User talk:Birdman/SEV

I'm making a comment here because so far you seem to have only encountered one person giving major resistance to your suggestion. My main intention in posting here, because I doubt I could convince you otherwise, is to make it seem less like one person is resisting/suppressing your idea.

I read through the argument, but the omnipotence paradox still stands. What happens underneath that plane is irrelevant, the point is that on top of the plane, the omnipotent being is unable to lift the rock. A truly omnipotent being would be able to lift the rock from anywhere, including on top of the plane. The fact that in your scenario, it can't, means that it is not an omnipotent being.

There's also the fact that, if it can't normally lift the rock, why is it able to lift the rock as well as the plane and the other copy of itself? Supposedly lifting capacity < weight of rock, but lifting capacity > weight of rock + extra weight? That doesn't follow.

Perhaps you view the omnipotence paradox as an attack against your specific religion? That's not true, it simply demonstrates that a truly omnipotent being cannot exist, or rather, the concept of omnipotence is impossible. That's not an argument against any form of deity/deities, merely omnipotent ones. It still allows any deity to exist, and that deity could be immensely powerful, just not omnipotent.

You seem to talk about worldviews being challenged, but it works the other way. You have had your worldview challenged, and now you're desperately trying to convince us that the omnipotence paradox isn't a paradox because it gets in the way of your beliefs.

I added this page to my watchlist last night, because it looks like Christopher has had to deal with your arguments a lot, and I think it's fair that someone else should take some of that time. I'll do my best to address any arguments/issues you raise, but please keep the ad hominems to a minimum. —Kazitor, ^pending 04:43, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Guess what, Kazitor? I don't even have to offer you a response. That's right! I am going to allow Christopher's argument to serve as a direct counter to your own argument.

==== First, here is your argument:

"the point is that on top of the plane, the omnipotent being is unable to lift the rock. A truly omnipotent being would be able to lift the rock from anywhere, including on top of the plane. The fact that in your scenario, it can't, means that it is not an omnipotent being."

==== Now here's Christopher's argument:

"If God is lifting all of plane B including the rock then he can lift the rock. If he can lift the rock it isn't a rock he can't lift. Christopher (talk) 18:01, 17 September 2017 (UTC)"

I am greatly humored with all of this because here we have two Atheists hell bent (pun intended) on destroying my counter-paradox due to their Atheist ideology, yet both of them are using diametrically-opposed arguments in doing so. I mean, think about it? ...Seriously! Kazitor says the CGCP doesn't work because God can't lift the stone and Christopher says it doesn't work because God can lift the stone.

...So which one of you is right?

Should I just let you two Atheists fight it out all on your own? Doesn't look like you really need any help from me now, does it?

And for the record, my understanding of our existence doesn't match up with your Atheistic understanding or a Theistic understanding. I'm somewhere else, my friend. The truth is that Theists and Atheists have an ideoology that they need to protect at all cost (just as you all have demonstrated here on RationalWiki). I don't! I let the truth unfold as it happens. And the TRUTH is that you and Christopher offered diametrically-opposed arguments in an attempt to defeat my counter-paradox. Even though you have both refuted each other's arguments, both of you will still argue that you are correct and will never allow for the stoneparadox.org link to be added to the rationalwiki page. It's just in your Atheist blood not to do so. ...You simply can't!

So you tell me, Kazitor, if both of you are Atheists and both of you just negated each others arguments and both of you have a protected ideology that can never allow for my link to be added, then why should I even try? What's my motivation to respond to any arguments you make?

Yet at the end of the day, this counter-paradox still stands rock-solid! (pun intended).--Birdman (talk) 11:56, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

There are many different viewpoints on RW - even among those who consider themselves reasonable persons (and are so considered by others).

Repeating your arguments does not make them any more valid. Anna Livia (talk) 12:16, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Anna, I think you mistakenly placed your comment in the wrong section. I think you meant to put it up there with your other unrelated comments posted in the "Proposed Solution" section. This is the "Someone else's view" section where actual "intelligent arguments" are being presented regarding the counter-paradoxical resolution. Would you like for me to move your comment up where it belongs?--Birdman (talk) 12:36, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

This is a false dichotomy. Both Christopher and Kaz are correct because the paradox has two options that render God non-omnipotent. They're both correct. They're just pointing out that God is not omnipotent in two different ways. 锦鲤 (说) 12:48, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Christopher and Kaz cannot both be correct if Christopher's determination is that god has lifted the stone and Kazitor's determination is that god has not lifted the stone. They are diametrically-opposed determinations and not even close to what is defined as a false dichotomy. Go read your own link! A false dichotomy is presenting an "either-or" situation dealing with a single condition. Here is a direct quote from YOUR link: "if one is true, the other must be false, or, more typically, if you do not accept one then the other must be accepted." The CHCP presents two simultaneously-happening conditions (and ONLY two): lifting and not-lifting. Christopher has affirmed a "lifting" condition and Kazitor has affirmed a "not-lifting" condition. There is no "either-or" between them and no false dichotomy present at all. ...and even so, the stoneparadox.org link will never be added to the rationalwiki page.

You're right, either the stone is lifted or it isn't. Or, to be more precise, it is separated from the plane or it isn't. As far as the paradox is concerned, you are correct, there is no middle ground. Not a false dilemma.

However, this is why this is a paradox: If (he is omnipotent) and (he can't lift/separate it), then these two statements are in direct conflict. But if (he is omnipotent) and (he can lift/separate it), or to be even more precise, if (he is omnipotent) and (he can lift/separate it) and (he made it unliftable/inseperable), then these statements are in conflict. It doesn't matter which one is correct, because either way, it only makes sense if (he is omnipotent) is left out. What Christopher and Kaz have left out was the other position, that's all, because it still gets you to the same conclusion. They said "if a, then this happens". And they left out "if not a". Which, in their cases, is complementary. Right? RSamys (talk) 13:59, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

The way I see it, though, both are right if you make some basic assumptions and see what the two possible options are:

Option 1: (Kazitor) If you consider not needing to separate the rock from the plane being sufficient, you're moving away from the paradox. I think Kazitor is saying that in this case, the thing god is unable to do (i.e. he's not omnipotent) is separating the rock from the plane.

Option 2: (Christopher) If you consider not needing to separate the rock from the plane bein insufficient, you're basically stating the original paradox. In this case, either god can separate the rock from the plane, in which case he failed to create a rock inseparable from the plane (= not omnipotent), or he can't separate the rock from the plane (= not omnipotent).

I'm not sure this will help you understand where the arguments were going (one going along with your line of reasoning, the other staying on the original course, thus two different answers), but I thought I'd give you the benefit of the doubt... y'know, because some people are hell bent on a particular position or way of thinking. RSamys (talk)

RSamys, I appreciate your addition to the discussion and offering an objective view without presenting an agenda. Therefore I will remain equally respectful. Allow me to clarify:

Neither Christopher or Kazitor are arguing based on the status of the rock on Plane (B). The separation of the rock from Plane (B) is nowhere to be found in either of their arguments nor is it required to be for them to reach their diametrically-opposed determinations. The conclusions they have reached are based solely on their perception of what is ultimately seen as the end result.

(1) Kazitor's argument is that no matter what is happening on any other planes or how many instance of god are present, the fact still remains that god is presented as not being able to lift the rock. Kazitor doesn't give a rat's ass about whatever god is doing on Plane (A). Kazitor is focusing his entire reasoning on the fact that god is depicted as failing to lift something... therefore god cannot be omnipotent.

(2) Christopher's argument is the complete opposite and also has nothing to do with the rock being physically separated from Plane (B). Christopher is 100% focused on the fact that god is successfully lifting the stone from plane (A). He argues that if this is the case, then god has failed to create a rock that he cannot lift... therefore he is not omnipotent.

Christopher and Kazitor are both trapped within this counter-paradox because it is a simultaneously-happening event and you can't reach a single determination by design. In mathematics it would be the same as (1 + -1 = 0). The addition problem of (1 + -1 = 0) is tantamount to a simultaneously-happening event with diametrically-opposed elements coming together. You cannot determine which individual #1 is responsible for the "0" outcome. Which #1 is more powerful than the other? Which #1 has failed? Which #1 is the reason we end up with "0"?

If you tried to figure out which #1 was the determining factor in that addition problem you would end up doing so forever and ultimately end up going insane. The same level of insanity will ensue should you try to determine if god is successful or has failed within the CGCP resolution.

...and yet the stoneparadox.org link will still never be added to the rationawiki page.

Yeah, I don't particularly care what goes on the article, at least right now... OK, let's see.

(1)Maybe you can tell me if I'm overinterpreting this, then: "on top of the plane, the omnipotent being is unable to lift the rock" posits that instead of having to "lift" lift the rock, god would have to lift the rock specifically from any plane, in other words, separate the rock and the plane. And "If God is lifting all of plane B including the rock" posits that in this scenario, the rock is not separated from the plane. Did I get this wrong? Or maybe we simply disagree about interpretation and this is what they meant? Help me understand what you mean.

Next, if I understand how you represent Kazitor's argument correctly, then yes, if you go and say "god cannot lift the rock no matter what" then this has nothing to do with the paradox. What he would have to say is "god cannot lift an unliftable rock", because lifting the unliftable or separating the unseparable is a paradox. Also, he would have to say before "god creates an unliftable rock". That's the paradox we're speaking about.

Now, Christopher goes from the other of the two possibilities (god lifts the stone). Instead of lifting the stone, he lifts the plane the stone is on, correct? That doesn't mean he lifts the stone, right? If he does lift the stone, along with the plane, I think there's a step missing in the argument. Because plane A could be the floor, but plane B could be my hand, but by lifting my hand, I also have to lift whatever is on it... or I am never lifting anything with my hand ever.

But is that the paradox? I think if we're defining what we mean carefully (like separate and inseparable instead of something way less defined like lifting), we can create the paradox correctly and then talk about it.

OK, now I think I know where you're coming from. I disagree about this being a simultaneous event. I mean, we are in agreement that either god creates an unliftable rock or he doesn't, right? Which one doesn't matter at first. But if he doesn't - or rather if he can't - that means he's not omnipotent automatically. So we can already eliminate this process, if it happens, so let's go with something that doesn't stand in conflict with omnipotence immediately: He can create an unliftable rock. OK. This is possible, because he's omnipotent. But can he lift the unliftable? If we're going to not define what that means, then I could weld an iron ball to the floor and declare it unliftable and then lift the house, does that mean I am omnipotent or that I can lift the unliftable? No, it just means I played with definitions. RSamys (talk) 14:35, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Okay, RSamys - Hear me out on this: I have been responding to everyone's arguments, but my link never gets added. It always gets deleted. When I first stepped foot on ratioinalWiki and added my link I was greeted by a user named "Nog Bogmire" who deleted it and smugly called my CGCP resolution "stupid." His comments aren't there anymore (probably deleted), but you can see by my many follow-ups which show that he stated this. Then everyone else piled on with their own slams and my link was repeatedly deleted by Christopher. This all started over a month ago, yet nobody has managed to shoot down this counter-paradox. ...Why is that, RSamys? If it was so "stupid" then why are we still discussing it a month later?

One Atheist named Christopher just LOVES to delete my link contribution. Yet in the last few days He and another Atheist called Kazitor (who also feels my counter-paradox is flawed) ended up offering diametrically-opposed arguments as to why the CGCP resolution is flawed.

So I end up not having to defend the merit of my counter-paradox at all because the same two people who have been arguing that my counter-paradox is flawed are now defending my counter-paradox for me! I really don't have to do a damned thing at all! Their diametrically-opposed determinations are doing just fine all on their own! Yes', the very best that Atheism has to offer just contradicted each other's determinations... yet my stoneparadox.org link will still end up deleted should I make another attempt to add it to the rationalWiki page.

So you tell me, RSamys, why should I really spend anymore time trying to explain things when after the very same people who banned my contribution and say it is flawed have just contradicted each other in their reasoning? I CAN go on and address your concerns, but what happens if I offer solid reasoning for your concerns as well? Does it really change the fact that my stoneparadox.org link will never be added? Wouldn't it be easier (and more fun) for me to just "walk away" knowing that the all-knowing world of Atheism and their bastion of "logic and reasoning" ended up contradicting itself in trying to find a flaw in my CGCP resolution - and after they spent an entire month mocking it?

Whenever the Stone Paradox gets asked, people can simply scratch out that silly little stick figure drawing and there wont be a damned thing the person asking the Stone Paradox question can do about it, ...because it works! Christopher and Kazitor just provided empirical evidence that it does!

You have a choice, RSamys: It's a month later and nobody has negated the counter-parardox and two of your ratioalWiki representatives just negated each other's own arguments. If you find this whole issue intriguing and wish to find out more, then you have to add the link to the rationalWiki Omnipotence Paradox page. If I do it, it will get deleted. If the link gets added, then I will discuss it with you all you like. I can fully answer your latest questions, but I'm not going to because there is no need for me to do so nor is there any motivation present. However, if you have the link added, then I will also agree to address your questions in full.--Birdman (talk) 15:44, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

You haven't responded to my latest comment (not the one about adding an archive bot, the one before). Christopher (talk) 16:07, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

OK, Birdman - hear me out on this: I don't know. I'm not involved in any of this. But if I had to make a guess, I would say it's because your argument is fine, as long as it is confined to the rock example of the omnipotence paradox, but it falls short for other things. The rock example is too loosely defined. Which is why I wanted to say inseparable. The point of the omnipotence paradox is not to show that a god can't possibly create something or that a god can't possibly lift something. The omnipotence paradox is about wether or not - according to logic - a god can - logically - do something illogical. Can a god move an immovable object? If he can, it's not immovable because he... moved it. Things like this. The important part about it is that, if we want to apply logic to omnipotence, then the omnipotence can only be confined by what is logically possible.

I was in the process of trying to see if your argument makes any sense. Because, right now, as I understand it, it doesn't, not to me, at least. Not because of a bias, but because, if we're being internally consistent, it doesn't make sense as such. That doesn't make it stupid, it makes it worth talking about until it makes sense. We can't add something to the wiki if it doesn't make sense.

Have you considered your rhetoric is flawed - or maybe your understanding of the omnipotence paradox? Otherwise I'm happy to talk to you until I either agree with you or until I can definitely tell you why I disagree with you.

I already tried to tell you why I don't consider it, as you call it, diametrically oposed. You have an either-or statement. You don't know which of the two positions is correct or incorrect. So you first look at one of them and see if it makes sense. If it doesn't, then it must be the other. Then, you check the other. If that one doesn't make sense either, you have a paradox. That's the whole point of going after both positions.

If this is purely about the rock example of the omnipotence paradox, I can agree with you, it's flawed. But the omnipotence paradox as such? I don't see that.

As far as your link is concerned... I'm not sure I care, but fine... let's see, is that your page? I mean, a link further up has one of your paintings... Anyway, that doesn't really matter. The page is just a page. Someone made it, so what? Why do you need it included in an article? Because it shows the other position? If you can't convince us of your position, why would we want the link on there?

So, yeah, I don't see those as contradicting statements, but complementary statements within the paradox. And you have yet to show me that I'm wrong, and I can't see what I'm doing wrong. So reverting your changes (not banning, that's different) makes sense to me.

Atheism is not all-knowing, in fact, it's not knowing. If you have an issue with skepticism, that's different, but all atheism does is say "I'm not yet convinced there is a god". I could be religious and still see your reasoning so far as flawed. But if you want to go, that's your choice.

I disagree that Christopher and Kazitor provided empirical evidence.

I have a choice? Sure, thanks for letting me know. I do find the line of reasoning intriguing, but am not yet convinced. I won't add an antivaxxer site on the antivaxxer article other than for a reference, if relevant. Therefore, I don't have to add your link, even if I find it "intriguing". See, now, we have a false dichotomy. Is that what I have to do to prove my motivation? Then I'm sorry, I guess I'm not motivated enough to vandalise the article just for an interesting argument. Sorry. I'd love to continue this, though. Let me know if there's something else I can do. RSamys (talk) 16:15, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

In other words, I don't know if I was clear about that: Of course their statements contradict one another, that's exactly what you would expect in a paradox, if you take them both together. RSamys (talk) 17:49, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Okay, I've read your response. Here ya go: First off, YOU DO have say on what goes on here and you absolutely COULD add the link. You're just choosing not to. And there are TONS of crap on wiki pages that don't make sense. Every Quantum Theory page is paradoxical or doesn't really make sense. And also if you have one Quantum Theory page on the "Big Bang" and another Quantum page on the "New Model Quantum Equation" you essentially have to completely different quantum theory pages to which one says our universe developed from a "point of singularity" and another that says that it has always been in an "infinite state of flux." So don't hand me any crap about wiki pages being required to make sense.

Next, the rock is not "too loosely defined." It's a frickin' rock! The stone paradox does not ask: "Can God create a rock so heavy that he cannot lift it and would you please make sure to define the nature of the rock when you answer?" No! The stone paradox is very direct within its own simplicity and I am as equally simplistic with my stick figure drawing (despite Anna's inability to comprehend).

Now you add this: "The omnipotence paradox is about whether or not - according to logic - a god can - logically - do something illogical." That is one interpretation, but there are several others. Another interpretation is trying to find out, "Can God to prove that he is omnipotent by giving up his omnipotence?" which is tantamount to me asking you, "Can you kill yourself to prove to me that you are alive?" Does that really sound "logical" to you? Let's not play games here, RSamys. The Stone Paradox (and ALL omnipotence paradoxes) are flawed from their very onset based on the nature of what God is being required to do in order to show proof of omnipotence. My argument is that the more legitimate the omnipotence test is framed, the more likelihood that a non-omnipotent being can actually offer a response that defies logic, but after the response if offered, it seemingly becomes logical.

I have developed other counter-paradoxes that follow a similar pattern, but I can't come up with one that answers, "Can God create a goose that is the number 4?" because that is pure nonsense. One person asked me "Can God make a switch that he cannot turn on?" because he wanted to use a binary act which would eliminate any multiple possibilities found in "lifting." Here was my response: (Response). ...It's not necessarily that our omnipotent being is "required" to do things in the way that we think it should. All that is really required is that the omnipotent being can find a way to get the job done and still remain omnipotent. It could just as easily be that an omnipotent being would never entertain such stupid paradoxical questions, but to humor it's mortal subjects, it comes up with a way to do it anyway.

You wrote: "Have you considered your rhetoric is flawed - or maybe your understanding of the omnipotence paradox? ...Well if that were true, then Christopher and Kazitor wouldn't have collided with each other in their diametrically-opposed determinations and I wouldn't need to be typing out another response to you, would I? If you perceive a misunderstanding being present within me, then instead of asking me if there is one... just point it out to me.

Let's say I offered you a response that has God struggling to lift a rock and failing, and then on a second try, he manages to lift the rock. Then I claim, "God is omnipotent and has answered the question!"? You all would have laughed me right on out of RationalWiki... and I would have deserved it! That would demonstrate that I don't know what "omnipotence" really is because I had God totally unable at a specific point in time. However! I didn't do that, did I? No! I worked my ass off and came up with a simultaneous event that eliminates any single moment were God is perceived as being incapable without the capability being equally present. So you tell me, RSamys? What am I missing regarding "omnipotence"?

Now, back to your "false dichotomy" claims taht you have resurfaced. Yu questioned my understanding of "Omnipotence." Well now I'm questioning your understanding of what a "false dichotomy" is. If I stated, "If you do not stand up against racism, then you support racism." then this is a false dichotomy. You can be against racism and not necessarily feel compelled to stand against it. However, I have depicted two physical acts occurring with the CGCP and YOU are the ones making the determination - not me! You can "not be a racist" and not stand up against it, but you cannot accept one event in this simultaneously-happening event without accepting the other because there is not other alternative! That would be like claiming that because (2 + -2 = 0) that the "0" is the result of a false dichotomy!

You wrote: "So, yeah, I don't see those as contradicting statements, but complementary statements within the paradox. And you have yet to show me that I'm wrong." ...I just did. You have mis-applied the definition of what a false dichotomy is within your argument. Maybe someone else can straighten you out, I dunno? If I am in a court room during a murder trial and I present incontrovertible evidence that one person is the murderer... and then I present incontrovertible evidence another person is also the murderer, then which one is the murderer? And how could this ever be considered a false dichotomy to argue that for a judge to declare one as the murderer, then they are required to eliminate the other even though the other is shown as equally guilty? And if another judge declares the other one is the murderer, than the first one is likewise required to be eliminated. As a judge, you are required to consider them both as simultaneously being the murderers and there is no other option. That is not a false dichotomy. ...that's just plain logic, my friend.

And once again, an hour spent people who will never add the stoneparadox.org link to the rationalWiki website, because they just can't bring themselves to do it! I'm wasting my time!--Birdman (talk) 18:44, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

OK, right, I could add the link. But why would I? The link doesn't seem to be on-mission. Your argument that other articles are crap, so I shouldn't make this article on-mission either is odd, it reminds me of tu qoque. I hold myself to a standard when editing articles and your link isn't good enough when there might be sites fitting the discussion a bit better. In any way, I still don't care. But if you want to clean up the other articles, you are welcome to do so.

Next, I never said the rock is to loosely defined. I said the rock example of the omnipotence paradox is too loosely defined. I don't have an issue with the term "rock". I have an issue with "lift". That's a loose term. I have a very different definition of what constitutes a success than you do.

Now, so you agree that's one possible interpretation and you disagree that this is the main one. We can talk about that if you like. Can I kill myself to prove that I'm alive? Is that logical, you ask? I'd argue it is. 1. Can I kill myself? Yes. 2. Would killing myself prove that I was alive at the moment of your question? If you can make the distinction between the states of living and dead, we could come to the conclusion: yes. 3. Would killing myself prove that I am alive after the fact? If you can make the distinction, it would prove the opposite, therefore: No, it cannot prove that. I'm not trying to play games, I just want to see if my reasoning makes sense. So wait, what do you mean by "legitimate"? Anything that allows for omnipotence, no matter how illogical it becomes? I don't mean to sound passive-aggressive here, I just don't understand what your criteria are. Because you say that the god operates outside of logic... I just want you to see the big question mark I'm leaving here.

OK. Hold on. I think we're getting somewhere. "Can God create a goose that is the number 4?" is nonsense to you. It looks like a simple yes or no question. The way I interpret what you're saying is "this is nonsense, therefore of course god can't create a goose that way". If that is what you're saying, it means that god isn't absolutely omnipotent, being able to create even something as absurd as a goose that is the number 4. As far as your response is concerned... you just created a switch that god can switch on, no matter what, doesn't that defy the question? What if it says "off" and "off" instead of "on" and "on"? "It's not necessarily that our omnipotent being is "required" to do things in the way that we think it should." Well no, that's why we want to find out if logic (or non-absurd examples like the #4 goose) applies to that being. "All that is really required is that the omnipotent being can find a way to get the job done and still remain omnipotent." Yes, but finding another way means he can't do it the exact one way we posited at the beginning, which shows us in what sense the omnipotence might be limited.

"Well if that were true, then Christopher and Kazitor wouldn't have collided with each other in their diametrically-opposed determinations and I wouldn't need to be typing out another response to you, would I?" You made an argument and expected one answer, but got two. Isn't that an indication that at least your rhetoric is flawed? It's always hard to make the point come across. "If you perceive a misunderstanding being present within me, then instead of asking me if there is one... just point it out to me." Your misunderstanding is that Christopher's and Kazitor's opposed determinations aren't part of the paradox.

"Let's say I offered you a response..." No, you didn't, and that's good. As I said, your argument isn't necessarily stupid. And I'm fine with some infinite regress. But you're basically making the stone weightless, disregarding one of the essential premises. Bravo, you solved the paradox.

About the false dichotomy: I'm sorry I didn't express myself more clearly. You misunderstand. The false dichotomy was not about the arguments against the paradox. The false dichotomy was what I perceived as your either-or supposition that either I'm interested enough in your arguments that I have to put the link in the article or I'm not interested at all.

OK, let's see if I can put it another way, then. A potential murderer is caught on camera in a corridor, where he either went left or he went right, but we don't know from the footage. If he went left, he ate a banana. If he went right, he murdered someone. What I see now is Kazitor saying "let's say he went left, therefore he ate a banana and didn't murder anyone". And Christopher saying "let's say he went right, therefore he murdered someone and didn't eat a banana". And you saying "Kazitor and Christopher are saying he simultaneously ate a banana and murdered someone". And me saying "if he didn't eat the banana and if he didn't murder someone, he didn't go left or right". And me saying "Kazitor and Christopher are making complementary arguments".
Or in your argument, we just don't know who the murderer is, but Kazitor is trying to see what it would mean if person A is the murderer, and Christopher is trying to see what it would mean if person B is the murderer. Kazitor comes to the conclusion that A can't be the murderer. Christopher comes to the conclusion that B can't be the murderer. But it can only be one of the two. Therefore, there is no true, absolute omnipotence murderer.

I can understand why you're frustrated. If you feel like you're wating your time, all I can say is that I'm sorry.

So let me try to make this more simple for myself so that I can better understand where you're coming from: Can God create a goose that is the number 4? Yes or no? RSamys (talk) 08:19, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

So let me try to make this more simple for myself so that I can better understand where you're coming from: Can God create a goose that is the number 4? Yes or no? RSamys (talk) 08:19, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

RSamys: You wrote: in your previous comment: "The rock example is too loosely defined." and then after I call you out on it you write: "I never said the rock is to loosely defined. I said the rock example of the omnipotence paradox is too loosely defined." You then go on to qualify your misrepresentation by saying, "I don't have an issue with the term "rock". I have an issue with "lift". That's a loose term."

If that were true, then why didn't you simply use the word "lift" in the first place? Why use "rock" at all? Why not just say the word "lift" is too loosely defined? Well you know what? that's not my problem anyway! I used the universally accepted definition of the word "Lift" -- Lift is defined as: "to raise from a lower to a higher position." and that's EXACTLY what happened within my CGCP response, so your argument is moot. Your argument about what you personally feel is considered "successful" doesn't matter because unless you can prove that success was NOT achieved in the CGCP then you are just wasting everyone's time with your personal opinions that aren't supported with facts.

And I LOVE your next gaffe regarding the question, "Can you kill yourself to prove that you are alive?" You gave three responses:

1. Can I kill myself? Yes. 2. Would killing myself prove that I was alive at the moment of your question? If you can make the distinction between the states of living and dead, we could come to the conclusion: yes. 3. Would killing myself prove that I am alive after the fact? No.

Where you gaffe is revealed is the fact that the exact same thing would apply to God. God would remain omnipotent all the way up to the point of demonstrating that he can create the stone. After that, he is no longer omnipotent. However, just like the person has proven that he was indeed alive at one point, God has proven that he was indeed omnipotent at one point... so you never really successfully proved the non-existence of omnipotence, did you? And in both cases you end up stripping away the characteristic of what is being evaluated, which my Atheist friend, is illogical (and just plain stupid). So to answer your question if you reasoning makes sense: No, it doesn't!

The stone paradox was designed to logically prove that omnipotence cannot exist so if God sacrificially demonstrates that it can (even with the loss of his own omnipotence) then the Stone Paradox has failed in its mission.

You wrote: ""Can God create a goose that is the number 4?" is nonsense to you." It's not just nonsense to me. is nonsense to anyone who would read it as it represents a nonsensical question. (I made that one up, by the way) The challenge for God is not whether he can logically answer the question, but rather if the person who is asking the question possesses any ability at all to be logical. The statement, "This sense makes no." is not a legitimate sentence even though we can understand what it says. We are logically required to properly state the sentence as, "This makes no sense." So you can try submitting, "Can God make a goose that is the number?" to the world as your new omnipotence paradox if you want to, but the "legitimately designed" Stone Paradox is dead, my friend! Let me know how your new question works out for ya!

You then wrote: "you just created a switch that god can switch on, no matter what, doesn't that defy the question?" (Link to light switch) This cracks me up! You didn't really think about it all the way through, did ya? If God creates a switch that is already in the "ON" position, then he has not switched it on. It is already on! And since the other side of the switch is "ON" then God is not actually switching anything on if he activates the switch, but activating the switch still produces an "ON" result. How can you argue that God has failed when he is able to create a switch that he cannot turn on, yet when he activates the switch the end result is that the switch is "ON"? ...Again, you simply didn't think it all the way through, just as nobody did with my CGCP resolution before they called it "Stupid."

You go on to write: "Yes, but finding another way means he can't do it the exact one way we posited at the beginning, which shows us in what sense the omnipotence might be limited." What you just wrote is technically like saying, "Because God found a way to successfully meet the challenge, then he must not be omnipotent because he shouldn't have been able to do meet the challenge!" God met the challenge, my friend! You just don't like the way God met the challenge because it didn't fulfill your agenda of making it so that he couldn't meet the challenge. The Stone Paradox used the definitions of words in asking a question that presents a challenge. The CGCP used those same definitions to answer the question... and met the challenge.

You wrote in regard to Christopher's and Kazitor's diametrically-opposed determinations: "You made an argument and expected one answer, but got two. Isn't that an indication that at least your rhetoric is flawed? Haaahahhaaa! No, not at all! All that means is that Christopher and Kazitor have failed to demonstrate a flaw by offering diametrically-opposed arguments as to where this flaw supposedly exists. A failure on their part does not translate to a failure on my part... instead, their failure directly translates to success on my part!

You wrote: "But you're basically making the stone weightless, disregarding one of the essential premises. Bravo, you solved the paradox." Geeze Louise! If the stone is supposedly weightless, then why is God struggling to lift a weightless stone on Plane (B)? Are you arguing that God is merely "acting" like it is heavy?

Your whole "banana-murderer" argument is irrelevant because "eating a banana" and "committing a murder" are two totally separate activities involving two totally different subjects. You have "eating and not-eating" and you also have "murdering and not-murdering" The example I gave offered questions regarding a single subject (i.e., "committing a murder") and two potential murderers - nothing else! The CGCP also deals with a single subject (i.e., "creating a rock that he cannot lift") and a binary act associate directly with the subject ("lifting and not lifting"). Your dual-subject argument could potentially end up with a confusing scenario such as if God "lifted a stone" or if god "created a tree."

A better example would be if you, RSamys, were on trial for committing a murder. The prosecution presents incontrovertible evidence that you are guilty of murder. The defense offers incontrovertible evidence that you are not guilty of the murder. So how would a judge rule in this case? Judge Christopher has ruled that you are guilty. Judge Kazitor has ruled that you are innocent. Now using your previous arguments you are trying to argue that both judges can be right... but aren't they both equally wrong as well? And if you accept Christoper as being right, then RSamys is off to the death chamber as an innocent man. And if you accept Kazitor as being right, then the murderer known as RSamys is set free to kill once again.

The truth is that a judge cannot reach a determination because it is a PARADOX just like you cannot reach a determination in the CGCP because it is a PARADOX! Since the Stone Paradox is a paradox and the CGCP represents its mated counter-paradox, then the two paradoxes nullify each other and no determination can be reached regarding the question that has been asked. (mic-drop moment).

Your concluding statement: "I can understand why you're frustrated. If you feel like you're wasting your time, all I can say is that I'm sorry."

I'm just fine because your very best arguments (and everyone elses arguments) have failed to find a single flaw in the CGCP response - just as I predicted from the very start. It's over a month now and you STILL can't do it. Everything I'm arguing in retun makes sense and there is no smoking gun. You just don't like it that the Stone Paradox has been nullified by way of a counter-paradox of equal measure. The only "sorrow" I feel is for ALL of you, because you're allowing your personal feelings to stand in the way of the truth and are merely choosing to ban something rather than face reality.--Birdman (talk) 14:10, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Hm... Has anyone told you that your writing style is quite polemic!?!?!?!? =D

"If that were true, then why didn't you simply use the word "lift" in the first place? Why use "rock" at all?" I seem to remember that you were the one calling it the rock paradox, all I did was referring to the rock example of the omnipotence paradox. But I did point out earlier that I would prefer something like "separate". Because, despite there being a definition, the term "lift" is imprecise. But sure, if we go with that definition, raising something from a lower to a higher position, what would that mean? Lower or higher in relation to what? I'd say from the ground. And, correct me if I misunderstood, you'd argue, from any plane below the plane the rock is on. In any way, defining what counts as a success and what doesn't is pretty important, whether it's about separating the rock from the ground or about "raising" (another relative term) the stone by any measure. If you disagree with what constitutes as a success, then we need to come up with something we both agree on.

"God would remain omnipotent all the way up to the point of demonstrating that he can create the stone. After that, he is no longer omnipotent. However, just like the person has proven that he was indeed alive at one point, God has proven that he was indeed omnipotent at one point..." So... isn't that a demonstration of how omnipotence would be, logically, limited? Would you say omnipotence is limited to the moment? "The stone paradox was designed to logically prove that omnipotence cannot exist so if God sacrificially demonstrates that it can (even with the loss of his own omnipotence) then the Stone Paradox has failed in its mission." But then, the god isn't omnipotent, because he lost it... I feek like we're disagreeing about something more basic.

My, um, "gaffe" was only evaluated as a chain, and not in context of a paradox. But I'm glad you liked it.

"The challenge for God is not whether he can logically answer the question, but rather if the person who is asking the question possesses any ability at all to be logical." Really? Because if a sheet of paper has the question written on it (let's say by pure chance), I can just disregard the question because the sheet has no ability to be logical? "Can God make a goose that is the number 4?", to me, makes sense. I can answer that question for myself: Even if I could make geese, I couldn't make a goose that is the number 4. "So you can try submitting, "Can God make a goose that is the number?" to the world as your new omnipotence paradox if you want to" I wasn't. I was trying to see if you could answer this yes-or-no question or if you would dance around it. From there, I could have gone on and understood that "a stone so heavy it can't even be lifted by a god" is as nonsensical as "a goose that is the number 4". It would also have meant the end of the discussion, so I'm not too distraught.

"This cracks me up!" I'm glad it does. "You didn't really think about it all the way through, did ya? If God creates a switch that is already in the "ON" position, then he has not switched it on. It is already on!" Sorry, maybe I'm misunderstanding the original question, but wasn't this about what happens when the god does flick the switch, not about what is before the fact? Because I can flick an "ON-ON" switch "ON" quite easily from either state it's on. I couldn't flick an "ON-OFF" switch "ON" if it's already "ON" and I couldn't flick a "OFF-OFF" switch "ON", there's a difference. With the "ON-ON" switch, you argue it's a switch "he cannot turn on". I disagree.

"You just don't like the way God met the challenge because it didn't fulfill your agenda of making it so that he couldn't meet the challenge." Not sure what my agenda is, but OK. Why didn't he fulfill it exactly the way I imagined it? Because he chose to? That has nothing to do with his ability. Because he can't? Well, then he's not omnipotent or I'm not arguing logically. I can imagine that you see my argument as illogical... and I fail to see that.

"Haaahahhaaa! No, not at all! All that means is that Christopher and Kazitor have failed to demonstrate a flaw by offering diametrically-opposed arguments as to where this flaw supposedly exists." ... So... you expect non-diametrically-opposed statements as the two results in a binary paradox? "instead, their failure directly translates to success on my part!" Purely from a rhetoric standpoint, a success is not to make your point to yourself, it's to make the others understand. In this case, you are failing because no one here understands it as a failure.

"Geeze Louise! If the stone is supposedly weightless, then why is God struggling to lift a weightless stone on Plane (B)?" Exactly. You can't remove the element of weight out of the equation. "Are you arguing that God is merely "acting" like it is heavy?" Nope, but it sounds to me like that's what you are doing. Because a self-contained universe would have, by definition, no effect on what is outside of itself, including weight.

WAIT! HOLD ON. I just had a thought. Is this what your "counter-paradox" (which isn't a paradox) is saying? 1. Make a rock a single god can't lift. 2. Have two instances of the god. 3. The rock is lifted by two gods because they have, like, twice the strength together? If so, I completely misunderstood the CGCP (and you might have to think about making the explanation on your website less confusing - I mean, it is your website, right?).

"The prosecution presents incontrovertible evidence that you are guilty of murder. The defense offers incontrovertible evidence that you are not guilty of the murder." In this context, Christopher and Kazitor would be prosecution and defense, not the judge. The judge would have to rule that a basic assumption is wrong, because he recognises this is a paradox. If we accept that prosecution and defense are telling the truth, maybe there was no murder in the first place.

"The truth is that a judge cannot reach a determination because it is a PARADOX just like you cannot reach a determination in the CGCP because it is a PARADOX!" Correct. It can't be logically resolved with the same basic assumptions (and our basic assumption in the omnipotence paradox is omnipotence). However, I disagree about CGCP being a paradox, let me explain. With the judge, as with the omnipotence paradox, we have self-contradictory or logically unacceptable conclusions (that's what a paradox is). But CGCP, if I understand it correctly (and I'm taking into account the other one I brought up further up), only has infinite regress or circularity (as a legitimate, logical use, not as a logical fallacy). There is nothing actually contradictory or logically unacceptable.

"your very best arguments (and everyone elses arguments) have failed to find a single flaw in the CGCP response" Well, I haven't actually tried to tackle the CGCP response until now. You know why? Because I fail to understand it. You can argue that I'm too stupid, but then the argument is pretty much over and I will consider your rhetoric failed. To re-iterate: I was interested in whether the omnipotence paradox is flawed, if it's not actually a paradox. You haven't shown that. I stayed away from the arguments in the CGCP response because I felt it would be fair to first get to the point where we are now.

OK, now let me address "The only "sorrow" I feel is for ALL of you, because you're allowing your personal feelings to stand in the way of the truth and are merely choosing to ban something rather than face reality." That's an interesting assertion. I have tried to put my personal feelings aside, suspend my disbelief in favour of omnipotence... and you still assume that the revert of your edits regarding the link (which is not a ban) is only about the argument. And I wasn't involved in the edits, yet you say "ALL of you"... can't you just assume that I actually don't understand?

Sorry if that sounded harsh, please let me know if that's the case. Genuinely looking forward to more discussion. RSamys (talk) 10:43, 18 October 2017 (UTC)