/lit/ - Literature

>>22333005
Empiric science is nonsense, and they can not even know anything because of the problem of induction. So they did not btfo anyone.

>>22333023
Yeah and Pascal refuted them with some a-priori rational intuition shit

>>22333005
Modern science doesn't really believe in atom theory anymore.

First of all, the "atom" is a misnomer, since we've split the atom to reveal an even more bizarre world of nucleic particles, electrons, even smaller particles like quarks, etc. They thought the "atom" was indivisible, but it turned out not to be. And who knows what's going on beyond the Standard Model!

Furthermore, subatomic realm exists at and beyond the limits of observation. This is the largest reason for bizarre phenomenon like the uncertainty principle, as how are you supposed to make electrons and photons "present" to the observer when, no matter how good your measurement is, it will be obsolete at the moment of observation?

The consequence is that the subatomic landscape is allowed to exist in a certain zone "in-between" discreteness and continuity, indivisibility and divisibility. Both are present, in things like quantized energy, Planck length, etc. The Planck length, for example, is the smallest "meaningful" magnification possible. Physically speaking, it's impossible to make any sense out of any smaller length, even if it has physically relevant impacts, because of the conflicts it would have with other physical laws.

You get to have your cake and eat it too. It's a very strange world.

>>22333052
Niggas be learning stuff like this and then turn around and continue to ask asinine questions like "Can God create a boulder so heavy that he himself cannot lift it?"

>>22333082
g*d can’t even stop iron chariots

>>22333052

>>22333082
Nuclear weapons are a pretty clear indicator that there is something to atomic theory. Praying to God doesn't have a real successful track record. But I'm pleased you recognize the concept of omnipotence as asinine.

>>22333005
>>22333023
>>22333044
Epic trad pilled aristocrat souled twitter kids!
RIDE
THE
TIGER

>>22333144
Different anon, but in my opinion those contrived theological principles are a bit less asinine than the type of gotchas you people employ that can't even operate on the same logical principles behind the theological ones.

>>22333206
>the type of gotchas you people employ that can't even operate on the same logical principles behind the theological ones
Assume N is the largest natural number. A number added to another number results in another number by closure so that referring to the same N and adding 1 then N+1 must be a natural number larger than N contradicting the assumption that N is the largest natural number. You don't say that the person doing the disproof was stupid to assume that N was the largest natural number and not just that N was larger than all numbers smaller than it.

God is omnipotent and can do all things. Making something God can't do is just like adding 1 to N. You get a contradiction that shows that omnipotence is fucking dumb as a concept. You don't get to go back and say God can obviously only do things that are possible for him to do. Omnipotence is dumb

>>22333239
What do you call something that can do all possible things?

>>22333257
>What do you call something that can do all possible things?
I can do all things possible for me to do. It's far from being a special ability so I don't know that it has a name. And I haven't shown that it is impossible to make something that God can't do. Only that omnipotence is inconsistent at a trivial level.

>>22333005
>be time-space continuum
>black holes smaller than elementary particles with lifetime which can't even being registered
Muhammad (pbuh) solved modern science as a true messenger of God

>>22333005
this is an argument from Aristotle lol don't make me pull up the reference hahahaha this mfer didn't start with the greeks the ONE TIME it actually mattered

>>22333005
You know that Pascal was a scientist and a key actor in the scientific revolution or is your chud-brain so fucking rotten by "le based tradition!1! le based religion!111!"

>>22333005
>Let an atom be defined as an indivisible unit.
That’s not what an atom is.

>Then, it has no parts; for this is the definition of indivisibility.
>Now consider two atoms placed on top of each other, composing some object.
Ok

>These two atoms must touch at some point
They don’t need to touch, and they don’t.

>and the point at which they touch is a part of the atom.
No because they don’t touch

>If it were not a part of the atom, but the whole of the atom, then the two atoms would touch at all points; ie., they would be the same atom.
Ok, but again, they don’t touch. Even if two indivisible particles were to occupy the same space, I don’t think that would make them the same.

>Hence, no indivisibles (atoms) can compose anything.
He’s saying that two indivisible units cannot touch without occupying the same space, which is a tautology. Try to get two points on a graph to touch without occupying the same position. You can’t.

The concept of the atom as an indivisible unit was left behind over 100 years ago anyways, who is arguing for this?

>>22333005
Whew OP, instead of taking away his classic dilemma you took that away. It's like you have completely turned the scientific world upside down on this anonymous animation forum. Now when are you going to send this to the good people at the CERN so they can try to figure out what it is they actually do? Also, when are you going to invalidate fission and nuclear weapons?

>>22333239
That is a terrible analogy because they are not principled paralleled. N is a number just like 1 is. God is not a being like a stone is. The contradiction is not in the conclusions, but in the premises and their principles.

>>22333239
The fact that you're even attempting to apply this logical argument to the concept of divine omnipotence is ridiculous. You can't possibly understand God or divine omnipotence until you let go of these preconcieved notions you have.

>>22333144
>Praying to God doesn't have a real successful track record
It does for me.

>>22333283
You know what Pascal said about scientific pursuits later in his life, do you not?

>>22333308
>God is not a being like a stone is.
Nothing to do with what I'm saying. You would agree that an omnipotent God can make a stone that I can't lift right? Omnipotence implies you can do that. In the same way omnipotence implies that God can make a stone he can't lift. There is nothing different about these two instances of heavy rock creating than that one leads to a contradiction with something you want to pretend makes sense.
>The contradiction is not in the conclusions, but in the premises and their principles.
No shit. The premise is that God is omnipotent just like the premise of my toy example was that N is the largest number. That's how a proof by contradiction works, you start by assuming what you want to disproof and showing that it leads to a contradiction.

>>22333312
You're saying the quiet part out loud there my man. Omnipotence is illogical and the only way you can believe in it is being irrational is what you just said.

>>22333325
Holy shit you are dumb and I foresee it will be a waste of time already. I take my leave.

>>22333333
>christcuck BTFO by something a child could come up with
Many such cases

>>22333325
>Nothing to do with what I'm saying
It actually has everything to do with what you're saying.

>>22333333
Not wasted

>>22333341
Where did I once compare the properties of God and a stone? The problem boils down to omnipotence implying the ability to create a task that any entity can't do. Including God.

>>22333283
So? That means we can't use his arguments against certain scientific theories?

>>22333328
no, there is actually no logical problem if you just accept the fact that God imposes voluntary limits on himself. he can end his omnipotence but he chooses not. so yes he can create such a stone and by the same act end his omnipotence but he will not as certain as he will not begin to sin because his self imposed sinlessness.

>>22333287
>They don’t need to touch, and they don’t.
then they compose nothing

>>22333367
>no, there is actually no logical problem if you just accept the fact that God imposes voluntary limits on himself.
So there can be a largest number N if everyone agrees not to add 1 to it lol. You have just given one of the dumbest responses I've ever seen on /lit/

>>22333339
You got destroyed by those digits bro.

>>22333373
Based. The vacuum is a lie and forces don't exist. Aristotle forevaaa

>>22333384
>not le sage's pushing gravity

>>22333264
I asked "what do you call something that can do all possible things?" A sun could become cold, but can you make the sun cold? No. This is what is meant by being able to do all "possible things." A sun can possibly become cold, so God can make the sun cold. Anything that can possibly be done God can do. What do you call that?

>>22333378
Your response is, in fact, the moronic one. You are making a simple category mistake. There are infinite numbers in the series you proposed. Therefore, there is no highest number in it. But there are only finite possibilities of things that can be done. And having the ability to make every possibility a reality is omnipotence. So you can see your comparison is invalid.

P.S. Maybe you will respond that there are actually infinite possibilities, but there is no contradiction either because every possibility is likewise created and sustained by God and therefore within his omnipotence.

>>22333410
How do you know it is impossible to create a rock that God can't lift? I've shown that contradicts God's omnipotence and so omnipotence is incoherent but I've not shown that it is impossible. All that makes sense is that God can do what it is possible for God to do. Which can not include both making a rock so heavy he can't lift and then lifting that rock.

>>22333415
>Your response is, in fact, the moronic one. You are making a simple category mistake. There are infinite numbers in the series you proposed. Therefore, there is no highest number in it. But there are only finite possibilities of things that can be done. And having the ability to make every possibility a reality is omnipotence.
This is gibberish. I'm embarrassed for you. Maybe you can serve as a sad example to prevent other people from blindly following Jesus shit till it makes you look like a retard.

>>22333428
God's omnipotence does not entail being able to do things nobody else is able to do. As He can lift any rock anybody else makes, making a rock too heavy for Him to lift is without the realm of possibility of anyone else. The condition of His omnipotence does not require him to make such a rock, but He is already able to make all those other rocks other parties are able to make and lift them too.

>>22333354
“If god can do everything can he not do everything? Haaa gotcha!” You are stupid.

>>22333445
>God's omnipotence does not entail being able to do things nobody else is able to do
Now we're getting somewhere. So since nobody else can make the sun cold or create the universe God's omnipotence doesn't imply that he can do those things either.

>>22333451
>If god can do everything can he not do everything
Yes that's what a proof by contradiction looks like. You're probably first encounter that style of reasoning in a high school geometry class in several years.

>>22333440
What exactly do you not understand? I will explain it to you, even if I have to use middle school-level concepts for you to understand.
And if you refuse to engage further, it will be clear to everyone that you are just too embarrassed because I have caught you making mistakes that even schoolboys can easily avoid.

>>22333428
>How do you know it is impossible to create a rock that God can't lift?
It's a logical contradiction. Of course omnipotence is illogical if you make the definition illogical. The problem isn't omnipotence but the bad definition you give it.

>>22333498
>It's a logical contradiction.
With the assumption of omnipotence. It shows omnipotence is incoherent. But nothing has shown that making a rock God can't lift is impossible. To return to my toy example the N+1 isn't impossible it's just the assumption N was the largest number is wrong.

>>22333457
That’s not a contradiction in conclusion from the heavy stone thing, that’s a contradiction in the premise of God’s omnipotence itself. It makes no sense to infer anything from premises as such.

>>22333526
>It makes no sense to infer anything from premises as such.
Wut? Do you understand how deductive reasoning works? That is literally all that it is, you start with a set of premises and logically infer the theorems or proofs that follow. You want your premises to be consistent and if you find a contradiction that means they're not. God's omnipotence is inconsistent.

>>22333516
Define omnipotence.

>>22333005
Modern science isn’t atomist.

>>22333544
The ability to do all things. Like I've already said above the ability to do all things possible for you is a given that doesn't even have a name.

>>22333461
The stone thing is retarded, but now analysing the concept of omnipotence itself, what does it mean? For what role does it play regarding possibilities and impossibilities, like: the negation of what is possible and affirmation of what is impossible are both possibilities or impossibilities? What is impossible can be possible, and what is omnipotent be not omnipotent by omnipotence itself?

>>22333559
Nice try with all the question marks but you're gibberish is still clearly apparent. I think you may have brain damage.

>>22333556
That's not how theologians define omnipotence. Omnipotence is the ability to do all possible things, which is what God can do.

>>22333570
>Omnipotence is the ability to do all possible things, which is what God can do.
Which just returns us to the thing you were trying to dodge. How do you know it is impossible to make a rock so heavy God can't lift it? To return again to my toy N how do you know N+1 can't exist? It seems 1 can always be added to a N and it seems you can always make a rock so heavy someone can't lift it. You can't rely on the definition of omnipotence to say it's impossible otherwise you're defining what is possible in terms of what God can do.

>>22333542
What are the set of premises implied in Agustinian theological understanding of the concept of omnipotence? Is it the same as the set of premises implied in Thomist one? What are the ones implied in the heavy stone question?

>>22333325
If we take the liberal view of omnipotence you present we can just dismiss the problem altogether by saying God can make contradictory things non-contradictory. The paradox of omnipotence is the lowest of atheist arguments.

>>22333559
>>22333587
This does not relate to my point at all. Let me explain it another way:
The argument against omnipotence was:
There is no highest number in the series n+1...
But this argument is invalid because of a category mistake. There is a different relationship between the factors within the theory of omnipotence and the counterargument.
Regarding n+1, you will never be able to pick the highest number because of the infinite elements. But God's omnipotence can not be characterized by a "n+1" definition because he relates differently to the proposed infinity. Because his omnipotence is characterized as picking from an (infinite) amount of possibilities, he can all realize.
If you translate that back into the n+1 analogy: you are not able to pick the highest number but are able to pick any number of your choosing, or you come into the absurdity of saying there are natural numbers that can not be named or picked.

>>22333144
Simply false, you have no idea what you're saying

>>22333596
>we can just dismiss the problem altogether by saying God can make contradictory things non-contradictory
I already addressed this here >>22333328. You've just conceded the rational argument.

>>22333005
>you forgot to attach the Giga Parmenides image

We can't into fields because Tesla Death Rays for every tom dick & harry, supposedly--

>>22333587
>How do you know it is impossible to make a rock so heavy God can't lift it?
The problem is that your question is incoherent.

>>22333598
>But this argument is invalid because of a category mistake. There is a different relationship between the factors within the theory of omnipotence and the counterargument.
>Regarding n+1, you will never be able to pick the highest number because of the infinite elements. But God's omnipotence can not be characterized by a "n+1" definition because he relates differently to the proposed infinity. Because his omnipotence is characterized as picking from an (infinite) amount of possibilities, he can all realize.
>>22333440 You can't even maintain consistency in your own posts since earlier you said there were finite possible things that can be done.

>>22333607
Saying omnipotence entails power over logic is not a contradiction. Why should the all powerful be constrained by something contigent on it?

>>22333614
>The problem is that your question is incoherent.
Exactly. Omnipotence leads to a logical contradiction.

>>22333618
> You can't even maintain consistency in your own posts since earlier you said there were finite possible things that can be done.
Can you read? I stated clearly that my argument works with both of the conditions.
Address the point!

>>22333621
Right, your definition of omnipotence leads to a logical contradiction. Fortunately for theologians, they don't use that definition.

>>22333619
Illogical means not following the rules of logic. You're explicitly saying God doesn't have to follow the rules of logic. It is an illogical argument.

>>22333628
And for the all possible things definition refer here >>22333587. How do you know creating a rock so heavy God can't life it is impossible?

>>22333631
If God has power over all things then he also has power over logic. It is not to say that He is illogical but instead to say that he can define what is illogical. You want to begin with the premise that God is all powerful but then claim there is something (logic) over which God has no power. The question you need to ask yourself is whence logic?

>>22333638
I know it's impossible because it's doesn't logically make sense.

>>22333641
>The question you need to ask yourself is whence logic?
It's assumed that logic holds if you're making a logical argument. If you don't make that assumption your argument is illogical by definition.

>>22333645
What causes logic to hold and why should that cause precede God?

>>22333642
>I know it's impossible because it's doesn't logically make sense.
So give your argument that it can't. It can't rely on your definition of omnipotence since that would be circular. Something is impossible because God can't do it and God can't do it because it is impossible. Goofy shit.

>>22333648
>What causes logic to hold and why should that cause precede God?
If logic doesn't always apply it could be anything. Without using logic tell me why logic has to have something that makes it hold. You're presenting a goofy irrational mush of an argument.

>>22333651
Give my argument for why an logical contradiction is impossible? It's just logic. I'm not going to explain basic logic.

>>22333659
The irony is that you're presenting me a tautology. You've made a contradictory claim: Omnipotence means God must have power over all things, but He cannot have power over logic. All you've done is deify your sophmoric conception of what logic is, and make that anterior to God, in essence assuming God is not omnipotent to conclude that God is not omnipotent.

>>22333670
>Give my argument for why an logical contradiction is impossible?
You need to show the contradiction. I showed the contradiction with the idea that God can do all things. What contradiction is implied by God creating a rock so heavy he can't lift besides with the definition that God can do all POSSIBLE things?

>>22333675
All I've said that if you don't use logic you're being illogical. You're saying God is outside logic so by definition you're being illogical. Just embrace it, it seems to make you happy

>>22333677
If it's not a logical contradiction that God can create a rock so heavy he can't lift it, then omnipotence is by your definition not a logical contradiction.

>>22333675
>tautology
Literally always true. You've said my position is infallibly true.

>>22333321
Of course, but treat him like Husserl, not Evola

>>22333683
>If it's not a logical contradiction that God can create a rock so heavy he can't lift it
It's a logical contradiction with the assumption that God is capable of doing all things. If you don't assume that there is no contradiction I can think of unless you can present another.

>>22333692
Right, it's a contradiction if you assume he can do all things like logical contradictions, but that's not what theologians claim.

>>22333415
>here are infinite numbers in the series you proposed. Therefore, there is no highest number in it. But there are only finite possibilities of things that can be done
Google "Cantor's Theorem". The powerset of a set is always larger than it. Identifying operations over a set with its subsets (as functions from S to S). we can see that for any infinite set, there's an infinite number of possible operations that can be performed on it (in fact, a larger number of possibilities than of initial members)

but maybe God can invalidate set theory in order to make you happy

>>22333697
So why is it impossible to create a rock so heavy God can't lift it? You agreed there is no contradiction implied by the rock unless you assume God can do all things. You can't just label something you don't like a contradiction. You have to show that it is one. What does our God smashing rock contradict?

>>22333711
I already told you that is a logical contradiction. God can lift anything. If God can lift anything, then creating something he can't lift is a logical contradiction.

>>22333718
>If God can lift anything, then creating something he can't lift is a logical contradiction.
It's a logical contradiction with the assumption that God can do anything which means the assumption is wrong. That's the same exact proof by contradiction I gave above. To return to the number example you can't say N+1 is a logical contradiction since you assumed N was the largest number.

>>22333726
Right, it's a contradiction if you assume he can do all things like logical contradictions, but that's not what theologians claim.

>>22333718
This would be a pretty amazing style of argument.
Assume God doesn't exist. If anyone gives any type of response that God does exist just say it goes against your assumption so it must be a logical contradiction. It's not your assumption that is wrong it's the rest of the universe lol

>>22333735
We're not discussing whether God exists. We're discussing whether omnipotence is logical.

>>22333328
>>22333542
>>22333718
Is difference equal or different to itself? I guess that the contradictions implicated by either prove that difference does not exist because it is an inherently contradictory and illogical concept!

>>22333685
A tautology is meaningless. Go back to logic 101

>>22333115
*tips fedora*

>>22333333
based

>>22333333
We should have listened

>>22333570
Why did theolgians take a normal word and then distort its meaning?
omni = all
potentia = power, ability
So it means all-ability, not all-that-is-possible-ability. Apparently christfags can rape grammar almost as hard as they rape children.

>>22333880
Why do people believe in and employ the concept of difference? It is such a contradictory thing that only retards can think it is logically sound and that such an illogical and contradictory concept can exist or refer to real things.

>>22333333
holy mackerel forget about 666

>>22333880
Didnt realize Aristotle was a Christian

>>22333325
>God = me

>>22333880
true, God is perfect =/= God can do the impossible. It just means he can do everything that IS metaphysically possible

>>22333970
Didn't realise Aristotle wrote in Latin.

>>22333333
based
>>22333339
you lost get over it

>>22334492
I did realize you're a faggot