Birdman

This page is automatically archived by Archiver
Archives for this talk page:

See here for a full archive list including all of the collapsed ones.

Your idea makes no sense[edit]

Your idea makes no sense

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. Christopher (talk) 18:01, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

You wrote: If God is lifting all of plane B including the rock then he can lift the rock.

The rock that God cannot lift is located on Plane (B).
One could equally argue that if God is still unable to lift the stone from Plane (B) that there exists a rock that he cannot lift. This is WHY it is counter-paradoxical.--Birdman (talk) 18:29, 17 September 2017 (UTC)--Birdman (talk) 18:29, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

There is a rock he can't lift even in this scenario (by your own admission) meaning that it doesn't solve the paradox. Christopher (talk) 18:38, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Everything you are arguing has already been addressed. On one hand you are saying that God can lift the rock, therefore my counter-paradox is incorrect. Then when I point out that God fails to lift the rock on Plane (B) you say, "here is a rock he can't lift even in this scenario." What you are failing to realize that whichever argument you make, I can counter it. If you say he is lifting the rock, I can show where he isn't. If you say that he isn't, I can show where he is. Since everything is happening simultaneously, then how can either view take precedence over the other? This is why it is called a counter-paradox.--Birdman (talk) 18:44, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

My previous post made no sense, what I'm trying to say is that the fact that in plane B God isn't lifting the rock doesn't change the fact that he can (he's lifting it in plane A). Because he is lifting it, he can lift it. If he can lift it, it isn't a rock he can't lift.Christopher (talk) 18:52, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

and once again I will come back with the fact that God is still unable to lift the stone on Plane (B) regardless of what is happening on Plane (A). If you try to argue the opposite, then I will offer the opposite of that arguments in return. This is all clearly laid out in the counter-paradox.--Birdman (talk) 18:58, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

So there is something God can't do (lift the stone in plane B) and he's not omnipotent. Christopher (talk) 19:03, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

God lifts the stone from Plane (A). God remains omnipotent. If you say "Then he is lifting the stone", I will say, Not on plane (B). Then when you say, "Well, then he can't lift the stone" then I will say, "He lifts the stone from Plane (A)." We can do this back and forth throughout infinity if you want to? It's a COUNTER-PARADOX!!! What perplexes me is how people feel that they can delete someone's entire content when they don't even understand the nature of what they are deleting.--Birdman (talk) 19:08, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

He can't lift the stone on plane B. Christopher (talk) 19:11, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

He lifts that same stone from plane (A). I can tell now that you aren't interested in the validity of what I have proposed. You are only wanting to eat up space with this back and forth. Unfortunately it becomes a disservice for people looking for new information on rationalwiki.--Birdman (talk) 19:14, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Maybe I phrased it ambiguously: God can't lift the stone from plane B, he has to do it from plane A. Christopher (talk) 19:16, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

And your point is? The stone paradox asks, "Can God create a stone that he cannot lift?" It doesn't specify how high from where or anything else. It only addresses "capability."--Birdman (talk) 19:29, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

My point is that your scenario requires God to not be able to do something, so he wouldn't be omnipotent. The God in your scenario isn't omnipotent, therefore your scenario doesn't address the omnipotence paradox. Christopher (talk) 19:44, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

My counter-paradox requires nothing at all other than for God to simultaneously be able to lift and not lift an unliftable stone. All events happening in the CGCP coincide directly with what is required in the stone paradox. You simple declared, "The God in your scenario isn't omnipotent" even though at no single moment in time can you demonstrate where God is not omnipotent within my CGCP response. Again, we will simply be returning to the back-and-forth over the events happeing on Plane (A) and Plane (B).--Birdman (talk) 19:59, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Do you or do you not accept that in your scenario God cannot lift the rock from plane B? You appeared to accept it earlier but I need to be certain. Christopher (talk) 20:04, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Before I answer your question, I need proof from you that you're not simply doing this to eat up space or wear me out. First, tell me how you think I will answer your question and then I will give you my response after you do.--Birdman (talk) 20:19, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

I don't see how that's relevant but ok: I don't see how an intellectually honest person could not accept this so either you'll accept it, you're intellectually dishonest or I've missed something. Since I can't see how I've missed anything and I try to assume the best in people, I'd say you'd accept he can't? Christopher (talk) 20:28, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

It is relevant because it tells me if you've actually researched what I have proposed. You have an new assumption that you haven't missed anything and that unless I am willing to agree with your other assumption (which is "it is a fact that god cannot lift the rock on Plane (B)") then I am being "intellectually dishonest", to quote you directly.

So here's my response to you: "Do you or do you not accept that in my scenario God lifting the rock from plane (A)?"

It is clearly shown in the CGCP that everything happening on Plane (A) and Plane (B) is happening simultaneously. There is a lifting and a non-lifting activity happening at the exact same moment. Each time you single out one activity, I point to the opposite (which is simultaneously happening). When you single out the other activity, I point to the opposite (which is simultaneously happening). You cannot take one single activity of two simultaneously happening events and declare thatt one activity as more dominant than the other. You are required to take the resolution as a whole, otherwise you are being intellectually dishonest. Example: Which "2" is more dominant in the equation: (2 + -2 = 0) is it "2" or "-2"?
...Which?
So now I'll ask you a question: Which is more intellectually dishonest? (A) Pointing to whatever event is the exact opposite of whatever is being singled out in the defense of a scenario involving two simultaneously-happening events? -- or -- (B) Isolating a single event out of two simultaneously-happening events in order to purposely discredit a proposal, even though you know it is wrong to do so?--Birdman (talk) 00:38, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Could you answer the question? Christopher (talk) 18:52, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Your question was answered. Read it again. You are arguing just for the sake of arguing at this point. This is a disservice to rationalwiki and the people who use it for information. You have not responded to my proposal at the bottom either (nor has anyone else).--Birdman (talk) 19:07, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

I don't see an answer, do you accept that God cannot lift the stone from plane B? Christopher (talk) 19:15, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

The "correct" answer is there, you're just choosing to ignore it. That's okay, I can play your game. Here is my direct answer: "I accept that God cannot lift the stone from Plane (B) while simultaneously lifting the exact same stone from Plane (A)." Now, you have two unanswered questions: (Q1) Which number two is more dominant in the equation: (2 + -2 = 0) is it "2" or "-2"? (Q2) Why have you not responded to the proposal I offered in order to reach a decision regarding the addition of my contribution to the "Responses" section of the "Omnipotence Paradox" rationalwiki page? What I have proposed is what is outlined in the Etiquitte[[1]] page associated with the rationalwiki Community Standards page. Please answer these two questions before addressing my CGCP any further.--Birdman (talk) 22:29, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

That question makes no sense, define "more dominant". If you accept that in your scenario God cannot do something (lift the stone from plane B) then he can't do everything. If there is something God cannot do then God cannot do everything. It doesn't matter that he can lift it from plane A, there's still something he can't do! Christopher (talk) 14:13, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello! Christopher (talk) 11:43, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello! Christopher (talk) 13:23, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Don't you want to respond? It's fine if you don't. Christopher (talk) 17:35, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

I'll take that as either "talkpage notifications are broken and I don't know about any of this" or "I don't want to answer". Probably the latter. Christopher (talk) 19:32, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

I just found these comments, Christopher. Why should I waste anymore time discussing the CGCP response with you if you won't even provide me with a way to determine if the link can ever be added? What's my motivation? Even if I counter everything you ask you will still continue to keep deleting my contribution. You have no interest if whether the CGCP actually works or not. You and I both known that. There is only one important thing to you in life and that is protecting your Atheist Ideology at all cost (even by way of censorship.) You give a scenario where my link can be added if a criteria is met and I'll entertain your questions. Otherwise you're just another snowflake Atheist who can't face a logic-based challenge.--Birdman (talk) 20:42, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘You didn't "just find these comments", you got a notification each time I edited your talk page and I know you've been on the site because you've edited the omnipotence paradox talk page. Why don't you simply refute my comment instead of blabbering on about dominance and calling me a snowflake? Christopher (talk) 09:44, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Yah, Christopher, believe it or not it's true! I kept looking for your notifications at the bottom of the entire talk page (not buried waaaaay up here within 100 other Atheist diatribes). Sorry your narrative isn't working out for you. And Christopher, just because I absolutely love intellectually dismantling the protected ideology of a delete-happy snowflake Atheist, I'll give you one shot and one shot only. Take a look at the CGCP and I'll allow you to present one challenge. I'm not going to waste my time arguing 1000 different points in some infinite thread of back and forth BS - you get one shot and that's it. If the CGCP is so clearly flawed and stupid, then you shouldn't need more than one challenge anyway, right? So go ahead! Take you best shot. I guarantee you I can counter whatever argument you make with little or no effort. It won't make a damned bit of difference, though. You's still spend every waking hour of your short, depressingly finite life steeped in no meaning or purpose with your index finger rigidly poised above the delete button in utter panic that I may once again try to add the stoneparadox.org link to your Atheist-consumed wiki page that deals with Omnipotence. We certainly wouldn't want a link added that is directly associated with the frickin' topic of the page in question, would we my sweet little Atheist snowflake? And if you can't come up with a challenge that's solid, don't feel too bad. Nobody else has done it either.--Birdman (talk) 10:09, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

The notifications contain a link to the text added. Why don't you refute my above comment?

Christopher (talk) 10:16, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

When I click on "messages" it takes me to this page and that's it. It doesn't highlight wherever you've made you stinkin' comment. I have to hunt through thousands of meaningless Atheist rants just to see whatever it is you've written. So what am I supposed to do now, go search through this "War and Peace" novel-type slurry of diatribes to find whatever it is your talking about? And even if I do, is whatever it is supposed I'm supposed to find going to represent your very best challenge?--Birdman (talk) 10:37, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Click the "view changes" link. I'm still waiting for that refutation. Christopher (talk) 10:38, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't get a link when I click on the "messages" notification. All it does is show this page - period! Anyway, is this it? -- "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" ...Is this your very best argument and represents what you think is the smoking gun critical flaw in the CGCP response? ...Seriously? That's it?--Birdman (talk) 10:47, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

It's a major flaw, yes. Christopher (talk) 10:49, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Ohhh, geese! I have had obnoxious children on YouTube offer better challenges. The rock that God cannot lift is located on Plane (B), so regardless of your failed attestation, a rock is still present that God cannot lift. Someone else who doesn't see things your way could just as easily write, "Since god is rendered unable to lift the stone on Plane (B), then this represents something that god cannot do and therefore he is not omnipotent regardless of what is happening on Plane (A). Omnipotence is defined as "all power" so if god is demonstrated as failing to perform a task in any way, then god is not omnipotent."

So please tell me, Christopher... Which one of you is right? Are you correct because you say god has failed to create a rock that he cannot lift ...or is the other guy who says god is not omnipotent because a rock is still present that he cannot lift on Plane (B)? Which one, Chris? And isn't it ironically tautological that the two of you would be battling each other in trying to argue that "god has failed" and is no longer omnipotent while using diametrically-opposed arguments? ...How can that possibly be, Chris? ...HOW???--Birdman (talk) 11:06, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

You won't believe me and have no reason to but I assumed without reading that when you quoted me, you were referring to this comment, since it's my most recent one that actually addresses your argument. It's much closer to what your hypothetical other guy is saying. How is that one wrong? Christopher (talk) 11:41, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

"It's much closer to what your hypothetical other guy is saying. How is that one wrong?" ...So what now? Are you switching sides right after your argument is presented? Seriously? You're now going along with what the other guy is arguing? Your turning you very best argument into the complete opposite of what you just argued??? Ohhhh, geeeze! Chris, you had your shot, buddy, and you blew it! Plain and simple. You didn't think it all the way through just like all of your other snowflake Atheist buddies. And even though your VERY BEST ARGUMENT went down in flames, you'll still continue to delete the link should I ever attempt to submit it as a contribution. It's in your blood to do it!

No, Chris, you can just go back to whatever it was you were doing. It's called a counter-paradox for a reason, Chris. You lost and it's a done deal... period! However, you and I both know that you just got your ass kicked by a non-Atheist and your precious little Stone Paradox that you've relied on for logically-disproving the existence of God has just been nullified. I could do the exact same thing to every single one of you snowflake Atheist buddies' arguments as well.--Birdman (talk) 12:05, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

I never agreed to your "present one argument against my paradox and one argument only" thing. Since you obviously think there's a flaw in my and your hypothetical guy's argument, why not say what it is? Christopher (talk) 12:12, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘I could defend the argument you attempted to refute as well, do you want me to do that or shall we focus on the one I linked to? Christopher (talk) 12:16, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

I'll defend it: your refutation is wrong because "God can still lift the stone, just not on plane (B), meaning it's not a stone he can't lift" and "God is not omnipotent because he can't lift the stone from every plane" aren't mutually exclusive or diametrically opposite. Christopher (talk) 12:21, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

My terms were that I would entertain one argument, and only one, so when you made your argument you were agreeing to my terms. Just as soon as I refuted your argument you did a complete 180 and sided with another Atheist's counter-argument. You can't see past the reality that your first argument was, "God is lifting the stone, therefore god couldn't create the stone that he could not lift - therefore he is not omnipotent"... and then you immediately switched sides to argue "If there is any stone present that he cannot lift, then God is not omnipotent." These arguments are diametrically-opposed in their reasoning!

So NOW you are seriously attempting to argue that "God's fails to create a stone that he cannot lift by lifting it from Plane (A), therefore he is not omnipotent" -- and -- "God is unable to lift the stone on Plane (B) regardless of what is happening on Plane (A), therefore he is not omnipotent." are not diametrically-opposed arguments? ...Seriously??? One argument is, "God hasn't created a stone he cannot lift" and the other argument is "God is still unable to lift the stone"... and somehow in the the bizarro-world of Atheist snowflake logic, you seriously think these two conclusions are not diametrically-opposed? Chris, I think this is all way above your intellectual pay scale. Just stick to deleting peoples contributions that don't forward your Atheist agenda. That's what you're obviously best at.--Birdman (talk) 12:54, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

So I see you'be blocked me from editing the talk page as well. Christipher, you have no character. You're just another snowflake Atheist who got his ass kicked by a non-Atheist so you do what all of the other Atheists do ....you censored the information. For the record, I have never blocked or censored an Atheist for any reason... because I never have felt the need. I'm always able to hand them an intellectual smackdown just Like I handed you today.

Just keep on censoring, deleting and blocking, because you certainly don't have anything better to offer, do ya?--Birdman (talk) 13:01, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

It's a stone he can't lift, unless under certain circumstances (those being lifting all of plane B including the rock). He is unable to lift the stone in all circumstances, resulting in a compromise of his omnipotence, but it is also a stone that he can, under some circumstances, lift, meaning it isn't a stone he can't lift. Your rephrasing of one of the arguments changes it from "God is unable to lift the stone under all circumstances" to "God is unable to lift the stone full stop", altering the meaning. Christopher (talk) 15:56, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

I have created a section for you at the very bottom with a response to your question.--Birdman (talk) 03:45, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Chris, I've got to hand it to ya. You've got balls as big as church bells to delete my submissions, block me on the Omnipotence Paradox talk page, call me a dick and then desire to keep the discussing going about my counter-paradoxical resolution over here on my talk page. That blows my mind! However, I DO know why you are back. Curiosity! ...You're intrigued! This counter-paradox is a hell of a lot more interesting than you originally thought. You are just as intellectually-compelled to test it out as I was in designing it. Debating shit like this is what makes us all smarter!

The truth is that I have been an asshole, but only because you all have been just as much an asshole to me. None of you have taken my CGCP resolution seriously and nobody here wants to add any link that appears to not support Atheism. You all think I'm just some renegade Theistic apologist who feels God has divinely ordained me to proclaim his omnipotence and defeat the heathen Atheists over on RationalWiki... and this is so far removed from reality. I get far worse slams from Theists for depicting their almighty God as a stick figure than I do from you Atheists. I'm hated on both sides of the aisles on this one, I assure you. Another truth is that you and I would probably end up as friends if we ever met in real life. You would probably love discussing with me on the various ways to consider our existence and not a single Bible verse would be used in the process.

So I'll tell you what, Chris. I'll discuss this CGCP resolution as much as you would like to, but this talk page is so damned full of crap that I can't even find anything at all. Is there a way to continue our discussion on a clean page? And just so you know, I am an artist. My degree is in art. My mind is best suited for graphic representation of complex theories. I excelled in philosophy, but art was my true calling. Here is one of my paintings titled, "Esther" (9 ft. by 2.5 ft.) Oil on Canvas. I'm required to work big because my eyes are screwed up. Let me know how you would like to proceed and I will continue with your latest challenge.

Try (a) being concise and (b) not using words you know are likely to annoy. Anna Livia (talk) 22:14, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Well, you know what, Anna? The same goes for you! I came to rationalwiki with the intent of adding what I thought was something of value. What I received was shameless belittlement from everyone (and especially you!). Your "glass house" mentality isn't cutting it here, because you can easily go back and read the greeting I received after adding my contribution. Who drew first blood, Anna?--Birdman (talk) 00:03, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘I've set up an archive for your talkpage, this means that any old discussions will be removed from here by a bot after 30 days (the default) of inactivity. More info here. Nice painting by the way! (I don't have a background in art, so that's all I can really say about any painting). Christopher (talk) 14:51, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't know what an Archive Bot is or how it works, but thank you. And if you have eyes to see, then you have just as much say in what is considered art just as anyone else does. No degree in art is required. The way it works is that I paint a painting, you interpret the painting, and then you explain to me what I have painted so that I can also know what I've painted.--Birdman (talk) 16:43, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Birdman - I have been contributing to RW for a while - and I accept that some people have different opinions to me, quibble over what I say, and suggest corrections: they do not belittle me (but mostly accept that my opinions are reasonably valid) - and I treat them the same.

You# keep on reiterating your one theory, and belittle those who want it presented another way or disagree with it.

Soon the discussion will depart from here - because people have found more enjoyable balls to juggle than because they agree with you. Anna Livia (talk) 17:10, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Can we all just move on from anyone saying that someone has belittled or insulted anyone else? It's not that important and gets in the way of anything resembling an intellectual conversation. Christopher (talk) 17:25, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Christopher, I've already tossed Anna out of the loop because she really has nothing to add anyway. I saw your message and I think what you are asking is in regard to this comment: ( "It's a stone he can't lift, unless under certain circumstances )...Is that correct? Well this whole talk page is nothing more than a cluster-feck and I can't find anything anymore. Make a new section on it that says "Christopher's Comments Only!" and re-post your question there. Otherwise I'll never find the damned thing. And then after I answer your question you can delete my stoneparadox link once again!--Birdman (talk) 17:35, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Birdman - you cannot toss me out of the loop - I choose whether or not to participate (and I choose to be courteous). Anna Livia (talk) 17:53, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Proposed Solution[edit]

Proposed Solution

What I have received is the typical "base level" to "high level" debate progression that I always receive whenever I offer this counter-paradoxical solution. People jump to conclusions early on without doing any research. It starts out with the basic, "Well, this just doesn't work" and then when I offer responses. Then it moves up to more technical challenges. Arguments become more like "God is failing to do (fill in the blank)" and then I address these issues as well. Then it escalates to even higher level arguments dealing with simultaneous activities, the nature of omnipotence, the validity of omnipresence and whether or not my CGCP can be expressed in a logical syllogism or some other form.

Whatever the case, the debate has evolved a hell of a lot farther than when it was first deemed as something that seems stupid. If it were stupid, it wouldn't have made it this far. I cannot keep answering challenges from an endless stream of people and never have a determination made. There has to be a way to reach a determination.

What I propose is that you elect one member to represent all of you who do NOT want this Circular God Counter-Paradox contribution added to the rationalwiki page. I will agree to a time-limit based email debate and make my case for this counter-paradoxical response. You can send this elected person your questions and have s/he ask them for you if you choose. If I am able to offer plausible answers to all of the questions that are asked, then you must agree to include my contribution to the rationalwiki page. If I am not able to answer the questions, then I will agree to let the issue drop.

I will also agree to document the entire exchange in a .PDF file and make this available to all interested parties. .....Agreed?--Birdman (talk) 20:43, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

I have offered a logical compromise. Please respond so that this issue can be resolved in a timely manner.--Birdman (talk) 13:39, 18 September 2017 (UTC)--Birdman (talk) 13:39, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

No. Christopher (talk) 19:17, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

What I have proposed is what is outlined in the Etiquitte[[2]] page associated with the rationalwiki Community Standards page. If you do not feel this is an effective method for reaching a decision, then what other method do you suggest?--Birdman (talk) 22:55, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Lay out your arguments on the omnipotence paradox talk page, no one will see it here plus everyone here's forgotten about you. Christopher (talk) 14:13, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

I cannot find such a page and I was directed to this talk page by the people deleting my contribution. It is not rational to delete the contribution of a link that provides a great deal of information regarding the Paradox of the Stone and the Omnipotence Paradox--Birdman (talk) 14:39, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Link. Christopher (talk) 15:12, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

I added a section to the talk page. I received one emotion-based reply that doesn't even address what has been proposed and provided incorrect information. You have once again deleted my contribution and placed a block on me with no supplied reason as to why you deleted the contribution. I even asked on the talk page what needed to be done to get the link included and nobody seems to want to reply. So tomorrow you can once again dedicate your life to deleting my contribution without any basis. Rest assured I'm documenting everything that is happening.--Birdman (talk) 20:52, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Try explaining in terms of 'pulling oneself up by one's bootstraps' (rather than football and Q&A sessions). Anna Livia (talk) 22:06, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Anna, I could certainly do what you suggest, however "'pulling oneself up by one's bootstraps' is in no way similar to the concept of "offsetting penalties." I can tell by your strange preoccupation with Yahweh's genitalia that you have no idea what offsetting penalties are or its correlation to my CGCP response. I use the football analogy for people who want a simple-to-understand analogy on what happens when a paradox encounters a counter-paradox. I also provide a "challenges" page on the website so that anyone offering rudimentary challenges (as was clearly demonstrated here) can see that it's probably already been addressed by someone else. Oh,and by the way... I found a "typo" on your Stanford EoP link. Do you want to remove the link yourself or would you rather I do it?--Birdman (talk) 00:14, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Birdman (a) #You# started the footballing analogy - and 'the offside rule' is a subject of much debate in UK footballing circles (and those of us not in the US have no idea what offsetting rules you use). (b) You say that your footballing analogy is simple and I do not understand it - this implies that you are using the wrong analogy. (c) #You# have an obsession with God's genitalia - I merely say that the Deity's/Deities' gender(s) will be complex and automatically referring to a single God of the male human persuasion is lazy etc. (d) On your website you list what you define as challenges - who are the 'someone elses' who made them (or did you create them all yourself?)

And - 'documenting everything' can work in many ways. Take care. Anna Livia (talk) 09:35, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Anna, to be frank with you, you have offered ABSOLUTELY NOTHING that is related to the concept that this counter-paradox deals with. The highest degree of intellectualism you have brought to the table is pointing out a typo, arguing about an analogy not being "universal enough" for you (which no analogy can ever really be), quizzing me about which football sport I'm referencing, questioning if I have a degree in something and questioning if God has a pee-pee. Other than that, you really have nothing more to add.

I've already spent far too much time with others who have actually offered a "intellectual challenge" to this CGCP response to which I know will never EVER allow for the stoneparadox.org link to be added anyway... so why in the hell should I waste a single second on someone who can't even offer up one single intellectual challenge at all?--Birdman (talk) 12:06, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Learn succinctness (and there are other spelling mistakes on your website and comments here) - and who are these people who have offered an 'intellectual challenge' to your theory.

You have a problem with God's body parts - I am addressing something quite different.

Be courteous, do not use unnecessary capitals or swearwords - and accept that people can disagree because they have different approaches to a particular problem.

If people state they cannot understand your theory/they feel that your website does not presently meet the criteria for a link, consider that the problem may be your end rather than theirs. Anna Livia (talk) 16:26, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Christopher's Section[edit]

Christopher's Section

Yes, believe it or not, the guy who keeps deleting my contribution gets his own special section. Go figure? I have copied your statement below so I can find it.

Christopher: "It's a stone he can't lift, unless under certain circumstances (those being lifting all of plane B including the rock). He is unable to lift the stone in all circumstances, resulting in a compromise of his omnipotence, but it is also a stone that he can, under some circumstances, lift, meaning it isn't a stone he can't lift. Your rephrasing of one of the arguments changes it from "God is unable to lift the stone under all circumstances" to "God is unable to lift the stone full stop", altering the meaning. Christopher (talk) 15:56, 15 October 2017 (UTC)"

RESPONSE: The Paradox of the stone asks a very simple question: "Can God create a stone so heavy that he cannot lift it?" There are no other qualifiers added to it and it is very simplistic by design. The Stone Paradox would not have survived for as long as it did had it not been crafted with such simplicity. Within the S.P. we find three basic components:

(1) "Can God create" = This represents the challenge.
(2) "a stone" = This represents the object to be created.
(3) "so heavy that he cannot lift it?" = This represents the qualifier.

There are no additional "qualifiers" other than the one key qualifier (3) which is directly related to what type of stone God is required to create. This allows for our omnipotent being (aka: God) to use the full capacity of his omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent powers to respond to the challenge. Each individual component asks a question. If the answer is "yes" then the next component is added. So within the S.P. it would be as follows:

(1) Can God create? = Yes!
(2) Okay, well then can God create a rock? = Yes!
(3) Okay, can God create a rock so heavy that he cannot lift it? = ???

The moment you add another "qualifier" you start limiting God's omnipotence before he is able to even respond. Since the fullest scope of God's omnipotence is being restricted with any additional qualifiers, then this results in a tainted test of omnipotence.

Your argument is that I have God depicted as being able to lift the stone under certain circumstances, so therefore he is not omnipotent. So technically you have proposed adding the additional qualifier of (4) "under any circumstances" to the Stone paradox. So let's re-write the Stone Paradox as you would have it presented to us all: "Can God create a stone so heavy that he cannot lift under any circumstances?" But since you have chosen to add qualifier (4) then you are required to accept that every condition required of God that is listed before the addition of qualifier (4) as being possible to do without suffering any loss of omnipotence. The reason why everything prior must be accepted is because the addition of qualifier (4) has been deemed as being "needed." If God was unable to successfully meet the requirements of everything prior to the addition of qualifier (4) then there would be no need to add qualifier (4). ...right?

Let's use Tom Brady as an example (just to piss off Anna). Let's say we asked the question, "Can Tom Brady throw a football over 70 yards?" Once again we have the three basic components:

(1) "Can Tom Brady Throw?" = This represents the challenge = Yes!
(2) "Can Tom Brady Throw a football?" = This represents the object to be thrownn = Yes!
(3) "Can Tom Brady Throw a football over 70 yards?" = This represents the qualifier. = ???

However if we add qualifier (4) "with a broken arm?" to the end of the question, then it now reads, "Can Tom Brady throw a football over 70 yards with a broken arm?" That means you are required to fully accept that Tom Brady is fully capable of throwing a football over 70 yards and the question now becomes whether he is able to do it with a broken arm. You "need" to add qualifier (4) because Tom Brady has already accomplished all prior tasks. ...So let's get back to your question, Chris:

"Can God create a stone so heavy that he cannot lift under any circumstances?"

Unfortunately for you, we are required to accept that God has successfully completed all challenges prior to the addition of (4) "under any circumstances" so in essence, you have just admitted that God can do what you have been arguing all along that God is not able do. Now you "feel the need" to make it tougher for God. But in the process you are actually limiting God's omnipotence before God is even able to respond (just like when we break Tom Brady's arm before he's even able to throw the football). Every qualifier you add strips away God's omnipotence before God is even able to respond.

And think about the qualifier you have added for a moment: "under any circumstances." Do you even realize the nature of your qualifier? What that means is that even if God was able to use his omnipotence to figure out a way to answer the question and maintain his omnipotence, he's STILL not allowed to do that because that would be considered "a circumstance." That's right! God successfully accomplishing what your question asks him to do would technically be violating the rules of the question. That's tantamount to asking, "Can God answer my question without him being allowed to answer my question?"

...And I hope the hour I just spent answering YOUR question was worth it for you. However, it's certainly not worth it for me because you will simply continue to delete my link submission regardless. It seems my rationalWiki paradox is, "Can Birdman submit a link that Christopher will not delete?"--Birdman (talk) 03:29, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Birdman - If you provide a link to an article that is considered on mission #and# appropriate, then of course Christopher will not delete it: if you keep on providing the same link to the same website that has been removed before, then you will get the same thing.

As you are trying to annoy me - Talk:Orac and [3]. Anna Livia (talk) 18:14, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

You've completely misunderstood what I was saying when I posted that comment. I wasn't saying that because you "have God depicted as being able to lift the stone under certain circumstances" he is not omnipotent, I was saying that because he is unable to lift the stone under certain circumstances he isn't omnipotent. Christopher (talk) 18:33, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

I presume Christopher was not replying to me. Anna Livia (talk) 21:45, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Actually it in not a misunderstanding at all, because you would still have to reword the Stone Paradox to fulfill whatever stipulations you feel are necessary. The S.P. doesn't specify any specific conditions, regulate the type of lifting that is to be done or anything else for that matter. It merely asks if God can create a stone so heavy that he cannot lift it.

So let's get back to Tom Brady again. But first, let's help out poor Anna who's probably googlin-up Mr. Brady right now: (Anna: Tom Brady is a NFL quarterback who has five Super Bowl rings and a pee-pee.). Let's say the question was, "Can Tom Brady throw a football over 70 yards?" and then he walks onto the field and does just that. Now Christopher comes along and says, "Well, Tom can only do this under certain circumstances." and then goes on to say, "Tom Brady couldn't throw a football over 70 yards in a 100 mph headwind." So if you re-write the Brady Paradox it would read, "Can Tom Brady throw a football over 70 yards while facing a 100 mph headwind?" Unfortunately you are still adding qualifiers even though your argument is that he can't "under certain circumstances." So please re-write the Stone Paradox so that it will address your concerns regarding "certain circumstances" and do so without the qualifier limiting God's omnipotence before he is ever allowed to respond. If you can't, then you have to accept that God has met the challenge.--Birdman (talk) 22:16, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Hmm, I think you've forgotten something. Oh yes, Tom Brady isn't omnipotent. An omnipotent being would be able to do anything in any circumstances. —Kazitor, ^pending 05:14, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Birdman - what is your fascination in linking my name with 'pee-pee'? And patronising me invites pseudo-Freudian analysis.

And in UK football holding the ball is against the rules. Anna Livia (talk) 11:51, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Kazitor, Pointing out Tom Brady is not omnipotent based on the point I was making is a straw man argument. I'm very disappointed in you, Kaz! Wow! I thought only Theists needed to stoop to that level?, but apparently not? Whatever the case, I know that when a straw man argument gets tossed out, that's tantamount to my opponent raising an intellectual white flag because they have no valid argument to make. The Tom Brady reference I used was in regard to adding a second qualifier onto a sentence requiring a task to be performed - which would apply to any being (including an omnipotent being). You then wrote: "An omnipotent being would be able to do anything in any circumstances." which is not correct nor does it address Christopher's point at all. 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. Requiring God to create a rock so heavy that he cannot lift it without using any omnipotence is... well, ... a circumstance.

This would also include requiring the omnipotent being to perform a task while not allowing the omnipotent being to even provide an answer to the question. This would also include requiring an omnipotent being to perform a task in some other way than any possible way that the omnipotent can use that would fulfill the requirement of the task. This would also include requiring an omnipotent being to perform a task that doesn't allow the omnipotent being to perform the physical act required within the task. (i.e., "Can God create a rock so heavy that he cannot lift it without lifting it?") This would also include requiring an omnipotent being to perform a task when its omnipotence has been marginalized prior to it ever being allowed to perform the task. (i.e., "Can God create a rock so heavy that he cannot lift it without using any omnipresence?")

More than anything else, you did not accurately represent what Christopher wrote at all. Christopher: "I was saying that because he is unable to lift the stone under certain circumstances he isn't omnipotent." ..."Certain circumstances" is NOT THE SAME as "any circumstances". So if we focus on the circumstance that Christopher is bitching about, then this include requiring an omnipotent being to perform a specific task without allowing it to use the method it would normally use to perform the task (i.e., "Can God create a rock so heavy that he cannot lift it and not use whatever method it would normally use to successfully complete this challenge?").

So the challenge I offered to Christopher I also extend to you, Kazitor: 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.--Birdman (talk) 13:15, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

No matter how many times you argue your case you will not make it any more correct.

God/the Deity/whatever term you prefer is omnipotent - we are not. Possibly God chooses to play with paradoxes or #chooses# to abide by the rules - we cannot tell: and possibly 'the universe within which God etc operates' is something we can barely imagine. Perhaps #God becomes the stone#.

One thing that is probably true - God etc is amused by the presumption of those who come up with such ideas and then split hairs while discussing them. Anna Livia (talk) 16:17, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

"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. Consider that. But now I understand your position (good! This is crucial for a proper debate.); you think an omnipotent being can't do anything in any circumstances. I don't know about you, but that doesn't sound very omnipotent to me. So now, the debate can shift to the core of the matter: why shouldn't an omnipotent being be able to do anything in nay circumstances? —Kazitor, ^pending 20:52, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Kazitor, I cannot believe you just wrote this: "Like it or not, you just admitted the omnipotence paradox is true." That's like challenging Usain Bolt to a race and tying his feet together before the race even starts. If you are seriously suggesting that stripping an omnipotent being of it's power prior to it being allowed to respond to a challenge represents a "true test of omnipotence" then I'm going to have to toss any future responses from you into the intellectually-challenged abyss of "Godly Gonads" where you can discuss the genitalia designation of deities with Anna. Maybe those are the kind of stones you two are best at figuring out?. Whatever the case, I do appreciate you unknowingly posting the opposite determination of Christopher's determination was. ...I appreciate your help on that one!--Birdman (talk) 22:56, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Kazitor wrote: "why shouldn't an omnipotent being be able to do anything in any circumstances? ...I will presume that you meant "under any circumstances." And the answer is "No!" It's "No!" because 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." So again, simply re-write the stone paradox in a way that would cover "all circumstances". If you cannot do this, then just say so.--Birdman (talk) 01:18, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Kazitor or Christipher: "I’m still looking for that re-writing of the Stone Paradox that addressed your “all, any or certain circumstances” arguments. Otherwise you’ve accomplished nothing more than St. Thomas Aquinas accomplished in arguing the merit of the Stone Paradox. Otherwise, produce a “smoking gun” error in the CGCP.--Birdman (talk) 16:49, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

You haven't answered #my# questions, so why should they answer yours? And as for putting me out of the loop - the answer involves omnishambles and drying paint. Anna Livia (talk) 17:04, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

That's all folks![edit]

I will not participate in ANY debate where my arguments are deleted by the opposing side and my content is deleted because of unsubstantiated claims that I am a "liar." Bullshit! I warned you all that if my words are deleted (or edited) one more time that it's OVER! And by doing so you just proved my point. If you are so intellectually challenged to the point of having to shamefully delete my own words on my OWN TALK PAGE then any further interaction with you is a complete waste of my time.

I learned a great deal about Ratiionalwiki just now. And every claim I have made has been accurate about what's going on here based on what you've done. Apparently you all can't face me head-on in an "impartial" debate or even produce an "even playing field" for fostering a debate ... so you all can just have fun with your own selves from this point forward.

Yep, in the end it was YOU ALL who were reduced to using underhanded "deletion" tactics and censorship. ...Not me! And no doubt you all will shamefully delete these words as well, ...because that's just what you people do!--Birdman (talk) 19:14, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

See you next month then. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 22:55, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Aw diddums Birdman - just because the rest of us wanted an adult debate rather than immediately fall in with your endlessly reiterated and slightly incoherent concept you throw the rattle out of the pram. Anna Livia (talk) 23:04, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Was this[edit]

...a case of 'Infamy, infamy...'? 82.44.143.26 (talk) 18:02, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

User talk:Birdman

Contents

Your idea makes no sense[edit]

Proposed Solution[edit]

Christopher's Section[edit]

That's all folks![edit]

Was this[edit]

Navigation menu

Search