Could God make a saltwater croc so large that he couldn't wrestle with it?

Could God make a saltwater croc so large that he couldn't wrestle with it?

CRIME Shirt $21.68

Tip Your Landlord Shirt $21.68

CRIME Shirt $21.68

  1. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    Yes. And then He would wrestle it.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      CORRECTAMUNDO!!!

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Varaha

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      No, he could not.

      An omnipotent being is capable of ending its own omnipotence. If he could still wrestle it after its creation he would have failed in the original task.

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        No, he wouldn't. He would have ended his omnipotence. And kept it at the same time.

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          But that would be a contradiction to his omnipotence since he would not have created the crocodile he couldn't lift.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            > he would not have created the crocodile he couldn't lift
            Yeah he would. He would've just lift it after all.
            >contradiction
            C'est la vie. Omnipotence is a "positive" way to describe limitlessness. Law of non-contradiction is one such limit overcome.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Yeah he would. He would've just lift it after all.
            If he can still lift it then he would not have fulfilled the original request.

            >Omnipotence is a "positive" way to describe limitlessness. Law of non-contradiction is one such limit overcome.
            But you're not overcoming it if you're incapable of ending your own omnipotence.

            Your definition of omnipotence is self-contradictory. To not permit illogical requests (e.g. contradictory properties, like a stick that is both 2 m long and 1 m long - disregarding tricks of cause like relativistic length contraction or something), does not contradict omnipotence because omnipotence simply means being able to do all things that can be done. The fact that you can provide a self-contradicting definition of something does not contradict the omnipotence of someone omnipotent if he ends up not being able to fulfil your request, because you clearly didn't think things through to the end.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >if you're incapable of ending your own omnipotence
            He is capable. He would end it and keep it at the same time.

            >Your definition of omnipotence is self-contradictory.
            Yes.
            >omnipotence simply means being able to do all things that can be done.
            What can be done? Let's think this through to the end, where you will see that a paradox is the only possible to God's attributes.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >He is capable. He would end it and keep it at the same time.
            No, he is clearly not, if he can still lift it. Are you even listening to yourself?

            If I my request is that he will not be able to lift it, then the request is not met if he can still lift it, contradicting his own omnipotence if he is unable to put himself in such state.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >>He would end it and keep it at the same time
            >No, he [keeps it].
            He would end it and keep it at the same time. Don't just read half of the sentences.
            >If the request...
            >[evaluation based on law of non-contradiction]
            Doesn't apply.

            >omnipotence simply means being able to do all things that can be done.
            What can be done?

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >He would end it and keep it at the same time.
            But my request does not permit that. What part of that do you fail to grasp?

            >What can be done?
            Certainly not self-contradictory things that you can't even formulate properly because you didn't think things through to the end.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >But my request does not permit that. What part of that do you fail to grasp?
            The part where you omit law of non-contradiction. Oh wait, you don't... you still stick to the law as though God is limited by it.

            >>What can be done?
            >Certainly not self-contradictory things
            So what can be done? Let's think this through to the end, where you will see that a paradox is the only possible to God's attributes.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >you still stick to the law as though God is limited by it.
            It is completely irrelevant to the question. If I demand the outcome to be that he is in a state where he can no longer lift the crocodile and after trying to fulfil my request he is still capable of lifting it, then he has not fulfilled my request and he is therefore not omnipotent.

            Therefore your idea of God is false and heresy.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >I demand the outcome to be that he is in a state where he can no longer lift the crocodile
            And he is. While also being in the opposite state.

            All your posts to date can be summed up with "No no the law of non-contradiction MUST BE KEPT". Which is false. And pointless to keep addressing.
            Enjoy your "God can only do so much" theology.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >And he is. While also being in the opposite state.
            But he has not met my request, which specifically excludes the opposite state.

            >No no the law of non-contradiction MUST BE KEPT
            On the contrary: you don't seem to understand that this leads to a contradiction as soon as I come with a request which excludes the third specifically. I demand him to put himself in a state where he can no longer lift it. If he can't do that, then he is not omnipotent. The fact that he still can - by your definition - is a contradiction to his own omnipotence.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >But he has not met my request
            He has. And he has met its opposite too. Sorry, it's extremely clear where you're falling flat on your face and I've ran out of ways to point it out.

            >I come with a request which excludes ...
            Exclusion relies on law of non-contradiction. Anon, no offense, but this might not be a suitable topic for you. Make any elaborate claim you want, make three dozens of them and combine them. God can fulfil them and not fulfil them at the same time. He is omnipotent.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >He has. And he has met its opposite too.
            No, he has not you giant moron. If he has met the opposite too - which I specifically don't allow - then he has not met my request. What are you failing to understand here?

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >But... but... the conditions for fulfillment are....
            ... met and unmet at the same time.

            Again, you might need some time.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >... met and unmet at the same time.
            And I don't that.

            Do you not understand that I am the one making a request here and I set the rules?

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >And I don't that.
            *don't allow

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >I set the rules?
            See

            >What are you failing to understand here?
            The way with which you're going to impose a law on God lol. Make any elaborate claim you want, make three dozens of them and combine them to exclude anything but a straightforward non-contradiction. God can fulfil all of them and none of them at the same time. No matter what specific criteria you set.
            It might be difficult for you to imagine, but one day you will see.

            All your rules are simply pretext to "this is what a fulfillment looks like". And NO MATTER what it looks like, God can do it and not do it at the same time. You have no way to impose law of non-contradiction in the end.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            But he has not actually met my request you moron.

            Also, you do realise that what I describe is church doctrine while the bonkers god of childlike imagination you propose is heresy and they rightfully burned morons like yourself at the stake, right?

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >But he has not actually met my request you moron.
            He has and hasn't at the same time
            >>>> BUT I WANT THE "HASN'T" GONE
            Then it will be gone and not gone at the same time. Again, you have no actual way to impose the law on God.

            >heresy
            Name it and produce a Church Father that said "God can only do so much, guys, as long as it makes sense to me, God can do it".

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Again, you have no actual way to impose the law on God.
            I'm not imposing a law, I am requesting to impose a law on himself as a thought experiment. And the god you propose is failing that through experiment since he is incapable of fulfilling that request.

            >Name it and produce a Church Father that said "God can only do so much, guys, as long as it makes sense to me, God can do it".
            The Church fathers generally tried to reconcile belief with the Greek philosophical traditions. The logos was seen a fundamental property of God.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >I am requesting to impose a law on himself as a thought experiment
            And he would and wouldn't at the same time. In your next reply you will shift goalposts of the request to eliminate the "wouldn't". And then God would eliminate and not eliminate it at the same time. You never win.

            >The Church fathers generally tried to reconcile belief with the Greek philosophical traditions.
            100% certifiably false, Anon. If there is one pattern shared among the Fathers, it is the REJECTION of Greek philosophy in theology. They used Greek linguistics and answered the Greek metaphysical questions when they were so inclined but there is absolutely no way to claim that they somehow tried to "reconcile" Greek thought with theology.
            I was expecting you to somehow pivot into scholasticism, where they did actually think God is limited by (what scholastics viewed as) logic, but this bit you wrote is completely misled.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >And he would and wouldn't at the same time.
            But that is something I don't permit, you moron. You're saying: "Well, yes, God can no longer lift the crocodile, but at the same time he can.", but that does not meet the requirements of my request, which deliberately states that he must be able to permanently put himself in a state where he is 'exclusively' unable to lift it.

            If your god cannot do that, if he cannot make himself subject to the excluded third, then he is not omnipotent and therefore by definition he does not exist as one of his most fundamental properties is violated.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >>In your next reply you will shift goalposts of the request to eliminate the "wouldn't".
            >[does it]
            >>And then God would eliminate and not eliminate it at the same time. You never win.
            >[doesn't win]
            Thank you for proving my point.

            >If your god cannot do that
            Sure he can. That and the opposite at the same time.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Sure he can. That and the opposite at the same time.
            And therefore he does not fulfil my request because being able to do both at the same time is not the same state as being able to do only one. Are you actually too dumb to grasp that this is not the same?

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >What are you failing to understand here?
            The way with which you're going to impose a law on God lol. Make any elaborate claim you want, make three dozens of them and combine them to exclude anything but a straightforward non-contradiction. God can fulfil all of them and none of them at the same time. No matter what specific criteria you set.
            It might be difficult for you to imagine, but one day you will see.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >All your posts to date can be summed up with "No no the law of non-contradiction MUST BE KEPT"
            Can God make it so the law of non-contradiction must be kept?

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            God can do anything

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Ok so just add that to the question. Can God make it so the law of non-contradiction must be kept and make a saltwater croc so large he couldn't wrestle with it?

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Yes. He will keep the law and not keep it at the same time too though. That's what the other Anon never gets. You're not one criterion away from imposing the law. You're an infinity of criteria away because each of your criterion, God will fulfill and not fullfil at once.

            >Sure he can. That and the opposite at the same time.
            And therefore he does not fulfil my request because being able to do both at the same time is not the same state as being able to do only one. Are you actually too dumb to grasp that this is not the same?

            >[reverts to what was addressed in

            >I am requesting to impose a law on himself as a thought experiment


            And he would and wouldn't at the same time. In your next reply you will shift goalposts of the request to eliminate the "wouldn't". And then God would eliminate and not eliminate it at the same time. You never win.

            >The Church fathers generally tried to reconcile belief with the Greek philosophical traditions.
            100% certifiably false, Anon. If there is one pattern shared among the Fathers, it is the REJECTION of Greek philosophy in theology. They used Greek linguistics and answered the Greek metaphysical questions when they were so inclined but there is absolutely no way to claim that they somehow tried to "reconcile" Greek thought with theology.
            I was expecting you to somehow pivot into scholasticism, where they did actually think God is limited by (what scholastics viewed as) logic, but this bit you wrote is completely misled.]
            Sorry, you never catch up.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >He will keep the law and not keep it at the same time too though
            Then he didn't actually keep the law moron

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >[reverts to what was addressed in

            >I am requesting to impose a law on himself as a thought experiment


            And he would and wouldn't at the same time. In your next reply you will shift goalposts of the request to eliminate the "wouldn't". And then God would eliminate and not eliminate it at the same time. You never win.

            >The Church fathers generally tried to reconcile belief with the Greek philosophical traditions.
            100% certifiably false, Anon. If there is one pattern shared among the Fathers, it is the REJECTION of Greek philosophy in theology. They used Greek linguistics and answered the Greek metaphysical questions when they were so inclined but there is absolutely no way to claim that they somehow tried to "reconcile" Greek thought with theology.
            I was expecting you to somehow pivot into scholasticism, where they did actually think God is limited by (what scholastics viewed as) logic, but this bit you wrote is completely misled. ]
            >again
            Sorry, Anon.

            You did not address this point at all. You keep pretending that your god, after supposedly fulfilling my request of creating a crododile he can't lift, proceeding to lift it effortlessly somehow fulfilled my request, but that is not the case at all.

            I specifically request the state for him to be in to exclude the third, I request the answer to the question: "Can he lift that crocodile?" To be "No" and not "Yes and No". And if he cannot put himself in such state, then his is not omnipotent.

            And you have nothing to the contrary. You got told on the internet like a homosexual and it's apparent that you don't understand basic logic.

            > I request the answer to the question: "Can he lift that crocodile?" To be "No" and not "Yes and No".
            Then he will answer a "No" and "Yes and No" both.
            >> But I want it to be just "No" and nothing else!!!!!
            Then he wil answer "No" and nothing else but at the same time something else.
            Again, with law of non-contradiction being removed, there is no actual criterion you can put in place that would force it back in. We can keep developing this example though, I think a concrete question-answer scenario will help you understand.
            This is not basic logic. This is its absence. Which is what keeps confusing you over and over and over.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            You have schizophrenia anon

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            You're right, I've changed my mind. God can only do what I can coherently think in my head. Sounds omnipotent, thanks! Lol

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >You're right, I've changed my mind.
            Thank God
            >God can only do what I can coherently think in my head.
            No one said this

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Wait what? I thought we're trying to limit God to only possible things. Not anymore? Guys, please stick to the law of non-contradiction, it's even more important than God himself!

            >Then he will answer a "No" and "Yes and No" both.
            Pro-tip: "No" and "Yes and No" is equivalent to "Yes and No" and I specifically excluded that.

            Who do you think you're bullshitting?

            >Then he wil answer "No" and nothing else but at the same time something else.
            But then he has failed to meet my request.

            >This is not basic logic. This is its absence. Which is what keeps confusing you over and over and over.
            It's not confusing to me at all. I request your bonkers god that can do anything (even nonsense like creating four-sided triangles) to subject himself to logic, and he seems unable to do so, contradicting his own omnipotence.

            So maybe it's more sensible to consider a God bound by logic after all?

            > "No" and "Yes and No" is equivalent to "Yes and No"
            Not exactly, no. But again, you would need actual training in at least semi-formal logic to understand that.

            >>Then he wil answer "No" and nothing else but at the same time something else.
            >But then he has failed to meet my request.
            Your request "No and nothing else" was fulfilled. If the law of non-contradiction was in place, "and nothing else" would be cancelled out by "and something else", you're right! But it's not in place. Which is what keeps confusing you over and over. Again, it might not be your fault.

            >he seems unable to do so
            He is very able. He can fulfill it just fine. While not fulfilling it at the same time.

            >it's more sensible to consider a God bound
            Ahahahah

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >I thought we're trying to limit God to only possible things.
            Yes moron, that's not the same thing as "what I can coherently think in my head". There's practically infinite possible things that I can't coherently think in my head, otherwise I would be omniscient.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Omniscience is about knowledge, not capacity for coherent conceptualization, Anon. You might not like the depiction, but you indeed are trying to limit God to whatever you can coherently (aka with logic) think in your head. And while it's not unprecedented in Western theology, it's pretty lousy.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Omniscience is about knowledge, not capacity for coherent conceptualization, Anon
            Capacity for coherent conceptualization is a facet of knowledge, Anon.
            >but you indeed are trying to limit God to whatever you can coherently (aka with logic) think in your head
            No I'm not. I'm not omniscient.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Capacity for coherent conceptualization is a facet of knowledge, Anon.
            Disagree. You can conceptualize things even if you're clueless. It is in your physiology. If you disagree, we can leave it be. I'm not dying on this hill.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Not exactly, no.
            Yes, very much so. Also, you should be able to understand that formal logic excludes the third, moron, i.e. it is not permitted for something to be true and false at the same time.

            Provide a formal proof, moron.

            >Your request "No and nothing else" was fulfilled.
            No, it was not. If he is still capable of lifting the crocodile, then it was not fulfilled.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Provide a formal proof, moron.
            As you wish.

            With the law of non-contradiction in place: A∧¬¬A≡A

            Where:
            A represents "God can wrestle the crocodile."
            ¬A represents "God cannot wrestle the crocodile."
            ¬¬A represents "God can (again) wrestle the crocodile."

            Without the law of non-contradiction in place: A∧¬¬A≡/≡A

            Where:
            A represents "God can wrestle the crocodile."
            ¬A represents "God cannot wrestle the crocodile."
            ¬¬A represents "It is not false that God can wrestle the crocodile." <------------ attention here, challenged Anons

            The lack of equivalence reflects the possibility that, there might be cases where A and ¬A are both considered true, making A∧¬¬A not strictly equivalent to A. Which means your request for something to be "No" and not whatever else is a pointless request under the second set of conditions. You are correct under the first scenario. Not the second. And you have no way to bridge from the second to the first.

            >If he is still capable of lifting the crocodile, then it was not fulfilled.
            A = ability to lift
            ¬A = diasbility to lift
            You request ¬A. God gives you ¬A and A at the same time.
            So you get mad for the 20th time in this thread and request ¬A while requesting ¬(A∧¬A). God gives you ¬¬A. Which, omitting the law of non-contradiction, works as an answer even you your madder request.
            So you get even madder...... on and on and on. You never catch up. You never win.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >You request ¬A.
            No, moron. I request exclusively '¬A'. And not ' ¬A and A at the same time'. And I pointed this out a million times already.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            That is what "¬A while requesting ¬(A∧¬A)" expresses in formal logic. You didn't even finish my post and already had a meltdown over something I addressed.
            Why ask for formal logic if you can't read it?

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            It does not express the same thing because if you can still lift the crocodile, then you have not met my request.

            I want your god to subject himself to the excluded third and create a crocodile he can't lift. And if he can't do that, he's not omnipotent.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            I don't know how I can put it any simpler but
            > I request exclusively '¬A'. And not ' ¬A and A at the same time'.
            is literally formalized as
            >"¬A while requesting ¬(A∧¬A)"
            And I addressed that exact scenario.

            Again, why did you ask for something you so obviously cannot read? You might have had a fighting chance to copypaste your way through this debate, but the formal proof is here:

            >Provide a formal proof, moron.
            As you wish.

            With the law of non-contradiction in place: A∧¬¬A≡A

            Where:
            A represents "God can wrestle the crocodile."
            ¬A represents "God cannot wrestle the crocodile."
            ¬¬A represents "God can (again) wrestle the crocodile."

            Without the law of non-contradiction in place: A∧¬¬A≡/≡A

            Where:
            A represents "God can wrestle the crocodile."
            ¬A represents "God cannot wrestle the crocodile."
            ¬¬A represents "It is not false that God can wrestle the crocodile." <------------ attention here, challenged Anons

            The lack of equivalence reflects the possibility that, there might be cases where A and ¬A are both considered true, making A∧¬¬A not strictly equivalent to A. Which means your request for something to be "No" and not whatever else is a pointless request under the second set of conditions. You are correct under the first scenario. Not the second. And you have no way to bridge from the second to the first.

            >If he is still capable of lifting the crocodile, then it was not fulfilled.
            A = ability to lift
            ¬A = diasbility to lift
            You request ¬A. God gives you ¬A and A at the same time.
            So you get mad for the 20th time in this thread and request ¬A while requesting ¬(A∧¬A). God gives you ¬¬A. Which, omitting the law of non-contradiction, works as an answer even you your madder request.
            So you get even madder...... on and on and on. You never catch up. You never win.

            . And it formalizes your exact objection and defeats it.

            You have lost, Anon.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            What you don't understand is that none of that is relevant if the outcome is that your god can still lift the crocodile after creating it.

            >"¬A while requesting ¬(A∧¬A)"
            I didn't request "¬A while requesting ¬(A∧¬A)", I requested the excluded third.

            >omitting the law of non-contradiction
            I don't know how often I told you that this is not legal within the scope of my request. I want your god to subject himself to the excluded third.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >I didn't request "¬A while requesting ¬(A∧¬A)"
            You did in

            >You request ¬A.
            No, moron. I request exclusively '¬A'. And not ' ¬A and A at the same time'. And I pointed this out a million times already.

            >>>> I request exclusively '¬A'. And not ' ¬A and A at the same time'.

            >this is not legal within the scope of my request
            "legal" lol ok, let's see:
            B = non-contradiction
            ¬B = suspension of law of non-contradiction
            You request "B ∧ ¬(B∧¬B). (I know you can't read this, just ask an adult to interpret this for you)
            You get ¬¬B because it at the same time affirms you "legal" criteria and at the same time avoids them.

            I am starting to think that this is a genuine IQ issue. At this point you should have at least started catching onto the fact that what you're asking can be formalized and that it is formalized in particular ways. You haven't. You just keep repeating things that I have addressed many times, formally and informally, insisting that law of non-contradiction must apply without contradcition.
            I am sorry, Anon. Maybe you can have a 15 minute session with chat GPT and have it explain these symbols to you, I actually genuinely recommend that you do that. Because you're completely lost. All that you say was addressed and disproved.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >suspension of law of non-contradiction
            Are you moronic? This is something I explicitly prohibited. You are merely reproducing logical fallacies.

            I requested for an expression to evaluate to anything but True or False to be invalid, i.e. reasoning in conventional logic that abides by the law of the excluded third.

            If at the end of your chain of reasoning god is still capable of lifting the crocodile, the request has not been met.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >This is something I explicitly prohibited.
            And it was done according to your prohibition.
            >logical fallacies
            That should be so easy to show on literal formalized logic! Like it should have been easy to show that my claims are a heresy! You failed to produce either though so I'm not holding my breath.

            >I requested for an expression to evaluate to anything but True or False to be invalid
            See .

            >Provide a formal proof, moron.
            As you wish.

            With the law of non-contradiction in place: A∧¬¬A≡A

            Where:
            A represents "God can wrestle the crocodile."
            ¬A represents "God cannot wrestle the crocodile."
            ¬¬A represents "God can (again) wrestle the crocodile."

            Without the law of non-contradiction in place: A∧¬¬A≡/≡A

            Where:
            A represents "God can wrestle the crocodile."
            ¬A represents "God cannot wrestle the crocodile."
            ¬¬A represents "It is not false that God can wrestle the crocodile." <------------ attention here, challenged Anons

            The lack of equivalence reflects the possibility that, there might be cases where A and ¬A are both considered true, making A∧¬¬A not strictly equivalent to A. Which means your request for something to be "No" and not whatever else is a pointless request under the second set of conditions. You are correct under the first scenario. Not the second. And you have no way to bridge from the second to the first.

            >If he is still capable of lifting the crocodile, then it was not fulfilled.
            A = ability to lift
            ¬A = diasbility to lift
            You request ¬A. God gives you ¬A and A at the same time.
            So you get mad for the 20th time in this thread and request ¬A while requesting ¬(A∧¬A). God gives you ¬¬A. Which, omitting the law of non-contradiction, works as an answer even you your madder request.
            So you get even madder...... on and on and on. You never catch up. You never win.

            and

            >I didn't request "¬A while requesting ¬(A∧¬A)"
            You did in [...]
            >>>> I request exclusively '¬A'. And not ' ¬A and A at the same time'.

            >this is not legal within the scope of my request
            "legal" lol ok, let's see:
            B = non-contradiction
            ¬B = suspension of law of non-contradiction
            You request "B ∧ ¬(B∧¬B). (I know you can't read this, just ask an adult to interpret this for you)
            You get ¬¬B because it at the same time affirms you "legal" criteria and at the same time avoids them.

            I am starting to think that this is a genuine IQ issue. At this point you should have at least started catching onto the fact that what you're asking can be formalized and that it is formalized in particular ways. You haven't. You just keep repeating things that I have addressed many times, formally and informally, insisting that law of non-contradiction must apply without contradcition.
            I am sorry, Anon. Maybe you can have a 15 minute session with chat GPT and have it explain these symbols to you, I actually genuinely recommend that you do that. Because you're completely lost. All that you say was addressed and disproved.

            . It formally addresses that scenario.

            >If at the end of your chain of reasoning god is still capable of lifting the crocodile, the request has not been met.
            False. See formalized proof.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            I can only emphasise, regarding

            >Provide a formal proof, moron.
            As you wish.

            With the law of non-contradiction in place: A∧¬¬A≡A

            Where:
            A represents "God can wrestle the crocodile."
            ¬A represents "God cannot wrestle the crocodile."
            ¬¬A represents "God can (again) wrestle the crocodile."

            Without the law of non-contradiction in place: A∧¬¬A≡/≡A

            Where:
            A represents "God can wrestle the crocodile."
            ¬A represents "God cannot wrestle the crocodile."
            ¬¬A represents "It is not false that God can wrestle the crocodile." <------------ attention here, challenged Anons

            The lack of equivalence reflects the possibility that, there might be cases where A and ¬A are both considered true, making A∧¬¬A not strictly equivalent to A. Which means your request for something to be "No" and not whatever else is a pointless request under the second set of conditions. You are correct under the first scenario. Not the second. And you have no way to bridge from the second to the first.

            >If he is still capable of lifting the crocodile, then it was not fulfilled.
            A = ability to lift
            ¬A = diasbility to lift
            You request ¬A. God gives you ¬A and A at the same time.
            So you get mad for the 20th time in this thread and request ¬A while requesting ¬(A∧¬A). God gives you ¬¬A. Which, omitting the law of non-contradiction, works as an answer even you your madder request.
            So you get even madder...... on and on and on. You never catch up. You never win.

            :

            >A = ability to lift
            >¬A = diasbility to lift
            >You request ¬A. God gives you ¬A and A at the same time.

            This is a parlour trick because if A, then god can still lift the crocodile, even if he can't lift it at the same time. It does not meet my request.

            >So you get mad for the 20th time in this thread and request ¬A while requesting ¬(A∧¬A). God gives you ¬¬A. Which, omitting the law of non-contradiction, works as an answer even you your madder request.

            >omitting the law of non-contradiction
            Which I did not permit.

            So what exactly did you prove? You've only put in formal logic which I already dismissed earlier in language.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >(¬A∧A) does not meet my request (A)
            Outright false. Learn formal logic.

            >Which I did not permit.
            See

            >I didn't request "¬A while requesting ¬(A∧¬A)"
            You did in [...]
            >>>> I request exclusively '¬A'. And not ' ¬A and A at the same time'.

            >this is not legal within the scope of my request
            "legal" lol ok, let's see:
            B = non-contradiction
            ¬B = suspension of law of non-contradiction
            You request "B ∧ ¬(B∧¬B). (I know you can't read this, just ask an adult to interpret this for you)
            You get ¬¬B because it at the same time affirms you "legal" criteria and at the same time avoids them.

            I am starting to think that this is a genuine IQ issue. At this point you should have at least started catching onto the fact that what you're asking can be formalized and that it is formalized in particular ways. You haven't. You just keep repeating things that I have addressed many times, formally and informally, insisting that law of non-contradiction must apply without contradcition.
            I am sorry, Anon. Maybe you can have a 15 minute session with chat GPT and have it explain these symbols to you, I actually genuinely recommend that you do that. Because you're completely lost. All that you say was addressed and disproved.

            Your permission is abided.

            I proved you have no idea what you're talking about. You can dismiss logic as many times as you want, it will still be apparent.

            I don't think that Anon thinks he's dealing with a paradox. He actually means it. I would argue that only a god bound by logic, i.e. excluding the ability to create four-sided triangles, is sensible.

            Correct, he does not believe in it being a paradox. And he's trying to avoid it by all means possible, such as denying formal logic and positing law of non-contradiction as somehow co-eternal with God to the point where God is placed under this law by default and not by mere request as in

            >I didn't request "¬A while requesting ¬(A∧¬A)"
            You did in [...]
            >>>> I request exclusively '¬A'. And not ' ¬A and A at the same time'.

            >this is not legal within the scope of my request
            "legal" lol ok, let's see:
            B = non-contradiction
            ¬B = suspension of law of non-contradiction
            You request "B ∧ ¬(B∧¬B). (I know you can't read this, just ask an adult to interpret this for you)
            You get ¬¬B because it at the same time affirms you "legal" criteria and at the same time avoids them.

            I am starting to think that this is a genuine IQ issue. At this point you should have at least started catching onto the fact that what you're asking can be formalized and that it is formalized in particular ways. You haven't. You just keep repeating things that I have addressed many times, formally and informally, insisting that law of non-contradiction must apply without contradcition.
            I am sorry, Anon. Maybe you can have a 15 minute session with chat GPT and have it explain these symbols to you, I actually genuinely recommend that you do that. Because you're completely lost. All that you say was addressed and disproved.

            >I would argue that only a god bound by logic, i.e. excluding the ability to create four-sided triangles, is sensible.
            That is true. But you have chosen between "sensible" and "omnipotent". I don't see that God is bound by anything, least of all some kind of human-intelligible sensibility. What I do see is a species that keeps updating its understanding of logic every other century. Going for "logical" over "paradoxically omnipotent" just seems like a bad bet all across the board.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >(¬A∧A) does not meet my request (A)
            >Outright false. Learn formal logic.

            Yes, outright False. What do you think (¬A∧A) evaluates to in formal logic? It is a contradictory statement.

            >Your permission is abided.
            Not at all, it's the same parlour trick.

            >That is true. But you have chosen between "sensible" and "omnipotent".
            It all depends on how you define omnipotence. You can perfectly define a kind of omnipotence that is bound by conventional logic by simply excluding the things that are illogical requests, i.e. god cannot create four sided triangles because such a thing is not a sensible request, with the problem being here not insufficiency of god but insufficiency of you for demanding such a thing.

            >Going for "logical" over "paradoxically omnipotent" just seems like a bad bet all across the board.
            I completely disagree. Logical omnipotence makes sense. Paradoxical omnipotence leaves you explaining for over an hour to me why god being able to lift a crocodile and not lift a crocodile at the same time is actually the same as him not being able to lift a crocodile.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >(¬A∧A) does not meet my request (A)
            >Outright false. Learn formal logic.

            Yes, outright False. What do you think (¬A∧A) evaluates to in formal logic? It is a contradictory statement.

            >Your permission is abided.
            Not at all, it's the same parlour trick.

            >That is true. But you have chosen between "sensible" and "omnipotent".
            It all depends on how you define omnipotence. You can perfectly define a kind of omnipotence that is bound by conventional logic by simply excluding the things that are illogical requests, i.e. god cannot create four sided triangles because such a thing is not a sensible request, with the problem being here not insufficiency of god but insufficiency of you for demanding such a thing.

            >Going for "logical" over "paradoxically omnipotent" just seems like a bad bet all across the board.
            I completely disagree. Logical omnipotence makes sense. Paradoxical omnipotence leaves you explaining for over an hour to me why god being able to lift a crocodile and not lift a crocodile at the same time is actually the same as him not being able to lift a crocodile.

            In any case, it's getting a little late over here. So if you can come up with more convincing arguments why having a "paradoxically" omnipotent god is a good idea, don't expect an answer until tomorrow.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Omnipotence is a paradox. and

            >I didn't request "¬A while requesting ¬(A∧¬A)"
            You did in [...]
            >>>> I request exclusively '¬A'. And not ' ¬A and A at the same time'.

            >this is not legal within the scope of my request
            "legal" lol ok, let's see:
            B = non-contradiction
            ¬B = suspension of law of non-contradiction
            You request "B ∧ ¬(B∧¬B). (I know you can't read this, just ask an adult to interpret this for you)
            You get ¬¬B because it at the same time affirms you "legal" criteria and at the same time avoids them.

            I am starting to think that this is a genuine IQ issue. At this point you should have at least started catching onto the fact that what you're asking can be formalized and that it is formalized in particular ways. You haven't. You just keep repeating things that I have addressed many times, formally and informally, insisting that law of non-contradiction must apply without contradcition.
            I am sorry, Anon. Maybe you can have a 15 minute session with chat GPT and have it explain these symbols to you, I actually genuinely recommend that you do that. Because you're completely lost. All that you say was addressed and disproved.

            are the only viable answers. "All-powerful means some-things-powerful" is probably not the way, Anons.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            I don't think that Anon thinks he's dealing with a paradox. He actually means it. I would argue that only a god bound by logic, i.e. excluding the ability to create four-sided triangles, is sensible.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            It's not a paradox. OP is simply asking illogical question.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            I don't think the question is that illogical. An omnipotent god can create a crocodile he can't wrestle and thereby restrict his own omnipotence. It only gets problematic if you allow for got to not be subject to conventional formal logic, like

            >I didn't request "¬A while requesting ¬(A∧¬A)"
            You did in [...]
            >>>> I request exclusively '¬A'. And not ' ¬A and A at the same time'.

            >this is not legal within the scope of my request
            "legal" lol ok, let's see:
            B = non-contradiction
            ¬B = suspension of law of non-contradiction
            You request "B ∧ ¬(B∧¬B). (I know you can't read this, just ask an adult to interpret this for you)
            You get ¬¬B because it at the same time affirms you "legal" criteria and at the same time avoids them.

            I am starting to think that this is a genuine IQ issue. At this point you should have at least started catching onto the fact that what you're asking can be formalized and that it is formalized in particular ways. You haven't. You just keep repeating things that I have addressed many times, formally and informally, insisting that law of non-contradiction must apply without contradcition.
            I am sorry, Anon. Maybe you can have a 15 minute session with chat GPT and have it explain these symbols to you, I actually genuinely recommend that you do that. Because you're completely lost. All that you say was addressed and disproved.

            does, not subjecting him to the tertium non datur, which relies in all sorts of weird outcomes - and in my opinion a contradiction to omnipotence itself, since I don't believe a state where God is both capable of lifting and not-lifting a crocodile counts as not being able to lift it.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >got to not be subject
            *god

            >relies
            *results

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >An omnipotent god can create a crocodile he can't wrestle and thereby restrict his own omnipotence
            No he can't. Lol. You are breaking the fundamental law of identity.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >No he can't. Lol. You are breaking the fundamental law of identity.
            I don't see how. If you're an omnipotent being you should be able to limit your own omnipotence.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >If you're an omnipotent being you should be able to limit your own omnipotence.
            No, if you're omnipotent, you should NOT be able to limit your own omnipotence.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            But then you're not omnipotent.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            'then' you are not omnipotent, after having restricted your own omnipotence. But you 'are' omnipotent up to that moment.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Then he will answer a "No" and "Yes and No" both.
            Pro-tip: "No" and "Yes and No" is equivalent to "Yes and No" and I specifically excluded that.

            Who do you think you're bullshitting?

            >Then he wil answer "No" and nothing else but at the same time something else.
            But then he has failed to meet my request.

            >This is not basic logic. This is its absence. Which is what keeps confusing you over and over and over.
            It's not confusing to me at all. I request your bonkers god that can do anything (even nonsense like creating four-sided triangles) to subject himself to logic, and he seems unable to do so, contradicting his own omnipotence.

            So maybe it's more sensible to consider a God bound by logic after all?

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            You did not address this point at all. You keep pretending that your god, after supposedly fulfilling my request of creating a crododile he can't lift, proceeding to lift it effortlessly somehow fulfilled my request, but that is not the case at all.

            I specifically request the state for him to be in to exclude the third, I request the answer to the question: "Can he lift that crocodile?" To be "No" and not "Yes and No". And if he cannot put himself in such state, then his is not omnipotent.

            And you have nothing to the contrary. You got told on the internet like a homosexual and it's apparent that you don't understand basic logic.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >it's apparent that you don't understand basic logic.
            Omnipotence =/= lack of omnipotence
            You're the one failing at basic logic here.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            If your unlimited kind of omnipotence, not even bound by logic, is incapable of limiting itself, then it is not omnipotence.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Anon, do you even know what the word "omnipotent means". I'm not trying to be rude, I just want to know if you have a legitimate disability.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Do you?

            Being able to end your own omnipotence does not contradict your omnipotence - it confirms it. Not being able to end your own omnipotence, i.e. still being able to lift the crocodile you deliberately created to not be able to lift it, does contradict your omnipotence.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            If you have a limit, you are not omnipotent.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Keep the temporal notion in mind. You are saying 'have' a limit. But that limit does not yet exist, it only has a potential of existing which only you are capable of imposing upon yourself.

            The fact that you are capable of creating a crocodile you can't lift, and 'actually can't lift' (opposed to what this moron

            >Provide a formal proof, moron.
            As you wish.

            With the law of non-contradiction in place: A∧¬¬A≡A

            Where:
            A represents "God can wrestle the crocodile."
            ¬A represents "God cannot wrestle the crocodile."
            ¬¬A represents "God can (again) wrestle the crocodile."

            Without the law of non-contradiction in place: A∧¬¬A≡/≡A

            Where:
            A represents "God can wrestle the crocodile."
            ¬A represents "God cannot wrestle the crocodile."
            ¬¬A represents "It is not false that God can wrestle the crocodile." <------------ attention here, challenged Anons

            The lack of equivalence reflects the possibility that, there might be cases where A and ¬A are both considered true, making A∧¬¬A not strictly equivalent to A. Which means your request for something to be "No" and not whatever else is a pointless request under the second set of conditions. You are correct under the first scenario. Not the second. And you have no way to bridge from the second to the first.

            >If he is still capable of lifting the crocodile, then it was not fulfilled.
            A = ability to lift
            ¬A = diasbility to lift
            You request ¬A. God gives you ¬A and A at the same time.
            So you get mad for the 20th time in this thread and request ¬A while requesting ¬(A∧¬A). God gives you ¬¬A. Which, omitting the law of non-contradiction, works as an answer even you your madder request.
            So you get even madder...... on and on and on. You never catch up. You never win.

            proposes), does not contradict your omnipotence but it confirms it, since you are capable of limiting yourself in your omnipotence if you choose to.

            If you could not create such crocodile, you would not be omnipotent.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            If you have a limit, you are not omnipotent. You can't be something and not be something at the same time. Nothing that you said changes that fact.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >If you have a limit
            But that's the point: you don't 'have' a limit. You are only capable of creating it, if you wish. Given the non-existence of the limit, you are omnipotent.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            So if God chooses to not lift the crocodile by limiting himself, that proves his omnipotence?

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            If he creates a crocodile he can not lift he is no longer omnipotent, since there is something he can't do - regardless of whether he actually makes the attempt or not. But due to the fact that this crocodile does not 'yet' exist and he'd have to create it first, his omnipotence is not contradicted by the thought experiment.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >But due to the fact that this crocodile does not 'yet' exist and he'd have to create it first, his omnipotence is not contradicted by the thought experiment.
            How do you know it does not 'yet' exist? Have you witnessed God lifting every crocodile? Suppose God created a crocodile which he could lift, but refused to do so? Would ylu say that he "failed" to lift the crocodile, even thpugh he had the ability to lift it?

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            We're dealing with a thought experiment under the assumption of an omnipotent god, we're not trying to 'prove' God's omnipotence.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            And we 'prove' it by limiting things from 'omni'. Putting limits to the one attribute that expresses limitlessness.

            Maybe not lol.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Hkw do you know in the context of the thought experiment then? Wouldn't you have to be omniscient to "know" God couldn't lift the crocodile? Wouldn't you also have to be omniscient to "know" that God didn't already lift the crocodile? Within the thought experiment, mind you.

  2. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    If god real why low quality threads happen?

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      what is goon?

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        Masturbation

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        Masturbatory edging for extended periods of time

  3. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    >tries to limit God with logic

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      Saying God isn't limited by logic is a logical statement

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        Logical as in that it could be transcribed into formal logic? Sure.
        Logical as in that it follows the rules of logic? Not so much, I would say.

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          not really that logical

  4. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    Could God make a smart atheist?

  5. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    God is omnipotent. Since the question is about "could", this statement is relevant (if quibble-y): God can do all things that are intrinsically possible to one of his nature.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      >God can do all things that are intrinsically possible to one of his nature.
      Yes, but obviously this excludes nonsense-requests like make a four-sided triangle, like this moron (

      >I am requesting to impose a law on himself as a thought experiment
      And he would and wouldn't at the same time. In your next reply you will shift goalposts of the request to eliminate the "wouldn't". And then God would eliminate and not eliminate it at the same time. You never win.

      >The Church fathers generally tried to reconcile belief with the Greek philosophical traditions.
      100% certifiably false, Anon. If there is one pattern shared among the Fathers, it is the REJECTION of Greek philosophy in theology. They used Greek linguistics and answered the Greek metaphysical questions when they were so inclined but there is absolutely no way to claim that they somehow tried to "reconcile" Greek thought with theology.
      I was expecting you to somehow pivot into scholasticism, where they did actually think God is limited by (what scholastics viewed as) logic, but this bit you wrote is completely misled.

      ) proposes.

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        That is a correct and worthy representation of the reality of the matter, I think.

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        >God can only do so much, man, as long as it makes sense to me
        Source? You have been lagging behind this whole discussion, I'm not sure it's appropriate for you specifically to call anyone else a moron hahaha

  6. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    I'm the biblical sense omnipotent means having all the power there is to have. Just like omniscient means knowing all there is to know. It does not have to include incoherency to be valid. Like God doesn't know of a way to create a more perfect being than himself, but that doesn't mean he isn't all knowing.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *