[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 92 KB, 1024x676, b.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4165662 No.4165662 [Reply] [Original]

>1) If God is omnipotence, can He create a rock so big that even He can't lift it?

I think not, because this act would undo his omnipotence (namely, He can do everything, but He can't lift the rock).

>2) Can God by his omnipotence cause Himself to tell a lie?

I think not, because God is the God of Truth and incapable of telling lies. And if He tells a lie by his omnipotence, then He can't be God.

What do you think?

>> No.4165671

If he cant create a rock even he cant lift then he/she/it cant be omnipotent.

If god cant lie then he/she/it cant be omnipotent.

omnipotence means everything, no exceptions.

>> No.4165670

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnipotence_paradox#Proposed_answers

>> No.4165672

"If infinity is so large that nothing is larger, then if I add 1 to infinity I have made something larger than infinity-- a contradiction"

>quantifying values that transcend quanta
ns bro

>> No.4165674

I think that Sage

>> No.4165679

what is paradox

>> No.4165682

I think he can do everything, even something that is beyond our logical limits. Dude, he is God, he doesn't have to care about puny human logic.

Even though I don't think such thing exist, it's still a nice theoretical construct

>> No.4165685

I never really understood those paradoxes, to be honest. I mean, if some deity is literally, absolutely omnipotent, then yes, they could of course create something with paradoxical properties. *We* may not understand how such a thing would be possible, but then again, we're not omnipotent. These paradoxes are only problematic within our own frameworks of logic, which an omnipotent deity would certainly be able to transcend.

>> No.4165689

>>4165674

It could be that we misunderstand 'omnipotence'.
God doesn't follow your expectations of Him or even human reasoning. God cannot be put in human terms of 'He can' or 'He cannot'. He simply Is.

>> No.4165690

A omnipotent being wouldn't be omnipotent if it isn't able to lose it's omnipotence.

>> No.4165698

no, it is impossible

also logic is absolute

>> No.4165703

The nature of people's idea of God is outside of our laws of physics. If God were real and existed outside our laws of physics he'd be able to create a rock that he cannot lift and still be able to lift it.

>> No.4165705

>>4165689
>>4165685
>>4165682

>using logic to undermine logic

well that is not very logical

so since we can't use logic they might be right

>oh but wait i just did

I could be here all day

>> No.4165706

>>4165698
Logic is not absolute.
Logic is based on 'cause and effect' relationship.
We are starting to discover that quantum effects are not truly logical, namely they are not fully in the field of cause and effect.

That's why we say:
If you think you understand quantum theory (with logic), then you haven't understood quantum theory.

>> No.4165715

I like to think it this way: if an omnipotent creature existed and he would do something paradoxical and you wouldn't believe it, then he would torture or brainwash you until you believed it. Orwellian style.

>> No.4165711

>>4165705
I didn't attempt to "undermine" logic. My point was that those paradoxes are not actually problematic if one's definition of "omnipotence" includes transcendence of human logic.

>> No.4165713

>>4165706
bullshit

>> No.4165719

>>4165711
basically saying that logic does not always apply

which is what i meant with undermine

it was clumsily said, sorry

>> No.4165722

>>4165662
What are you 12?

There is no Santa Claus, no easter bunny, and no god. Grow the fuck up.

>> No.4165724

>>4165722
>hypotheetical omnipotent being

it's a thought experiment

>> No.4165725

Logic is a closed system. It cannot jump outside itself and see thinks in a 'illogical way'.

>> No.4165729

>>4165722
You are using logical fallacy by association.

>> No.4165730

Raymond Smullyan's opinion on "what happens when the immovable object meets the unstoppable force?" was that such a thing could never be allowed to happen.

This is the same idea.

>> No.4165734

>>4165729

Quit trying to name every fucking logical fallacy. Like loosely quantifying someone's dickishness will get you a fucking trophy. God, this naming logical fallacies shit is getting out of hand.

>> No.4165732

Once you do define omnipotence, the "paradox" ceases to be a poblem.

If God cannot do the logically impossible, then He cannot create a rock so big that He can't lift it. So what?

If God can do the logically impossible, then he can create a rock so big that He can't lift it without compromising His omnipotence. Doesn't make sense? God doesn't give a shit; it doesn't have to make sense if God can do the logically impossible.

Even Christian websites get this right sometimes, and they're not exactly the best at critical thinking. Why can't you, OP? Man up and learn to logic.

>> No.4165735

>>4165729
You're right. I suppose that is a fallacious argument to make.
Sorry about that.

>> No.4165736

>>4165719
>basically saying that logic does not always apply
Well, yeah, but you have to keep in mind that we're talking about a purely fantastical being here, anyway. Whatever outlandish properties I may ascribe to it, they're not intended to be genuine arguments against logic or anything like that. I'm just saying that, on the premise of a truly omnipotent god existing, those paradoxical objections don't make much sense to me, because actual omnipotence would imply the ability to act outside the limitations of logic.

>> No.4165737

>>4165722
Retards like this are the cancer of /sci/.

>> No.4165739

>>4165703
>>4165703
>>4165703
>>4165703
>>4165703

>> No.4165744

>>4165698
And how would you about justifying your assertion that logic is absolute, faggot? As soon as you appeal to logic your argument is circular, and if you aren't gonna use logic then no-one cares.

Fuck off.

>> No.4165767

>3) If God were gay, could he suck his own dick?

>4) If God was not gay, but he could suck his own dick, would that make him gay?

>5) If God was vehemently anti-gay, and he sucked his own dick, would he be gay?

>> No.4165776

>>4165767

I love you.

>> No.4165790

>>4165776
That makes you gay, you faggot!

>> No.4165795

>>4165767
3) is he flexible enough?
4) no, he is not gay you said so
5 are gay and anti-gay mutually exclusive? this warrants further discussion

>> No.4165823

>>4165737
>Calls people whoe would rather believe in "facts" then "magic" retarded

You are the cancer of this planet. You don't belong on /sci/.

/x/---->

>> No.4165830
File: 42 KB, 500x415, 479fb16d-88db-4944-95e0-c4d13c2014ac.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4165830

>>4165662
>What do you think

I think you are fucking delusional, young and naive. There is no god, plain and fucking simple. Wanting god to exist, DOESNT MAKE HIM FUCKING EXIST. Don't confuse what you "want" with actual reality.

\thread

>> No.4165847

>>4165830
please don't push your belief system on us, so slowly crawl back to the primordial soup that you and your ancestors came from, then wait a couple of billion years to turn into a primate with your evolution theory. Don't forget to survive and be fit!

>> No.4165885

>>4165823
>being stupid
This is a topic referring to a very particular problem relating to the nature of God. Some adolescent atheist missionary comes in, quotes an analogy that he's clearly just heard one of his idols use against a particular theist on youtube that also happens to be totally irrelevant to any but theists who claim "faith" as the ONLY reason to believe in God). The analogy is absolutely irrelevant to the topic, and the poster's comment is insulting. There is absolutely nothing of worth contributed to the thread's discussion, and the only potential benefit is that the poster feels slightly superior to your average person.

In what sense is this person <span class="math">not[/spoiler] cancer? Seriously?

>> No.4165966

>>4165662

>My lack of face when the concept of omnipotence is a lazy concept by lazy thinkers

Look at how it leads to such propositional contradictions

He clearly should be able to perform both but the ability to do one proposition negates the other.

But what else can we expect from thinkers so lazy as to ignore the world of propositions that science has discovered and instead to posture a propositional abomination that they tried to impose on reality?

>>4165685

LOL

If a deity transcends our understanding of logic, then we can't even make any POSITIVE DETERMINATIONS ABOUT THE EXTENT OF HIS POWERS. Including the copout of "well, he's omnipotent!".

It's even more egregious when you're creating a deity out of nothing but propositions! It's not like we've observed "God" and after extensive observation have concluded "Oh yeah, it can do this and this".

The naivety of such people to even fall for such obvious traps of the theist!

>because God is the God of Truth and incapable of telling lies

Monkeys are capable of the act of deception and yet an entity that is supposed to surpass all others is unable to lie because?

LOL who can expect anything resembling a knowledge of psychology and anything resembling intellectual honesty from a Christian?

>> No.4165972

http://www.cogwriter.com/god-omnipotent-omniscient-omnipresent.htm

>> No.4165974

>>4165966
>LOL
>4chan

You're missing the point: this is a thought experiment. Noone is "creating a deity" out of anything.

Logic dictates that if a being is able to do that which is logically impossible then the fact that something is logically impossible does not mean that said being is unable to do it. This is true by definition.

>> No.4165977

Christfags, y u no leave /sci/ ?

I mean. what's the point of shitting this (usually shitty by itself) community even more with your stupid?

>> No.4165988

>>4165977
What christfags? And if you don't like this thread, why no sage?

>> No.4166003

>>4165966
>LOL
>If a deity transcends our understanding of logic, then we can't even make any POSITIVE DETERMINATIONS ABOUT THE EXTENT OF HIS POWERS. Including the copout of "well, he's omnipotent!".
>The naivety of such people to even fall for such obvious traps of the theist!
Next time, try holding back the diatribes until you've read the entire thread:
>>4165711
>>4165736
I made it very clear that I wasn't arguing for the existence of any deities, but against the relevance of the paradoxes brought up by the OP.

>> No.4166052

>>4165662
Those are paradoxes you stupid idiot, you can't answer them.

>> No.4166065

>>4166052
They don't fucking work if you presuppose omnipotence. That's why none of those "LOL GOD'S A CONTRADICTION" lines of reasoning are worthwhile arguments.

>> No.4166068

>>4166065
So when something creates a paradox you just say you can't apply logic to it so it doesn't create a paradox?

Are you religious, by any chance?

>> No.4166090

>>4166068
The fuck is wrong with your brain? I said they don't work IF YOU PRESUPPOSE OMNIPOTENCE, which is clearly the case in those specific paradoxes. Learn to fucking read before you call others idiots.

>> No.4166096

>>4166090
You lost me.

>> No.4166111

>>4166096
Not surprising.

>>4166090
Just ignore him. He still thinks turtles are invertebrates.

>> No.4166121

>>4166111
LIES, LIES, LIES
I never said turtles were invertebrates, I just said they didn't have a spine.

>> No.4166135

>>4166121
>invertebrate
>An invertebrate is an animal without a backbone.

>> No.4166144

>>4166135
But they have shells.

>> No.4166147

>>4166096
I clearly did. But for the sake of resolving this in a non-assholish way, here's the rundown:
OP's paradox is based on the notion that god could not create something that would compromise his own omnipotence, right? Well, this is fallacious, because presupposing god to actually *be* perfectly omnipotent means that he wouldn't be restricted to act only within the constraints of human reasoning and logic. From this it follows that, if you assume god to be absolutely all-powerful, he certainly could create as many paradoxes as he'd want.

Mind you, this is all just bullshit brain farting anyway, for the simple reason that true omnipotence is a completely nonsensical concept to begin with.

>> No.4166152

>>4166144
And the spine gets fused into the shell as the shell grows.

>> No.4166154

>>4166147
I still don't understand :(

>> No.4166163

>>4166154
Never mind. Jesus loves you.

>> No.4166365

>>4165974

Except you are!


You're taking a generic shape in your mind ("Of man", "of Animal", or "Of Machine") and giving it an ability to DO ANYTHING which in propositional terms is problematic unless we actually clarify what it means lest we run into idiotic paradoxes like "THE HEAVIEST ROCK HE CAN LIFT BLAH BLAH"

>Logic dictates that if a being is able to do that which is logically impossible then the fact that something is logically impossible does not mean that said being is unable to do it. This is true by definition.

Logic propositions are based upon applications of rules/axioms. There is no "LOGICALLY IMPOSSIBLE" unless one points to a phenomena which violates the system of logic being used and in which case such system of logic has proven itself rather useless as a modeling system for the reality experienced.

But we're dealing with God as a logical abomination (the entity that can do anything propositionally which leads to contradictions which shows the untenebility of such a being in propositional logic without stipulations). It's not like we're talking about something more concrete than God like Superman, who has a great range of abilities but which don't lead to idiotic paradoxes. Well most of the time.

The main problem is that omnipotence is a lazy and ill-defined concept that in the most megalomaniacal propositional form of it (the ability to fulfill any propositional demand) would lead to an infinity of propositions being in conflict with an infinity of other propositions and so forth.


And all this jabbering to defend the lazy intellectual class justification of the idea of an equivalent of a magic sky dad who was the projection of class relations (master/slave) into an interior model of possible external propositions ("Oh so the master of the world controls the slaves of the world!").

>> No.4166386

>>4166365
Shut up, you dumb fuck.

>> No.4166742

Can god create a rock so big even he cant lift it: no, he cannot. Because ANY size rock he makes, he can lift. He can make any size rock and he can lift any size rock, its not a paradox its just stupid.

>> No.4167078

>>4166365
>Superman
>no paradoxes

If you mean it seems somehow believable then yes. But superman is pretty much made of free energy