| This is just a language game. Read Wittgenstein or Derrida to clarify your mind about this |
 |
| What you've got there is an undefinable concept. It's like "the smallest number which cannot be described in less than a hundred words". In general, the answer to "is there a god?" is "what do you mean by a god?" |
| Rofl this lifting rocks example is very bad, obviously if the rock has more mass than anything else in the universe it wouldn't really be called lifting. Monotheism views god as an omnipotent almighty being, the creator of everything, etc. Obviously there are many paradoxes or contradictions you can come up with. Unfortunately this thread would most likely turn into bashing religion as I already did so it's against the new rules. |
-Anonymous- said: By God I mean an omnipotent being by which I mean a being which is capable of anything. And... capable? If you are capable of doing something, but you don't do it, what does that mean? A decision? How does this decision happen? I am "deciding" to reply to your post, but am I capable of not replying to it, when that's a consequence of how the neurones in my brain are arranged? Can this omnipotent being simultaneously lift a finger and not lift a finger? Do they do both, and two separate timelines result? If they can do everything, then how many timeline splits are you looking at each instant. Do they make every possible configuration of the universe happen in different timelines each instant? Instead of a profound point about omnipotence, what's actually the case is that saying "omnipotent" isn't enough to mean something. |
| No that's a bit of a semantic paradox. I remember learning about that when I was like 10. Try to see God less as a Wizard and more of a fundamental conscious energy. That's not to say that there aren't cosmically powerful Wizards, however. And yeah dude, they aren't perfect. They fuck up too sometimes just like you or I. |
| I CELEBRATE myself, And what I assume you shall assume, For every atom belonging to me as good belongs to you. |
philtecturophy said: This is just a language game. Read Wittgenstein or Derrida to clarify your mind about this If he could read Wittgenstein he wouldn't have made this post. Why not clarify it yourself? OP: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/omnipotence/ I'd suggest reading this entry, it's pretty informative and very layman friendly. My take would be that omnipotence doesn't necessarily mean you have to break logical laws, as in only consider "all powerful" towards situations that are logically consistent. So examples like "can God make triangles not equal 180" or "can God make 1+1=3" shouldn't be considered as qualifications for omnipotence, since they're logically absurd. God per this definition is the greatest possible being in the universe and thus is limited by his own nature and actions. |
NudeBearMay 17, 2018 12:01 PM
NudeBear said: philtecturophy said: This is just a language game. Read Wittgenstein or Derrida to clarify your mind about this If he could read Wittgenstein he wouldn't have made this post. Why not clarify it yourself? OP: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/omnipotence/ I'd suggest reading this entry, it's pretty informative and very layman friendly. yeah im busy with irl rn, u can read it and understand it urself, its tractatus logico philosophicus, dont be lazy |
|
philtecturophy said: NudeBear said: If he could read Wittgenstein he wouldn't have made this post. Why not clarify it yourself? OP: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/omnipotence/ I'd suggest reading this entry, it's pretty informative and very layman friendly. yeah im busy with irl rn, u can read it and understand it urself, its tractatus logico philosophicus, dont be lazy It's not about being lazy. Unless you have a background in philosophy, Wittgenstein and Derrida just aren't accessible at all. It's like me, a mathematics student, refusing to give a layman friendly explanation on black holes and just telling the person to go read Hartle's introduction to general relativity instead - which is impossible if you lack a background linear algebra, differential equations, and so on (which takes years to build up). |
| “Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?” - Epicurus I think this idea would be a more sound ideological standpoint. Sort of expands the idea of the Omnipotence paradox. |
  YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE |
| Onmipotence is a concept created by a bunch of primitive savages before they understood the implications of such power. You can't blame humans from thousands of years ago when they thought stupid things. |
 |
| big brain MALers: 1 god: 0 I'm sure god feels stupid. |
| well god supposedly can do the impossible even breaking the law of physics right so its not a paradox |
| @NudeBear Im engineering student myself. Philosophy and math are different stuffs in nature. Phil. is qualitative works, although it tries to goes for logic and incorporate boolean algebra and all, its not gonna be as rigorous as math. or engineering in terms of step by step process. You can read derrida and wittsgenstein without having to read descartes, aristotle, kant and other philosophy in empirical or idealism. They are words, we can just read, in the end its interpretation, its not a definite true or wrong. But thats why i like philosophy. Its gonna be useful especially if you merge it with quantitayive analsys, like mixed method. In math, I would agree, havent know how to do ODE will be impossoble to do PDE, then imagine if you have to implement those to dynamics problem or finite element analysis, would not be possible |
|
| I've thought of this paradox in the past and came up with a half legitimate answer. If we changed it from "omnipotence", to "the power of all other beings is negligible", it corrects most of the paradoxical flaws of omnipotence. It's kind of relative omnipotence (ie ants are to us, what we are to God), where the beings below you cannot fathom your power; therefore you are omnipotent to them. If that were the case, and using humans as an example, it would only make sense that an all powerful being should be able to create something that they themselves cannot lift. Perhaps the universe in of itself is an example of this. |
DarChronicleMay 17, 2018 12:37 PM
 |
149597871 said: if you don't like the stone example, try this: Can god make a burrito so hot that he can not eat it?Rofl this lifting rocks example is very bad, obviously if the rock has more mass than anything else in the universe it wouldn't really be called lifting. Monotheism views god as an omnipotent almighty being, the creator of everything, etc. Obviously there are many paradoxes or contradictions you can come up with. Unfortunately this thread would most likely turn into bashing religion as I already did so it's against the new rules. DarChronicle said: "I redefined a word to solve the paradox!"I've thought of this paradox in the past and came up with a half legitimate answer. If we changed it from "omnipotence", to "the power of all other beings is negligible", it corrects most of the paradoxical flaws of omnipotence. It's kind of relative omnipotence (ie ants are to us, what we are to God), where the beings below you cannot fathom your power; therefore you are omnipotent to them. If that were the case, and using humans as an example, it would only make sense that an all powerful being should be able to create something that they themselves cannot lift. Perhaps the universe in of itself is an example of this. if I define "god" as "sea cucumber" and "omnipotent" as "living in the sea", you can see that god is indeed omnipotent. Paradox solved! Man, I can't believe that this was giving people trouble. It's so obvious once you see it... |
| "my life at this state could be transposed into a pretty massive biography" - Cneq, "the guy who was literally using BTC in 2012 to make deals in the first main instance of a digital itemized economy forming naturally in all human history (also the precursor of NFTs) and who had 20k+ total trades.", 23 years old MAL's most prolific antivaxxer, Noboru. |
Railey2 said: if you don't like the stone example, try this: Can god make a burrito so hot that he can not eat it? It'd be like Passion of the Christ except with a lot more tortillas. Railey2 said: if I define "god" as "sea cucumber" and "omnipotent" as "living in the sea", you can see that god is indeed omnipotent. Paradox solved! Man, I can't believe that this was giving people trouble. It's so obvious once you see it... The problem is in defining omnipotence in the first place. Omnipotence means all-powerful, and power is relative in the first place. All I did was apply a metric to omnipotence, because that's the limitation of a human's ability to understand omnipotence in the first place (or infinity in general). |
DarChronicleMay 17, 2018 12:51 PM
|
DarChronicle said: omnipotence means "all-powerful", as you said before. All-powerful means that NOTHING is impossible, literally not a single thing. That's the definition of it. No two ways about it.Railey2 said: if you don't like the stone example, try this: Can god make a burrito so hot that he can not eat it? It'd be like Passion of the Christ except with a lot more tortillas. Railey2 said: if I define "god" as "sea cucumber" and "omnipotent" as "living in the sea", you can see that god is indeed omnipotent. Paradox solved! Man, I can't believe that this was giving people trouble. It's so obvious once you see it... The problem is in defining omnipotence in the first place. Omnipotence means all-powerful, and power is relative in the first place. All I did was apply a metric to omnipotence, because that's the limitation of a human's ability to understand omnipotence in the first place. Whatever you mean with "power is relative", it does not matter to the definition of the word and it's all-encompassing nature. Burrito-encompassing and impossibly heavy rock-encompassing nature. |
| "my life at this state could be transposed into a pretty massive biography" - Cneq, "the guy who was literally using BTC in 2012 to make deals in the first main instance of a digital itemized economy forming naturally in all human history (also the precursor of NFTs) and who had 20k+ total trades.", 23 years old MAL's most prolific antivaxxer, Noboru. |
philtecturophy said: Exactly this.This is just a language game. Read Wittgenstein or Derrida to clarify your mind about this NudeBear said: The Wikipedia-Entry from the OP contains a good Summary:If he could read Wittgenstein he wouldn't have made this post. The philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein is frequently interpreted as arguing that language is not up to the task of describing the kind of power an omnipotent being would have. In his Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, he stays generally within the realm of logical positivism until claim 6.4—but at 6.41 and following, he argues that ethics and several other issues are "transcendental" subjects that we cannot examine with language. Wittgenstein also mentions the will, life after death, and God—arguing that, "When the answer cannot be put into words, neither can the question be put into words." Wittgenstein's work expresses the omnipotence paradox as a problem in semantics—the study of how we give symbols meaning. (The retort "That's only semantics," is a way of saying that a statement only concerns the definitions of words, instead of anything important in the physical world.) According to the Tractatus, then, even attempting to formulate the omnipotence paradox is futile, since language cannot refer to the entities the paradox considers. The final proposition of the Tractatus gives Wittgenstein's dictum for these circumstances: "What we cannot speak of, we must pass over in silence". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnipotence_paradox#Language_and_omnipotence Basically, we cannot clearly define the Question properly, therefore trying to find an Answer doesn't make any Sense. DarChronicle said: Not "powerful" is the Problem, but rather the Word "all", which is a very vague Term that can mean everything and nothing. The problem is in defining omnipotence in the first place. Omnipotence means all-powerful, and power is relative in the first place. |
| There's a god and I have proof for it. |
 Join Emilia's self-proclaimed knights club if you are a fellow Emilia fan |
Railey2 said: omnipotence means "all-powerful", as you said before. All-powerful means that NOTHING is impossible, literally not a single thing. That's the definition of it. No two ways about it. Whatever you mean with "power is relative", it does not matter to the definition of the word and it's all-encompassing nature. Burrito-encompassing and impossibly heavy rock-encompassing nature. I started writing a long response but tbh I don't have time to make a thesis on this just for MAL. There's different ways to quantify infinity. One "infinity" can still be greater than another "infinity", the difference to us is negligible because we can't truly comprehend the difference between the two. A good example of this would be God making a tool, which is similar to the original problem. Can God make a tool which when yielded make himself more powerful? If you just used the text-book definition of omnipotence, which is technically a qualitative measure, then I can answer it the boring way, because you chose the boring route to fulfill the definition. God is omnipotent, but he gains his omnipotence through innovation and invention. He builds the rock using the machines, and he even makes a machine that can move this rock. He physically cannot lift it without the aid of his machines, yet nothing remains impossible for him. Also to clear up one thing, omnipotence does mean having unlimited power, but it does not mean that nothing is impossible for you. The power is simply something that you wield, not some quick fix solution for anything. It's for use at your discretion. It's easy to say being omnipotent means nothing is impossible because it's difficult to fathom omnipotence in the first place, which was my original point entirely. *Edit* It appears Noboru kind of explained what I was trying to do in the first place with their post: Noboru said: Basically, we cannot clearly define the Question properly, therefore trying to find an Answer doesn't make any Sense. The only way to find an answer was to redefine the question in the first place. |
DarChronicleMay 17, 2018 1:18 PM
|
| the rabbit hole of semantic arguments is now open for anyone who feels adventurous |
| "my life at this state could be transposed into a pretty massive biography" - Cneq, "the guy who was literally using BTC in 2012 to make deals in the first main instance of a digital itemized economy forming naturally in all human history (also the precursor of NFTs) and who had 20k+ total trades.", 23 years old MAL's most prolific antivaxxer, Noboru. |
| Lol, that's barely paradox. If you consider that God is capable of shifting its own strength than he is capable of lifting and NOT lifting any rock he desires. And I don't mean 'shifting your strength' as in how much effort you put, but literally changing your strengh, like using a hack to change your stats in a RPG or something. After all, if omnipotent means all-capable, than God is capable of possessing ALL "levels" of strength, from infinite to negative infinite, perhaps even at the same time. |
HyperLMay 17, 2018 2:14 PM
| You are not your body, you are your brain, the "self" that emerges from within it. |
| I sure do know that God does not exist but 2D fappable imouto waifu does. Therefore, waifus do exist... THANK YOU VR! |
| God itself is a paradox and therefor does not exist. |
| Life Is Short But Intense. |
Noboru said: philtecturophy said: Exactly this.This is just a language game. Read Wittgenstein or Derrida to clarify your mind about this NudeBear said: The Wikipedia-Entry from the OP contains a good Summary:If he could read Wittgenstein he wouldn't have made this post. The philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein is frequently interpreted as arguing that language is not up to the task of describing the kind of power an omnipotent being would have. In his Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, he stays generally within the realm of logical positivism until claim 6.4—but at 6.41 and following, he argues that ethics and several other issues are "transcendental" subjects that we cannot examine with language. Wittgenstein also mentions the will, life after death, and God—arguing that, "When the answer cannot be put into words, neither can the question be put into words." Wittgenstein's work expresses the omnipotence paradox as a problem in semantics—the study of how we give symbols meaning. (The retort "That's only semantics," is a way of saying that a statement only concerns the definitions of words, instead of anything important in the physical world.) According to the Tractatus, then, even attempting to formulate the omnipotence paradox is futile, since language cannot refer to the entities the paradox considers. The final proposition of the Tractatus gives Wittgenstein's dictum for these circumstances: "What we cannot speak of, we must pass over in silence". Thanks for putting this details here Noboru. I hope that more people can be introduced to Wittgenstein's Tractatus Logico Philosophicus. @NudeBear its a small book, when reading the book, you can first read the introduction by Bertrand Russell to get more general idea about the book before jumping to the real content, which consists of sets of propositions supporting each other. Again, you don't need to have philosophical background to understand it, coz what it conveys all is a logical process. Let me know if you have questions |
|
| It's really narrow minded to think a god has to be omnipotent by definition. Anyway I don't think it's necessarily a paradox. One way is for then to make a rock but at same time make themselves temporarily weaker at will. The other way is make it heavier than they currently can lift then increase their strength and in this way omnipotence is not a single state of being but a state of infinite potential and growth. |
| Yes it does. I'm atheist, but I was going to say "couldn't he just make himself stronger to lift the stone?" but still there was something he couldn't do. |
NudeBear said: But creating the sharpest sword isn't, by itself, logically inconsistent. Creating the strongest shield isn't, by itself, logically inconsistent. Taken together, they are. The normal definition of omnipotence would allow for each one of these things, but not together. If any creation is subject to some external conditions -- say, the laws of physics -- then it would not be normally considered omnipotence. This is different than dictating square circles, which are logically contradictory in themselves.philtecturophy said: This is just a language game. Read Wittgenstein or Derrida to clarify your mind about this If he could read Wittgenstein he wouldn't have made this post. Why not clarify it yourself? OP: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/omnipotence/ I'd suggest reading this entry, it's pretty informative and very layman friendly. My take would be that omnipotence doesn't necessarily mean you have to break logical laws, as in only consider "all powerful" towards situations that are logically consistent. So examples like "can God make triangles not equal 180" or "can God make 1+1=3" shouldn't be considered as qualifications for omnipotence, since they're logically absurd. God per this definition is the greatest possible being in the universe and thus is limited by his own nature and actions. |
| My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
traed said: It's just an attempt to pinpoint a shadow. It would be narrow minded to think God has a definition that everyone could agree on.It's really narrow minded to think a god has to be omnipotent by definition. traed said: Your solution evaded nothing. You sacrificed one aspect for another. This still does not solve this so-called paradox.Anyway I don't think it's necessarily a paradox. One way is for then to make a rock but at same time make themselves temporarily weaker at will. The other way is make it heavier than they currently can lift then increase their strength and in this way omnipotence is not a single state of being but a state of infinite potential and growth. |
| My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
HyperL said: Then God is not capable of creating an unliftable rock. If you can conceive God being able to lift an unliftable rock, then it's likely you can't conceive anything at all since you are actually insane.Lol, that's barely paradox. If you consider that God is capable of shifting its own strength than he is capable of lifting and NOT lifting any rock he desires. And I don't mean 'shifting your strength' as in how much effort you put, but literally changing your strengh, like using a hack to change your stats in a RPG or something. After all, if omnipotent means all-capable, than God is capable of possessing ALL "levels" of strength, from infinite to negative infinite, perhaps even at the same time. |
| My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
| You cant disprove god, im not a believer. But you just cant do it. Even atheists and people who dont believe in the traditional image of god , have to admit that its ridicilous that something can exist out of nothing. Till we prove how the hell is that possible , you wont disprove god sinse thats a way easier answer and who knows it can be right. |
_Ako_ said: I sure do know that God does not exist but 2D fappable imouto waifu does. Therefore, waifus do exist... THANK YOU VR! This is exactly what we need more in society. I think i can make a religion out of this ... hold on a sec |
| To speak of God phylosphycal you have to use Logic. God's Existence, the problem of evil and theodicy and God's Omnypotence have been refuted logically over and over again. "God is a trascedent being and cannot be explained by logic" (as the summary of all the thesis, Wittgeinstein too) is the answer often given to those logical arguments. If something cannot be explained by logic, then we cannot have knowledge about it (You are renouncing to consistency and truth so it's pointless to talk about paradox) and therefore we shouldn't even bother about it. kcolrehs said: You cant disprove god, im not a believer. But you just cant do it. Even atheists and people who dont believe in the traditional image of god , have to admit that its ridicilous that something can exist out of nothing. Till we prove how the hell is that possible , you wont disprove god sinse thats a way easier answer and who knows it can be right. You cannot either prove or disprove the existence of a God. Your thesis is an Argumentum ad Ignorantiam. ( It asserts that a proposition is either true or false because of lack or absence of evidence or proof to the contrary. ) The burden of the proof is on the person who makes the claim. |
TrasimacoMay 18, 2018 4:37 AM
Ἄκουε δή, ἦ δ᾽ ὅς. φημὶ γὰρ ἐγὼ εἶναι τὸ δίκαιον οὐκ ἄλλο τι ἢ τὸ τοῦ κρείττονος συμφέρον.  Listen—I say that justice is nothing other than the advantage of the stronger. |
Trasimaco said: To speak of God phylosphycal you have to use Logic. God's Existence, the problem of evil and theodicy and God's Omnypotence have been refuted logically over and over again. "God is a trascedent being and cannot be explained by logic" (as the summary of all the thesis, Wittgeinstein too) is the answer often given to those logical arguments. If something cannot be explained by logic, then we cannot have knowledge about it (You are renouncing to consistency and truth so it's pointless to talk about paradox) and therefore we shouldn't even bother about it. kcolrehs said: You cant disprove god, im not a believer. But you just cant do it. Even atheists and people who dont believe in the traditional image of god , have to admit that its ridicilous that something can exist out of nothing. Till we prove how the hell is that possible , you wont disprove god sinse thats a way easier answer and who knows it can be right. You cannot either prove or disprove the existence of a God. Your thesis is an Argumentum ad Ignorantiam. ( It asserts that a proposition is either true or false because of lack or absence of evidence or proof to the contrary. ) The burden of the proof is on the person who makes the claim. Its not really my thesis. Like you mentioned this topic has been explored for thousands of years and none of us can add anything unique to the conversation. Literally everything has been explored, new information is changing and expanding the conversation , but it has not been solved yet. I am a non believer , tho i do believe that there is a possiblity of god not in a traditional way that religiuons explain it tho. The argument that everyone always makes that the burden of the proof is on the person who makes the claim is absolutely ridicilous. Thats doing the same thing as religiuos people for forever just making up some statements that sound nice cause you can play with words in all sorts of ways to make the other groups feel bad. The bottom line is , the conversation about god its existance and everything surrounding that has been done. Its been talked about for way too long and the conclusion is simple. Respect eachothers believes and strive to more forward. Noone can deny that religion is a big influence in our everyday lifes on earth. And even tho alot of people hate on religion , it does offer alot of benefits to alot of people. Negatives as well of course. Its a tricky subject i suppose. |
| Yes, burden of the proof is on the one who makes claims. In a just court system the prosecuting attorney have to demonstrate someone is guilty, not the other way around. In your system if I claim there is a giant spaghetti monster in the sky, I don't have to prove it, you have. It doesn't make sense. |
Ἄκουε δή, ἦ δ᾽ ὅς. φημὶ γὰρ ἐγὼ εἶναι τὸ δίκαιον οὐκ ἄλλο τι ἢ τὸ τοῦ κρείττονος συμφέρον. Listen—I say that justice is nothing other than the advantage of the stronger. |
katsucats said: traed said: It's just an attempt to pinpoint a shadow. It would be narrow minded to think God has a definition that everyone could agree on.It's really narrow minded to think a god has to be omnipotent by definition. Never said it had to be just that limiting it to one meaning isn't looking at the bigger picture. It's not about God as a whole but a single concept of god. You can't rule out one and say you ruled out all. katsucats said: traed said: Your solution evaded nothing. You sacrificed one aspect for another. This still does not solve this so-called paradox.Anyway I don't think it's necessarily a paradox. One way is for then to make a rock but at same time make themselves temporarily weaker at will. The other way is make it heavier than they currently can lift then increase their strength and in this way omnipotence is not a single state of being but a state of infinite potential and growth. It's two solutions. Pay attention. Also no it doesn't because it's still omnipotence. Okay so power is measured by what? Output of course. What is output? Action. You can't determine power without an action to display that power. As long as an action can always be carried out that is omnipotence. Saying he can't lift a boulder does not mean he never will lift that boulder. Can't in this case is a measure of expectation not the action that has yet to be carried out. |
katsucats said: NudeBear said: But creating the sharpest sword isn't, by itself, logically inconsistent. Creating the strongest shield isn't, by itself, logically inconsistent. Taken together, they are. The normal definition of omnipotence would allow for each one of these things, but not together. If any creation is subject to some external conditions -- say, the laws of physics -- then it would not be normally considered omnipotence. This is different than dictating square circles, which are logically contradictory in themselves.If he could read Wittgenstein he wouldn't have made this post. Why not clarify it yourself? OP: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/omnipotence/ I'd suggest reading this entry, it's pretty informative and very layman friendly. My take would be that omnipotence doesn't necessarily mean you have to break logical laws, as in only consider "all powerful" towards situations that are logically consistent. So examples like "can God make triangles not equal 180" or "can God make 1+1=3" shouldn't be considered as qualifications for omnipotence, since they're logically absurd. God per this definition is the greatest possible being in the universe and thus is limited by his own nature and actions. That's a great point! Thanks for the input man. |
| only like 3 or 4 major religions say there is one omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, omni-xyz all powerful god. that stanford link correctly mentioned "western theism" (meaning abrahamic ig) for this very fact |
 |
RedPlaty said: only like 3 or 4 major religions say there is one omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, omni-xyz all powerful god. that stanford link correctly mentioned "western theism" (meaning abrahamic ig) for this very fact And what you have to understand about monotheism is when they say "God is all powerful," they are definitely attributing the ultimate reality to God, the word made flesh in the beginning (big bang...). However it's also said that Jesus is God's form on Earth. You see Jesus was an incarnation of God. We all are the universe, we're all the universe becoming aware of itself. But an enlightened being is one who really sees this clearly. That's the thing about guys like Jesus or Krishna, they are supposed to be literal incarnations of the original divine consciousness, so they're even on another level of universal evolution.... Are they completely infallible? No, Jesus actually ended up getting crucified I mean that's the whole story. However as incarnations of God they're definitely superhuman in some fashion. Basically what I'm saying is if you see God as both the ultimate reality (being/consciousness itself) and as his own incarnations, you can understand the sweepingly broad statements holy books will make. It's really not intended to be argued against at the level of logical paradox, doing that is more of a 'kooky sci fi' approach to it lol. |
| I CELEBRATE myself, And what I assume you shall assume, For every atom belonging to me as good belongs to you. |
traed said: You're playing on words. Let's make this clear.katsucats said: It's just an attempt to pinpoint a shadow. It would be narrow minded to think God has a definition that everyone could agree on. Never said it had to be just that limiting it to one meaning isn't looking at the bigger picture. It's not about God as a whole but a single concept of god. You can't rule out one and say you ruled out all. katsucats said: Your solution evaded nothing. You sacrificed one aspect for another. This still does not solve this so-called paradox. It's two solutions. Pay attention. Also no it doesn't because it's still omnipotence. Okay so power is measured by what? Output of course. What is output? Action. You can't determine power without an action to display that power. As long as an action can always be carried out that is omnipotence. Saying he can't lift a boulder does not mean he never will lift that boulder. Can't in this case is a measure of expectation not the action that has yet to be carried out. A: A rock that no one could ever lift. Note that "ever" precludes time as a variable. B: A person who can lift any rock at any time. A and B can't coexist. Omnipotence requires A and B to coexist. The concept of God is irrelevant. If God exists, then God isn't omnipotent in any way that we can reason, conceive, define it. I hear, "Wait a sec, Katsu. We might not be able to reason about it, but we can't rule out God being omnipotent in a way that's unreasonable." This is the common argument from religious people, completely oblivious that they are trying to reason about something that they just said was unreasonable. My response: Why TF are you talking about omnipotence when the idea of the word is literally meaningless? It's like you're trying to subtly sneak the human idea of omnipotence into some other concept by calling it the same word. Word games. |
katsucatsMay 18, 2018 8:09 PM
| My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
kcolrehs said: Depending on the definition, you can prove that it's impossible to talk about God in a meaningful way, if God is logically contradictory. You can also disprove the effect of God for all intents and purposes.You cant disprove god, im not a believer. But you just cant do it. Even atheists and people who dont believe in the traditional image of god , have to admit that its ridicilous that something can exist out of nothing. Till we prove how the hell is that possible , you wont disprove god sinse thats a way easier answer and who knows it can be right. If A, therefore C. If A and B, therefore C. B is completely superfluous. |
| My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
Phendrus said: Anyway, first of all, some clarification: Christianity doesn't hold that God is truly omnipotent. There are certain things that He cannot do - lie, for example. Lol. I got into a neverending repeating argument about this with a Sunday School teacher when I was a kid. Like, why can't God lie? Because he can't? He can't or he won't? Both? How do we know though? He put it in the bible. Who wrote bible? |
 |
WyNdZ said: kcolrehs said: You cant disprove god, im not a believer. But you just cant do it. It's not possible to give evidence of the absence of something if it doesn't exist. The burden of proof lies with the person making the claim. That said I'm not an atheist. kcolrehs said: Even atheists and people who dont believe in the traditional image of god , have to admit that its ridicilous that something can exist out of nothing. Till we prove how the hell is that possible , you wont disprove god sinse thats a way easier answer and who knows it can be right. Don't religious people also claim that God was created from nothing? Who created God? Atheist and religious people are just two sides of the same coin. I have come to the conclusion that the creation of this Universe or God are just concepts beyond my understanding as I can't wrap my head around how something could be created from nothing. I don't really believe religious texts but I do believe there is a possibility of some higher being who doesn't necessarily have to be omnipotent or any of the qualities that we humans assume. I guess you could say I'm an agnostic. yea i pretty much agree with you , its beyond us to answer this question right now. Both of the parties are just playing a guessing game blaming eachother , i personally find both of them useful for society. I guess we will have to wait , cause its really hard to wrap your head around a concept of something out of nothing |
katsucats said: kcolrehs said: Depending on the definition, you can prove that it's impossible to talk about God in a meaningful way, if God is logically contradictory. You can also disprove the effect of God for all intents and purposes.You cant disprove god, im not a believer. But you just cant do it. Even atheists and people who dont believe in the traditional image of god , have to admit that its ridicilous that something can exist out of nothing. Till we prove how the hell is that possible , you wont disprove god sinse thats a way easier answer and who knows it can be right. If A, therefore C. If A and B, therefore C. B is completely superfluous. You have to understand that when were talking about an omnipotent being and question its existance , its gonna take way more than simple logic to prove something like that exists or dosent exists. Solid evidence is pretty much the only thing. Remember that different things apply to different situations and perhaps omnipotent beings. Remember when we took off to space for the first time and we had to recallculate all of our math and physics because it dosent behave the same way as on planet earth. Thats it exactly that , think about how much of what we think we know dosen't apply in different planets and starts etc. |
| Asking to prove a negative is a sure fire way to get laughed out of the scientific community |
 |
More topics from this board
» what is "love" to you ? what makes you feel loved and how you love people ?ame - 2 hours ago |
3 |
by WaffleMaster89
»»
10 seconds ago |
|
» Is English your native language? ( 1 2 )DesuMaiden - Apr 16 |
54 |
by Meusnier
»»
21 minutes ago |
|
» Manga piracy website operator ordered to pay ¥1.7 billion to publishersMeusnier - 45 minutes ago |
3 |
by Meusnier
»»
23 minutes ago |
|
Poll: » Would you be a good partner? ( 1 2 )Ejrodiew - Apr 14 |
52 |
by Meusnier
»»
36 minutes ago |
|
» Do you post your own original artwork onto social media?DesuMaiden - Apr 10 |
24 |
by Theo1899
»»
55 minutes ago |