Recent posts by Beryllium8 on Kongregate

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Omnipotence is logically impossible.

Originally posted by wolfinthesheep:
Originally posted by Beryllium8:
@vikaTae You sadden me. Obama is definitely not omnipotent: he cannot go on for months without food. Omnipotence means “all-powerful”, not “very powerful”. The prefix “omni-” means “all”, just as omniscience is to know all, not to know a lot.

Oxford disagrees with you too:

omnipotent
Pronunciation:/ɒmˈnɪpət(ə)nt/
adjective
(of a deity) having unlimited power.
having great power and influence:an omnipotent sovereign

And look, they even mention sovereigns being omnipotent.

Until your argument stops relying on picking and choosing the definitions that you like, there’s really no point in discussing with you any more.

EDIT: And just to nail your coffin down harder:

all-powerful(all-pow·er·ful)
adjective
having complete power ; almighty:an all-powerful dictator

Well, those definitions are wrong. Hitler was definitely not all-powerful: if he was, Judaism would no longer exist. Also, we are talking about deities, so it would be unlimited power.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Omnipotence is logically impossible.

@vikaTae You sadden me. Obama is definitely not omnipotent: he cannot go on for months without food. Omnipotence means “all-powerful”, not “very powerful”. The prefix “omni-” means “all”, just as omniscience is to know all, not to know a lot.

@Jantonaitis It’s impossible for anything to violate the laws of logic. Also, it’s kind of humorous when you describe Allah like that. Reminds me of the Monarch of Pointland from Edwin A. Abbott’s Flatland.

@ouriyou I have no idea what the hell you mean by “since Beryllium8 ‘cannot refute the idea of omnipotence’ with Google and Wiktionary alone”. I’ve also mentioned the classic omnipotence paradox in the OP. Also, only your “absolute omnipotence” is actually omnipotent, i.e. able to do anything. The ability to do anything includes the ability to do the logically impossible. Your “omnipotence” is not really omnipotence, as it is limited by the laws of logic. Also, “almighty” means “all-powerful”, not “most powerful”. There are not “many definitions” of omnipotence. In the strictest sense of the word, omnipotence is the ability to do anything.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Omnipotence is logically impossible.

Originally posted by vikaTae:
Originally posted by Beryllium8:
Originally posted by Pokerhappy:
Definitions are not meant to be open to interpretation or subjective.

Those.

How is “the ability to do anything” as a definition vague in any way?

Because you are the one to have assigned that definition, and you completely ignored this accepted definition:

2. having very great or unlimited authority or power.

Purely because it didn’t fit with your argument.


Originally posted by Pokerhappy:

lolno. Also, I am not a woman.

Nobody’s perfect.

The President has very great or unlimited authority or power. Should we consider Obama to be omnipotent?

Originally posted by Pokerhappy:
Originally posted by Beryllium8:
Originally posted by Pokerhappy:
Definitions are not meant to be open to interpretation or subjective.

Those.

How is “the ability to do anything” as a definition vague in any way?

Vague in that nothing says whether or not that includes things that are logically impossible. And common sense would lead you to the conclusion that it does not, as that would make it inherently impossible.

Originally posted by Powertripped:

Why was my post deleted when it was just me pointing out to the moderators what Pokerhappy’s post meant? I just didn’t take her words literally, just like he doesn’t take the Bibles’ words literally.

lolno. Also, I am not a woman.

It isn’t vague. It says “the ability to do anything”. It does not say “the ability to do anything that is logically possible”. The assumption that it is only talking about the logically possible is an unjustifiable one.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / God is not real

Originally posted by DarkBaron:

… Information cannot travel faster than light, nor even at light. Quantum Entanglement isn’t saying you can transmit information faster than light.

It is possible to slow light down, and have something travel faster than light in that medium. E.g. Cherenkov Radiation. But.. the speed of light in vacuo, 299 792 458 m/s is the fastest speed in the Universe — travel any faster and go back in time. Traveling faster than light in water does not suddenly mean you can transmit information faster than light in vacuo.

Sorry, I was unclear. By “speed of light”, I meant “speed of light in a perfect vacuum”. If you could survive in a vacuum without exploding and/or suffocating, and you took a light beam on in a race in a vacuum devoid of any gravity, the light beam would always win.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Omnipotence is logically impossible.

Originally posted by Pokerhappy:
Definitions are not meant to be open to interpretation or subjective.

Those.

How is “the ability to do anything” as a definition vague in any way?

 

Topic: Serious Discussion / Mum Put 2 Kids For Sale

This post has been removed by an administrator or moderator
 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Omnipotence is logically impossible.

Originally posted by Pokerhappy:

That doesn’t mean they aren’t.

What do you mean by “that”, “they”, and “aren’t”?

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Omnipotence is logically impossible.

Originally posted by Pokerhappy:

If you take it in the most literal sense possible, indeed.

Definitions are not meant to be open to interpretation or subjective. They are supposed to define a word to the best ability possible. If people begin interpreting word definitions differently, then it causes them to misinterpret people using different definitions of the word, e.g. the correct ones, and the point of even having a definition is lost. Definitions are supposed to clear and objective if it is to have any value whatsoever.

@wolfinthesheep I was looking at the Wiktionary entries for “omni-” and “potent”. But the etymology shown there shows the same point: “omni-” meaning all, “potent/potens” meaning powerful. An omnipotent being is all-powerful, i.e. has the ability to do anything.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / God is not real

Originally posted by wolfinthesheep:
Originally posted by Beryllium8:
It is impossible to travel faster than light.

Not true. It may be impossible for an object to have a greater velocity relative to light, but not impossible for an object to move between two points in space and arrive before the beam of light does.

Also, how could time be created by an entity, i.e., god? It is impossible for there to be anything before time, as the word “before” implies there was time, but there cannot be time before time existed. In order for something to be created by a conscious entity, there must have been a time before the creation was made and only the entity existed. Since, by definition, nothing can exist before time, time could not have been created by an entity as no entity could have existed before time.

Time is a concept created by those who perceive it one moment at a time. A being (not even an omnipotent being) who is aware of all “time” at once would have no understanding of it.

The only way to beat the light beam would be to cheat using gravity. If you raced a light beam in a straight line in an area absolutely devoid of gravity, the light beam would necessarily win.

Also, you’re using circular reasoning. Saying that time is a concept created by those who perceive it one moment at a time begs the question, “What is a time?”. Your argument is invalid.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Omnipotence is logically impossible.

Originally posted by wolfinthesheep:

So…because you decide that “Omnipotence” means “can do anything”, you’ve disproved its possibility?

om·nip·o·tent
–adjective
1.
almighty or infinite in power, as God.
2.
having very great or unlimited authority or power.

Feel free to dredge up your own definition, but you will be extremely hard pressed to find one that says “Can do anything”.

Definition one is the only one that really makes sense (definition two makes sense iff the phrase “very great or” is removed). The reason comes from deconstructing the actual word. The prefix “omni-” means “all”. The word “potent” means “the ability or capacity to perform something”, according to Wiktionary. An omnipotent entity would thus be thus have all the ability or capacity to perform something, i.e. it would be all-powerful as it has the ability to do anything.

Originally posted by Pokerhappy:

>semantics argument incoming


One, you’re using google to find supposed synonyms that support your argument, which is laughable.

Second, refer to my other post. Assuming that “Almighty” means God can make 1 + 1 equal 3 strikes me as an incredibly smart-assy argument.

Almighty means “able to do anything”. An almighty, i.e. omnipotent, god could make one plus one equal three without changing the meanings of the words. It’s not smart-assy, it’s a totally sound argument.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / God is not real

Originally posted by casspi4three:

you’re not really understanding what I’m trying to say to you. I’ll stop here.

Maybe you should try rephrasing what you said so I understand it better.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / God is not real

Originally posted by casspi4three:
Originally posted by Beryllium8:
Originally posted by casspi4three:

Time existing or not does not matter. If there were a God he would have obviously created time. How he did this is unexplainable. Although who are we to say what exists and what doesn’t? We would be full of ourselves if we threw away the entire idea of God and his existence. The rules wouldn’t apply to it and he could just hax his way through life.

It’s very unlikely he exists but it’s not impossible, nothing is impossible, even scientists will tell you that.

It is impossible to travel faster than light.

Also, how could time be created by an entity, i.e., god? It is impossible for there to be anything before time, as the word “before” implies there was time, but there cannot be time before time existed. In order for something to be created by a conscious entity, there must have been a time before the creation was made and only the entity existed. Since, by definition, nothing can exist before time, time could not have been created by an entity as no entity could have existed before time.

@Gotter: God is a word for a higher power, it doesn’t have be relative to Christianity.
____
You’re assuming the the basic rules would apply to “God”. That’s not the route you should take. You see.. the concept of god can’t be comprehended because he would debunk all science if he existed. That’s where I’m going to stop
___
I don’t like to think I’m all knowing, so I don’t throw away the idea God “could” exist. I don’t even know what “God” is to be honest.

Okay, remove the “i.e., god” part. The point remains.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Omnipotence is logically impossible.

Originally posted by Pokerhappy:

sigh

Is there a particular reason you assume the supposed omnipotence applies to things that are logically impossible, aside from being a smart-ass?

If someone comes up to you and says “I can do anything, for example I can blow up the world with a single thought and transform matter into other matter all with my magical powers” is your response “can you make one plus one equal three?”

No, because that is obviously not what he meant. If there is a passage in the Bible that specifically says “The LORD can do anything, like you wouldn’t even believe, like, dude, he can, like, rape logic,” I stand corrected, but I don’t remember one.

You must be misunderstanding what I’m saying. I said that any entity with the property of omnipotence is logically impossible. I don’t know what you’re talking about with your first sentence.

By the way, there are several Bible quotes showing Yahweh’s omnipotence. One of them, Genesis 17:1 illustrates my point perfectly. “And when Abram was ninety years old and nine, the LORD appeared to Abram, and said unto him, I am the Almighty God; walk before me, and be thou perfect.” According to Google, the word “almighty” means “having complete power; omnipotent”. So yes, the Biblical God is omnipotent, and therefore logically impossible for reasons in the OP.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / God is not real

Originally posted by casspi4three:

Time existing or not does not matter. If there were a God he would have obviously created time. How he did this is unexplainable. Although who are we to say what exists and what doesn’t? We would be full of ourselves if we threw away the entire idea of God and his existence. The rules wouldn’t apply to it and he could just hax his way through life.

It’s very unlikely he exists but it’s not impossible, nothing is impossible, even scientists will tell you that.

It is impossible to travel faster than light.

Also, how could time be created by an entity, i.e., god? It is impossible for there to be anything before time, as the word “before” implies there was time, but there cannot be time before time existed. In order for something to be created by a conscious entity, there must have been a time before the creation was made and only the entity existed. Since, by definition, nothing can exist before time, time could not have been created by an entity as no entity could have existed before time.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / God is not real

Originally posted by DarkBaron:

Sometimes I wonder why I bother posting sources if they’re not read.

I did read it.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Omnipotence is logically impossible.

Originally posted by Pokerhappy:

Everything relating to a god is logically impossible.

Who says what he does has to be logical?

If a person wants his idea to be entertained for the least amount of time, it needs to make logical sense. Also, the definition of “god” is, according to the World English Dictionary, a god is “a supernatural being, who is worshipped as the controller of some part of the universe or some aspect of life in the world or is the personification of some force”. That does not sound logically impossible, and this generic definition has only been refuted via evidence: it has no logical contradictions. Most gods have other properties as well, e.g. omnipotence, which contradict themselves and thus render those specific gods logically impossible.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / God is not real

Originally posted by DarkBaron:

Nice to see you took the time to read the article and think about the possibility that time exists. No really, I’m sure it was very difficult to ignore it, then spew more information about time and surmising it must therefore exist.

And even if time does exist, which it might, there exists another problem, the arrow of time. This is problem in physics. The reason time is different is because it is relative, which is when time got knocked down a few pegs. Einstein redefined time. Light travels at c, regardless of the speed at which you are traveling, which would mean that the only way for this to make sense (since the space isn’t changing) is for time to change. This is disconcerting. Sure you have the Lorentz Length contractions (which really just complements time dilation), but those are only apparent. Time is actually slowing down, as has been confirmed from the concord and cesium clocks.

Not to mention the idea that this idea of time is largely incompatible with Quantum mechanics. You want to bring up Occam’s Razor? Bring it up and apply it. Scientists aren’t exactly thrilled about the idea that they may need to abandon the concept of time. Sometimes, occam’s razor leads you to some very disturbing conclusions.

The fact that time can be quantized like that does not mean time is not real. In a film, the frames run at a certain number of frames per second. For most movies, this is 24. The universe can be thought of as a film that extends itself due to some preset rules, like a computer simulation, at a rate of 10⁴³ fps. The movie still has its frames, or instants, while our universe has its instants of time which are of the Planck time. To argue that since time is not continuous, it does not exist, is like arguing that a digital signal does not exist for the same reason.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Omnipotence is logically impossible.

Originally posted by WanderingHero:

Unless all the Theists in yoru area are the kind of annoying fundamentalist that gives Christianity a bad name, far more numerous in America than other places, most Christians except God cannot do something self contradictory. Doesn’t really prove anything

At no point did I say I am talking about Yahweh (the Judeo-Christian God). I am talking about any theoretical entity with the property of omnipotence; Yahweh happens to be one such entity.

Originally posted by Powertripped:

What kind of morals must an omnipotent god have? Knowing that you have the power to do anything and yet not using that power to do things that would be considered saintly? What purpose would you have to just sit and watch man twist and turn in their evil and criminal ways? Things happen that are so far away from any possible moral code that any moral person on this earth would stop these actions if they had any chance to. A God that is worshiped and omnipotent would be able to prevent horrible acts of evil and it doesn’t, leading us to believe that this god is immoral. Why would you worship an immoral God?

That’s a classic dilemma, with four propositions:

1. An omniscient god would know that evil exists.
2. An omnibenevolent god would want to prevent evil from existing.
3. An omnipotent god would be able to prevent evil.
4. Evil does exist, ergo an omniscient, omnibenevolent, omnipotent god cannot exist in this universe.

So God is naïve, has limited abilities, a psychopath, or non-existent. I’ll be addressing this in a future post; it is a good discussion topic.

Originally posted by Pokerhappy:

He is god, therefore logic does not apply to him.

Argument → over

So God can make it so one plus one equals three without changing the definitions of any of the words? Such a task is logically impossible.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / God is not real

Originally posted by DarkBaron:

Actually, he’s correct. Time is man-made in that it is an arbitrary unit defined by an interval. However, now the second has been defined in the time is takes for light to travel 1/299792458 meters. but then again, light was originally found to be 299792458 m/s by using our definition of the second on Earth (which is based around our very own rotation).

Occam’s razor may actually point to time not existing, as some scientists have purported. Time was invented as a means of measurement, very true. It was later found to be part of space — an arbitrary unit of measuring spacetime. But we find it to be highly incompatible with the quantum mechanics we’ve grown to love so much.

No, time exists. It exists without any units to measure it. Time constantly ticks along even when nobody is counting the seconds. Time is a direction, just like length, breadth, or depth. Length would still exist without the metre, and time would still exist without the second.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Omnipotence is logically impossible.

Originally posted by DarkBaron:

You’re not good at this game, analyzing me. You should probably stop. One of my best friends is a mature and reasonable theist… hence why he’s a good friend of mine. One of the most reasonable I know. Guess what he believes? God totally lives outside the spacetime realm. are you done with the personal attacks, yet?

I don’t use ad hominem arguments: it is a dishonest irrelevant tactic. Beside, it is against forum rules. I attack the ideas, not the people.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / On the Origin of Life

Originally posted by Private_Pigface:
Originally posted by Beryllium8:
Originally posted by Private_Pigface:

Guys, if God didn’t create all life, who did?

You can’t answer that because you KNOW that God created all life.

No conscious entity created life. If you would read the OP, you would find a much more scientifically plausible alternative. Stearic acid can be formed from natural processes.

You are wrong. God created all life. Besides, how would you know if you weren’t around back then?

How would you know God created all life if you weren’t around back then? How do you know the Universe even existed before you were born?

Also, we can disprove a conscious entity creating all life via Occam’s razor. If there is an entity that created all life (call it God), then there are three possibilities for His origin:

1. God has ancestors which have evolved.
2. God was intelligently designed.
3. God simply popped into existence without a cause.

Number 3 is the easiest to deconstruct. Occam’s razor would indicate that, if it is possible to have a god appear from nothing and have that god create everything, it should also be possible to just have everything appear from nothing directly and avoid the need for a god. This leaves us with options 1 and 2.

In the case of possibility of number 2, that begs the question, “Who designed God?”. This causes us to add a “super-God”, which leaves us with all three possibilities again, as to the origins of the Super-God. The Super-God’s origins can be attributed to a Super×2-God, and so on ad infinitum. This means there is an infinitely complex system of gods and greater gods.

Possibility number 1 then falls victim to Occam’s razor. When we trace back God’s ancestry, we wonder how that initial ancestor, the “Gadam” (combination of God and Adam), originated. This leads us back to the three possibilities, so we could continue this cycle ad infinitium, as well.

Or we could simply avoid the need for a god in the first place and simply have options 1 and 3, gradual natural processes and simply popping into existence. The evidence we have supports that there was gradual natural processes which were initiated due to the Universe popping into existence for no cause (quantum mechanics states it is possible for energy to spontaneously appear). This is a much simpler model than ones involving gods, so we can use Occam’s razor to support the possibility of there being no gods until evidence comes along supporting the existence of a god or gods.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / God is not real

Originally posted by casspi4three:
Originally posted by Fawful_:

I do not believe God is real. There is nothing backing up his reality. As I have been told by someone, “nothing existed before time.” Then I asked, “Then how did God make time?” And the response? “God existed before time.” Which is impossible.

Time is man-made. Who knows if time even exists? ROFL

How is time manmade? You’re probably thinking of things used to keep track of time, e.g. clocks. Time still exists without a clock. To quote Albert Einstein,

“The only reason for time is so everything doesn’t happen at once.”

Unless everything happens at once, time exists (Occam’s razor would state there would be no need for time if everything happened at once). It is extraordinarily patent that not everything happens at once: I did not type and post this message simultaneously. Ergo, time exists.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Omnipotence is logically impossible.

Originally posted by DarkBaron:
Realistically, most theists who have thought the matter through, accept that omnipotence cannot occur.

Lol what world do you live in? Most theists I encounter say God is omnipotent because he LIVES OUTSIDE THE SPACETIME REALM WOOOOOOOOOOOOO… because that makes sense.

The laws of logic cannot be evaded, no matter where you are. Going into metaspace does not mean you can both be at Point A and not at Point A at the same time.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Omnipotence is logically impossible.

Originally posted by vikaTae:

A married bachelor is a man who had a partner, but that partner has passed away, and he has not remarried.

Thus he has no partner (bachelor status), but he is legally married.


Realistically, most theists who have thought the matter through, accept that omnipotence cannot occur.

Actually, the definition of the word “bachelor” is “A man who is not and has never been married.”† It is impossible for someone to both be married and a bachelor.

† Source: http://www.google.com/search?q=define%3A+bachelor&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / God is not real

Originally posted by Darkruler2005:

How is it incomplete to describe position 2 as lacking belief? If you look here, you will find that “lacking” means, in this case, “missing or absent”. In the case of position two, the belief in gods or no gods is absent (the word “missing” implies it should be there, so I will just use “absent”).

1) Have belief that there is a god or gods
2) Have belief that there are no gods
3) Have no belief either way

Position 2 is the belief there are no gods. The belief there are no gods is not absent. The belief there are gods is absent, but this is an incomplete description, as the person also believes there are no gods. It’s a stronger form of the absence of belief in gods. It is conceptually correct to say they lack the belief in the opposite, it is just more informative to also state they believe in something else (which already includes the lack of belief in the opposite any way).

Touché. The touché only applies to your pointing out that defining position 2 as lack of belief in gods as incomplete, though: the claim that “position 2 doesn’t really lack belief” is invalid. It lacks belief in gods, but does not claim to lack belief in anything else. Position 2 does lack belief in gods, so the definition applies; it is simply incomplete, as you said.

Originally posted by meganoob712:

I do believe in the existence of near omnipotent beings but i don’t believe in the concept of god. For me, god is merely created to restrict human nature. I mean these beings would be too busy to govern the business of insignificant lifeforms such as humans. I also believe that such beings don’t fight evil or stand out for justice instead they concern themselves more with the equilibrium of between the forces present in the universe.

So you lack belief in gods, and you believe in near-omnipotent entities. What classifies as “near-omnipotent”? To be omnipotent is to be able to do anything, so what limitations would your near-omnipotent being have? I’m also not sure how you define “anything”, i.e. whether an omnipotent being would be able to create logical contradictions, e.g. a married bachelor or a truthful claim that 2+2=5 without redefining any of the symbols’ values.