-ShadowOfTheFuture- wrote:

If you plan on traveling back in time and doing something, and then you time travel back into the past and do it, when you return to the future present then the action would already have been done and you wouldn't go back in time and do it. Yes I know that's an old paradox but still.

-ShadowOfTheFuture- wrote:

If you plan on traveling back in time and doing something, and then you time travel back into the past and do it, when you return to the future present then the action would already have been done and you wouldn't go back in time and do it. Yes I know that's an old paradox but still.

LordOfMuffins wrote:

A: What B says is true

B: What A says is false

donutmaster400 wrote:

Then none of them would be true.

Because A states that B is true. But B states that A is false, which means B isn't true. And nothing else states that A is true.

Jonathan50 wrote:

donutmaster400 wrote:

Then none of them would be true.

Because A states that B is true. But B states that A is false, which means B isn't true. And nothing else states that A is true.

No. If B is wrong, A must be right (because what A said isn't false) which isn't possible because A said B is right.

scarletpizza21 wrote:

Your computer will crash and the internet will break.

donutmaster400 wrote:

-ShadowOfTheFuture- wrote:

If you plan on traveling back in time and doing something, and then you time travel back into the past and do it, when you return to the future present then the action would already have been done and you wouldn't go back in time and do it. Yes I know that's an old paradox but still.

Like the grandfather paradox.

Greenduck54 wrote:

1. Ignore Step 2
2. Ignore Step 1

Hyperfinity wrote:

I can prove god (if he existed) can't do everything:

Can god create a stone he can't lift?

If he create a stone and can't lift it, he can't do everything; he can't lift the stone.

If he creates a stone and lifts it, he still can't do everything; he can't create a stone he can't lift.

God is not omnipotent.
EXPOSED!!!!

If god WAS omnipotent, I can disprove god (well, technically this guy):

It is impossible for a square-circle to exist because it contradicts its own definition. The christian god is defined as being simultaneously omnipotent and omnibenevolent. However, it is impossible to be both omnipotent and omnibenevolent at the same time, because an omnipotent being would be capable of evil, while an omnibenevolent being would not. God contradicts his own definition, so he is like a square-circle: impossible to exist.

braxbroscratcher wrote:

Hyperfinity wrote:

I can prove god (if he existed) can't do everything:

Can god create a stone he can't lift?

If he create a stone and can't lift it, he can't do everything; he can't lift the stone.

If he creates a stone and lifts it, he still can't do everything; he can't create a stone he can't lift.

God is not omnipotent.
EXPOSED!!!!

If god WAS omnipotent, I can disprove god (well, technically this guy):

It is impossible for a square-circle to exist because it contradicts its own definition. The christian god is defined as being simultaneously omnipotent and omnibenevolent. However, it is impossible to be both omnipotent and omnibenevolent at the same time, because an omnipotent being would be capable of evil, while an omnibenevolent being would not. God contradicts his own definition, so he is like a square-circle: impossible to exist.

all of this is fixed if the definition of omnipotent is not infinite power, but indefinite power. The difference being, one cannot be defined, the other is not finite.

Hyperfinity wrote:

braxbroscratcher wrote:

Hyperfinity wrote:

I can prove god (if he existed) can't do everything:

Can god create a stone he can't lift?

If he create a stone and can't lift it, he can't do everything; he can't lift the stone.

If he creates a stone and lifts it, he still can't do everything; he can't create a stone he can't lift.

God is not omnipotent.
EXPOSED!!!!

If god WAS omnipotent, I can disprove god (well, technically this guy):

It is impossible for a square-circle to exist because it contradicts its own definition. The christian god is defined as being simultaneously omnipotent and omnibenevolent. However, it is impossible to be both omnipotent and omnibenevolent at the same time, because an omnipotent being would be capable of evil, while an omnibenevolent being would not. God contradicts his own definition, so he is like a square-circle: impossible to exist.

all of this is fixed if the definition of omnipotent is not infinite power, but indefinite power. The difference being, one cannot be defined, the other is not finite.

But that isn't the definition. The definition is ''almighty or infinite in power". Look at this.
You just made up your own definition of the word ‘omnipotent’. Please find one source where it says that omnipotent means indefinite power. I can find thousands of sources saying otherwise. My ears are open. Please prove me wrong, because I think that's the meaning you would like it to be, because you want to prove me wrong, but you should just deal with the fact that that's not the real definition, and god (most likely) doesn't exist.

braxbroscratcher wrote:

Hyperfinity wrote:

braxbroscratcher wrote:

Hyperfinity wrote:

I can prove god (if he existed) can't do everything:

Can god create a stone he can't lift?

If he create a stone and can't lift it, he can't do everything; he can't lift the stone.

If he creates a stone and lifts it, he still can't do everything; he can't create a stone he can't lift.

God is not omnipotent.
EXPOSED!!!!

If god WAS omnipotent, I can disprove god (well, technically this guy):

It is impossible for a square-circle to exist because it contradicts its own definition. The christian god is defined as being simultaneously omnipotent and omnibenevolent. However, it is impossible to be both omnipotent and omnibenevolent at the same time, because an omnipotent being would be capable of evil, while an omnibenevolent being would not. God contradicts his own definition, so he is like a square-circle: impossible to exist.

all of this is fixed if the definition of omnipotent is not infinite power, but indefinite power. The difference being, one cannot be defined, the other is not finite.

But that isn't the definition. The definition is ''almighty or infinite in power". Look at this.
You just made up your own definition of the word ‘omnipotent’. Please find one source where it says that omnipotent means indefinite power. I can find thousands of sources saying otherwise. My ears are open. Please prove me wrong, because I think that's the meaning you would like it to be, because you want to prove me wrong, but you should just deal with the fact that that's not the real definition, and god (most likely) doesn't exist.

The current definition is logically infeasible and thus cannot exist - therefore, it must be redefined if the word is to have any useful meaning. What I'm saying is for the word to actually be useful, it'd have to mean the described object has an undefinable amount of power, since an infinite amount of power would be impossible - because your powers are finite once you rule out the impossibilities. However, another way you could argue omnipotence's definition to be this way is that inf - 1 is still inf, since inf is an infinitely large value, and subtracting one from that does not change the fact it is infinitely large.

since an infinite amount of power would be impossible

Hyperfinity wrote:

braxbroscratcher wrote:

Hyperfinity wrote:

braxbroscratcher wrote:

Hyperfinity wrote:

I can prove god (if he existed) can't do everything:

Can god create a stone he can't lift?

If he create a stone and can't lift it, he can't do everything; he can't lift the stone.

If he creates a stone and lifts it, he still can't do everything; he can't create a stone he can't lift.

God is not omnipotent.
EXPOSED!!!!

If god WAS omnipotent, I can disprove god (well, technically this guy):

It is impossible for a square-circle to exist because it contradicts its own definition. The christian god is defined as being simultaneously omnipotent and omnibenevolent. However, it is impossible to be both omnipotent and omnibenevolent at the same time, because an omnipotent being would be capable of evil, while an omnibenevolent being would not. God contradicts his own definition, so he is like a square-circle: impossible to exist.

all of this is fixed if the definition of omnipotent is not infinite power, but indefinite power. The difference being, one cannot be defined, the other is not finite.

But that isn't the definition. The definition is ''almighty or infinite in power". Look at this.
You just made up your own definition of the word ‘omnipotent’. Please find one source where it says that omnipotent means indefinite power. I can find thousands of sources saying otherwise. My ears are open. Please prove me wrong, because I think that's the meaning you would like it to be, because you want to prove me wrong, but you should just deal with the fact that that's not the real definition, and god (most likely) doesn't exist.

The current definition is logically infeasible and thus cannot exist - therefore, it must be redefined if the word is to have any useful meaning. What I'm saying is for the word to actually be useful, it'd have to mean the described object has an undefinable amount of power, since an infinite amount of power would be impossible - because your powers are finite once you rule out the impossibilities. However, another way you could argue omnipotence's definition to be this way is that inf - 1 is still inf, since inf is an infinitely large value, and subtracting one from that does not change the fact it is infinitely large.

You just disproved got right there

since an infinite amount of power would be impossible

That disproves god's ‘almighty’ power. BAM!
God doesn't exist. You proved it yourself.