User talk:Birdman/Archive2

A question
Has anyone anywhere supported your position on the Omnipotence Paradox? As far as I can see on RW people tend to explore obscure possibilities leading off (switching the dimensions within which God interacts with the stone; polytheism and the stone paradox etc) but no further. Anna Livia (talk) 00:11, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
 * What do you mean about "position" on the Omnipotence Paradox? I don't have a position or claim about Omnipotence other than I used the literal translation of the word "Omnipotence" (all power) as the definition. That IS what the word defines, ya know?  It can't be anything more or less than "all power" and there is no legitimate arguments that can state otherwise.  You usually tend to be rather ambiguous in whatever you are trying to convey, so what do you mean by "Position?  What are you thinking that my position actually is that has been brought into question?
 * And absolutely NO! NOBODY here on Rationalwiki is willing to "explore obscure possibilities" regarding the Omnipotence Paradox.  What the hell made you think that?  If you don't believe me, just read every single word written by everyone (other than ME) right here on my talk page.  ...There's no "exploring" of my CGCP resolution going on.  It's just a bunch of people making slams and contrary claims while failing to support their claims.
 * The greatest depth of exploration you've ever made regarding my CGCP resolution was to question God's gender. Yep, nothing screams "cutting edge exploration!" like wondering if God has a peepee.--Birdman (talk) 13:40, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not slamming you. And since our definition of the term "omnipotence" comes to the same conclusion, then as a result, your solution fails. You cannot take something that has the defining trait of no limitations and solve logical problems with it by applying limitations. This is why professional apologists and theologians have moved on to Maximal Power, which argues God has the power to create the rock (but not lift it), but then that he gains the power to lift the rock (but not create it or any other such objects). Thus the counter to the omnipotence paradox is made, while remaining (mostly) within the bounds of logic, and through a solution that does not violate Tautology or Occam's razor. Now, counter-apologists must come up with the next response.
 * P.S. For all your claims to the contrary I have yet to see you list professional apologists and/or theologians endorsing and/or using you counter-argument. 14:18, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
 * To clarify - the 'you' refers to Birdman.
 * Birdman - has anyone said 'I agree fully with you Birdman' - or have they decided that apart from 'what happens if God creates something that is too large to lift' in one set of dimensions and then changes the dimensions in which said object is observe' that your proposition falls into the category of things which cannot be answered (along with Gödel's incompleteness theorems, and the extent of other people's bad taste).
 * And, Birdman, why do you keep on referring to 'God's peepee' rather than use an adult term? As we are supposedly created in (the) God(s)/Goddess(es) image(s) and are a diverse bunch of straight/LGBTQ+/genderfluid/other people then we have to logically assume that the deit(y/ies) are equally or even more diverse. Anna Livia (talk) 14:31, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
 * GrammarCommie wrote: "You cannot take something that has the defining trait of no limitations and solve logical problems with it by applying limitations."   ...Where have I applied any limitations?  Where do you see my CGCP resolution acknowledging any limitations being associated with an Omnipotent Being at all?  "Professional" Theologians have been changing all kinds of "definitions" regarding God since the concept was first considered.  Purgatory is no more, there is no hell and Mary got a job promotion to co-redemptorist.  She and Jesus are now officially "Tag-team Redemptorists!"  If one redeemer gets tired while redeeming, they can slap the other redeemer's hand and they can take over for a while.  They re-define things in order to make them work because they want to protect their Christian ideology.  ...Sound familiar?
 * But hey, Science is just as guilty! The most difficult proposition Science has ever had to face is scientifically demonstrating how "something comes from nothing" in regard to our universe.  Just as "Omnipotence" appears to be paradoxical, so does "Something from nothing."  Like all of the other "professional" Quantum Theorists, Lawrence Krauss struggled to explain how this can happen.  So what did he do?  He took a card from the "professional" Theologeans and simply re-defined what "nothing" is.  Nothing is no longer defined as "the absense of anything at all."  Lawrence Krauss defines it as, "It turns out empty space is a boiling, bubbling brew of virtual particles, popping in and out of existence in a time so short that you can' t even measure them."  ...Who knew "nothing" was actually so much stuff?  Again, when things don't work, ...just redefine the terms until it does!
 * I am not dealing with "God" in the sense of what is described in religious texts.  I am only dealing with a generic "Omnipotent Being" as would be described as a "being that possesses all power."  I call my OB "God" because it is easier to comprehend what an OB can do when you consider it like a god.  If you strip out any and all religious asides and take "Omnipotence" merely as an "intellectual concept" then all kinds of doors open up for creativity.
 * Re: "Maximal Power:" Again, when you can't get past a problem, just re-define it to where it no longer presents a problem!  Christianity has God sacrificing himself as a form of salvation for those who are true believers.  The Biblical God is depicted as changing his mind, being persuaded by others, is influenced by prayer, sometimes does not know things (Example, "Who told you that you were naked?") and wanting to destroy his creations because they are a perceived as a design failure.  God apparently didn't make people "correctly" the first time and needed to wipe them all out.  There's no way any "Professional Theologians" can bridge the gap between the God of the Bible and a generic Omnipotent Being that possesses "all power".  They are two totally different entities.
 * GrammarCommie wrote: "For all your claims to the contrary I have yet to see you list professional apologists and/or theologians endorsing and/or using you counter-argument."  ...If they feel compelled to redefine Omnipotence to "Maximal Power" then there's no way in hell they will ever embrace my CGCP.  It would require them to have to return the original definition of God as an "all-powerful being" and then the "gap" would once again ensue.  The Biblical God does things that don't correlate with what a generic OB can do.  I am dealing with an OB purely on the "logic" of what an OB "should" intellectually be able to do based on a generic entity that possesses "all power."  The Omnipotent Being (God) depicted in my CGCP resolution did not come to Earth in the form of a human to sacrifice himself in order to save mankind.  It's just a conceptual being that can allegedly do anything.  Once you conceive of this entity, then you bombard it with challenges (like the Stone Paradox) to see if there are any limitations.
 * Anna Livia wrote: "Birdman, why do you keep on referring to 'God's peepee' rather than use an adult term?" ...Because, I'm mocking you, Anna! If you are actually wondering if God has a penis or a vagina you have not even scratched the surface of what constitutes an Omnipotent Being.  I explained this to you before.  Why would an all powerful being ever need a "sex organ" if it can do absolutely anything it wants?  ...Who does it need to screw, Anna?  If it wanted to be more than just one entity, it merely manifests itself as two by its own will.  You should already know that.  That's why I use the word "peepee" because pondering which sex organ is positioned between an OB's legs is an infantile consideration.  ...Furthermore, why does an OB need legs ...or even a body?  It doesn' "need" anything at all because it's frickin' OMNIPOTENT!
 * Look, Anna, I have a very well-thought-out counter-paradoxical resolution to the Stone Paradox that successfully uses non-marginalized Omnipotence to meet the challenge and also brings into question the validity of using paradoxical logic as an evaluation tool. Unfortunately for me, one person standing in the way of other people being able to see this resolution listed on Rationalwiki is more concerned about God's genitalia ...and therefore doesn't want it listed.--Birdman (talk) 16:07, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
 * TLDR. Summary.
 * You still have not given examples of persuading people to your system - all I see is people disagreeing with you on various different grounds (and agreeing between themselves on various of those points) and you reiterating the same series of 'points.'
 * It is you who keep on bringing up the 'peepee' - when I am clearly referring to a more pluriform deity-entity/ies, and your remarks come across as a tad infantile (especially when compared to some of the more obscure and exotic parts of fandom).
 * Can you apply your paradox to getting a sensible solution to Brexit and/or interpreting Finnegans Wake? Anna Livia (talk) 17:25, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
 * And am I the sole reason for your not being able to convert RW into rampaging OP-ists? I did not know I had such power. Anna Livia (talk) 17:26, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

RW is in part a place for discussing philosophical and other concepts, sometimes with much heat and light being generated, fluid opinions and name-calling. Those who stay on it for some length of time are likely to have a diverse range of 'positions on, and views of, the world and theology' - some explicitly stated in their contributions to the wiki, and some which they choose not to discuss thereon (for a range of reasons).

Your original proposition is one that many people are willing to discuss from various angles - and those interested are likely to observe discussions on your talk page as well as on the Omnipotence Paradox page. But, a day and a half after I posed my original question, nobody has come to your defence while there have been variously expressed negative opinions in the past. You will just have to accept that your proposition may not be considered valid in its present form.

The impression given is that RW contributors have a mature outlook (but not necessarily those of some areas of fandom and other such places) - so do not consider use of the term 'peepee' and similar terms as offensive or mocking in any way. My point is that 'the Deity/ies has/have a more complex gender/sexual nature/sexuality than we mere mortals (and the rest of life on Earth) can even imagine. Anna Livia (talk) 11:27, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Anna, I would love to "debate" my CGCP with you, but you aren't interested at ALL in how it works and I doubt you've even tried to comprehend what is even going on inside it. Your only contribution to evaluating my counter-paradoxical response is to ask questions about God's genitalia, ask me to present my Philosophy credentials, ask which "professional" Philosophers support my resolution, lecture me about how great RW is, point out that nobody on RW supports my CGCP, question my spelling and punctuation and provide "Birdman-bashing back-up" for any of your "RW buddies" whenever they appear to be losing in a debate with me.  You've never provided a challenge to my CGCP, Anna, and I doubt you even understand it at all.


 * And when I claim that the protection, promotion and forwarding of the "Atheist Ideology" is why nobody here on RW will even consider my CGCP, I end up getting "blocked" by the very same people I'm talking about and told that I am a "LIAR."


 * But when I go to Rationalwiki's Omnipotence Paradox "Talk Page" and read where LeftyGreenMario wrote, "Can God stone himself and then lift himself?" to which you replied, "What would God get stoned on/what sort of stone would he turn himself into?" the truth is revealed. So yah, ...sure Anna, obviously I must be "completely wrong" about the Atheist Ideology standing in the way of impartiality here on Rationalwiki, and any Judge in a courtroom setting would agree with you 100%, right?  I mean, seriously ...only someone who is 100% totally "impartial" would write what you and Lefty wrote, right?


 * I'm sure if you were reading a bunch of Christians' comments on a Wiki-based Richard Dawkins "Talk Page" that said, "Maybe Richard should try to evolve himself a brain?" and someone else replied, "That would be asking waaaay too much out of evolution!" you would equally argue that there isn't any "ideology" standing in the way on that page as well, right? You're definitely not going to run into any trouble trying to submit any of your "contributions" on that Wiki site, are ya, Anna?--Birdman (talk) 14:01, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
 * You don't even understand the fundation of logics and you try to argue about logic ? Seriously dude, educate yourself. Let's take a proposition P, P is either true or false. If you claim "P is true and false" then you either claim that
 * 1) Logic has a problem. You created a logical paradox and we need to rework the rules of logic. That's not a problem with the excluded middle, with P and non P I can prove anything, even 1=0.
 * 2) The claim doesn't respect the rules of logic.
 * 3) One of the premise is wrong.
 * So when P is "An omnipotent being can create a stone he cannot lift" and you claim "true and false", you have to choice, either the rules of logic are wrong, and it that case you are more insane than we thought. The claim respect the rules of logic, unless you want to restrict to "non-self refential propositions" but in that case you are just dodging the problem and it diesn't even work (we can create the same paradox without any self-reference, just ask to create an omnipotent being and a stone that he cannot lift). So, you are just proving that omnipotence is impossible, but you don't even understand why. I am amazed when someone proves exactly the opposite of what he's claiming to prove, but refuses to understand why. Alcyon007 (talk) 15:05, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Sure, Alcyon007 let's just circle right on back to something that's already been thoroughly discussed and successfully countered. Let's once again use your OWN RULES when asking YOU the question:  "Are you ever going to stop molesting little children?"  ...Now remember, Alcyon007, the "rules of logic" and the adherence to the foundational principles of logic (as you state) require that you answer this question with a single "Yes" or "No" response.


 * Hey, man...these are YOUR RULES ...not mine!
 * So you don't understand logic. I already gave an answer, but you obviously lie when you tell me I didn't. Congratulations, you are a liar. Now, let's look at how to answer this question. The question is equivalent to "I will no longer molest children in the future", but this question has a premise "I was molesting children" so we have an implication "if I was molesting children => i will no longer molest children". If the premise is false, then the implication is true. Conclusion : YES.
 * That's not our problem if you don't understand logic dude. but stop acting as if you had any clue.Alcyon007 (talk) 17:22, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Presupposition is such an amusing approach. 17:39, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Birdman - #do not make baseless/libellous statements# (such as I have just removed).

Your much vaunted theory boils down to 'God who is male (rather than the more complex deity/ies I was describing) either can produce a stone which he cannot lift, so is not omnipotent, or cannot create such a stone, so is not omnipotent.

It is you, not me, who have a problem with God's genitalia (and a juvenile language use) and no sense of humour. Anna Livia (talk) 16:55, 20 November 2018 (UTC)