• 111 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
#101 Edited by eternityx (2646 posts) - - Show Bio

@arathorn_ii: Explain to me why something can't be omnipotent. Also comic books regularly defy your logic, for example characters being able to fly or even having powers at all.

#102 Posted by Stompa (1257 posts) - - Show Bio

Odin stomps Morgoth.

#103 Posted by JwwProd (9072 posts) - - Show Bio

No offense but if the guys who are saying that Morgoth is Living Tribunal level are right then this thread is a massive spite and should be locked because Odin is nowhere near Living Tribunal level.

If not then I see this fight as a stalemate at best or Odin wins.

#104 Edited by Arathorn_II (167 posts) - - Show Bio

@arathorn_ii: Explain to me why something can't be omnipotent. Also comic books regularly defy your logic, for example characters being able to fly or even having powers at all.

No one, ever, is omnipotent. Not Eru, not TOAA, not God, not Allah, no one. For example: Can TOAA make a stone, big enough so he couldn't lift it? Yes, this means there is something he can't do, lifting the stone. No, he isn't able to make such a stone. This means nobody is omnipotent.

#105 Posted by eternityx (2646 posts) - - Show Bio

@arathorn_ii: Your point makes no sense. It's like saying can god make a Square circle or can he make 1+1=3. Also a rock with infinite mass cannot exist as only god is infinite and the rock would not be able to rest on any planet or surface as firstly, it would have to be infinite in size so that would make it beyond Time and Space which would make that rock illogical in the first place. Secondly, if it has an infinite mass then the planet would rest on the rock, not the other way round (because the rock has a greater mass than the planet), so when someone attempts to lift it, they would lift the planet not the rock. So you can't even attempt to lift the rock to begin with. You're trying to illogically prove god can't exist and that just does not work. You think that your the first to make that rock point, but you can google it and see more flaws with your false paradox.

#106 Posted by Arathorn_II (167 posts) - - Show Bio

@arathorn_ii: Your point makes no sense. It's like saying can god make a Square circle or can he make 1+1=3. Also a rock with infinite mass cannot exist as only god is infinite and the rock would not be able to rest on any planet or surface as firstly, it would have to be infinite in size so that would make it beyond Time and Space which would make that rock illogical in the first place. Secondly, if it has an infinite mass then the planet would rest on the rock, not the other way round (because the rock has a greater mass than the planet), so when someone attempts to lift it, they would lift the planet not the rock. So you can't even attempt to lift the rock to begin with. You're trying to illogically prove god can't exist and that just does not work. You think that your the first to make that rock point, but you can google it and see more flaws with your false paradox.

First, making a ''square circle'' is making a square and calling it a circle. Even a toddler can do that. Or God can redefine the meaning of ''circle'' to make it a word ment to use for anything that we call square now and vice versa. A God should also be able to redefine that number 1, so 1+1=3. About the rock, maybe I didn't say it right. Instead of saying ''big enough'' I think I should have said ''heavy enough''. Also, if you're omnipotent, it means you can do everything, even make some sort of gravity in space that pulls such a rock. There are even infinite amounts of ways to make a rock big (or heavy) enough so you couldn't pull it if you're omnipotent, even if that means you have to alter all rules of space and time, but there isn't a single way to beat this paradox, even an omnipotent being, which proves that omnipotence can't exist.

I also don't know where you got that crazy idea from that I think I'm the first one to make the rock point, because I don't recall saying such thing, but if you want to believe that, be my guest. I also never said God can't exist, hell, I'm Christian myself and believe in God, just not that he's totally omnipotent.

You also didn't give me a reason why or how someone can be omnipotent.

#107 Posted by eternityx (2646 posts) - - Show Bio

@arathorn_ii: firstly I didn't say you we're the first one to make the rock point. Secondly there isn't a way to answer this question because of the way you've asked it. It's like asking: Do you still beat your wife? If you say no it means you used to, and if you say yes, it means you still do. Either way it makes you a wife beater.

Also the question suggests that god is bound by laws he created and that he is within the laws of nature, but he can't be because he created them. So this question can't be applied to god.

#108 Posted by Arathorn_II (167 posts) - - Show Bio

@arathorn_ii: firstly I didn't say you we're the first one to make the rock point. Secondly there isn't a way to answer this question because of the way you've asked it. It's like asking: Do you still beat your wife? If you say no it means you used to, and if you say yes, it means you still do. Either way it makes you a wife beater.

Also the question suggests that god is bound by laws he created and that he is within the laws of nature, but he can't be because he created them. So this question can't be applied to god.

This is what you said: You're trying to illogically prove god can't exist and that just does not work. You think that your the first to make that rock point, but you can google it and see more flaws with your false paradox.

This is what I replied for.

I don't really know about what question you're talking about. If it's about the big-rock-question, it's not really the same as ''do you still beat your wife'', because the rock-question is a paradox, and the wife-question is making someone admit that that person atleast did something and maybe is stil doing it.

if you're omnipotent, you should be able to do EVERYTHING. This includes being able to make such rock, but then there still is something he can't do. It will always apply, even if that means he has to alter everything around him to just make this rock. Because if he can't alter physics to make that rock, there is something he can't do, altering physics. Also, if God made the laws of nature, there's nothing that implies that the power he made is stronger then his powers now, atleast when he's omnipotent, because then he would be able to alter his own power to beat everything, even the laws of nature. If he can't alter something he made himself, this also implies he's not omnipotent. This question can also be implied to God (though God is said to be almighty and that's something different then being omnipotent, but you can still aply it to him, just like you can aply it to you and me, though that would be completely useless).

#109 Posted by eternityx (2646 posts) - - Show Bio

@eternityx said:

@arathorn_ii: firstly I didn't say you we're the first one to make the rock point. Secondly there isn't a way to answer this question because of the way you've asked it. It's like asking: Do you still beat your wife? If you say no it means you used to, and if you say yes, it means you still do. Either way it makes you a wife beater.

Also the question suggests that god is bound by laws he created and that he is within the laws of nature, but he can't be because he created them. So this question can't be applied to god.

This is what you said: You're trying to illogically prove god can't exist and that just does not work. You think that your the first to make that rock point, but you can google it and see more flaws with your false paradox.

This is what I replied for.

I don't really know about what question you're talking about. If it's about the big-rock-question, it's not really the same as ''do you still beat your wife'', because the rock-question is a paradox, and the wife-question is making someone admit that that person atleast did something and maybe is stil doing it.

if you're omnipotent, you should be able to do EVERYTHING. This includes being able to make such rock, but then there still is something he can't do. It will always apply, even if that means he has to alter everything around him to just make this rock. Because if he can't alter physics to make that rock, there is something he can't do, altering physics. Also, if God made the laws of nature, there's nothing that implies that the power he made is stronger then his powers now, atleast when he's omnipotent, because then he would be able to alter his own power to beat everything, even the laws of nature. If he can't alter something he made himself, this also implies he's not omnipotent. This question can also be implied to God (though God is said to be almighty and that's something different then being omnipotent, but you can still aply it to him, just like you can aply it to you and me, though that would be completely useless).

For an omnipotent being to exist, all things, including logic, would be contingent upon them. They would not be contingent upon anything. Here's a Venn diagram:

When something is said to be contingent upon something else, it refers to dependency. If Object B is contingent upon object A, it means that Object A's existence is required for Object B to exist, and that if Object A does not exist, Object B cannot. The existence of water, for example, is contingent upon the existence of both hydrogen and oxygen. It is simple to conceive of a universe where only hydrogen exists, and in such a universe, water, being contingent upon both, could not exist. So, when a being such as God is said to be omnipotent, what that means in its most fundamental implications is that God consists of the very outermost circle on a Venn diagram of contingencies (I debated over whether another type of diagram, such as a flowchart, would better illustrate the relationships involved, but I figured that this would suffice for getting the basic concepts across). Everything else could theoretically cease to exist, and it would not affect God, while God, having everything else contingent upon them, is required for the existence of anything else

So, when the question regarding an omnipotent being appears in the form, "Can an omnipotent being do 'x'?", the answer is always"yes", regardless of what "x" actually is. And, so, yes, an omnipotent being can in fact create a rock so heavy that they cannot lift it. But, an omnipotent being is also capable of lifting rocks that they are incapable of lifting. Makes no logical sense? Of course it doesn't. But an omnipotent being isn't limited by logic, and so they can quite literally do the impossible. They can make a round square or a four-sided circle. Exist and not exist at the same time, or make it so that they never existed, and never will exist, while nevertheless remaining in existence (or, similarly, not exist while not remaining in existence, but still be capable of doing anything). Make themselves non omnipotent while remaining omnipotent. They could even make it logically possible for logically impossible things, like a 13-sided triangle (or the existence of an omnipotent being), to be logically possible. All of these things sound completely absurd to us, as well they should. We exist in a universe that is entirely contingent upon logic (and, possibly, vice versa, although logic would apply to any conceivable universe, not just our own). But, since god is indeed the underlying source of all else, a being upon which all things, including logic, were contingent, even the logically absurd would not be an issue for them. Their power would be beyond any possible reasoning or comprehension.

So as I previously said, God is not bound by the laws of nature or logic, because he created them and so he can exist without them or defy them at his will.

#110 Posted by Arathorn_II (167 posts) - - Show Bio

@arathorn_ii said:

@eternityx said:

@arathorn_ii: firstly I didn't say you we're the first one to make the rock point. Secondly there isn't a way to answer this question because of the way you've asked it. It's like asking: Do you still beat your wife? If you say no it means you used to, and if you say yes, it means you still do. Either way it makes you a wife beater.

Also the question suggests that god is bound by laws he created and that he is within the laws of nature, but he can't be because he created them. So this question can't be applied to god.

This is what you said: You're trying to illogically prove god can't exist and that just does not work. You think that your the first to make that rock point, but you can google it and see more flaws with your false paradox.

This is what I replied for.

I don't really know about what question you're talking about. If it's about the big-rock-question, it's not really the same as ''do you still beat your wife'', because the rock-question is a paradox, and the wife-question is making someone admit that that person atleast did something and maybe is stil doing it.

if you're omnipotent, you should be able to do EVERYTHING. This includes being able to make such rock, but then there still is something he can't do. It will always apply, even if that means he has to alter everything around him to just make this rock. Because if he can't alter physics to make that rock, there is something he can't do, altering physics. Also, if God made the laws of nature, there's nothing that implies that the power he made is stronger then his powers now, atleast when he's omnipotent, because then he would be able to alter his own power to beat everything, even the laws of nature. If he can't alter something he made himself, this also implies he's not omnipotent. This question can also be implied to God (though God is said to be almighty and that's something different then being omnipotent, but you can still aply it to him, just like you can aply it to you and me, though that would be completely useless).

For an omnipotent being to exist, all things, including logic, would be contingent upon them. They would not be contingent upon anything. Here's a Venn diagram:

When something is said to be contingent upon something else, it refers to dependency. If Object B is contingent upon object A, it means that Object A's existence is required for Object B to exist, and that if Object A does not exist, Object B cannot. The existence of water, for example, is contingent upon the existence of both hydrogen and oxygen. It is simple to conceive of a universe where only hydrogen exists, and in such a universe, water, being contingent upon both, could not exist. So, when a being such as God is said to be omnipotent, what that means in its most fundamental implications is that God consists of the very outermost circle on a Venn diagram of contingencies (I debated over whether another type of diagram, such as a flowchart, would better illustrate the relationships involved, but I figured that this would suffice for getting the basic concepts across). Everything else could theoretically cease to exist, and it would not affect God, while God, having everything else contingent upon them, is required for the existence of anything else

So, when the question regarding an omnipotent being appears in the form, "Can an omnipotent being do 'x'?", the answer is always"yes", regardless of what "x" actually is. And, so, yes, an omnipotent being can in fact create a rock so heavy that they cannot lift it. But, an omnipotent being is also capable of lifting rocks that they are incapable of lifting. Makes no logical sense? Of course it doesn't. But an omnipotent being isn't limited by logic, and so they can quite literally do the impossible. They can make a round square or a four-sided circle. Exist and not exist at the same time, or make it so that they never existed, and never will exist, while nevertheless remaining in existence (or, similarly, not exist while not remaining in existence, but still be capable of doing anything). Make themselves non omnipotent while remaining omnipotent. They could even make it logically possible for logically impossible things, like a 13-sided triangle (or the existence of an omnipotent being), to be logically possible. All of these things sound completely absurd to us, as well they should. We exist in a universe that is entirely contingent upon logic (and, possibly, vice versa, although logic would apply to any conceivable universe, not just our own). But, since god is indeed the underlying source of all else, a being upon which all things, including logic, were contingent, even the logically absurd would not be an issue for them. Their power would be beyond any possible reasoning or comprehension.

So as I previously said, God is not bound by the laws of nature or logic, because he created them and so he can exist without them or defy them at his will.

I get most of it and agree to most of it. Your example about the 13-side triangle or the one with the four sided circle aren't like the rock paradox. ''Making'' a square circle is just making a square and redfine the definision of the word ''circle''. It's easy to get. However, if I ask an omnipotent being to make a rock, heavy enough so even he (or she (or it)), can't lift it, he makes an unliftable rock. When he lifts it however, it's not an unliftable rock anymore and therefor it didn't do what I asked. It didn't make a rock he couldn't lift, simply because he lifted it. And the thing abut God being outside logic, I ask God to do something that defies logic, but in a way that it's still impossible to do.

#111 Edited by eternityx (2646 posts) - - Show Bio

@eternityx said:
@arathorn_ii said:

@eternityx said:

@arathorn_ii: firstly I didn't say you we're the first one to make the rock point. Secondly there isn't a way to answer this question because of the way you've asked it. It's like asking: Do you still beat your wife? If you say no it means you used to, and if you say yes, it means you still do. Either way it makes you a wife beater.

Also the question suggests that god is bound by laws he created and that he is within the laws of nature, but he can't be because he created them. So this question can't be applied to god.

This is what you said: You're trying to illogically prove god can't exist and that just does not work. You think that your the first to make that rock point, but you can google it and see more flaws with your false paradox.

This is what I replied for.

I don't really know about what question you're talking about. If it's about the big-rock-question, it's not really the same as ''do you still beat your wife'', because the rock-question is a paradox, and the wife-question is making someone admit that that person atleast did something and maybe is stil doing it.

if you're omnipotent, you should be able to do EVERYTHING. This includes being able to make such rock, but then there still is something he can't do. It will always apply, even if that means he has to alter everything around him to just make this rock. Because if he can't alter physics to make that rock, there is something he can't do, altering physics. Also, if God made the laws of nature, there's nothing that implies that the power he made is stronger then his powers now, atleast when he's omnipotent, because then he would be able to alter his own power to beat everything, even the laws of nature. If he can't alter something he made himself, this also implies he's not omnipotent. This question can also be implied to God (though God is said to be almighty and that's something different then being omnipotent, but you can still aply it to him, just like you can aply it to you and me, though that would be completely useless).

For an omnipotent being to exist, all things, including logic, would be contingent upon them. They would not be contingent upon anything. Here's a Venn diagram:

When something is said to be contingent upon something else, it refers to dependency. If Object B is contingent upon object A, it means that Object A's existence is required for Object B to exist, and that if Object A does not exist, Object B cannot. The existence of water, for example, is contingent upon the existence of both hydrogen and oxygen. It is simple to conceive of a universe where only hydrogen exists, and in such a universe, water, being contingent upon both, could not exist. So, when a being such as God is said to be omnipotent, what that means in its most fundamental implications is that God consists of the very outermost circle on a Venn diagram of contingencies (I debated over whether another type of diagram, such as a flowchart, would better illustrate the relationships involved, but I figured that this would suffice for getting the basic concepts across). Everything else could theoretically cease to exist, and it would not affect God, while God, having everything else contingent upon them, is required for the existence of anything else

So, when the question regarding an omnipotent being appears in the form, "Can an omnipotent being do 'x'?", the answer is always"yes", regardless of what "x" actually is. And, so, yes, an omnipotent being can in fact create a rock so heavy that they cannot lift it. But, an omnipotent being is also capable of lifting rocks that they are incapable of lifting. Makes no logical sense? Of course it doesn't. But an omnipotent being isn't limited by logic, and so they can quite literally do the impossible. They can make a round square or a four-sided circle. Exist and not exist at the same time, or make it so that they never existed, and never will exist, while nevertheless remaining in existence (or, similarly, not exist while not remaining in existence, but still be capable of doing anything). Make themselves non omnipotent while remaining omnipotent. They could even make it logically possible for logically impossible things, like a 13-sided triangle (or the existence of an omnipotent being), to be logically possible. All of these things sound completely absurd to us, as well they should. We exist in a universe that is entirely contingent upon logic (and, possibly, vice versa, although logic would apply to any conceivable universe, not just our own). But, since god is indeed the underlying source of all else, a being upon which all things, including logic, were contingent, even the logically absurd would not be an issue for them. Their power would be beyond any possible reasoning or comprehension.

So as I previously said, God is not bound by the laws of nature or logic, because he created them and so he can exist without them or defy them at his will.

I get most of it and agree to most of it. Your example about the 13-side triangle or the one with the four sided circle aren't like the rock paradox. ''Making'' a square circle is just making a square and redfine the definision of the word ''circle''. It's easy to get. However, if I ask an omnipotent being to make a rock, heavy enough so even he (or she (or it)), can't lift it, he makes an unliftable rock. When he lifts it however, it's not an unliftable rock anymore and therefor it didn't do what I asked. It didn't make a rock he couldn't lift, simply because he lifted it. And the thing abut God being outside logic, I ask God to do something that defies logic, but in a way that it's still impossible to do.

I don't understand the last bit of what you're trying to say, but I think the whole point of the examples I gave you are that nothing is to be redefined. Otherwise, what is to stop God from redefining the the words in your sentence to mean something else. Also like I said previously, God is beyond logic as he created it, so before he created logic, he still existed without it, meaning he can literally do the impossible.

#112 Posted by patrat18 (9446 posts) - - Show Bio

Odin.