website statistics
Cottontail » Comics - Page 13 "God"
May 28th, 2014, 2:00 pm

average rating
5.00

comment?

Page 13 "God"

  • « first
  • prev
  • next
  • last »
  • « first
  • prev
  • next
  • last »

[R]

Advertisement August 20th, 2017, 10:16 am


[R]

digitalspiritx May 28th, 2014, 5:13 pm

Time to ask his magical hippy son some questions.

[R]

man in black May 28th, 2014, 7:32 pm

In other words don't ask god stupid questions

[R]

Deonis May 29th, 2014, 2:49 am

God loves everyone. Except for smartasses. Nobody likes those.

[R]

Nonsensical

SFCGator May 29th, 2014, 12:11 pm

Haha, that's the kind of meaningless question asked by a finite mind to the infinite mind.

[R]

Non-Nonsensical

HiEv (Guest) June 1st, 2014, 12:45 pm

@SFCGator: It's not a "meaningless" question, I understood the meaning just fine. She's asking about the paradox inherent in omnipotence. And if a supposedly "infinite mind" can't answer a question about that when it should be able to, I'd question the claim about how supposedly great that mind really is.

[R]

MrTTAO June 7th, 2014, 8:10 pm

This is a silly question, its not being a smartass, its just being stupid.

An omnipotent being possess the power to transform himself into a non omnipotent being.
To create a rock he cannot lift would require that he first transform himself from god, to "nearly god", a being that can do anything except lifting rocks above a certain size or weight. A completely doable task

[R]

HiEv (Guest) June 9th, 2014, 6:40 am

@MrTTAO: That's just another paradox. Is the god really omnipotent if can turn itself semi-omnipotent, but can't turn itself back to full omnipotent?

If you want to argue it *can* turn itself back, then that fails because it was never really semi-omnipotent at any point because it could simply return to full omnipotence and do whatever it wanted.

If you take the position that it *can't* do that, then you've just found something that a supposedly "omnipotent" being can't do (strip itself of its own powers and then return them).

Either way it's a another paradox, just like the rock paradox. That's why full omnipotence simply isn't possible, it always runs into a logical self-contradiction.

- HiEv

[R]

MrTTAO June 9th, 2014, 7:10 am

It isn't a paradox at all.
it can turn itself into a semi omnipotent being that is specifically incapable of restoring itself to full omnipotence. nothing paradox about it.

Heck, it doesn't even have to make it semi omnipotence. an omnipotent being is capable of turning itself into a powerless mortal or even outright killing itself

[R]

Negative

Positive (Guest) June 12th, 2014, 12:14 am

Belief in an omnipotent being is undertaken without proof. You can believe in science, and the wonder and splendor of the universe, but you can't believe in science and an omnipotent being. Prior comments on the lack of omnipotence stand.

[R]

HiEv (Guest) June 12th, 2014, 8:14 pm

@MrTTAO: "it can turn itself into a semi omnipotent being that is specifically incapable of restoring itself to full omnipotence. nothing paradox about it."

Except, then it's not omnipotent if it can't do that and then turn itself back to being omnipotent. Which was the point I already made.

[R]

MrTTAO June 12th, 2014, 9:56 pm

@Positive: Belief in god being taken based on faith rather then proof is irrelevant to the discussion about the paradox of omnipotence

"believe in science" (and the claim you make about science) shows you to be incredibly ignorant on what science actually is.

Aside from that, your entire post is a personal attack where you are basically calling religious, under the assumption that if I point at a fellow atheist and say "your argument is stupid" I must want the religious to win. I am in fact a fellow atheist, who is pointing out that this argument is as stupid as the "banana is proof of god" argument made by religious people.

[R]

MrTTAO June 12th, 2014, 10:11 pm

@HiEv: So your argument is actually "if an omnipotent being can use its power to make itself non omnipotent then its not really omnipotent"? In other words "an omnipotent being is capable of relinquishing its omnipotence and maintaining it at the same time"

This is actually a far better argument then the stupid rock argument. and it is also a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT argument than the rock argument. Since the rock argument never dealt with the relinquishing of omnipotence.

It is also a very stupid argument. If you want to get into such meta, then the counter is "sure, omnibeing just redefines the concept of paradox or omnipotence such that none exists from it both relinquishing and maintaining its power a the same time". Things just get stupider from there.

Feel free to make such arguments, but you are merely lowering yourself to the level of the religious zealots when you do that

[R]

HiEv (Guest) June 15th, 2014, 4:07 pm

@MrTTAO: No, pointing out that there is something a purportedly "omnipotent" being can't do because it causes a paradox is exactly the same KIND of argument. Claiming that it's a "COMPLETELY DIFFERENT argument" only demonstrates that you've missed the point.

And yes, your "counter" is pretty "stupid", as you put it. A universe where the logical absolutes ("A=A", "A≠~A", and "either A or ~A must be true" where "A" is a valid proposition) are not always valid is inherently impossible. These are axioms in logic because they are absolutes. You cannot describe to me a universe where they are not valid.

Even if we set aside the impossibility of that, then all you've done is make a God which is somehow simultaneously both omnipotent and NOT omnipotent, and pretended that this contradiction somehow solves the paradox, rather than creating a bigger one. So, yeah, that's pretty a stupid argument.

Finally, the fact that I'm explaining all this to you because you insist on not comprehending facts which conflict with your deeply held beliefs that omnipotence cannot be shown to be an incoherent concept does not make *ME* the "religious zealot" here.

*cough*