TheMadFool

Thanks again for your valuable criticism. I offer you two options: 1. Let's change the definition of U as something about which something can't be kno...

Ok. They (USA & USSR) were most powerful on Earth. That's the point. They couldn't make themselves all powerful because they put a check on each other...

I thought of that. It does seem, prima facie, that even one omnipotent God can't exist (stone paradox). But in the case of one omnipotent being it can...

Think of USA and the erstwhile USSR. Did they not limit each other's influence. It was a deadlock. In our small world both were all-powerful. Yet they...

Sorry. Perhaps I misunderstood but... 1) Your claim that U is self-contradictory is false. 2) Infinity doesn't have an end. So I don't know what you m...

Is this a bad example?:s

Indeed contradiction is dependent on sameness of a given truth. P & ~P is only a contradiction when the two P's refer to the same thing. What I don't ...

U isn't self-contradictory. That's why you accepted it as a possibility. About possibility consider this: ''It'll rain tomorrow'' is a possibility but...

Just because you know something is possible doesn't mean you know it in the general sense of the word ''knowledge''. Knowledge is a justified true bel...

Situation A Only 1 omnipotent being A Creating the unstoppable spear (Sp) AND the impenetrable shield (Sh) is a contradiction. But A can create either...

Do you guys understand the difference between PB and LEM? If you do kindly explain it to me. My understanding is this: PB seems to limit the truth val...

Yes I though of that objection. Even if there's only 1 omnipotent being there is only the possibility of the contradiction unstoppable spear vs impene...

I think you're committing a category mistake here by conceptualizing truth value in a materialistic sense. When someone says ''it is raining'' is part...

We can have sex with any gender but we can't have gender with any sex.

You have a point. Consider this though. How can a being be most powerful without being all powerful? The domain of discussion is ALL. My bad. I should...

To the extent that I ''understood'' that's the gist of LEM. The partly true and the partly not true must refer to different things. If they're about t...

Because O is the assumption. U is a real possibility.

If there are 2 omnipotent beings, say x and y, then x should be able to do something which y doesn't want AND y should be able to block y from doing i...

It's not that U isn't possible. O isn't possible.

We just did.

You're right but they wouldn't be omnipotent.

Your objections to my argument are content based. Can you focus on the structure of the argument - only on what omnipotence entails. Let me clarify my...

So you're saying the most powerful being is NOT an all-powerful being? So, in what sense is the most powerful being the most powerful if it's not all-...

Did you understand PB and LEM distinction? Can you explain it to me please. Partly true AND partly false = Partly true and partly not true. So this is...

I haven't said U exists. My argument depends only on the possibility of U existing. How will O answer the question: What is the largest natural number...

(Y) thanks a ton.

Then they're not Gods. What is the point of an impotent God? My postulate is omnipotent beings exist. My assumption is that there are two. All proposi...

That's why I defined omnipotence as most powerful. I don't see the distinction between ''all powerful'' and ''most powerful''. Can you clarify? Let x ...

How do you define an omniscient being then?

O can't know everything. That's my argument.

You're right. Forgiveness is essential to God's nature. However, if everything can be forgiven then there's no difference between good and bad. But th...

Let us go with your definition: All powerful = capable of doing whatever can be done. Your definition allows the possibility that some things can't be...

I wanted to avoid infinity in the discussion to avoid issues that trouble the concept. What does it mean to be ''infinitely'' powerful? If you don't l...

The idea of Hell derives from the following reasonable argument 1. God is good 2. If God is good then God is just 3. If God is just then the bad must ...

Good point. My answer is it isn't possible to determine the nonexistence of a U because there are an infinite number of possible universes. Here I dra...

I'm giving you a real-world example of how threat perception and calculations can be totally wrong. I'd like you to relate the 9/11 attacks to my God-...

Can you list what is good in the dead?

I think you overlook a crucial detail. AI isn't a computer like your laptop or even a supercomputer for that matter. Perhaps the tag ''artificial'' is...

Thanks a lot(Y)

Can you name one morally good thing in dying? You can't. It's not an achievement in any form unless you want to count those who die for a cause. I don...

Yes, I believe that's one accepted point of view. I think it makes sense to be practical and just get on with it, so to speak. I guess it's a human we...

Respect is intimately linked to morality. All good qualities like honesty, wisdom, bravery, kindness, fortitude, genius, etc. elicit respect. So, the ...

Well, I more or less copy-pasted the OP from the Stanford site. I just didn't and don't get it. After giving it some thought here's my version (the wa...

Ok. I agree biological life isn't a good place to start for the kind of meaning that'll satisfy man. The meaning of life is ''survival of the fittest'...

Sorry, should've been clearer. We had to start somewhere. You denied existence of life. I was showing that life does exist. Yes the biological definit...

Ok. The way it works is like this: First we define a word (in this case ''life''). Then we see which entities fit the definition. If a certain object ...

Interesting question. In my humble opinion, Life is a definition and can't be argued unto. You can challenge the definition though. Your definition of...

Does it matter to you if this soul, you ask about, dies? If no, then it exists. If yes, then I don't know.

Science is not the ''soul'' authority on truth. But the set of all living things is not a living thing. So, if you talk of the universal set, you woul...

You're right. We should assume all of these hypothetical situations you described to be true, including God. Just to demonstrate. Take the 9/11 attack...