Danpech

First, to kctan:

Is the identity of omnipotence properly thought of as a limit upon omnipotence? Or, is truth (primary logic) only a limit upon what we can rightly say that omnipotence is?

And, how about your notion that omnipotence is power without logical limit? Are you sure that that is the case? Because, if it is, than it must have the ability to make itself more powerful still, which trashes your assertion. And, if that is not enough to convince you against your current reasoning, then ponder this:

If your proof were consistent with your standard of conception, you would have no way to prove that a being with anti-qualified freedom could not exist: if it existed, logic could not disprove its existence. If your standard of conception were correct, then the only way you could ever be sure whether or not such an omnipotence existed is if you woke up tomorrow to find that 2 plus 2 now equal 64000.

Why reality demands that omnipotence be conceived as something which reality denies exists is beyond me. What is real is that people contradict themselves, for, impossible concepts do not exist limply out there in reality, but are imposed by erroneous thinking.

The attempt to think rightly is like trying to learn the simple instructions for wonderfully complex dance moves which are being given over the phone. The mind has a thousand arms---and if any of them are not used in coordination with the others, they get in the way wherever they are; the problem is in rightly determining which ones really are in the wrong place.



<a href="http://www.chinapage.com/story/illogic.html" target="_blank">http://www.chinapage.com/story/illogic.html</a> says, in part:
"By logic, both an unpenetrable shield and an all-piercing spear can not exist at the same time."

But, is it possible to have an impenetrable sheild and an inviolable logic at the same time? Yes, it is.

********************************

To Datheron:

I had said:
Does that mean that logic is more powerful than God? What is this word: "cannot"? Does "cannot" have a meaning in itself, or is it, too, relative, i.e., relative to the object to which it is applied?

Datheron replied:
My reasoning is that it is more powerful than God,

What if it is God?

Datheron continued:
and if that is the case, then God is not omnipotent as advertised, or he is powerless under a "greater law" which would than allow for a greater creator of these laws, etc. However, I have had trouble advancing this argument, so be wary.

It seems to me that anti-qualified freedom is very simply not worth having. If anyone can tell me one (real) use which it could have over logically qualified omnipotence, I would be surprised. If you had qualified omnipotence, and omniscience on top of it, what more could you want? If power is a self-consistent logical identity, then self-consistent logic is inherent in power. If it is inherent in power, then it is inherent in all-power. BTW, if the famous rock question were really a test of the property of omnipotence, then you and I would be half omnipotent: we fit that test.

Datheron said:
I'm not getting how you're questioning the definintion of "cannot". My definition is simply: "the inability to perform a feat or task". If you mean that each individual has a different set of limits and abilities, then that's obviously the case. Otherwise, you'll have to clarify.

If everything is related to something, then so is the idea of 'cannot'. Related to power, 'cannot' would mean limited power. Related to truth (logic), it obviously means something else. Since omnibenevolence is refering to benevolence and not to malevolence or indifference, much less to knowledge and power, omnipotence is refering to power and not to impotence, much less to knowledge or heart. If omnipotence were refering to logic and heart and even to sxphdt or ______, then the proper conception of omnibenevolence must be the irrational version I gave at the beginning of this thread. Can, or cannot, benevolence be malevolence? Thus, the term 'cannot' is relative to its object and is not itself some sort of universal 'cannot-ness'. Part of the confusion arises from the implicit fact that power exists on a spectrum, while primary logic is fixed period. Another part is from the implicit fact that logic (sound reasoning) proves all things while power proves only power. Not that one can use argument to prove to that mad mother bear that her paws are no match for you as she swats you to a pulp, but that power, when used, leaves evidence to logic, so that something turned that guy into a bloody corpse.

I had said:
Are you assuming there that God is nothing? Like, is God a being without anything of which he is? Like, say he is simply omnipresent without there being anything present? Is God to be conceived of as a person without anything of which this person is?

Datheron replied:
Depends on what you define "being" as. If we accept the idea that God willed himself into existence, then there was nothing except God.

I do not accept that idea. I reason that, if God exists and that he created everything else which exists, then he is self-existent. This is just like, if he does not exist, that something is self-existent, whether it be a physical thing or merely an order by which physical things come into existence out of nothing. If nothing is self-existent, then anything goes, and I do mean anything, in the anti-qualified sense.

Datheron continued:
There is nothing to reference other than himself; hence, there can be no other references possible, hence making thought itself not possible.

That seems to me to assume that God has the limits of a contingent being, and a contingent being necessarily is referenced to something outside itself. If God is supposed to be self-existent, then he is not contingent and thus in no need of getting his bearings---he is the bearings. What would be in his mind would be knowledge of all the things which necessarily exist. Like number and logic, for instance. If God were the bearings (the necessary existences), this would mean that God is, among other things, logic. While a contingent being would naturally fail to comphrehend how a person could himself be logic, yet this is just what is required if it is supposed that God is the Axiom, the creator, of all else. Hence, omnipotence.

I had said:
Yet, some power must simply exist of itself, otherwise....

Datheron replied:
...otherwise what? Are you implying some sort of a causality of power that we must trace back to the "ultimate standard" of power?

Power cannot come from what is not power. Therefore, power exists necessarily if it is to exist at all. That is, unless we think it reasonable to say that it is not a case of power for power to come into existence out of nothing. If all the power which has ever existed originated out of nothing, then, by very definition of power, the nothing is powerful and so we do not have nothing there, but simple power without reference.

I had said:
Something must exist of itself, even though there are (or can be) things which are made of it.

Datheron replied:
Then you're making an appeal to causality, which is fine...except that the "something must exist of itself" itself is for some reason not subject to causality. This horrible catch-22 makes your position incoherent.

I'm sorry, I fail to follow you. My mind is becoming incoherent on its own. Restate it in a self-contained statement, if you would. What is the incoherence?

Datheron

Danpech,

Then you have to show why you think this is the case. One can just as equally make God = nature, but it does not mean anything unless we can somehow distinguish God from whatever you're defining him equal to. Otherwise, God is just a loaded synonym.

...which is, incidentally, another argument against an omnipotent God. If he did exist, then we would not be here, as we would have no function.

I'm not too sure what you're trying to say here; are you trying to reason that power is logically acceptable?

And of course, there is no such thing as "half omnipotence". That makes the mistake of assuming that omnipotence is somewhere on a finite number line of power...kind of like saying there's a "half infinity" somewhere.

Right. However, please define "heart".

I'm not seeing how you can connect the possibility of power to the relativity of "cannot". When you mention "the term 'cannot' is relative to its object", the only meaning I can derive is simply saying that limits are different for each entity, which is obviously true.

No, I do not believe power can be used to "prove" anything. Power may beget further power, but that is not proof; proof is a formal logical conception that has no place in any other branch unless that branch itself holds some part of logic within it.

Why? You're assuming that we require some sort of "first being", which is of course the cosmological argument, one which can be debated in and of itself. Can there exist an infinitely recursive universe, where there is no beginning or end, hence no need for a first self-existent being? Does causality (which is the driving force behind your assertion) apply to non-time, or to existence itself? All these (and probably more) questions need to be satisfactarily answered before you can make your claim.

Then we're just playing around with definitions; if I can define IPU to be the God-which-cannot-be-understood-defies-logic-yet-exists, then I am free to make all sorts of wonderful claims about the IPU without any fear of repurcussion simply because of the way I have defined the argument - i.e. impenatratable. The same idea goes here - if you rule that the lack of a self-existent being is incomprehensible, I would say that the idea of having a non-contingent being is also incomprehensible.

Then you're envoking a circular argument. I.e. since I have supposed that God is omnipotent, he obviously is everything; if that's the case, then he's the universe, hence he must exist, therefore he is omnipotent. The proper way to come out this arugment is showing how an omnipotent being, which is non-contingent, must exist. Why should I assume a priori that God is the creator?

Another victim of using causality too far. Who's to say what comes from what, when one can arbitarily rule something that does not follow the same rules? Furthermore, what is "power" of a self-existent entity? To have power necessarily means that there exists a context for the being to hold power to; it is a relative term.

...which itself is a non-sensical concept. I think I've explained this above.

I think incoherence was a bad term to use; rather, I would like to replace it with arbitariness, if not fallacial. What I see is that you wish to make a being omnipotent, self-existent, non-contingent, etc. - all wonderful properties based on contingency and causality. Your argument goes that it is necessary to have such an entity in that not having him would render the universe senseless - but here I rule that such an entity itself is senseless.

Baloo

I actually had a friend who extended God's omnipotence to that which is logically impossible...led to a fun dialogue:

Friend: God can do anything.
Me: So can God both exist and not exist?
Him: Yep.
Me: So can God not exist.
Him: Yep.
Me: So, God can... not exist.
Him: Yep.
Me: So, we agree then, that God cannot exist.
Him: Uhh...HEY! You suck!

(By no means do a claim this was any more than a play on words, but man, to see the expression on his face )

Danpech

Datheron,


I had said:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What if it is God?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You replied:
No. If God is all-powerful, does this mean that God merely possesses power, or does it mean that God is power? If God merely possesses power, then we have not defined God himself in any way by saying that he merely possesses power. It gets more interesting from there, but the point is, that, if we say that God is not himself logic, then where did logic come from and why is God himself not logic? If we suppose that God is the creator of the physical cosmos, then there is no justification for supposing that God is not logic.

I had said:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It seems to me that anti-qualified freedom is very simply not worth having. If anyone can tell me one (real) use which it could have over logically qualified omnipotence, I would be surprised. If you had qualified omnipotence, and omniscience on top of it, what more could you want?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You replied:
Then define function.


I had said:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If power is a self-consistent logical identity, then self-consistent logic is inherent in power. If it is inherent in power, then it is inherent in all-power. BTW, if the famous rock question were really a test of the property of omnipotence, then you and I would be half omnipotent: we fit that test.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You replied:
I'm demonstrating that logic is an inherent property of power (A=A), and thus all-power is still power, hence all-power has logic as its inherent partner as well

You continue:
You seem to misunderstand what I mean. It's the if/then proposition and has nothing to do with infinity.

Of course, if you define omnipotence as infinite power, this is not the same thing as the anti-qualified freedom which some suppose to be conceptually valid omnipotence. In the rock-question challenge to omnipotence, the challenger assumes one standard of conception and then another standard of proof. First he assumes something of definition which he does not assume in proof, the latter assumption being the only valid one, while he then concludes from his proof that omnipotence is impossible, yet all he has done is proven his first assumption invalid. Of course, his underlying motive and his ignorance of proof realms is what messes him up in the first place. Logic is a proof realm, and power has nothing to do with it. Likewise, power is a proof realm and logic has nothing to do with that. The implicit motive of the part of theoretical physics which seeks a unified physics is to find the object(s) of all the power that exists which causes every event.


I had said:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If everything is related to something, then so is the idea of 'cannot'. Related to power, 'cannot' would mean limited power. Related to truth (logic), it obviously means something else. Since omnibenevolence is refering to benevolence and not to malevolence or indifference, much less to knowledge and power, omnipotence is refering to power and not to impotence, much less to knowledge or heart.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Right. However, please define "heart".

Why? You seemed to agree by saying "Right".


I had said:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If omnipotence were refering to logic and heart and even to sxphdt or ______, then the proper conception of omnibenevolence must be the irrational version I gave at the beginning of this thread. Can, or cannot, benevolence be malevolence? Thus, the term 'cannot' is relative to its object and is not itself some sort of universal 'cannot-ness'.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You replied:
Right. That's why, even according to logic itself, anti-qualified freedom is not a valid conception. This does not show that logic is superior to power, what it does is validly imply that logic and power are two distinctly different realms of existence and proof, even while power includes logic. Omnipotence is thus the opposite of limited power, while omniscience is the opposite of limited logic. For limited power, there are things requiring power which it cannot do, and the same relative thing applies to limited knowledge. For a being possessing limited knowledge, there are thus certain things which that being inherently cannot know (which is a conclusion that follows from certain identities not all of which I have here made express).


I had said:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Part of the confusion arises from the implicit fact that power exists on a spectrum, while primary logic is fixed period. Another part is from the implicit fact that logic (sound reasoning) proves all things while power proves only power. Not that one can use argument to prove to that mad mother bear that her paws are no match for you as she swats you to a pulp, but that power, when used, leaves evidence to logic, so that something turned that guy into a bloody corpse.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You replied:
If power cannot prove anything, then that means that logic can take the place of power in every past and future case. Power proves power, and I am here using logic to try to show you that you are missing the concept (assuming that you have from your reply). In the direct sense, you can no more use logic to prove power than you can use power to prove logic. Read again what I said there that you just replied to.


I had said:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I do not accept that idea. I reason that, if God exists and that he created everything else which exists, then he is self-existent. This is just like, if he does not exist, that something is self-existent, whether it be a physical thing or merely an order by which physical things come into existence out of nothing. If nothing is self-existent, then anything goes, and I do mean anything, in the anti-qualified sense.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You replied:
You just proved my point, while your reply misses the point I am making. Whether some "being" or a recursive universe, the same point applies either way.

You continued:
Your reply misses what I am and am not claiming. Causality is left undefined here regarding the level on which may be supposed to be for any model. If a recursive universe, then there is no causality at all, because no event or object could be tracable to anything but to that endless circle. And, hence, the universe would be its own self-existence with nothing in it being based on anything else in it. To assume that one thing in such a universe is really based on anything else in it is meaningless, and such a universe would be, by definition, irreducible complex.


I had said:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That seems to me to assume that God has the limits of a contingent being, and a contingent being necessarily is referenced to something outside itself. If God is supposed to be self-existent, then he is not contingent and thus in no need of getting his bearings---he is the bearings.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You replied:
I'm sorry, but I am not arguing for a being, but for some thing, any thing, that is self-existent. As I had already said in my previous post:

I reason that, if God exists and that he created everything else which exists, then he is self-existent. This is just like, if he does not exist, that something is self-existent, whether it be a physical thing or merely an order by which physical things come into existence out of nothing.

---whether it be a physical thing--- That logically includes a recursive universe.


I had said:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What would be in his mind would be knowledge of all the things which necessarily exist. Like number and logic, for instance. If God were the bearings (the necessary existences), this would mean that God is, among other things, logic. While a contingent being would naturally fail to comphrehend how a person could himself be logic, yet this is just what is required if it is supposed that God is the Axiom, the creator, of all else. Hence, omnipotence.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You replied:
Appealing to a recursive cosmos is itself a circular argument. At some point, one must either accept one thing as self-existent, or another, and the only way we finite beings can do so is by the evidence which seems like it can be used to support that thing. If the cosmos is recursive and uncreated, then the evidence for this is gotten from inside of it. In logic, you cannot prove validity, you can only accept it on its own evidence. Whether that constitues a cirular argument is a matter of semantics. The same for anything else that is assumed to be self-existent, only the logical steps to get to it may seem to some people to be many.

You continued:
Is 'infinite power' a synonym for 'every event'? Only in a recursive cosmos, and only if the cosmos is infinite in power (which it cannot be if it is recursive). One cannot test for infinite power directly because there is nothing to measure it with. Thus, logic either can prove whether it exists or not, or else logic inherently fails to be able to prove such. If logic can prove whether it exists or not, then logic even now does prove such, and we simply need to follow it out. If logic inherently cannot prove such, then what can logic prove at all? Certainly not whether God exists and, if he does exist, what he himself is.

You continued:
Omnipotent as in infinite power, or omnipotent as in all the power that exists? The two versions here are not necessarily the same.

You continued:
Do you mean why you should assume a priori that there is a first cause of a given event? Leave God out of the a priori catagory here, as I am not including him in it. We obviously have not got that far yet here, as your own reply recognizes.


I had said:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Power cannot come from what is not power. Therefore, power exists necessarily if it is to exist at all.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You replied:
No. If the cosmos is recursive and uncreated, then power exists necessarily as the universe and all its events. I hope my new replies above shall have cleared up in your mind as to what I am and am not arguing. Your replies missed it all.


I had said:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That is, unless we think it reasonable to say that it is not a case of power for power to come into existence out of nothing. If all the power which has ever existed originated out of nothing, then, by very definition of power, the nothing is powerful and so we do not have nothing there, but simple power without reference.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You replied
No. If, as many physists beleive, some particles pop into existence out of nothing and some of them pop back out of existence, then that is an event of power, and of power without reference. If anything physical is supposed to pop into or out of existence, then that supposition assumes the existence of this power. Whether there is a "being" behind this event making it happen is a further question.


I had said:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm sorry, I fail to follow you. My mind is becoming incoherent on its own. Restate it in a self-contained statement, if you would. What is the incoherence?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You replied:
I have not argued in this thread anything of the sort, while your own rule you have not proven in this thread.


To Baloo,

Similar tricks abound in all matters, Baloo, not just in theology. BTW, I really like your name there. Baloo bear in The Jungle Book was my favorite cartoon character of all time.

Datheron

Danpech,

Yet, it appeas as if God is under the jurisdication of logic; this is the key of why God does not appear to be logic as much as he is under logic. If we presuppose that God is the creator, then you will have to go through all sorts of tricks and loops to rationalize the fact that God himself cannot accomplish a logically impossible task.

The purpose of which we are here.

Alright, then I agree; we can apply logic to all-power as well as to any lesser types of power.

Then please re-define the terms to your liking, at least before presenting the argument.

Quite right. He just shows that it is impossible to have infinite power and still remain logical.

???? What is this "proof realm"? Why are you now separating logic and power, when above you have shown that power is also under logic?

Not an object. An abstract approximation, in the form of an equation or a model. This is an important distinction; the laws of physics are not more "objects" than any GUT, and we treat it as such.

I agree with the former statements, but I cannot make any comment to the final statement without knowing what you mean by "heart".

No - what it shows is that a omnipotent God cannot exist, and you want to rule that as logic makes a mess of power, they are separate. That will not work.

Furthermore, this "opposite of ..." definition is vague and abstract - in daily life, I will note that an opposite usually has a definition that is catered specifically to the context from which it is derived...i.e. opposite colors does not work the same way as opposite standards, which is different from opposite lifestyles. Similarly, you cannot make analogies between omniscience and omnipotence and their "opposites" without first defining what they are.

Finally, note that omniscience is knowledge, and knowledge is not necessarily logic. Logic is a system of identities and laws we have abstracted from our universe to provide a means to run it; however, without knowledge to run the laws with, logic is useless. Here, you are trying to muddy the waters between the laws themselves, and the knowledge by which we can apply these laws.

No; the act of prove and proofing is itself a logical entity and a logical construct. Like I said, all you can state is that power begets power, not that power "proves" power, and that makes a big difference in your argument.

Do you know what is annoying? Circling around the point without actually making it.

....assuming that causality makes sense outside of the universe, or outside of our temporal dimension.

But a recursive universe has no order which it comes from being. Rather, as you mention earlier, it is a circle, with no beginning or end.

Also, it looks like you're relying a lot on self-existence. Before we proceed any further, let's define what it means to exist, and to self-exist.

No - invoking a recursive universe is a circular concept, not a circular argument. Like I said above, you are assuming that we are indeed allowed to "trace back" to some self-existent entity; this already presumes the usage of contingency, which I have already questioned above and thus do not allow until you have shown that it is necessary that we hold contingency valid for all universes and all dimensions.

Precisely. Yet, if we say that logic cannot prove whether God himself exists, we must also accept the fact that logic cannot argue for or against God, therefore he is by all ways and means unknowable.

It would seem to be the latter, as the former does not necessarily derive logically.

This is what I get as the ultimate conclusion of your argument; that God is the creator, the self-existent being or entity. And it appears to me that your argument hinges on this very assumption.

No, what I'm asking is - why does the self-existent being not follow the groundrules that you have laid out?

I believe the theory works much like our familiar laws of conservation - in order for particles to pop in and out of existence (and remember, in going out of existence, particles annihilate and release energy), there must have been some condition that had "negative energy", which would balance out the total energy distribution. I'm unclear on the exact ideas, so I hope some hobby physicist can correct me on this account if I am mistaken.

Then what do you argue as a result of power and contingency? I have merely asked, above, of why a self-existent entity does not have to follow the progression of contingency like every other event and being, and I await your answer; until then, your concept does not seem to make any sense.

kctan

Quotes from Danpech,
Most likely its a limit which we set as what omnipotence can & cannot do. Logically thinking, there will be no such thing as omnipotence as omnipotence implies that its something much more then logic.

Where does it trashes my assertions ? If omnipotence is so powerful that it cannot do whatever it wish to do, then it isn't omnipotence. If omnipotence is to be, then it must defy logic.

We are utilising logic in our way to see things. If we can't use it to debunk something, then the least we can say is we don't have all the answers.

Who says 2 + 2 cannot equal 64000 ? You are the one limiting yourself to the fact that 2+2=4 & not 64000.

Not erroneous thinking, contradictory thinking. In reality, people are always wishing for the impossible (in our sense). That's why what they thought of as their god always have qualities which are impossible (in our sense).

By what standard can you claim that a person is thinking "rightly" or "wrongly" ? When we think, we think. There's no right & wrong.

Danpech

I had said:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Is the identity of omnipotence properly thought of as a limit upon omnipotence? Or, is truth (primary logic) only a limit upon what we can
rightly say that omnipotence is?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

kctan replied:
So you deny that logical truth is a limit upon what we can logically say that omnipotence is. You assert that if (if) omnipotence existed, that logic is not a limit upon it. How, then, do you prove that this 'omnipotence' does not, in fact, exist? If it does exist, then you have no way of proving that it does not exist. Thus, your conception as to what omnipotence is is contradictory to your own standard of proof. You have yet to prove that this is what omnipotence is. Again I ask, what
meaning is there to unqualified power?

If this is what omnipotence is, then omniscience is necessarily knowing how to do all the invalid things which this 'omnipotence' "can" do. If you do not agree with this, then you are using specious reasoning in saying that omnipotence is unqualified while allowing that omniscience is qualified. The same applies to omnibenevolence, and even to any other omni which we may think of, such as omnipresence. If omnipotence is above logic, then so is omniscience. A being who possessed unqualified omnipotence would necessarily possess unqualified omniscience.

The point of all this is to show that some things necessarily exist, and you already grant that primary logic is one of them. But, if you should not grant that primary logic is inviolable, then you shall have contradicted yourself by asserting that unqualified power cannot exist.


I had said:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And, how about your notion that omnipotence is power without logical limit? Are you sure that that is the case? Because, if it is, than it must have the ability to make itself more powerful still, which trashes your assertion. And, if that is not enough to convince you against your current reasoning, then ponder this:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

kctan replied:
It trashes your necessarily implied assertion that the idea of omnipotence means a power that is ultimate, which is what you assert by supposing that omnipotence is above logic. There is no greater power than that includes the
"ability" to do the logically invalid, and that is what you are assuming by conceiving of omnipotence in the way that you do. Yet, your standard of conception for omnipotence contradicts the very definition of omnipotence
which you arrive at by it, because such an omnipotence, by being 'above' logic, can make itself even more powerful still. This, of course, is meaningless. Hence, you think that you have conceived of omnipotence when you really have not. Yet, you grant that primary logic is a necessary thing, and your proof that this omnipotence cannot exist implicitly assumes that
power and logic are duistinctly different realms. Surely, you do not think that you can pass an exam in advanced logic by showing your logic professor that you can squat five-hundred-pounds-worth of copies of your exam. Surely, you do not think that you can pass it by using telekenesis to lift those five-hundred pounds. Surely, you do not think that you can pass it by creating those copies from nothing using your 'mind power'.

kctan coninued:
You have not demonstrated that this is the proper conception of omnipotence, you have merely asserted it.

kctan said:
Are you asserting here that primary logic is inviolable? Or, are you asserting that primary logic may, in fact, be subjective and relative?

kctan continued:
I do. Do you say that it can?

kctan continued:
No, I am not limiting myself to that, I am granting that that is a limit.


I had said:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why reality demands that omnipotence be conceived as something which reality denies exists is beyond me. What is real is that people contradict
themselves, for, impossible concepts do not exist limply out there in reality, but are imposed by erroneous thinking.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

kctan replied:
Are you implying there that there is no such thing as erroneous thinking?


kctan said:
First, a comment on "wrong thinking". The so-called Education system, whether public, private, religious, etc., is so messed up is subtle ways that people grow up believing in the false dichotomy of true and false thinking. If the kid does not get a passing grade, he is often held back to repeat the whole bunch of lessons over again. Ignorance is one thing, and that's fine. Failing to learn something that the "teachers" are hired to force on you, and when and how they decide, is effectively made into a penalty, and this is because bureaucracy has nothing to do with the nature of human education. I am opposed to almost everything that most "religious" people think of as 'good education', because they have bought into the garbage of an educational paradigm that, in effect, treats children's minds like products to be re-engineered to fit some preconceived twelve-year lesson plan. There is nothing wrong with ignorance, and even often nothing especially bad about a little misconception. The only thing that should be considered failure in thought is wrong thinking, because if you never thought something was true which was really false, you would simply decrease in ignorance as you learn things. The "education" system, in effect, turns ignorance and lack of "basic skills" into a crime.

Now for the problem at hand.
By what standard have you yourself claimed that it is erroneous to believe that omnipotence does not (does not) include the "ability" to do the
logically impossible? If your conception of omnipotence is truly what omnipotence is, then my conception of omnipotence is false, because my
conception of omnipotence, through primary logic, says that your conception of omnipotence is false. If you are thinking right concerning what omnipotence is, then I am thinking wrong.

The fact that power "cannot" encroach upon primary logic is seen by you to mean that logic is greater than power. This is power vs. logic in the court of logic. This is a confused standard, and you already admit that power cannot encroach the realm of logic. If the reasoning behind this standard were to be applied, within the realm of power, to logic, you would have the same kind of fallacy: that power is geater than logic. This is logic vs. power in the court of power. Consider logic vs. benevolence. Is logic greater than benevolence? Only if you fail to see that benevolence is a realm of its own and the sole judge within its realm. Can logic prove that benevolence is malevolence? No. Can logic prove that power is no-power? No. The atheist at the following link explains why this whole omnipotence thing you put forward is a fallacy. He agrees with me.
<a href="http://www.abarnett.demon.co.uk/atheism/rock.html" target="_blank">http://www.abarnett.demon.co.uk/atheism/rock.html</a>

John Page

Dan:

Is not the most powerful form of logic that which enables you to convince other people you are omnipotent? Once you achieve this, in a way, you are!

To avoid being caught out by ones obvious deficiency in the potency department, the next best thing is to convince people that you represent the omnipotent and have personal sway over what he will do. Then you call yourself Pope.

Who was it said "Perception is reality"?

Danpech

Yep. Unfortunate, but true. It is a common human fault, no matter what ideology people have. The problem, I think, is two things. Number one is motive, and number two is confusing things together which do not mix (even though these two things are each quite good in themselves).