You really don't understand. Your false definition of omnipotence creates the paradox. You claim omnipotence means to be able to do the impossible, which by definition is impossible. So your definition and your assumption are flawed, they're logically impermissible and invalid. It's a categorical mistake. Omnipotence doesn't mean to be able to do the logical impossible, it does mean to do anything which is logical possible. And that's not a limited definition or an added condition, because it follows legal logic. Really you turn around a circle, I refuted all your arguments and you didn't deal with any of my arguments, not really. You're forcing your invalid logic and then complain about the invalid result. Your assumption is from an epistemologically standpoint absolute ridiculous. Again, you cannot demand which is logically impossible and cannot include it in your definition because it makes your demand and your definition logically impossible. How hard is that to understand? And your insistence makes you seem like a stubborn child who cannot accept a fact. You can obstinately insist on your logical flawed argument but it will remain forever logical flawed, no matter how you slice it. Quote:"You don't get to change the question like you are, that isn't how it works. The question must be answered not changed. And there are only 2 answer, he can or he can't. Both in act the Paradox." Again, the premise of your question is logically invalid, there is nothing to be answered. You create a paradox through false assumptions. You don't know how premise and inference works. Quote:"Yes I can generate any ridiculous case I want for a being who can do anything I can pose to it in a sentence. That's the problem you are side stepping." Wordplay and void semantics without any logical and epistemological value, that's your problem not mine. Quote:"It's irrelevant which wins, the fact that I can have him create 2 objects like this invalidates his omnipotence immediately." round and round and round.... really... I have answered and refuted your arguments long ago, time and time again. And you repeat yourself again and again and again... it's tiring. But again, you demand the impossible ergo you have an impossible result. You juggle with impossibilities all the time, but they're logically and epistemologically valueless. In the face of Logic, Epistemology and Ontology only facts and possibilities counts and impossibilities and illusions are discarded and rejected. Please read some books about Logic and Epistemology. Quote:"( Really read the link I posted, it explains all this. With your continued posts I can't help but think you haven't even looked and if so you read a small portion)" I have read thousands books about logic, epistemology, philosophy, science and theology ect. And the wikilink you posted I have read at least a dozen times. With your continued posts I can't help but think you haven't even looked and if so you read a small portion. You read a wikilink and assume it's the truth. It doesn't matter what scientists and scholars say, what matters is sound logic and reasoning etc. I say it a last time your logical flawed premises are to be rejected like the equation 3+3=100, because they're impossible (what of 'impossible' don't you understand? to the umpteenth time...). You can't calculate on a baseless equation. That's ridiculous, but you're being obstinate. If so then let me give you 1$ and you give me 1000$ back. That's your logic. Edit: For a something to exist there must be an eternal and infinite origin. From nothing comes nothing. From something comes something. Yet there must be an eternal and infinite origin, if not, you would have an infinite regress in the past and that's the same as something from nothing without beginning which is ridiculous. Without an eternal and infinite origin there is no logical way for anything to exist. Unless you believe in miracles that something pops out from nothing, only just then, and only in your imagination.
You still haven't read the link. I was basing everything on the assumption we are speaking on the highest level of omnipotence. And I said as much in the past. Have fun. Because I am done. You call me a child because I am so stubborn. I am stubborn, no denying that. I can call you a child for a plethora of inane reasons that you have shown here too. But I didn't because the 1 doesn't inform the other. But whatever. Make personal digs. It's your prerogative to do so if you wish. If you wanna play this game of false definitions then I am just going to call yours false like you have mine. Argument over right? No. I have found definitions of mine and you have for yours. So is yours right by default, No? That's why in the past I specifically stated what I exactly meant by the word. You sound like a snob who is only accepting the definition that suits him best and not recognizing the other. I even said if we take lesser form of omnipotence all the arguments I am making become very easy to respond to and refute. But not for the definition of the word which I was using. I presented all of this it isn't my fault you are ignoring it just so you make yourself seem right. You've read thousands of books. Good for you. You must be always correct then? That argument isn't a good one to make where it is entirely unprovable and convenient to say in a place where no one can verify that claim. Unless you want to tell us all about yourself and who you are. But I don't want to know and it's against forum rules anyways. Again your snobbish attitude comes through. I could just as easily throw the. "Read more books back at you" because I believe that I am correct with the definition I am using and you are wrong. But I don't because that does absolutely nothing in a debate. @mrttao actually made some really good point which I can get behind. But you. You are ignoring the place I was coming from, forming the argument into yours by changing the assumptions made which formed the argument. I was only ever arguing my point within those assumptions but you muddied the waters so congrats. Mrttao actually answered the question within my assumptions and has thus got me thinking more on his line of thinking. Instead of changing everything to suit your answers which are correct, but entirely irrelevant to the points in which I am arguing... ugh.
1. "Then who created god"? If everything must has a source, than what is the source of your source? All you have done is added a middle man. And if the answer is "god created himself"... well, then why can't a mindless universe create itself too? 2. Why must the source be sapient? What if it is just a fountain of energy that exploded into the big bang? (fountain being metaphorical not a literal fountain)
Quote:"You still haven't read the link. I was basing everything on the assumption we are speaking on the highest level of omnipotence. And I said as much in the past." You were speaking on the highest level of omnipotence and its assumptions. Why have I to follow it when I reject them? I follow my own pattern and reasoning and not yours. You were trying to proof your assumption and refute mine and I were trying to proof mine and refute yours. So what? That's called discourse. Sorry if I offended you bro. And I mean really sorry. It was really not my intention to do so. And it's ok when you call me snobbish I'm not offended by it bro. I feel you. You should understand I have studied these topics for decades and when a discourse repeats itself again and again and makes no progress and my opposite doesn't deal with my mentioned arguments I feel like a teacher who is lecturing stubborn pupils. So please don't be offended bro. Quote:"But you. You are ignoring the place I was coming from, forming the argument into yours by changing the assumptions made which formed the argument. I was only ever arguing my point within those assumptions but you muddied the waters so congrats. Mrttao actually answered the question within my assumptions and has thus got me thinking more on his line of thinking. Instead of changing everything to suit your answers which are correct, but entirely irrelevant to the points in which I am arguing... ugh." Come on bro. Again, you argued your point and I argued mine, why should I follow yours when I reject it? I could say the same and reverse it. You are ignoring the place I was coming from...etc.
Ok the topic omnipotence is borderline because it is to close to theology which is not desired in NUF, but acceptable because omnipotence is in relation with leylin. Your questions are 100% theology and when we disuss them we're breaking the rules. I will answer them per pm, if it's ok with you.
I know its not from the same author, but translator of WMW said if we liked WMW we are going like city of sin too, in a sense, city is its successor.
I haven't disputed any other level. I was only ever discussing from the highest level. I frankly largely agree with you when it's comes to starting this entire logical train from a differing assumption. Though admittedly I haven't put much thought into but everything makes sense. It's fine to reject them, my opinions and logic train are entirely dependant on that assumption. They don't crossover when you change the assumption so I don't see why I've got to defend them when they entirely rely on the aforementioned assumption. Change the assumption and my entire approach changes too. Front everything I have seen you are definitely well learned in this field of thought, definitely more so than I. While just saying what you've read isn't a good point to make online just the way you structure and present your points convinces me know your well learned. I'm not overly offended. I just dislike when people do that cause it really does no good in a debate. That being said I probably did bite back a bit much so I apologize for that. I understand what it's like when I discuss the areas I am very knowledgeable in (which unfortunately never show up in a forum like this) so I do get the annoyance. I'm no religious man and i don't believe in my assumption but none of my points in this assumption apply to other levels omnipotence which are more reasonable yet still have their problems. If we change the initial assumption I suspect I will follow your logic far more closely. But under the initial assumption I mainly stand by what I said minus what @mrttao said in his response to me which really has me sold on that line of thinking. So I guess in closing I don't stand by my points when they are applied under differing assumptions. And if we are discussing how illogical my assumption is I agree with you but I was just making my point on it despite that because novels aren't very logical to begin with. Especially fantasy and even more specifically Xianxia. Also you can just quote me and then delete the parts that you don't wish to respond to instead of typing them out everytime by using the reply button. It is a bit neater plus it links to the actual place you are quoting. Just bringing this up since you seam new to posting messages. Friendly advice and all.
Leylin being rank 9/the ending of the WMW does not indicate Leylin being truly immortal, or "invincible" as some of you would have it. The fact that there remains a level higher than him, means he can be extinguished. In the next novel, where Leylin has presumably attained the highest rank is when I would say he has legitimately attained immortality, in every sense of the word.
@Viola @mrttao @digitalprintz Would you all mind if I used some quotes from this forum for my philosophy paper? I was trying to decide what to write about and then saw the omnipotent debate. Seems like a fun project.
Yes, the classic conundrum... Can God create a rock he can't destroy? Or the immovable rock against the irresistible force paradox...
Go ahead and have fun. I don't even remember anymore if I was trying to disagree with you, or agreeing with you and sharing my own 2 cents on the issue. Although I do find it very refreshing that for once immortality is actually defined IC as actually being impossible to kill instead of merely ageless. Where MC is all "sure I am ageless and can even respawn... but there exist beings powerful enough to kill me and prevent me from respawning"
Please do edit my posts of all errors though if you are directly quoting me personally. I did this entire debate on my phone so I'm sure I fucked up alot of spelling and have missing words all over the place. A large screen and a keyboard go a long ways.
eh, not much more for leylin to do. I would rather a different character, but the same uniqueness of "evil, but for benefits instead of the lolrandumb; and no random acts of white knighting, no hypocritical claims of being good either" So far there are literally only two stories on this site I have done that. Reverend Insanity and WMW
no what mrttao is saying is actually its not quite theology but rather a lot closer to cosmogony, its quite like describing the origin of the universe. e.g. the main theory of the origin of the universe is the big bang, which is the singularity as the source, but then where did the singularity come from? simply put, at this power scale everything becomes a blur and it all ends up into a gigantic theory of "opinions". so in my opinion, if there really is an "omnipotent" thing in this reality then it would've been born as the embodiment of the universe. so IET is right, the only way to become omnipotent is to bind the chaosverse universe in it's entirety! on a side note, see what i did there? discarding the word "god" made it a non-theology topic! ehehehe.