Does omnipotent mean God can do anything?

[Willamena]

I guess I'm just having trouble deciphering what you mean.

Are you saying God exists and not-exists at the same time and in the same respect or not? I find the way you word things to be nebulous sometimes and it confuses me.

Everything both exists and not-exists, at the same time. Or to put it another way, everything as form and emptiness.

When we refer to "God" we make it "something," and in doing so it has form and emptiness.

 

[Midnight Pete]

There's no such thing as "bug-logic" or "human-logic" or "dolphin-logic," there is just logic.

Logic isn't something that we only think we know, or that we're only reasonably sure we know... logic is incorrigible, we absolutely know logic and we absolutely know that our knowledge of logic is absolute. (So on, ad infinitum, since it's infinitely justified per its incorrigibility by definition).

Yes, there might exist things that we don't understand -- just like a bug probably doesn't understand NYC. I agree with that.

But we can absolutely know that anything that exists is logical. That is an absolute truth, infinitely justified, and impossible to doubt or object to -- because it's incorrigible. Even attempting to doubt it for the sake of argument only proves that it's true and self-contradicts.

Scientists are every bit as dogmatic as the Bible thumpers.

 

[St Giordano Bruno]

Could God build a prison not even he can escape from?
That would be an interesting paradox!

 

[Midnight Pete]

God must either exist or not-exist, there's no in between.

How do you know?

 

[PolyHedral]

Everything both exists and not-exists, at the same time. Or to put it another way, everything as form and emptiness.

When we refer to "God" we make it "something," and in doing so it has form and emptiness.

Please elaborate on this, because it sounds plausible, but I don't fully understand it. How is "emptiness" inherent to an object?

Scientists are every bit as dogmatic as the Bible thumpers.

Except you can deny the Bible. You can't deny, say, the excluded middle, or identity. I've tried, and the result is nonsensical.

 

[Meow Mix]

Everything both exists and not-exists, at the same time. Or to put it another way, everything as form and emptiness.

When we refer to "God" we make it "something," and in doing so it has form and emptiness.

This doesn't seem cognitive to me.

 

[Midnight Pete]

There's no such thing as "bug-logic" or "human-logic" or "dolphin-logic,"

Maybe instead of logic I should have used the word mind.

 

[PolyHedral]

How do you know?

Describe how "half-existing" is a coherent idea.

 

[Meow Mix]

Scientists are every bit as dogmatic as the Bible thumpers.

No, dogma is unjustified belief. My assertions are completely justified.

As I've said, logic is incorrigible. Doubting it necessarily causes a self-contradiction; meaning doubting it isn't possible to do.

This isn't dogma, this is cold fact.

I can only assume that you're not familiar with how and why incorrigibility necessitates something's truth. Maybe we should talk about that so you can see where I'm coming from instead of just assuming I'm using strong words like "absolute" dogmatically.

 

[Meow Mix]

How do you know?

Because existence is dichotomous; it's all or nothing. Even a little bit of existence is full blown existence; there's no "partly existing" because trying to break it down in increments is as misplaced as trying to describe how a color tastes.

 

[Meow Mix]

Could God build a prison not even he can escape from?
That would be an interesting paradox!

No, because this is a variant of the irresistable force/immovable object "paradox," which is illogical: therefore God can't do it (because there's no "it" to do). Even though the words individually mean something, if you string them together in the wrong way they become nonsense -- the equivalent of saying asdghsdkljghksjdg instead.

 

[Meow Mix]

Except you can deny the Bible. You can't deny, say, the excluded middle, or identity. I've tried, and the result is nonsensical.

Exactly, this is why logic is absolutely knowable: it's incorrigible.

 

[Meow Mix]

Maybe instead of logic I should have used the word mind.

Well that works. Of course our minds are limited and fallible, I agree. There are many things we don't know and maybe even some that we can't know.

However, logic is one thing that we can know -- and what's more, what's unique about it, is that we can know that we know it (i.e. this knowledge is absolute) because of its incorrigibility.

This is different because most of our knowledge is just "to the best of our ability," or it's tentative and could end up being wrong later -- not so with our knowledge of logic.

 

[Midnight Pete]

Because existence is dichotomous; it's all or nothing. Even a little bit of existence is full blown existence; there's no "partly existing" because trying to break it down in increments is as misplaced as trying to describe how a color tastes.

This is the most extreme black & white thinking I've ever come across. It's kind of awe-inspiring.

 

[Meow Mix]

This is the most extreme black & white thinking I've ever come across. It's kind of awe-inspiring.

"Black & white thinking" is another word for the logical fallacy of the false dichotomy, which I'm not engaging in: because the dichotomy I've mentioned is not a false one (it is actually dichotomous).

Something either exists or it doesn't. If we're talking about the context of it existing in reality (so we can ignore suggestions like "well what if it just exists as an idea," etc.) then it either exists, or it does not exist.

Some things are black and white, they're called dichotomies. It's only fallacious when you take something that's actually a spectrum (like, say, sexual orientation) and you split it into two extremes: you create a false dichotomy. That's not what I'm doing here.

So, there is no reason to be "in awe" of some ferocious fallacy or incorrect mode of thinking: pointing out that existence is dichotomous is not incorrect or fallacious.

 

[Willamena]

Please elaborate on this, because it sounds plausible, but I don't fully understand it. How is "emptiness" inherent to an object?

I could recommend some books on eastern philosophies, if you like.

 

[Willamena]

No, dogma is unjustified belief. My assertions are completely justified.

As I've said, logic is incorrigible. Doubting it necessarily causes a self-contradiction; meaning doubting it isn't possible to do.

This isn't dogma, this is cold fact.

I can only assume that you're not familiar with how and why incorrigibility necessitates something's truth. Maybe we should talk about that so you can see where I'm coming from instead of just assuming I'm using strong words like "absolute" dogmatically.

Dogma is "an authoritative principle, belief, or statement of ideas or opinion, especially one considered to be absolutely true." Logic is the authority behind what you assert.

 

[Meow Mix]

Dogma is "an authoritative principle, belief, or statement of ideas or opinion, especially one considered to be absolutely true." Logic is the authority behind what you assert.

Oh. Well, there's a vast difference between having logic as the authority and... well, anything else that isn't incorrigible.

 

[Midnight Pete]

Please elaborate on this, because it sounds plausible, but I don't fully understand it. How is "emptiness" inherent to an object?

If I may.

Phenomena are said to empty because they lack any independent existence. A chair is empty because it would not exist without the materials used to be build it, its manufacturer, and the process by which all the non-chair elements converged to form a chair.

 

[logician]

Because existence is dichotomous; it's all or nothing. Even a little bit of existence is full blown existence; there's no "partly existing" because trying to break it down in increments is as misplaced as trying to describe how a color tastes.

One can exist and be unconscious i.e. quite unaware of your own existence.

More importantly, people go along in the daily rat-race barely aware of their own existence, caught up in the nuances of survival.