/sci/ - Science & Math

>>9677182
Because it seems true.

>>9677182
Well, here's what I think -

>>9677182
Because it's been proven true a million times over.
https://mat.iitm.ac.in/home/asingh/public_html/papers/goedel.pdf
Also his contemporaries had every reason in the world to try to shoot down those theorems since they proved the work they were doing to try to establish a definitive axiomatic system that would ground mathematics once and for all was in vain.
If Alfred North Whitehead, Bertrand Russell, AND John von Neumann all signed off on it as legitimate I don't know what more validation you could hope for than that, assuming you're too lazy to do the work of going through the theorems and proving them to yourself.

>>9677182
Because it's been proven. As has his ontological argument.
Godel proved Platonism and God as true. I still can't believe that there are people who are materialist atheists.

>>9677261
Even Gödel didn't believe his proof for God was sound, there's a reason why he never had it published.

>>9677281
It's been computer verified though

>>9677261
>Because it's been proven. As has his ontological argument.
his ontological argument and the incompleteness theorems rely on completely different axiomatic systems

the ones which allow his ontological proof are wackadoodle nonsense nobody would ever use except for logicians trying to con people into giving them money. modal logic is fucking dumb

>>9677285
It's verified that his conclusion is true if you accept his axioms as true.
Not the same thing as proving God exists.

>>9677285
no fucktard. It only holds for specific systems, primarily strictly mechanical systems in which the gears are always working 100% of the time and never deteriorates. Godel theorem do not apply in probabilistic systems. i.e. reality.

>>9677261
>>9677285
The part where it goes wrong is you need to accept that it's even possible for a God-like being to exist in the first place. He doesn't prove this is possible, he simply assumes it's possible and from that basis extrapolates it's necessarily true if possible.
>Definition 1: x is God-like if and only if x has as essential properties those and only those properties which are positive
>Definition 2: A is an essence of x if and only if for every property B, x has B necessarily if and only if A entails B
>Definition 3: x necessarily exists if and only if every essence of x is necessarily exemplified
>Axiom 1: If a property is positive, then its negation is not positive.
>Axiom 2: Any property entailed by—i.e., strictly implied by—a positive property is positive
>Axiom 3: The property of being God-like is positive
>Axiom 4: If a property is positive, then it is necessarily positive
>Axiom 5: Necessary existence is positive
>Axiom 6: For any property P, if P is positive, then being necessarily P is positive.
>Theorem 1: If a property is positive, then it is consistent, i.e., possibly exemplified.
>Corollary 1: The property of being God-like is consistent.
>Theorem 2: If something is God-like, then the property of being God-like is an essence of that thing.
>Theorem 3: Necessarily, the property of being God-like is exemplified.
So if a God-like being is possible, then God exists, but if a God-like being is impossible, then God does not exist.
And I don't think it's a stretch to take the position a God-like being is impossible given you can identify paradoxes like the question of whether God can create a rock so heavy even he can't lift it. If he can't create a rock that heavy then he isn't omnipotent and therefore isn't really God-like to begin with, and if he can create a rock that heavy and then is unable to lift that rock despite his best efforts then he isn't omnipotent and therefore isn't really God-like to begin with.

>>9677337
Thank you, that was an awesome overview of what the argument actually says.

>>9677182

She had gorgeous eyes.

>>9677281
It's been published

>>9677337
It's more like if infinity doesn't exist and we live in a closed set where all principles of mathematics are correct then there is no God. Since we live in an open set where all mathematical concepts aren't sound then God exists at infinity since there's nothing beyond that.

>>9677337
>If he can't create a rock that heavy then he isn't omnipotent and therefore isn't really God-like to begin with, and if he can create a rock that heavy and then is unable to lift that rock despite his best efforts then he isn't omnipotent and therefore isn't really God-like to begin with.

That's a false paradox though. You are asking if there is something God can't do. The answer to this is always no. You would have to ask if there is something God can do. So instead of asking "Could God create a rock so heavy and not lift it?" you would have to ask "Could God create a rock with enternal mass and still lift it?", which would be the true test to omnipotence, and the answer to that is yes.

>>9677182
>incompleteness
because they saw you

>>9677337
Strictly speaking, if a god-like existence is possible, then countless gods exist, in any possible world one.

>>9677290
>modal logic is fucking dumb

>>9678041
So, you're saying that he can simultaneously create an unmovable rock and move it?

>>9678454
If there is an omnipotent god, there can not be an unmovable object. This is not a paradox, you just seem to have issues understanding double negatives. First negative: "there can not be", second negative: "unmovable".

>>9677182
What do you mean by "believe in it"? With respect to what? Are you talking about the implications of them or just straight up the actual theorems?

>>9678480
not that guy but if there cannot be an immovable object, then God cannot create one, therefore he is not all-powerful

>>9678536
It's a limitation of language, not even religious here but the god cant do x argument is weak because there are countless examples of common contradictions we can think of, but omnipotence is not about can or cannot, it just is, it's about being.

>>9677285
>>>/reddit/

>>9678536
Ok, you guys seem to have a really big issue understanding double negative, so here is another example that might be clearer: if you ask "is god not omnipotent?" and you answer "no" to that question, is this a paradox or disprove that god is omnipotent?

>>9678566
no, it's not a paradox and it doesn''t prove or disprove anything.
this doesn't highlight any logical flaws in the immovable object argument.

>>9678553
explain this
if god exists, then by definition a god can exist
therefore if god is omnipotent he can create another god
in a scenario where he does create another god, could he overpower it?

if the answer is no, god is not omnipotent.
if the answer is yes, then the other god is not omnipotent and as such god has not created another god.

>>9678569
There is no logical flaws in that argument. An omnipotent god could create a rock so heavy as he wanted, even with infinite mass, and then still be able to move it. It's a false paradox that comes from people not understanding double negative.

>>9678606
the original premise was creating a rock so heavy that he couldn't lift it, which he apparently cannot do
there's no double negative to not understand there

>>9678612
>couldn't lift
>can not do

Looks like a double negative to me.

As I said it's just a "cleverly" hidden variant of this question: >>9678566

In this example, the two axioms of omnipotence that are seemingly paradoxical are 1 can create anything (for example a rock of any mass) 2 can move anything (said rock of any mass). However, those two axioms are not contradicting each other. God could create any rock he wants to create, with infinite mass even, and then still move it around as he pleases.

>>9678653
>>couldn't lift
>>can not do

>Looks like a double negative to me.

no, it's two separate negatives as he cannot create the rock and the rock cannot be lifted
you're the one playing word games here

>>9678662
You don't seem to understand that omnipotence in itself is simply not paradoxical. Those are false paradoxes and the essence of the quesiton boils down to >>9678566

God can only be paradox if we assume he is purely good. If god is purely good and omnipotent, than there shouldn't be evil in this world. Since it is, we can assume that either god is not purely good, or he is not omnipotent. So that in itself only rules out god being purely good (or, that our understanding of good and evil is incomplete), he can still be omnipotent.

>>9678666
you keep linking back to your old post, but it doesn't exemplify anything about the paradox

>omnipotence in itself is simply not paradoxical
It's riddled with paradoxes because the essence of omnipotence can and cannot overpower itself. Assuming the universe is logically consistent, it therefore cannot exist.

>>9678553
>It's a limitation of language
Which makes it sound like you can just brush it off as negligible except it's exactly this sort of semantics issue that the ontological argument is built on.
Remember the whole thing is predicated on the assumption a god-like entity is even a possibility. So once you start picking and choosing what can or can't possibly exist like with the rock example you're creating more and more reason to doubt a god-like being can possibly exist.

>>9678676
Please explain to me how this sentence

>In this example, the two axioms of omnipotence that are seemingly paradoxical are 1 can create anything (for example a rock of any mass) 2 can move anything (said rock of any mass). However, those two axioms are not contradicting each other. God could create any rock he wants to create, with infinite mass even, and then still move it around as he pleases.

is paradoxical or doesn't show omnipotence.

>>9677182
you don't "believe" a theorem anon, a theorem, when proven, it's true regardless of your shitty opinion.

>>9678686
Well that's kind of my point though, refuting the ontological proof should take place at the root, not by stooping to it's level by throwing around dumb paradoxes that should be obvious to anyone with a brain. If you even engage in the argument then you are submitting to it's terms, and in this case the terms are omnipotence, so the paradoxes are automatically moot because the answer is also a paradox.

>>9678687
>1 can create anything
how about an object (a rock perhaps?) with the property of immovability?
>2 can move anything

>>9678701
You, again, are going down the "trap" of trying to ask what god can not do. No, he could not create an immovable object, but that does not contradict omnipotence, because "immovable object" already implies a limit to omnipotence, which he would not have. I really wonder why this is so hard to understand.

Or, to put in maybe another clearer question, it is like asking "can god be omnipotent and not omnipotent at the same time?" The answer to that is no, because god is omnipotent, and therefore not not omnipotent. He can only fulfill one of these properties, but that is not an issue, because the second property you are asking for, is a non-omnipotent property, so him not fulfilling it does not violate his omnipotence.

With the rock question, you are asking the exact same quesiton. "Can he create a rock so heavy (e.g. can he be omnipotent), that he himself couldnt lift (e.g. can he also be not-omnipotent)?

>>9678732
>Or, to put in maybe another clearer question, it is like asking "can god be omnipotent and not omnipotent at the same time?"
Omnipotence (non-trivially) implies non-omnipotence.
I'll give you a simpler question to show it:
Can an omnipotent being kill themselves?

>>9678745
This is the same type of question "kill itself" is again the second part "can it be not-omnipotent at the same time". The answer to this is still no, and it still doesn't contradict omnipotence.

>>9678700
No, the question of whether omnipotence is even coherent (and therefore possible) IS the "root."
The entire argument is predicated on it being possible.

>>9678758
Then that's where it ends.
>Suppose omnipotence is possible.
Yes let's suppose.
...
...
Okay there's nothing else left to say.

>>9678732
>I really wonder why this is so hard to understand.
That's easy, the trick is nobody's misunderstanding you, you're actually just wrong.

>>9678757
so an omnipotent being CANNOT create objects with certain properties, CANNOT create other omnipotent beings, CANNOT kill themselves
please explain what omnipotence is

>>9678766
What point are you trying to make? Whether it's possible is a question that merits some sort of attempted exploration. I think it isn't possible because it leads to contradictions to accept it as possible. You seem to have no argument, which is fine but then stop posting.

>>9678772
No, you are just not understanding what a logical flaw is. If you define axioms of omnipotence, and then ask for a negativity of these axioms, this is not a paradox. If you define omnipotence as immortal, and then ask if an omnipotent being could also not be immortal, you are not contradicting the first axiom. You are just asking if it is true in a negative way. It's really mindblowing how stupid you are.

>>9678881
>No, you are just not understanding what a logical flaw is.
I think internal inconsistency would universally be considered a logical flaw
>If you define axioms of omnipotence
I didn't define axioms of omnipotence, in my last post I asked YOU to define them
>and then ask for a negativity of these axioms
i did no such thing
>If you define omnipotence as immortal, and then ask if an omnipotent being could also not be immortal, you are not contradicting the first axiom. You are just asking if it is true in a negative way.
If a being that is immortal can do anything, can it kill itself?
The answer is quite clearly no, so they can't do "anything".
If you're going to argue that they can do anything with the restriction that it be logically sound, they should be able to create another being that can do anything with the same restriction, because as displayed by the existence such an entity can exist.
So in a scenario where this occurs, can the former overpower the latter?
Neither yes nor no makes logical sense even though the logic progressed naturally, suggesting that the ability to do anything is not logically consistent, even with the restrictions of logical consistency
>It's really mindblowing how stupid you are.
I'm really sorry you don't like me anonymous poster

>>9678881
>If you define axioms of omnipotence, and then ask for a negativity of these axioms, this is not a paradox.
That's not actually what anyone here is doing, it's your own mistaken interpretation of what they're doing.
It's not just about not being able to lift a rock, it's the dilemma of either not being omnipotent because you can't create such a rock or not being omnipotent because you can create such a rock.
You can try to weasel your way out of this all day long but it won't change the fact this is a valid argument that the premise of omnipotence is incoherent. Whatever you're left with that isn't able to do anything is not omnipotence.

>>9679035
>>9678942
Hello samefag, please answer this question. Is there a a logical contradiction in the following question?

"If 1+1=2, then is 1+1 also not 2?"

>>9677182
They're theorems. That means they're mathematically proven.

>>9679265
>Hello samefag
not a samefag, pic related

>If 1+1=2, then is 1+1 also not 2?
You keep arguing in circles, I keep showing you that I am not setting axioms and plainly asking about their negations but you seem to be clinging to the idea that I am. Instead I am showing that the concept of omnipotence is logically inconsistent.

"If P implies Q, but Q is the negation of P, P is logically inconsistent."
Would you disagree with this statement?

"If being omnipotent means you can do anything, then by implication you can deny your own omnipotence in some way, meaning that you aren't omnipotent. Omnipotence is logically inconsistent."
How about this?

>>9677182
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/GZjGtd35vhCnzSQKy/godel-s-completeness-and-incompleteness-theorems
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/zmSuDDFE4dicqd4Hg/you-only-need-faith-in-two-things
https://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Highly_Advanced_Epistemology_101_for_Beginners

>>9679304
>lesswrong

>>9679303
>If P implies Q, but Q is the negation of P, P is logically inconsistent."

This isn't what you are doing you idiot. You define god as immortal. Then you ask if he could die anyways. So no, as per your definition, he can not die. That is no contradiction.

>>9679316
I didn't define God as immortal, i asked if immortality is a characteristic of an omnipotent entity can said entity kill themselves, as omnipotence implies the ability to do anything. The answer is obviously.
This is one of four or five structured logical arguments I have given you (and probably the weakest as all it implies is that omnipotence as the ability to do anything and immortality cannot be coexistent properties, though this in itself could arguably lead to another contradiction regarding omnipotence as the ability to do anything, asking why they couldn't create an immortal entity).

>>9679325
*The answer is obviously no

>>9677261
>proved
>god
For a certain definition of "god", for certain assumptions, both of which I reject. The definition of "god" does not match the typical theist definition, and the assumptions are questionable.

>>9678041
Sorry, if a god exists, even it would be subject to logic.

>>9678606
Simple and obvious: Can the god kill itself? Can the god lie? Can the god make a mistake? Etc.

>>9678757
What is the definition of "omnipotent" that you're using? Why does "omnipotent" not include "ability to commit suicide"? It looks like you're just asspulling on the fly.

>>9677337
>The part where it goes wrong is you need to accept that it's even possible for a God-like being to exist in the first place.
The number of possibilities is infinite. Don't be foolish.

>>9680595
?
I honestly don't understand modal logic well enough to comment, but in everyday parlance, I'm going to need clarification on "possible". In this sort of context, the word "possible" has several meanings. One of them is "epistemologically possible", e.g. logically consistent and coherent. Another meaning is "permitted by the laws of physics". It's far from clear that the existence of a god is consistent with the laws of physics.

>>9679325
Dude, what is so hard to understand? If you ask if God could create an immovable rock, you are asking if God could also make himself not omnipotent. The answer to that is no, because if you define something as omnipotent, you have automatically ruled out that he is also not omnipotent. This is no logical flaw. You are just retarded. It's like you are trying to argue that if you define 1+1=2, then why is it not =3 at the same time, and that somehow is a logical flaw. You are a literal brainlet if you don't understand this simple logic.

>>9680604
Again, we ask you: What definition of "omnipotent" are you using? How did you determine that "if it can kill itself, then it's not omnipotent"?

>>9680607
I don't reply to tripfags.

>>9680608
>I don't reply to tripfags.
Technically, you just did.

>>9678701
A "property of movability" doesn't exist. If an object can be moved by an outer force depends on its mass and the force that is trying to move it. If the force is infinite, any object can be moved. Asking if an object could exist that is even heavier than an infinite mass is an illogical question. It is not pointing out logical flaws in the set of axioms, this is introducing new axioms based on different definitons.

>>9680615
Why are you assuming the good cannot change the laws of physics to something different?

>>9680622
What was before the big bang? Why is 2+2 not =5? That is the kind of question you are asking. It's like talking to a retarded 14 year old, which I'm probably doing.

>>9680624
"Changing the laws of physics" is different from your examples. Your examples are examples of logical impossibilities. It's not logically impossible for the laws of physics to be different in many ways.

>>9677248
P = NP

>>9680629
>hurr what if I just change the definition of Axioms look how inconstient they are now durr

>>9677436
You mean she had 'gorgerous make-up'

>>9680635
>>9680635
What the fuck are you talking about? There's plenty of ways that the rules of physics could be. Thats why scientists are trying to gather evidence instead of arguing platonic style with modal logic about how the laws of physics must be according to some first principles.

>>9680639
>>9680629
What you don't understand is that you are asking something to have two contradicting properties at the same time. This is not pointing out a logical flaw, this is being retarded. It would be like saying "suppose 1+1=2, but also it =3". Obviously that is a logical flaw, but only that was introduced by your retarded Axiom. An omnipotent being not being able to be not omnipotent doesn't rule out that an omnipotent being can exist.

>>9677182
>believe
this is where your problem lies

>>9680644
I don't see how it's a logical flaw for a god to kill itself. The gods of ancient Greek and Roman myth could sometimes be killed. How are you defining omnipotent?

>>9680644
I don't see how it's a "logical flaw" to talk about the power to change the laws of physics so that "F = ma" is just completely wrong. It's not hard to imagine other ways that mundane physics could be.

>>9680644
I can imagine myself programming rules of a game so that most objects in the game obey "F = m a", but I could also write in a special rule that says "this object obeys different physics rules". It's logically consistent. No logical violations here. I can write it out in code. I'm not talking about "can god make a rock he cannot lift". I'm challenging your nonsense reply that "changing the laws of physics" is equivalent to "doing something logically incoherent / inconsistent".

>>9680595
Not an argument, try again.

>>9679265
>If 1+1=2, then is 1+1 also not 2?
Hmm, it's almost like that question is completely different from the lifting a rock problem. Really makes me think. Let me break it down for you anyway though.
Omnipotence means the omnipotent being can do anything.
If the being can't create a rock so heavy even that being can't lift it then that being isn't omnipotent. Not being able to do something = not omnipotent.
If the being can create a rock so heavy even that being can't lift it then that being is still not omnipotent because now it can't lift that rock. Not being able to do something = not omnipotent.
Therefore omnipotence isn't possible in the first place and the rest of the argument doesn't follow.

>>9681549
In your example, the omnipotent being would not be able to not do something, not not being able to do something. Huge difference. There not being a rock theoretically possible to have the property "immovable" for him is not a contradiction of his omnipotence, it's a confirmation.

>>9681572
>not being able to do something. Huge difference. There not being a rock theoretically possible to have the property "immovable" for him
If the creation of an unliftable rock isn't possible then omnipotence isn't possible.

>>9681584
"unliftable" implies limit to a lifting force. If the lifting force is infinite, as the one of an omnipotent being would be, unliftable can't exist. That doesn't contradict omnipotence, but confirms it.

You also still don't seem to understand that your logical flaw you believe there is comes from your defintion of omnipotence, which asks it to be not omnipotent at the same time as being omnipotent, and demonstrate that by not being able to do something, like not being able to lift a rock. This is not a logical flaw that comes from the implication of omnipotence, but from a self-contradicting defintion of omnipotence. It would be like saying 1+1=2, but also 3, and now you claim math can't work, because based on this definition, math is logically inconsistent.

>>9681600
Omnipotence means being able to do any task.
Creating an unliftable rock is a task.
Lifting that rock is a task.
No being can do both of the two tasks above.
No being is omnipotent.
Your attempted math analogy is inane and has nothing to do with the topic.

>>9677337
God already created that rock, its called free will.

>>9681612
Yes, if there is a being that can lift anything, the creation of an unliftable rock is not possible. How does this contradict omnipotence? You are literally saying its not possible BECAUSE THERE IS AN OMNIPOTENT BEING THAT COULD STILL LIFT IT. Are you really this retarded?

>>9681631
>if there is a being that can lift anything, the creation of an unliftable rock is not possible
Which means omnipotence isn't possible either.

>>9681612
So, still, you are asking an omnipotent being to demonstrate that he is, in fact, not omnipotent, by showing you that there is something he can't do, therefore you are again defining omnipotence as being able to be not-omnipotent.

>>9681631
>You are literally saying its not possible BECAUSE THERE IS AN OMNIPOTENT BEING THAT COULD STILL LIFT IT.
Wrong. The being still able to lift it wouldn't be omnipotent because it'd be unable to successfully complete the task of creating an unliftable rock.
Not being able to complete a task = not omnipotent.

https://github.com/FormalTheology/GoedelGod/blob/master/Papers/2016/StudiaLogica-NaturalDeduction/GodProof-ND.pdf

>>9681645
No, I'm not "asking" anything. I'm showing you why omnipotence isn't possible.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irresistible_force_paradox
The unstoppable force paradox, also called the irresistible force paradox, shield and spear paradox, is a classic paradox formulated as "What happens when an unstoppable force meets an immovable object?" This paradox is much like the omnipotence paradox, which is a simple demonstration that challenges omnipotence. The immovable object and the unstoppable force are both implicitly assumed to be indestructible, or else the question would have a trivial resolution. Furthermore, it is assumed that they are two separate entities.

The paradox arises because it rests on two incompatible premises: that there can exist simultaneously such things as unstoppable forces and immovable objects. The "paradox" is flawed because if there exists an unstoppable force, it follows logically that there cannot be any such thing as an immovable object and vice versa.[1]

>>9681668
You are showing why a simultaneous omni- and not-omnipotence is impossible, not more. This is completely redundant, like explaining why a geometrical form can't have 3 and 4 corners at the same time. You are just not understanding, that omnipotence doesn't include being not-omnipotent.

>>9681686
Wikipedia isn't an argument.

>>9681691
You are just mad you spent hours defending a paradox for brainlets.

>>9681690
Nope. Being omnipotent doesn't just mean you can do a lot of tasks, it means you can do all tasks.

>>9681691
>this is wrong because I say so

>>9681707
>>this is wrong because I say so
Who are you quoting?

>>9681707
No, more like you need to make an argument first and then I can help explain why you're wrong.

>>9677261
low quality bait

>>9679035
>Whatever you're left with that isn't able to do anything is not omnipotence.
>Fedoras trying to redefine omnipotence
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnipotence#Scholastic_definition

>>9681668
>I'm showing you why omnipotence isn't possible.
What definition are you using? The one you've pulled out of your ass?

>>9681712
Option A
rock that cannot be lifted exist and omnipotent being doesn't exist.
Option B
omnipotent being exist and rock that cannot be lifted doesn't exist.
there is no between.if you try to mix those two you create logical flaw.
Rock that cannot be lifted and being that could lift that rock cannot exist simultaneously. definition of rock that cannot be lifted and omnipotent being that could lift that rock cancel each other.

I'm trying to say that you just created logical flaw instead of proving that God doesn't exist.

>>9681736
Still doesn't explain how one derives "an omnipotent creature cannot suicide" from the mere definition. It still looks like giant asspulling to me.

>>9677182
Gödel was probably the greatest philosopher to ever live if you exclude the one's who had help from the most high.

Might help to get away from the magical / supernatural baggage God carries and think in terms of something more down to Earth like law / government.
Attempts at absolute authority have been an actual historical problem. Because much like with the unliftable stone example, it's not possible to both be able to make or unmake any laws you want while also being able to make laws that guarantee anything for the future. A dictator lacks the power to protect your rights and lacks the power to ensure financial obligations are fulfilled.
Omnipotent legislation isn't possible.

>>9681758
Option B isn't a real option because the lack of possibility for a task means the lack of possibility for the ability to complete any task i.e. the lack of possibility for omnipotence.

>>9681916
>Like a stubborn child, the Anon keeps defending his point of view despite being proven wrong countless times, because he is embarassed he wasn't able to identify a very simple flawed paradox.

>>9681916
If option B isn't real then option A is real.This means that rock that cannot be lifted exist.
>the lack of possibility for a task means the lack of possibility for the ability to complete any task i.e. the lack of possibility for omnipotence.
can you explain that more deeply for me ?

>>9681758
The rock argument is a straw man because it assumes God is some finite physical entity capable of lifting finite rocks. You've turned them into a human at that point.

>>9681953
>The rock argument is a straw man because it assumes God is some finite physical entity capable of lifting finite rocks.
exactly
>You've turned them into a human at that point.
the whole thread I'am arguing against that straw man ,that logical flaw which is the rock argument.author of the rock argument turned them into human,not me.

>>9681946
Not an argument, try again.
>>9681948
>If option B isn't real then option A is real.
No, that doesn't follow. Option B being impossible has no impact on option A one way or the other. I was just pointing out option B is definitely not possible because it asserts the existence of a task that can't be done while also trying to assert the existence of the ability to do any task. Option A at least doesn't try to assert the ability to do any task (i.e. doesn't try to claim omnipotence is possi le), so the existence of a task that can't be done in that case isn't contradicting anything.
>can you explain that more deeply for me?
Not sure I understand what you're looking for. Can any task be completed by some given entity? If yes, the entity is omnipotent. Are there tasks which can't be completed? If yes, then no entity is omnipotent.

>>9681953
If you have a problem with the God premise the refer to:
>>9681910
You can demonstrate the same idea with mundane human legislation. Omnipotence isn't possible.

I'm still waiting for the jackoff to explain how he derives "cannot commit suicide" from the mere definition of "omnipotent". I read the wiki page, and it's the standard "ability to sin is a flaw, not an ability" asspull. It's special pleading the entire way through.

>>9677261
>theists are this desperate

Omnipotence is impossible simply because there are things that cannot be done without restricting other actions, such as limiting ones own actions to begin with. It has nothing to do with language. You cant do it if youre omnipotent. Therefore you arent. Its that simple you fucking idiots.

>>9677186
underrated post

>>9682847
All you are doing is asking for an illogical omnipotence in a logical frame. Omnipotence can exist in a logical frame, and it means God can do anything except illogical things. For example, he can't create a being that is round and rectangle at the same time, but he can create anything besides that. If he can create anything that is logically possible, he is logically omnipotent.
Omnipotence in an illogical frame obviously can exist also, and it means god can do illogical things, too, like creating a sphere that is simultaneously a rectangle. Obviously there are logical flaws here, but since we assumed that God isn't bound by logic, that doesn't matter.

>>9682890
>since we assumed that God isn't bound by logic
I made no such assumption.