Originally posted by Creshosk
Or do you willing commit the "no true scotsman fallacy" by furthing definging the puzzle to be "Can an omnipotent being create a rock of a certain size and so heavy that it cannot lift it?"
You don't like the answer that solves the problem so you wish to redefine it so that you are right?
Why do you assume that your rock's size is the correct size? if an omnipotent being had to LIFT an object, then wouldn't it also make it a size that could be liftable?
Originally posted by Creshosk
Because its the solution to the puzzle. Anything less doesn't cut it.If the size doesn't matter then why not have it the size of the universe?
Or do you willing commit the "no true scotsman fallacy" by furthing definging the puzzle to be "Can an omnipotent being create a rock of a certain size and so heavy that it cannot lift it?"
You don't like the answer that solves the problem so you wish to [b]redefine
it so that you are right? [/B]
Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
I imagined Adam was saying it doesn't have to be that size, not that it cannot.
More precisely, the size of the object is not relevant to whether or not it is heavier than his ability to lift, e.g. an omnipotent being could feasibly create a miniscule object that is so heavy that he cannot lift it.
Incidentally, in trying to define an object so heavy that it cannot be lifted as one that approaches or exceeds the universe in size, Creshosk is the one who is arguing semantics, i.e. the meaning of the term lift. He argues that if one succeeds in lifting an object that approaches or exceed the universe in size, then he is not truly lifting it, but pushing away from it, when clearly the point is whether the being is powerful enough to affect the unaffectable object.
Originally posted by Adam_PoERestricting the size or any other alterations to the original challegnge is commiting the no true scotsman fallacy.
More precisely, the size of the object is not relevant to whether or not it is heavier than his ability to lift, e.g. an omnipotent being could feasibly create a miniscule object that is so heavy that he cannot lift it.Incidentally, in trying to define an object so heavy that it cannot be lifted as one that approaches or exceeds the universe in size, Creshosk is the one who is arguing semantics, i.e. the meaning of the term lift. He argues that if one succeeds in lifting an object that approaches or exceed the universe in size, then he is not truly lifting it, but pushing away from it, when clearly the point is whether the being is powerful enough to affect the unaffectable object.
You seem desperate to disregard my answer without saying why it doesn't fit the criteria of the original problem. Instead you keep redfining the criteria. Is it because I answered an unanswerable question and that bothers you?
Originally posted by Creshosk
Restricting the size or any other alterations to the original challegnge is commiting the no true scotsman fallacy.You seem desperate to disregard my answer without saying why it doesn't fit the criteria of the original problem. Instead you keep redfining the criteria. Is it because I answered an unanswerable question and that bothers you?
[list=1][*]I have placed no restrictions to the size of the object. To the contrary, I have stated that the size of the object does not matter.
[*]I detailed in my previous post why your argument is not valid. Defining an object so heavy that it cannot be lifted as one that approaches or exceeds the universe in size, and then arguing that if one succeeds in lifting said object, then he is not truly lifting it, but pushing away from it, is arguing semantics. Clearly, the point is whether the being is powerful enough to affect the unaffectable object.
[*]To the contrary, it is you who is trying to define the premises in such a way that it suits your argument, e.g. trying to quanitfy the size of an object which by necessity need only be so heavy that it cannot be lifted, not necessarily of a particular size.[/list]
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
[list=1][*]I have placed no restrictions to the size of the object. To the contrary, I have stated that the size of the object does not matter.[*]I detailed in my previous post why your argument is not valid. Defining an object so heavy that it cannot be lifted as one that approaches or exceeds the universe in size, and then arguing that if one succeeds in lifting said object, then he is not truly lifting it, but pushing away from it, is arguing semantics. Clearly, the point is whether the being is powerful enough to affect the unaffectable object.
[*]To the contrary, it is you who is trying to define the premises in such a way that it suits your argument, e.g. trying to quanitfy the size of an object which by necessity need only be so heavy that it cannot be lifted, not necessarily of a particular size.[/list]
1.2.3.) Still nothing as to why my solution does not fit the criteria of the original challenge. Just you trying to change the criteria of the original problem.
I don't get what all this fuss is about. By definition omnipotence entails being able to do anything.
Creating a rock so big it cannot lift it, falls into the realm of anything.
Lifting a rock so big it cannot lift it, falls into the realm of anything.
Ergo an omnipotent being can create a rock so big it cannot lift it and subsequently lift said rock so big it cannot lift it, retaining said omnipotence.
It may not be plausible, it may not be logical, nor comprehensably possible. But omnipotence entails being able to do it.
Originally posted by Adam_PoEJust pointing out that this is a misleading physical assertion.
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.
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
I don't get what all this fuss is about. By definition omnipotence entails being able to do anything.Creating a rock so big it cannot lift it, falls into the realm of anything.
Lifting a rock so big it cannot lift it, falls into the realm of anything.Ergo an omnipotent being can create a rock so big it cannot lift it and subsequently lift said rock so big it cannot lift it, retaining said omnipotence.
I completely agree
omnipotence entails things like being able to make glass so dirty it is 100% transparent, or making soup so solid that it can work as human blood.
Yes, those things are by definition impossible or don't even make sense. However, were God omnipotent, he should be able to do it.
To be honest, I think this is one of the few acceptable times where the "Humans are incapable of knowing God" argument may be acceptable. If omnipotence exists, clearly our brains and the logical systems it creates are not built to have any way of understanding it
Also NB in general for clarification purposes; I am for all intents and purposes an agnostic - in the sense that I do not think the existence of deities can be proven nor disproven - or atheist - in the sense that I do not intend to believe in deities, unless the existence of such can be conclusively proven. I am equally likewise agnostic towards Santa, and "aSantaist."
My above point was not meant as an argument for the existence of omnipotent beings, but rather that the ascription of such a paradox to an omnipotent being is not particularly applicable.
Originally posted by inimalistTo be honest, I think this is one of the few acceptable times where the "Humans are incapable of knowing God" argument may be acceptable. If omnipotence exists, clearly our brains and the logical systems it creates are not built to have any way of understanding it
Good point.
Is this a paradox?
I would call that an optical illusion
but they are so stupidly cool
Originally posted by inimalist
I would call that an optical illusionbut they are so stupidly cool
Well yeah but I thought that some optical illusions are paradoxical because your seeing something that doesnt make any sense.
Maybe that wasnt a good example.
Originally posted by inimalist
paradox is a language thing to me.I'm not saying it is wrong, I am explaining why I called it an optical illusion, you are welcome to call it what you want, paradox does make sense
Ok. Anyway I gues im saying that if we can create a paradox with a picture than a paradox can exist...maybe.
Some people argue that Omnipotence is beyond our understanding, since it would take an unlimitted mind to understand Infinity, and since our minds are very limitted, we can't grasp that kind of existance.
However, Human Beings Invented the idea of Omnipotence, as we invented many ideas that don't exist in reality.
It may very well be that Omnipotence does not exist, and it is a concept of our imagination and dreams.
Also, if God cannot be defined within the confines of Logic, than maybe God is not logical.
So...there are those who feel Paradox means Omnipotence can not exist, and there are those who feel Paradox means Logic has its limits (which does Not necessarily mean Omnipotence Does exist, only that it can't be ruled out logically).
Since each of these positions reflect a paradigm, my next question is: why did you (the general you) adopt the paradigm you did?
Originally posted by Mindship
So...there are those who feel Paradox means Omnipotence can not exist, and there are those who feel Paradox means Logic has its limits (which does Not necessarily mean Omnipotence Does exist, only that it can't be ruled out logically).Since each of these positions reflect a paradigm, my next question is: why did you (the general you) adopt the paradigm you did?
None of us have an answer.
All I can conclude is that God cannot be defined within the confines of Logic, therefore God and his existance or lack there of, is illogical.
I think the answer being arrived at is trivial.
Is an omnipotent being omnipotent? Yes.
The more interesting question is whether, and how, such a thing could be possible, by reference to the tools of thought that we are able to comprehend.
Otherwise it's not really worthwhile.
Just to say that something 'impossible' can be done because that is so as part of the terms of the argument isn't really a satisfactory conclusion.
