The Paradox of Omnipotence
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
22-08-2012, 08:21 PM
RE: The Paradox of Omnipotence
(22-08-2012 07:48 PM)houseofcantor Wrote:  
(22-08-2012 11:26 AM)ideasonscribe Wrote:  Every day, many of you prove that you're no better than the Theist you claim cannot have a logical conversation.Dodgy

This is unnecessary.

I hope you say this to Bucky Ball too.

“What you believe to be true will control you, whether it’s true or not.”

—Jeremy LaBorde
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-08-2012, 08:27 PM
RE: The Paradox of Omnipotence
(22-08-2012 08:21 PM)Logica Humano Wrote:  
(22-08-2012 07:23 PM)Chas Wrote:  You are stuck on your definition of omnipotence and he on his.

My point is that it is perfectly acceptable to rule out logical impossibility when defining omnipotence. The too-big-a-fucking-stone example is thereby ruled out because it is logical nonsense. It's just word games.

In play, however, are violations of natural law.

I would disagree when one believes that God is the creator of the Universe.

Disagree away. You'e playing word games. You're screwing around with the barber's paradox, naive set theory, Russell's paradox.

You are defining the term so as to create the paradox. The non-paradoxical version is equally valid and logically consistent. And just as meaningless.

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
22-08-2012, 08:32 PM
RE: The Paradox of Omnipotence
(22-08-2012 08:27 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(22-08-2012 08:21 PM)Logica Humano Wrote:  I would disagree when one believes that God is the creator of the Universe.

Disagree away. You'e playing word games. You're screwing around with the barber's paradox, naive set theory, Russell's paradox.

You are defining the term so as to create the paradox. The non-paradoxical version is equally valid and logically consistent. And just as meaningless.

It has to do with the assertions made with said deity. If the deity existed before the creation of said limitations, what the fuck did he create the limitations for? The God obviously has the power to do the logically impossible, for example supposedly being uncreated, existing before reality, creating reality, etc. The argument is wrong because of the multiple contradictions having to do with God. He has done the impossible before, why can't he do it now? One reason: Limitations.

[Image: Untitled-2.png?_subject_uid=322943157&am...Y7Dzq4lJog]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-08-2012, 08:33 PM
RE: The Paradox of Omnipotence
(22-08-2012 08:32 PM)Logica Humano Wrote:  
(22-08-2012 08:27 PM)Chas Wrote:  Disagree away. You'e playing word games. You're screwing around with the barber's paradox, naive set theory, Russell's paradox.

You are defining the term so as to create the paradox. The non-paradoxical version is equally valid and logically consistent. And just as meaningless.

It has to do with the assertions made with said deity. If the deity existed before the creation of said limitations, what the fuck did he create the limitations for? The God obviously has the power to do the logically impossible, for example supposedly being uncreated.

You're still going with the word games. Creation of what limitations? Logic? God didn't fucking create logic.

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
22-08-2012, 08:36 PM
RE: The Paradox of Omnipotence
(22-08-2012 08:33 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(22-08-2012 08:32 PM)Logica Humano Wrote:  It has to do with the assertions made with said deity. If the deity existed before the creation of said limitations, what the fuck did he create the limitations for? The God obviously has the power to do the logically impossible, for example supposedly being uncreated.

You're still going with the word games. Creation of what limitations? Logic? God didn't fucking create logic.

Remaining truthful to ideaonscribes propositions, what do you submit created logic? Hm? So something or someone created logic before God? It is not purely about semantics, but about the contradictions with all of God's supposed qualities and abilities.

[Image: Untitled-2.png?_subject_uid=322943157&am...Y7Dzq4lJog]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-08-2012, 08:40 PM
RE: The Paradox of Omnipotence
After warping my mind reading another thread...I looked at the title of this one three times before I realized it didn't say "the paradox of impotence'...I need a nap.

I'm not anti-social. I'm pro-solitude. Sleepy
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Anjele's post
23-08-2012, 07:13 AM
RE: The Paradox of Omnipotence
(22-08-2012 08:36 PM)Logica Humano Wrote:  
(22-08-2012 08:33 PM)Chas Wrote:  You're still going with the word games. Creation of what limitations? Logic? God didn't fucking create logic.

Remaining truthful to ideaonscribes propositions, what do you submit created logic? Hm? So something or someone created logic before God? It is not purely about semantics, but about the contradictions with all of God's supposed qualities and abilities.

Man invented logic. And language. And word games using logic and language.

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
23-08-2012, 07:50 AM (This post was last modified: 23-08-2012 07:55 AM by Logica Humano.)
RE: The Paradox of Omnipotence
(23-08-2012 07:13 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(22-08-2012 08:36 PM)Logica Humano Wrote:  Remaining truthful to ideaonscribes propositions, what do you submit created logic? Hm? So something or someone created logic before God? It is not purely about semantics, but about the contradictions with all of God's supposed qualities and abilities.

Man invented logic. And language. And word games using logic and language.

So, still under the assumption, how would ideaonscribe's God be confined to our logic? I am arguing against his logic.

[Image: Untitled-2.png?_subject_uid=322943157&am...Y7Dzq4lJog]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-08-2012, 08:03 AM
RE: The Paradox of Omnipotence
(23-08-2012 07:50 AM)Logica Humano Wrote:  
(23-08-2012 07:13 AM)Chas Wrote:  Man invented logic. And language. And word games using logic and language.

So, still under the assumption, how would ideaonscribe's God be confined to our logic? I am arguing against his logic.

Again, my point is that arguing that 'omnipotence' must logically include the man-made paradox of creating a stone too heavy to lift is simply word games, man-made.

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
23-08-2012, 08:07 AM
RE: The Paradox of Omnipotence
ideasonscribe, have you missed my rebuttal of your claim that illogical ideas cannot exist?

Furthermore, you still need to refute what Ghost said. Contrary to your statement, his position actually contradicts yours. He asserts that an omnipotent god can do everything he wants to, including illogical and incoherent tasks, because he is omnipotent. You asserted that omnipotence does not cover these tasks and yet you claim that there is nothing in his post for you to refute.

That being said, I feel like we're going in circles. I don't see why it's so hard for you to grasp such a simple concept. Omnipotence is an attribute of an entity whose power is without any limitations and boundaries. As Ghost stated previously, the question "Can god do X?" can't be answered with anything but "Yes". By saying that god cannot do something, you are putting limitations on his omnipotence. Omnipotence, by definition, cannot be limited.

(22-08-2012 05:50 PM)ideasonscribe Wrote:  Where is the claim that "everything" and "all" includes incoherent Self-contradictions coming out of?
You don't even realize just how weak this argument is, do you? The definition of "everything" does not specifically include or exclude anything. Do you know why that is? It's because the term is used to describe all there is. Nothing is excluded from it.

(22-08-2012 05:39 PM)ideasonscribe Wrote:  Looking back in this thread, I am still seeing plenty of reasoning on my side, and very little on yours.
Say, how much value do you think does such a statement have when it's coming from someone who believes blindly without any evidence?

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Vosur's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: