God's Omnipotence - The heavy rock paradox
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
26-02-2013, 01:49 AM
RE: AW: God's Omnipotence - The heavy rock paradox
(25-02-2013 03:15 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(25-02-2013 02:18 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  Its not just 1 billion Catholics. Many other theists will claim that it is impossible for God to do something against his nature. For instance it would be impossible for God to sin.
You are making an error of conflating multiple definitions for a particular word with the changing of a definition of a particular word.


Argument ad populum gets you nowhere. I gave you 3 cited definitions for Omnipotenece, none of them had caveats for being limited by knowledge. You gave one definition, not cited, but instead claimed that 1 billion Catholics all agree with your definition. Your point? Do you really think those 1 billion have even given any thought to this paradox? To your special definition? Studies suggest that less than 10% of those claiming to be Christian have actually read the fucking Bible, and you're going to throw out a Catholic specific definition of omnipotence out at me? If 1 billion people thought the world was flat, that would not make it so; that just means 1 billion people are mistaken.

Please try harder, that's two logical fallacies in a row...

Also, your God, if he existed, regularly sins. But I'm guessing that ordering the slaughter, pillage, and rape of entire cities is somehow exempt from that whole 'thou shall not kill' business. Because heaven forbid, we read the book for what is actually written, without making bullshit excuses for every time God fucks up...
Argumentum ad populum is a fallacious argument that concludes a proposition is true because many people believe it. We are arguing over a definition, not a proposition so your suggestion I committed this fallacy is an error. Second my definition did include a link to the catholic encyclopedia so your suggestion that I did not provide a cite is also an error on your part. Third, whether one billion people have given thought to the "paradox" is irrelavent. The paradox is nonsense regardless of how many people give it thought. Last your comment that my God, that if He exists He sins regularly is errant on two parts. A) it is a red herring and not relavent to this discussion B)I haven't told you who the God is that I worship. That comment also smacks of trolling.
I think I have made all the points I can make in this thread so I won't be posting in it anymore unless something new and compelling arises.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-02-2013, 02:38 AM
RE: AW: God's Omnipotence - The heavy rock paradox
(26-02-2013 01:49 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(25-02-2013 03:15 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Argument ad populum gets you nowhere. I gave you 3 cited definitions for Omnipotenece, none of them had caveats for being limited by knowledge. You gave one definition, not cited, but instead claimed that 1 billion Catholics all agree with your definition. Your point? Do you really think those 1 billion have even given any thought to this paradox? To your special definition? Studies suggest that less than 10% of those claiming to be Christian have actually read the fucking Bible, and you're going to throw out a Catholic specific definition of omnipotence out at me? If 1 billion people thought the world was flat, that would not make it so; that just means 1 billion people are mistaken.

Please try harder, that's two logical fallacies in a row...

Also, your God, if he existed, regularly sins. But I'm guessing that ordering the slaughter, pillage, and rape of entire cities is somehow exempt from that whole 'thou shall not kill' business. Because heaven forbid, we read the book for what is actually written, without making bullshit excuses for every time God fucks up...
Argumentum ad populum is a fallacious argument that concludes a proposition is true because many people believe it. We are arguing over a definition, not a proposition so your suggestion I committed this fallacy is an error. Second my definition did include a link to the catholic encyclopedia so your suggestion that I did not provide a cite is also an error on your part. Third, whether one billion people have given thought to the "paradox" is irrelavent. The paradox is nonsense regardless of how many people give it thought. Last your comment that my God, that if He exists He sins regularly is errant on two parts. A) it is a red herring and not relavent to this discussion B)I haven't told you who the God is that I worship. That comment also smacks of trolling.
I think I have made all the points I can make in this thread so I won't be posting in it anymore unless something new and compelling arises.


Yes you did have a citation, so I was incorrect in that. It was an embedded link that I failed to notice, my apologies for that.


However you're backing up your proposition that your definition is the correct one, and that it is not in fact special pleading, by claiming X amount of Catholics as backup. That to me seems like argument ad populum, or else why bring up 1 billion Catholics? I contest that it is a moot point because of the logical fallacy. You seem to contest it is a moot point because... it's not a proposition? Then why bring it up in the first place?


You claimed "For instance it would be impossible for God to sin". YOU brought sin into this discussion, so my responding to it was not a red herring. Get a fucking clue. And if you're citing the Catholic Encyclopedia, excuse me for assuming you believed in Yahweh. If you do not however, please feel free to explain what god you do believe in. Then next time you can try quoting from sources from your own religion, instead of crimping things from the Catholics.

[Image: GrumpyCat_01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes EvolutionKills's post
26-02-2013, 02:43 AM
RE: God's Omnipotence - The heavy rock paradox
31 pages on this shit...damn rocks and their mystical power of defeating omnipotent beings.

[Image: giphy.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-02-2013, 03:02 AM
RE: God's Omnipotence - The heavy rock paradox
I don't really agree with much Heywood says but he kind of has a point about definitions of conventional terms I think. The only reason a chair is a chair is because we all agree it is a chair, otherwise it could be a foot... or a rock or better still god. I think I like that one from now all chairs are god. I provide an example in a sentence.

"I sit on my god every morning."


Omnipotence as all powerful is illogical --- All Agreed.

Omnipotence ala Catholic is yet to be tested, but before you engage in that argument close all the back doors make sure you understand all the limits then pursue or you might find yourself trying to grasp water in your fist. I think it's a waste of time personally. I'd rather sit on my god and take it easy.

So is it possible for a being to do all logical things?

---------------------------------------------------------------
Knowledge can be given, Understanding must be earned
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-02-2013, 03:29 AM
RE: God's Omnipotence - The heavy rock paradox
(26-02-2013 03:02 AM)Andrew_Njonjo Wrote:  So is it possible for a being to do all logical things?
Yes and no.


God can take one action that limits His ability to take another action. For instance suppose God grants Andrew free will. God then places a bowl of delicious ice cream on a table in front of Andrew. God cannot accurately prophesize whether Andrew will eat that delicious bowl of ice cream or pass on it. If God prophesizes that Andrew will eat that bowl, Andrew with his free will, might pass simply to spite God.

Another example. Suppose God decided to create himself a companion who is just as powerful as He is. So God creates Zod. One day God and Zod both spy a pebble. God says, I will use my omnipotent powers to move that pebble. Zod says, I will use my omnipotent powers to keep that pebble motionless. And then the blue screen of death falls upon reality.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-02-2013, 07:13 AM
RE: God's Omnipotence - The heavy rock paradox
Quote:No, millions believe this; no one knows this.
Right. And every person who has an OOBE is just experiencing a chemical flush that causes them all to have incredibly similar dreams. Wait for it... here comes a study showing that ten Atheists died on tables and saw Chuck Darwin standing in darkness. Yawn.
Quote:Congratulations, you have just made one of the most obvious and expected argument ever which is aptly named: Hitler.

I don't know if you know, but Hitler did not even believe in evolution and he banned Darwin's books and anything which questioned or ridiculed God. He practised Eugenics as opposed to evolution.

Causing the slaughter if your own group is suicide for your group from an evolutionary standpoint, it weakens your group and decreases genetic diversity..

Eugenics on the other hand, encourages it by the removal of unwanted elements.

[Edit: spelling]
It is perfectly true that prominent Nazis were hardly systematic thinkers. They said whatever came into their heads and since their heads were empty, ideas tended to ricochet. Heinrich Himmler proclaimed himself offended by the idea that he might been descended from the apes.

If Himmler was offended, the apes were appalled.

Nonetheless, even stupid men reach their conclusions because they have been influenced in certain ways. At Hitler’s death in May of 1945, the point was clear enough to the editorial writers of the New York Times. “Long before he had dreamed of achieving power,” they wrote, [Hitler] had developed the principles that nations were destined to hate, oppose and destroy one another; [and] that the law of history was the struggle for survival between peoples … ”.

Where, one might ask, had Hitler heard those ideas before? We may strike the Gospels from possible answers to this question. Nonetheless, the thesis that there is a connection between Darwin and Hitler is widely considered a profanation. A professor of theology at Iowa State University, Hector Avalos is persuaded that Martin Luther, of all people, must be considered Adolf Hitler’s spiritual advisor. Luther, after all, liked Jews as little as Hitler did, and both men suffered, apparently, from hemmmorhoids. Having matured his opinion by means of an indifference to the facts, Roger Friedman, writing on Fox news, considers the connection between Darwin and Hitler and in an access of analytical insight thinks only to remark, “Urgggh.”

The view that we may consider the sources of Nazi ideology in every context except those most relevant to its formation is rich, fruity, stupid and preposterous. It is for this reason repeated with solemn incomprehension at the website Expelled Exposed: “Anti-Semitic violence against Jews,” the authors write with a pleased sense of discovery, “can be traced as far back as the middle ages, at least 7 centuries before Darwin.”

Let me impart a secret. It can be traced even further. “Oh that mine head were waters and mine eyes a fountain of tears," runs the lamentation in Jeremiah 9.1, “that I might weep day and night for the slain daughters of my people.”

And yet if anti-Semitism has been the white noise of European history, to assign it causal powers over the Holocaust is simply to ignore very specific ideas that emerged in the 19th century, and that at once seized the imagination of scientists throughout the world.

What is often called social Darwinism was a malignant force in Germany, England and the United States from the moment that social thinkers forged the obvious connection between what Darwin said and what his ideas implied. Justifying involuntary sterilization, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes argued that “three generations of imbeciles is enough.” He was not, it is understood, appealing to Lutheran ideas. Germany reached a moral abyss before any other state quite understood that the abyss was there to be reached because Germans have always had a congenital weakness for abysses and seem unwilling, when one is in sight, to avoid toppling into it.

These historical connections are so plain that from time to time, those most committed to Darwin’s theory of evolution are moved to acknowledge them. Having dismissed a connection between Darwin and Hitler with florid indignation, the authors of the site Expelled Exposed at once proceed to acknowledge it: “The Nazis appropriated language and concepts from evolution,” they write, “as well as from genetics, medicine (especially the germ theory of disease), and anthropology as propaganda tools to promote their perverted ideology of ‘racial purity.’”
http://www.humanevents.com/2008/04/18/co...nd-darwin/
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-02-2013, 07:42 AM
RE: God's Omnipotence - The heavy rock paradox
(26-02-2013 07:13 AM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  
Quote:No, millions believe this; no one knows this.
Right. And every person who has an OOBE is just experiencing a chemical flush that causes them all to have incredibly similar dreams. Wait for it... here comes a study showing that ten Atheists died on tables and saw Chuck Darwin standing in darkness. Yawn.

Since all of our brains work essentially the same way, it should be no surprise that events are experienced in very similar ways.

There is no supporting evidence for OOBEs to be anything but internal.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-02-2013, 08:29 AM
RE: God's Omnipotence - The heavy rock paradox
I would completely, unhesitatingly agree with you--except that there is a wide variety of dreaming states and hallucinatory states caused by brain chemicals or adding to the mix.
If I were to assume the naturalist's perspective, can we at least say that death causes people to review their lives and to dream of relatives gone on and of the living? There's something there about life, it's meaning, and personal accountability...
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-02-2013, 03:19 PM (This post was last modified: 26-02-2013 03:27 PM by Free Thought.)
RE: God's Omnipotence - The heavy rock paradox
(26-02-2013 07:13 AM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  
Quote:No, millions believe this; no one knows this.
Right. And every person who has an OOBE is just experiencing a chemical flush that causes them all to have incredibly similar dreams. Wait for it... here comes a study showing that ten Atheists died on tables and saw Chuck Darwin standing in darkness. Yawn.
Quote:Congratulations, you have just made one of the most obvious and expected argument ever which is aptly named: Hitler.

I don't know if you know, but Hitler did not even believe in evolution and he banned Darwin's books and anything which questioned or ridiculed God. He practised Eugenics as opposed to evolution.

Causing the slaughter if your own group is suicide for your group from an evolutionary standpoint, it weakens your group and decreases genetic diversity..

Eugenics on the other hand, encourages it by the removal of unwanted elements.

[Edit: spelling]
It is perfectly true that prominent Nazis were hardly systematic thinkers. They said whatever came into their heads and since their heads were empty, ideas tended to ricochet. Heinrich Himmler proclaimed himself offended by the idea that he might been descended from the apes.

If Himmler was offended, the apes were appalled.

Nonetheless, even stupid men reach their conclusions because they have been influenced in certain ways. At Hitler’s death in May of 1945, the point was clear enough to the editorial writers of the New York Times. “Long before he had dreamed of achieving power,” they wrote, [Hitler] had developed the principles that nations were destined to hate, oppose and destroy one another; [and] that the law of history was the struggle for survival between peoples … ”.

Where, one might ask, had Hitler heard those ideas before? We may strike the Gospels from possible answers to this question. Nonetheless, the thesis that there is a connection between Darwin and Hitler is widely considered a profanation. A professor of theology at Iowa State University, Hector Avalos is persuaded that Martin Luther, of all people, must be considered Adolf Hitler’s spiritual advisor. Luther, after all, liked Jews as little as Hitler did, and both men suffered, apparently, from hemmmorhoids. Having matured his opinion by means of an indifference to the facts, Roger Friedman, writing on Fox news, considers the connection between Darwin and Hitler and in an access of analytical insight thinks only to remark, “Urgggh.”

The view that we may consider the sources of Nazi ideology in every context except those most relevant to its formation is rich, fruity, stupid and preposterous. It is for this reason repeated with solemn incomprehension at the website Expelled Exposed: “Anti-Semitic violence against Jews,” the authors write with a pleased sense of discovery, “can be traced as far back as the middle ages, at least 7 centuries before Darwin.”

Let me impart a secret. It can be traced even further. “Oh that mine head were waters and mine eyes a fountain of tears," runs the lamentation in Jeremiah 9.1, “that I might weep day and night for the slain daughters of my people.”

And yet if anti-Semitism has been the white noise of European history, to assign it causal powers over the Holocaust is simply to ignore very specific ideas that emerged in the 19th century, and that at once seized the imagination of scientists throughout the world.

What is often called social Darwinism was a malignant force in Germany, England and the United States from the moment that social thinkers forged the obvious connection between what Darwin said and what his ideas implied. Justifying involuntary sterilization, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes argued that “three generations of imbeciles is enough.” He was not, it is understood, appealing to Lutheran ideas. Germany reached a moral abyss before any other state quite understood that the abyss was there to be reached because Germans have always had a congenital weakness for abysses and seem unwilling, when one is in sight, to avoid toppling into it.

These historical connections are so plain that from time to time, those most committed to Darwin’s theory of evolution are moved to acknowledge them. Having dismissed a connection between Darwin and Hitler with florid indignation, the authors of the site Expelled Exposed at once proceed to acknowledge it: “The Nazis appropriated language and concepts from evolution,” they write, “as well as from genetics, medicine (especially the germ theory of disease), and anthropology as propaganda tools to promote their perverted ideology of ‘racial purity.’”
http://www.humanevents.com/2008/04/18/co...nd-darwin/


That was with out a doubt one of the most bias articles I have ever read.

And I have read Fox News political articles, so that is quite a feat.


First of all, the writer has misinterpreted Darwin's statement "In the struggle for survival, the fittest win out at the expense of their rivals." and at the same time, did not give the full statement, luckily I read On the Origin of Species.
The full quote if thus: "It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent that survives. It is the one that is most adaptable to change.In the struggle for survival, the fittest win out at the expense of their rivals because they succeed in adapting themselves best to their environment.
He was referring to adaptation, not the abject removal of undesirable elements through slaughter, systematic destruction or controlled breeding, that is, as previously stated, eugenics, not evolution. Evolution is combines hereditary mutation (referred to as "variation" by Darwin. Knowledge of genetic mutation did not exist quite yet.) and Natural Selection as elements of the theory, wherein mutations which negatively affect a species will not be selected naturally (usually by predators or infighting killing those which have the adversely affecting mutation before it can be spread) but those which positively affect are selected for, eventually culminating in Speciation, forming a new species.
Eugenics is population genetics practise which is based on "improving" heredity by controlling and only allowing those with positive or desired traits to breed, whist undesirables are removed. First of all, this is in fact what Hitler practised, or attempted to.

One of the key differences between Evolution and Eugenics is that, while Evolution thrives if there is genetic diversity and loses out if there is none or little, as genetic diversity allows mutation and such progress for a species, Eugenics denies such a diversity and it's considered a win if there is little diversity, which would allow traits to be selected for easily, which positive in the short term, it would eventually be countered by evolution trolling the practitioners and stepping in anyway, or be stopped by the lack of genetic material which would eventually cause inbreeding. But eugenics in humans going that far, has yet to be seen.

Quote: Published in 1859, Darwin’s On the Origin of Species said nothing of substance about the origin of species. Or anything else, for that matter. It nonetheless persuaded scientists in England, Germany and the United States that human beings were accidents of creation. Where Darwin had seen species struggling for survival, German physicians, biologists, and professors of hygiene saw races.
That is incorrect for several reasons. On the Origin of Species said quote a lot about how species likely can from previous, more generalized ancestors and variation within said ancestral species (The hypothesis has of course, been long since confirmed). Also, no, Darwin did not call human beings "accidents of creation", he did not consider creation as an acceptable hypothesis and threw it out the window, but instead he worked back from his own observations and eventually put forward the idea of variation and adaptation by natural selection. And hell, everybody saw races then. Darwin referred to different races of dog. This was because nobody had a clear definition of a species yet.


I must say, I have absolutely no respect for a person who actively commits Reductio ad Hitlerum but if you wish to play that game, please do.


As per that invitation, and my desire to not derail this thread away from it's paradox, I request that the Powers that Be split this out of here into a new, more appropriate place from the beginning should the conversation continue in this direction.

The people closely associated with the namesake of female canines are suffering from a nondescript form of lunacy.
"Anti-environmentalism is like standing in front of a forest and going 'quick kill them they're coming right for us!'" - Jake Farr-Wharton, The Imaginary Friend Show.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Free Thought's post
27-02-2013, 12:03 AM
RE: God's Omnipotence - The heavy rock paradox
The powers that be?? Is there a god of the forum (please note this is the conventional usage of god and not in reference to the one I'm sitting on)

---------------------------------------------------------------
Knowledge can be given, Understanding must be earned
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Andrew_Njonjo's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: