Does your God have limitations?

[ding]

If a god cannot make something he cannot lift, hes not all powerful.

and if he cannot lift something, hes not all powerful

its the omnipotence paradox. in logic, unresolvable

And I have explained why it is illogical.

The logical fallacy is the question itself. Inherent in the question is that it is impossible to logically do both. In reality though, an all powerful being would be all powerful in all things, and by all powerful, we have to assume infinite.

So logically it proceeds that an all powerful being could create a rock of infinite mass and would have infinite lifting capacity to lift that stone.

Therefore, the paradox is illogical in that it incorrectly defines only two logical solutions; neither of which is correct.

Youre changing the equation from can he make something HE CANNOT LIFT


to can he make something of infinite mass


You are changing the terms to fit, you are not resolving the paradox. Its not logically resolvable, as accepted in modern and classical logic.

Ding on the internet didnt do it, ding on the internet is an ego maniac who refuses to understand why he thinks hes solved something accepted as unresolvable.


Thats why youre not worth a conversation. Bye again.

It isn't possible to make something greater than infinity, GT.

Do you even all powerful?

 

[ding]

"With God all things are possible." Jesus Christ

 

[G.T.]

If a god cannot make something he cannot lift, hes not all powerful.

and if he cannot lift something, hes not all powerful

its the omnipotence paradox. in logic, unresolvable

And I have explained why it is illogical.

The logical fallacy is the question itself. Inherent in the question is that it is impossible to logically do both. In reality though, an all powerful being would be all powerful in all things, and by all powerful, we have to assume infinite.

So logically it proceeds that an all powerful being could create a rock of infinite mass and would have infinite lifting capacity to lift that stone.

Therefore, the paradox is illogical in that it incorrectly defines only two logical solutions; neither of which is correct.

Youre changing the equation from can he make something HE CANNOT LIFT


to can he make something of infinite mass


You are changing the terms to fit, you are not resolving the paradox. Its not logically resolvable, as accepted in modern and classical logic.

Ding on the internet didnt do it, ding on the internet is an ego maniac who refuses to understand why he thinks hes solved something accepted as unresolvable.


Thats why youre not worth a conversation. Bye again.

It isn't possible to make something greater than infinity, GT.

Do you even all powerful?

your next post contradicted your this post. .


troll

 

[ding]

^ he crying because I proved how his paradox violates the laws of logic.

God loves logic and math. He created them.

 

[G.T.]

^ he crying because I proved how his paradox violates the laws of logic.

God loves logic and math. He created them.

paradoxes DO violate the laws of logic. ya fuckin dunce

holy shit

 

[ding]

^ he crying because I proved how his paradox violates the laws of logic.

God loves logic and math. He created them.

paradoxes DO violate the laws of logic. ya fuckin dunce

holy shit

Which is what I have been saying all along. Good grief.

Your paradox is a logical fallacy.

 

[G.T.]

^ he crying because I proved how his paradox violates the laws of logic.

God loves logic and math. He created them.

paradoxes DO violate the laws of logic. ya fuckin dunce

holy shit

Which is what I have been saying all along. Good grief.

Your paradox is a logical fallacy.

no, you idiot.

paradoxes are unresolvable logical problems

you dont resolve them by undefining their terms

if theyre not resolved, they remain illogical, i.e. a paradox

holy fukkkkk

 

[Moonglow]

If a god cannot make something he cannot lift, hes not all powerful.

and if he cannot lift something, hes not all powerful

its the omnipotence paradox. in logic, unresolvable

And I have explained why it is illogical.

The logical fallacy is the question itself. Inherent in the question is that it is impossible to logically do both. In reality though, an all powerful being would be all powerful in all things, and by all powerful, we have to assume infinite.

So logically it proceeds that an all powerful being could create a rock of infinite mass and would have infinite lifting capacity to lift that stone.

Therefore, the paradox is illogical in that it incorrectly defines only two logical solutions; neither of which is correct.

Youre changing the equation from can he make something HE CANNOT LIFT


to can he make something of infinite mass


You are changing the terms to fit, you are not resolving the paradox. Its not logically resolvable, as accepted in modern and classical logic.

Ding on the internet didnt do it, ding on the internet is an ego maniac who refuses to understand why he thinks hes solved something accepted as unresolvable.


Thats why youre not worth a conversation. Bye again.

It isn't possible to make something greater than infinity, GT.
Do you even all powerful?

Infinity is a man made construct...something that is not completely understood since computers have created numbers larger than previously thought to be finite in numerical theory..

 

[G.T.]

paradox and fallacy are not the same thing, dinguss

bye troll

 

[ding]

^ he crying because I proved how his paradox violates the laws of logic.

God loves logic and math. He created them.

paradoxes DO violate the laws of logic. ya fuckin dunce

holy shit

Which is what I have been saying all along. Good grief.

Your paradox is a logical fallacy.

no, you idiot.

paradoxes are unresolvable logical problems

you dont resolve them by undefining their terms

if theyre not resolved, they remain illogical, i.e. a paradox

holy fukkkkk

Your paradox was a logical fallacy of its own making, GT. How many more times do you want me to explain it to you?

 

[G.T.]

^ he crying because I proved how his paradox violates the laws of logic.

God loves logic and math. He created them.

paradoxes DO violate the laws of logic. ya fuckin dunce

holy shit

Which is what I have been saying all along. Good grief.

Your paradox is a logical fallacy.

no, you idiot.

paradoxes are unresolvable logical problems

you dont resolve them by undefining their terms

if theyre not resolved, they remain illogical, i.e. a paradox

holy fukkkkk

Your paradox was a logical fallacy of its own making, GT. How many more times do you want me to explain it to you?

its not my paradox, its one thats been around for a long time because its unresolvable

derppp

and questions are not logical fallacies, arguments are

 

[G.T.]

omnipotence creates a fallacy
the paradox points to it.
its over dings head

 

[ding]

An all powerful being would be all powerful in all things.

All powerful in creating rocks.

All powerful in lifting rocks.

He can create rocks of infinite mass.

He can lift rocks of infinite mass.


Is there any rock he can't create? No.

Is there any rock he can't lift? No.

Can he create a rock he can't lift? That isn't logically possible because he is unlimited in what he can lift and he is unlimited in what he can create. But since he can create a rock of infinite mass the illogical answer would be, yes. Infinity encompasses everything.

Does the logical answer of no he cannot create a rock he cannot lift, mean he isn't all powerful? No. His ability to do all things is unlimited. His ability to create is infinite and his ability to lift is infinite.

 

[ding]

Omnipotence does not create a fallacy.

Stupid talking monkeys create fallacies.

 

[G.T.]

you place logic as a limit on the limitless and miss the conversation dingbat

leave

 

[ding]

its over dings head

Post #313 says otherwise.

 

[G.T.]

post 313 says ding doesnt get it

 

[ding]

you place logic as a limit on the limitless and miss the conversation dingbat

leave

No, GT, your OP stated it was not possible to logically see it any other way than the two options.

That's not right.

Your OP is a logical fallacy.

 

[ding]

post 313 says ding doesnt get it

#313 beats what you have provided.

You can't logically explain anything?

You are too disjointed in your thinking to lay out a coherent sequential argument. You are all over the map.

 

[G.T.]

you place logic as a limit on the limitless and miss the conversation dingbat

leave

No, GT, your OP stated it was not possible to logically see it any other way than the two options.

That's not right.

Your OP is a logical fallacy.

false my OP stated a paradox of classical logic that dong on the internet doesnt understand

as established by ding on the internet