The Infinite! In Search of The Ultimate Truth.

[tazanastazio]

Philosophy 101 : The omnipotent god paradox
Can "god" create a stone so heavy "god" cannot lift it?

(Standard philosophical argument that there is no such thing as omnipotence)
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Now let us help the slower students...

You really are struggling with this aren't you? It's called logic.

Can god create a hat he cannot wear?
Either "god" can create a hat, but cannot wear it (not omnipotent), or
"god" cannot create a hat that god cannot wear ( not omnipotent)

Ask a friend to explain this to you.

Assuming God wore hats, He could create any size of a hat, and simultaneously his head would adjust to the size of the hat.

But to show you the utter stupidity of the "paradox" argument, let's consider God in the traditional sense again. You cannot say that God is lacking in power by pitting God against His own power! God is the sole omnipotent entity against anything else, not against Himself! God cannot cease to be! God cannot die! God will not waste His time making hats to show people He can still wear them; neither would He be creating rocks of various size to show people He can still lift them. But God can do anything else that noone else can, and that makes God omnipotent.

From the perspective of the Infinite, It cannot cease to be Infinite and it doesn't wear hats or lift rocks; Neither God in the traditional sense, or the Infinite need to prove anything to you or anybody else.

 

[tazanastazio]

You are funny. You lied and said you studied philosophy courses.......but now say you didn't know about philosophical infinitism, because it wasn't on Google.

Were your "philosophy courses" all based on looking up things on Goggle?

Like I said about the "paradox" argument, maybe my philosophy professors deemed "Epistemic Infinitism Regressionism, not worthy of their time.

 

[abaddon]

Evidence:

Subatomic invisible particles.

What about them?

For something to have an end, it has to end somewhere;

Not necessarily. You would have to prove that to be the case.

and also it has to begin somewhere.

Again, not necessarily. See Sean Carroll's work.

The Universe has an end;

Again, not necessarily. The heat death of the universe is not the end of the universe. Provide evidence that the universe must end.

the Infinite does not.

Infinity does not. For example, there is no last natural number. For any number n, n+1 exists. But there is a first one. Right there you have a fact that falsifies your claim.

On the other hand, "the Infinite" is something you made up out of whole cloth for which you have presented no evidence at all.

 

[abaddon]

Assuming God wore hats, He could create any size of a hat, and simultaneously his head would adjust to the size of the hat.

That contains three unevidenced claims. Prove all three.

But to show you the utter stupidity of the "paradox" argument, let's consider God in the traditional sense again. You cannot say that God is lacking in power by pitting God against His own power!

Why not?

God is the sole omnipotent entity against anything else, not against Himself!

Unevidenced claim.

God cannot cease to be!

Unevidenced claim.

God cannot die!

Unevidenced claim.

God will not waste His time making hats to show people He can still wear them;

Unevidenced claim.

neither would He be creating rocks of various size to show people He can still lift them.

Unevidenced claim.

But God can do anything else that noone else can,

Unevidenced claim.

and that makes God omnipotent.

Unevidenced claim.

From the perspective of the Infinite, It cannot cease to be Infinite and it doesn't wear hats or lift rocks;

Unevidenced claim.

Neither God in the traditional sense, or the Infinite need to prove anything to you or anybody else.

Then one would have to be a fool to believe in it.

Face it. All you have is one unevidenced claim after another and no substance.

 

[8enotto]

Apparently god can make bones so dense no amount of logic gets through them. He was so pleased with this he put them on top of his perfect creations.

 

[tazanastazio]

Infinity does not. For example, there is no last natural number. For any number n, n+1 exists. But there is a first one. Right there you have a fact that falsifies your claim.

Abbadon, why did you post this argument, when you know very well that the Complex number set (infinity of Complex numbers rather) includes an infinity of Imaginary, Algebraic and Real numbers; not just the Natural ones (Real, Real Algebraic, Rational, Integers, Natural)?

https://thinkzone.wlonk.com/Numbers...=2ahUKEwiNrKmUuf7lAhWmGDQIHSTCB_IQ9QF6BAgLEAI


Also, when I say God, I mean the Infinite, not a superior being, organization of beings or other Entity. But even in the traditional sense of the term "God" (a superior Being, organization of beings or other Entity), having the ultimate power within the Multi-verse (system of many Universes); even if such an Entity was to cease to be after the passing of Eternities; still compared to us humans, and anything else within the Multi-verse, such a God would be Omnipresent and Omnipotent within our Multi-verse; and you cannot say He is not by comparing God's power with itself. There is only one God, and He does not have a twin brother. One Infinite, without a duplicate.

 

[tazanastazio]

You claim your "god" made man in his image and yet had to wait 13.8 billion years from the beginning of the universe to create man. That destroys your insane "god is infinity" religious claim.

I did not claim that, I stated that the Bible is written in an allegorical manner. Think of the Bible as "a children's book on Quantum mechanics."

No. Matter and antimatter particles randomly popping in and out of a vacuum are evidence for quantum mechanics. You denied quantum mechanics is real and claimed everything was caused by existing particles. Did you forget your own religious claims again?

I did not deny that, I stated that all matter is comprised by particles, infinitely regressed in size to energy. All matter forms from energy, and deforms to energy.

It is mathematics, specifically Heisenberg's uncertainty principle that explains why matter and anti matter particles pop in and out. You denied Heisenberg's uncertainty principle is real and claimed everything is caused by existing particles.

Tell us how half-life radiation of a single atom can be predicted using your "god is infinity" religion? You can't can you? Perhaps you should read a children's book on quantum mechanics and educate yourself.

Perhaps you should read that book. Infinitism would be a religion if it was ritualized. The atomic degeneration is one of the infinite occurrences within the Infinite, and I don't need to explain it any further than it is explained here:

https://www.britannica.com/science/half-life-radioactivity

or here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Half-life

 

[Matthew Ellard]

Philosophy 101 : The omnipotent god paradox
(Standard philosophical argument that there is no such thing as omnipotence)

Can "god" create a stone so heavy "god" cannot lift it?
Either "god" can create a stone he can't lift ( not omnipotent), or
"god" can't create a stone he can't lift ( not omnipotent)

Can god create a hat he cannot wear?
Either "god" can create a hat, but cannot wear it (not omnipotent), or
"god" cannot create a hat that god cannot wear ( not omnipotent)

Assuming God wore hats, He could create any size of a hat, and simultaneously his head would adjust to the size of the hat.

You just proved the paradox again. You just don't understand what you keep missing. You just said "god" cannot make a hat that "god" can't put on. Therefore your "god" is not omnipotent.

This is really basic philosophical logic. It appears that is, still, above your skill level.

God is the sole omnipotent entity ...

I just proved otherwise and you unwittingly supplied evidence. I can write an endless list of things that your "god" can't do.

Can "god" make a atom so small that he doesn't have the power to see it?
Either, "god" can make an atom so small that he can't see it (not omnipotent)
or, "god" can't make an atom so small that he can't see it. (not omnipotent)


Get a friend to explain to you what the actual paradox in the above statements are. When the penny drops, you will realise why everyone is laughing at you for not getting it, while you are simultaneously claiming to be a "philosopher".

 

[Matthew Ellard]

Like I said about the "paradox" argument, maybe my philosophy professors deemed "Epistemic Infinitism Regressionism, not worthy of their time.

You just said you were not aware of philosophical infinitism as it "wasn't on google."

You then tried to blame professors ( not lecturers ) for not telling you, while simultaneously saying you almost taught your own class.

Sooooo....you are saying that you almost taught your own philosophy class when you were ignorant about basic philosophy? You are hilariously incompetent.

 

[tazanastazio]

Oiu

You just said you were not aware of philosophical infinitism as it "wasn't on google."

You then tried to blame professors ( not lecturers ) for not telling you, while simultaneously saying you almost taught your own class.

Sooooo....you are saying that you almost taught your own philosophy class when you were ignorant about basic philosophy? You are hilariously incompetent.

Yawning (for real); you started to become boring again Matthew; maybe you should address your ridiculous arguments to other posters in this forum, more within the level of argumentation you present. I don't have time to run in circles over ridiculous arguments of the type "can God make an atom so small He can't see." He has made all the particles along with everything else in the Universe and that is plenty for Omnipotence status, since noone else has or can do it; pointless to compare God's power against itself to justify a lack of omnipotence argument. That is like saying that Pele was not the best soccer player in history, because he is not better than himself. Or considering the example of that old French cowboy comic hero (Lucky Luke) who was faster in the draw than his shadow. If the fastest gun in the west could not draw faster than his own shadow, well then he was not the fastest gun in the West. Since God can make particles so small noone else can see them, along with everything else in the Universe, oueven though He can still see those particles, He is Omnipotent.

""Sooooo" is a good effect starter, but it loses its meaning if it is followed by a bull... flake argument. Epistemic Infinitism Regressionism is not an intrinsic part of basic philosophy; and it is not astonishing if it is not included in a general philosophy class ciriculum.

Yet, 10 years later, you still trying to debunk a theory presented by a person you deem "hilariously incompetent." With so many posters on the "Religion and Philosophy" forum, you clung like a leech on mine.

 

[Matthew Ellard]

you started to become boring again Matthew;

Lucky for me then that I am enjoying the hilarious claims you continue to make in this thread about your " God is infinity" religion.

He ("god") has made all the particles along with everything else in the Universe

I see you are now just spamming your hilarious religious nonsense again......without any evidence.

Yet, 10 years later, you still trying to debunk a theory presented by a person you deem "hilariously incompetent."

Nope. I debunked your religious nonsense 10 years ago after your first post. I now enjoy laughing and watching your hilarious excuses for why you can't produce an iota of evidence for any of your claims after ten years.

Imagine that. 10 years have passed and you still haven't got an iota of evidence for your silly religious claims.

 

[Matthew Ellard]

I did not claim that, I stated that the Bible is written in an allegorical manner. Think of the Bible as a children's book on Quantum mechanics

No person can yet provide proof that the biblical events are 100% false.

God did create humanity with intelligence and consciousness, and perhaps with a resemblance to His own image.

https://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=11128#p152813

I stated that all matter is comprised by particles, infinitely regressed in size to energy

Yet existence, or particles and objects forming everything within the Infinite cannot form/evolve out of nothing.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12855727&postcount=279

The atomic degeneration is one of the infinite occurrences within the Infinite, and I don't need to explain it any further than it is explained here:

Sooooo....your hilarious "god is infinities" religion cannot explain why individual atoms don't need a cause to undergo radioactive decay. You had to link to a normal science book you can't understand yourself.


Your "god is infinities" religion is both self conflicting and worthless.

 

[JesseCuster]

It is a simple concept actually:

Nothing would exist without an origin; which leads to the concept of an absolute origin. Yet an absolute origin itself had to have an origin too. The origin of an absolute origin is the Infinite, .which doesn't have an origin

Everything requires an origin, apart from the special thing ("the infinite") that your argument requires not to have an origin? Either everything requires an origin, or everything doesn't require an origin. You want it both ways.

That is 100% pure distilled special pleading right there.

 

[abaddon]

Abbadon, why did you post this argument, when you know very well that the Complex number set (infinity of Complex numbers rather) includes an infinity of Imaginary, Algebraic and Real numbers; not just the Natural ones (Real, Real Algebraic, Rational, Integers, Natural)?

Red herring.

The example given is the set of natural numbers which is infinite yet has a beginning. Your claim is thus false. Throwing in the set of real numbers or any other set cannot change that fact and you know it.

 

[tazanastazio]

Imagine that. 10 years have passed and you still haven't got an iota of evidence for your silly religious claims.

Here is an "iota" of evidence over the existence of the "Alpha and the Omega" :

Which sex among the species evolved first? How did the species produce prior to evolving reproductive organs?

How did the species produced the organs of vision prior to knowing what was there to see?

Why did species evolve consciousness? What purpose would guilt serve them individually?

Perhaps the human need of consciousness, guilt and even the forming of religions did evolve - under the Infinite's involvement / ordained by God - as a first means of collective self administration; but species individually would have no purpose to evolve guilt. In the contrary!

Isn't it not that the need to prove that God does not exist, springs from our very quest to get rid of guilt?


How was the first chicken produced prior to the egg producing ability evolving?

 

[Craig4]

I really think you should smoke a big, fat joint and then think about the hat question.

 

[Matthew Ellard]

Which sex among the species evolved first?

They evolved simultaneously. That's why we have combining sexual DNA. You didn't even know that?

How did the species produce prior to evolving reproductive organs?

There are six well known methods of non-sexual reproduction, which still exist: Fission, Budding, Vegetative propagation, Spore formation, Fragmentation and Agamogenesis. You didn't even know that?

How did the species produced the organs of vision prior to knowing what was there to see?

Mutation and evolution. You don't believe in evolution remember? You are a crazy religious person who can't explain what DNA is.

Why did species evolve consciousness? What purpose would guilt serve them individually?

Mutated individuals with evolved advantages, such as consciousness have more offspring. You didn't even know that?

You really need to go to school and ask your teacher why sexual reproduction has two DNA strands........unless you claim you don't have DNA.

 

[Matthew Ellard]

I really think you should smoke a big, fat joint and then think about the that question.

He doesn't know what DNA or evolution is. He's simply trying to start a new religion....and failing in a hilarious manner.

 

[Matthew Ellard]

Isn't it not that the need to prove that God does not exist, springs from our very quest to get rid of guilt?

No. Life on Earth is 3.8 billion years old. Humans are only 190,000 years old.

Who cares about this fictional "god" character invented by bronze age sheep herders, 3,000 years ago.

 

[tazanastazio]

They evolved simultaneously. That's why we have combining sexual DNA. You didn't even know that?

There are six well known methods of non-sexual reproduction, which still exist: Fission, Budding, Vegetative propagation, Spore formation, Fragmentation and Agamogenesis. You didn't even know that?

Mutation and evolution. You don't believe in evolution remember? You are a crazy religious person who can't explain what DNA is.

Mutated individuals with evolved advantages, such as consciousness have more offspring. You didn't even know that?

You really need to go to school and ask your teacher why sexual reproduction has two DNA strands........unless you claim you don't have DNA.

Having said all that, you still come up against "Did the chicken bear the egg, or the egg the chicken?"

There are six well known methods of non-sexual reproduction, which still exist: Fission, Budding, Vegetative propagation, Spore formation, Fragmentation and Agamogenesis. You didn't even know that?

...And why did the species need to evolve the seventh method, namely "Gamogenesis"? More importantly how did the species knew what the outcome would be, to evolve the appropriate sexual organs "simultaneously" ?