Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

---

At 11/23/06 10:42 PM, Draconias wrote: Regardless of whether or not you have the power to do anything, imaginary things are outside of your power.

If something is out of your power, then you are not omnipotent.
Simple as that.
Hence the multitude of senseless paradoxes, which I think you are thinking about way too much.

Uncombineable opposites. Yes is the opposite of no, but you hear people respond with mixed feelings all the time--

How people use the words is not important. This is not about the "real" world. Its about simple definitions.
By definition, "yes" is the opposite of "no". They are concepts. Abstract concepts.

The "paradox" here is spawned from the assumption that "omnipotence" means that you should be able to do anything, but there is no "anything" which can be done to abstract things.

That's the whole issue.
Some religious people do NOT understand that "omnipotence" basicaly means nothing. So they use the term to justify situations that make no sense, and they get backed into corners like the three-sided squares, the too-heavy to lift boulders, the self-generated unbreakable rules etc.

but anyways
omnipotence: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/omnipo tent

"unlimited power"
Not limited by possibilities or imagination or whatever.

doesn't really mean anything anyways.

---

At 11/24/06 12:30 AM, poxpower wrote: If something is out of your power, then you are not omnipotent.

If you are omnipotent, no action is out of your power. There is no action you can apply to abstract, imaginary things, so they don't violate the definition of omnipotence even though you can't alter them.

By definition, "yes" is the opposite of "no". They are concepts. Abstract concepts.

"Yes" and "no" have specific, real meanings which can be altered and manipulated because they are two extremes of a variable spectrum. "Triangle" is not alterable because it is a static definition.

Some religious people do NOT understand that "omnipotence" basicaly means nothing. So they use the term to justify situations that make no sense, and they get backed into corners like the three-sided squares, the too-heavy to lift boulders, the self-generated unbreakable rules etc.

The whole problem is your misunderstanding of the nature of those concepts. Omnipotence has a very real meaning-- but it has limitations because not everything imagineable is actually possible due to logical constraints.

You can not have a three-sided square because "Square" is a static definition.

You can not have an unliftable boulder because "Lift" is a relative movement that requires a heavier object and "Too-Heavy" is a relative term that requires imperfect beings. However, by applying those relatives to yourself (if you were an omnipotent being) then you could achieve that goal: create Mt. Everest, then turn yourself into a human. It is unliftable. Then turn yourself into a star about to nova directly beneath the mountain. You lifted it.

Self-generated unbreakable rules are simply false because self-referencing logic (circular) is inaccurate.

omnipotence:
"unlimited power"
Not limited by possibilities or imagination or whatever.

Actually, from your source,
Omnipotent:
1. almighty or infinite in power, as God.
2. having very great or unlimited authority or power.

Power:
1. ability to do or act; capability of doing or accomplishing something.

Like I said before, an omnipotent being can do anything-- but there are things for which a specific action does not exist, and thus "infinite ability to act" is irrelevant.

---

At 11/24/06 09:44 AM, Draconias wrote: You lifted it.

So then he couldn't create an object he couldn't lift.
dur

Like I said before, an omnipotent being can do anything-- but there are things for which a specific action does not exist, and thus "infinite ability to act" is irrelevant.

Well that's where lots of people's opinions diverge.
I'm sorry, but you have to realise that "unlimited power" is an incredibely vague definition. You might claim its limited to the "real" world, but when you yourself can't know how far the real world extends or what constitutes reality, how can you stand by that?

Anyways, literaly, UNLIMITED = with no limits.
If its LIMITED to the real, then it has a limit. Its not, BY DEFINITION, omnipotence, which is the power to act over all that IS.

And "being", I believe, does not need to reference to things you can see and touch when you're away. If I have a dream, the dream exists. If I create a possibility in my head, it exists. The concept of it exists. Things that don't exist simply DO NOT exist.
You can't NAME something that doesn't exist, because if it didn't exist, then why would you need a name for it?

---

Id love to see a female god. With huge boobs and a nice ass. Now thats a god id worship. and have sex with.

---

At 11/23/06 01:12 PM, Draconias wrote:

At 11/23/06 12:08 PM, Durin413 wrote: Keep in mind that god created MAN is his own image i.e. with a penis. Then he made woman for man to enjoy. Since therefore god has a penis, then god is male.

Who ever said it was literally in his image? If he is a non-physical entity then the only "image" which could be copied is conciousness and intellect. Also, it could be easily justified that it was "tacked on" when Eve was added.

Because the original writings of Genesis literally say that He created man after His appearance (meaning physical appearance). For some reason, appearance got translated into English as "likeness," although the translation varies.

The original topic starter is 100% wrong to begin with anyways. The Bible says that God created mankind, male and female, after His appearance. It does not say that He created just men after His appearance.

At 11/23/06 10:24 PM, TheMason wrote: If S/He is genderless does the pronoun issue really matter then? That was my point.

Since you are being such a stickler, you might as well get it 100% right. God is not a He, She, or It--in fact, the God of the Bible is a "They" because the Bible says that God is a plural being. For instance, we know that God is a label for at least three distinct entites including the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. This plurality is also reflected in Genesis, where God says "Let us make man in Our image, after Our likeness." So even God refers to Himself in plurality, thus the correct pronoun is "They."

---

At 11/24/06 12:55 PM, poxpower wrote: Anyways, literaly, UNLIMITED = with no limits.
If its LIMITED to the real, then it has a limit. Its not, BY DEFINITION, omnipotence, which is the power to act over all that IS.

Maybe His power is unlimited in magnitude, but limited in scope. Perhaps the scope of His power is all that exists, but the magnitude of His power is infinite. Thus, in a certain sense, He remains omnipotent.

At 11/23/06 01:10 PM, Draconias wrote: I never said Jupiter doesn't have a central point or boundary, and I don't know where you got that from. It has no distinct surface to apply force on (gas molecules would simply shift, not the planet) and there is no nearby point of reference (like the surface of the Earth) from which to "lift" it.

Jupiter has a solid, rocky surface underneath its atmosphere of gas. I think that was what he was referring to.

Look at examples of "opposites" in the real world: protons and electrons. They seem totally incompatible, right? But in radioactive beta decay, a neutron changes into a proton and emits an electron. Neutrons are the combination of both protons and electrons, supposed "opposites."

Protons and electrons are not opposites, but positrons and electrons are. So opposites exist and in fact I would call any two antiparticles opposite.

God creates the opposing concepts of "Good" and "Evil." God creates Man, who is both compassionate (Good) and cruel (Evil). Opposites can always be combined when considering multi-faceted or dynamic targets.

Yeah, but actions remain either distinctly good, evil, or neutral pretty much.

---

At 11/23/06 10:33 PM, TheMason wrote: I used that quote to be very tongue in cheek, and to inject a little bit of humor into the post. Your ignorant commentary on the subject has just provided me with a little bit of unexpected amusement.

Yeah, but people use that quote ALOT to take stabs at Christianity, thinking they have made some serious and profound statement that undermines the very foundations of Christianity.

sorry for multiposting.

---

Why do people say God has infinite power. Thats a load of bullshit because nothing infinite. There are no constants. I was reading a book where a guy says hes proven that light is not constant. I cant remeber the details because I was hammered at the time And some Polish cunts busted my face in for my troubles. Good times. Good times. Reading crap and getting into fights with polish people.

---

At 11/24/06 12:55 PM, poxpower wrote:

At 11/24/06 09:44 AM, Draconias wrote: You lifted it.

So then he couldn't create an object he couldn't lift.
dur

But he did. He couldn't lift it in that instant of time when he was in the inferior form. But in another instant of time he was in a different form that could lift it. By the way, it is "Durr" not "Dur."

Like I said before, an omnipotent being can do anything-- but there are things for which a specific action does not exist, and thus "infinite ability to act" is irrelevant.

Well that's where lots of people's opinions diverge.
I'm sorry, but you have to realise that "unlimited power" is an incredibely vague definition.

It's not vague at all. It means that any specific action can be done by an omnipotent being, as determined by the definition of the word "power." Things for which no imagineable action can accomplish the intended goal (such as making a four-sided object fit a static definition that requires three sides) are outside of the scope of omnipotence. You can do anything, but sometimes there is nothing to do.

Anyways, literaly, UNLIMITED = with no limits.
If its LIMITED to the real, then it has a limit. Its not, BY DEFINITION, omnipotence, which is the power to act over all that IS.

The power has no limits. Power is the ability to do something. But you can imagine things that you want to happen which can't be done, but may appear possible only because you make a mistake.

You can't NAME something that doesn't exist, because if it didn't exist, then why would you need a name for it?

Ever read a book? Why do we name characters?

---

At 11/24/06 06:40 PM, cold-as-hell wrote: Why do people say God has infinite power. Thats a load of bullshit because nothing infinite.

Prove it.

There are no constants.

Not according to the law of energy conservation.

I was reading a book where a guy says hes proven that light is not constant.

Show us this book so we can scrutinize it.

I cant remeber the details because I was hammered at the time And some Polish cunts busted my face in for my troubles. Good times. Good times. Reading crap and getting into fights with polish people.

Hmm...k.

---

God is not a she, if it was a she why would we be chanting 'Our FATHER who art in heaven'

---

At 11/24/06 12:55 PM, poxpower wrote:

At 11/24/06 09:44 AM, Draconias wrote: You lifted it.

So then he couldn't create an object he couldn't lift.
dur

If only a man could tell God what to create and what to act upon.

"Hey God, I want you to make something pointless, the defeat it's poitnlessness by proving you can't do it."

durr

---

At 11/24/06 09:42 PM, FatherTime89 wrote: God is not a he, if it was a he why would we be chanting 'Our MOTHER who art in heaven'

fixed

---

At 11/24/06 09:42 PM, FatherTime89 wrote: God is not a she, if it was a she why would we be chanting 'Our FATHER who art in heaven'

Because the Jewish society was a patriarchy and looked down on women as weaker and inferior. Worshipping a female God would have severely undermined the dominating male priests and would have made the Jews appear weak and pathetic to their neighbors. Thus, their religious texts were written to make them appear strong and mighty, and God had to be male to validate the male-dominated society, male priests, and men ruling everyone.

---

At 11/24/06 07:03 PM, Draconias wrote: But he did. He couldn't lift it in that instant of time when he was in the inferior form.

Dude, you won't solve a paradox by adding another one to it.
Now you're saying God can take away his own super-powers? Effectively saying "God can create rules which he himself cannot alter".

In which effect, he creates PHYSICAL RULES, to which your conveniently specific definition of "power" still apply. And he's POWERLESS to break them, thus rendering him NOT OMNIPOTENT.

Ever read a book? Why do we name characters?

So you're saying that God, being omnipotent, couldn't affect Darth Vader? He couldn't create Darth Vader?
If he can create Darth Vader, someone you claim to be purely fictional, then doesn't it mean he can instantly create any other imaginary scenario as they spring to his mind, and instantly?
Effectively making everything IMAGINARY, real?

By the same token, you do realise that everything you see and think are probably only byprodcuts of physical reactions inside your brain? Hence, EVEN IF "power" only applies to "real things" ( another ridiculously vague term, because we can't even tell what's real and what isn't ) you couldn't possibly EVER see the difference?
Again, making the distinction between power affecting only "real" things and not "imaginary" things, completely useless.

Now I forgot what the hell we were originaly talking about

---

What if god had a sex change.

---

At 11/25/06 01:14 AM, poxpower wrote: Dude, you won't solve a paradox by adding another one to it.
Now you're saying God can take away his own super-powers? Effectively saying "God can create rules which he himself cannot alter".

Did I say God lost his "super-powers"? No. No omnipotent being can have a strict physical form, so the omnipotent powers can never be tied to the current physical form that being chooses. As a human he couldn't life the mountain, but he doesn't have to stay a human due to omnipotent powers.

You're try to add complication where it does not exist. It's not that hard to understand, you're just muddling it in your own mind.

In which effect, he creates PHYSICAL RULES, to which your conveniently specific definition of "power" still apply. And he's POWERLESS to break them, thus rendering him NOT OMNIPOTENT.

Powerless? What the hell are you smoking? Didn't I demonstrate exactly how he could break the physical rule, by changing his own physical form?

Ever read a book? Why do we name characters?

So you're saying that God, being omnipotent, couldn't affect Darth Vader? He couldn't create Darth Vader?

Affecting those characters has nothing to do with this. You claimed that we never name imaginary things because they aren't real-- and I proved you wrong. There is nothing more to that statement.

If he can create Darth Vader, someone you claim to be purely fictional, then doesn't it mean he can instantly create any other imaginary scenario as they spring to his mind, and instantly?

Only in an imaginary sense, since we already have media designed around conveying imaginary ideas. I also never said anything about Darth Vader, so you are attempting to stick words in my mouth.

What no omnipotent being can do is take any imaginary scenario and make it real-- because the mechanisms of fiction are not necessarily implementable. Sometimes suspension of disbelief is necessary because concepts simply are not translatable to reality, so we simply accept them as mechanisms for the plot (such as certain forms of FTL travel, etc). Some of these concepts may not be implementable because they are only an idea which has no specific details to work with.

By the same token, you do realise that everything you see and think are probably only byprodcuts of physical reactions inside your brain? Hence, EVEN IF "power" only applies to "real things" ( another ridiculously vague term, because we can't even tell what's real and what isn't ) you couldn't possibly EVER see the difference?
Again, making the distinction between power affecting only "real" things and not "imaginary" things, completely useless.

Or just revealing your complete misunderstanding of my statements. Let me try to simplify it:
Omnipotent beings can...
1. Do anything known to be possible
2. Do anything for which a possible course of action can be described
3. Deal with dynamic concepts

Omnipotent beings can't...
1. Alter static concepts without redefining the concept
2. Deal with relative states without applying those states to himself
3. Deal with general ideas that have no imagineable course of action for implementation

Is that simple enough for you? The limitations for omnipotence arise from situations when you try to work within limitations, such as altering a static without redefining it, or dealing with relatives without any reference. Certain things also are not possible because there simply isn't any way to do it-- no one can imagine a possible course of action. However, the last one is often just an illusion because there actually are courses of action, we just can't think of them.

---

At 11/25/06 06:25 AM, cold-as-hell wrote: What if god had a sex change.

What if you shut the fuck up and quit spewing your idiocy in a serious thread? I'm tired of scrolling down every four posts to see your dumbass writing something unfunny.

---

At 11/25/06 10:54 AM, Draconias wrote:

Did I say God lost his "super-powers"? No. No omnipotent being can have a strict physical form, so the omnipotent powers can never be tied to the current physical form that being chooses. As a human he couldn't life the mountain, but he doesn't have to stay a human due to omnipotent powers.

haha you're losing it man.
Now you're saying that he doesn't lose his powers, yet he loses his powers??? If he's a human WITH THE POWER TO TURN BACK INTO GOD, then he's not a human, is he?

Because I can't turn into God. And if he can turn into God, then he's still omnipotent.

There is no escape haha

You're try to add complication where it does not exist. It's not that hard to understand, you're just muddling it in your own mind.

lol

Powerless? What the hell are you smoking? Didn't I demonstrate exactly how he could break the physical rule, by changing his own physical form?

you don't understand. You are saying that he can take away his powers to turn into a human. If he does that, it means he creates a rule for himself that says "you are a human" and that rules applies to him in every PHYSICAL way. If he cannot break his own rule, then he is not omnipotent.

That's the fucking paradox :o
That's the JOKE. There is no way around it. Its the same things as " well if God didn't create the universe, who did?"
Its an endless LOOP :o You did not find an answer to the loop.

Affecting those characters has nothing to do with this. You claimed that we never name imaginary things because they aren't real-- and I proved you wrong. There is nothing more to that statement.

Prove to me that Darth Vader does not exist.

Only in an imaginary sense, since we already have media designed around conveying imaginary ideas. I also never said anything about Darth Vader, so you are attempting to stick words in my mouth.

you mentionned books, Darth Vader is in a book.
And no, not only in an "imaginary" sense, because if God has dominion "only" over all that is physical, then he can read your mind, because your mind is strictly composed of physical elements. And he can also CREATE anything in your mind, FASTER than you can realise, since he's omnipotent.
Hence making it completely irrelevant wether something is fictional or not, not to mention that you, with your limited information and 5 senses, can never even know what's real and not for sure.

God can create anything you imagine. If you imagine something, he can create it and affect it. You still can't escape his omnipotence by restricting his power to "real" things ( which means nothing anyways )

1. Do anything known to be possible

you don't know what's possible and impossible. Are you pretending that you have a list of everything that's true and false, and of everything that's possible and not?

2. Do anything for which a possible course of action can be described
3. Deal with dynamic concepts

what the fuck is a "dynamic concept" hahaha

Omnipotent beings can't...
1. Alter static concepts without redefining the concept

nope

2. Deal with relative states without applying those states to himself

welcome to paradoxville

3. Deal with general ideas that have no imagineable course of action for implementation

again, you cannot be the judge of what's imagineable or not

Anyways.
Now I really don't remember what we were talking about.

Were you saying God can create a 4-sided triangle or not?
Or that he can create a boulder so heavy that he cannot lift it?
Or that he can create rules which he cannot break?
Or that he only cuts the beards of everyone except those who cut their own?
Or that he can travel through time?
Or that he can't make Star Wars real?

---

At 11/25/06 04:10 PM, poxpower wrote: Now you're saying that he doesn't lose his powers, yet he loses his powers??? If he's a human WITH THE POWER TO TURN BACK INTO GOD, then he's not a human, is he?

You seem to be missing very simple concepts here. Physical strength is not power. Rough physical form is not entire being. Let me lay it out for you:

Omnipotent being takes human form -- Not solely a human, just a body with a muscular and skeletal layout that approximates humans capabilities. Using physical strength, the omnipotent being is unable to lift the mountain.

Omnipotent being changes form -- By using omnipotent powers, the being can now lift the mountain through physical force (or potentially other means).

Through this dual nature the being can both be unable to lift the mountain and be able to lift the mountain because it has access to different methods.

you don't understand. You are saying that he can take away his powers to turn into a human. If he cannot break his own rule, then he is not omnipotent.

Who says that being is creating any rule at all? No powers are taken away; none of the actual capabilities of the being change, only the atoms which the being is actively manipulating. There is no rule saying that the being is absolutely a human, only the active will of the being keeping it in that form. It is an act of intent, not a rule of limitation.

Its an endless LOOP :o You did not find an answer to the loop.

You're the one saying that, not me. Again, stop trying to stick words into my mouth. I never said an omnipotent being was the answer to the origin of the universe, or even existed, I am just arguing that the supposed paradox "disproving" the possibility of omnipotence is flawed.

Prove to me that Darth Vader does not exist.

Again, you're sticking words into my mouth. I never said he didn't exist, because concepts and abstracts exist just as well as physical things. I said he wasn't real, which is proven by the fact that he is a concept generated for a fictional story called "Star Wars."

you mentionned books, Darth Vader is in a book.

I mentioned omnipotent beings, but it doesn't mean I'm Jewish. An example you propose for a specific case of my generalized statement is different than me citing that specific example, especially when you try to bring up an absurd example to mock my argument or weaken it by association.

And no, not only in an "imaginary" sense, because if God has dominion "only" over all that is physical, then he can read your mind, because your mind is strictly composed of physical elements. And he can also CREATE anything in your mind, FASTER than you can realise, since he's omnipotent.

Yes, he can do those things. I never said he couldn't. Read the little list I wrote out for you: none of that is ever mentioned under the "can't do it" list. I'm trying to make it blatantly obvious for you.

Hence making it completely irrelevant wether something is fictional or not, not to mention that you, with your limited information and 5 senses, can never even know what's real and not for sure.

Actually, that's entirely false. The entire point of science and logic is that you can prove whether or not things are true through information independent of the senses, and which can extend beyond your current knowledge (predict). Whether or not I can determine what is real or not doesn't matter, though, because you do not need me as an observer to make something real.

God can create anything you imagine. If you imagine something, he can create it and affect it. You still can't escape his omnipotence by restricting his power to "real" things ( which means nothing anyways )

I never said the powers were restricted to real things, only that all real things can be effected but certain non-real things could not be. For example, if you imagine a general concept without any specific substance, then it isn't actually possible for an omnipotent being to create exactly what you imagined because it is incomplete or possibly even logically inconsistant.

But for the most part, if you can imagine the actual details of anything, then an omnipotent being should be able to create it. For example, if you actually could imagine what a four-sided triangle would look like in a logically consistent manner, then it would be possible for an omnipotent being to make it real. However, since you can not do so, you can not assume an omnipotent being should be able to make it. There may be hidden logical constraints.

you don't know what's possible and impossible. Are you pretending that you have a list of everything that's true and false, and of everything that's possible and not?

I know what is possible, as it specifically requires, because by definition if an omnipotent being or anything less does it, then it is possible.

what the fuck is a "dynamic concept" hahaha

"Dynamic" means "changing" and "concept" means "idea" so a "dynamic concept" is a "changing idea," like a human personality or (as you mentioned) Darth Vader. Thus, anything not static (like "triangle").

again, you cannot be the judge of what's imagineable or not

I don't need to be. The logic stands on its own. You think of a way to create a four-sided triangle and an omnipotent being can do it. The reverse is not necessarily true, though.

Were you saying God can create a 4-sided triangle or not?

No. "Triangle" is a static definition.

Or that he can create a boulder so heavy that he cannot lift it?

Yes. Physical strength and omnipotent ability are independent.

Or that he can create rules which he cannot break?

No. No such thing is imagineable.

Or that he only cuts the beards of everyone except those who cut their own?

Yes, assuming he has no beard or does not cut it.

Or that he can travel through time?

The nature of time is current not known, so that can not be answered.

Or that he can't make Star Wars real?

He could, although perhaps not exactly matching the logically inconsistent human descriptions.

---

Short Answer to the "Paradoxes":

Four-sided Triangle:
Without altering "Triangle" = Impossible, because it is a static definition. This constraint is artificial though, and should not limit omnipotence.

Without Constraints = Draw a line parallel to one side of a triangle. Declare the figure a new "triangle" (accurate to the original meaning), but it is a figure with four sides. Alternatively, change the meaning of "triangle" to that of "square" and you have a four-sided triangle.

Lifting the Unliftable Boulder:
Without Constraints = Create a heavy boulder, then take a physical form (a human, perhaps). You are unable to lift the boulder (with your muscles), then you lift the boulder with telekinesis from your left eyebrow (with you omnipotent power). Multiple aspects to your abilities allow multiple simultaneous relative states.

Go any others? I can probably break them down relatively easily.

---

At 11/25/06 08:22 PM, Draconias wrote:

stuff

You talk about the definition of omnipotence that could work in the real world. I am talking about the one religious people use, which is the one that makes no fucking sense because they use it to justify things they don't understand.

For instance, you answered that we cannot know if God can travel through time or not, which is a correct answer, because we do not know if time travel is even possible, or logicaly coherent, but a religious person will say "god is omnipotent, so he can do anything" without a second thought.

Or that he only cuts the beards of everyone except those who cut their own?

Yes, assuming he has no beard or does not cut it.

but if he cuts his own, then he shouldn't cut it, because he doesn't cut the beards of people who cut their own. And he can't "not cut it", because he automaticaly cuts the beard of everyone, himself included, who don't cut their own.
And he's got a beard, don't worry.

loop

Or that he can travel through time?

The nature of time is current not known, so that can not be answered.

indeed

Sorry to cut this so short, but it was getting nowhere and we both think the same thing, so its sorta pointless to go on :p

---

You're all trying to logically define the powers and scope of a supreme, omnipotent being? Don't you see the futility of this at all? The amoeba would seek to rival and understand a human's intelligence?

Pointless debates like this are the reason we haven't yet come up with a cure for cancer.

---

At 11/26/06 01:42 AM, Ubermensch-1 wrote: Pointless debates like this are the reason we haven't yet come up with a cure for cancer.

So why haven't you found the cure yet?
Sounds simple enough.

---

At 11/26/06 12:07 AM, poxpower wrote: but a religious person will say "god is omnipotent, so he can do anything" without a second thought.

I never said religious people weren't idiots.

And he's got a beard, don't worry.
loop

Then that is simply a false statement, not a paradox. He may cut the beard of everyone except those who cut their own-- or those who don't shave at all. Some exception must exist in that statement or it is just false.

---

At 11/24/06 03:29 PM, Altarus wrote:

At 11/23/06 10:33 PM, TheMason wrote:

Yeah, but people use that quote ALOT to take stabs at Christianity, thinking they have made some serious and profound statement that undermines the very foundations of Christianity.

Yeah, there are fools on all sides of any argument or discussion!