Originally posted by The Grey FoxI'm perfectly calm and see no reason the thread should be closed. It has not broken the rules, except here a little bit by being off-topic. If others wish to add to the future or Bardock wishes to continue, I'm interesting in seeing the answers.
I'm saying: CLOSE THE THREAD ALREADY. Hense the 'Close/'CLose the htread, all you're doing is pwning the guy. Calm down and shuth this thread down... KK?
I'll admit that the subject of omnipotence has been rather intruging to me my etire life. and if there is more I might learn then I'm interested in that as well.
Okay, to make things clearer and because I can't possibly reply to you again Creshosk (since I'd have to make the same points over) I will just state my opinion again:
I believe that omnipotence is a logical paradox.
I believe that I can not be sure whether there are things outside of logical paradoxes or not.
I believe going by the fundamental definitions of logic "omnipotence" as we have defined it in our languages, which are subject to logical testing is paradox.
I believe the "stone that he can't lift" question does show the paradox, but even if it does not, by being changed it becomes clear.
I also believe that it is a paradox in the same way "All Cretans lie. I am a Cretan" and "the set of all sets that do not contain themselves" are paradox ... and it is a believe that boarders unquestionable faith really really closely.
And I think I have given enough reasons why I do believe all those.
Originally posted by Bardock42Well, as I said, I'd much prefer to agree to disagree than to have it become the flame war that I do not want with you. I like you and see no reason we can't end this amiably.
Okay, to make things clearer and because I can't possibly reply to you again Creshosk (since I'd have to make the same points over) I will just state my opinion again:I believe that omnipotence is a logical paradox.
I believe that I can not be sure whether there are things outside of logical paradoxes or not.
I believe going by the fundamental definitions of logic "omnipotence" as we have defined it in our languages, which are subject to logical testing is paradox.
I believe the "stone that he can't lift" question does show the paradox, but even if it does not, by being changed it becomes clear.
I also believe that it is a paradox in the same way "All Cretans lie. I am a Cretan" and "the set of all sets that do not contain themselves" are paradox ... and it is a believe that boarders unquestionable faith really really closely.
And I think I have given enough reasons why I do believe all those.
Though I have a solution to the Cretan example you posted. A better example would be
The next statement is false. The previous statement is true.
Or even simpler
This statement is false.
Originally posted by Creshosk
Well, as I said, I'd much prefer to agree to disagree than to have it become the flame war that I do not want with you. I like you and see no reason we can't end this amiably.Though I have a solution to the Cretan example you posted. A better example would be
The next statement is false. The previous statement is true.
Or even simpler
This statement is false.
Well, there are many paradoxes. The Cretan one is famous. As is the set one. So I just chose those two.
And it is just frustrating to me, when people obviously misunderstand or disregard my points. I mean, if it is a debate and you can refute one of my arguments fine, but people don't address them at all (not saying you don't, just generally) ............ (though you actually don't)
Originally posted by Victor Von DoomThat's an easy yes.
Could an omnipotent being continue posting despite that definitive ending to the thread?
I think one problem people are having is still with definition.
A paradox is self-contradictory.
Omnipotence itself is just "All power" That alone is hardly self contradictory.
The proofs against omnipotence are allegedly the paradoxes, not omnipotence itself.
Omnipotence is illogical, but by itself is not self contradictory.
In other words, in order for omnipotence to be a paradox, it by itself would have to contradict itself rather than there being proofs which contradict themselves.
Originally posted by Bardock42No, just illogical.
N-no."All power" is what is contradictory. Because all power would have to include those logical paradoxes, which makes it a logical paradox by association.
I'm pretty sure that "guilt by association" is a logical fallicy.
Thus your argument is not a valid one.
Logical paradoxes themselves are not power.
The only possible way to eliminate omnipotence is by making logic omnipotent, and again we will arrive at the same paradox.
That why paradoxes must be interpreted as a limit for language. Thats how new discoveries are made in science. For example, it is possible to create new logical formalisms which will answer questions where the old formalisms would give a paradox.
It is impossible to prove that "God is not omnipotent" or "Omnipotence doesn't exist" with that paradox. The paradox just says logic can't be used solve the problem. Logic do not give you any information about this problem.
Originally posted by Creshosk
No, just illogical.I'm pretty sure that "guilt by association" is a logical fallicy.
Thus your argument is not a valid one.
Logical paradoxes themselves are not power.
No, a logical paradox. Self contradicting, not illogical. I am not even sure how you would define illogical, really.
No, you see, throwing around logical fallacies is not how you do it. You prove that it is one. Now, you can't do that because it wasn't one.
No they are not power. They are just logical paradoxes....what the hell do you mean. I am not saying omnipotence is a logical paradox because I don't like the idea of omnipotence, I just say it because it is one.
Originally posted by Bardock42Things being outside the bounds of logic. Seriously I thought we covered this when I mentioned faith and emotions.
No, a logical paradox. Self contradicting, not illogical. I am not even sure how you would define illogical, really.
It doesn't contradict itself just by being. It might create self contradictions, but by itself it is not.
Originally posted by Bardock42Saying that something is something by associtation of what that thing is IS the definition of the fallacy. Saying that it is a logical paradox because of its association to the paradoxes is commiting the fallacy in its entirety.
No, you see, throwing around logical fallacies is not how you do it. You prove that it is one. Now, you can't do that because it wasn't one.
Originally posted by Bardock42Then they are seperate from "Omnipotent" all power.
No they are not power.
Omnipotence is water falls because it can make them. Sounds rather silly don't you think? That's why I see Omnipotence is a logical paradox because it makes them being just as bad.
Originally posted by Bardock42Where did I say that you didn't like the idea of omnipotence?
They are just logical paradoxes....what the hell do you mean. I am not saying omnipotence is a logical paradox because I don't like the idea of omnipotence, I just say it because it is one.
It itself is not a logical paradox. All power doesn't contradict itself. It's like saying that wood is table. Wood is not table, wood makes tables.
I'm not sure how else to explain it but you're getting the two concepts confused with one another.
I really rather like Atlantis001's words:
"The only possible way to eliminate omnipotence is by making logic omnipotent, and again we will arrive at the same paradox.
That why paradoxes must be interpreted as a limit for language. Thats how new discoveries are made in science. For example, it is possible to create new logical formalisms which will answer questions where the old formalisms would give a paradox.
It is impossible to prove that "God is not omnipotent" or "Omnipotence doesn't exist" with that paradox. The paradox just says logic can't be used solve the problem. Logic do not give you any information about this problem."
Originally posted by Goddess KaliMethinks a better word might be "translogical." Not that I want to get into word games, just that it might better describe an entity which, by common definition, is "transcendent" regarding matter and mind.
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.
Originally posted by Victor Von DoomBy reference to said tools of thought, omnipotence does appear impossible. But if we go "outside that box," are you saying there's no point, like asking, What happened before the Big Bang?
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.
Originally posted by Bardock42I'm not sure. See, the thing is: we do live in a physical universe which seems to correlate very nicely with logic (especially mathematical). On the other hand, empirical science (of which logic is a vital part) presents us with a reliable, but not necessarily valid "as if."
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?
Basically, IMO, this debate ultimately centers on, "Does God exist?" (God not necessarily being the JudeoChristian God, but certainly an entity infinite in every way imaginable and unimaginable, otherwise God wouldn't be truly infinite).
Originally posted by CreshoskI'm not sure eliminating omnipotence via logic makes logic omnipotent, because omnipotence may not exist in the first place. Logic is just showing is why from a "logical" perspective.
I really rather like Atlantis001's words:
"The only possible way to eliminate omnipotence is by making logic omnipotent, and again we will arrive at the same paradox.
It is impossible to prove that "God is not omnipotent" or "Omnipotence doesn't exist" with that paradox. The paradox just says logic can't be used solve the problem.This I agree with, because it strikes me as a "what you see is what you get," approach without additional interpretation.
Originally posted by MindshipIt doesn't. You'd have to make logic all binding and thus make it impossible ofor illogical things such as illogical actions to exist.
I'm not sure eliminating omnipotence via logic makes logic omnipotent, because omnipotence may not exist in the first place. Logic is just showing is why from a "logical" perspective.
But by making logic omnipotent to do this you've created the paradox of making something omnipotent to remove omnipotence.