Omnipotence is impossible...

[Saikyo Kid]

No, not really, this philosophy shit is kinda over my head.

[warmunger]

What's up, finally decided 2 come 2 the Dark Side, eh?

[Saikyo Kid]

I told you I was commin', yo, I just had to get my shit right. I see a couple other cats are here from KMC, too.

[warmunger]

Yup. This is where all the cool people come 2 B...cool.

[Saikyo Kid]

Heh, you just wait, you aint seen cool yet. I'm finna get this ma' phucka poppin'.

[warmunger]

And how R U going 2 do that?

[Saikyo Kid]

Don't even worry. Just know...

[JACK-2]

I hope now that your back I can start bumpin' threads again.

[Saikyo Kid]

Sure, why not.

[Dja Majista]

I know it's been a while, but I still don't think you're quite grasping what my position is really asserting.

Feb 22, 2009 5:48:28 GMT -5 JACK-2 said:

No problem mate.

I do not see how a power that has no limitations can have limitations. That doesn't really make any sense at all and is a contradiction of the term omnipotent. Either it has no limitations or it is not omnipotent.

Omnipotence isn't a language, though. It's concept that we express in language. If it creates contradictions in language then that is because it is beyond anything we can fathom.

My definition does not presuppose any sort of limitation on the power of omnipotence. I'm simply saying that sentences like, "Can God make a four-sided triangle?" mean nothing. I'm saying these questions warrant neither a yes or no answer. Say you were talking with someone over the phone and they asked, "Hey, are you going to--<static makes it so you can't tell what the person is saying>--on Monday?" You, wouldn't respond with a yes or no. You would say, "Wait, could you repeat that? I got static." Then they do, and to screw with you they say, "Are you going to the mhoovawuzzit on Monday?" And then you're just like, "WTF^^ are you retarded?" What I'm saying is that terms like "four sided triangle" and "square circle" are directly analogous to the static in your phone conversation, and the term "mhoovawuzzit." They have no meaning in the real OR imaginary world. They are terms with absolutely no conceptual backing whatsoever.

On the other thread you mentioned that Jesus said "All things are possible with God." I am saying that "four-sided triangles" and "square circles" are not even instances of "things."

[JACK-2]

Mar 3, 2009 16:34:00 GMT -5 Dja Majista said:

My definition does not presuppose any sort of limitation on the power of omnipotence. I'm simply saying that sentences like, "Can God make a four-sided triangle?" mean nothing. I'm saying these questions warrant neither a yes or no answer. Say you were talking with someone over the phone and they asked, "Hey, are you going to--<static makes it so you can't tell what the person is saying>--on Monday?" You, wouldn't respond with a yes or no. You would say, "Wait, could you repeat that? I got static." Then they do, and to screw with you they say, "Are you going to the mhoovawuzzit on Monday?" And then you're just like, "WTF^^ are you retarded?" What I'm saying is that terms like "four sided triangle" and "square circle" are directly analogous to the static in your phone conversation, and the term "mhoovawuzzit." They have no meaning in the real OR imaginary world. They are terms with absolutely no conceptual backing whatsoever.

Well, I agree that questions like that are trolling questions. I simply took them seriously for the sake of argument.

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

Mar 3, 2009 16:34:00 GMT -5 Dja Majista said:

I know it's been a while, but I still don't think you're quite grasping what my position is really asserting.

Feb 22, 2009 5:48:28 GMT -5 JACK-2 said:

No problem mate.

I do not see how a power that has no limitations can have limitations. That doesn't really make any sense at all and is a contradiction of the term omnipotent. Either it has no limitations or it is not omnipotent.

Omnipotence isn't a language, though. It's concept that we express in language. If it creates contradictions in language then that is because it is beyond anything we can fathom.

My definition does not presuppose any sort of limitation on the power of omnipotence. I'm simply saying that sentences like, "Can God make a four-sided triangle?" mean nothing. I'm saying these questions warrant neither a yes or no answer. Say you were talking with someone over the phone and they asked, "Hey, are you going to--<static makes it so you can't tell what the person is saying>--on Monday?" You, wouldn't respond with a yes or no. You would say, "Wait, could you repeat that? I got static." Then they do, and to screw with you they say, "Are you going to the mhoovawuzzit on Monday?" And then you're just like, "WTF^^ are you retarded?" What I'm saying is that terms like "four sided triangle" and "square circle" are directly analogous to the static in your phone conversation, and the term "mhoovawuzzit." They have no meaning in the real OR imaginary world. They are terms with absolutely no conceptual backing whatsoever.

On the other thread you mentioned that Jesus said "All things are possible with God." I am saying that "four-sided triangles" and "square circles" are not even instances of "things."

I think we also have to realize that *we* as humans defined the words "square" and "circle". God allowed us to as humans to rule this world and to define it how we see for the most part, we still obey him but how we definied things were truly made by you and I and are completely relative.

For example a rectangle can be a square sometimes but a square isn't always a rectangle. A rectangle is simply defined as a shape with 4 90 degree angles, there is no real limit on sides (most people don't know that, and I'm sure there are wrong defintions). Obviously 2 of the sides have to be equal, but all four can be equal as well. Does a square have 4 90 degree angles? You bet it does, but it always has equal sides, which is somthing a rectangle doesn't have to have.

[warmunger]

I made a good thread this time, didn't I?

[Dja Majista]

I'm not gonna lie. This thread was pretty kickass.