A Rock So Heavy
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 1 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
25-11-2013, 12:18 PM
RE: A Rock So Heavy
(25-11-2013 11:38 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(25-11-2013 11:36 AM)kingschosen Wrote:  You're not going to like the answer because it is circular reasoning and nebulous... but...

That question is invalid as well. Not only is God (per Christian theology) omnipotent, but He's also omniscient. In that, He knows all, so any question about Him limiting Himself is invalid because He already knew what He was going to decided and everything to infinity.

So, even if there was a concept of Him changing His mind or limiting Himself, it wouldn't have happened because He already made that decision because that was the original decision.

Again, it's the concept of creating limits for something that's unlimited.

How can this be? I have no idea. The circle reasoning isn't rationale in our limited realm.

I've also gotten flak for saying that circular reasoning is permissible when talking about multiple infinities acting together (omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence), but I still stand by it because it's the only way to explain these three concept amalgamated into one being.

The simple fact of the matter is that these infinities are inherently paradoxes and are not rationale in our understandings.

The question is absurd and uninteresting.

The resolution of the circular argument is to step off the merry-go-round.

The question is absurd because it takes an absurd assertion to the limits of its absurdity. Reductio Ad Absurdum.

It's Special Pleadings all the way down!


Magic Talking Snakes STFU -- revenantx77


You can't have your special pleading and eat it too. -- WillHop
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-11-2013, 12:20 PM
RE: A Rock So Heavy
(25-11-2013 11:40 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  And just so we're clear, "Checkmate atheists" violates Bucky's Second Law. "You can be sure those who CLAIM checkmate, when the argument is obviously a "fail", are surely the looser". (Bucky's 2nd Law for Smarmy Fundies). Tongue

Did you mean "loser"...? Wink

It's Special Pleadings all the way down!


Magic Talking Snakes STFU -- revenantx77


You can't have your special pleading and eat it too. -- WillHop
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-11-2013, 12:29 PM
RE: A Rock So Heavy
(25-11-2013 12:09 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(25-11-2013 11:36 AM)kingschosen Wrote:  You're not going to like the answer because it is circular reasoning and nebulous... but...

Well, it is religion.

Drinking Beverage

(25-11-2013 11:36 AM)kingschosen Wrote:  That question is invalid as well. Not only is God (per Christian theology) omnipotent, but He's also omniscient. In that, He knows all, so any question about Him limiting Himself is invalid because He already knew what He was going to decided and everything to infinity.

That's not coherent. Limits are not the keyword. Infinity is.

(25-11-2013 11:36 AM)kingschosen Wrote:  So, even if there was a concept of Him changing His mind or limiting Himself, it wouldn't have happened because He already made that decision because that was the original decision.

Sure. Not relevant...

(25-11-2013 11:36 AM)kingschosen Wrote:  Again, it's the concept of creating limits for something that's unlimited.

No. This has nothing to do with limits. It has to do with the nature of infinity and ability.

(25-11-2013 11:36 AM)kingschosen Wrote:  How can this be? I have no idea. The circle reasoning isn't rationale in our limited realm.

I've also gotten flak for saying that circular reasoning is permissible when talking about multiple infinities acting together (omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence), but I still stand by it because it's the only way to explain these three concept amalgamated into one being.

Then it does not make sense for you to claim a God with those aspects.

They are meaningless.

If the qualities attributed to God are such that you are unable to explain or even comprehend them, then it is entirely pointless even to suggest them. It is an incoherent statement. It tells me nothing about the nature of God. It tells you nothing about the nature of God. It does not increase anybody's understanding of anything.

(25-11-2013 11:36 AM)kingschosen Wrote:  The simple fact of the matter is that these infinities are inherently paradoxes and are not rationale in our understandings.

Infinity is not paradoxical. It is a coherent mathematical concept. It is paradoxical if you refuse to specify in what sense you are using the word, or indeed if you propose an incoherent modification of it.

You can't just say 'infinity'. That is ambiguous. If you actually know what you're talking about then you will be able to explain what you mean.

The infinities present under Christian theology, once amalgamated, create paradoxes. That's what I'm saying.

Yes, it is incomprehensible. However, that's not the premise of the question.

The question presumes God's infinite attributes and questions their limits. Since His attributes have no limits, the question is invalid.

A more proper discussion is the legitimacy and rationale of omnipotence, omniscience, and omnipresence all working together in one being. That concept is the one that should be in question... whether or not that's rationally possible.

The GRP doesn't do that. It presents and infinite and limits that infinite and asks how that limit can be.

This is why the GRP is an invalid argument.

[Image: dog-shaking.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-11-2013, 12:38 PM
RE: A Rock So Heavy
(25-11-2013 12:20 PM)Taqiyya Mockingbird Wrote:  
(25-11-2013 11:40 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  And just so we're clear, "Checkmate atheists" violates Bucky's Second Law. "You can be sure those who CLAIM checkmate, when the argument is obviously a "fail", are surely the looser". (Bucky's 2nd Law for Smarmy Fundies). Tongue

Did you mean "loser"...? Wink

fixt.
1st Law, "Spell check evr' thing"
5th Grade teacher to Bucky : "You're NEVER going to amount to anything. You can't spell."

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
25-11-2013, 12:45 PM
RE: A Rock So Heavy
(25-11-2013 12:29 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  The infinities present under Christian theology, once amalgamated, create paradoxes. That's what I'm saying.

The infinities are not coherently defined, and are thus meaningless as assertions.

(25-11-2013 12:29 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  The question presumes God's infinite attributes and questions their limits. Since His attributes have no limits, the question is invalid.

I think you still miss the issue.

Limit is not the keyword. Infinity is the keyword.

An infinite thing can be infinitely less than another infinite thing.

But because the infinities are undefined the question cannot be answered.

(25-11-2013 12:29 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  A more proper discussion is the legitimacy and rationale of omnipotence, omniscience, and omnipresence all working together in one being. That concept is the one that should be in question... whether or not that's rationally possible.

The GRP doesn't do that. It presents and infinite and limits that infinite and asks how that limit can be.

This is why the GRP is an invalid argument.

If one supposes the question to be literally and exclusively a matter of considering a big rock, perhaps.

But the impetus behind the question is seeking definitions for the words like 'infinite' theists throw out all willy-nilly without bothering to make sure they're in any way coherent first.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-11-2013, 01:01 PM
RE: A Rock So Heavy
I did define the infinities.

Likewise, the question assumes the infinities asserted by Christian theology.

And being infinitely less than another infinity is invalid. That cannot be.

Infinite has no beginning or end; therefore, no less or more.

I understand that you're comparing two different infinities to each other, but then saying that one is more or one is less is invalid. That's presuming that one has limits.

And, I'm still not agreeing with you that omnipotence's infinities can have certain limitations.

EX - Self limiting

That's not being infinite. It's being nearly infinite but not infinite.

I don't think one has to clearly define the infinities of this argument. The words' denotations are enough.

[Image: dog-shaking.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-11-2013, 01:04 PM
RE: A Rock So Heavy
(25-11-2013 12:20 PM)Taqiyya Mockingbird Wrote:  
(25-11-2013 11:40 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  And just so we're clear, "Checkmate atheists" violates Bucky's Second Law. "You can be sure those who CLAIM checkmate, when the argument is obviously a "fail", are surely the looser". (Bucky's 2nd Law for Smarmy Fundies). Tongue

Did you mean "loser"...? Wink

(25-11-2013 12:02 PM)Taqiyya Mockingbird Wrote:  Incorrect. The GRP is Reductio Ad Absudum.

Did you mean "absurdum"...? Tongue

Yeah, for a graduate student, Bucky's spelling and grammar is, at times, atrocious. I irregularly (because regularly would be like a job) give him shit for it. Big Grin

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-11-2013, 01:06 PM
RE: A Rock So Heavy
(25-11-2013 12:29 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  The infinities present under Christian theology, once amalgamated, create UNTENABLE paradoxes. That's what I'm saying.

fixed that for ya.


Quote:Yes, it is incomprehensible.

Precisely because it is nonsensical and absurd.


Quote: However, that's not the premise of the question.

That it is nonsensical and absurd is the premise of the question.

Quote:The question presumes God's infinite attributes and questions their limits.

INCORRECT. The question exposes the absurdity of the claim of infinite qualities. Go buy yourself some intellectual honesty.



Quote: Since His attributes have no limits, the question is invalid.

Since it poses (and demolishes) an absurdity that falls within the range of the absurdity of the original assertion of "omnipotence", it is valid.


Quote:A more proper discussion is the legitimacy and rationale of omnipotence, omniscience, and omnipresence all working together in one being. That concept is the one that should be in question... whether or not that's rationally possible.

No need for you to further obfuscate the matter with equally absurd assertions. They can, and have been, easily picked off one at a time.


Quote:The GRP doesn't do that.

It doesn't have to. You don't dictate how others can pick your absurd assertions apart.


Quote: It presents and infinite and limits that infinite and asks how that limit can be.

Mmmmmmm....delicious word salad....

Quote:This is why the GRP is an invalid argument.

You have failed miserably to show that.

It's Special Pleadings all the way down!


Magic Talking Snakes STFU -- revenantx77


You can't have your special pleading and eat it too. -- WillHop
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-11-2013, 01:22 PM
RE: A Rock So Heavy
Here's some examples of what no god could do, regardless of ability:

An omnipotent god can not see or visualize the entirety of an infinitely large object. If you can see or visualize it, then it isn't infinite. Only one thing can be true - infinite size, or finite size.

An omnipotent god cannot both exist and not exist at the same time. Parallel dimensions and whatnot do not solve this problem, because existing in another dimension is still existing. If a god can will itself back to existence when it does not exist, then the god didn't cease to exist, or else there would be nothing to 'will' back the god.

Contradictions are the one limitation on 'omnipotence'; there simply is no way to resolve them. You can excuse a god from the laws of physics if you want, but not logic. A circle with four sides is a rectangle, not a circle.

If something can be destroyed by the truth, it might be worth destroying.

[Image: ZcC2kGl.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Elesjei's post
25-11-2013, 01:26 PM
RE: A Rock So Heavy
(25-11-2013 01:01 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  And, I'm still not agreeing with you that omnipotence's infinities can have certain limitations.

"Countable" limits "infinite" to a one-to-one correspondence. Does not "omnipotence" limit "power" to "expressed by god?" In the sense of "almighty," does it not suggest that god cannot create a rock he cannot lift? In the sense of "creator," does it not suggest that god can create he cannot lift? Does creation take precedence over might, or vice versa?

and yes, it is "pig pile on KC time."

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like houseofcantor's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: