|
Nominations and Campaigning for the 2024 RationalWiki Moderator Election are now open |
User:Birdman
Challenges to the CGCP Resolution (Highlight Film)[edit]
Nog Bogmire: "The convoluted solution you propose shows there's something he can't do, requiring a workaround."
Birdman: Nog Bogmire fails to realize that the CGCP is a simultaneously-happening event. For something to end up requiring a work-around, a failure would have to be present prior to enacting the workaround. Since any perception of failure is simultaneously resolved with success, then no state of failure can be determined and no "workaround" is required. It is the exact same thing as (2 + -2 = 0) to which neither #2 is deemed a success or failure. (Also see "MURDER TRIAL analogy" below).
€h33s3βurg3rF@€3: "Is it a known argument?"
Birdman: It has been known (published) since January 17th 2017 and a copyright has been established with the U.S. Copyright office.
oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ: "All logical syllogisms must, ultimately, combine two assumptions into one conclusion. The stone paradox can be (simplistically) written such: Assumption: X is omnipotent if and only if X can do anything. Assumption: X cannot lift stone Y. Conclusion: X is not omnipotent. Please rewrite your proof into a formal series of two-assumption-one-conclusion statements."
Birdman: Assumption: X is omnipotent if and only if X can do anything. Assumption: X can simultaneously lift and not lift an unliftable stone Y. Conclusion: X is omnipotent.
NOTE: The following two comments from Christopher and Kazitor have been combined as they actually end up defending the CGCP resolution:
Christopher: "If God is lifting all of plane B including the rock then he can lift the rock. If he can lift the rock it isn't a rock he can't lift"
Kazitor: "the point is that on top of the plane, the omnipotent being is unable to lift the rock. A truly omnipotent being would be able to lift the rock from anywhere, including on top of the plane. The fact that in your scenario, it can't, means that it is not an omnipotent being."
Birdman: Christopher and Kazitor have unknowingly provided diametrically-opposed conclusions as to why they "think" the CGCP is flawed. Christopher says, "God lifts the rock, therefore he is not omnipotent" and Kazitor says, "God fails to lift the rock, therefore he is not omnipotent." BOOM! ...Game over!
MURDER TRIAL Analogy: A better example would be if you, RSamys, were on trial for committing a murder. The prosecution presents incontrovertible evidence that you are guilty of murder. The defense offers incontrovertible evidence that you are not guilty of the murder. So how would a judge rule in this case? Judge Christopher has ruled that you are guilty. Judge Kazitor has ruled that you are innocent. Now using your previous arguments you are trying to argue that both judges can be right... but aren't they both equally wrong as well? And if you accept Christoper as being right, then RSamys is off to the death chamber as an innocent man. And if you accept Kazitor as being right, then the murderer known as RSamys is set free to kill once again.
The truth is that a judge cannot reach a determination because it is a PARADOX just like you cannot reach a determination in the CGCP because it is a PARADOX! Since the Stone Paradox is a paradox and the CGCP represents its mated counter-paradox, then the two paradoxes nullify each other and no determination can be reached regarding the question that has been asked. (mic-drop moment).
Anna Livia: (No questions asked)
Birdman: No response required.
Koi: "This is a false dichotomy. Both Christopher and Kaz are correct because the paradox has two options that render God non-omnipotent. They're both correct. They're just pointing out that God is not omnipotent in two different ways."
Birdman: Christopher and Kaz cannot both be correct if Christopher's determination is that god has lifted the stone and Kazitor's determination is that god has not lifted the stone. They are diametrically-opposed determinations and not even close to what is defined as a false dichotomy.
RSamys: As far as the paradox is concerned, you are correct, there is no middle ground. Not a false dilemma.
Birdman: RSamys' comment counters Koi's.
RSamys: Now, Christopher goes from the other of the two possibilities (god lifts the stone). Instead of lifting the stone, he lifts the plane the stone is on, correct? That doesn't mean he lifts the stone, right? If he does lift the stone, along with the plane, I think there's a step missing in the argument. Because plane A could be the floor, but plane B could be my hand, but by lifting my hand, I also have to lift whatever is on it... or I am never lifting anything with my hand ever. But is that the paradox? I think if we're defining what we mean carefully (like separate and inseparable instead of something way less defined like lifting), we can create the paradox correctly and then talk about it.
Birdman: The next time you're at McDonalds order a Big Mac at the counter. When they place it on the tray sitting on the counter, you will reach down and lift the tray (with the Big Mac on the tray) and carry it over to the dining area. Definition of lift: "to raise from a lower to a higher position :elevate"
RSamys: So let me try to make this more simple for myself so that I can better understand where you're coming from: Can God create a goose that is the number 4? Yes or no?
Birdman: If you are completely out of arguments and this is what you are now reduced to, then you have no arguments. You might enjoy this Richard Dawkins link regarding your "Goose-4 question":
Kazitor: "Anything in any circumstances would include stripping away all of an omnipotent being's omnipotence prior to it ever being allowed to perform the task." Like it or not, you just admitted the omnipotence paradox is true. -- Why shouldn't an omnipotent being be able to do anything in any circumstances?
Birdman: Stripping away the omnipotent being's power PRIOR to having it perform a task does not present a challenge to omnipotence, but rather a challenge ONLY to whatever is left after you strip away the powers of omnipotence. You are not testing omnipotence at all, but this still represents a "circumstance" that falls under the heading of "any circumstances."
The very best of the "logic and reason" found within Atheism thinks that removing whatever it is you are testing from the equation prior to testing it is in some way... well... "logical" and this represents a valid test. Again, .......I have no words! Can you name any scientific situation where your extremely bizarre "testing method" can be used to where a scientist would not say, "You are absolutely insane!" after you attempt to do use it?
(No response from Kazitor)
Birdman: (To Kazitor and Christopher): Re-write the Stone paradox in a way that includes a qualifier for either "any circumstances" or "certain circumstances." Let everyone see what you two come up with.
(No response from Kazitor or Chirstopher)
109.148.15.201: "Birdman - are you going to respond to Anna Livia?"
Birdman: Go back and examine every comment Anna has made. You'll be surprised to discover that there is not one relevant statement made or any relevant questions asked regarding the Circular God Counter-paradox. None!
CONCLUSION: So there you have it, friends! That's where it stands 35 days after my link contribution was deleted by Nog Bogmire. 35 days later and NOT ONE SINGLE ARGUMENT HAS BEEN SUCCESSFUL in defeating the Circular God Counter-paradox. There is no smoking gun flaw and you all will continue to delete the stoneparadox.org link... because it's in your Atheist blood to do so.
Protected Ideology = irrationalWiki[edit]
Well, folks, it's been very interesting reading the wide variety of arguments offered from everyone who chimed in. I loved the fact that after Nog Bogmire declared my CGCP resolution as "stupid" on day one that the discussion continued on for nearly six weeks. Poor ol' Noggy obviously didn't know what he was dealing with, did he? Very interesting how something deemed so "stupid" at first glance managed to bring out all kinds of logic-based arguments once everyone realized the high levels of abstract thinking this counter-paradox actually requires. I think I've counted nine users on the two talk pages that have struggled in vain over the past six weeks to find a critical flaw. ...Isn't that correct?
I think the highlight of the entire six weeks of debating was when Chirstopher and Kazitor both chimed in with their very best arguments as to why the Circular God Counter-paradox supposedly didn't work. Christopher determined that "God lifts the rock, therefore he's not omnipotent!" and Kazitor determined that "God cannot lift the rock, therefore he is not omnipotent!" Yep, that's right! ...Diametrically-opposed determinations reached by two of your own rationalWiki users! I'm tellin' ya, ...Ya just can't write this stuff!
It was hilarious to observe how these two (and others) intellectually circled their wagons to try to save their failed arguments, but everything became crystal clear to everyone else right at that point. And as I've stated all along, it is your inner need to protect your Atheist ideology at all costs that has prevented you from adding the stoneparadox.org link to the rationalWiki "Omnipotence Paradox" page. Any rationally thinking person would have accepted the validity of my counter-paradox right at the point where Kazitor and Christopher clearly contradicted their own arguments.
It is sad to see this counter-paradoxical resolution which has been demonstrated to be 100% valid by way of your own arguments end up censored by rationalWiki. Many who frequent this website might have enjoyed discussing it with others as well? I wonder what arguments they would have made? However, it is the truth that wherever censorship is to be found, you will always find a protected ideology somewhere behind the curtains and manning the controls.
Good luck to you all! ...I'm off to the many other non-ideologically driven websites that still possess the desire to discover something intellectually revolutionary and freely present it to the world!
Sincerely, Birdman -- --Birdman (talk) 02:39, 24 October 2017 (UTC)