StarGateWars Forums

Agapooka wrote:

Thriller wrote:whether or not an omnipotent being could make himself unomnipotent is at the heart of the paradox created in the rock thought experiment. Because if the being where able to truly make itself unomnipotent it could not go to being omnipotent again; since it would no longer have the power to do so. It it is impossible for an unomnipotent being to make itself omnipotent; to do so would mean that would mean it was still omnipotent the entire time and never really achieved unomnipotent status.

See the paradox there.

Agapookas post derives some interesting talking points though.
Could the being separate itself into two unomnipotent parts? meaning that the whole is all powerful while the parts are finite.
Are two infinites able to coexist in the same reality?
...


So the paradox still stands if it could create such a rock that it is unable to lift. This is an inherent paradox lying in idea of infinites and to tackle that subject matter fully you would probably need two or more phd's in theoretical physics.
Not saying it is not fun to try.

So, basically you disagree that an omnipotent being could temporarily be wholly unomnipotent? What about permanently?

And concerning the temporary paradox, I see none. Before giving up its omnipotence, it can create an automatic timer that will give it its omnipotence back - transferring omnipotence to a subservient force that lacks the free radical of free will and will dependably transfer it back according to programming. See?

So yeah, I agree that an unomnipotent being couldn't make itself omnipotent, but while it still has omnipotence, it can empower another being to make it omnipotent after it has given up its omnipotence. It can even create that being and program it to be dependable.

Then you beleive you can take a finite from an infinite, while maintaining an infinit or that two finites could add to an inifinite(which violates the laws of thermo dynamics among other things). Now if a finite was seperated from a infinite, while still maintaining a serpate infinite part, combining them again would result in what; infinite plus 1?

How am I implying that two finites could create an infinite?

How does what I said contradict which law(s) of thermodynamics among other things?

It's easy to put words in someone's mouth or tell them that their ideas violate some principle, but can you demonstrate that as well, with clear and logical language?

If I make an error, I don't want to hear a claim to that effect; I want it explained in detail and without ambiguity.

I am not putting you down, Thriller. I just know that if what I said violates a principle in which you believe, that you would be able to demonstrate it, considering your claimed superiour knowledge of that principle. This will also allow me to clarify if you misunderstood me.

Agapooka

I'm not sure how to explain it clearly but i'll try. as x ---> infin where x aproachs that magnitude, | x | of x grows beyond any assigned value. this is where the idea of infin can be added to the complex plane as a topological space, denoting a point compactification of the complex plane.(bsically a semi false edge value). Arithmetic operations similar to those given below for the extended real numbers can also be defined. ie x^3 +4 =.... to infin, -infin. since there is no distinction in the signs (all roads lead to rome). infinity cannot be added to itself.

Thermo dynamics states; If we grant that all systems are (trivially) in thermal equilibrium with themselves, the law implies that thermal equilibrium is an equivalence relation on the set of thermodynamic systems. This law is tacitly assumed in every measurement of temperature. Thus, if we want to know if two bodies are at the same temperature, it is not necessary to bring them into contact and to watch whether their observable properties change with time.

There would not be enough energy in serperate finite systems that could be added to reach an inifinite amount of energy. Unless you had an inifinite set of systems....

Basically to be infinite in power you would aslways had to be infinitely powerful, you could never go to not being infinite. But an omnipotent being (a little different then the concept of infinity) should be able to do just that. An explanation into how this would be possible is only acheivable through a supernatural explanation. So the paradox still stands and your refutation was not logical because it was not based in reality but super reality.

Not again...Anyway its not a paradox its a rhetorical question,the answer is obviously NO as ANOTHER god besides GOD does not exist...

Ashu wrote:Not again...Anyway its not a paradox its a rhetorical question,the answer is obviously NO as ANOTHER god besides GOD does not exist...

Says who? Who can really know? There could be hundreds, thousands. Maybe there are none.

Z E R O wrote:

Ashu wrote:Not again...Anyway its not a paradox its a rhetorical question,the answer is obviously NO as ANOTHER god besides GOD does not exist...

Says who? Who says there aren't hundreds. Thousands. Maybe there are none.

The witnesses of millions of people that saw his son,the fact that people PROVED in every way possible that God does exist and the fact that even if we say he doesn't and whatever we say cannot change that...

Interesting you think there are no other gods than that referred to by the christian faith.

After all the greek & roman patheons contained hundreds of gods. And of course there are lots of nature gods as well. The number of gods there are depends upon what you worship & how you do it. For example if you worship balence (especially the balence of nature/life) then you are likely to believe in many hundreds of gods all responsible for their own small little bit.

It rather smacks of arrogance and religous intolerance to say there is and can only be one god just becuase of the works of one man who may or may not have existed over 2000 years ago.

Thriller wrote:Basically to be infinite in power you would aslways had to be infinitely powerful, you could never go to not being infinite. But an omnipotent being (a little different then the concept of infinity) should be able to do just that. An explanation into how this would be possible is only acheivable through a supernatural explanation. So the paradox still stands and your refutation was not logical because it was not based in reality but super reality.

I have highlighted expressions that I find troubling.

You'll have to define natural and supernatural if you want to contrast the two with each other. Furthermore, your claim that my argument is illogical is questionable at best. I would use more precise terminology. Use words such as "valid/invalid" and "sound/unsound". "Illogical" isn't very clear and your application of it here is quite naïve in simply failing to distinguish between "valid/invalid" and "sound/unsound" and noting that an argument need not be sound in order to be valid. What then is "illogical"?

Then you beleive you can take a finite from an infinite, while maintaining an infinit

While I don't recall doing that here (although I may be wrong), I disagree with you that this is theoretically impossible. I shall, however, offer you the opportunity to persuade me. Answer me these questions:

If I remove a finite number from infinity, am I left with a finite number? If so, how would that work? If not, am I then not left with an infinite number? Furthermore, you seem to find flaws with equilibrium only within finite systems. How can you even conceive of applying the laws of a finite system to an infinite system? I would say that the two are very different systems.

Agapooka

Ashu wrote:

Z E R O wrote:

Ashu wrote:Not again...Anyway its not a paradox its a rhetorical question,the answer is obviously NO as ANOTHER god besides GOD does not exist...

Says who? Who says there aren't hundreds. Thousands. Maybe there are none.

The witnesses of millions of people that saw his son,the fact that people PROVED in every way possible that God does exist and the fact that even if we say he doesn't and whatever we say cannot change that...

Millions of people have not claimed to have seen Christ (I'm assuming that's who you're talking about). For a person who is claimed to have done many miracles, there are amazingly few texts written about him. Of those texts, the large majority of them have lost any possibility of being credible due to the many translations and frequent changes made throughout the 2000 years they have existed.

What exactly is this proof you're talking about?

Soultion to this paradox is quite simple.Sure it cant after all its all mighty and perfect right?
He just needs to create a rock where there is no time,space or anything so picking a rock has no meaning since there is no way to determine when or if rock is picked up.But all mighty can pick that rock but in fact it cant

unseen1 wrote:He just needs to create a rock where there is no time,space or anything

Does a rock not take up space, though?

Agapooka wrote:
Does a rock not take up space, though?

Can he create a rock that doesn't take space?

But if a rock, by definition, takes space, then we are dealing with a logical impossibility, because, were he to create a rock that took space, it did not satisfy the criterion and were he to create anything that did not take space, it could not be a rock.

Unless, of course, a rock is a rock by virtue of its name, in which case, I can create a rock that does not take up space. Asking a deity to make a purple duck that's not purple is not only asking it WHAT to do, but telling it HOW to do it. If you place restrictions on how it can accomplish something, then, logically, you'll have limited what it can do within those restrictions. Omnipotence has, by definition, no restrictions on what one can do. By placing restrictions, you are asking for an omnipotent being to do something without using its omnipotence. Whose fallacy is this?


Agapooka

I was just being ironic,because every solution to this paradox will trigger a new one .
But non the less if a rock finds it self in void of nothingness you wont be sure if deity can pick it up or not,right?In fact it can be lifted but since there is nothingness it actually cant be...right?
So question is,can a rock be lifted in emptiness?