User talk:Birdman/Archive1

This is an archive page, last updated 21 December 2018. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:

Response[edit]

You have unilaterally deleted all of my work and a plausible counter-paradoxical resolution to the Paradox of the Stone without any debate. You just chose to personally do so because of something you incorrectly assume. This counter-paradox has been challenged hundreds of times on Quora.com (which is the #1 response out of 365 responses since 2010) and in the comments section of the linked YouTube video. This counter-paradox is copyrighted by the library of congress and every argument against it is able to be countered using the same paradoxical method that the stone paradox uses. For you to delete this within the short period of time that you have proves that you haven't even grasped what is going on within the counter-paradox.

If you wish to debate the merit of my counter-paradox I will most certainly oblige, but in the mean time, you have to place back what has been proposed. What if I decided that the Stone Paradox was just a "stupid question" and I deleted everything regarding it... just because I felt that way? --Birdman (talk) 17:10, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

That's not how this works. It's your job to prove your idea belongs on the page (spoilers: it doesn't) and that it's valid (spoilers: it isn't). Also, the fact that you've refused to accept counter-arguments in two places (wow, Quora and Youtube, those grand ivory towers?) doesn't give us any obligation to take it seriously.

Put bluntly, your counter-argument totally misses the point of the paradox, which is the ability to create the rock. You just have the rock get created as phase 1 in your plan, meaning your solution to the problem is to decide you've already solved it before you even start with your explanation. Nog Bogmire (talk) 17:16, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I have not disabled ANY comments on Quora or Youtube and anything you offer as an argument against the merit of this counter-paradox can be countered. It does NOT miss the point at all and if this represents a workable solution (regardless of your "opinion") then it belongs on the page. You simply don't understand how a paradox works. And I ALREADY HAVE demonstrated how the counter-paradox works and done so in great detail. Once a proposition has been made, the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate where it is supposedly incorrect. ...Why don't you let OTHER PEOPLE decide of it has merit?--Birdman (talk) 17:23, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

And for your information, God DID CREATE a rock that he cannot lift. It's right there on Plane (B) - or do you deny that God has failed to lift the rock on Plane (B)?--Birdman (talk) 17:28, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

No, the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate it is correct. Your "counter-paradox" assumes the thing it's trying to solve (that God can create the rock in the first place) and therefore is completely useless as a rebuttal to the question of whether God can create the rock. You are answering the totally different question of whether God can lift a rock he has created that is too heavy for him to lift, after he has already created said rock. Nog Bogmire (talk) 17:29, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

If the stone paradox is asking the question if God "can" create the stone, then the question accepts the possibility that it can be done. If this assumption did not exist, then it would be in the form of a statement: "God cannot make a stone that he cannot lift." For you to not understand this from the very start shows that you shouldn't be deleting other people's contributions.

For you to write this: "You are answering the totally different question of whether God can lift a rock he has created that is too heavy for him to lift, after he has already created said rock" shows that you have not even understood the counter-paradox. If you did you would realize that everything is taking place at the exact same moment. There is no after or before in simultaneous. For this reason alone you need to stop deleting my content. My assertion is that my Counter-paradox IS CORRECT and I have clearly demonstrated how it works. If omnipotence has been brought into question, then the powers of omnipotence gets to be used within the response.--Birdman (talk) 17:55, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

No, it's questioning if God can create the stone. This includes two possibilities: God can create the stone, in which case he is not omnipotent because he has created something that is beyond his powers, or God cannot create the stone, in which case he is not omnipotent because creating the stone is beyond his powers.

In your "counter-paradox," we start with God creating the stone. This eliminates the option of him not being able to create the stone. You're instead solving the question "assuming God can create a stone he can't lift, can he still lift it?" This is a different issue entirely.

Also, stop telling me I don't understand it. I do. It's wrong. Nog Bogmire (talk) 18:03, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND the word simultaneous! The stone is created at the exact same time as plane (A), Plane (B) and God existing on both planes. If you understood "simultaneous" you would understand that there is no "start" or "end." I still am required to show how everything comes together in simple terms - which I have done so. When you write "God can create the stone, in which case he is not omnipotent because he has created something that is beyond his powers" you have already reached a conclusion before an omnipotent god has the chance to respond. So far every one of your counters has been negated, yet you still insist upon deleting my content. You are withholding information from the public.--Birdman (talk) 18:37, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

STOP WHAT YOU ARE DOING![edit]

Okay people, everything you have been arguing I have been able to counter. You may not like how I have countered, but I am still able to adequately counter it. What many of you have concluded is based on a personal opinion and not what is actually proposed in the Circular God Counter-paradox. I cannot keep up with hundreds of "What about this?" and "What about that?" talk challenges from multiple users if I am only one person. This entire resolution to the Stone Paradox has been laid our so that all of your questions can be answered by researching the links and graphics I have provided.

It is unfair to delete my content based on your personal opinion or if you simply don't like the idea that an actual response CAN be offered to the Stone Paradox question. What I have proposed works and I have demonstrated HOW it works. You cannot ask a question that challenges omnipotence and NOT allow the powers associated with omnipotence to be used in the response. If you actually took the time to see how everything comes together and viewed it in an non-biased way (i.e. omnipotence is impossible!) you would understand how it works.

And if you continue to delete this contribution to the rationalwiki link, then you are simply choosing to withhold information from the public without due cause. Again, let the people decide for themselves. ^{— Unsigned, by: Birdman / talk / contribs}

Says "let the people decide for themselves". Also complains about being ganged up against. FuzzyCatPotato of the Clumsy Sock tuckers (talk/stalk) 00:57, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Are you interested in determining the legitimacy of the counter-paradoxical proposal I have contributed to this ratiinoalwiki page or are you more interested in devolving this information source into some type of cheap social media slam-fest? You know exactly what I was stating. I can't answer questions from ten different people (many of which are the same questions) but others who know and understand my CGCP resolution can answer these same questions out on the web and in debate forums. Depriving these people of a proposal based on the desire to belittle me or have some kind of childish social media battle is doing a disservice to rationalwiki and the people who come here for information.--Birdman (talk) 01:30, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Topic[edit]

That example is great and all, except that your example requires that God on plane B creates a rock too heavy for him to lift (his ability to create such being the paradox, not his ability to actually lift it): he is then not omnipotent on plain B, since he can't lift the rock. The convoluted solution you propose shows there's something he can't do, requiring a workaround. So, um, congratulations on proposing a solution that just assumes the problem has already been solved and adds a bunch of extra terms that don't do anything. Nog Bogmire (talk) 16:40, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Is it a known argument?—€h33s3βurg3rF@€3

(talk • stalk) 16:49, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Given one of the sources is "birdman.org" which I'd guess is his own website, I'd say it's more a personal theory. I've certainly never see "solve the problem before you even start" as a common solution. Nog Bogmire (talk) 16:58, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

This is not a "Solve the problem before you start" solution nor is it technically a solution at all. It is a resolution. Couter-paradoxes are used in psychology to address certain forms schizophrenia and done so in a way to neutralize the cause. A paradox, by design, confuses the mind, so when a counter-paradox comes into play, the mind is freed from the paradox. The grandfather paradox is a logical contradiction. A counter-paradoxical response to the grandfather paradox would be the Joseph Polchinski's billiard ball analogy... yet Polchinski's response is fully accepted on wiki sites as a "response" whereas my response is not?--Birdman (talk) 13:57, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Hey there, Noggy! How's life? Just offering you a quick update since you wisely chose not to stick around to back up you claims. It's going on 40 days and not a single one of you have been able to break this CGCP counter-paradoxical response. Yep, my friend, what you called "stupid" has stumped every one of your Atheist comrades.

After you shamelessly scampered away, you missed the mic-drop moment when Christopher and Kazitor offered diametrically-opposed determinations as to why they think the CGCP response 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."

So please tell me, Mr. "it's just stupid" Nog Bogmire... which one of your lil' buddies is right? If my CGCP resolution is just so damned stupid, then how is it that two intellectually-astute members of your ilk, who are enlightened by the untainted purity of the logic and reason found only in Atheism, managed to come up with COMPLETELY OPPOSITE DETERMINATIONS on how it is supposedly flawed?

I have very much enjoyed destroying every single argument that has been presented on both of these rationalWiki talk pages regarding my counter-paradox resolution (yes, the very same one that you claimed was just... well... "stupid"). Perhaps had you spent more than 3 seconds of research on it you wouldn't have endeavored to spew such a blatantly erroneous claim?--Birdman (talk) 12:32, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Please restate your counter-proof into a logical syllogism[edit]

Thanks. FuzzyCatPotato of the Peculiar Bass guitars (talk/stalk) 17:32, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

I cannot get my response to submit.--Birdman (talk) 18:30, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

What does it say when you click save? Christopher (talk) 18:36, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

I am new to this. It says something like "wrong or incorrect CAPCHA" in red.--Birdman (talk) 18:39, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Try again, it will almost certainly work. Christopher (talk) 18:48, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Did it not work again? Christopher (talk) 19:21, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Stone Paradox (Binary assumption):
(Q) "Can God create a stone that he cannot lift?"
(P) "An omnipotent God can do anything"
(A1) God creates a stone that he cannot lift.
(A2) God cannot create a stone that he cannot lift.
(C) God is not omnipotent.

Circular God Counter-paradox (Multiple Responses):
(R) "God can create a stone that he cannot lift and simultaneously lit it"
(P) "An omnipotent God can do anything"
(A1) God creates a stone that he cannot lift.
(A2) God cannot create a stone that he cannot lift.
(A3) God creates a stone that he cannot lift and simultaneously lifts it by way of omnipresence.
(C) God is omnipotent.--
--Birdman (talk) 19:46, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

That's not a logical syllogism -- that's a list of statements. A logical syllogism requires that each progressive conclusion must follow from the assumptions presented beforehand. You neither list your assumptions, nor show how they lead to your conclusion. Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 00:41, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but it most certainly is. I used the exact same logical structure that is used on the Stone Paradox. (Q) is the question and (R) signifies the response. The premise is exactly the same in both, "An omnipotent God can do anything." The Stone paradox only allows for two possible answers, (A1) and (A2). The only difference in my layout is that there is a third answer (A1), (A2) and (A3) because of omnipresence coming into play (which is a fully accepted component of an omnipotence God). (C) = the conclusion determined in both logical diagrams. The (C) of the Stone Paradox without the CGCP response is "God is not omnipotent". The (C) of the CGCP response is "God is omnipotent." When the two are combined, the question and the response eliminate each other with no conclusion being able to be determined.--Birdman (talk) 02:06, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

You are incorrect. 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. Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 22:34, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Sure, I'll do it your way. ...why not?

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.

I fail to see how this is relevant if the entire CGCP process has been laid out in the same literary format as the original Stone Paradox question.--Birdman (talk) 23:03, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

FuzzyCatPotato, you had me go though all of this trouble re-writing my CGCP response in a way that you perfered... for what reason? Why did you require me to do all of this and then just vacate the topic all together? Was there a question you wanted to ask? Have you found a flaw? What was the purpose in any of this?--Birdman (talk) 12:05, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Section Break[edit]

Most people have 'pet opinions and memes', and ideas supported of varying degrees of quirkiness. Some will be harmless (supporting some rarely winning football team, deciding that 'hot honey and lemon' is good for their cold etc) and others will be liable to generate much heat and light, restricting or dangerous. These to varying degrees fall within the remit of RationalWiki for people to consider, discuss, adopt, adapt or mock etc (and sometimes a combination of these).

You have brought one such concept to the attention of RW, for the entertainment and enlightenment of participants. No problem there.

People have raised various objections on different grounds, requested further information and suggested alternative lines of approach to be considered or included. That is part of RW's mission/function.

Instead of engaging with these various people and developing your thesis as a result, you have become abusive and merely reiterated your problematic proposition and derided others for having diametrically opposed views despite claiming to be of the same belief system (atheism or otherwise).

Alternative presentations of paradoxes and other such problems can lead to greater understanding of, and even advancing, discussions (the usual 'thesis, antithesis, synthesis, repeat'); and sometimes a new presentation/way of seeing and considering things does lead to an immediate general take-up - but you have not provided such an opportunity. Anna Livia (talk) 10:16, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

I will admit, now that I know Birdman's position is that he/she defines an omnipotent being as being able to do anything, but not under any conditions, I feel a lot less interested in any discussion from here on. The source of misunderstanding has been identified, but Birdman has shown no attempts to discuss anything properly. Enjoy your petty victory Birdman: and I only say "victory" because you probably consider it that way no matter what we say or do. In our eyes, you are far from victorious, but no doubt you have rationalised all such counter-arguments as being blinded by "Atheist ideology". Remember: nobody thinks they act irrationally. No-one. But clearly someone is incorrect; is it the sole person who just makes the same point over and over again, or the group of people almost consistently found flaws in every way you try to twist that point and who have tried, as best they can, to have a sensible discussion yet find themselves unconvinced?

I can only hope that you will ponder the things you've encountered eventually. Whether it's the next few days, weeks or even months; I want you to think about all of it. See what conclusions you might eventually draw.

One last point for the road: this "debate" was never about religion. You are the one who said that atheists like raising it because it "disproves" god (You said that on talk:Omnipotence paradox, by the way). One of the first things I said here, however, is that the paradox has almost nothing to do with religion. Atheism simply does not come into it. —Kazitor, ^pending 10:36, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

That's okay, Kazzy, I know it must be difficult being forced to walk away with your head hung low knowing you were unable to find a flaw in my CGCP resolution. Believe me, you aren't the first and you definitely won't be the last! Since you feel there's no need for you to add anything more to the discussion, then let's just summarize for anyone just tuning in what your (((#1 ARGUMENT))) is for claiming my CGCP resolution is flawed. First, let's review: The Stone Paradox asks a very simple question: '"Can God create a rock so heavy that he cannot lift it?" There are no additional qualifiers, sub-questions, caveats or stipulations found within the question.

You have accepted that the CGCP response has resolved the Stone Paradox question. You aren't arguing that part anymore. You've moved onto to add another "qualifier" (i.e., another stipulation) to the Stone Paradox question in order to make it harder for God to meet the challenge. Your (((#1 ARGUMENT))) is that it's NOT ENOUGH that God has meet the Stone Paradox challenge with the way that he has done so in my CGCP response, but God must be able to resolve the challenge "in all circumstances." Your #1 argument is that if there is any circumstance present where God appears that he cannot lift the unliftable stone (even though God has successfully demonstrated that he can) then God is not omnipotent. In other words, "God has failed the challenge." Now here's the craziest part of your grossly-illogical argument: One of these any circumstances would halve to be "not allowing an omnipotent being to use any omnipotence at all when responding to a question designed to test an omnipotent being's omnipotence." ........I literally have no words!

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?

And lastly, you are going to just LOVE the irony on this one, Kazzy: Over a month ago when Nog Bogmire first deleted my link and became the very first person to add a negative comment on my talk page, he wrote the following: "I've certainly never seen "solve the problem before you even start" as a common solution. Nog Bogmire (talk) 16:58, 17 September 2017 (UTC)" And guess what, Kazzy? That's EXACTLY WHAT YOU JUST DID! You "solved the problem before you even start" by not allowing omnipotence to be tested as a test of omnipotence. Congratulations, Kazzy! You just "closed the loop" on over a month's worth of comments by demonstrating exactly what Nog Bogmier has claimed all along is... well... "stupid!" (Another Mic-Drop moment).--Birdman (talk) 13:45, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

I am detecting an overtly hostile attitude from Birdman. Calm down.—€h33s3βurg3rF@€3

(talk • stalk) 14:56, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Cheeseburgerface: I have absolutely no emotional connection at all other than a pure sense of "joy" at witnessing not one single peron on this talk page be able to negate my CGCP response (not even you, Cheese!). You haven't provided a valid argument against it either. You merely deleted my entry stating "see talk page" but you have offered NO REASONING as to why you deleted the link submission. That means it is "you" who are being hostile and you need to calm down. Since you presented no argument against the CGCP, then I will go back and add it not that we have cleaned up your "hostility" issue.--Birdman (talk) 15:03, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

I understand one of the classic indications of the bully is blaming the victim.

The reason why the link was deleted initially was because the website did not meet the standards of RationalWiki.

The reason why the link is still deleted is because the website still does not meet the standards of RationalWiki.

You have been told your arguments do not make sense/are as relevant to the discussion as the Deep Square Leg position in the Royal Southern Yacht Club-Island Sailing Club cricket match.

There is no reason to provide a counter argument to 'squares taste of goat cheese.' Anna Livia (talk) 21:46, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Hey, Cheeseburger. Why did you delet my link contribution? You wrote "See talk page" for the reason, but when I get here you offer no reason. So I put it back and then Christopher bans me. What is it with you people? So tell me, Cheeseburger... Where is the "smoking Gun" flaw in my CGCP resolution that prompted you to delete my link? Shouldn't you be required to clearly state why the link was deleted if YOU are the one deleting it?--Birdman (talk) 00:07, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

You're not getting this, are you? In your "resolution" to the paradox, you depict god as simultaneously lifting and not lifting the rock. That is how you claim to have resolved the paradox. But then, when Christopher and I say something suggesting that the omnipotent being is both lifting and not lifting the rock (instead claiming that this simultaneity enforces the paradox rather than resolving it), suddenly it's a big deal and we're both mistaken and blind and you're automatically right despite it literally being the foundation of your argument? See, this is why I've lost interest in discussing this. You are clearly unwilling to discuss this properly.

And you accuse me of straw men, you are the one insisting that Atheism has anything to do with this at all! —Kazitor, ^pending 04:41, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Birdman - are you going to respond to Anna Livia? 109.148.15.201 (talk) 09:14, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

You do not have a username. I'm here to discuss my CGCP resolution - not gonads and typos.

First off, Kazzy, It was pointed out to me on several occasions that Atheism is the "best pathway to finding truth" and that you all are obligated (by way of your Atheist ideology) to ruthlessly screen any page edits through the prism of the highest possible levels of logic and reason found only within the bastion of Atheism. Remember? It has to be "ON MISSION" (as one of your Atheist colleagues mentioned numerous times). And then you end up making an argument that is tantamount to, "removing the item to be tested before running the test" represents a valid way to test something. ...That's just frickin' CRAZY, Kaz, and you know it! What happened to all of that "logic and reason" my friend?

I have not made a straw man argument because I'm addressing two separate issues with two separate arguments. The first issue is that you have no valid arguments against the CGCP resolution and the second issue is that your Atheist ideology prevents you from allowing any links to be added that don't fulfill your Atheist agenda. I'm not arguing Atheism is why you can't find a flaw in my CGCP resolution. That would represent a straw man for sure! I don't have to resort to straw man because there is no need to. You can't find a critical flaw because no critical flaw exist to be found... period! My only argument regarding your Atheism is that your ideology prevents you from adding any links that don't promote Atheism - even if they are found to be accurate! ...so why should I even bother?

If your Atheist ideology wasn't standing in the way, then you would have added the link based solely on its relevance to the topic and its rather revolutionary counter-paradoxical approach to the omnipotence paradox and then debated it afterwards (like all of the other websites have done). You would have recognized its merit even though you don't like it. You would have "promoted" the distribution of this concept on rationalWiki so that others could debate this concept in the same ways that you and I are doing so right now. You would have REALIZED that if something requires over a month of debating right here on these talk pages that this "discussion" should be equally promoted via ratioinalWiki for all others in the world to do the same. But NO! Instead you choose to bury it (just like the Catholic church did with Galileo) under the pretense of heresy against the tenants of Atheism' (aka: "On Mission").

You should all be frickin' ashamed of yourselves for doing that!

Back to your CGCP argument: As to your rather "curious" argument you write the following: "In your "resolution" to the paradox, you depict god as simultaneously lifting and not lifting the rock. That is how you claim to have resolved the paradox." And now you've changed the basis of your entire counter-argument to where you and Chis have really just been arguing that this simultaneous lifting and not-lifting "reinforces" the paradox... which is complete BS! That's not true at all and you know it! Neither of you used "simultaneously lifting and not-lifting" in your determinations at all! Christopher separated One Action out of a simultaneously event and ultimately determined that God was lifting the rock and therefore was not omnipotent. You separated One Action and ultimately determined that a rock was present that God couldn't lift and therefore God was not omnipotent.

My argument ALL ALONG has been that since BOTH ACTIONS (lifting and non-lifting) are fully compensated for within a simultaneously-happening event, then no determinations can be reached whatsoever regarding the state of omnipotence. It's a stalemate! (aka: 2 + -2 = 0). I offered you the analogy with you being on trial for murder, remember that, Kaz? The prosecution has irrefutable evidence that you are guilty and the defense has irrefutable evidence that you are not guilty. So which way does a judge rule on the matter? Which way??? -- Remember that, Kazzy? Likewise, when you combine the Circular God Counter-paradox with the Stone Paradox, then no judgement can be made either. It ALSO results in another stalemate. This has also been clearly stated numerous times on my stoneparadox.org website (to which you will never allow to be added due to your Atheist ideology).

Since you are "walking back" both of your isolated single event determinations and now combining them both into a unified argument stating, "The simultaneous lifting and not-lifting SUPPORTS the Stone Paradox" then by all means PLEASE DO explain just exactly how it does? I want to see how you can possibly "judge" the outcome based on the murder trial analogy I provided earlier.--Birdman (talk) 11:49, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

You are using a lot of words that do not answer other people's questions, and do not actually address the problems other people raise, while being irksome and deliberately annoying.

Your Hamster Ball God appears to be a totally different god to the Weight Lifter God so there is no parallel.

And with your murder trial example - this is where 'the legal discussions' move into the domains of motivation, manslaughter, multiple births, accidental homicide and unintended consequences - so again a false analogy.

And a quote that does manage to resolve both the stone and the ball paradoxes. 'What is harder than stone or softer than water, but the water hollows out the stone.' God is lord of time as well as of space. Anna Livia (talk) 12:36, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

I notice[edit]

You respond to an IP, and to chaps, but not to me.

You call me a snowflake, and make reference to gonads and repeatedly to genitalia (when I make reference to a 'more complex' rather than a gendered god).

What can I deduce from this? (I am not 'just asking questions.') Anna Livia (talk) 14:23, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

You could perhaps deduce that Birdman is rationalising his/her firmly-held beliefs and finds it easier to address some points than others. —Kazitor, ^pending 21:32, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

From the postings and the name I assume 'he.'

From the non-response 'I make deductions.' Anna Livia (talk) 21:55, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Challenges to the CGCP Resolution (Highlight Film)[edit]

I'd put this on your user page if I were you. Otherwise it'll get lost. Plus, since you hardly want to debate these, it doesn't belong on a talk page anyway. —Kazitor, ^pending 01:47, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

I had everything on this page as being on what I understood as my "User Page." I understood it that Nog Bogmire deleted it and moved everything to here (whatever "here" is). Here is a link to what happened: (Link to Deletion).--Birdman And I have no problem debating any of this. I just need it organized to where I can find whatever it is that I'm debating. There are scores of you and only one of me. If you put your "debate points" down here I can still reply.--Birdman (talk) 02:12, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

You can't see the edit there: Nog Bogmire accidentally made a comment there, and then deleted it. Before he wrote that, that page was still empty. There's no reason why you can't write something there. —Kazitor, ^pending 02:14, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Or we can continue on right here since a "months worth" of debating is found on this page. Plus, there is nothing that will ever stop you all from deleting my stoneparadox.org link. Everyone demands that I respond to their questions, and then I do, then I ask THEM a question... and I get no response.

I have several "unanswered questions" that you all should really be ANSWERING before you endeavor to delete my link contribution. With this non-answering trend now representing the character of the people I have highlighted in this section, does it really matter if it "all goes away?"--Birdman (talk) 02:19, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

If I'm perfectly honest, you write so many words taking up so much space it's hard to keep track of which parts have and haven't been addressed. Who knows, if you didn't spend so much time being arrogant in your responses, their lengths might be cut down drastically. Apart from the fact that, because you mostly repeat the same things over and over again, many of your questions have already been answered, just not directly under the most recent occurrence of you asking it.
Anyway, I still recommend you move your "highlights" to your user page, as this page (your talk page) is designated for talk, not for ~~cherry picked quotations~~ "highlights" from your debates. —Kazitor, ^pending 02:28, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Well then I'll use just a few words right here:. That's a frickin' cop out, Kaz!. You've got your "War and Peace" replies as well (Another "glass house" moment).

Sometimes I say the same things over and over because you never answer them. Like, here's an example of something I have been repeating: "Please re-write the Stone Paradox to where "any circumstances" and "all circumstances" is addressed in the way you would want it to be." ...Will I end up having to repeat it again?--Birdman (talk) 02:36, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

The Stone paradox has nothing to do with "any circumstances"/"all circumstances"; I don't understand your request. The idea behind the paradox is simple; "Could an omnipotent being limit its omnipotence" is the basic idea (and I'm probably oversimplifying it, do not take this as the literal phrasing of the paradox). You're concentrating way too much on the specifics of lifting a stone, probably because you think you can respond to it. As someone pointed out, there are plenty of variations on this underlying idea, many of which have nothing to do with lifting stones. —Kazitor, ^pending 02:43, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Well you tell me, Kaz, because these are your words: "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?" ...You used this as your argument against my CGCP because you said the lifting task cannot be accomplished in "all ways" as opposed to the way God chose to successfully completed the requirement of the Stone Paradox.

So I pointed out to you that the Stone Paradox is very simple and I made that loooooooooooong post explaining the breakdown of each part of the Stone Paradox and then offered the loooooooooooong explanation on how adding any other qualifiers to the Stone Paradox weakens the paradox. Then I asked you to "Please re-write the Stone Paradox to where "any circumstances" and "all circumstances" is addressed in the way you would want it to be." because I wanted to see how you would word it to cover what you are claiming is "any and all circumstances".

Now here we are today with you apparently having know idea about what I'm talking about and complaining about my "long posts." ........And you wonder why I feel I'm wasting my time?--Birdman (talk) 03:27, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't think the fault lies in the wording of the omnipotence paradox, but with how you define omnipotence. My dictionary (and I agree) defines "omnipotent" as "infinite in power". Failing to lift the rock from plane B is not infinite in power. Not being able to create a rock that can't be lifted is not infinite in power. This is where the paradox arises. Surely "infinite in power" includes being able to do anything under any circumstances?
"you said the lifting task cannot be accomplished in 'all ways'" ... No I didn't. I have never suggested that an omnipotent being would use its omnipotence to carry out a task in every way it could possibly be carried out.
Perhaps you want me to word the paradox as this:

“”Could a being that is capable of performing any task under any circumstances perform an action that prevented it from performing a different task?

Is that what you want me to do? That is how I (and many others) interpret the omnipotence paradox. Everyone reading this: Please state whether you agree with this phrasing of the omnipotence paradox.@Anna Livia, Christopher, Koidevelopment, and RSamys—Kazitor, ^pending 03:49, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Do I detect a dodge? Will I need to amke a looooooooong post to explain this? THIS is what I asked you to do: '"Please re-write the Stone Paradox to where "any circumstances" and "all circumstances" is addressed in the way you would want it to be."

You have written some other paradpx. We are discussing the Stone Paradox as any other omnipotence Parardox would require a specifically-designed counter-paradox designed to address it. If you can't do it, then just say so and we'll be done with.

You wrote this earlier: "No I didn't. I have never suggested that an omnipotent being would use its omnipotence to carry out a task in every way it could possibly be carried out." However, your "all circumstances" arguments have all been in full support of Christopher's claim which is:

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)"

Are you now suggesting that Christopher is wrong or have you become confused? ...Please clarify!--Birdman (talk) 04:04, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Side Note: You just wrote: "This is where the paradox arises. Surely "infinite in power" includes being able to do anything under any circumstances?" --and then you wrote: "you said the lifting task cannot be accomplished in 'all ways'... No I didn't. I have never suggested that an omnipotent being would use its omnipotence to carry out a task in every way it could possibly be carried out."

If what you wrote is accurate in that "infinite power = anything under any circumstances" and what else you wrote is accurate: "omnipotence (does not require) to carry out a task in every way it could possibly be carried out." then what is a "possible circumstance" that meets both standards you have just declared regarding "Omnipotence?" In other words, If I present a circumstance that completes a required task and God is not required to lift it in "all ways possible" then what is a circumstance to which God can lift the rock and not be required to lift it in some other way that still meets the requirements of anything under any circumstances?

Wouldn't that technically be the circumstance I presented it within my CGCP? .....Wouldn't that meet your requirements?

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘As I said earlier, you are focussing way too much on the specifics of a stone being lifted. You clearly don't see it, but what I wrote is the underlying concept behind the omnipotence paradox. Note how you specifically name it the "Stone paradox", I don't (I call it the omnipotence paradox, as does the article). That's because the issue isn't, at its core, about an omnipotent making a stone it can't lift; it is about an omnipotent being doing something that prevents it from doing something else. I'm not dodging, my rephrasing includes the stone paradox, if you make the right substitutions:

"a being that is capable of performing any task under any circumstances" = "God"
"perform an action" = "create a stone"
"performing a different task" = "lifting that stone"

These are fair substitutions, and it results in

“”Could God create a stone that prevented it [him] from lifting that stone?

This is basically the phrasing of the "stone paradox". It doesn't flow very well, because the original statement is very general; but the idea is consistent. God is prevented from lifting that stone by way of its weight.

As I said, you like the stone version because you think you've found a resolution; I want to address the underlying concept of how the paradox shows that true omnipotence is impossible.

With your other point, Christopher is not wrong and I am not confused; I think you are. Perhaps you misread me: I said "I have never suggested that an omnipotent being would use its omnipotence..." (emphasis added). This is different to "an omnipotent being could use its omnipotence...", which it obviously could (by the definition of omnipotence). I was stating that an omnipotent being is not obliged to carry out an action in every possible manner, not that it is not able to carry out an action in every possible manner.

But let's just assume that your resolution to the paradox is valid. (Just so you don't quote mine me later, I am playing the devil's advocate here. I do not think your "resolution" is valid.) Even if it is, how to do you respond to this new paradox, "Could a being that is capable of performing any task under any circumstances perform an action that prevented it from performing a different task?" What is your response to that?—Kazitor, ^pending 05:52, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

As far as I can see - Birdman states his point - 'one or other or several of us' who have decided to engage in this debate decide(s) to respond/suggest alternative lines of approach/refutes one aspect; Birdman reiterates his point without adapting his arguments - there are responses to him and amongst the rest of us; Birdman reiterates his point again and complains nobody takes him seriously.

As Birdman has said - the discussion has been going on for over a month, with his website being around (I assume) a little longer. There will be a number of people of varying interests who are interested in the Omnipotent God and Immovable Stone debate and who will be checking the web 'every so often' for new material - so his website and the RW discussions will be encountered. Not one of such persons has got in touch with Birdman/commented on the RW talkpages to say that this wonderful theory answers this paradox or at least advances the discussion. While 'absence of evidence' does not mean 'evidence of absence' it can be assumed to indicate a lower probability.

Birdman - your attitude/presentation towards other contributors also detracts from your articles.

Kazitor - the deity/creative principle ensured that 'the original creature with limbs and digits' on Earth with five digits became the ancestor of those creatures that now exist, while those creatures with other numbers of digits did not - so the deity is constrained in what can be developed on Earth - or do I misunderstand your paradox? Anna Livia (talk) 10:03, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry, what? I don't understand what you're asking. "My" paradox is just how I think the omnipotence paradox could be phrased to eliminate the concepts of rocks and lifting them, to break it down into its core components. I just can't seem to parse what you're saying, sorry. —Kazitor, ^pending 11:13, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

First off, Kaz (regarding Anna's rather curious comment): ...Welcome to my world, Kaz! :-). Now back to your comments: I am not focusing "way too much" on the specifics of a stone being lifted because that is the key component found within the test that was provided within the Stone Paradox question. You can argue all day long about the spirit, meaning and purpose of the Omnipotence Paradox, but unless you are able to present a test to an omnipotent being in a proper way that allows for omnipotence to be tested, then the whole issue is moot. The drafter of the "Stone Paradox" decided that the very best way to test omnipotence was by using the unliftable rock scenario. I found a way to take this very specific test that the Stone Paradox presented, work within its parameters and ultimately reach a successful outcome by way of the CGCP. MY argument is that an omnipotent being is ONLY REQUIRED to meet whatever challenge is presented within a specifically-worded question (provided it is not a nonsensical question). Omnipotence is required to respond, but it's up to whoever is questioning Omnipotence to present a very specific challenge.

What you are doing is deciding the test results (Stone Paradox vs CGCP) are not valid because it doesn't address the overall spirit and intent of the Omnipotence Paradox topic. That's not accurate because the Stone Paradox presented a SPECIFIC TEST and the challenge was met. My argument is that an omnipotent being remains omnipotent if it is able to meet the requirements of any specific omnipotence paradox question... even if success is achieved in only one way! The Stone Paradox presented a specific testing scenario that it thought would not be able to be performed by an omnipotent being - PERIOD! In the case of the CGCP, omnipotence has prevailed - PERIOD! If you don't like the outcome, then you have to find some other omnipotence paradox question that you think would serve as a better test. However, you cannot claim the CGCP results are invalid just because the "spirit of the Omnipotence Paradox" is still present within our minds. You just have to work a little harder now, Kaz. The fact still remains that the CGCP represents a check mark in the "Win Column" for Omnipotence. And if the CGCP can work to defeat one omnipotence paradox, then it is LOGICAL to consider that other Omnipotence Paradoxes can be defeated as well. ...Perhaps all of them?

You wrote: "Could God create a stone that prevented it [him] from lifting that stone?" ...And yes, God was able to do just that in the CGCP. There is a stone present that God cannot lift, yet by way of omnipotence (omnipresence) God was able to still lift the stone. The "meaning and purpose" of the CGCP is the opposite of the "meaning and purpose" of the Omnipotence Paradox. The CGCP claims that Omnipotence needs not to resolve all issues, but rather only the one specific issue it has been presented. If omnipotence fully addresses the issue at hand, ...then no failure is present.

Your Question: "Could a being that is capable of performing any task under any circumstances perform an action that prevented it from performing a different task?"

...There is a critical flaw in the first part of your question: It's the same flaw that you never seem to understand whenever I explain it: It's "under any circumstances." When you say "under any circumstances" then you are forced to include requiring an omnipotent being to be stripped of all of its omnipotence before it is even allowed to respond to the test. Removing what is to be tested prior to enacting the test is NOT logical or scientific at all, yet this still technically represents a "circumstance." As a result you are forced to compensate by saying, "Well then, most circumstances" or "Okay then, ...some circumstances." or "Okay, these specific circumstances (list of circumstances goes here)." ...The end result is that you end up with a bunch of specific qualifiers that are designed to reach a desired outcome instead of offering a legitimate test.

So if we re-write you question without that over-reach we get, "Could an omnipotent being perform an action that prevented it from performing a different task?" My response would be, "An omnipotent being can perform an action that would prevent another task from being performed if the other task that it is being required to perform is to fail." ...THIS is why you are required to craft up a "specific test" and not just offer up a generalized question based on the overall purpose and meaning behind the Omnipotence Paradox.

One a side note, you are offering the very best arguments I have ever been presented since January, 2017. I greatly enjoy the depth of intellect happening here! This is a good thing to have happen! I would love to see similar intellectual exchanges happening elsewhere in the world based on this counter-paradoxical resolution as it makes us all think a lot harder. Unfortunately, everyone here on rationalWiki thinks this exchange should not be promoted by way of rationalWiki... and I simply do not understand that rationale at all!--Birdman (talk) 15:16, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

The preview button[edit]

Beneath the edit box, there is a button labelled "Show preview". Please use it and review your edit before pressing save, as you seem to frequently make three or sometimes even more edits in a row, all affecting the same area. —Kazitor, ^pending 02:20, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Kaz, I made my very first wiki edit ever on the Omnipotence Paradox page with absolutely no idea about how this system works. I think I've done a pretty damn good job at "learning" the ins and outs of this interface. I was accused by Christopher of "knowing the ropes" because I managed to do so, but I really don't. I'm sorry that my learning curve has caused you any difficulty. And unlike the majority, I DO try to correct my spelling errors and sentence structure as to make it a better read... and it isn't always apparent in a "show preview." I do this for clarity.--Birdman (talk) 02:29, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

This what I mean by arrogance: it's a simple request. I never claimed you should be familiar with the system; that's why I explained how to preview an edit. A reasonable person would change their behaviour, maybe apologise for the minor inconvenience, and that would be it. For some reason you see fit to respond with hostility to practically anything anyone says. I do not understand why; it can't be a healthy attitude. —Kazitor, ^pending 02:36, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

When Nog Bogmire apologizes for calling my CGCP "stupid" I will apologize to you... and I seriously doubt that will ever happen. And to deny that you are not "smug and snitty" would be a complete denial of the truth.--Birdman (talk) 02:40, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

You know that two wrongs don't make a right, right? I can't control what Nog Bogmire does or doesn't do. Just because they were inconsiderate, in no way justifies continued hostility from you towards people who aren't even associated with them! If Nog Bogmire fails to apologise, it's probably because they have long since moved on from this discussion. You're using a variant of the imprecision fallacy: overgeneralisation, specifically the spotlight fallacy. —Kazitor, ^pending 02:51, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

None of you have been courteous to me at all. I posted my information about the CGCP, the history of it on Quora, the videos and the website link and every bit of what I posted was MOCKED by "most" of you (especially Anna). So don't you lecture me at ALL about being courteous! And I hate to have to repeat myself, but: "Please re-write the Stone Paradox to where "any circumstances" and "all circumstances" is addressed in the way you would want it to be."--Birdman (talk) 02:59, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Most of us who have got involved in this discussion have read your website more than once #and are still not convinced# or even consider the argument flawed in various different ways.

I was not mocking you - I was attempting to engage with you/asking for presentations in different way - and you kept on going about genitalia, called me a snowflake and 'put me out of the loop.' You have likewise spoken in a discourteous manner to others - as Kazitor says above and others before. Anna Livia (talk) 21:16, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Someone else's view[edit]

Too much wall of text[edit]

Why can I no longer edit this section?--Birdman (talk) 00:30, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

But you... just did? I must be missing something here. —Kazitor, ^pending 05:37, 20 October 2017 (UTC):

I didn't understand how this archive thing worked. I didn't realize that everything written prior to what we just wrote gets hidden within the box. You don't realize that my very first experience with anything to do with editing wiki pages was here on rationalWiki.--Birdman (talk) 10:25, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

You can edit what's in the box, but to do so, you'll have to go here. Cheers. 锦鲤 (说) 12:29, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Occam's razor[edit]

Observation: your idea is "mocked" pretty much anywhere you mention it.

Theory one: the idea is correct, but challenges everyone's way of thinking
Assumptions:

Nobody has attempted an actual "answer" to the question until now
Despite all this time, you've managed to overturn the current situation with a simple idea
There is resistance to any sort of change on a centuries-old topic, even if the people mocking it or not familiar with that history
People have any sort of emotional attachment to the paradox at all (refuted: "It is stunning the amount of resistance the CGCP receives from individuals whom you would think would be extremely interested in discovering an actual response being proposed")
The idea properly resolves the paradox
Almost everyone is blind to the logic of your solution

Theory two: the idea is actually flawed.

People will mock something if they see an obvious flaw in it.

I know which one seems more plausible to me. —Kazitor, ^pending 22:53, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Written 7 hours before you delivered your Occam's Razor slam:

"One a side note, you are offering the very best arguments I have ever been presented since January, 2017. I greatly enjoy the depth of intellect happening here! This is a good thing to have happen! I would love to see similar intellectual exchanges happening elsewhere in the world based on this counter-paradoxical resolution as it makes us all think a lot harder. -Birdman (talk) 15:16, 21 October 2017 (UTC)"

...I'll just let it go with that.--Birdman (talk) 01:04, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw that. I'll respond later. Currently busy ~~having a life~~ with other things for the next few days. —Kazitor, ^pending 01:18, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Ok, so basically: when I'm raising fair points that don't immediately counter your argument, those are the "very best arguments" you've been presented. When I raise a fair point that goes against your argument, it's just a "slam" and not actually a good argument. Sorry, but we don't define a good argument as one that agrees with you. —Kazitor, ^pending 09:28, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Rest assured I will never again give you credit for being more of a deep thinker than most of the other people in regards to offering challenges. The undeniable truth is that NONE of your arguments have been valid as every single one of them has been readily countered. The compliment I gave you was merely recognizing that you had accepted that the rudimentary challenges did not work, were easily shot down and you had to "move on" to more complex challenges... which have all equally failed as well.

I'm sorry, Kaz, but even your latest volley of challenges simply didn't cut it either (for the very reasons stated right below your last attempt). And I can't help but notice that you chose not to respond at all to my counter-argument... because you obviously know that you can't! Your "swing for the fences" Omnipotence Paradox question: "Could a being that is capable of performing any task under any circumstances perform an action that prevented it from performing a different task?" sadly didn't even make it past the pitcher's mound, my friend. Your lack of response to my counter argument and your subsequent resorting to slams speaks volumes.

No, Kaz, if you had a valid argument that shows the CGCP response doesn't work you would have posted it by now. And even if you DID have one, you would use it in every response you make and not keep trying to find some other new angle to use. Like I've said sooooooooo many times before, NONE of you have any arguments that shows the CGCP doesn't work, so now you all are reduced to attacking the messenger... which is tantamount to raising an intellectual "White flag" regarding the whole issue.

The truth is that if someone had a "valid argument" they wouldn't need to keep searching or trying to find a different angle. They would simply (and logically) keep using the same argument because they know it is inarguable. So tell me, Kazzy, why aren't you doing that? Why do you keep trying to find a flaw if you've already found the flaw?--Birdman (talk) 11:52, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

"No, Kaz, if you had a valid argument that shows the CGCP response doesn't work you would have posted it by now." This is called denial. Plenty of people have done just that. I'd repeat them, but ~~can't be bothered~~ have ~~a life~~ other things to do, as I said above. "They would simply (and logically) keep using the same argument because they know it is inarguable." No, because this leads to what looks like argument by assertion. One side repeats a single argument constantly, the other ~~denies it~~ gives the same "refutation" constantly. That's counter-productive. I would hope that finding many flaws, rather than just one, would convince you you don't have much of a leg to stand on, but it clearly doesn't. My point stands: you only called me a "deep thinker" because I didn't seem to be disagreeing with you. How very open-minded and unbiased. —Kazitor, ^pending 12:09, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Kazzy writes: "I would hope that finding many flaws, rather than just one, would convince you you don't have much of a leg to stand on." ...Well, Kazzy, you just admitted that you don't have a critical flaw that you can demonstrate. Now you're reduced to arguing that you have some itsy-bitsy, teeny-weeny, tiny little flaws that somehow translates into "not a leg to stand on" in your mind, right? Am I to assume that you consider Anna's concerns over the gender of my stick figure God as one of those teeny-weeny, itsy-bitsy, tiny little flaws? Maybe a typo found on my website renders the CGCP resolution as flawed? My lack of a degree in Philosophy must be another tiny-widdle flaw, right? A user named Ikanreed wrote the following: "They introduce a third variable that bifricates their solution space, creating a god A, rock A, and "plane" A, then pointedly ignore that their supposedly omnipotent god A cannot lift their rock A, making it non-omnipotent, thus non-god." ...Is THAT one of those teeny-weeny, itsy-bitsy, tiny little flaws as well? ...even though there is no "Rock A" or "God A" present at all in the CGCP resolution?

Your "teeny-weeny flaws" argument at this point is tantamount to the prosecution making their closing arguments in a murder trial by saying, "The accused lives in the same state as the victim, owns a firearm, hates Donald Trump and it has been already proven that the victim voted for Donald Trump... therefore the accused is guilty!" Ya got nothing, Kaz! ...I only hang around here to watch you all squirm!--Birdman (talk) 13:28, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

The only reason anybody is squirming is in watching you embarrass yourself being rude to people, your spelling errors and not advancing your arguments.Anna Livia (talk) 15:50, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Hey, Kazzy, apparently (Unidentified user) [originally "Koidevelopment"] has found another one of those teeny-weeny itsy-bitsy tiny little flaws that negates the entire basis of the CGCP resolution. (Unidentified user) says I'm "rude"! ...Well there ya go!--Birdman (talk) 13:28, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

To put it another way:

You proposed a thesis and mentioned it on RW for our entertainment/enlightenment/thoughts.
Various contributors came up with their thoughts/antitheses, which overlapped or contradicted each other, and which have been discussed/evolved in various ways.
Despite repeated requests you have failed to provide a synthesis that deals with some of the problems raised.
The discussion now #appears# to be going in the direction of PRATT.

'People do think in different ways' and alternative analogies can advance understanding. Perhaps you could provide some more. Anna Livia (talk) 10:21, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

A message from your favourite snowflake[edit]

Just accept that the benighted natives of RW do not see the merits of your theory and prefer snark to snide. Anna Livia (talk) 15:50, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

The Omni-Contrarian Gambit: Logical checkmate or begging the question?[edit]

Birdman's 'solution' is actually interesting for a number of reasons. God lifting up a universe with an unliftable rock in it doesn't disprove the "paradox of the stone" as it doesn't influence what happens to the rock inside the universe, though it is a great show of the scope of God's power. God swinging around a planet with an unliftable rock on it likewise doesn't disprove the paradox, though it does illustrate how little God's power would actually be impeded by there being some tiny unliftable rock somewhere. But the real solution lies in Birdman's proposition of multiple physical incarnations of God at the same time. So let's bring everything down to the same frame of reference where "lifting a rock" actually makes sense as a concept (that is, down to earth). We start out with one incarnation. They create a rock they can't lift. In comes the second incarnation, and they can actually lift the rock. So now there is no unliftable rock anymore? Ah, but now the second incarnation creates a rock they can't lift. And in comes another incarnation etc. ad infinitum.

Now regardless of what the former proves or doesn't prove, the omni-contrarian is still unsatisfied. They want one incarnation to create a rock they can't lift and then they want that same identical incarnation to lift the rock, without making any changes to the rock or themselves. This is because, and this is the omni-contrarian gambit, they want God to commit a logical contradiction, so they can then point out that what is described is illogical. It should be obvious then that the omni-contrarian's definition of omnipotence inherently defies logic. So what if anything can we really logically conclude when using such a definition? If God's power is not restrained by logic, as the definition proposes, how could logic rule one way or the other? If the definition is true, then God can ignore or change logic whichever way he pleases, so whatever we may conclude is at best inconclusive. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 21:07, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Omni (all) Potent (power). Commonly held to be unlimited power. When you claim God is Omnipotent, what you are claiming is that there are no limits to said deity's power. The Omnipotence Paradox proves that such limits exist. Maximal power, on the other hand, asserts that God is as powerful as he needs to be for any given problem he faces, or more clearly, that such limits exist but can be worked around. Are you so blindly devoted to a logical absurdity that you are willing to disagree with most professional apologists and theologians on this matter? ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 21:14, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

All I'm saying is that this all comes down to what definitions you choose to focus on. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 21:16, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

@141.134.75.236 You're playing semantics in order to accuse me of being unreasonable. Such intellectual dishonesty annoys me greatly. Don't engage in such childishness. I define the term Omnipotence from both the original Latin and from it's common usage, you use it to just mean "lots of power" which is, by it's very nature, dishonest and misleading. Don't engage in such horseshit if you desire an honest discussion. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 21:21, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

If/when I call God omnipotent, what I mean is that all power comes from God/flows from God/belongs to God. If you use a different definition, that's quite alright. If you follow your definition to its logical end, then that's also fine. Don't expect it to change my views/my focus or the definitions I use though. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 21:28, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

I follow the same definitions that professional apologists, counter-apologists, and theologians adhere to. These terms are not mere matters of opinion, but words and phrases with historical and cultural implications. If I for some reason re-defined the word "Pedophile" to mean the same thing as the word "theist", would that not be dishonest, given that it is commonly held to mean something entirely different? Likewise, whatever personal "definitions"/"lingo"/"phrasing" you use must ultimately yield to the academic terminology, lest you, intentionally or unintentionally, espouse dishonesty. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 22:16, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

This reminds me of an argument I had about illegal immigration importing and exacerbating crime and this other dude saying actually "crime" is academically defined as "the percentage of criminals in a population" and illegal aliens have a lower rate of being arrested so puh. And when I explain I'm talking about the total amount of criminal activity, he goes "You're using the wrong definitions! You monster!"

I even explicitly pointed out how your case rests upon the specific definition you're using, but apparently we all need to accept that definition and its logical conclusion because appeal to authority? You do you I guess. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 22:38, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

No. "Crime", as a shorthand is both commonly and academically (at least to my knowledge) the act of committing a criminal act, i.e. breaking a law in the country the act occurs in. (And only in that country, hence why I am not being executed for violating Saudi Arabia's law against atheism) However, if the definition is vague enough, then it effectively has no meaning. Hence my reasoning for defaulting to the academic definitions, as they generally have enough flexibility to change when called for, but enough scrutiny to actually hold meaning. In short, the definition of "omnipotence" you use is so at odds with the commonly and academically held meanings of the term as to describe two separate ideas, which in turn creates an information barrier. Hence my above example involving the word "pedophile". ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 22:56, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

I've stated upfront what definitions I'm using, so not sure where "vague enough to have no meaning" is coming from. I'm also not sure why we can't explore multiple definitions and what they entail at the same time. On that note, what's your opinion on whether the following can be considered omnipotence: God has the power to create infinite space and infinite time and the ability to apply infinite energy to any instance of spacetime, which they can utilize to create any configuration of particles of their choice. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 00:27, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

141.134.75.236: I'm sorry! I had some really good responses to what you had written, but in the middle of posting it I was BLOCKED and lost everything I had written to you. Yes, I was "blocked" on my own stinkin' Talk Page! If you people want to come here and present your arguments you are MORE THAN WELCOME! You can say anything you want! But if you want me to respond to you, then you cannot block me when I do. I'm not going to waste my time presenting counter-arguments if at anytime you don't like my arguments you can block me.

Before I write another frickin' word, I want a COMMITMENT that I will NOT be blocked on my own frickin' talk page (especially after what everyone else has written to me!). C'mon people ...You cannot block your debate opponent on his own talk page when YOU initiated the debate!--Birdman (talk) 01:56, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

@141.134.75.236 I did not intentionally state or imply that you were being vague when defining terms, rather, I explained why I define terms in the manner that I do. If it came across in another way, then I apologize. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 01:57, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

"You cannot block your debate opponent on his own talk page when YOU initiated the debate!" Bullshit. As I explained in the above section, you were blocked for flat out lying. Nothing else. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 02:06, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Birdman's soluion is bad and make no sense. I am amazed by zealots, they'd accept anything to defend stupid positions. I always wonder why zealots are so keen to refuse a mere problem of words, they'll defend a stupid position to claim "god is omnipotent" when the word "omnipotent" itself is paradoxical. It doesn't affect the powers of god, it just tells us that you need a better wording to define that kind of powers. This is just a limitation of our langage and nothing more.Alcyon007 (talk) 05:38, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Alcyon007 wrote: "Birdman's soluion is bad and make no sense." ...Well, there it is! I guess I'll have to delete wherever I've posted my "Circular God Counter-paradox", take down my video and remove my copyrighted document uploaded to the U.S. Copyright Office. Out of the +470 challenges I have received from the very beginning of my CGCP (yes, I count them) Alcyon007's argument is BY FAR the most eloquent, concise and hard-hitting of them all! I simply cannot argue against the rock-solid argument he has just presented.

However, I am curious as to why you think my definition of Omnipotence (being "all power") is in any way incorrect, watered down (as you have previously claimed) or in need "better wording?" The word's literal translation is "All Power" so what other wording to you feel is necessary to better define Omnipotence? We all know MY definition. So what is YOUR definition?--Birdman (talk) 13:57, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

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) 02:36, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Oh dear, I detect a huge case of LANCB. But hey, guess that means I can get on with my life now. I had a few giggles at your arguments, like how you could switch so quickly from "Hey, Kazitor's not completely refuting my argument, what a sophisticated thinker!" to "Oh my god he just raised another point against it, what an irrational person1111!!!oneoneelventy11one!!111one!!!11!!" You won't be missed.

Also, obligatory "But I thought this was supposed to be RATIONALWiki!" Drink!.—Kazitor, ^pending 04:18, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Everybody has their 'pet offbeat theories of more or less validity' (and TV series/sports club etc which they will defend regardless) - the point is to know when to adapt one's ideas/accept that other people's views may be equally valid (and to know when to not argue the matter further with someone else). Anna Livia (talk) 09:20, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

What'd I say about Leaving and Never Coming Back? I totally called it :P —Kazitor, ^pending 04:19, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

I'd wanted you to know that he had migrated to Wikipedia under the username EPROM and tried (again) to promote his website. He basically spammed the same nonsense during a few weeks but was blocked a few days ago. When he mentionned RationalWiki, I wanted to see if he changed anything. He didn't. Alcyon007 (talk) 15:03, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Ahhhh, so your deception over on Wikipedia has been exposed! I KNEW you were also a RatioinalWiki content editor and that's why I made my "accurate" claims about the organized censorship happening against my CGCP resolution. This is 100% incontrovertible PROOF that Atheists are orchestrating the removal of content that doesn't directly match up with their ideology. None of you on Wikipedia could present a valid argument against my CGCP resolution and none of you on RationalWiki could do so either... so the only thing left to do is try to ban/censor it, right?

It doesn't even bother you that you were forced to lie to the Wikipedia Administrators claiming that you didn't orchestrate and conspire for the removal of my content with other Atheists? You claimed it wasn't orchestrated, but here you are doing the exact same thing! Too bad those Wikipedia Administrators can't see this!

Hey, despite these many Atheists' orchestrated attempts to censor my CGCP resolution, at the end of the day this CGCP resolution can be easily used to shut down the Stone Paradox right on the spot ...and there's not a damned thing you can do about it! (not even through "censorship").

Scores of people are using it today and exponentially more will be using it tomorrow. If Wikipedia and Rationalwiki wish to remain "behind the times" in this regard ...then that's your call.--Birdman (talk) 16:31, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Congratulations. Most modern Theologians and Apologists use maximal power as an argument, rather than Omnipotence. It really takes some doing to be so far behind the curve on a subject you are supposedly passionate about. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 16:37, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

It is painful to read someone so irrational on RationalWiki. Alcyon007 (talk) 16:50, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Are you crazy? The word "Omnipotence" has absolutely NOT been rendered obsolete! I've seen some individuals use "Ultimate Power" but not "Maximum Power." Even if they do, neither of these two conditions trumps "Omnipotence" as it is literally translated as "ALL POWER."

If Omnipotence is "All Power" and Maxipotence is "Maximum Power" ...then Omnipotence trumps Maxipotence. A "Maxipotent Being" would obviously be a very powerful being, but one that still remains limited to only possessing whatever power level that this being is able to achieve. Example: The Maxipotent capability of the volume level on my iPhone is set at 100-115 decibels. However, I can enhance that volume level by downloading an app that increases this volume up to 125 decibels. Hell, even "I" can technically be considered a "Maxipotent Being" based on certain circumstances. Example: The most I can bench press right now is 275 pounds, therefore my "Maxipotence" is limited to only 275 pounds. After six months of gratuitous steroid abuse my Maxipotence might increase to 325 pounds? Maybe even more? ...Who knows?

I think "Ultimate Power" is a better term, but it is also "limiting" as it only references the uppermost echelon of power that can possibly be accessed. It does not address any subsequent powers. True, it may be more than "Maximum Power" because it references whatever power resides at the highest level possible in any situation whereas "Maxipotence" would be limited to a specific set of circumstances ...but it is still limited within its scope. Example: I can be a being that possess "ultimate Power" today, but there might be a an all-new level of power that emerges tomorrow that another being could possess which rendering me obsolete.

However, an "Omnipotent Being" would be a being that possesses "all power" which is an all-inclusive set of all possible powers. All = everything and NONE = nothing at all. That completes the entire spectrum and there is no conditional circumstance that renders this spectrum as anything less or more than what it already is. If there is any power at all that exists anywhere and on any level and in any possible (or impossible) situation or circumstance ...then an Omnipotent Being controls it!

===== And Lastly: =====

What is "painful" is witnessing those who profess to be the "guardians of reason" stooping to personal slams, editing other people's content and fostering censorship just because they cannot counter the existence of an all-new, unprecedented counter-paradoxical response to the Stone Paradox. You do a disservice to yourselves (and your website(s) by disregarding and censoring a resolution that appears to be 100% effective.

Always remember that I DO NOT nor will I ever censor or delete other people's content no matter how much I may disagree with it. I don;t because there is no necessity for me to do so.

Therefore I invite ANY of you (even you, Anna) to present any challenges or arguments you may have against my CGCP resolution in the comments section of my YouTube video titled "Stone Paradox Solution." Just Google it. It's the stick figure drawing that shows up on the very first page of the search results. If you are so frickin' confident that you are right and I am wrong, then here's your opportunity to prove it. Unlike with what I have dealt with here on Rationalwiki and Wikipedia, you won't find me banning you, blocking you, censoring or editing your words, calling you derogatory names or collapsing your contributions Instead, I GUARANTEE you will gain a hell of a lot more knowledge about what Omnipotence represents and how paradoxical logic works then you have ever achieved before. You will NEVER gain a more in-depth level of "Maxipotent Comprehension" regarding Omnipotence than you will by diving into a debate with me over my "Circular God Counter-paradox" and how to counter paradoxical logic.

All I ask is that you let me know which Rationalwiki or Wikipedia person I am dealing with by including your username. Do this ...and I'll give you a mind-expanding debate that will change your entire perspective on how to better address this topic going forward.

Here's your chance to fully "educate" me once and for all without any fear of retribution (like I've experienced here and on Wikipedia).--Birdman (talk) 21:02, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

If the author of this essay needed a living example, we got one. Alcyon007 (talk) 21:17, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Links can't help you, buddy. If you operate based on "Truth" and I don't ...then show me! Challenge my "Circular God Counter-paradox" over on YouTube. If my resolution is so stupid, then you should have absolutely no trouble at all showing me just how stupid it is, right? Maybe you've already tried and got your ass handed to you? (which is what I suspect) ...Whatever the case, you've never written a single word that serves as an argument against the validity of my CGCP resolution. You haven't because you CAN'T!

It's "big boy" time, Alcyon007. If you think you're so smart and you've got it all happening regarding "Omnipotence" then show me how smart you are over on YouTume (Where you can't delete my words, recruit other Atheists for back-up or cry to some Administrator about some technicality I've violated. If you can't ...then go pester someone else.--Birdman (talk) 22:00, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

"...then go pester someone else." Oh bravo!! This from someone who has repeated the same claim over and over, all while ignoring the problems with said argument. But hey, if reality fails to conform to your standards, obviously someone is out to get you

P.S. I love the use of the Galileo gambit in your Wikipedia posts, it just adds onto the number of reasons people shouldn't take you seriously. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 22:17, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Hey, you and Alcyon007 are excellent at tossing out "personal slams" but you suck at presenting robust arguments regarding the subject matter.

NONE of you ever produced one single "smioking gun" flaw in my CGCP resolution. This is why you all have been reduced to "attacking the person." If all YOU can do is toss out personal slams, then go pester someone else as well. If you had a set on you, you would be presenting your VERY BEST ARGUMENT in the comments section of my video. I can safely assume that you don't - because you haven't.--Birdman (talk) 23:58, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

The funniest point is how you never answer by YES or NO to the question "Can an omnipotent being <do something>". Or you can use the boolean logic, "An omnipotent being can <do something>" must be either TRUE or FALSE. Both answers are pardoxical, so there are only 2 possibilities

1) Change the definition of omnipotence to include the answer.

2) Claim the question nonsensical.

The first possibility is laughable and the second is a convoluted way of refusing any answer. So we are still waiting for a TRUE or FALSE statement to the claim "An omnipotent being can create a stone he cannot lift". So, for the last time, we need a statement TRUE or FALSE to the claim "An omnipotent being can create a stone he cannot lift". Any post without an answer is an open admission of your failure. And he openly admitted on Youtube that he won't give a boolean statment. Thank you, case closed.Alcyon007 (talk) 00:23, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Are you going to mirror our YouTube debate here on Rationalwiki as well? Am I going to have to copy and paste all of my responses to you over on YouTube to this Rationalwiki page? No definitions of "Omnipotence" have been changed (or watered down) as I have used the broiadest possible definition which is "all power." If I defined "Omnipotence" as "A being that can only do what is logically possible" then THAT would be a "watered down" definition of "Omnipotence."

So how many times do I have to write this? Are you going to once again claim that my definition is "watered down" after what I have just written? I notice you never seem to be able to explain exactly "HOW" my definition is "watered down." You just claim that it is and nothing more.

If you want to debate me, do it on YouTube - where EVERYONE can see it! Nobody is going to come over here to my talk page to read any of this crap.--Birdman (talk) 00:35, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

TRUE or FALSE.Alcyon007 (talk) 00:44, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

You have questions awaiting you over on YouTube. I'll wait for your reply over on YouTube (where everything you are asking has been answered). I will not debate the same thing in two different areas with the same individual. I'm surprised at your many dodges. I suspect you aren't intellectually prepared for our debate and that is why you are dodging my questions. ....Go respond over at YouTube or move along.--Birdman (talk) 01:02, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

TRUE or FALSE. You don't answer anywhere, just claim "I did it". I told you on Youtube, I won't post until you answer TRUE or FALSE to a simple boolean statement. If you don't understand basic boolean logic, you are not rational.Alcyon007 (talk) 01:09, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

And there it is! You wimped out of our YouTube debate! My question was too tough for ya, eh? Smart move for you, my friend. BTW: It is impossible to respond to a Boolean statement, but here's a "Yes" or "No" boolean "question" for you: Q: "Will you ever stop molesting little children?" ....Just like you did with me, I expect a (YES) or (NO) answer in your next response. Just like with the Stone Paradox, only a "Yes" or "No" answer satisfies the question. ...Have at it, Alcyon007!

BTW: Alcyon007 has chickened out of my YouTube debate offer. ....Anyone else want to give it a try?--Birdman (talk) 01:26, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I stop molesting little children (since I never did). You don't even try to answer to a boolean statement by TRUE or FALSE. Basically, "Do 2+2=4". Your "answer" : yellow. Quite funny to argue "I have a logical answer" and fail to understand his own failure. The question is equivalent to the the negation of the boolean claim "I will never molest little children in the future". Thank you for showing more and more failures.Alcyon007 (talk) 01:41, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Hey guys! Can you please keep your Internet battles confined to YouTube? Thanks. Nerd :::(talk) 01:42, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Hey, Nerd, don't come into MY house and tell me what I can discuss on my own Talk Page. If you don't like what you're reading, then go jones around on someone else's talk page.

Besides, I just got Alcyon007 to CONFESS to everyone that he molests little children. I asked him the following "Yes" or "No" boolean question (not a "statement"): Q: "Will you ever stop molesting little children?" and his response was, "Yes, I stop molesting little children"

Based on Alcyon007's own rules, everything after his "Yes" response is meaningless. The only answers that apply to questions like these are "Yes" or "No." ...So there you have it! Either Alcyon007 is a self-confessed pedophile or his unilateral demand that the Stone Paradox be answered with a "Yes" or "No" answer is not valid at all?

So which is it, Alcyon007? Are you really a "pedophile" that will one day stop molesting little children? ...or is your "Yes" or "No" dogmatic requirement for any answers offered to the Stone Paradox totally unfounded? I'm offering you a way out of the hole you created for yourself, Alcyon007? ...........Which is it?--Birdman (talk) 14:43, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

You know, I bet AiG would put this on their crappy arguments page, right next to the moon dust argument. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 15:33, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

I agree! Exactly my point! Alcyon007 demands that anyone responding to the Stone Paradox can ONLY answer with a "Yes" or "No" response, but when his OWN RULES are applied to a question I ask to him, "Will you ever stop molesting little children" then suddenly his OWN RULES don't apply! Thank you for pointing out how ridiculous and hypocritical his argument was for requiring the SP be answered only with "Yes" or "No" response ...On a good note, at least "one" Atheist here on Rationalwiki is starting to see the light!--Birdman (talk) 16:17, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

A) I was cynically referencing your arguments and pet obsession. (As I pointed out previously, Omni concepts, due to their logical absurdities, are no longer a thing, maximal concepts are the latest in theistic apologism.) and B) I'm not an Atheist, or more accurately, not entirely an Atheist. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 17:06, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Well that confuses me, because you posted your comment right after I pointed out how ridiculous Alcyon00's "Yes or no ONlY!" demand was for anyone answering the Stone Paradox. Are you now claiming that Alcyon007's "Yes or No" requirement is NOT ridiculous? And if you are, then here's a "Yes" or "No" ONLY question for you as well, "Are you an Atheist?" ...Now remember, you are ONLY ALLOWED to answer with "Yes" or "No" as per Alcyon007's rules. Since his argument wasn't considered "ridiculous" by you, then you should have no problem in answering this question with a "Yes" or No" response (and not contradict where you wrote, "not entirely" just a short wile ago).

So are you an Atheist? ...Yes or No? ^{— Unsigned, by: Birdman / talk / contribs}

Are you insane ? He answered. As usual, you define your terms, so which definition of atheist are you using ?

1) No belief in any higher power

2) No religion, a (without) -theist (religion)

3) No belief in a human-like god.

4) Something else

So that's why he had to add "not entirely". So your argument is ridiculous and only a 5 years old would not understand why. Alcyon007 (talk) 18:30, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

@Alcyon007 Actually, it's more than (though not excluding) a mere definition in terms. Though I hold positions that are categorized as Atheism, I also hold other, less conventional positions. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 18:35, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Don't worry, I understand. We can always go down to a mere definition of terms, but then we usualy lose the meaning of the question. Let's take an example: if I believe that we are living in a simulation, am I an atheist ? If I believe that we are the dreams of someone sleeping, am I an atheist ? With a given definition, I can give answers to both but do they have any meaning ? But Birdman is a big fan of the strawman fallacy. Alcyon007 (talk) 18:46, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

No, I'm perfectly sane. Nothing on your list has anything to do with the question I asked GrammarCommie. HE is the one who possesses his OWN definition of what an Atheist is (NOT you or or me). GrammarCommie wrote, "I'm not an Atheist, or more accurately, not entirely an Atheist." According to his answer, he is not "entirely" Athist, so that means he is "partially" Atheist. That could be anywhere from 1% Atheist to 99.999% Atheist, right? Whatever version of Atheism GrammarCommie decides is actually "Atheism" is what is in question. So the question still stands and GrammarCommie must answer "Yes" or "No" (your rules) and not end up contradicting himself from what he wrote earalier.

Hey buddy, I know that it's extremely painful for you to watch your arguments so easily dismantled by the guy you've worked so hard to censor and ban, but unfortunately for you, that's exactly what's happening right now. Your little "Yes" or "No" mandate just got turned around on you (and GrammarCommie) just like I turned the Stone Paradox'e use of paradoxial logic right back onto its own self. You're screwed, buddy! ...There's no way out of the hole you just dug for yourself and you know it!

Nothing screams "Satisfaction!" like putting militant censor-happy Atheists in their place. Of course, that might not actually apply to GrammarCommie - because we don't know if he's really an Atheist or not? He hasn't responded with a "Yes" or "No" reply yet.--Birdman (talk) 18:57, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes. And I see I'll have to teach you how to argue Theology... The proper counter to the Omnipotence Paradox is to accept that omnipotence is impossible, and then argue for Maximal Power. Maximal Power dictates that yes, God can indeed create a rock he himself cannot lift, but then he gains the ability to lift the rock but not create it. It is saddening that I must do your work for you, but then again I am arguing with someone suffering from a textbook case of Dunning-Kruger... Anyway, congrats on being obsolete in Theology. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 19:43, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Your "question dodge" is almost blinding, GrammarCommie. Q: "Are you an Atheist?" YES or NO?--Birdman (talk) 20:09, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Did you skip school ? Read the first word of his last message. Then, he talked about another topic.Alcyon007 (talk) 20:14, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes, and I read all of the words that he wrote. Here they are again: "I'm not an Atheist, or more accurately, not entirely an Atheist." So do we go by his very first word? ...or do we use what he openly states is more "accurate" in that he's not "entirely" an Atheist? Do we want "accuracy" in his answer or not?

And what are you doing answering for GrammarCommie? He's a big boy and can answer for himself (despite his apparent difficulty in doing so). And just to remind you, You didn't accept MY answer that is clearly visible in my video at the (4:00) point which is parsed similarly to GrammarCommie's, so why don't you let GrammarCommie answer for himself? ...He doesn't need a nanny.--Birdman (talk) 20:30, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Ok you skipped school and you are unable to read a sentence. So when someone answers with a "Yes" you claim that he didn't, because it doesn't suit your theory. You are just insane. Alcyon007 (talk) 20:34, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm not supposed to hurt children. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 21:17, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Sooooo, GrammarCommie has surprisingly "walked-back" his original claim that he's "not entirely an Atheist" (which he originally claimed was the most "accurate" response). Now he has suddenly committed to a definitive "YES, I am an Atheist! ...So what happened within the last hour or so that converted you from merely a "quasi-Atheist" to a full blown, balls-to-the-wall, diehard, 100% all-on-board Atheist? Did you suddenly have a "change of heart" and fully commit to Atheism? Should your "Not entirely an Atheist" response still be considered more accurate than your "Yes!" response, ...or are you merely settling for a less-accurate response even though it doesn't truly speak to whether or not you are an Atheist? BTW: A "yes" or "no" response is not required in your response to these questions :-).

GrammarCommie wrote: "I'm not supposed to hurt children." ...Then you really need get with Alcyon007 who earlier said, "Yes, I stop molesting little children" because he has apparently confessed to having this pedophilia disorder with his "Yes" answer. Since you know you're not supposed to hurt children and Alcyon007 is struggling with his pedophilia disorder (based on his own answer) then maybe the two of you can help each other out?

GrammarCommie also wrote: "The proper counter to the Omnipotence Paradox is to accept that omnipotence is impossible, and then argue for Maximal Power" ...Oh really? "Proper" to who? ...You? ...other Atheists? If you claim that Omnipotence is impossible (even though my CGCP Resolution shows otherwise) then why do you even have an "Omnipotence Paradox" page on Wikipedia and Rationalwiki? Why waste everyone's time with a question that is irrelevant? Why not just change the Stone Paradox from a "question" into a "bold statement" like, "God cannot create a rock so heavy that he cannot lift it because Omnipotence is impossible!"

Think of how much time you'll save everyone form pondering this paradoxical question. You can just 'decide" for everyone else and make this new bold statement the final solution on the matter. ...Case closed!

Of course, everyone knows that the Stone Paradox is historically famous because it doesn't "decide" anything for anyone (like Atheists like to do). Instead it poses a "challenge" to Omnipotence in the form of a question. The beauty of it is that it was originally designed so that anyone trying to answer the Stone Paradox ends up trapping themselves into admitting that Omnipotence is impossible. What better way to prove something is impossible than to have someone who doesn't think it's impossible struggling to answer the question, right?

But now you Atheists want to unilaterally bypass this historic, neutrally-worded, impartial "challenge" that the Stone Paradox presents. NOW you want to boldly declare Omnipotence as being "impossible" via unilateral Atheistic decree. ...So now God doesn't even get a chance to even respond to a challenge, right? How convenient! Just as soon as someone comes along and finds a way to have God meeting the challenge while still remaining 100% Omnipotent, suddenly it's time to just "do away" with the Stone Paradox and decide for everyone else that Omnipotence is impossible.

This is a classic case of circular reasoning. ...Here's what you all are forwarding:

Atheists: "Omnipotence is impossible!"
Birdman: "Oh yah? ...Prove it!"
Atheists: "Okay" (asks me the Stone Paradox question)
Birdman: "Okay, here ya go!" (responds with CGCP resolution)
Atheists: "That doesn't work!"
Birdman: "Why not?"
Atheists: "Because Omnipotence is impossible."

Yep! I can only imagine what type of circular reasoning is going on with Wikipedia's "Project Atheism." I wonder how many other "bold decrees" and "Circular arguments" are being shoved down everyone's throat on those Wiki pages?--Birdman (talk) 23:02, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

"Sooooo, GrammarCommie has surprisingly "walked-back" his original claim that he's "not entirely an Atheist" (which he originally claimed was the most "accurate" response). Now he has suddenly committed to a definitive "YES, I am an Atheist!" Bullshit. I answered "yes" or "no". It's not my fault if you demanded an answer devoid of nuance. I stated and I fucking quote: "I'm not an Atheist, or more accurately, not entirely an Atheist". This implies that I am more than merely an atheist, and that fucking further, it is more nuanced than your "yes/no" mind game. Since neither answer would be entirely honest, I answered with the more honest answer of the two. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 01:53, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Since my BLOCK was just removed I can actually respond to you now (yes, on my own Talk Page). If you are not "entirely" an Atheist that means you are "less than" 100% Atheist. If I am not entirely done with a project, that does not mean I am "more than finished" with my project. It means I have more work to do before I am finished. If you are part Atheist, part Agnostic and part something else, then you cannot answer "Yes" or "No" to the question, "Are you an Atheist?" You would need to answer in a more informative way.

The whole point of the "Are you a pedophile?" trap and the "Are you an Atheist?" trap was to illustrate how incorrect Alcyon007's demand was that I have to answer the Stone Paradox with a "Yes" or "No" response. Sure, you might be more than Atheist or less than Atheist and that's fine! Howver, a YES or NO response requirement did not allow you the ability to CLARIFY what level you are. That was my point all along.

And you really need to make a COMMITMENT to me right now that you will not "Block" me on my own stinkin' Talk Page." Look, you all are hitting me extremely hard from every angle. I have ZERO supporters on this topic, and that's not because my arguments are not sound. ...You know the reason why!

If you all want to come over here to my Talk Page and make a bunch of arguments and just as soon as I present a counter-argument that negates your argument you "Block me" ...then this is clearly a waste of my time!

You're not going to get any better arguments regarding Omnipotence than you will from me, so if you want to take me on in a debate, then you cannot block me after you do!--Birdman (talk) 02:19, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

The people can be a bit quick to block here, including some joke blocks. My advice would be: If you're going to write a lot of text, save it in a Word file first. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 03:25, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Let me be blunt with you. If you espouse another blatant falsehood I will give you more than the slap on the wrist you got before. Do not test me, for I do not threaten, I act. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 17:04, 20 November 2018 (UTC)