/sci/ - Science & Math

Can a retarded troll create a thread which no one sages?

Yes, though doing so renders himself no longer omnipotent.

Does shit really smell bad, or have we just attributed it to be a bad smell so that we stay away from it to avoid diseases and shitstorms?

Yes but said object will take him.

Not unless he uses up more than 1/2 of the entirety of the available energy in the Universe. However, this will cause the collapse of the experimental medium he is using and render the experiment useless.

>>3930462
Not true as long as he uses savefiles, with quick save and quick load option.

>>3930489
But what if the saves get corrupted when the system crashes?

>>3930491
Enjoy restarting your 120 trillion hours campaign.

Download some heavy weapon dlc to make it easier, and use external back-up's.

stupid religious threads are not /sci/

Yes. He creates an object that he can't move, because he's omnipotent. And then he moves the object, because he's omnipotent.

This argument bothers me, because it assumes that omnipotence is something we can quantify.

>>3930532
>Download a mod to make game easier.

That is fucking wrong man, you should only download mods that make games harder.

>>3930540
Can god code a class so retarded that even he cannot debug it?

>Yes. He creates an object that he can't move, because he's omnipotent. And then he moves the object, because he's omnipotent.

There seems to have been an error in step 1...

And this argument is overly simplistic; there are better ways to point out the inherent contradictions of omnipotence.

Yes, a naive definition of omnipotence doesn't work. This has been known for god knows how long.

Hm. Can omnipotence exist? It seems a bit like the incompleteness theorem. Omnipotence implies being able to do something that cannot be undone even by omnipotence. I think the only logical conclusion is that omnipotence cannot exist.

>>3930558
Ok, so what's the "revised" definition of omnipotence?

Is 4chan dead once again?

>>3930570

Ah, but omnipotence would allow itself to exist as a tautology, because it makes itself exist and the laws of logic and physics need not obey it.

>>3930575

IIRC, it was something like "omnipotence restricted by reason."

>>3930752

But omnipotence can spit in the face of reason, causality, physics, and logic. Because it's omnipotent.

>>3930757

You're arguing from the old definition of omnipotence.

Yes.

He can then re-assert his omnipotence to make himself capable of moving the rock.

Or you could look at it like equivalently cardinal infinite sets; where they match up if you do it right, but if not one seems larger than the other.

>>3930768

And why is it null?

Redefining a concept so you can argue against it better (technically a strawman, in a sense) is in bad taste.

>>3930784
Because he's redefining it so he can defend it. It's moving the goalpost, which is a completely different fallacy!

>>3930449
No because God doesn't real.

You guys asked for the new definition of omnipotence and I gave it to you. Then you argued against the new definition using the old definition. Who's strawmanning here?

well, It's logically impossible for logoc to encompass all of reality, given it has logically to have come from something -an impossibility, as if reality didn't exist nothing could. It has limits.

>>3930541
it bothers me because it is total nonsense, yet fools take it for a proof against omnipotence

nonsense is nonsense, even if you add the word "God" to it

>well, It's logically impossible for logoc to encompass all of reality, given it has logically to have come from something -an impossibility, as if reality didn't exist nothing could. It has limits.
Logic can't encompass all of reality because..
Reality has to come from something and...
Reality can not have come from something...

Wat? Let's see here... If reality was eternal, then your argument fails because it didn't have to 'come from something.' Now, no scientist I know of believes this, but the mere possibility demonstrates that your argument is simply wrong. Of course, when you have an argument that says X==A and X=/=A, it's self-evident that it's wrong, so I didn't even have to point that out.

>>3930845

The fact that it is demonstrably nonsense doesn't mean it invalidates omnipotence? Is that what you're saying? It seems like a fine proof by contradiction.

>>3930876
using nonsense to prove things is....

nonsense

Well, you're the one who's holy book puts forward this position. Yes, people redefined their position once they realized it was untenable, but when your holy book still says the same thing and you've changed what you believe in spite of that you've demonstrated that your holy book is not to be taken seriously as you have not done so yourself.

It is an argument against a version of Christianity that sophisticated theologians don't believe in, but not all believers are sophisticated and many people will claim that God can do the logically impossible. (rather than just the physically impossible, aka magic) It is likewise an argument against the form of Christianity put forward by your holy book, which those same sophisticated theologians have moved farther and farther away from as times has gone on. As such, it's a worthwhile argument to make, even if it won't convince you of anything since you don't actually follow your holy book closely.

>>3930876
this says it better than i:
“His Omnipotence means power to do all that is intrinsically possible, not to do the intrinsically impossible. You may attribute miracles to Him, but not nonsense. There is no limit to His power.

If you choose to say, 'God can give a creature free will and at the same time withhold free will from it,' you have not succeeded in saying anything about God: meaningless combinations of words do not suddenly acquire meaning simply because we prifex to them the two other words, 'God can.'

It remains true that all things are possible with God: the intrinsic impossibilities are not things but nonentities. It is no more possible for God than for the weakest of His creatures to carry out both of two mutually exclusive alternatives; not because His power meets an obstacle, but because nonsense remains nonsense even when we talk it about God.”
― C.S. Lewis, The Problem of Pain

>>3930894
bet you wish you posted slower

>>3930894
i'd rather believe in a simple christianity that a shepherd or a fisherman could believe in than a sophisticated christianity that only an esoteric theologian could believe in

>>3930869
>Wat? Let's see here... If reality was eternal, then your argument fails because it didn't have to 'come from something.' Now, no scientist I know of believes this, but the mere possibility demonstrates that your argument is simply wrong.

If it's eternal, then it still exists. If it exists, it still has to have been caused by something, unless you're saying that the universe is a state of non-existence, in which case what are you smoking. The argument still stands.

>>3930902
Not at all, it perfect demonstrates my point. This argument does not address the God of sophisticated theologians who is so far removed from the God of the bible, but rather addresses the God that the typical believer follows. I don't know how many people you asked this question to when you were an obnoxious 12 year old, but the typical answer is not 'he can't do the logically impossible' it's 'he can do it, and then he can move the rock too.' We got that answer earlier in this thread; that is the God of the masses. The God that you talk about is a smaller, weaker creature, and as such does not make claims that are so obviously false. It's easier to defend, but not the God of the bible, which is why the common believer doesn't follow it.

>>3930929
why does something that has always existed require a creator?

isn't it obvious that if it always existed, it is not a created thing?

there is no object an omnipotent god cannot move

your question is contradictory

>>3930929
If the universe is eternal, it has no need for a first cause because the chain of causation goes back eternally. This is pretty simple stuff...

>>3930930
could you please provide a coherent counterpoint to c.s. lewis' argument?

>>3930942
It doesn't, that's my point. It does according to conventional logic though.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causality_%28physics%29

>>3930949
But it still had a cause, otherwise it wouldn't exist to stretch back for eternity. Time exists within the universe, not outside of it.

>>3930953
so, you think God is subject to the limitations of physics?

are you clear on what a being that could speak a universe into existence is capable of?

>>3930962
so, the simple solution would entail something that was not a created being, creating something out of nothing, due to its limitless power and unrestrained will

>>3930953
God =/= the universe

God made the universe

God makes the rules

that's the way the game is played; if you make the universe, you get to make the rules

>>3930966
Causality is a logical and physical concept. If the universe is subject to physical laws, and logical laws, then it must necessarily not have come into existence.

>>3930976
I have no idea what makes sense, given my entire basis for deciding what's probable is logic. Why must Occam's razor apply when it is no more self evident than causality? How can I possibly decide what's true?

>>3930977
Point gotten.

>>3930984
not just logic, but human logic

we are amazing creations, but that really speaks more about our creator than it does about us

>>3931011
i posted and did not post this, at the same time posting and not posting this, and not posting and not not posting this

Hey guys listen what if...

the concept of not moving is relative can both move and not move at the same time?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YkExxkrMyU4&feature=relmfu
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pt9x3CnxApo&feature=relmfu
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jwjAX_r2kIU&feature=relmfu

http://hermetic.com/texts/hermetica/hermes2.html

>>3931026
How sad for you

>>3931022
am i the only one that never watches any youtube links?

>ITT : people who never read the Bible
If you did you could see that the christian God is a close-minded child.

>>3931040
He is many things, but that is not one of them

perhaps you are projecting

>>3931030
maybe set them up better? sell them better? explain what they are?

i mean, watching mohammar get dragged through the street riddled with bullets is one thing; watching a fool try to explain the universe without a god is just a waste of time

>>3930471
Is there a difference?

At least ask it in a /sci/ way: Can god create a set containing all sets which do not contain themselves?

>>3931054
It's not even close to an hour and you probably have a lot of time on your hands given that you are here.

It's not about defending a universe without a god that needs no defending as it's only a moral argument and all respectable theists acknowledge morality independent of god.
The video clarifies why the atheist position is the most reasonable.

But you're clearly just lazy or scared of the arguments.

>>3930930
So these people basically asserts that for all x, the answer to the question "Can god do x?" is yes. This is obviously absurd. The answer to "Can god do pddfgpdbfibv?" is not yes. Being a string of characters does not make something a meaningful sentence, there is no answer since there is no real question. The answer to "Can god do things that cannot be done?" is no. If god could do them, then they wouldn't be things that cannot be done.

Since this is still /sci/, what is the source for this belief that god is omnipotent? I thought it said in the bible that he can't lie...

If god is omnipotent, can he beat IWBTG one impossible?

>>3931073
atheist has said in his heart, there is no god, and is therefore a fool

while a wise man can learn from a fool, that time is usually better spent elsewhere

if you cannot see how atheism has no inherent or intrinsic or consistent moral code whatsoever, i feel sorry for you

>>3931076
the idea of omnipotence comes from a range of religious beliefs.
But we don't even need to have the argument since even an 'very or occasionally powerful' god is an unreasonable assertion.
Just watch the videos and. I guarantee the time taken will be considerably less than the time you'd spend in threads like these.

>>3931085
> that time is usually better spent elsewhere
such as learning proper english
good luck!

>>3931094
thank you?

>>3930449
Can Santa accidently give coal to a good boy?

>>3931090
creation imposing conditions and character upon their creator is futile, fruitless, and foolish

perhaps if you understood any of their arguments you could present them

>>3931085
>if you cannot see how atheism has no inherent or intrinsic or consistent moral code whatsoever, i feel sorry for you

Don't start that shit. No convincing theists even tries to assert that god is required for morality. I have to assume you are completely unaware of the argument and I am not going to spoon feed you.

>atheist has said in his heart, there is no god, and is therefore a fool

part 3 covers this. 'there is no god' is not a belief. it's a default nonbelief.

>>3931110
only God is good, and therefore, all good things must come from God

it's axiomatic

you can steal good things, corrupt good things, and subvert good things, but you cannot be the source of good things

>>3931110
being foolish on purpose and being foolish by default still leaves one a fool

>>3931108
>perhaps if you understood any of their arguments you could present them

they are not hard to understand for you or me. I am not going to go over them because they are too many and it would be tiresome and unnecessary when you can just watch the video in less time than it takes me to write it out and for you to read and respond.

arguments in the video are not arguments for atheism, they are arguments against beliefs. you can decide which of them hold true.

>>3930757

>omnipotence can spit in the face of reason, causality, physics, and logic

Reason, causality, and physics? Yes. Logic? No. Everything is subject to logic, even transcendental concepts.

Think of it this way- omnipotence doesn't mean "able to do anything", as anything includes all that is logical and illogical. There's no such thing as a square circle. A more accurate definition of omnipotence would be "able to do anything that can possibly be done." Keep in mind that "possible" in this context is limited only by the most basic logic.

>>3931126
so, too tiresome and troublesome for you to summarize, but perfectly worth my time watching

i don't think so, tim

>>3931117
That post was one big presupposition.

and clearly you don't know what an axiom is.

>>3931123
realising the contradictory logic of religious apology is the opposite of foolish

He would have no reason to create an object he couldn't move.

>>3931138
believing what God says is true, is true, is logical

>>3931131
One would take longer. I am not going down that path for you. I don't care.

You clearly don't even know the millions of ways in which religious reasoning fails or you cling to just as faulty counterarguments. You're not worth my time. You can't even be bothered to watch a video. What would you have been like if i recommended a book. I shudder to think..

>>3931138
God is good

that is an axiom

you disbelieving it does not change that fact

>>3931154
Ah so you don't know what logic is either.

Oh well this discussion is over.

>>3931155
you want people smarter than you to argue against me, so you post videos

so, you post videos, and i find people smarter than me, and post their videos, and then, eventually, we'll all have competing videos playing out at each other

or you can just concede that your "well thought out plan" is something you do not comprehend well enough to defend it

you are the flea on the back of the dog, angrily asserting that there is no dog

>>3931160
An axiom that isn't anymore intrinsically justified over another. (for example god is bad)

>>3931161
it is logical to take God at His Word

no he cannot.

although humans have stopped evolving

>>3931164
no i am flea casually dismissing all assertions of the dogs existence that have been promoted thus far. I do not rule out the existence of the dog.

I don't care. you can't even be arsed to engage in the debate. I could write an essay on these arguments but you would not read it if you can't even watch a 30 minute voiceover.

>>3931171

thats not logic.

>>3931168
ok, so you do not know that God is good, and you do not take God at His Word

you think atheists can come up with a moral code of their own that excludes God, and that the default position logically speaking is that there is no God

here's the problem

God is good, God's word is true, and atheists are fools, in God's eyes, and in God's words.

and there is no fool but a damned fool

>>3931192
it is if you have the slightest conception of what God is

you seem to think He's a silly old bearded man in the clouds wringing His hands in worry over what you believe

He is not

>>3931195
All blind presuppositions and speculation (conjecture). What are you doing on a science board?

>>3931198

I haven't even tried to describe god. You seem to think a debate is taking place here. it is not.

>>3931205
i know. it's an ass-kicking. you vs. one of God's children

and you think you're winning

lol

>>3931208
arrogance is a sin

>>3931211
good thing all my sins were forgiven 2000 years ago then, huh

lulz

>>3931216
Except you can still be sent to hell and purgatory depend on god's judgement

>>3931224
purgatory

lulz

>>3931232
I know the concept was thrown out by most mainstream theologians. that still means you can be sent to hell. Nice one.

I should conduct yourself with a little more humility next time you troll ;-)

>>3931241
a child of God thrown into Hell?

lulz

christfag out; been fun watching you spin

can god create a woman that isnt stupid? /thread

>>3931251
>follower of god
>calling himself a fag
nice try heathen