Originally posted by CreshoskIt does answer the question but the problem is that you must assume once you get to a certain point that we reach a point where there can be nothing lifted because there can be no room for movement but once again that takes away the idea of Infinity that there can be no such point involving Omnipotence.
So what do you think of my solution to this specific paradox?
There can be no restriction placed on it otherwise the term Infinity can not be applied.
Originally posted by NewjakI understand that. But it's demonstrating the limitations of the langauge.
It does answer the question but the problem is that you must assume once you get to a certain point that we reach a point where there can be nothing lifted because there can be no room for movement but once again that takes away the idea of Infinity that there can be no such point involving Omnipotence.There can be no restriction placed on it otherwise the term Infinity can not be applied.
The only reason he couldn't lift it is because of the way we define "lift". And its not that there's no room to move it, its that there is no way to measure any movement that might have occured. If I were to pick up an object and move it, you'd be able to tell that I was by its relative position to the environmant around me.
The problem isn't in the activity, the problem is in how we define and explain the activity. Think of it like an ontological argument.
I define omnipotence to be X.
Since I can't concieve of X, X must not exist.
Therefore omnipotence doesn't exist.
The problem is that defining it as X might be incorrect.
You are absolutely right. Omnipotence is "All power" to limit it is to take away from the "all" to "nearly all" or "Everything logical"
Originally posted by CreshoskYeah thats right.
I understand that. But it's demonstrating the limitations of the langauge.The only reason he couldn't lift it is because of the way we define "lift". And its not that there's no room to move it, its that there is no way to measure any movement that might have occured. If I were to pick up an object and move it, you'd be able to tell that I was by its relative position to the environmant around me.
The problem isn't in the activity, the problem is in how we define and explain the activity. Think of it like an ontological argument.
I define omnipotence to be X.
Since I can't concieve of X, X must not exist.
Therefore omnipotence doesn't exist.The problem is that defining it as X might be incorrect.
You are absolutely right. Omnipotence is "All power" to limit it is to take away from the "all" to "nearly all" or "Everything logical"
And that is what the fundamental problem of the Paradox of the Rock is.
Ok this is how it is generally represented.
1. Ok if God Exists
-So right off the bat we are to assume that God(Omnipotent Being) exists. No question of belief according to this example we say he does.
2. Than can he make a rock he can not lift and he can not then how can he be all powerful.
- So then now we are saying that a being with unlimited power is trying to make a rock he can not lift.
The Problem: God can always make a bigger rock to lift therefore we can never be sure.
Therefore the "Paradox" doesn't exist because there is no answer.
And this is the problem when Infinity is applied to anything.
Originally posted by Newjakso The Paradox of the Rock can not actually take place because there can be no conclusion to the question being asked and if there is no conclusion than no answer can be given.
.
I don't want to be rude, but this doesn't really make any sense.
Anyway I think your just confusing matters by bringing the word Infinity into the mix (Although i understand the comparison you are making).
The point is a paradox's is based on conscious reasoning, which is limited to conscious understanding of logistics.
Omnipotence by its intrinsic nature must apply to all realities whether logistical or not, or the term contradicts itself by limitation. Limits and Omnipotence don't work together as they contradict one another, therefore Omnipotence must work in all realities (Although technically this is deduced by analytical reasoning also, but who ****ing cares).
Can there be a reality without analylitical truths ? Well there's been recent debates as to whether our whole basis of maths maybe entirely false, and quantume mechanics has shown that our universe may produce so called impossible events (i.e. effects happening before causes, e.t.c.). If we can question analytical/objective truths in this version of reality whose to predict what cannot and can exist in the metaphysical ? The answer is, no one !
Originally posted by SupermanluvNo offense
I don't want to be rude, but this doesn't really make any sense. Anyway I think your just confusing matters by bringing the word Infinity into the mix (Although i understand the comparison you are making). The point is a paradox's is based on conscious reasoning, which is limited to conscious understanding of logistics. Omnipotence by its intrinsic nature must apply to all realities whether logistical or not, or the term contradicts itself by limitation. Limits and Omnipotence don't work together contradict one another, so Omnipotence must work in all realities (Although technically this is deduced by analytical reasoning also, but who ****ing cares).
But it does make sense.
Seeing as the Paradox of the Rock revolves around that only two answers can be given. Since no answer can be given the Paradox can not take place. It is actually pretty simple.
And as to why I put in Infinity it is because Omnipotence is just Infinite Power. Thus anything based on conclusions can not be applied.
Its very simple to understand 😉
Originally posted by Newjak
No offenseBut it does make sense.
Seeing as the Paradox of the Rock revolves around that only two answers can be given. Since no answer can be given the Paradox can not take place. It is actually pretty simple.
That's a fallacy though. Avoiding the paradox doesn't allow it to be solved !
Originally posted by Newjak
And as to why I put in Infinity it is because Omnipotence is just Infinite Power. Thus anything based on conclusions can not be applied.Its very simple to understand 😉
That sentence really doesn't make any sense. You can claim it does until the cows come home, but it really doesn't. I maybe reading it wrong, but a simple summarising of its sound like this :
1st bit :
I put Infinity in, because Infinity must be applied to someone who is all powerful.
Great, it confuses things a bit but you are right. But then the second bit of the statement, that you have randomly linked to the previous sounds a bit like this
2nd bit;
What cannot be concluded should never be applied !
WELL DUHHH !
First you stated that no conclusion can be drawn out, then you state that paradox is solved because NO conclusion is reached. That isn't an answer to the paradox, that IS the paradox !
So no it isn't simple what you are trying to convey !
Your either stating the complete obvious, or your getting very confused, and confusing me in the process
Originally posted by SupermanluvThe very nature of a paradox is that it can't be solved.
That's a fallacy though. Avoiding the paradox doesn't allow it to be solved !
"This statement is false."
or
"The following sentence is true.
The previous sentence is false."
If it has a solution then its not a paradox as there would be no contradiction.
The rock "paradox" has a solution that exhibits the limitations on the language.
Originally posted by SupermanluvI'm not avoiding the Paradox. The Paradox doesn't exist to begin with.
That's a fallacy though. Avoiding the paradox doesn't allow it to be solved !That sentence really doesn't make any sense. You can claim it does until the cows come home, but it really doesn't. I maybe reading it wrong, but a simple summarising of its sound like this :
1st bit :
I put Infinity in, because Infinity must be applied to someone who is all powerful.Great, it confuses things a bit but you are right. But then the second bit of the statement, that you have randomly linked to the previous sounds a bit like this
2nd bit;
What cannot be concluded should never be applied !WELL DUHHH !
First you stated that no conclusion can be drawn out, then you state that paradox is solved because NO conclusion is reached. That isn't an answer to the paradox, that IS the paradox !
So know it isn't simple what you are trying to convey !
But just so I don't confuse you again listen.
The Paradox of the Rock needs a conclusion that either God can make a Rock that he can not lift or he fails at being able to do something. If no conclusion can be drawn then yes no Paradox exists because the question can not be concluded.
The Problem (now read carefully) is that Infinity doesn't allow for conclusions. It is that simple. So then when do you conclude that God has Failed at either of things specified. Is the Millionth time or Billionth time that he
A) Makes a big Rock
B) Lifts Said rock
C) Makes a Bigger rock.
I could just quote what you said.
"The point is a paradox's is based on conscious reasoning, which is limited to conscious understanding of logistics."
Limit is the key word in your statement. A Paradox requires a Limitation to be reached but Infinity doesn't allow for that.
Why don you think Scientist don't like working with Infinity. Why do you think Mathematicians don;t like working with Infinity because then nothing can be limited. 😬
Originally posted by Creshosk
The very nature of a paradox is that it can't be solved."This statement is false."
or
"The following sentence is true.
The previous sentence is false."If it has a solution then its not a paradox as there would be no contradiction.
The rock "paradox" has a solution that exhibits the limitations on the language.
Don't try and take the piss because your failing miserably. If you read what i have stated previously I agree with you.
Mister New Jack believes he has solved the paradox by reiterating it in an almost incomprehensible manner. I'm pointing his mistake out.
One cannot solve the paradox by pretentiously stating that the scenario has no conceivable outcome, as New Jacks previous post basically highlight.
As you have stated, (And if you went back and read what i have mentioned previously) you'll see that the reason that the scenario seems unresolvable is because of the limits of human comprehension and not the seemingly impossibility of the feat.
Originally posted by SupermanluvSo basically what you said is your right I'm wrong.
Don't try and take the piss because your failing miserably. If you read what i have stated previously I agree with you.Mister New Jack believes he has solved the paradox by reiterating it in an almost imcomprehnsible manner. Im pointing his mistake out.
One cannot solve the paradox by pretntiously stating that the scenario has no concievable outcome, as NewJacks previous post basically highlight.
As you have stated, (And if you whent back and read what i have mentioned previously) you'll se that the reason that the scenario seems unresolvable is becasue of the limits of human comprehension and not the seemingly impossibility of the feat.
And by the way all I did was point out the problem of asking for Finite observations on an Infinite outcome.
So thank you for trying to point out my mistake thankfully I did not make one 🙂
Originally posted by Newjak
I'm not avoiding the Paradox. The Paradox doesn't exist to begin with.
That's where your wrong my friend, and I'm starting to wish I was Omnipotent so I could convey this to you !
Originally posted by Newjak
The Paradox of the Rock needs a conclusion that either God can make a Rock that he can not lift or he fails at being able to do something. If no conclusion can be drawn then yes no Paradox exists because the question can not be concluded.
No that means that there IS a paradox present.
Paradoxes by nature involve scenarios/problems where no logical conclusion can be met, via logical reasoning. Look it up and you'll see what i mean. Try the Grandfather Time travel paradox on for size. That too has no conclusion, doesn't mean it doesn't exist !
Originally posted by NewjakLimit is the key word in your statement. A Paradox requires a Limitation to be reached but Infinity doesn't allow for that.
Now that is a fallacy. By Intrinsic nature Paradox don't require limitations to be reached, hence them being paradox's !
Let me put it this way. An unsolvable mystery (i.e. a paradox) by its intrinsic nature doesn't have a solution. Suggesting that there is no mystery because it has no solution, is a fallacy ! And thats what you are doing. Saying there is no paradox becasue there is no solution is wrong. Word it any way you want, thats how it is !
Originally posted by CreshoskYou knwo the odd thing is if he could read he would understand that I'm agreeing with him as well.
I'm failing miserably and you agree with me?😐
His whole thing is that Omnipotence is beyond our logistic understanding which amazingly is generally represented as Infinity 😐
Originally posted by SupermanluvOddly enough that is not what the Paradox of the Rock states. It states that two exact conclusions can be made. Seriously do you just skim or do actually read what is being said.
That's where your wrong my friend, and I'm starting to wish I was Omnipotent so I could convey this to you !No that means that there IS a paradox present.
Paradoxes by nature involve scenarios/problems where no logical conclusion can be met, via logical reasoning. Look it up and you'll see what i mean. Try the Grandfather Time travel paradox on for size. That too has no conclusion, doesn't mean it doesn't exist !Now that is a fallacy. By Intrinsic nature Paradox don't require limitations to be reached, hence them being paradox's !
Let me put it this way. An unsolvable mystery (i.e. a paradox) by its intrinsic nature doesn't have a solution. Suggesting that there is no mystery because it has no solution, is a fallacy ! And thats what you are doing. Saying there is no paradox becasue there is no solution is wrong. Word it any way you want, thats how it is !
Notice how pretty much you. me. and Cresh all agree
I was hoping you would actually understand that and I wouldn't have to point it out to you 😬
Originally posted by Creshosk
I'm failing miserably and you agree with me?😐
Your resorting to twisting my words, how childish ! You know very well the two statements where made in a different context, don't suggest otherwise !
Statement 1.:
You are taking the piss now, for no reason please stop !
Statemenet 2:
I was agreeing with you in the first place, so why take the piss !
Originally posted by Newjak
His whole thing is that Omnipotence is beyond our logistic understanding which amazingly is generally represented as [b]Infinity 😐 [/B]
Don't start having a go at my inability to comphrehend what you are writing, becasue it would take a ****ing KMC enigma code to try and translate some of the stuff you have posted on the last couple of pages !
Originally posted by Newjak
Oddly enough that is not what the Paradox of the Rock states. It states that two exact conclusions can be made. Seriously do you just skim or do actually read what is being said.Notice how pretty much you. me. and Cresh all agree
I was hoping you would actually understand that and I wouldn't have to point it out to you 😬
You still don't get it do you ?
All paradoxs have two exactly viable outcomes, thats why their frigin paradoxes in the first place ! This Rock scenario isn't unique, and its doesn't prevent it from existing !
Originally posted by SupermanluvReally because I had three people understand it perfectly
Don't start having a go at my inability to comphrehend what you are writing, becasue it would take a ****ing KMC enigma code to try and translate some of the stuff you have posted on the last couple of pages !
Digi did, Cresh did, and willrules did. Apparently you were the only one not getting it. Why do you think that I kept replying to it as the Paradox of the Rock. Oddly enough because that is what it is called. I think I even put Paradox in quotations in you actually take the time to read it.
So I guess maybe we should get you a Decoder so you can read big boy talk and just so you don't get mad that was a joke 😬