The True fallacy of omnipotence

[WARTORIOUS]

The True fallacy of omnipotence

Now for the real paradox; A thing that was omnipotent could never know itself because its self is contained within the unnerves, even if it’s not contained in the unnerves it cannot know itself because its self is contained within existence. If it could know itself then it would need to know its further self in the unnerves within its self that’s a part of its self. Thus this gives an infinite cycle that cannot be solved hence the fallacy of omnipotence.

In essence a mirror within a mirror within a mirror, so I would argue that if it cannot know itself it cannot know everything. Additionally I would argue that knowing everything means you cannot interpret information. When you interpret information you don’t see the true reality, rather your human take on reality influenced by your entire life’s experience and biochemical’s becomes your opinion. All existence as far as humans are concerned is opinion, and what we call facts are just commonly shared opinions - David Beck.

 

[BucephalusBB]

It would disregard words as simple tools created to help humanity try to understand the world and would not be bound by them

pompidom

 

[michel]

The True fallacy of omnipotence

Now for the real paradox; A thing that was omnipotent could never know itself because its self is contained within the unnerves, even if it’s not contained in the unnerves it cannot know itself because its self is contained within existence. If it could know itself then it would need to know its further self in the unnerves within its self that’s a part of its self. Thus this gives an infinite cycle that cannot be solved hence the fallacy of omnipotence.

In essence a mirror within a mirror within a mirror, so I would argue that if it cannot know itself it cannot know everything. Additionally I would argue that knowing everything means you cannot interpret information. When you interpret information you don’t see the true reality, rather your human take on reality influenced by your entire life’s experience and biochemical’s becomes your opinion. All existence as far as humans are concerned is opinion, and what we call facts are just commonly shared opinions - David Beck.

While I find understanding the point you are trying to make is difficult, I think I am safe in saying that I don't agree.

The flaw in your thinking (IMHO) is that you are trying to imagine the unimaginable. You are (for sake of an example, an ant making judgements about humans). To me, that just doesn't 'compute'.

What God is like, how his omnipotence 'works' in practice is something I would not even venture to try and fathom out.

 

[BucephalusBB]

an ant making judgements about humans

This I do not agree with. Asuming Ants make judgements is asuming they have intelligence enough to do so. In that case they are following the rules of this planet and they CAN judge about humans. I know this was just an example, but the reason I decided to counter this is because I think there is no human example in this place..

 

[WARTORIOUS]

While I find understanding the point you are trying to make is difficult, I think I am safe in saying that I don't agree.

The flaw in your thinking (IMHO) is that you are trying to imagine the unimaginable. You are (for sake of an example, an ant making judgements about humans). To me, that just doesn't 'compute'.

What God is like, how his omnipotence 'works' in practice is something I would not even venture to try and fathom out.

My point I was trying to make is that omnipotence is fundamentally flawed because someone who knows everything cannot know himself, because all knowledge is a part of him.

Saying that something is unimaginable is insulting

 

[BucephalusBB]

My point I was trying to make is that omnipotence is fundamentally flawed because someone who knows everything cannot know himself, because all knowledge is a part of him.

Saying that something is unimaginable is insulting

Wait a minute (although on a forum that sounds stupid..) I don't get it.

So that would mean that I can't know myself because knowing myself is a part of my knowledge?

 

[WARTORIOUS]

*I was origanaly going to post in the other forum this*

This debate is most strange indeed! Firstly if something was omnipotent as in knowing everything then they would disregard the simple human race as we would view an ant, a creature that dose what they do and then die. Creatures of limited intellect that responds predictably to certain situations who can’t grasp anything beyond there own limited senses.

 

[WARTORIOUS]

Wait a minute (although on a forum that sounds stupid..) I don't get it.

So that would mean that I can't know myself because knowing myself is a part of my knowledge?

Only if you were omnipotence, hence the title "The True fallacy of omnipotence"

 

[James the Persian]

My point I was trying to make is that omnipotence is fundamentally flawed because someone who knows everything cannot know himself, because all knowledge is a part of him.

Saying that something is unimaginable is insulting

You appear to be confusing omnipotence (which is having the ability to do anything), with omniscience (knowing everything). That mistake aside, I'm afraid that I still don't see the sense in your argument. If somebody knows everything then, by definition, they must know themself, so why is it impossible? I'm afraid I just don't follow the logic that you are trying to use. Would you like to explain? Also, back to your opening post, I assume that the omniscient being you are talking of is God? If that is the case, why do you think He must be part of the universe (that's what you meant by unnerves, right?). Surely you realise that many religions do not consider God to be part of the universe at all. Certainly this is the case for Christianity.

James

 

[BucephalusBB]

Only if you were omnipotence, hence the title "The True fallacy of omnipotence"

All knowing. so he can't know himself because he is part of that.
But am I not part of what I know?

 

[michel]

My point I was trying to make is that omnipotence is fundamentally flawed because someone who knows everything cannot know himself, because all knowledge is a part of him.

Saying that something is unimaginable is insulting

How the heck can you know that ? Until you experience omnipotence yourself, you cannot make judgements about that state, surely ?

This I do not agree with. Asuming Ants make judgements is asuming they have intelligence enough to do so. In that case they are following the rules of this planet and they CAN judge about humans. I know this was just an example, but the reason I decided to counter this is because I think there is no human example in this place..

O.K, how about this scenario (much closer to home, and yet one that reveals a gaping gap of difference).

Outsourced call centers in India cause a lot of unexpected problems when companies here used them. Richard Branson immediately realised where the problem lay.

The major stumbling block centered arounf the fact that an Indian (living in India) could have little to no conception of the way we run our lives, what we expect from our lives. He found that the people used to man the centers there needed to 'live our lives' (in essense) to be able to understand our needs.

Example (fictitious), but one I could imagine occurring.

I lose a credit card. I phone a call centre in India. The guy who answers the 'phone is a ware of what he must do under the circumstances (put a block on the card, and get one reissued). But he doesn't know that I am living off that Credit card; that without it, I can't even fill up my tank with Gas, therefore I can't get to work etc.......... I need a new card 'yesterday'............a silly point, but one I hope illustrates the point better.

 

[EnhancedSpirit]

This debate is most strange indeed! Firstly if something was omnipotent as in knowing everything then they would disregard the simple human race as we would view an ant, a creature that dose what they do and then die. Creatures of limited intellect that responds predictably to certain situations who can’t grasp anything beyond there own limited senses.

But we are not omnipotent, so how can this be like how we view ants? We can observe ants, but this does not mean we know everything about them.

What makes God's omnipotence understandable is when we realize that God is not out there 'observing' us. He is within each of us. He feels what we feel, he uses our eyes to view his creation. He is within each and every one of us. God does not watch us from above, he watches us from within.

So there are a few billion people on earth, and several billion animals, and bugs, and plants, God is everywhere, experiencing his creation on a first hand basis, from every point of view imaginable, simultaneously.

 

[BucephalusBB]

bla bla example

Ok, maybe we can make an example..

 

[WARTORIOUS]

You appear to be confusing omnipotence (which is having the ability to do anything), with omniscience (knowing everything). That mistake aside, I'm afraid that I still don't see the sense in your argument. If somebody knows everything then, by definition, they must know themself, so why is it impossible? I'm afraid I just don't follow the logic that you are trying to use. Would you like to explain? Also, back to your opening post, I assume that the omniscient being you are talking of is God? If that is the case, why do you think He must be part of the universe (that's what you meant by unnerves, right?). Surely you realise that many religions do not consider God to be part of the universe at all. Certainly this is the case for Christianity.

James

Ok, I’m going to try to put the idea into a gross abominatious maths formula.

All existence = omniscience
Known by god

(God within existence + All existence = God) = omniscience
Known by god

(God within existence +(God within existence + All existence = God) + All existence = God) ) = omniscience

(God within existence +(God within existence +(God within existence + All existence = God) + All existence = God) + All existence = God) ) = omniscience



(God within existence +(God within existence +(God within existence (God within existence + All existence = God) + All existence = God)+ All existence = God) + All existence = God) + All existence = God) ) = omniscience

(infinate)

sorry, the entire thing seems silly now, still if yourself contains all knolege then you cannot know yourself. that was my point, dose seem silly now

 

[James the Persian]

Ok, I’m going to try to put the idea into a gross abominatious maths formula.

All existence = omniscience
Known by god

(God within existence + All existence = God) = omniscience
Known by god

(God within existence +(God within existence + All existence = God) + All existence = God) ) = omniscience

(God within existence +(God within existence +(God within existence + All existence = God) + All existence = God) + All existence = God) ) = omniscience



(God within existence +(God within existence +(God within existence (God within existence + All existence = God) + All existence = God)+ All existence = God) + All existence = God) + All existence = God) ) = omniscience

(infinate)

sorry, the entire thing seems silly now, still if yourself contains all knolege then you cannot know yourself. that was my point, dose seem silly now

Sorry, but you still seem to be asuming that God is part of the universe. This may be a valid point for some religions (though I can't think of one), but certainly isn't for all. In our beliefs God is outside the universe and hence for Him to know everything about it would not lead in any way shape or form to absurdity that you are trying to claim. I don't even think that your perceived absurdity even makes sense if you do take God to be part of the universe. Are you trying to say that it is logically impossible for someone to know themselves? Practically, I can see some difficulties but I can't see any purely logical reason to suggest this and, when it comes to an omnipotent being (which is what you originally were talking about) all practical considerations become moot.

James

 

[WARTORIOUS]

even if it’s not contained in the unnerves it cannot know itself because its self is contained within existence.

first post I posted

 

[WARTORIOUS]

Are you trying to say that it is logically impossible for someone to know themselves?

again I say God cannot know himself, You can know yourself because other people tell you what your like.

 

[BucephalusBB]

again I say God cannot know himself, You can know yourself because other people tell you what your like.

So someone born on an island always alone can never know himself?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

again I say God cannot know himself, You can know yourself because other people tell you what your like.

Given three people, each somehow raised isolated from the rest of humanity:

• one with a learning disability,
• one who is exceptionally artistic,
• one who is exceptionally analytical.

According to you, not only would there be no difference in what they might come to know about themselves, but all such knowledge would be precluded because "you can know yourself [only] because other people tell you what your like". So, let us tell you something about "what your [sic] like": you apparently have the capacity to become wedded to absurd positions.

 

[James the Persian]

again I say God cannot know himself, You can know yourself because other people tell you what your like.

Are you honestly trying to suggest that the only source of knowledge about onesself is the opinion of others? That's truly absurd. I really don't know where such an idea could come from. Do you not think? Do you never consider what your motivations might be? Never question yourself? Never introspect at all? I'm honestly dumbfounded.

James