Perfection and omnipotent

Neither of these things when attributed to a god, makes any sense at all.

Cid wrote: You flame religions and its followers without even considering their side of the story. You’re not much different from Hitler with his extermination of the jews

Well it comes down to this.

Omnipotence- Impossible by our logic, which may or not be flawed.
Perfection- based on perception which may or not be flawed.

Count Bleck wrote: Well it comes down to this.

Omnipotence- Impossible by our logic, which may or not be flawed.
Perfection- based on perception which may or not be flawed.

Maybe not so much flawed as it is incomplete. It’s still developing, just as it has been over the many many years, and probably will continue to develop.

Count Bleck wrote: Well it comes down to this.

Omnipotence- Impossible by our logic, which may or not be flawed.
Perfection- based on perception which may or not be flawed.

The FSM, may or may not be real.
The IPU, may of may not be real.
This doesnt prove or disprove anything. I glad the great people who advance science as far as it has, did not think like you.

Cid wrote: You flame religions and its followers without even considering their side of the story. You’re not much different from Hitler with his extermination of the jews

Gplex wrote:

Count Bleck wrote: Well it comes down to this.

Omnipotence- Impossible by our logic, which may or not be flawed.
Perfection- based on perception which may or not be flawed.

The FSM, may or may not be real.
The IPU, may of may not be real.
This doesnt prove or disprove anything. I glad the great people who advance science as far as it has, did not think like you.

Really now? I am not saying either of those things exist, I am actually being open minded. You would agree our understanding of phenomenon develops over the years right? Back 2000 years ago it was perfect logic to think the Earth was flat. See what I’m saying? I am just trying not to rule out the possibility our current understanding could be wrong, or more like, not fully complete like Ty said. I did not make that clear before.

Tyreaus Dreacon wrote:

Count Bleck wrote: Well it comes down to this.

Omnipotence- Impossible by our logic, which may or not be flawed.
Perfection- based on perception which may or not be flawed.

Maybe not so much flawed as it is incomplete. It’s still developing, just as it has been over the many many years, and probably will continue to develop.

Really and how will a illogical inconsistency of the meaning of omnipotence be understood? All the answers I have seen so far have come down to one thing “don’t think about it to much”.
Perfection can only be claimed in the context of imperfection.

Cid wrote: You flame religions and its followers without even considering their side of the story. You’re not much different from Hitler with his extermination of the jews

Gplex wrote:

Tyreaus Dreacon wrote:

Count Bleck wrote: Well it comes down to this.

Omnipotence- Impossible by our logic, which may or not be flawed.
Perfection- based on perception which may or not be flawed.

Maybe not so much flawed as it is incomplete. It’s still developing, just as it has been over the many many years, and probably will continue to develop.

Really and how will a illogical inconsistency of the meaning of omnipotence be understood? All the answers I have seen so far have come down to one thing “don’t think about it to much”.
Perfection can only be claimed in the context of imperfection.

You know we COULD develop something, back in the day as you know people contributed things to angry gods. You can’t rule out that in a future society, we might be looked upon as just as foolish.(Not saying there is gods btw, but I mean what we have now as far as logic by our current understanding)

Gplex wrote: Neither of these things when attributed to a god, makes any sense at all.

What do you mean?!
Perfection- Not Real
Omnipotence- Not Real
God- Not Real

HaHaHaHaHa

Gplex wrote:

Tyreaus Dreacon wrote:

Count Bleck wrote: Well it comes down to this.

Omnipotence- Impossible by our logic, which may or not be flawed.
Perfection- based on perception which may or not be flawed.

Maybe not so much flawed as it is incomplete. It’s still developing, just as it has been over the many many years, and probably will continue to develop.

Really and how will a illogical inconsistency of the meaning of omnipotence be understood? All the answers I have seen so far have come down to one thing “don’t think about it to much”.
Perfection can only be claimed in the context of imperfection.

I can’t say how anything will be understood in the future. Perhaps some giant consensus will be reached on the real definition of omnipotence.

Count Bleck wrote: Really now? I am not saying either of those things exist, I am actually being open minded. You would agree our understanding of phenomenon develops over the years right? Back 2000 years ago it was perfect logic to think the Earth was flat. See what I’m saying? I am just trying not to rule out the possibility our current understanding could be wrong, or more like, not fully complete like Ty said. I did not make that clear before.

Open minded? Can god create a rock so heavy that not even he can lift it. How is that going to change?
Can a all powerful being create something that it can not stop.
You might as well say it is a zero sided triangle. It would make as much sense.
Perfect logic? NO. No it wasn’t. It was a belief from people who didn’t pay attention to all the evidence.

Cid wrote: You flame religions and its followers without even considering their side of the story. You’re not much different from Hitler with his extermination of the jews

Tyreaus Dreacon wrote: I can’t say how anything will be understood in the future. Perhaps some giant consensus will be reached on the real definition of omnipotence.

What? Real definition? Are you saying the current definition is wrong?

Cid wrote: You flame religions and its followers without even considering their side of the story. You’re not much different from Hitler with his extermination of the jews

Gplex wrote:

Count Bleck wrote: Really now? I am not saying either of those things exist, I am actually being open minded. You would agree our understanding of phenomenon develops over the years right? Back 2000 years ago it was perfect logic to think the Earth was flat. See what I’m saying? I am just trying not to rule out the possibility our current understanding could be wrong, or more like, not fully complete like Ty said. I did not make that clear before.

Open minded? Can god create a rock so heavy that not even he can lift it. How is that going to change?
Can a all powerful being create something that it can not stop.
You might as well say it is a zero sided triangle. It would make as much sense.
Perfect logic? NO. No it wasn’t. It was a belief from people who didn’t pay attention to all the evidence.

I didn’t say it would change, but that it could. You never know. To say they cannot be contributed to something when out logic isn’t 100% is ignorance. No?

Count Bleck wrote: I didn’t say it would change, but that it could. You never know. To say they cannot be contributed to something when out logic isn’t 100% is ignorance. No?

Nothing we have is 100% It is as likely to be true as my zero sided triangle.

Cid wrote: You flame religions and its followers without even considering their side of the story. You’re not much different from Hitler with his extermination of the jews

Gplex wrote:

Tyreaus Dreacon wrote: I can’t say how anything will be understood in the future. Perhaps some giant consensus will be reached on the real definition of omnipotence.

What? Real definition? Are you saying the current definition is wrong?

If the definitions/meanings are inconsistent, as in there are multiple definitions/meanings of the term, then some of them are wrong. Right?

Gplex wrote:

Count Bleck wrote: I didn’t say it would change, but that it could. You never know. To say they cannot be contributed to something when out logic isn’t 100% is ignorance. No?

Nothing we have is 100% It is as likely to be true as my zero sided triangle.

Except a triangle is defined as a three sided object, so that analogy is not very good compared to what we see omnipotent(Unlimited power) and Perfection(flawless)

1indainfinite wrote:

Gplex wrote: Neither of these things when attributed to a god, makes any sense at all.

What do you mean?!
Perfection- Not Real
Omnipotence- Not Real
God- Not Real

HaHaHaHaHa

Well yea, the god that suppose to be perfect, and omnipotent, cant be real.

Cid wrote: You flame religions and its followers without even considering their side of the story. You’re not much different from Hitler with his extermination of the jews

Count Bleck wrote:

Gplex wrote:

Count Bleck wrote: I didn’t say it would change, but that it could. You never know. To say they cannot be contributed to something when out logic isn’t 100% is ignorance. No?

Nothing we have is 100% It is as likely to be true as my zero sided triangle.

Except a triangle is defined as a three sided object, so that analogy is not very good compared to what we see omnipotent(Unlimited power) and Perfection(flawless)

flawless at what? at not being flawless? at wining? at losing? perfection has to be definded in the context of inperfection.
unlimited power? that doesnt make sense either. what happens when a unstoppable forces hits a unmovable object?
Just because you put the words together doesnt mean it has real meaning.

Cid wrote: You flame religions and its followers without even considering their side of the story. You’re not much different from Hitler with his extermination of the jews

Tyreaus Dreacon wrote:

Gplex wrote:

Tyreaus Dreacon wrote: I can’t say how anything will be understood in the future. Perhaps some giant consensus will be reached on the real definition of omnipotence.

What? Real definition? Are you saying the current definition is wrong?

If the definitions/meanings are inconsistent, as in there are multiple definitions/meanings of the term, then some of them are wrong. Right?

No, its a word describing something that is wrong. But it doesnt mean the word itself is wrong.

Cid wrote: You flame religions and its followers without even considering their side of the story. You’re not much different from Hitler with his extermination of the jews

Gplex wrote:

Tyreaus Dreacon wrote:

Gplex wrote:

Tyreaus Dreacon wrote: I can’t say how anything will be understood in the future. Perhaps some giant consensus will be reached on the real definition of omnipotence.

What? Real definition? Are you saying the current definition is wrong?

If the definitions/meanings are inconsistent, as in there are multiple definitions/meanings of the term, then some of them are wrong. Right?

No, its a word describing something that is wrong. But it doesnt mean the word itself is wrong.

I thought you were talking about the meaning of the word.
“Really and how will a illogical inconsistency of the meaning of omnipotence be understood?"
Inconsistency of meaning (of omnipotence), right?

Perfection is an impossibly thing, just as infinite.

I am, Forever Gone.

“I am become Death, the Destroyer of Worlds”