?"You don't like the answer that solves the problem so you wish to [b]redefine
it so that you are right? [/B]
I don't really think that follows.
Originally posted by Victor Von DoomDon't worry, it wasn't you who tried to use a joke seriously.
Well. It was a joke reply to Xmarks.
Originally posted by Victor Von DoomWell it shows that illogical things such as illogical actions can exist despite the existence of logic.
Well, I can do something that's illogical. Doesn't add much to the debate, though.
Originally posted by Victor Von DoomThat we know of. I'm not going to say wether something exists or not. because before the discovery of things they still exist even without evidence. Much the way Virii or atoms or electrons did before we had evidence of them. The lack of evidence is not the evidence of the lack of existence. To say otherwise is to comit the ad ignoratiam fallacy.
Theoretical omnipotence would allow anything to be achieved.Within itself, that is possible, if omnipotence did exist.
It doesn't, though. It's just a pointless thought exercise.
Originally posted by Victor Von DoomIt's an interesting question, and a bit of a pun.
'If someone could do anything, could they do anything?'
Originally posted by Creshosk
Well it shows that illogical things such as illogical actions can exist despite the existence of logic.
Certainly. I don't think that's the subtlety people are using here, though. It's more to do with whether a logical problem can be logically solved, within logical parameters, despite being illogical. The answer is no, in reality. If we create a (trivial) construct whereby anything can be done regardless, then such matters are pointless.
Originally posted by Creshosk
That we know of. I'm not going to say wether something exists or not. because before the discovery of things they still exist even without evidence. Much the way Virii or atoms or electrons did before we had evidence of them. The lack of evidence is not the evidence of the lack of existence. To say otherwise is to comit the ad ignoratiam fallacy.
Ok. I don't think anyone disputed any of that, though I may be wrong.
Originally posted by Creshosk
It's an interesting question, and a bit of a pun.
I think that's the problem; it's not very interesting. The factual answer is yes, and it doesn't make for great discussion.
Originally posted by Creshosk
I don't see why not. The original statement didn't mention the size of them. So when I used a certain size, Adam here came up an basically says that I can't use a rock of that size.
I imagined Adam was saying it doesn't have to be that size, not that it cannot.