The monotheistic all powerful one.

  • NoLifeGaming@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 months ago

    saying “all powerful” is to say that a being can realize any possibility which can exist. A possibility which cannot exist is like a squared circle. The strawman is that all powerful means to realize even things which cannot exist. In this world there are things which are necessary existence. Meaning they cannot not exist. An example would be the statement “1+1=2” that statement cannot not exist and it is true in all possible worlds. Then you have possible existence such as someone eating an apple. There isn’t anything necessary about it and the person could have very well not eaten it or eaten something else. The apple itself isn’t a necessary existence. Finally, there is an impossible existence. Which would be something that cannot exist like a squared circle. A God which deletes himself or that can create a rock heavier than himself is an impossible existence as it would contradict the very definition we’ve given God. Which is the same as saying A and not A. Or that he can both be God and not God. Thus it is syntactical jargon like a squared circle.

    • Hobbes@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      3 months ago

      You just replaced the word “paradox” incorrectly with strawman. Your issue is understanding what paradox means. The paradox stands. You also dont understand the full possibilities of “all powerful” since you keep applying things that couldn’t be done by an all powerful being. If there is anything a being cannot do, then they are, by definition, not all powerful.

      • NoLifeGaming@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        I understand it very well but you seem to not understand that there is such a thing as syntactical garbage that means nothing. What you’ve done is gone and applied “all powerful” to mean the realization of possibilities which cannot exist. It seems like you really wanna push that definition upon people so you can claim God is paradoxical and thus ridiculous. But your position is just as ridiculous as someone saying that an apple can both exist and not exist at the same time.

        • Hobbes@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          3 months ago

          No, you don’t. Especially since you swapped it for a strawman which you also dont understand. This, just like the definition of a paradox, isn’t up for debate. This paradox has existed for thousands of years and predates the Christian god itself. You are not “magically” smarter than the greatest philosophers of history, you are just far more arrogant.

          Cheers bud.

          • NoLifeGaming@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            3 months ago

            And you bud seem to like to run with the authority fallacy instead of deconstructing my argument and showing it as false. A beacon of intelligence.

            • Hobbes@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              3 months ago

              Coming from the person that thinks they are smarter than all of the collective philosophers from the past 2000 years. Rich.

                • Hobbes@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  3 months ago

                  You know how Terrance Howard insists he knows that 1x1=2 and that he knows better than all of the greatest mathematicians in the world? That’s you right now.

                  They’ve all pondered the “obvious paradox” that you see right through. If you think “it isn’t a paradox at all it is just syntax mumbo jumbo” then you obviously think yourself to be smarter than them. That’s basic inference, any philosopher of your caliber would accept that basic logic

                  • NoLifeGaming@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    3 months ago

                    Keep digging yourself deeper and just citing some other philosopher as if they’re infallible instead of engaging with my arguments. If you have nothing to say of substance then stop wasting my time