This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

A thought about the "Problem of Omnipotence"

#61OrangeWizard(Topic Creator)Posted 3/31/2013 9:09:27 PM
From: JonWood007 | #060
I love how you ignore my posts then ask for evidence.


I love how you lie about how I "ignore your posts".

I've been over this several times.


Your song and dance routine consists of "If the word isn't the poor, self-contradictory definition that you THOUGHT it was at first, then you have to CHANGE it so it isn't as IMPRESSIVE and that made me become an atheist"

That's not proving how anything is "limited" nor does it prove that people will eventually lessen the word to anything else.

Should I go into my social contract model? We leave the state of nature to seek better lifes. Pain and death defeat that purpose.


Okay, I don't see how any of that proves that something "horrible" is objectively so, but by all means, carry on.


Except I explicitly reject the premises that these characters are based on because they're arbitrary and illogical


So what are you doing here? Arguing semantics of the word "omnipotent"?

I love how you deflect my arguments by pointing out that I am deflecting yours for committing the same flaws. Maybe I'll respect being called out on a logical fallacy from you if I actually respected your opinions.


I'm still not seeing you prove anything about "limiting" omnipotence.
---
Trolling and making valid arguments are not mutually exclusive things.
#62OrangeWizard(Topic Creator)Posted 3/31/2013 9:09:32 PM
No one said we had to be restricted to 2 dimensions.


And god can make a cylinder.

Also, how about married bachelor....priests...single people, married to God.


If he's married to God, then he's not a bachelor.

. He married an anime hologram which he created. Not a real person, but he's technically married while being single at the same time.


You just said he married an anime hologram. So how is that "single"?

I hold omnipotence to be logically impossible in itself


1) You can't prove it, though.
2) You simply have an incoherent definition of the word "omnipotent".
---
Trolling and making valid arguments are not mutually exclusive things.
#63JonWood007Posted 3/31/2013 10:31:48 PM

I love how you lie about how I "ignore your posts".


Known tactic of yours.

Your song and dance routine consists of "If the word isn't the poor, self-contradictory definition that you THOUGHT it was at first, then you have to CHANGE it so it isn't as IMPRESSIVE and that made me become an atheist"

That's not proving how anything is "limited" nor does it prove that people will eventually lessen the word to anything else.


Okay, so he can't do anything that's impossible. How do you define what's impossible? Why restrict yourself to mere "logical" impossibilities? What about stuff that violates laws of physics, or is irreconcilable with scientific fact? This is what I mean by an ever shrinking definition.


So what are you doing here? Arguing semantics of the word "omnipotent"?


I was referring to the criticizing God topic here.

And god can make a cylinder.


Which can be both circle and square.

If he's married to God, then he's not a bachelor.

---

You just said he married an anime hologram. So how is that "single"?


Neither are people. And neither are confirmed to be "real." They're technically single, since they don't have a flesh and blood spouse.

1) You can't prove it, though.
2) You simply have an incoherent definition of the word "omnipotent".


You can't prove God can't make circular squares or married bachelors, you just have incoherent definitions of those words.
---
Desktop: http://pcpartpicker.com/p/K6Pj
Laptop: http://us.gateway.com/gw/en/US/content/model/LX.WY202.001
#64TheRealJiraiyaPosted 3/31/2013 10:54:03 PM
Just reading the first page, its really weird to me how many people totally misunderstood what this topic was about.
---
One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors. -Plato
http://tinyurl.com/JoinThisIRunIt
#65OrangeWizard(Topic Creator)Posted 3/31/2013 11:16:45 PM(edited)
From: TheRealJiraiya | #064
Just reading the first page, its really weird to me how many people totally misunderstood what this topic was about.


It's okay. Not everyone can be as savvy as us.

In other news, I'm going to start typing "vv" instead of "w" and see if anyone notices.

It might just look acceptable on my screen, because I have that "clear type" thing that Windows gives you.
---
Trolling and making valid arguments are not mutually exclusive things.
#66OrangeWizard(Topic Creator)Posted 3/31/2013 11:22:46 PM
From: JonWood007 | #063
Known tactic of yours.


Not a denial.

Okay, so he can't do anything that's impossible. How do you define what's impossible?


By vvhat is logically impossible.

Why restrict yourself to mere "logical" impossibilities?


VVhy would I go exceed "logical" impossibilities?

What about stuff that violates laws of physics, or is irreconcilable with scientific fact? This is what I mean by an ever shrinking definition.


Those things stay possible for God to do.

So I don't really see vvhere you're getting this slippery slope fallacy from.

Which can be both circle and square.


Sure, if you look at it a certain vvay. I don't see how it's a logical impossiblity, though.
---
Trolling and making valid arguments are not mutually exclusive things.
#67OrangeWizard(Topic Creator)Posted 3/31/2013 11:22:50 PM
Neither are people. And neither are confirmed to be "real."


So? If it's impossible to be married to someone who isn't a "real person", then they aren't married novv are they?

If it is possible to be married to someone who isn't a "real person", then they're married.

I don't see the "out" here.

You can't prove God can't make circular squares or married bachelors, you just have incoherent definitions of those words.


Not a denial.
---
Trolling and making valid arguments are not mutually exclusive things.
#68JonWood007Posted 4/1/2013 9:26:56 AM
VVhy would I go exceed "logical" impossibilities?


Is your W key broken?

Anyway, because they're not the only kind of impossibilities out there. Do you believe that our understanding of God should be in line with science? I do. A god who intentionally evades science sounds like its trying to trick us. That and it likely doesn't even exist. What's my point? If your God's abilities are out of character with science, then perhaps such things are "impossible."


Those things stay possible for God to do.

So I don't really see vvhere you're getting this slippery slope fallacy from.


Then trying to reconcile such a god with reality.

Sure, if you look at it a certain vvay. I don't see how it's a logical impossiblity, though.


Exactly. What if all logical impossibilities could be evaded by changing the rules a little bit?


So? If it's impossible to be married to someone who isn't a "real person", then they aren't married novv are they?

If it is possible to be married to someone who isn't a "real person", then they're married.

I don't see the "out" here.


Depends who recognizes the marriage. Gay marriage happens sometimes but it doesn't mean it's always recognized. Because you're talking different legal codes with different standards. By one state's laws you might be married, but another you might be a bachelor.
---
Desktop: http://pcpartpicker.com/p/K6Pj
Laptop: http://us.gateway.com/gw/en/US/content/model/LX.WY202.001
#69OrangeWizard(Topic Creator)Posted 4/1/2013 11:14:48 AM
From: JonWood007 | #068
Anyway, because they're not the only kind of impossibilities out there. Do you believe that our understanding of God should be in line with science?


No.

So, again, how is your slippery slope fallacy justified?

Then trying to reconcile such a god with reality.


I don't understand this sentence.

What if all logical impossibilities could be evaded by changing the rules a little bit?


Yeah, what if?

You're not actually evading any logical impossibilities. You're simply re-defining the logical impossibility to something possible.

Depends who recognizes the marriage. Gay marriage happens sometimes but it doesn't mean it's always recognized. Because you're talking different legal codes with different standards. By one state's laws you might be married, but another you might be a bachelor.


A person is only ever in one state at a time.

In what state can someone both be married and unmarried at once?
---
Trolling and making valid arguments are not mutually exclusive things.
#70ryan0991Posted 4/1/2013 11:27:27 AM(edited)
From: JonWood007 | #060
No one said we had to be restricted to 2 dimensions.

The definition of circle and square says so.

Also, how about married bachelor....priests...single people, married to God. Or Kriegor from Archer. He married an anime hologram which he created. Not a real person, but he's technically married while being single at the same time.

So obviously you can get around the laws of logic by...bending a couple technicalities.

If you can get around it with a technicality, then it's not logically impossible. Unless you're not really fulfilling the original requirements.

But a shape cannot be a circle and a square at the same time. It's logically impossible. There is no silly technicality you can come up with that would make such a thing possible. It wouldn't suddenly become possible just because you became omnipotent. Even an omnipotent being would have to abide by what make a circle a circle. Sure... they could create a different shape and then convince us that what we're looking at is a square-circle, but they didn't really fulfill the original requirements.

What about stuff that violates laws of physics?

What about it? I doubt an omnipotent being would be restricted by them. Especially if said being created them to begin with.
---
http://www.xboxlc.com/cards/sig/newblack/BOBtheMASTER.jpg
Could care less = you care at least somewhat. Couldn't care less = you don't care at all.