/sci/ - Science & Math

>>2303592
>Person proves that God can do both by using science and logic
Using science? No. Using logic? Unlikely.

>>2303598
Have you watched the video?
Here's a recap:
>givens:
>God exists in all time
>God's power is infinitely growing
>As Einstein said, Energy and Mass are basically the same things but in different forms
>God uses all of the energy he has creates rock he cannot lift
>Time passes, God now has more energy than before
>Go back, be able to move rock
Over-simplified version of the video. Keep in mind I am an atheist but I find no fault in the reasoning of the video,

>>2303598

IT'S ACTUALLY A FAIRLY TRIVIAL CONCLUSION TO REACH THAT GOD CAN DO BOTH, GIVEN OMNIPOTENCE. IT'S LOGICAL.

>>2303620

...HOWEVER THAT IS NOT HOW YOU REACH THE CONCLUSION THAT GOD CAN DO THAT.

NAMELY THAT GOD DIDN'T CREATE A ROCK HE CAN'T LIFT, HE CREATED A ROCK HE *COULDN'T* LIFT, AND THEN ALTERED HIMSELF THAT HE NOW CAN.

YOU NEED GOD'S OMNIPOTENCE TO SUPERIMPOSE THE CONTRADICTORY STATE (CAN BE LIFTED, CANNOT BE LIFTED) ON THE ROCK TO BYPASS THE PARADOX.

>>2303620
That means that god can lift it, and it is therefore not a rock that he cannot lift.

I think a corollary to the theory (I guess a corollary) was that if God can lift any rock, he can therefore make no rock that is unable to be lifted with his power. Thus, he cannot do everything; thus, he is not omnipotent.

He argues that it is possible for a classically defined God to exist, and not violate any laws of logic, but has not proven that God does exist.
You will still meet a brick wall when trying to prove that God is not a logical necessity for the universe to exist or arise.
Recent developments in quantum study have led scientists to theorise that the universe is self-emergent. Try proving that to a religious person.

>>2303637
But at the point in time that he creates it, he couldn't lift it. Mr rage was right, I used the wrong word. But he also could because time is irrelevant if God does exist.

>>2303631
Can god create a rock that is completely unliftable?

>>2303647
But you see that's basically just picking apart the semantics.

>>2303647
Even if he can't lift it when he makes it, he does eventually lift it, which means god created a rock he could lift. Besides, I'm pretty sure the phrase implies that he lifts it after he makes it. It would be like telling a girl you're trying to pick up that you can bench 700 pounds, and then when she tells you to prove it you tell her to wait 6 months while you train.

>>2303592
>Person proves that God can do both by using science and logic

How can you prove shit about a fictional character? Does he also prove shit about santa clause?

LMAO, Believing in imaginary friends as an adult is a sign of mental disorder.

>>2303653

IF GOD IS OMNIPOTENT, THEN YES, HE COULD CREATE A ROCK THAT IS AXIOMATICALLY DEFINED AS UNLIFTABLE.

AND THEN LIFT IT ANYWAY, WITHOUT VIOLATING THE AXIOM.

FOR AN ALL-POWERFUL ENTITY, MUTUALLY-EXCLUSIVE STATES AREN'T.

>>2303639

God cannot create something that is greater than infinity, because by it's very definition, infinity is the greatest number. That's a fairly weak argument to say that God cannot create a rock greater than he has energy to lift, when God has infinite energy and can create a rock with infinite mass.
To overcome the paradox of the contradictory state, as MR. RAGE said, you need to superimpose God's omnipotence, which results in God having an infinite amount of energy to lift an infinite mass. Thus, the rock is lifted.

Actually, the video missed the entire point. It's not whether God can create a rock he cannot move/lift at that specific point in time and then return and move it, it's whether he can create a rock that is immovable indefinitely. Absolutely. The video makes sense, but it missed the point.

>>2303665
No you clearly run into a contradiction when he lifts it, what you're doing here is making an assumption(god is all powerful) and then running into a contradiction, but not refuting the premise for some reason.

No, we need you to find some other board.

>>2303663

sage doesn't work when you type it in anything other than lowercase.

>Even if he can't lift it when he makes it, he does EVENTUALLY lift it, which means god created a rock he could lift.
>Because, if God exists, he exists everywhere, time is irrelevant to the question. Think of time as water in a vial instead of water flowing through a vial. It is infinite on both ends from today and God would be able to basically time travel back.

>>2303669
But if he spends an infinite amount of energy to make a rock with infinite mass, then he will have no energy left and never return to having infinite energy, because all of that energy would be redirected into making a rock with more mass.

>>2303669
>infinity is the greatest number
lolno
>you need to superimpose God's omnipotence, which results in God having an infinite amount of energy to lift an infinite mass. Thus, the rock is lifted.
This doesn't overcome the paradox at all? It simply violates that the rock is UNLIFTABLE if the rock gets lifted, by any sort of being omnipotent or not, then the rock is LIFTABLE BY DEFINITION and hence we run into a contradiction. This is why it's a PARADOX and not an open question.

If God can refute the contradiction and lift a rock that is by it's definition, immovable, then there is nothing logical about the definition of God.
To refute a law of logic would be to violate logical reasoning and allow no rational discourse on the characteristics of God.
Therefore, a rational discussion on the nature of God (and, by extension, the existence of God), cannot take place.

>>2303692
his energy is infinitely growing.

>>2303681

BECAUSE THAT'S SOMETHING OMNIPOTENCE ALLOWS, IS BYPASSING OF CONTRADICTIONS.

IF AN ENTITY IS CONTAINED BY LOGIC OF ANY KIND, INCLUDING (DIS)PROOF-BY-CONTRADICTION, IT ISN'T OMNIPOTENT, SIMPLY EXTREMELY (POSSIBLY EVEN ARBITRARILY) POWERFUL.

GOD COULD CREATE A LINE THAT IS 3 METERS LONG AND 2 METERS LONG. SIMULTANEOUSLY TWO DIFFERENT MEASURES IN THE SAME DIMENSION. THIS IS A TRIVIAL ABILITY OF OMNIPOTENCE, AND AN ENTITY THAT CANNOT VIOLATE IT (BEING RESTRICTED TO "ALTERNATING" THE STICK'S LENGTH OR SOME NONSENSE) ISN'T OMNIPOTENT.

>>2303701
Do you understand infinity? If you're using an infinite amount of energy to make something, and get more energy, then you must use that newly acquired energy (no matter how much) to continue making it, as that is infinity.

>>2303703

my own thoughts is the force will go through the object with no resistance and/or interaction, one is immovable and is never moved, the other is unstopable and never stops....

now before anyone yells at me that im wrong, i probably am as ive never really given any deep thought into the argument or read anything into it that deeply too care...

>>2303708
Let's say God chooses to make the rock right at this instant. Infinity, is not a number. It refers to something that doesn't end. It doesn't end because it keeps growing. But, at some point, it is a number. Pi is irrational but you could still calculate it to some digit. The same with the energy God uses to create the rock.


God's energy right now: 100
Increasing every second by 10
That's still infinite power because it won't end but you can still measure it in an instant.

God makes rock while his energy is 10, uses all energy. Energy begins growing again. Because time is irrelevant, God is automatically as powerful as if he had waited 11 seconds, more than 100.

my own thoughts is the force will go through the object with no resistance and/or interaction, one is immovable and is never moved, the other is unstopable and never stops....

now before anyone yells at me that im wrong, i probably am as ive never really given any deep thought into the argument or read anything into it that deeply too care...

can god create a bouritto so hot not even he can eat it

also

ARGUMENT FROM TEEN CHRISTIAN MOVEMENT
(1) God is so totally awesome, dude, and if you would pretend that Creed and POD were good bands, you would realize that.
(2) Also, our youth group leader Skip once, like, cured a broken leg using only the power of the almighty Lord.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

>>2303592
>>2303592
Why are we talking about such shitty fictional characters? Have any of you ever read the bible? It is a very very shitty read, and not considered good literature.

Theres one thing I don't get. Lift? In what respect? Earths gravity? Momentum? Isn't it all relative? It's like unstoppable force vs immovable object. 1/0. square root of -1. Creation of Logic. Quantum Mechanics. Absence of good = evil. My brain cannot handle this.

>>2303703
It doesn't matter if he is omnipotent or not, if he does lift it, it isn't an unliftible rock.

>>2303727

EXCEPT THAT'S THE ENTIRE POINT OF THE EXERCISE.

TO US, THE SIMULTANEOUS EXISTENCE OF TWO CONTRADICTORY STATES (LIFTABLE, UNLIFTABLE. 2 METERS LONG, 3 METERS LONG) IS A DISPROOF OF WHATEVER WE'RE DISCUSSING.

TO AN OMNIPOTENT BEING, IT ISN'T.

YOU'RE THINKING ABOUT AN ARBITRARILY POWERFUL ENTITY, ONE STILL CONTAINED BY SOME FORM OF LOGIC (CONTRADICTION, OR CONSERVATION OF ENERGY, WHATEVER LAW YOU CHOOSE), NOT AN OMNIPOTENT ONE, WHICH VIOLATES ALL LOGIC BY DEFINITION.

>>2303724
here's a thought. can consciousness be proven other than people's claims? how is that different from christians' claims? me, dunno, impractical to know really.

>>2303720
Except that the guy you were originally talking to was talking about an infinitely heavy rock, so you couldn't make a rock with an energy level of 100 and call it infinite. You would need to give all energy you have in the present and future.

>>2303736
>>2303727
You have to consider instances and not eternal time. Think of it this way.
______ IS THE STRONGEST BOMB IN THE WORLD

At some point in time that was true. Just because now we have stronger bombs does not mean that at one point that bomb was THE STRONGEST. So yes, the rock could still be "UNLIFTABLE" even if it has been lifted because at some point in time it was.

>>2303736
Then he still doesn't satisfy that question. You can't answer a question based on logic illogically.

Where in the bible does it use the word "omnipotent?"

>>2303745
Then guess what, God can lift the rock and your theory turns to bullshit. No indefinitely unliftable rock can be created by God.

>>2303745
what is time? what is infinite? I'm just a dumbfag of 68 iq so I don't really know.

>>2303745
That means any regular person can lift an unliftable rock

>>2303753
>You can't answer a question based on logic illogically.

THAT'S THE *POINT!*

OMNIPOTENT BEINGS *AREN'T* LOGICAL, BY DEFINITION THEY AREN'T CONSTRAINED TO ANY FORM OF LOGIC, AS THAT WOULD BE A LIMIT ON WHAT THEY CAN DO, AND OMNIPOTENCE IS BY DEFINITION THE POWER TO DO ABSOLUTELY ANYTHING WITHOUT LIMIT.

ASKING A LOGICAL QUESTION ("IF X, COULD Y?") ABOUT AN ILLOGICAL THING (OMNIPOTENCE) WILL GET YOU ILLOGICAL ANSWERS BECAUSE YOUR VERY SUBJECT IS ILLOGICAL, EVEN IF THE QUESTION ISN'T.

someone should start a iniciative to make a board about theology it would be chaotic but would clear all of this threads

>>2303741
>Go to past, absorbing energy
>Get higher infinity
>Yes the rock is infinite but God's power is a higher one

The vid portrays this when it shows the energy level of God when he goes back.

Herp derp.
retards really don't understand how fucked up reality could become if an omnipotent being exists.

>>2303766
what is God created logic? then God would be free of it. free to break, like electrons, being 2 places at the same time. maybe.

>>2303773
reality is already fucked up.

>>2303766
Why would anyone believe in the possibility of omnipotence if we can disprove it from the start?

>>2303766
I don't think your understand what I'm saying. If he is able to lift an unliftable rock, then it is illogical and is still not an answer to this question because it defies the logic that we understand.

>>2303769
it would be the new /b/.

>>2303736
jesus fucking christ stopped WRITING LIKE THIS because it makes me read your comments as if someone was yelling AND IT'S FUCKING DISTRACTING

>>2303786
its kind of cool actually.

>>2303766
So God can lift an unliftable rock that he created himself. Therefore, he can't create a rock he can't lift, but he can. He defies all logic. So mystical, so unpredictable; so fucking convenient. "Defying logic" and "omnipotence" seem like very easy ways to keep the question of God open, and therefore render it permanently to a state of "we can never know," from which you will continue to draw your illogical conclusions and support a theory which, by your logic, is unknowable; thus is the paradox of proving religion.

>>2303778
see? there are things unimaginable (alot of things). and yet you accept them as they are.
if an omnipotent being exists, he can be right and wrong whenever he wants. he can be everywhere and nowhere. you guys don't really grasp the concept of omnipotence.

ITT: idiots who cannot grasp the concept of omnipotence and dual-existence, yet continue to argue.

NO ONE IS "PROVING" GOD, ATHEISTS, JUST THE POSSIBILITY OF HIS EXISTENCE.

>>2303779

IT'S MORE ACCURATE TO ASK "WHY WOULD ANYONE ASSUME AN OMNIPOTENT GOD IS LOGICAL (SUCH AS THE ASSUMPTION MADE WHEN ASKING A LOGICAL QUESTION OF IT), WHEN IT'S TRIVIAL TO PROVE THAT IT ISN'T?"

THE ABILITY TO IGNORE, BYPASS AND CREATE PARADOX INHERENT IN OMNIPOTENCE MEANS THAT ANY ENTITY THAT IS AS SUCH VIOLATES ANY FORM OF LOGICAL FRAMEWORK JUST BY DEFINITION.

THE EXISTENCE OF AN ILLOGICAL THING IS UNPROVABLE, AGAIN BY DINT OF BEING ILLOGICAL. YOU CAN'T USE *ANY* FORM OF LOGIC FRAMEWORK (LITERALLY ANY, EVEN THOSE BASED ON FAITH OR EMOTION) TO PROVE *OR* DISPROVE AN ILLOGICAL, OMNIPOTENT ENTITY.

>>2303700
THIS GUY PRETTY MUCH DROVE THE NAIL STRAIGHT IN. ASKING ANY QUESTION OF GOD, WHETHER TRYING TO PROVE OR DISPROVE IT, IS NONSENSICAL FROM THE BEGINNING.

ITT: Sophism.

>>2303796
there are a lot of things a lot of people don't understand. time for example. so don't be arrogant.

>>2303798
if we didn't argue, we would get nowhere, though if we did, there is no assurance we would. so there. the purpose of discussion.

god creates rock with power of 9000

time passes

god lifts rock

what does this say about god?

Not to mention an omnipotent being wouldn't try to create a species in his image that is perfect, and then fuck up.

Could god think of a question that he could never answer?

>>2303803
Wait, who cares.
I'm not saying god exists or not, I'm just saying that if he really does exist he's omnipotent and he can't be outsmarted by dumbasses like you, because he can do anything.

>>2303813
Can he create a being that is more powerful than him?

>>2303813
god can hold 7 pokemon. and use his old rod in buildings.

>>2303813
us and you, for replying. yeah. you're right. it's just that some of us can't accept there is a god. if he exists, he is the biggest troll ever, and we would have no choice but to bow down to him. so there.

>>2303819
god can play, no I don't know any pokemon references.

>>2303798

You are the one who is satisfied with the answer that god can do it because hes god. what does that add to the conversation at all?

>>2303592
There is no such thing as GOD.

How fucking old are you kids?

\thread

I suppose when you say "God" you're proposing a hypothetical omnipotent being, not the actual Abrahamic God. Such a being, since it is capable of all things by definition, can break logic as easily as it can increase the lightspeed constant on the fly.

>>2303828
you are upset that he's fine with accepting the correct answer?
What more can you add to a conversation about the abilities of God other than "God can do it because he is God"?

>>2303878
>correct answer
nope, we don't really know

>>2303818
>>2303818
>>2303818
>>2303818
>>2303818
>>2303818
Because then he wouldn't be omnipotent because the other being has more power than he has...
ALL PRAISE THIS NEW ALL-POWERFULLER GOD

>>2303887
the correct answer for any question "can God do x" is yes.

>>2303890
You're not getting it. An omnipotent god can create a being more powerful than him, yet still be more powerful than it. Logical contradictions are not binding here.

>>2303899
>says im not getting it while admitting that he needs to rely on a complete lack of logic

I think that the paradoxes that omnipotence brings up are large enough to prove it impossible in any case.

>>2303914
maybe, maybe not. maybe something beyond login exists, like super logic.

Hey, without logic, you all sound like aether.

That's really cute.

>>2303914
THAT'S THE FUCKING POINT!
OMNIPOTENCE DOES NOT EQUAL LOGIC YOU FUCKING RETARD! IF GOD EXISTS, HE IS ILLOGICAL! IF HE MOVES THAT FUCKING INFINITE ROCK, IT IS ILLOGICAL! EVERYTHING IS *SUPPOSED* TO BE FUCKING ILLOGICAL YOU DUMB FUCK.

>>2303918
I guess... maybe... but there's nothing to support the belief of any sort of "double logic".

>>2303914
Logic does not chain an omnipotent being. This is obvious. It also makes absolutely no difference, because the idea of an omnipotent being is only hypothetical. It is asking yourself "what could an all-powerful entity do?" and then taking that to its extreme.

Also, an omnipotent being can be both impossible and possible at the same time, due to the aforementioned omnipotence. Trying to prove its existence is pointless, since you can't be sure whether your answer is influenced by its omnipotence in the first place, among other things.

The whole idea of omnipotence arises WITHIN logic. Logic is the very nature of God. Suggesting God can be illogical is idiocy. We don't know what the limits of God's omnipotence are. We just know that all power that exists is from Him and is His. That's what the word means.

>>2303949
Omnipotent
— adj
1. having very great or unlimited power
— n
2. the Omnipotent, an epithet for God

>>2303949
1.God can't be illogical.
2. Omnipotence is illogical.
3. God can't be omnipotent.

Where does it specifically say in any religious text that their deity is omnipotent?

>>2303957
omni=all
potent=power
omnipotent=all power

>>2303958
omnipotence isn't illogical. see above.

>>2303958
The Greek Philosophers came up with the three descriptions of God as omnipotence, omnipresence, and omniscience. But all those are in older scriptures. The Hebrews scriptures use a Hebrew word which is translated "Almighty". Sam concept.

>>2303958
I will give you one verse among several, from the Christian Bible:

Revelation 19:6
And I heard as it were the voice of a great multitude, and as the voice of many waters, and as the voice of mighty thunderings, saying, Alleluia: for the Lord God omnipotent reigneth.

This is notable in that it uses the actual word "omnipotent," rather than "all-powerful" or something similar.

>>2303980
that could be due to mistranslation, the bible had lousy editors

>>2303990
Indeed.
I remember in previous discussion about the "create a rock so big he can't lift it" paradox someone brought up that the Hebrew word translated as "almighty" meant "stronger than all" rather than its current interpretation of "omnipotent". I can't verify this though.

>>2303990
Yes. It could be. The true name of God could also be "Pudding."

>>2303592

It is, in fact, quite easy to disprove that argument. God could indeed be able to create an unliftable stone and lift it without any logical flaws.

Here´s a better argument:

If god was omnipotent, he would be ale to create another omnipotent being. This second omnipotent being "attacks" the first one by trying to take his omnipotence from him. There are two possible outcomes:
1.: The attack succeeds. This means, the first entity is not able to prevent this attack, which therefore means, he is and was not omnipotent.
2.: The attack fails. In this case, the second being is not omnipotent, because he is not able to attack the first being. This means the first being was not able to create another omnipotent being, which therefore means, he is and was not omnipotent at all.

Summary: Omnipotence is impossible.

>>2304009
you just contradicted yourself man. not cool.

captha: katiff [Hautboys

>>2304009
3. The attack both succeeds and fails, or results in a third condition.
4. Something else.

You claim two possible outcomes, but those outcomes are based on logic, which does not apply.

>>2304034
Can you name another outcome?

inb4 i dont understand how illogic works

>>2304034

inb4 quantum physics

Either they are omnipotent, or they aren´t. Mixed states or other outcomes instantly result in a lack of omnipotence.
That´s the difference to the example of the unliftable stone or the gun that kills immortals. The attribute i´m talking about is directly attached to the omnipotent entity itself.

>>2304037
illogic, like imaginary numbers? hmm.

>>2304019
Where, if i might ask?

>>2303899
No, because the more powerful god would be omnipotent, which means the weak god would be under him because he is omnipotent also, but not as much.

>ITT: People just claiming a bunch of bullshit and then stating "HERP DERP I'M RIGHT BECAUSE OMNIPOTENT ILLOGICAL THE POINT ROCK INFINITY.

>>2304037
The second being decomposes into thousands upon thousands of bees. The attack never took place. The bees become omnipotent. The attack takes place. The second being was never created. God smiles and says "Just stop talking."

>>2304044
Do you really think imaginary numbers and the outcome of two supergods fighing is comparable?

>>2304043
An omnipotent being can be both omnipotent and not omnipotent at the same time. Logical contradiction? Who cares?

>>2304046
Dicks.

>>2304052
no, but see it like this

real number system: imaginary number system
logic system: illogic system

though I can't wrap my brain around it.

>>2304048

Which right away can only lead to the conclusion god wasn´t omnipotent in the first place.

Why do you keep trying to apply logic to a hypothetical being whose power allows the breaking of logic?

>>2304062

That´s right, but he must be able to use his omnipotence, which was shown not to be the case for all situations we can think of.
Therefore omnipotence is a state that cannot exist.

>>2304073
because we can?

>>2304073

We are not talking about god, we are talking about omnipotence.

>>2304079
Therefore omnipotence is a state that cannot logically exist.

The key word, of course, being~

-God is omnipotent
-God, by definition, cannot be constrained by logic
-God then constrains himself by logic

WHERE IS YOUR SCIENCE NOW

>[if god is omnipotent] can god create a rock so heavy that he cannot lift it?

Yes. After creating this rock he is no longer omnipotent. He is very powerful but not all powerful as there is this one rock he can not lift.

I can talk with a human for hours about the Time Cube and they will agree with every claim I make. But at the end of the conversation, they remark that they believe in the nonvalue belief god and cannot accept Cubic Creation, regardless of all the ineffable Truth and Wisdom it proves. A Belief Matrix pulls a 1 day world over your eyes, while the real Cubic World has
4 simultaneous days in 1 Earth rotation.