The Paradox of Omnipotence

Started by Bardock4213 pages
Bardock42 Junior Member

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

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

but it isn't true anyway...

Nice.

Idiocy. I was clearly referring to two separate issues.

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

Then I said that you are wrong about that though.

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

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

lift

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

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

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

Originally posted by Creshosk
What's wrong with mine?

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

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

No, it being a logical paradox makes it though.

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

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

because it sounds like a cop-out to me.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Makes no sense, next.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bardock42 Junior Member

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

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

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

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

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

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

I am not without knowledge on the subject of logic.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It is so frustrating.

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

I am not though.

Originally posted by Creshosk
Case in point.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You idiot.

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

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

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

Bardock42 Junior Member
Originally posted by Mindship
My question is this (I'm asking this at large, actually):
Omnipotence generates logical paradox. Does paradox mean, then, there is no such thing as omnipotence? Does Logic Rule? Or does paradox indicate the limits of logic, with omnipotence being something we very limited creatures simply can't grasp, anymore than bacteria could understand calculus?

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

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

Originally posted by xmarksthespot

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

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

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

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

Now, anything includes being able to

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

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

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

Originally posted by Alfheim
Good point.

Is this a paradox?

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

No.

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

paradox

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

Alfheim Junior Member

Originally posted by Bardock42

No.

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

[b]paradox

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

Well its just seems like a paradox in visual form.

Bardock42 Junior Member

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

It is not a logical paradox though.

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

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

its not

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

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

Alfheim Junior Member

Originally posted by inimalist
its not

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

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

Ah now I got you.

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

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

Creshosk Senior Member

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

Idiocy. I was clearly referring to two separate issues.

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

Then I said that you are wrong about that though.

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

Nor can we if you're going to start resorting to personal attacks. Regardless of what you'd like to believe it is a semantic argument.

Originally posted by Bardock42
[b]lift

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

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

That is the question. And that is a logical paradox. [/b]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Just like your attacks on me a moment ago. "I don't think you know anything about logic." an ad hominem attack is used to discredit a person. Usually when a person is discredited you can just dismiss them as they have no credibility.

Originally posted by Bardock42
No, they do not. They just say that if a being is omnipotent by our definition it has also have to be so when the rules of logic apply. And that doesn't.
By our definition omnipotence is defined to be beyond the bounds of our logic. Much like the word supernatural.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Grey Fox Restricted

You are a genius

xmarksthespot CEO, BS Comics

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

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

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

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

Now, anything includes being able to

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

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

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

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

Bardock42 Junior Member

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

Thereby making it a logical paradox doped

Shakyamunison Nam Myoho Renge Kyo
Originally posted by The Grey Fox
Then he sucks, end of. If he exists, that is. Which I highly doubt he does. 😉

"He" does not.

The Grey Fox Restricted

And there you have it. Close/

inimalist Junior Member
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
But then omnipotence also entails being able to break the rules of logic while simultaneously keeping them intact, illogical as it may be... 131
Originally posted by Bardock42
Thereby making it a logical paradox doped

HAHA!

there is the answer

xmarksthespot CEO, BS Comics

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

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

The Grey Fox Restricted
Originally posted by The Grey Fox
And there you have it. Close/
Creshosk Senior Member

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

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

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

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

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

"Logic without emotion is ruthlessness, Emotion without logic is insanity."

Originally posted by Bardock42
It does not matter though. Because illogical things and logical paradoxes are two very different issues, the latter being the one that is subject of this debate.
You see that is where we have a disagreement. You think that by classifying something as a paradox you can just drop it in the "does not exist" bin. What you may be wrong about is something might be a logical paradox or it could simply be illogical. You say omnipotence is a logical paradox, and you try and fail to set up examples. Omnipotence by definition is not a logical paradox, Omnipotence by definition is illogical. Omnipotence by definition is outside the bounds of logic. Not bound within the bounds of logic.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Creshosk Senior Member

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

Or are you to say emotions are a logical paradox?

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

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

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