God's Omnipotence - The heavy rock paradox
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
16-02-2013, 03:57 PM
RE: God's Omnipotence - The heavy rock paradox
lol either that or someone here makes a video of the screenshots. But then I'm too lazy for that so meh.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-02-2013, 04:01 PM
RE: God's Omnipotence - The heavy rock paradox
(16-02-2013 03:57 PM)hedgehog648 Wrote:  lol either that or someone here makes a video of the screenshots. But then I'm too lazy for that so meh.


We might be able to arrange a long Poe like ploy to get nomination between two TTA members.

We just have them start up a YouTube argument, with the Poe quoting our friend here.

A single action is worth more than the words it takes to describe it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-02-2013, 06:25 AM
RE: God's Omnipotence - The heavy rock paradox
(13-02-2013 09:41 AM)hedgehog648 Wrote:  
(13-02-2013 08:03 AM)Hafnof Wrote:  Let a universe state be an array of values (possibly infinite) or equivalently an n-dimensional matrix.
Let omnipotence be defined as the ability to replace any value or any set of values in the array with alternative values. That is to say that omnipotence is the ability to create a new universe state denoted universe' such that universe' = universe + v where v is a vector of values to modify within the original universe.
Assume that there exists a G such that G is omnipotent, possibly existing in dimensions greater than n and free to move in those dimensions, or possibly existing the array itself.

Yes, within those definitions there is no paradox.
However can you name one theist who has ever used those definitions? The entire model requires that specific definition of omnipotence, and if theists don't ascribe to that definition, then it is irrelevant to any argument regarding said omnipotence of their deity.
I already presented a model for a definition of omnipotence (infinite power + ability to achieve any desired result) that creates a paradox - I would argue that my definition is far more likely to be claimed by a theist than your own.

My definition is a description of what I believed when I was a theist Wink

Give me your argument in the form of a published paper, and then we can start to talk.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Hafnof's post
18-02-2013, 08:45 AM
RE: God's Omnipotence - The heavy rock paradox
Quote:The application of the principle often shifts the burden of proof in a discussion. The razor states that one should proceed to simpler theories until simplicity can be traded for greater explanatory power. The simplest available theory need not be most accurate. Philosophers also point out that the exact meaning of simplest may be nuanced.

Solomonoff's inductive inference is a mathematically formalized Occam's razor: shorter computable theories have more weight when calculating the probability of the next observation, using all computable theories which perfectly describe previous observations.

In science, Occam's razor is used as a heuristic (general guiding rule or an observation) to guide scientists in the development of theoretical models rather than as an arbiter between published models. In the scientific method, Occam's razor is not considered an irrefutable principle of logic or a scientific result."


Hi, all:

Here's my point. Evolution does have greater explanatory power than the Bible for certain facets of life on Earth. of course! Just like we'd study engineering to build skyscrapers and not the Bible. However, Evolution sorely lacks explanatory power for many things. One example everyone is ducking:

Assumption: A whole population of animals is able to be on the land...

Now we have to assume many things about their reproduction, their food, the climate on the land, accessibility, the animals' mobility, etc. Many, many assumptions.

We have flowering plants that are far older than complex insects. Than we have bees and plants at vastly different times; pollinators and the "pollinated".

There are many, many, different examples I could cite. Let's all take a deep breath and I'll admit that creation seems implausible if there is no God. I get it! Now can everyone admit there are numerous circumstances that scientists have gaps for currently in Evolutionary history and theory. Saying "it's all settled" is a gross distortion of current scientific knowledge.

Thanks for your patience with me.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes PleaseJesus's post
18-02-2013, 09:08 AM
RE: God's Omnipotence - The heavy rock paradox
(18-02-2013 08:45 AM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  
Quote:The application of the principle often shifts the burden of proof in a discussion. The razor states that one should proceed to simpler theories until simplicity can be traded for greater explanatory power. The simplest available theory need not be most accurate. Philosophers also point out that the exact meaning of simplest may be nuanced.

Solomonoff's inductive inference is a mathematically formalized Occam's razor: shorter computable theories have more weight when calculating the probability of the next observation, using all computable theories which perfectly describe previous observations.

In science, Occam's razor is used as a heuristic (general guiding rule or an observation) to guide scientists in the development of theoretical models rather than as an arbiter between published models. In the scientific method, Occam's razor is not considered an irrefutable principle of logic or a scientific result."



Hi, all:

Here's my point. Evolution does have greater explanatory power than the Bible for certain facets of life on Earth. of course! Just like we'd study engineering to build skyscrapers and not the Bible. However, Evolution sorely lacks explanatory power for many things. One example everyone is ducking:

Assumption: A whole population of animals is able to be on the land...

Now we have to assume many things about their reproduction, their food, the climate on the land, accessibility, the animals' mobility, etc. Many, many assumptions.

We have flowering plants that are far older than complex insects. Than we have bees and plants at vastly different times; pollinators and the "pollinated".

There are many, many, different examples I could cite. Let's all take a deep breath and I'll admit that creation seems implausible if there is no God. I get it! Now can everyone admit there are numerous circumstances that scientists have gaps for currently in Evolutionary history and theory. Saying "it's all settled" is a gross distortion of current scientific knowledge.

Thanks for your patience with me.
Explain how its an assumption? just because your ignorant of the science behind it doesnt mean we are just assuming these things happened. You are the one making assumptions based on lack of understanding.


Evolution, has more evidence to it then Gravity, yet we arent about to say "gravity, its not settled".

Arguing with a Christian is a lot like playing chess with a pigeon. You can be the greatest player in the world, yet the pigeon will knock over all the pieces, shit on the board and strut away triumphantly.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-02-2013, 12:51 PM
RE: God's Omnipotence - The heavy rock paradox
Quote:Explain how its an assumption? just because your ignorant of the science behind it doesnt mean we are just assuming these things happened. You are the one making assumptions based on lack of understanding.

Evolution, has more evidence to it then Gravity, yet we arent about to say "gravity, its not settled".

Gravity is the worst possible example to choose because we see its effects yet cannot measure or sense gravity in any way. We can "feel" gravitational pull when jumping in the air and landing again, but for all we can say/sense it's angels pulling us up and then down again.

Your uniformed comments on Newtonian gravity stand altered by the work of Einstein and others demonstrating that nothing is "pulled" but rather falls along the path of bent space, by the way--there is no such as a "gravity meter".

In the same way, there's much we can see for which we can postulate Evolution or Creation.

...Now can everyone admit there are numerous circumstances that scientists have gaps for currently in Evolutionary history and theory? Saying "it's all settled" is a gross distortion of current scientific knowledge.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-02-2013, 02:25 PM
RE: God's Omnipotence - The heavy rock paradox
(18-02-2013 12:51 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  
Quote:Explain how its an assumption? just because your ignorant of the science behind it doesnt mean we are just assuming these things happened. You are the one making assumptions based on lack of understanding.

Evolution, has more evidence to it then Gravity, yet we arent about to say "gravity, its not settled".

Gravity is the worst possible example to choose because we see its effects yet cannot measure or sense gravity in any way. We can "feel" gravitational pull when jumping in the air and landing again, but for all we can say/sense it's angels pulling us up and then down again.

Your uniformed comments on Newtonian gravity stand altered by the work of Einstein and others demonstrating that nothing is "pulled" but rather falls along the path of bent space, by the way--there is no such as a "gravity meter".

In the same way, there's much we can see for which we can postulate Evolution or Creation.

...Now can everyone admit there are numerous circumstances that scientists have gaps for currently in Evolutionary history and theory? Saying "it's all settled" is a gross distortion of current scientific knowledge.
Not until you can find one.

You are right in that we cannot say "it's all settled". What we can do however, is say "based on current evidence, evolution is settled". We must always remain open to new evidence or we cannot call ourselves rational.

So with that said, I challenge you to find one piece of evidence that points to something other than evolution (it doesn't even have to point to creation - just something against evolution). You must give sources for this evidence, and if you are able to find a scientific peer reviewed paper that supports your claims then all the better.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes hedgehog648's post
18-02-2013, 03:36 PM
RE: God's Omnipotence - The heavy rock paradox
(18-02-2013 12:51 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  In the same way, there's much we can see for which we can postulate Evolution or Creation.
Care to give an example for the latter?

(18-02-2013 12:51 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  ...Now can everyone admit there are numerous circumstances that scientists have gaps for currently in Evolutionary history and theory? Saying "it's all settled" is a gross distortion of current scientific knowledge.
You have yet to show us these 'numerous' circumstances.

That aside, what we do know beyond the shadow of a doubt is that organisms (gradually) change over time, i.e. that biological evolution occurs. What's open to debate is the mechanism that drives this process (natural selection is currently the most substantiated one) and details about the evolutionary history of different species.

Again, if you're really interested in learning about this topic, which I highly doubt at this point, you should read an evolutionary biologist's work about the theory of evolution.

[Image: IcJnQOT.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-02-2013, 05:00 PM
RE: God's Omnipotence - The heavy rock paradox
(18-02-2013 12:51 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  
Quote:Explain how its an assumption? just because your ignorant of the science behind it doesnt mean we are just assuming these things happened. You are the one making assumptions based on lack of understanding.

Evolution, has more evidence to it then Gravity, yet we arent about to say "gravity, its not settled".

Gravity is the worst possible example to choose because we see its effects yet cannot measure or sense gravity in any way. We can "feel" gravitational pull when jumping in the air and landing again, but for all we can say/sense it's angels pulling us up and then down again.

Your uniformed comments on Newtonian gravity stand altered by the work of Einstein and others demonstrating that nothing is "pulled" but rather falls along the path of bent space, by the way--there is no such as a "gravity meter".

In the same way, there's much we can see for which we can postulate Evolution or Creation.

...Now can everyone admit there are numerous circumstances that scientists have gaps for currently in Evolutionary history and theory? Saying "it's all settled" is a gross distortion of current scientific knowledge.
Are you trolling?

Because Galileo figured out you can measure gravity in v=d/t, or after newton as a=f/m.
[Image: 3d9e30d91c2b7cdf3904737f9e76a13c.png]

[Image: b32480ecabf43568c4b8b99d83d62f69.png]



Member of the Cult of Reason

The atheist is a man who destroys the imaginary things which afflict the human race, and so leads men back to nature, to experience and to reason.
-Baron d'Holbach-
Bitcion:1DNeQMswMdvx4xLPP6qNE7RkeTwXGC7Bzp
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like fstratzero's post
18-02-2013, 05:08 PM (This post was last modified: 18-02-2013 05:38 PM by fstratzero.)
RE: God's Omnipotence - The heavy rock paradox



Member of the Cult of Reason

The atheist is a man who destroys the imaginary things which afflict the human race, and so leads men back to nature, to experience and to reason.
-Baron d'Holbach-
Bitcion:1DNeQMswMdvx4xLPP6qNE7RkeTwXGC7Bzp
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: