braxbroscratcher wrote:

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.

Not true - their definition for His power is false. His power is indefinite and undefined, but not infinite - he is not omnipotent, but he is powerful beyond mortal imagination.

owlannaelsa wrote:

How to do the sum 1 violin x 10 (time travel required

1. Put a violin on a table.
2. Leave it there for 10 minutes
3. Remove it from the table and travel back in time to 1 minute ago
4. Take the violin on the table.
5. Repeat the steps 3 and 4 eight more times
6. Travel back to the present.
7. Put all 10 violins on the table
8. Realise that all 10 violins are the same violin

Hyperfinity wrote:

braxbroscratcher wrote:

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.

Not true - their definition for His power is false. His power is indefinite and undefined, but not infinite - he is not omnipotent, but he is powerful beyond mortal imagination.

believe what you want. i want force what is true upon you

Hyperfinity wrote:

braxbroscratcher wrote:

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.

Not true - their definition for His power is false. His power is indefinite and undefined, but not infinite - he is not omnipotent, but he is powerful beyond mortal imagination.

believe what you want. i want force what is true upon you

agentToast wrote:

Going back in time wouldn't cause a paradox. Instead, everything would turn out normal, since if you go back in time, that means that event happened in the past, so all events that happened there would make everything normal in the future.

At l.east that's how I think of time travel

jromagnoli wrote:

agentToast wrote:

Going back in time wouldn't cause a paradox. Instead, everything would turn out normal, since if you go back in time, that means that event happened in the past, so all events that happened there would make everything normal in the future.

At l.east that's how I think of time travel

Maybe, but it would alter the timeline significantly (see butterfly effect) and might alter your life causing you not to go back in time.

Hyperfinity wrote:

-snip-

PrincessFlowerTV wrote:

Hyperfinity wrote:

-snip-

Don't do long quote trains, and try not to do religous paradoxes.

jromagnoli wrote:

agentToast wrote:

Going back in time wouldn't cause a paradox. Instead, everything would turn out normal, since if you go back in time, that means that event happened in the past, so all events that happened there would make everything normal in the future.

At l.east that's how I think of time travel

Maybe, but it would alter the timeline significantly (see butterfly effect) and might alter your life causing you not to go back in time.

PrincessFlowerTV wrote:

Hyperfinity wrote:

-snip-

Don't do long quote trains, and try not to do religous paradoxes.

Greenduck54 wrote:

jromagnoli wrote:

agentToast wrote:

Going back in time wouldn't cause a paradox. Instead, everything would turn out normal, since if you go back in time, that means that event happened in the past, so all events that happened there would make everything normal in the future.

At l.east that's how I think of time travel

Maybe, but it would alter the timeline significantly (see butterfly effect) and might alter your life causing you not to go back in time.

Not really, it would probably just create an alternate reality where you went back in time and did stuff, while leaving everything alone in this reality
(at least i think that's how it works)

jromagnoli wrote:

Greenduck54 wrote:

jromagnoli wrote:

agentToast wrote:

Going back in time wouldn't cause a paradox. Instead, everything would turn out normal, since if you go back in time, that means that event happened in the past, so all events that happened there would make everything normal in the future.

At l.east that's how I think of time travel

Maybe, but it would alter the timeline significantly (see butterfly effect) and might alter your life causing you not to go back in time.

Not really, it would probably just create an alternate reality where you went back in time and did stuff, while leaving everything alone in this reality
(at least i think that's how it works)

That makes sense with the parallel universe theory.

braxbroscratcher wrote:

owlannaelsa wrote:

How to do the sum 1 violin x 10 (time travel required

1. Put a violin on a table.
2. Leave it there for 10 minutes
3. Remove it from the table and travel back in time to 1 minute ago
4. Take the violin on the table.
5. Repeat the steps 3 and 4 eight more times
6. Travel back to the present.
7. Put all 10 violins on the table
8. Realise that all 10 violins are the same violin

The moment you do 4 the one you currently possess ceases to exist.

wWSunPandaWw wrote:

Hey, I've seen people who are discussing religious things and i would like to remind people that religion is not an okay discussion topic for the TIRAP forums, thanks.

wWSunPandaWw wrote:

Hey, I've seen people who are discussing religious things and i would like to remind people that religion is not an okay discussion topic for the TIRAP forums, thanks.

Hyperfinity wrote:

wWSunPandaWw wrote:

Hey, I've seen people who are discussing religious things and i would like to remind people that religion is not an okay discussion topic for the TIRAP forums, thanks.

But it has something to do with paradoxes, so it is valid for this thread. What makes religion any different from something like time travel?