Nullipotent Being

  • 83 Replies
  • 17858 Views
*

ﮎingulaЯiτy

  • Arbitrator
  • Planar Moderator
  • 9074
  • Resident atheist.
Nullipotent Being
« on: December 03, 2008, 03:08:44 PM »

Flawed argument, but thought provoking.

Edited-just-for-the-awesome-edit-tag.
« Last Edit: January 15, 2009, 06:22:49 PM by ﮎingulaЯiτy »
If I was asked to imagine a perfect deity, I would never invent one that suffers from a multiple personality disorder. Christians get points for originality there.

*

Chris Spaghetti

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 12682
Re: Nullipotent Being
« Reply #1 on: December 03, 2008, 03:11:18 PM »

Flawed argument, but thought provoking.

I like his thinking
And I like his accent.

*

Vauxhall

  • 5914
  • dark matter does not exist
Re: Nullipotent Being
« Reply #2 on: December 03, 2008, 03:25:06 PM »
He pretty much said "if I can think of it, it doesn't exist."

... oh, wait
Read the FAQS.

?

T.T. Monsieur

Re: Nullipotent Being
« Reply #3 on: December 03, 2008, 03:30:51 PM »
No, the fact that the very conception of nullipotence renders it non-existent is incidental.

*

The One True Rat

  • 615
  • Cannot Understand Sarcasm
Re: Nullipotent Being
« Reply #4 on: December 03, 2008, 03:40:22 PM »
No, the fact that the very conception of nullipotence renders it non-existent is incidental.
kinda like a reverse descartes, eh?
i think, therfore it is not.

*

ﮎingulaЯiτy

  • Arbitrator
  • Planar Moderator
  • 9074
  • Resident atheist.
Re: Nullipotent Being
« Reply #5 on: December 03, 2008, 07:03:34 PM »
His fallacy lies in that a nullipotent being has to influence his thought process. This is untrue because it is the concept of nullipotence that is the subject of the thought process, and the nullipotent being still exercises no power over these thoughts.


Now I think I will demonstrate time travel by posting on his comment list two months ago as 0xmercury.  ;)
« Last Edit: December 03, 2008, 07:05:28 PM by ﮎingulaЯiτy »
If I was asked to imagine a perfect deity, I would never invent one that suffers from a multiple personality disorder. Christians get points for originality there.

*

Benocrates

  • 3077
  • Canadian Philosopher
Re: Nullipotent Being
« Reply #6 on: December 16, 2008, 10:16:21 AM »
Metaphysics is trippy shit
Quote from: President Barack Obama
Pot had helped
Get the fuck over it.

Re: Nullipotent Being
« Reply #7 on: December 17, 2008, 11:47:09 PM »
Isn't that like saying if a being is omnipotent, that it should be able to create a rock that is not a rock, and since that is impossible, an omnipotent being is impossible? 

Also, it strikes me as a bit of an assumption to think we could make broad sweeping claims as to what an omnipotent being could and could not do, given our little brains.

If this guy takes it any farther, he best be extra careful at zebra crossings.

*

ﮎingulaЯiτy

  • Arbitrator
  • Planar Moderator
  • 9074
  • Resident atheist.
Re: Nullipotent Being
« Reply #8 on: December 23, 2008, 01:52:42 PM »
Also, it strikes me as a bit of an assumption to think we could make broad sweeping claims as to what an omnipotent being could and could not do.
The definition of omnipotence includes universal unlimited power. To say an omnipotent being cannot do something is self contradictory.
If I was asked to imagine a perfect deity, I would never invent one that suffers from a multiple personality disorder. Christians get points for originality there.

?

Ravenwood240

  • 2070
  • I disagree. What was the Question?
Re: Nullipotent Being
« Reply #9 on: December 23, 2008, 01:54:42 PM »
Also, it strikes me as a bit of an assumption to think we could make broad sweeping claims as to what an omnipotent being could and could not do.
The definition of omnipotence includes universal unlimited power. To say an omnipotent being cannot do something is self contradictory.

So, that Omnipotent Being cannot create a rock he cannot move in any way?
Belief gets in the way of learning.  If you believe something, you've closed your mind to any further thought.  I know some things, little things, not the nine million names of God.

(Paraphased from R.A. Heinlein's "Time Enough For Love.")

*

ﮎingulaЯiτy

  • Arbitrator
  • Planar Moderator
  • 9074
  • Resident atheist.
Re: Nullipotent Being
« Reply #10 on: December 23, 2008, 01:55:33 PM »
So, that Omnipotent Being cannot create a rock he cannot move in any way?
I'm not sure I follow you.
If I was asked to imagine a perfect deity, I would never invent one that suffers from a multiple personality disorder. Christians get points for originality there.

?

Ravenwood240

  • 2070
  • I disagree. What was the Question?
Re: Nullipotent Being
« Reply #11 on: December 23, 2008, 02:03:16 PM »
So, that Omnipotent Being cannot create a rock he cannot move in any way?
I'm not sure I follow you.

Omnipotence says that this being can do absolutely anything.  Nothing is impossible for them.

I asked if that being could create a rock so large that he could not move it in any way.

See, either he cannot do that, and is not omnipotent, or he can create the rock, but then he cannot move it and so is not omnipotent.

It's a question designed to show that humans cannot truly imagine the true meaning of omnipotence, that the senses we use are too limited.
Belief gets in the way of learning.  If you believe something, you've closed your mind to any further thought.  I know some things, little things, not the nine million names of God.

(Paraphased from R.A. Heinlein's "Time Enough For Love.")

*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 27043
  • I'm the boss.
Re: Nullipotent Being
« Reply #12 on: December 23, 2008, 02:13:54 PM »
So, that Omnipotent Being cannot create a rock he cannot move in any way?
I'm not sure I follow you.

Omnipotence says that this being can do absolutely anything.  Nothing is impossible for them.

I asked if that being could create a rock so large that he could not move it in any way.

See, either he cannot do that, and is not omnipotent, or he can create the rock, but then he cannot move it and so is not omnipotent.

It's a question designed to show that humans cannot truly imagine the true meaning of omnipotence, that the senses we use are too limited.

It's really never shown anything to me but that the very concept of omnipotence is inherently absurd.
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?

?

Ravenwood240

  • 2070
  • I disagree. What was the Question?
Re: Nullipotent Being
« Reply #13 on: December 23, 2008, 02:24:49 PM »
So, that Omnipotent Being cannot create a rock he cannot move in any way?
I'm not sure I follow you.

Omnipotence says that this being can do absolutely anything.  Nothing is impossible for them.

I asked if that being could create a rock so large that he could not move it in any way.

See, either he cannot do that, and is not omnipotent, or he can create the rock, but then he cannot move it and so is not omnipotent.

It's a question designed to show that humans cannot truly imagine the true meaning of omnipotence, that the senses we use are too limited.

It's really never shown anything to me but that the very concept of omnipotence is inherently absurd.

The concept, or human interpretation of that concept?  The human mind has limits to its perception of the world.  We may not understand the type of world a higher power inhabits than an earthworm could do Chaos Theory math.

Omnipotence as defined by humans is in fact, impossible.  That does not say that it doesn't exist, merely that we cannot understand it yet.
Belief gets in the way of learning.  If you believe something, you've closed your mind to any further thought.  I know some things, little things, not the nine million names of God.

(Paraphased from R.A. Heinlein's "Time Enough For Love.")

*

ﮎingulaЯiτy

  • Arbitrator
  • Planar Moderator
  • 9074
  • Resident atheist.
Re: Nullipotent Being
« Reply #14 on: December 23, 2008, 02:42:45 PM »
It's really never shown anything to me but that the very concept of omnipotence is inherently absurd.

The concept, or human interpretation of that concept?  The human mind has limits to its perception of the world.  We may not understand the type of world a higher power inhabits than an earthworm could do Chaos Theory math.
Your assuming pure logic can break down at higher levels, and that there are higher levels. No evidence for a supernatural realm or an omnipotent being has ever surfaced, yet you defend his ability to exists with nonsensical powers.

Logic originated from a model of understanding reality... what is real. To state it can break down without any reason beyond the conservation of belief in God is unscientific.

Quote
Omnipotence as defined by humans is in fact, impossible.
Who else is to define omnipotence? God himself?
So your argument is "God is omnipotent, and omnipotence exists without contradictions because God made it that way."?

We shouldn't leap to conclusions about the unknowable or presume logic/ration thought doesn't apply. Religion is only successful becuase it brainwashes people into thinking it shouldn't be empirically questioned. To remove logic is an attempt to dismiss questioning.
« Last Edit: December 23, 2008, 02:44:30 PM by ﮎingulaЯiτy »
If I was asked to imagine a perfect deity, I would never invent one that suffers from a multiple personality disorder. Christians get points for originality there.

?

Ravenwood240

  • 2070
  • I disagree. What was the Question?
Re: Nullipotent Being
« Reply #15 on: December 23, 2008, 02:51:48 PM »
It's really never shown anything to me but that the very concept of omnipotence is inherently absurd.

The concept, or human interpretation of that concept?  The human mind has limits to its perception of the world.  We may not understand the type of world a higher power inhabits than an earthworm could do Chaos Theory math.
Your assuming pure logic can break down at higher levels, and that there are higher levels. No evidence for a supernatural realm or an omnipotent being has ever surfaced, yet you defend his ability to exists with nonsensical powers.

Logic originated from a model of understanding reality... what is real. To state it can break down without any reason beyond the conservation of belief in God is unscientific.

Quote
Omnipotence as defined by humans is in fact, impossible.
Who else is to define omnipotence? God himself?
So your argument is "God is omnipotent, and omnipotence exists without contradictions because God made it that way."?

No, my argument was that we cannot use the word omnipotence because humans can't define the word in any way that makes it work and doesn't leave it open to logical fallacies.

I do not know that there is a Higher power or a spiritual world, however, no one has ever proven that there isn't one either.  I shall reserve judgment.  Until then, we can only speculate as to what that world might be like or what its denizens might be capable of.  Omnipotence should be used to describe the strongest types of being in that theoretical world, but it is flawed in definition.

Quote
No evidence for a supernatural realm or an omnipotent being has ever surfaced, yet you defend his ability to exists with nonsensical powers.

No evidence against a supernatural realm or an omnipotent being has ever surfaced, yet you dismiss his ability to exist and have powers beyond our comprehension.

Belief gets in the way of learning.  If you believe something, you've closed your mind to any further thought.  I know some things, little things, not the nine million names of God.

(Paraphased from R.A. Heinlein's "Time Enough For Love.")

*

ﮎingulaЯiτy

  • Arbitrator
  • Planar Moderator
  • 9074
  • Resident atheist.
Re: Nullipotent Being
« Reply #16 on: December 23, 2008, 03:01:38 PM »
No, my argument was that we cannot use the word omnipotence because humans can't define the word in any way that makes it work and doesn't leave it open to logical fallacies.

I do not know that there is a Higher power or a spiritual world, however, no one has ever proven that there isn't one either.
It is impossible to disprove, yet possible to prove if it exists. God is simply shy.  ;)

Quote
Quote
No evidence for a supernatural realm or an omnipotent being has ever surfaced, yet you defend his ability to exists with nonsensical powers.
No evidence against a supernatural realm or an omnipotent being has ever surfaced, yet you dismiss his ability to exist and have powers beyond our comprehension.
I do not dismiss his possible existence, but I side with the extreme probability against his existence.
If I was asked to imagine a perfect deity, I would never invent one that suffers from a multiple personality disorder. Christians get points for originality there.

?

Ravenwood240

  • 2070
  • I disagree. What was the Question?
Re: Nullipotent Being
« Reply #17 on: December 23, 2008, 03:07:38 PM »
No, my argument was that we cannot use the word omnipotence because humans can't define the word in any way that makes it work and doesn't leave it open to logical fallacies.

I do not know that there is a Higher power or a spiritual world, however, no one has ever proven that there isn't one either.
It is impossible to disprove, yet possible to prove if it exists. God is simply shy.  ;)

Quote
Quote
No evidence for a supernatural realm or an omnipotent being has ever surfaced, yet you defend his ability to exists with nonsensical powers.
No evidence against a supernatural realm or an omnipotent being has ever surfaced, yet you dismiss his ability to exist and have powers beyond our comprehension.
I do not dismiss his possible existence, but I side with the extreme probability against his existence.

I find it far more likely that whatever higher power may be out there is merely watching and saying something like "Encourage those lunatics?  Are you mad?  I'm not revealing myself to them until they grow up."  The concept of a shy godly being is just wrong somehow. :P ;D

You don't think they exist, I don't know and because none of us can image something that is as far about us as we are above flatworms, creating a terminology that accurately defines the beings or world is very difficult.
Belief gets in the way of learning.  If you believe something, you've closed your mind to any further thought.  I know some things, little things, not the nine million names of God.

(Paraphased from R.A. Heinlein's "Time Enough For Love.")

*

ﮎingulaЯiτy

  • Arbitrator
  • Planar Moderator
  • 9074
  • Resident atheist.
Re: Nullipotent Being
« Reply #18 on: December 23, 2008, 03:12:10 PM »
You don't think they exist, I don't know
I fit into both these categories, but my point was to not dismiss logic as an incapable tool of  inquiring about the supernatural.
If I was asked to imagine a perfect deity, I would never invent one that suffers from a multiple personality disorder. Christians get points for originality there.

?

Ravenwood240

  • 2070
  • I disagree. What was the Question?
Re: Nullipotent Being
« Reply #19 on: December 23, 2008, 03:14:00 PM »
You don't think they exist, I don't know
I fit into both these categories, but my point was to not dismiss logic as an incapable tool of  inquiring about the supernatural.

Logic is great, but how do you use logic to define something you've never seen, cannot measure and cannot prove?
Belief gets in the way of learning.  If you believe something, you've closed your mind to any further thought.  I know some things, little things, not the nine million names of God.

(Paraphased from R.A. Heinlein's "Time Enough For Love.")

*

ﮎingulaЯiτy

  • Arbitrator
  • Planar Moderator
  • 9074
  • Resident atheist.
Re: Nullipotent Being
« Reply #20 on: December 23, 2008, 03:15:22 PM »
Logic is great, but how do you use logic to define something you've never seen, cannot measure and cannot prove?
Logic doesn't create definitions... common usage does.
Logic ascertains properties, possibilities, and plausibility. I suppose these properties could be incorporated in a definition.
« Last Edit: December 23, 2008, 03:50:57 PM by ﮎingulaЯiτy »
If I was asked to imagine a perfect deity, I would never invent one that suffers from a multiple personality disorder. Christians get points for originality there.

?

Ravenwood240

  • 2070
  • I disagree. What was the Question?
Re: Nullipotent Being
« Reply #21 on: December 23, 2008, 03:26:12 PM »
Logic is great, but how do you use logic to define something you've never seen, cannot measure and cannot prove?
Logic doesn't create definitions, but common usage does. It ascertains properties, possibilities, and plausibility. I suppose this conclusions could be included in a definition in the making.

I'm sorry, but that last sentence just fried my brain.  "I suppose this conclusions could be included in a definition in the making."  HUH?
Belief gets in the way of learning.  If you believe something, you've closed your mind to any further thought.  I know some things, little things, not the nine million names of God.

(Paraphased from R.A. Heinlein's "Time Enough For Love.")

*

ﮎingulaЯiτy

  • Arbitrator
  • Planar Moderator
  • 9074
  • Resident atheist.
Re: Nullipotent Being
« Reply #22 on: December 23, 2008, 03:28:38 PM »
Sorry, I'm a guy so I can't multitask.  ;)
I fixed the grammatical issues.
If I was asked to imagine a perfect deity, I would never invent one that suffers from a multiple personality disorder. Christians get points for originality there.

?

Ravenwood240

  • 2070
  • I disagree. What was the Question?
Re: Nullipotent Being
« Reply #23 on: December 23, 2008, 03:45:45 PM »
Sorry, I'm a guy so I can't multitask.  ;)
I fixed the grammatical issues.

Oh, now it makes sense.  I thought I was going mad there for a minute.

We still have the problem of trying to describe something to each other that neither of us have seen or experienced.  Explaining the color red to a blind man is easy in comparison.  At least the person explaining it has seen red.  In this case, we are attempting to extrapolate the possibilities without experiencing them.
Belief gets in the way of learning.  If you believe something, you've closed your mind to any further thought.  I know some things, little things, not the nine million names of God.

(Paraphased from R.A. Heinlein's "Time Enough For Love.")

*

ﮎingulaЯiτy

  • Arbitrator
  • Planar Moderator
  • 9074
  • Resident atheist.
Re: Nullipotent Being
« Reply #24 on: December 23, 2008, 03:51:47 PM »
Quote
In this case, we are attempting to extrapolate the possibilities without experiencing them.
But I don't think knowledge is dependent on experience.
If I was asked to imagine a perfect deity, I would never invent one that suffers from a multiple personality disorder. Christians get points for originality there.

?

Ravenwood240

  • 2070
  • I disagree. What was the Question?
Re: Nullipotent Being
« Reply #25 on: December 23, 2008, 04:01:21 PM »
Quote
In this case, we are attempting to extrapolate the possibilities without experiencing them.
But I don't think knowledge is dependent on experience.

So, you can create a definition of a higher being that makes sense and fits the available data? ;D
Belief gets in the way of learning.  If you believe something, you've closed your mind to any further thought.  I know some things, little things, not the nine million names of God.

(Paraphased from R.A. Heinlein's "Time Enough For Love.")

*

ﮎingulaЯiτy

  • Arbitrator
  • Planar Moderator
  • 9074
  • Resident atheist.
Re: Nullipotent Being
« Reply #26 on: December 23, 2008, 04:08:36 PM »
So, you can create a definition of a higher being that makes sense and fits the available data? ;D
What available data?  ???
If I was asked to imagine a perfect deity, I would never invent one that suffers from a multiple personality disorder. Christians get points for originality there.

?

Ravenwood240

  • 2070
  • I disagree. What was the Question?
Re: Nullipotent Being
« Reply #27 on: December 23, 2008, 04:13:56 PM »
So, you can create a definition of a higher being that makes sense and fits the available data? ;D
What available data?  ???

LOL... 

Every human culture has some sort of higher being.  By looking at their specific beings and creating a model that only contains those elements common to all of them, it could be a working hypothesis as to the nature of a higher being.

Or, it could simply lead one to believe that humans are completely insane.

Personally, I think we're all an algae experiment in a teenager's closet that was forgotten. ::)
Belief gets in the way of learning.  If you believe something, you've closed your mind to any further thought.  I know some things, little things, not the nine million names of God.

(Paraphased from R.A. Heinlein's "Time Enough For Love.")

*

ﮎingulaЯiτy

  • Arbitrator
  • Planar Moderator
  • 9074
  • Resident atheist.
Re: Nullipotent Being
« Reply #28 on: December 23, 2008, 04:17:45 PM »
Every human culture has some sort of higher being.  By looking at their specific beings and creating a model that only contains those elements common to all of them, it could be a working hypothesis as to the nature of a higher being.
So your asking to define a higher being based on the speculation and creativity of cultures? I thought you meant objective data, not creative cultural inventions perpetuated throughout time.

Why should our inquiry of an alternative being, be based on our own imagination?

Quote
Or, it could simply lead one to believe that humans are completely insane.
Or that humans are susceptible to their own psychological defense mechanisms.  ;)

Quote
Personally, I think we're all an algae experiment in a teenager's closet that was forgotten. ::)
Why? Is it comforting to believe in an ultimate authority?
If I was asked to imagine a perfect deity, I would never invent one that suffers from a multiple personality disorder. Christians get points for originality there.

?

Ravenwood240

  • 2070
  • I disagree. What was the Question?
Re: Nullipotent Being
« Reply #29 on: December 23, 2008, 05:06:43 PM »
Every human culture has some sort of higher being.  By looking at their specific beings and creating a model that only contains those elements common to all of them, it could be a working hypothesis as to the nature of a higher being.
So your asking to define a higher being based on the speculation and creativity of cultures? I thought you meant objective data, not creative cultural inventions perpetuated throughout time.

Why should our inquiry of an alternative being, be based on our own imagination?

Quote
Or, it could simply lead one to believe that humans are completely insane.
Or that humans are susceptible to their own psychological defense mechanisms.  ;)

Quote
Personally, I think we're all an algae experiment in a teenager's closet that was forgotten. ::)
Why? Is it comforting to believe in an ultimate authority?

Is there any other data to look at?
As we cannot measure or field actual physical a higher being, words and descriptions from those cultures is all we have to go on at this time.

There is only one ultimate authority that I recognize.  Death always wins in the end.  (The Algae comment was a joke, it was one of those farside type cartoons a while back.)
Belief gets in the way of learning.  If you believe something, you've closed your mind to any further thought.  I know some things, little things, not the nine million names of God.

(Paraphased from R.A. Heinlein's "Time Enough For Love.")