philosophy time!
Comments
-
aMoistmuffin wrote: »You are asking if something is able to create what it cannot destroy?
The human race already did that.
no im asking if an almighty entity is able to create something that it is not able to destroy.
and im pretty sure humans are not almighty, excluding chuck norris. -
-
I think, therefore I am.aMoistmuffin wrote: »Humans are the only living entity we can be absolutely sure exist.
We cannot prove the existence of anything outside of ourselves with that logic.
OT: No. If theoretically he managed to create said boulder, he would be able to create another one to destroy it. -
Green_Ranger wrote: »I think, therefore I am.
We cannot prove the existence of anything outside of ourselves with that logic.
OT: No. If theoretically he managed to create said boulder, he would be able to create another one to destroy it.
What need to we have to prove anything besides ourselves?
OT: throw some water on a boulder and then freeze it a few times. -
Cogito thought experiments have been proven to be flawed... we can't simply prove our human existence without making assumptions.aMoistmuffin wrote: »What need to we have to prove anything besides ourselves?
OT: throw some water on a boulder and then freeze it a few times. -
no im asking if an almighty entity is able to create something that it is not able to destroy.
That is theoretically impossible. The reason is simple. If the being or entity or whatever isn't able to destroy the rock, it isn't almighty. -
Green_Ranger wrote: »I think, therefore I am.
We cannot prove the existence of anything outside of ourselves with that logic.
OT: No. If theoretically he managed to create said boulder, he would be able to create another one to destroy it.
boulders aren't battlebots dude ._. -
-
Waitwut?boulders aren't battlebots dude ._.
He gets it.aMoistmuffin wrote: »Place boulder on ground.
Spawn another boulder at the correct height to build enough velocity on falling to shatter both boulders.
Two identical objects would theoretically be able to destroy each other.
And yea, this isn't exactly the most original or complex of questions. -
-
-
Umm.... I don't follow that reasoning.
An almighty entity, lets call him God, tries to make something he is not able to destroy. lets say "God" actually makes this thing he is not able to destroy. This would prove him not being able to do everything and thus being almighty. In case "God" fails to build something he is not able to destroy "God" still proves that he is not able to do everything and thus being almighty.
TldR: god either does not exist or is not almighty.
philly got close, go grab yourself sum doomcookies -
Umm.... I don't follow that reasoning.
Like you said, if it can create such a rock, but can't destroy it, it is not almighty. If it can't create such a rock, it isn't almighty.
Conclusion? It is theoretically impossible for said entity to be almighty.
It's basicly the same conclusion as you had, just phrased differently. You say the rock is impossible, I just state the next step: the impossiblity of an almighty entity, as a logical result of the inability to create that rock. -
Green_Ranger wrote: »Waitwut?
He gets it.
Two identical objects would theoretically be able to destroy each other.
And yea, this isn't exactly the most original or complex of questions.
yet still if the boulder breaks it proves him unable to make something he is not able to destroy -
Which would make it a rock he can destroy.Green_Ranger wrote: »Two identical objects would theoretically be able to destroy each other.Green_Ranger wrote: »Humanity tends to dismiss things it cannot comprehend.
I'm not dismissing anything. Just following the road Rammer laid out and which is now leading us to religion, which was unnecessary, but clearly intended by our soviet-cat... -
Truth?
You are viewing this from the wrond angle. The Almighty? who created the Universe is pretty dam big in my eyes. I cant comprehend the arguement? Is he less Almighty if he cannot recreate another boulder as large and then destroy it? Is the Almighty greater than his creations? And if his/her creations are larger than himself/herself is this a statement of a lesser greatness? -
An almighty entity, lets call him God, tries to make something he is not able to destroy. lets say "God" actually makes this thing he is not able to destroy. This would prove him not being able to do everything and thus being almighty. In case "God" fails to build something he is not able to destroy "God" still proves that he is not able to do everything and thus being almighty.
TldR: god either does not exist or is not almighty.
(I'm assuming you are talking about the Christian God as defined in the Bible)
I think we are a missing the point here. Omnipresence is an attribute of God. His omnipotence isn't something that is independent of His nature. It is part of His nature. God has a nature and His attributes operate within that nature, as does anything and everything else.
For instance, I have a human nature. Therefore, I can climb. However, I will never be able to climb as well as (insert some random monkey here). My nature simply does not permit it. My ability to run is connected to my nature and I cannot violate it. So too with God. His omnipotence is connected to His nature since being omnipotent is part of what He is.
The point is that God cannot do something that is a violation of His own existence and nature. Therefore, He cannot make a rock so tough that he can't destroy it, or make something bigger than Himself, etc. But, not being able to do this does not mean He is not God nor that He is not omnipotent.
Omnipotence is not the ability to do anything conceivable, but the ability to do anything consistent with His nature and consistent with His desire within the realm of His unlimited and universal power which we do not possess.
Do you see what I'm trying to say?
This does not mean He can violate His own nature. If He did something inconsistent with His nature, then He would be self contradictory. If God were self contradictory, He would not be true. -
yet still if the boulder breaks it proves him unable to make something he is not able to destroyPhillybear wrote: »Which would make it a rock he can destroy.
I'm not dismissing anything. Just following the road Rammer laid out and which is now leading us to religion, which was unnecessary, but clearly intended by our soviet-cat...
By following that logic, we are responsible for the war in Iraq for our interdependence on oil.
The argument that this being is not almighty because he can/cannot create such a boulder is based on flawed human logic.
If we assume that it can create an object of equal omnipotence, then theoretically he would and would not be able to destroy it... at the same time. Consider it similar to the "Schrödinger's cat" thought experiment. -
I think we are a missing the point here. Omnipresence is an attribute of God. His omnipotence isn't something that is independent of His nature. It is part of His nature. God has a nature and His attributes operate within that nature, as does anything and everything else.
For instance, I have a human nature. Therefore, I can climb. However, I will never be able to climb as well as (insert some random monkey here). My nature simply does not permit it. My ability to run is connected to my nature and I cannot violate it. So too with God. His omnipotence is connected to His nature since being omnipotent is part of what He is.
The point is that God cannot do something that is a violation of His own existence and nature. Therefore, He cannot make a rock so tough that he can't destroy it, or make something bigger than Himself, etc. But, not being able to do this does not mean He is not God nor that He is not omnipotent.
Omnipotence is not the ability to do anything conceivable, but the ability to do anything consistent with His nature and consistent with His desire within the realm of His unlimited and universal power which we do not possess.
Do you see what I'm trying to say?
This does not mean He can violate His own nature. If He did something inconsistent with His nature, then He would be self contradictory. If God were self contradictory, He would not be true.
Rammer was wrong to connect this to God. We all have our opinions about what God is and what his nature is, making people prejudiced and determined to prove the existence/non-existence and (lack of) power of said God.
Can we start with agreeing on how we define omnipotence? Because you name omnipresence without second thoughts about natural limitations, but then limit omnipresence to the own nature. If I apply your omnipotence theory on omnipresence, it would become 'the ability to be whereever I can be in consistency with my nature', which makes us all omnipresent.
I would personally (especially in the light of the original question) prefer the litteral meaning of all-mighty, the power to do whatever said entity wishes to do. -
Green_Ranger wrote: »By following that logic, we are responsible for the war in Iraq for our interdependence on oil.
The argument that this being is not almighty because he can/cannot create such a boulder is based on flawed human logic.
If we assume that it can create an object of equal omnipotence, then theoretically he would and would not be able to destroy it... at the same time. Consider it similar to the "Schrödinger's cat" thought experiment.
No idea why Iraq showed up....
How exactly is it flawed...?
Again...what is the definition of omnipotence....? If an entity is capable of doing whatever he wants, he can create such an equal being. My problem with your example is the "not be able to destroy it". True, both entities would be capable of stopping themselves from being destroyed, but this does not remove the possibility of either of them actually getting destroyed. In theory, an omnipotent being is capable of destroying an omnipotent being. Not doing so does not mean being incapable of doing it. -
DUKEofPORK wrote: »You are viewing this from the wrong angle. The Almighty? who created the Universe is pretty dam big in my eyes. I cant comprehend the arguement? Is he less Almighty if he cannot recreate another boulder as large and then destroy it? Is the Almighty greater than his creations? And if his/her creations are larger than himself/herself is this a statement of a lesser greatness?
Answer!
. -
Phillybear wrote: »Rammer was wrong to connect this to God. We all have our opinions about what God is and what his nature is, making people prejudiced and determined to prove the existence/non-existence and (lack of) power of said God.
I would personally (especially in the light of the original question) prefer the litteral meaning of all-mighty, the power to do whatever said entity wishes to do.
Yeah, sorry for the misunderstanding. I agree that the definitions are always the place to start in an argument.
I agree with your definition. However, I would like to say that this argument would have to stay with God as it's base, because frankly I'm not aware of any other omnipotent individual. -
Yeah, sorry for the misunderstanding. I agree that the definitions are always the place to start in an argument.
I agree with your definition. However, I would like to say that this argument would have to stay with God as it's base, because frankly I'm not aware of any other omnipotent individual.
Just make an abstract one up. It doesn't need to exist to think about it, right? (some people will also say God is not real, but still think about Him)
So going with that definition and the original question, we get back to the point where the entity either fails to create or to destroy said boulder, if it wished so, thus not being capable of doing everything he wishes. -
Phillybear wrote: »Just make an abstract one up. It doesn't need to exist to think about it, right?
And the boundaries for this God are?
Unlimited?
That in itself defeats the arguement.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fwv9IAKajc4&feature=related -
Um... you just answered your self >.> and rather perfectly if I may add (gratsPhillybear wrote: »No idea why Iraq showed up....
How exactly is it flawed...?
Again...what is the definition of omnipotence....? If an entity is capable of doing whatever he wants, he can create such an equal being. My problem with your example is the "not be able to destroy it". True, both entities would be capable of stopping themselves from being destroyed, but this does not remove the possibility of either of them actually getting destroyed. In theory, an omnipotent being is capable of destroying an omnipotent being. Not doing so does not mean being incapable of doing it.
)
Also, I didn't suggest he can't destroy it... I think we're on the same page but you're not understanding me >.>
Categories
- All Categories
- Z8Games
- Off-Topic - Go To Game OT Forums
- 1 Z8 Forum Discussion & Suggestions
- 16 Z8Games Announcements
- Rules & Conduct
- 5.2K CrossFire
- 954 CrossFire Announcements
- 945 Previous Announcements
- 2 Previous Patch Notes
- 1.4K Community
- 122 Modes
- 601 Suggestions
- 85 Clan Discussion and Recruitment
- 274 CF Competitive Forum
- 19 CFCL
- 26 Looking for a Team?
- 705 CrossFire Support
- 52 Suggestion
- 116 Bugs
- 29 CrossFire Guides
- 166 Technical Issues
- 47 CrossFire Off Topic