Shiki can kill completely ordinary people on the street.

File: 127 KB, 304x447, Tohno Shiki.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Sat Jun 27 16:23:57 2009 No.2851168 [Reply] [Original]

Shiki can kill completely ordinary people on the street.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 27 16:25:57 2009 No.2851179 Discuss.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 27 16:26:57 2009 No.2851188 Yeah, right. Sure, he can kill Servants with ease, but regular people? Not a chance.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 27 16:27:57 2009 No.2851194 I disagree.

>>	Suigin !YUsuiginy. Sat Jun 27 16:28:57 2009 No.2851208 Shiki can't kill aikidokas

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 27 16:30:57 2009 No.2851212 No he can't. At least not a whole lot of them. Police would arrest him immediately.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 27 16:32:57 2009 No.2851226 shiki can't kill SHIKI.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 27 16:32:57 2009 No.2851227 >>2851208 That's unfair, no one can kill a master Aikidoka.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 27 16:34:57 2009 No.2851238 >>2851168 No, no he can't, because Shiki is a good person and doesn't have it in him to hurt innocents. Nanaya Shiki on the other hand could. Also normal people aren't vampires. Those he can easily cut into 17 pieces.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 27 16:35:57 2009 No.2851241 Completely ordinary people on the street can kill Shiki

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 27 16:36:57 2009 No.2851247 >>2851241 Well yeah. Not much you can do about a knife or gun shot to the back.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 27 16:37:57 2009 No.2851253 _______ can kill __________. Discuss.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 27 16:38:57 2009 No.2851258 Shiki can kill. Discuss.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 27 16:38:57 2009 No.2851262 File: 131 KB, 397x367, martianniggerskenny.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] But there are limits to whom Shiki can kill

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 27 16:41:57 2009 No.2851279 >>2851262 Could shiki kill Saint of Killers? No

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 27 16:44:57 2009 No.2851289 >>2851279 You can only kill Saints of Killers if you have enough gun.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 27 16:45:57 2009 No.2851291 File: 31 KB, 852x480, w146358271.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] shiki can kill SHIKI. discuss.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 27 16:46:57 2009 No.2851298 >>2851279 SoK is pretty badass and straight, if Shiki used his brain and went for instant kill ambush he would have a chance to beat him. If he doesn't kill him at sight, Shiki's dead meat

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 27 16:47:57 2009 No.2851310 >>2851291 Shiki can kill Shiki and SHIKI

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 27 16:48:57 2009 No.2851314 >>2851279 SoK killed the Christian God, execution style. I do think Shiki is a bit out of his league. or can Shiki kill, say, Time Lords?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 27 16:49:57 2009 No.2851321 Now don't compare God to Shiki aniki

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 27 16:50:57 2009 No.2851326 File: 132 KB, 403x344, Pooh-Piglet-babies-leaves-autumn.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Winnie the Pooh can kill Piglet.

Anonymous Sat Jun 27 16:52:57 2009 No.2851333

>>2851314
Well, Christian God wasn't omnipotent when he died. Saint and Preacher pretty much cheated him.
Also, he wasn't omnipotent from the beginning, considering that he was scared of Genesis.
>Time Lords
Should be, really. Doctor shouldn't be able to regenerate after getting his point cut.

Anonymous Sat Jun 27 16:58:57 2009 No.2851370

>>2851333
>Also, he wasn't omnipotent from the beginning, considering that he was scared of Genesis.

No, he was, but Genesis was also omnipotent. That was the rub - it had all the same powers as God, so of course he was scared of it. If I had been unchallengeable for aeons, I sure would be scared of a potential challenger that's my equal at everything.

But you're right in that God wasn't at "full power" when SoK capped his ass so it's hard to gauge what that scene actually meant. He was obviously not a regular dude by any means since he could still answer prayers and resurrect people and such, but they flat out said that outside his throne he is not untouchable.

Also, fuck power level threads.

>>	Shirou "People Die When They Are Killed" Emiya Sat Jun 27 17:05:57 2009 No.2851390 File: 27 KB, 272x311, shirou talks.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] People die when they are killed!

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 27 17:08:57 2009 No.2851407 >>2851370 >he was, but Genesis was also omnipotent. Now, this is the problem. You can't be omnipotent if there is something that can be on pair with you and is dangerous to you.

MolesterJim Sat Jun 27 17:29:57 2009 No.2851482

>>2851407
The Genesis actually had omnipotent powers, but it was more of a force with a semblance of reasoning then a 'being'. Like a God Machine.
Aka, the one who gets it can become God.
And since he didn't want to be directly challenged, cause he never faced anything similar (never before something like God existed), he left his throne and avoided it. Cause even if he is omnipotent tand unapproachable to ANYTHING else on his throne, Genesis was not 'tested'. And that led to his undoing, since outside the throne, he can be confronted.
Preacher as a comic doesn't have the deepest of conflicts and concept analysis, but you get the point.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 27 17:30:57 2009 No.2851486 roll

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 27 17:34:57 2009 No.2851507 Can shiki kill the Killer7?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 27 17:35:57 2009 No.2851510 Shiki can rape maids.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 27 17:35:57 2009 No.2851512 File: 208 KB, 1132x867, demonbane.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 27 17:38:57 2009 No.2851538 >>2851512 Demonbane can kill the god that is able to kill the god that killed dour god. Discuss.

Anonymous Sat Jun 27 17:40:57 2009 No.2851545

>>2851482
I have no problems with understanding Preacher. It's just that something can't be omnipotent if it has limitations and problems. Preacher's god, while being crazy powerful, wasn't really omnipotent and absolutle in the traditional sense of those words. He needs his chair, he is scared of Genesis. He isn't the same absolute great will Christians usually talk about.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 27 17:41:57 2009 No.2851554 >>2851545 There are different levels of Omnipotence.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 27 17:41:57 2009 No.2851558 >>2851538 But can they all see why kids love Cinnamon Toast Crunch?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 27 17:42:57 2009 No.2851563 >>2851558 no one can. Not even god or demonbane.

Anonymous Sat Jun 27 17:44:57 2009 No.2851572

>>2851545
It's the same old silly paradox 'Can the Lord make a Sandwich so bi he cannot eat it'.
Simple explanation, God chose to lower himself to the world of man, and that carried consequences(Can the God make himself less godly? Let's choose yes for this comic).
And it was his actions that led to the creation of a near omnipotent being, so a god creating something godlike ain't out of the question.
You just take the vague meanings and statements that rely solely on faith and you can make the God appear however you like and nobody can say 'it's wrong'

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 27 17:45:57 2009 No.2851579 File: 12 KB, 539x141, slowshiki.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2851554 You can't be more all-powerful or less all-powerful.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 27 17:46:57 2009 No.2851586 >>2851579 Yes you can, the same way infinites are compared in maths.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 27 17:46:57 2009 No.2851587 >>2851579 Omnipotent in your realm/universe < omnipotent everywhere

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 27 17:48:57 2009 No.2851597 File: 76 KB, 800x600, yamibou344.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] shit lol tier. All of you!

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 27 17:54:57 2009 No.2851623 File: 146 KB, 698x996, ArcConfession.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Shiki can impregnate vampires.

Anonymous Sat Jun 27 18:00:57 2009 No.2851645

>>2851579
Of course you can.
What you think and 'define' as omnipotence is a vague concept that you can never achieve and encompasses only wah you can understand.
For a being you consider omnipotent, there may be something it considers omnipotent.
All-Powerful goes only as far as your understanding.
The only way it can be definite is if in a particular setting, it is established that regardless of characters of what characters know or don't, There is an All-Powerful existence. Only way it's possible is in stories, where the author is the 100% accurate observer.

>>	Ｍｏｒａｌｆａｇ　Ｐｒｉｍｅ !yakuLT8ZtE Sat Jun 27 18:00:57 2009 No.2851647 >>2851623 Every time I see this I wonder where its from, since I don't remember it from the manga.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 27 18:49:57 2009 No.2851866 >>2851647 A girlfriend's confession - according to iqdb

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 27 19:05:57 2009 No.2851947 >>2851623 I wonder how powerful their child would be. hmmmmm

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 27 19:21:57 2009 No.2852028 >>2851623 ..SAUCE?

Anonymous Sat Jun 27 19:30:57 2009 No.2852069

Omnipotence is in itself a paradoxical, self-defeating concept that makes no sense, since it encompasses both a lack of limits and an ability to create limits. Can god create a rock so big he can't lift it himself, etc.

It is not possible for there to be even ONE omnipotent entity.

Anonymous Sat Jun 27 19:33:57 2009 No.2852083

>>2852069

>Omnipotence is in itself a paradoxical, self-defeating concept that makes no sense, since it encompasses both a lack of limits and an ability to create limits. Can god create a rock so big he can't lift it himself, etc.

This is idiotic.

The answer is yes, but then he wouldn't be omnipotent anymore.

Of course omnipotence can defeat itself.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 27 19:35:57 2009 No.2852096 >>2852069 An omnipotent entity can exist in a paradoxical state, by virtue of the fact it is omnipotent. The answer to the paradox of "Can God create a rock so big that even He can't lift it?" is "Yes, He can. And then He will lift it anyway."

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 27 19:39:57 2009 No.2852121 >>2852083 Congratulations, you just solved a hundreds years old logical paradox in 3 sentences. Asshat.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 27 19:41:57 2009 No.2852126 >>2852083 >>2852096 does not understand what a paradox means

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 27 19:42:57 2009 No.2852134 >>2852083 >>2852096 There is no answer. Unless you two are smarter than all the previous people that were discussing it. There are opinions and views, however.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 27 19:44:57 2009 No.2852138 >>2852126 Well, omnipotence is beyond a human's level of understanding, so what may seem paradoxical to a human may not be to said omnipotent being. What is logic to an omnipotent being anyway?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 27 19:44:57 2009 No.2852139 >>2852083 >>2852096 same two dumbasses in the immortality shitstorm threads

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 27 19:45:57 2009 No.2852146 >>2852138 God doesnt exist, prove me wrong.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 27 19:47:57 2009 No.2852165 File: 121 KB, 352x480, 1242711139696.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2852146 Prove yourself right, first. OH WAIT, wasn't there something regarding this? "Something's... Proof?" Yes, definitely "Something's Proof". I refuse to explain!

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 27 19:48:57 2009 No.2852168 >>2852083 To be truly omnipotent, he should be able to do it and still keep his omnipotence. He should be able to make A equal not-A.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 27 19:48:57 2009 No.2852170 >>2852139 Actually, I'm that guy. I haven't said anything yet... lol

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 27 19:48:57 2009 No.2852174 omnipotence doesn't have to follow logic, that's why it's omnipotent.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 27 19:49:57 2009 No.2852183 Okay, both of you ignorant fucks. I've already gone through this immortality shitstorm and now this? I'll settle this once and for all. A paradox cannot happen. Period.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 27 19:50:57 2009 No.2852187 >>2852126 No, I understand it perfectly well. I also understand that anything which is truly 'omnipotent' can exist in a paradoxical state simply because it /is/ omnipotent.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 27 19:50:57 2009 No.2852190 File: 74 KB, 750x760, nietzsche2.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2852146 I can't kill god but he's already dead to me anyway.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 27 19:51:57 2009 No.2852191 >>2852165 I don't need to, bible-thumper, burden of proof is on you

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 27 19:51:57 2009 No.2852192 File: 9 KB, 152x79, ghastly_face.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2852146 you don't exist prove me wrong

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 27 19:51:57 2009 No.2852195 >>2852183 An omnipotent being can do and be impossible things. That's what omnipotence is. They can also see the invisible.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 27 19:51:57 2009 No.2852203 >>2852195 they can also kill immortals shitstorm in progress

Anonymous Sat Jun 27 19:53:57 2009 No.2852211
File: 305 KB, 480x640, 1240136277270.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>2852191

I refuse to explain that which inherently cannot be explained. A conceptual existence that is beyond boundaries cannot be put into them.

Also, I am an atheist. The Devil's Advocate can use the Devil's Proof, no?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 27 19:53:57 2009 No.2852212 >>2852203 >>2852195 So can we all agree that God from preacher wasn't really omnipotent, because he died like a bitch?

Anonymous Sat Jun 27 19:54:57 2009 No.2852214

>>2852203
>>2852195

Both of you are fucking trolls.

Impossible things cannot happen. That's why they are called impossible. If there is any such way to do it, then it wouldn't be 'impossible'.

If there's a way to do the impossible, then it would be impossible for impossible things to exist.

Either way, you loose.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 27 19:54:57 2009 No.2852217 >>2852187 >>I also understand that anything which is truly 'omnipotent' can exist in a paradoxical state simply because it /is/ omnipotent. You've got it backwards. The paradox proves that omnipotence does not exist.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 27 19:56:57 2009 No.2852227 >>2852069 If god creates a rock so big, he cannot lift it himself, then that means he cannot lift it. If he can lift it, then he never made it so big in the first place. it's the only explanation.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 27 19:57:57 2009 No.2852232 >>2852214 yeh its called omnipotency LOOK IN THE DICTIONARY BECAUSE IT SAYS THERE SO IT MUST BE THE TRUE MEANING OMG OMG OMG what happened to the same bullshit defence you use all the time eh dumbass?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 27 19:57:57 2009 No.2852241 >>2852232 see >>2852227

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 27 19:59:57 2009 No.2852253 >>2852214 The definition of "impossible" is based on circumstance. In other words, to an omnipotent being, the word "impossible" does not exist.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 27 19:59:57 2009 No.2852259 >>2852241 omnipotency: Having unlimited or universal power, authority, or force; all-powerful. Having no boundaries or limits. omnipotent beings can kill immortals

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 27 20:00:57 2009 No.2852264 >>2852259 no they can't. They wouldn't be immortal if they could.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 27 20:00:57 2009 No.2852265 >>2852214 >I'm the only one right and everyone else is a troll. Also, your post sounds a lot like Shirou.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 27 20:02:57 2009 No.2852280 >>2852264 Actually, they aren't. They only have to title immortal in circumstance. When the omnipotent entity decides to, whatever titles they have can be added or removed to its liking.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 27 20:02:57 2009 No.2852281 >>2852259 immortals are free from the boundaries of life and death, therefore, death does not apply. Therefore, because death does not apply, there is no way to kill an immortal. Owned.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 27 20:03:57 2009 No.2852284 >>2852264 Omnipotent being can make itself immortal and kill itself right after that. Because it's omnipotent. It can do any fucking thing. It defies your puny logic.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 27 20:04:57 2009 No.2852294 >>2852281 What about Black Barrel?

Anonymous Sat Jun 27 20:05:57 2009 No.2852296

>>2852281

Omnipotent entities can place boundaries where they please.

In short, their immortality has to obey linear causality.
"They are immortal, until the omnipotent entity makes them not immortal".
Alternatively, as it DOESN'T have to obey linear causality, the omnipotent entity can just say "they were never immortal in the first place".

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 27 20:05:57 2009 No.2852298 >>2852284 if there's a way to kill it, it's not really immortal. again, you're a troll.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 27 20:06:57 2009 No.2852307 >>2852298 To be brief, it was only immortal for the time the omnipotent being decided to throw the immortality out the window.

Anonymous Sat Jun 27 20:07:57 2009 No.2852316

>>2852296
Okay, lets set an example of a completely impossible example.

Division by zero. How many zeros does it take to make 5?

Don't say infinity(as your "omnipotence"), because even infinite zeros add up to zero.

Impossible things cannot happen. There are no exceptions.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 27 20:08:57 2009 No.2852322 >>2852316 >because even infinite zeros add up to zero. Learn2/physics, no they don't. PHOTONS HAVE MASS

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 27 20:09:57 2009 No.2852325 >>2852322 but empty space doesn't. NO U

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 27 20:09:57 2009 No.2852326 What the fuck happened to this thread? FUCK YOUR LOGIC NIGGAS.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 27 20:09:57 2009 No.2852330 >>2852325 Empty space DOESN'T EXIST. NOTHING IS NOTHING

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 27 20:11:57 2009 No.2852348 >>2852330 The space between protons and electrons in atoms are empty space. Actually, 90% of the volume of atoms are empty space. Fucking idiot.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 27 20:11:57 2009 No.2852350 >>2852326 I love you, anon. You are the voice of reason.

Anonymous Sat Jun 27 20:13:57 2009 No.2852360

>>2852298
if something is impossible to a omnipotent being, then he really isnt omnipotent in the first place

to an omnipotent being, there is no Impossibility

see >>2852138

therefore an omnipotent being can make what seems to be impossible happen in it's point of view, it can kill immortals

Q.E.D

Anonymous Sat Jun 27 20:13:57 2009 No.2852361

>>2852348

Yes, but that's nothing.

You can't say nothing is something.

"Empty space" as it is, is nothing.
Photons are something, and have mass. However, if they weren't moving, they'd have no mass and be nothing. Therefore 0 x (somefuck fucking fuckhuge fucknumber) = >0, and if you could "accelerate" empty space-nothing you'd get photons maybe.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 27 20:14:57 2009 No.2852369 >>2852361 photons have 0 mass, yet it isn't "empty" OWNED

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 27 20:14:57 2009 No.2852373 My head hurts.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 27 20:14:57 2009 No.2852375 >>2852369 They only have 0 mass when not in motion. They can't not be in motion.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 27 20:14:57 2009 No.2852377 >>2852361 0 * anything is zero. That's why division by zero is impossible. You're an idiot. If you're going to troll, at least learn math.

Anonymous Sat Jun 27 20:15:57 2009 No.2852379

Most physical things that are "impossible" are actually just very unlikely.

It is not impossible for the entire observable universe to spontaneously explode. It's just unlikely.

It is not impossible for earth to spontaneously turn into a living chicken who lays golden turds. That is just even more unlikely.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 27 20:15:57 2009 No.2852380 >>2852369 Photons have mass and they are catholic. Shut up >OWNED And get out.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 27 20:15:57 2009 No.2852381 >>2852375 >>2852369 I'm not talking about photons. I'm talking about empty space.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 27 20:15:57 2009 No.2852382 >>2852316 if an omnipotent being wants 0+0 = 5, then he fucking get it because he can do ANYTHING AND EVERYTHING

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 27 20:16:57 2009 No.2852388 >>2852382 What if an onmipotent being makes it impossible even for himself? Owned.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 27 20:17:57 2009 No.2852391 >>2852382 All that is is more proof that there is no such a think as omnipotence.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 27 20:17:57 2009 No.2852392 >>2852380 >>2852281 you go tell him tachyons motherfucker, fuck your bullshit, I have negative mass bitches, explain that

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 27 20:17:57 2009 No.2852396 >>2852388 then he can, and when he feels like it, he can get it back OWNED

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 27 20:18:57 2009 No.2852398 >>2852388 Then either he's no longer omnipotent or HE CAN DO IT ANYWAY >>2852392 Theoretical unobservable JACKASS.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 27 20:18:57 2009 No.2852399 >>2852391 thank you.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 27 20:19:57 2009 No.2852409 >>2852322 Okay wiseguy, explain to me the number 0.∞ .

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 27 20:19:57 2009 No.2852411 >>2852398 unobservable = non-existence you deserve a nobel prize for that stunning logical discovery dumkoft

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 27 20:21:57 2009 No.2852426 >>2852411 Well, yeah. The answer to "what's in a black hole" is "no". The answer to "what's beyond the observable universe" is "no". The answer to "what was before the big bang" is "no".

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 27 20:21:57 2009 No.2852427 >>2852409 Infinity isn't a number. 0 was a concept discovered after the foundation of mathematics were laid down by the Greeks, they never had 0, therefore 0 is just a handy placement for something they didn't quite get.

Anonymous Sat Jun 27 20:22:57 2009 No.2852428

Impossible things are impossible.
Possible things are possible.

Meaning, if something is impossible, then it's as if another omnipotent being is controlling it. Infinity-infinity=0 As opposed to Infinity-99999billion=infinity
Therefore, omnipotent beings do have limits.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 27 20:22:57 2009 No.2852429 Zeroes and fives are nothing more than a concepts of the feeble human mind. Omnipotent being shits all over concepts of the feeble human mind.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 27 20:22:57 2009 No.2852431 >>2852426 Wow, you should submit your answers to all the scientific institutes around the world, I'm sure you won't get laughed out the door. gb2/highschoolphysics

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 27 20:22:57 2009 No.2852434 >>2852411 >dumkoft If I were you, I'd refrain from trying to use german, it really makes you look dumb.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 27 20:23:57 2009 No.2852443 /jp/ - angry nerds shouting nonsense about nonsense

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 27 20:24:57 2009 No.2852445 >>2852428 Omnipotency means without boundaries or limits, you can't even stick to the true definition. If something has a limit, then it is NOT omnipotent. Omnipotent overrides impossibility.

Anonymous Sat Jun 27 20:24:57 2009 No.2852448

>>2852427
true that. Infinity doesn't exactly exist, but it's more of an idea of a never-ending number. Kind of like a 9 that keeps going on. 9999999999

Where as zero does, in fact exist.

John had 3 apples. Jessy took one, Bob took one, and Mike took one. Therefore, John now has 0 apples. Proof that zero does, in fact, exist.

Anonymous Sat Jun 27 20:25:57 2009 No.2852459

>>2852445
there are only two explanations then.

Either there is no such thing as "impossibilty" or there is no such thing as "omnipotency". Both of them cannot exist together.

Math and everything we know points directly towards impossibility. Therefore, I believe omnipotency is impossible.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 27 20:26:57 2009 No.2852462 File: 291 KB, 1356x1160, 1233395906507.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >Shiki can kill completely ordinary people on the street. Wow, that stirred up like 3 times the shit of "Shiki can kill Servants". Poor Servants.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 27 20:28:57 2009 No.2852469 >>2852459 >Both of them cannot exist together. Only by our logic. Omnipotent being should be able to create something that impossible for him while being possible for him. Because it's omnipotent. It overrides laws.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 27 20:28:57 2009 No.2852471 >>2852459 We're not omniscient, either. Math can be wrong, but that'd be denying all of human advancements ever.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 27 20:29:57 2009 No.2852483 >>2852471 so you're saying all of humanity is wrong and you are right? Do you have any idea how idiotic you sound right now?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 27 20:29:57 2009 No.2852485 ITT we try to quantify unquantifiable abstracts

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 27 20:30:57 2009 No.2852489 >>2852485 impossible to quantify the unquantifiable.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 27 20:30:57 2009 No.2852490 >>2852483 Sure, why not? Everyone can be wrong. I can definitely be wrong too. Doesn't mean anyone has to be right.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 27 20:33:57 2009 No.2852506 >>2852483 >So are you saying my God is wrong and you're right? ALLAH ACKBAR KILL THE INFIDEL notice how idiotic you sound right now?

Anonymous Sat Jun 27 20:33:57 2009 No.2852507

Look, all I'm saying is that everything is relative.

Suppose this. Bob is immortal. And his "life" is the tunnel. Death is at the end of the tunnel. Therefore, the ONLY way for Bob to die, he must reach the end.

Suppose the tunnel is endless. There is no end. Therefore, even if Bob goes through the tunnel at an infinite speed and infinite time, he'll still never reach the end because it doesn't exist.

This is an example of an immortal. Also of an impossible. It's a bit unorthodox of an explaination, I know... but it gets the point across.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 27 20:34:57 2009 No.2852512 >>2852485 Hold on buddy, we're not omnipotent!

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 27 20:36:57 2009 No.2852523 >>2852506 At least I provide examples you ignorant fuck. I'm using logic. Your counter is what, closed-mindedness? Don't get me started.

Anonymous Sat Jun 27 20:36:57 2009 No.2852524

>>2852507
>Look, all I'm saying is that everything is relative.

>Suppose this. Bob is omnipotent. And his "limit" is the tunnel. The extend of his power is at the end of the tunnel. Therefore, the ONLY way for Bob to not be able to do something, he must reach the end.

>Suppose the tunnel is endless. There is no end. Therefore, even if Bob goes through the tunnel at an infinite speed and infinite time, he'll still never reach the end because it doesn't exist.

>This is an example of an omnipotent being. Also of an impossible. It's a bit unorthodox of an explaination, I know... but it gets the point across.

See how easily your argument can be applied to omnipotency? If you say the above argument is wrong, because it has the same structure, then your immortal argument is also wrong, if the above is correct, then yours is also correct.

So what will it be.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 27 20:37:57 2009 No.2852534 >>2852524 why would it be wrong? Because it proves that omnipotency doesn't exist? Seeing as far as logic goes, it has already done that.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 27 20:37:57 2009 No.2852536 >>2852523 wheres your examples

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 27 20:38:57 2009 No.2852539 >>2852536 logic. See >>2852524

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 27 20:39:57 2009 No.2852543 >>2852534 So it's correct then, by it, omnipotent beings can kill immortals proves by the above argument. Omnipotency = no impossibilities Therefore immortal isnt an impossibility. etc

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 27 20:40:57 2009 No.2852547 >>2852523 >I'm using logic You are using logic where logic doesn't work.

Anonymous Sat Jun 27 20:41:57 2009 No.2852555

>>2852543

exactly. See, if it's impossible for an immortal to exist because an omnipotent being can ALWAYS be able to kill it or bring it back to life no matter what, then it's impossible for an omnipotent being to exist because it can never make an immortal.

Because it can always kill it whenever it wants.

>an omnipotent being can never make a true immortal

>omnipotent
>never

It contradicts itself.

Anonymous Sat Jun 27 20:43:22 2009 No.2852570 [DELETED]

>>2852471
>Math can be wrong
It can't, because we invented math. Actually, all of math can be built on top of a few axioms we agreed on.

That's like saying "English can be wrong." What the fuck does that mean? Math is something we invented, it cannot be wrong.

Physics, on the other hand, is about applying Math to the real world. Since we're not omniscient like you said the match between the knowledge we acquired from the real world and what the world truly isn't exact, Physics can be wrong.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 27 20:43:57 2009 No.2852565 >>2852523 >logic >applied to impossiblities someone is still in the nurseries

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 27 20:43:57 2009 No.2852567 Pulled this off of wikipedia for fun, while you're at it answer me this: can an omnipotent being create square circles?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 27 20:44:57 2009 No.2852578 >>2852565 at the very least, my logic is beyond yours. In this >>2852555 prove me wrong.

Anonymous Sat Jun 27 20:45:57 2009 No.2852585

>>2852471
>Math can be wrong
It can't, because we invented math. Actually, all of math can be built on top of a few axioms we agreed on.

That's like saying "English can be wrong." What the fuck does that mean? Math is something we invented, it cannot be wrong.

Physics, on the other hand, is about applying Math to the real world. Since we're not omniscient, like you said, the match between the knowledge we acquired from the real world and what the world truly is isn't exact, therefore, Physics can be wrong.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 27 20:46:57 2009 No.2852586 >>2852578 There is nothing to prove. You failed to grasp the concept of the omnipotence once again.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 27 20:46:57 2009 No.2852587 >>2852555 So an omnipotent being can make a true immortal that could never die, but at the same time kill that same unkillable thing since it doesn't have to obey any logical of physical law.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 27 20:46:57 2009 No.2852589 >>2852570 we based math off of physics. Physics of the real world. If math is perfect, physics must be perfect.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 27 20:47:57 2009 No.2852593 >>2852587 see, it never made it unkillable in the first place if the omnipotent can kill it. Fact proven. Omnipotent beings cannot exist because they cannot make something which they cannot kill.

Anonymous Sat Jun 27 20:47:57 2009 No.2852595

>>2852555
Then there is no such thing which possesses the quality we know as "immortality" as long as that omnipotent being exists. Also, by the obvious, an omnipotent being cannot be immortal if it can kill itself.

So, our idea of "not being able to die no matter what" does not exist, but the idea of "not being able to die save ______" does.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 27 20:48:57 2009 No.2852596 File: 87 KB, 408x273, keinelogic.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >This thread

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 27 20:48:57 2009 No.2852597 >>2852578 >i cant argue so im just going to say im better than you while at the same time ask you to prove a paradox a paradox can't be proved, else id like you to prove zeno's paradox, and win an award after you prove it

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 27 20:48:57 2009 No.2852601 >>2852589 >we based math off of physics No we didn't.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 27 20:49:57 2009 No.2852604 Forgot noko

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 27 20:49:57 2009 No.2852607 >>2852593 according to definition of omnipotency, it doesnt matter what you think, it can do it no matter what

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 27 20:50:57 2009 No.2852612 >>2852589 Math does not have faults by itself. We just are unable ourselves to apply them further. The concept may sound foreign to you, but what to do.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 27 20:51:57 2009 No.2852617 File: 11 KB, 229x261, 1234177997398.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2852593 >Fact proven. I have no words anymore.

Anonymous Sat Jun 27 20:51:57 2009 No.2852625

>>2852595
That's another good example. Can an omnipotent being put a permanent end to itself? If it's omnipotent, then it can always come back, thus it cannot make it permanent. If it can make a permanent end to itself, then it can never come back. Either way, it contradicts itself. you lose.

Anonymous Sat Jun 27 20:53:57 2009 No.2852634
File: 115 KB, 469x428, troll.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

HAHA OH WOW

oh u /jp/, trying to debate pointless shit and getting your stolen panties in a bunch trying to one-up eachother

this is prime comedy, too bad both sides are the same: full of dumbasses that can't think outside the square

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 27 20:54:57 2009 No.2852649 >>2852595 >Also, by the obvious, an omnipotent being cannot be immortal if it can kill itself. >omnipotent >cannot There you go.

Anonymous Sat Jun 27 20:56:57 2009 No.2852658

>>2852589
No, we didn't. Again, math can be built from the ground up just by using a handful of axioms. We are talking about basic rules like 0 != 1 here.

Physics is a practical application of Math, but just Math itself is pure and unrelated to the reality we live in.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 27 20:56:57 2009 No.2852659 >>2852649 I think this concludes it. No such thing as omnipotent.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 27 20:59:57 2009 No.2852667 >>2852659 Cannot be proven. And we weren't discussing the existence of omnipotence, just the concept of it. That you failed to grasp.

Anonymous Sat Jun 27 20:59:57 2009 No.2852668

>>2852658
I'm talking about REAL physics. Of course there's really no way to know whether our idea of physics is perfect or not, but we use what we are given. Math. Which does make perfect sense of itself.

John has 2 apples. John ate one apple, now john has 1 apple. Are you trying to prove this wrong? Go try this yourself. If you deny that there's only one apple in front of you, then you're denying something that shows itself right in front of your face.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 27 21:00:57 2009 No.2852674 OP here. Holy fucking shit. I wanted to make /jp/ snicker and laugh for a little bit and I got a shitstorm that makes "Shiki can kill Servants" threads look tame by comparison. What the fuck is this? :(

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 27 21:01:57 2009 No.2852675 >>2852659 The correct answer is 'we cannot comprehend omnipotence', whether it exists or not.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 27 21:01:57 2009 No.2852681 >>2852667 The concept of it doesn't make sense. If an omnipotent being can do anything, then it can also make things impossible even for itself. This contradicts the idea of omnipotence.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 27 21:02:57 2009 No.2852682 >>2852668 John still has two apples. It's just one has been chewed up and is in the process of being digested. It's still his. infact, it's even MORE his, since it'd be quite difficult to get it back now, atleast untill he goes to take a shit.

Anonymous Sat Jun 27 21:03:57 2009 No.2852693

>>2852682
Okay then, let's make it more technical, if you want to be like that.

John has 2 apples IN HIS HAND. John ate one apple, now john has 1 apple IN HIS HAND. Are you trying to prove this wrong? Go try this yourself. If you deny that there's only one apple in front of you, then you're denying something that shows itself right in front of your face.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 27 21:04:57 2009 No.2852701 >>2852681 Infinity doesn't make any sense either. We just assume and visualize it. Omnipotence includes overriding such logical tropes that humans can never explain /resolve.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 27 21:04:57 2009 No.2852702 >>2852681 Once again: Omnipotent being operates outside of any laws.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 27 21:04:57 2009 No.2852703 >>2852693 John must have some pretty big hands.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 27 21:06:57 2009 No.2852709 >>2852674 I snickered. Sorry, it's all my fault. Fuck Preacher discussion. However, this thread is hilarious.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 27 21:06:57 2009 No.2852712 >>2852702 Then an omnipotent being cannot exist in those laws. Once again, disproves the idea of omnipotism.

Anonymous Sat Jun 27 21:06:57 2009 No.2852713

>>2852625
Then omnipotent beings would have to have either some mechanism of choice in their actions, or to be able to make multiple actions at the same time. For example, the being would either have to choose to permanently die or die then come back to life; if anything asked it to do both, it could just erase that thing from existence or do whatever's necessary to not have to. Unless something of a higher power forces it to otherwise, an omnipotent being can do whatever it wants, including not doing what people want it to. Because it can (deny them, that is).

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 27 21:08:57 2009 No.2852722 >>2852713 See, if doesn't permanently die, then it's not permanent. There you go.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 27 21:09:57 2009 No.2852723 >>2852668 Did you quote the wrong post? I was stating Math cannot be wrong.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 27 21:10:57 2009 No.2852729 >>2852722 holy shits i luled at this XD

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 27 21:10:57 2009 No.2852730 >>2852723 I didn't see it in red.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 27 21:11:57 2009 No.2852735 >>2852723 I'm agreeing with you. Math is, in fact, perfect.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 27 21:13:57 2009 No.2852748 >>2852722 Define a death for an omnipotent being, and how it can be permanent. This is reaching the idea that omnipotent beings must have some kind of ego or consciousness because otherwise, what would it do? Who would define what it does? etc.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 27 21:15:57 2009 No.2852756 >>2852748 Death. A permanent end to itself, from which it cannot come back from in any way, shape, form, etc. Gone from existence and unable to do anything about it.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 27 21:17:57 2009 No.2852763 >>2852756 Reincarnation with exact same abilities. It died, yet now lives.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 27 21:18:57 2009 No.2852774 >>2852763 I said permanent. If it reincarnates, it's not permanent.

Anonymous Sat Jun 27 21:18:57 2009 No.2852778

>>2852712
"Omnipotence", first of all.

Second of all, you're trying to apply "laws" to omnipotence, when the very definition of omnipotence is that they are subject to no law but their own will. If an omnipotent being willed it, the universe could be made of fire with brightly shining stars of empty space. If an omnipotent being so willed, he could punch you in the mitosis. An omnipotent being could grab you by the happy and tear it into little tiny pieces of giggle. An omnipotent being can surf on smells and sing feasts made entirely of the color beige.

We cannot comprehend omnipotence, but whether or not it 'exists' cannot be proven by saying 'the laws of the universe/existence make it impossible', because the very definition of omnipotence is that nothing is impossible for an omnipotent being. So if there was an omnipotent being, those laws would not apply to it.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 27 21:20:57 2009 No.2852784 >>2852774 The previous body/vessel existence is permanent dead. This is just a new one identical to the previous one with the same knowledge, including that it caused it's death.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 27 21:21:57 2009 No.2852786 >>2852778 >An omnipotent being can surf on smells and sing feasts made entirely of the color beige. FUCK YES, YOU ARE THE BEST OMNIPOTENT BEING EVER.

Anonymous Sat Jun 27 21:22:57 2009 No.2852793

>>2852778
Have you taken into the account we can't comprehend it because it doesn't make sense? Suppose this, for example. See >>2852756

If it's able to do anything and everything, then it's unable to NOT do anything
>omnipotence
>unable

See the contradiction? I use what I have. You think it's some sort of magic, outside of our comprehension. But suppose this, what if it doesn't exist because it doesn't make sense? That would most definitely explain it, seeing what we comprehend is what we take from what exists.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 27 21:23:57 2009 No.2852799 >>2852786 thank you. The idea itself is just too idiotic.

Anonymous Sat Jun 27 21:27:57 2009 No.2852817

>>2852793
> seeing what we comprehend is what we take from what exists.

Horribly flawed definition of "comprehension" that any beginning philosophy student would laugh out of the classroom ahoy!

There are many things we cannot comprehend that still exist. That's the most laughably flawed assertion I've ever heard.

> If it's able to do anything and everything, then it's unable to NOT do anything

And that's the SECOND most. What you've just stated is absolute nonsense word-twisting, and not even true besides. "Unable to not do anything"? What the hell kind of conclusion is that?

You fail logic forever.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 27 21:28:57 2009 No.2852826 You know something Shiki can kill? Furniture.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 27 21:29:57 2009 No.2852832 >>2852826 Oh fuck you.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 27 21:31:57 2009 No.2852840 >>2852826 </thread>

Anonymous Sat Jun 27 21:31:57 2009 No.2852845

See, if it makes an end to itself, and is able to always come back, then it's unable to make a permanent end to itself. It's BECAUSE it can always come back.

Therefore, just from that one example, it proves the idea of omnipotence simply doesn't make sense. If it can do everything, then it can make things impossible even for itself. Because of those very same things, the "omnipotent" is not omnipotent. IF it cannot make things impossible for itself, that also proves the idea of omnipotence doesn't make sense.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 27 21:33:57 2009 No.2852852 >>2852817 It's called a double negative. You fail at english and logic. It's like saying "never say never".

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 27 21:34:57 2009 No.2852858 >>2852845 >Can God create a burrito so spicy that He himself could not eat it? Is basically what you're using. An omnipotent being is certainly able to say, "Fuck dat shit."

Anonymous Sat Jun 27 21:34:57 2009 No.2852861

>>2852845
Just because something makes no sense doesn't mean it can't resist.

Or, if you really want to get into wordplay:

What is the definition of "omnipotence"? Being all-powerful. Or, to phrase it another way, having all powers.

Power of creation? Check. Power of destruction? Check. Power of dribbling a star like a basketball? Check.

Power of 'existing as a paradox that contradicts itself'? Check.

Any power you can think of, an omnipotent being has, because it is omnipotent. That is the very DEFINITION of omnipotence. It has the power to do anything. Including things which it cannot do.

Anonymous Sat Jun 27 21:35:57 2009 No.2852866

>>2852845
Junior level word twisting cycle that proves our limited understanding that we cannot solve , rather than proving the inability of omnipotence.
Omnipotence is by default something that is above your level of understanding and operating system.
Saying it cannot exist in the laws you set in the way you understand the world is meaningless.

Anonymous Sat Jun 27 21:36:57 2009 No.2852869

>>2852852
It's not the language he used, it's the conclusion he came to (and the ridiculous way he came to it).

"Can't do nothing"? That's fucking ridiculous. An omnipotent being can do nothing if it feels like doing nothing. *I* can do nothing if I feel like doing nothing.

What the fuck kind of assertion is "It CAN do everything, so that means it CAN'T do NOTHING"?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 27 21:37:57 2009 No.2852873 >>2852852 "never say never" is not a double negative. Who fails at english now?

Anonymous Sat Jun 27 21:37:57 2009 No.2852874

>>2852858
"Fuck that shit" and give up? Yes. If it cannot eat it, it cannot eat it. If it can, then it never made the burrito so spicy. And if it can always eat any burito, then it can never make a burito too spicy for itself.

Makes perfect sense and you know it. You're trolling at this point.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 27 21:38:57 2009 No.2852881 >>2852866 It IS meaningless.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 27 21:39:57 2009 No.2852888 >>2852873 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_negative You.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 27 21:39:57 2009 No.2852892 >>2852874 I like how you keep completely ignoring and failing to address the fact that the definition of omnipotence means that it is capable of doing things which make no sense.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 27 21:41:57 2009 No.2852896 >>2852874 I'm rephrasing the same question that's been asked 500+ times by now without using the debatable concept of death/resurrection. Trying to make it easier on you folks.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 27 21:44:57 2009 No.2852908 Is God unable to banish all the evil from the world? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but unwilling? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 27 21:45:57 2009 No.2852912 I am filled with impotent rage at this thread

Anonymous Sat Jun 27 21:46:57 2009 No.2852913

>>2852896
You're trolling is what you're doing. If an omnipotent being is able to do anything, then it's also able to make things it's unable to do.

If it's unable to do it, then it's not omnipotent.
If it's able to do it, then it was never "unable" in the first place. Both ways, it can't exist.

And don't say "oh it doesn't exist in our laws" yes, it doesn't. Because it can't. An omnipotent being can't exist in our laws and I proved it. And because there is something it can't do, it's not omnipotent.
No more trolling.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 27 21:46:57 2009 No.2852918 >>2852908 What if he simply doesn't exist?

Anonymous Sat Jun 27 21:54:57 2009 No.2852964
File: 94 KB, 800x500, c3e4bc5694f7412905481a540ef99827.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

It's like the argument "is there way to kill an immortal?".

If there's a way to kill it, it's not really immortal.

Lets keep it as simple as possible. Immortals can never die no matter what, and there are no exceptions. That's why they are immortal. But mortals can die. That's why they are mortal. That's what it comes down to.

/thread

Anonymous Sat Jun 27 21:57:57 2009 No.2852991

>>2852913
And there you go again, completely ignoring part of what we're saying. Address this, I dare you:

Part of the definition of 'being all-powerful' is that one has it within his power to exist when he should not be able, to do things which are impossible, and to exist as and create a paradox.

An omnipotent being can exist within our laws while flatly defying them, because that is within his power as an ALL-POWERFUL being.

Stop accusing people of "Trolling" when they point out that your logic is flawed and inconsistent, and you're repeatedly ignoring or disregarding points which have been made. Saying "I've proved my point" is not an argument. You don't get to decide whether you've proved your point or not, other people do.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 27 21:58:57 2009 No.2853002 >>2852918 That's the unspoken part of that, yes. The point of it is that if God even exists, he is doing something wrong.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 27 21:58:57 2009 No.2853003 >>2852964 Since ancient times, immortality indicated lifespan. Destruction was still possible. Gods were immortal, but each god could destroy another, the way humans defined it.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 27 22:00:57 2009 No.2853011 >>2852964 We already had that discussion. Let it rest.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 27 22:01:57 2009 No.2853017 >>2853002 The statement is wrong on many levels, but disregarding that, God may simply have created us and left us in our own devices. Whatever we achieve or not is because of us.

Anonymous Sat Jun 27 22:01:57 2009 No.2853019

>>2853003
See, if they can destroy each other without ever coming back, they would be classified as 'mortal'. Because of that very fact. People often misuse the term 'immortal' with 'something incredibly powerful but is still able to have an end'.
There is a difference between "ending" and "unending".

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 27 22:03:57 2009 No.2853025 >>2852964 >But mortals can die. That's why they are mortal. What about all the people that don't die when they are killed?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 27 22:04:57 2009 No.2853030 >>2852913 >>2853017 So God could be malevolent, but still omnipotent.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 27 22:04:57 2009 No.2853031 >>2853002 >The point of it is that if God even exists, he is doing something wrong. You really don't like your free will, right?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 27 22:04:57 2009 No.2853033 >>2853017 >>2853002 >>2852908 See, I'm not trying to prove whether god does or does not exist. If god is forever good and can never become evil, then there is something he is unable to do. He's not omnipotent, but he is able to do anything possible.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 27 22:04:57 2009 No.2853035 >>2853019 The fact that they do not reach an ending on their own does not mean it cannot be forced.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 27 22:05:57 2009 No.2853044 >>2853035 >cannot be forced Yes, death on immortals cannot, in fact, be forced. That's why they are immortal.

Anonymous Sat Jun 27 22:11:57 2009 No.2853077

>>2853031
I am >>2853033

I believe in free will as well. See, if god exists, he would let evil exist to let us choose between evil and good. Therefore, >>2852908 is null

God can do things possible. Saying he is evil simply doesn't make sense. Just as much as saying impossible things are possible, don't make sense the very same way.

If you have infinity and subtract itself, then you have zero. If god is using his own power to keep himself from being evil, then he cannot be evil even if he wanted to.

It's like saying "no matter what god does, it's good". Therefore, he can never do anything bad, because he cannot defy himself. Omnipotence doesn't make sense, but God does, and in my opinion, can. He's not exactly "omnipotent", but rather, "able to only do all possibilities". Which does make perfect sense. Just as I said before, if all he does is good, then he can never do anything bad.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 27 22:18:57 2009 No.2853100 Are there any new information about the tsukihime remake?

>>	Ｍｏｒａｌｆａｇ　Ｐｒｉｍｅ !yakuLT8ZtE Sat Jun 27 22:20:57 2009 No.2853121 >>2853100 I wish.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 27 22:21:57 2009 No.2853124 >>2853100 It's all ages so it can be released under the new law.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 27 22:22:57 2009 No.2853128 >>2853100 Nothing new has been said.

Anonymous Sat Jun 27 22:23:57 2009 No.2853132
File: 433 KB, 1000x720, 40c242f15bedfbde46abb4ab3556b26c.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>2853077

There, can we put an end to all these nonsense omnipotent and immortal threads?

Immortals can never die no matter what, and there is no way to make them mortal (thus rendering them truly immortal),
God is immortal, and he is able to do all things possible, but he is not omnipotent because omnipotence doesn't make sense of itself. But still able to do all things possible nonetheless.

There, comprimise, /thread. Goodnight.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 27 22:26:57 2009 No.2853151 >>2853132 Shiki can kill their immortality, then kill them.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 27 22:27:57 2009 No.2853158 >>2853132 Shitty opinion=!compromise.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 27 22:27:57 2009 No.2853160 >>2853132 God, the absolute and ultimate God can't kill immortals? Then he is not a god, because he can't do shit.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 27 22:30:57 2009 No.2853180 >>2853151 they are mortals if anyone can kill them. Your logic is flawed. >>2853158 it's a good opinion, you're just trolling.

Anonymous Sat Jun 27 22:33:57 2009 No.2853196

>>2853160
on the contrary, god can't kill himself. He'll always come back, therefore, he can't do shit about not being able to die. But that doesn't mean he's not god. God is able to do all things possible.
I repeat.
God can do all things POSSIBLE. IMPOSSIBLE things CANNOT HAPPEN. Refer to my first statements before trolling again.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 27 22:35:57 2009 No.2853210 >>2853180 He's not killing an immortal. He's killing the "concept of immortality" that they carry. And then he's killing the resultant mortal. It's a dodge, but it works.

Anonymous Sat Jun 27 22:35:57 2009 No.2853211

Guys, I hate to break it to you, but all of these arguments rely on logic and/or causality. God would be, by definition, above both of those.

Can God create a rock so heavy that he himself cannot lift it? Yes, he can. And then he can fucking go and pick that motherfucker up, because he's fucking GOD. Logic need not apply, God INVENTED that fucker.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 27 22:38:57 2009 No.2853232 File: 10 KB, 125x92, garlock omgwtf.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2853196 > IMPOSSIBLE things CANNOT HAPPEN

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 27 22:38:57 2009 No.2853233 >>2853196 >IMPOSSIBLE things CANNOT HAPPEN God can do anything. So impossible doesn't exist. If God has limitations, he isn't God.

Anonymous Sat Jun 27 22:39:57 2009 No.2853244

>>2853210
What if there is no way of defeating the 'concept of immortality' that they carry?

Actually, if it's able to be defeated, it doesn't exactly make the 'mortal', "immortal". It's just keeping them alive and he's taking it away from them, and then turning them back to an ordinary mortal. They were never immortal in the first place.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 27 22:39:57 2009 No.2853245 Sure God can do impossible things, but he doesn't. That would be silly.

>>	CurryButt !CIELBE/jzM Sat Jun 27 22:40:57 2009 No.2853247 File: 34 KB, 238x165, coolface.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2853233 Yeah, God's only limitation is not existing, amirite.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 27 22:40:57 2009 No.2853250 >>2853245 he doesn't because he can't. Listen to yourself. >can do impossible things >can >impossible Contradictory... See >>2853196

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 27 22:42:57 2009 No.2853258 >>2853250 You are too addicted to logic when logic doesn't work.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 27 22:43:57 2009 No.2853260 >>2853247 The problem is all these trolls saying that "oh if he has limitations he isn't God dur durrr!" Apperently, he can only do things that can be done. Just because he can't do the un-doable, doesn't mean he isn't god.

>>	Sakura !!sCKns1iPkwx Sat Jun 27 22:43:57 2009 No.2853263 >>2853250 Wouldn't it rather be that there is nothing impossible for god? Everything for god is possible, therefore he can do everything right?

Anonymous Sat Jun 27 22:44:57 2009 No.2853264

Great, another lolimmortality argument. Stop defining "immortal" to fit your own argument.

Someone who recovers from mortal wounds and never ages would be called "immortal" by everyone, regardless of whether they have some known or unknown - pardon the pun - Achilles heel.

Anonymous Sat Jun 27 22:45:57 2009 No.2853279

>>2853247
To be able to do anything, means to be all-powerful. To be like god. However, doing the un-doable, just doesn't make sense. "It's like saying "god can do something he doesn't want to do". That doesn't make sense. If he doesn't want to do it, he won't do it. If he did it, then it's obviously, for one reason or another, he has reason to do it.

God can only do things what he wants to do. This is perfect, undenyable logic. Please don't look at it as a challenge.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 27 22:48:57 2009 No.2853300 You are now aware that for all his power Shiki could be killed more easily by a common criminal with a gun than by the most powerful vampire in existence.

Anonymous Sat Jun 27 22:50:57 2009 No.2853310

>>2853264
I'm not defining "immortality" to my argument, but rather just defining "immortality". Period.

Here's the definition from the dictionary. "unending life."

Therefore, it's not immortal if there is an end to it. It simply goes against the very definition.

In order for it to fit YOUR definition, "Someone who recovers from mortal wounds and never ages", then the following statement must also be made true for them to be defined as immortal. "They are unable to make not recover, no matter what, either."

See, it makes sense now. To the very definition.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 27 22:50:57 2009 No.2853313 >>2853300 Not really, now.

Anonymous Sat Jun 27 22:54:57 2009 No.2853333

>>2853264
See, it's because of 'Achilles heel', that he has no weakness. It is that very thing that makes him 'mortal', so to speak. If he didn't have that one weakness, he would be considered 'immortal', so to speak.

I don't mean immortal as unending life this time, but rather "able to be defeated" as opposed to "unable to be defeated". It's that Achilles heel that he was able to be defeated, thus rendering him 'mortal'.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 27 22:55:57 2009 No.2853335 >>2853333 >See, it's because of 'Achilles heel', that he has no weakness. That he **has weakness. Pardon my mistake.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 27 22:56:57 2009 No.2853341 Is it just the same two fucking people having this immortality argument daily? I'm tempted to just block every post with the word immortality in it, fuck.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 27 22:56:57 2009 No.2853342 >>2853279 >However, doing the un-doable, just doesn't make sense. God doesn't make sense. He doesn't need to.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 27 22:57:57 2009 No.2853346 >>2853341 Well, most other threads do not use it, so go ahead.

Anonymous Sat Jun 27 23:00:57 2009 No.2853362

>>2853342
troll. God has reason to do everything he does. If you believe in god, he had reason to create the universe, to create mankind, to let evil exist.

That would be to give us free will, to choose between evil, or good.

Not a single thing he has ever done didn't make sense. He is perfect.

Anonymous Sat Jun 27 23:11:57 2009 No.2853418

>>2853244
>if
dumbass detected, there is no if mate, as long as someone is an immortal they cant die, as soon as immortality is taken away, they become MORTAL, and die

there is no IMMORTAL MEANS YOU CANT TAKE IT AWAY LOL, circular definitions don't work

>>2853310
unending life, when you take immortality away, you also take away that benefit of "unending life"

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 27 23:12:57 2009 No.2853426 >>2853362 > I'm going to create a project with free will and then let it condemn itself to eternal damnation God is a dick.

Anonymous Sat Jun 27 23:29:57 2009 No.2853512

>>2853418
they never had 'unending life' if there was a way to take it away in the first place!

>circular definitions don't work
Actually, they do.

Why wouldn't you not be able to take it away?

Suppose this. -You drink a forbidden elixir that makes death no longer part of your existence. No power keeps you alive, but rather death just isn't there, so you'll reincarnate the instant death is supposed to occur if anyone or anything invokes death in you. It also makes your body unresponsive to change, so giving you a cure or anything would be like giving a dead body medicine, and it simply won't work. In order to make it work, you'd have to bring that dead body back to life, or to kill the immortal.
>kill the immortal

They are immortal, and cannot die. If the only way to change it depends on that, then it is, in fact, self sustaining. No power can take it away, because there is nothing to take away from, and the immortality is a 'deathless state', rather then a 'power'.
If killing them won't work, and the only way to reverse it was to kill them, then they are and forever will be, immortal.

There are absolutely no exceptions to this, no loopholes, no nothing. Immortality means there is no loophole, you idiot. That's why they are immortal.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 27 23:35:57 2009 No.2853542 >>2853512 DAAAAAMMMMNNNN

Anonymous Sat Jun 27 23:43:57 2009 No.2853585

>>2853418
see >>2853512

If it is able to die by any means, including "becoming mortal", then it's mortal in the first place. Immortals cannot, in fact, become mortal.

Use this as a refferense.

If it can die via [insert any reason here except 'impossible'], then it's mortal.

This means, in order for it to be immortal, there is no cure, no power, nothing in any shape or form that can make them mortal or kill them in any way. This includes making them mortal.

Because if there is NO way to make them mortal, then they ARE truly immortal in the first place.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 27 23:58:57 2009 No.2853641 >>2853426 That 'project' has free will. If it wants, it can go to eternal paradise. If it doesn't want it, then it is allowed to go to eternal damnation. All of the desisions are ours. He's being the exact opposite of a dick.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jun 28 00:02:57 2009 No.2853657 That concludes it. /thread

>>	Anonymous Sun Jun 28 00:12:57 2009 No.2853702 >253 posts and 20 image replies omitted. Click Reply to view. jesus fuck i hate /jp/

Anonymous Sun Jun 28 00:42:57 2009 No.2853836

>>2853418
Being immortal means you are unable to die. Death cannot be connected to immortals. Therefore, if becomming mortal connects you to death, then immortals cannot become mortal for that very reason. This is the only way for immortals to be immortals. Death cannot exist, and cannot be made existant. That's what it means to be immortal.

Anonymous Sun Jun 28 00:47:57 2009 No.2853859

>>2853512
I have an answer to that. Or rather, Nasuverse does.

Conceptual weapons which forcefeed the target the 'concept of Natural Lifespan'. They were specifically designed to kill entities without a concept of death by forcing that concept onto the entity.

Anonymous Sun Jun 28 00:49:57 2009 No.2853864

>>2853641
A father who leaves the keys to his dangerous car right on the counter where the son can see them, takes his son, points to them and says, "Son, these are the keys to my deathtrap of a car. It's your choice whether you want to go drive in it or not." would be called a shitty father.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jun 28 01:14:57 2009 No.2853982 >>2853859 >without a concept of death See, now you're changing the rules. I said the ONLY way to bring about any change was to bring about death. It's not dead, so your answer doesn't apply.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jun 28 01:18:57 2009 No.2854000 >>2853982 >>2853859 Forcefeeding it a 'natural lifespan' would be like forcefeeding a dead body medicine. It doesn't make any difference.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jun 28 01:27:57 2009 No.2854030 >>2854000 He's right, feeding a dead body medicine won't work unless the target is alive. You must bring it back to life first for it to work, or kill the immortal. >kill the immortal It's impossible. No change can be done.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jun 28 01:53:57 2009 No.2854146 File: 336 KB, 800x600, Fate Stay Night 167.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Servants can kill threads. I ordered Lancer to Gae Bolg this thread with a Command Spell 5 seconds from now, its heart has already been pierced.

Anonymous Sun Jun 28 02:36:57 2009 No.2854339

>>2854000
>>2854030
>>2853982
Samefag.

Also, quit contradicting yourself. Let's take exactly what you said:

>You drink a forbidden elixir that makes death no longer part of your existence. No power keeps you alive, but rather death just isn't there, so you'll reincarnate the instant death is supposed to occur if anyone or anything invokes death in you.

Summary: It is an elixer which removes the concept of 'death' from your existence.

Nasuverse has beings exactly like that. They are explicitly stated to be so.

Conceptual Weapons were specifically designed to be able to kill them by putting the concept of death back into their existence. It is explicitly stated to be like this.

This is why Conceptual Weapons are used against Dead Apostles, which are all 'Beings who have had the concept of death removed from them'.

It is not a "medicine", it is the reintroduction of the metaphysical concept that was removed by this elixir (and yes, I'm perfectly aware you're going on about the Hourai Elixir again). It just so happens that the object used as a focus/delivery item to reintroduce that concept is generally also a very sharp blade or a hollowpoint bullet. That's called 'efficiency'.

Reply to thread

Name
E-mail
Subject
Comment
Action

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]

/jp/ - Otaku Culture