Does "the power to do whatever I want" imply omnipotence?

[Yasa]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 Clarity is a different issue. It's irrelevant to logical validity.

If it's not clear, it's invalid--or so goes your logic on the other thread.

[Kamehameha34]

Quote by: Yasa If it's not clear, it's invalid--or so goes your logic on the other thread.

Two completely different issues.

Your dictionary definition was inadmissable because it was ambiguous, and contradicted the purpose of having a definition in the first place. That doesn't mean that it wasn't logically valid - we just couldn't read it and use it as evidence.

My statement, however, was perfectly logical - and you could define the "gods" I was talking about in completion with the context.

[ZNFYRH]

What's up with the dictionary bickering?

Yasa,

As long as you keep letting Kamehameha reduce this to an issue of unique definitions you will never get anywhere.

Kamehameha,

If the only way you can see fit to argue a topic is to pick one of several dozen definitions and do nothing but reject all other points because they contradict your chosen definition, you are going to find yourself quickly ignored by many here.

This whole topic boils down to one thing...

If there is someone who can do more than you, then you are not omnipotent.

That's all there is to it.

To get all Rambo on the topic in a way that illustrates it easily...

You say you have the power to do whatever you want. What if that meant defending yourself against someone attacking you? You want to live, right?

But if the person attacking you kills you, then you clearly didn't have the power to do what you want, did you?

[Kamehameha34]

If there is someone who can do more than you, then you are not omnipotent.

You're completely clueless about the context of the discussion.

Yasa says that if you can do whatever you want, then you are omnipotent.

I say otherwise, because wants can be less than infinite.

..you are going to find yourself quickly ignored by many here.

I can think of several other, worse behaviors (despite the fact that you innacurately described my stance), that will get you both ignored and infracted. At least I shy away from those, eh?

[Yasa]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 Yasa says that if you can do whatever you want, then you are omnipotent. I say otherwise, because wants can be less than infinite.

We are both right. I'm done on this debate by now though.

[Kamehameha34]

No - you're wrong by saying I have to state a premise for something to be true.

[pikatore]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 No - you're wrong by saying I have to state a premise for something to be true.

You are spouting complete nonsense, I'm sorry to say. Please don't make things even more laughable. Just stop trying to dice your words.

[Osborn F Enready]

The "power to do what you want" without equal respect to your equals, is to imply omnipotence. The "power to do what you want" with equal respect to your equals is called inherant individual rights, and is the basis of justice in this nation. (U.S.)

[Kamehameha34]

Os, I have a feeling that you're discussing the colloquial meaning. This is from a purely logical standpoint - the concurrence with the popular term "whatever I want" is coincidental.

You are spouting complete nonsense, I'm sorry to say. Please don't make things even more laughable. Just stop trying to dice your words.

Being a belligerent fool doesn't refute arguments. Arguments refute arguments.

[pikatore]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 Being a belligerent fool doesn't refute arguments. Arguments refute arguments.

And nonsenses argument refute NOTHING.

These wild goose chases you call arguments don't get the intellecual ANYWHERE, they just serve to confuse and frustrate anyone involved.

[Kamehameha34]

Quote by: pikatore And nonsenses argument refute NOTHING. These wild goose chases you call arguments don't get the intellecual ANYWHERE, they just serve to confuse and frustrate anyone involved.

See above.



That's going to be my only response to you until you post something of substance. My advice to you: Since you obviously don't understand half of the arguments I present (evident from the fact that you always insist that my arguments "confuse" everyone - when all but you are giving articulate responses), don't try to beat the sense out of them with a hammer. Calling them nonsensical won't help you understand them.

[pikatore]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 That's going to be my only response to you until you post something of substance. My advice to you: Since you obviously don't understand half of the arguments I present (evident from the fact that you always insist that my arguments "confuse" everyone - when all but you are giving articulate responses), don't try to beat the sense out of them with a hammer. Calling them nonsensical won't help you understand them.

Don't insult my intellegence.

A 'want' is the desire for something, and is undefined, until given a value. Hence, if you have the power to do whatever you want, you have the power to achieve an event that hasn't been defined initally, and hence must be you are omnipotent, or have infinite power.

To work by your idiotic definition of 'omnipotent', for one to truly be omnipotent, one must want, and achieve every possible event, every possible occurence, which is itself possible and nonsensical.

Therefore, your definition of omnipotent would render the word unusable.

[Kamehameha34]

Quote by: Pikatore Don't insult my intellegence.

Quote by: Pikatore You are spouting complete nonsense, I'm sorry to say. Please don't make things even more laughable. Just stop trying to dice your words.

Quote by: Pikatore And nonsenses argument refute NOTHING. These wild goose chases you call arguments don't get the intellecual ANYWHERE, they just serve to confuse and frustrate anyone involved.

I'll let the above posts speak for themselves.

A 'want' is the desire for something, and is undefined, until given a value. Hence, if you have the power to do whatever you want, you have the power to achieve an event that hasn't been defined initally, and hence must be you are omnipotent, or have infinite power.

For some potential gods (out of the infinite amount of possible ones), their wants are less than their power. So, the statement "some gods can provide whatever they want" would be accurate.

To work by your idiotic definition of 'omnipotent', for one to truly be omnipotent, one must want, and achieve every possible event, every possible occurence, which is itself possible and nonsensical. Therefore, your definition of omnipotent would render the word unusable.

What do you think this thread is about?

I've never once operated on that definition for omnipotent. I'm arguing that some potential deities can provide whatever they want and still not be omnipotent.

[pikatore]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 For some potential gods (out of the infinite amount of possible ones), their wants are less than their power. So, the statement "some gods can provide whatever they want" would be accurate.

Just because thier wants don't match thier power, which would assumedly be infinite, that doesn't mean they aren't omnipotent. Being omnipotent means having the POTENTIAL to do whatever you want. It isn't DOING whatever you want. This is absurd.

What do you think this thread is about?

Quote by: Kamehameha34 I've never once operated on that definition for omnipotent. I'm arguing that some potential deities can provide whatever they want and still not be omnipotent.

... what the hell do you think omnipotent means? It means ALL POWERFUL. If can 'do whatever you want' (which means 'DO ANYTHING', where 'whatever you want' is an colloquialism that can roughly translate), you are omnipotent. For gods sake.

[Kamehameha34]

Just because thier wants don't match thier power, which would assumedly be infinite, that doesn't mean they aren't omnipotent. Being omnipotent means having the POTENTIAL to do whatever you want. It isn't DOING whatever you want. This is absurd.

Straw man. Nothing you just said has anything to do with the fact that a being that has the power to do what it wants isn't omnipotent.

..which means 'DO ANYTHING', where 'whatever you want' is an colloquialism that can roughly translate

No. It doesn't. I don't discuss logic with colloquialisms. I discuss logic with explicit wording and relevant definitions.

You saw me say that to Os not more than a few hours ago.

This was the only part of your post, and it was in parenthesis - And it was false.

[pikatore]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 Straw man. Nothing you just said has anything to do with the fact that a being that has the power to do what it wants isn't omnipotent.

.... Oh. My GOD. WHAT I SAID WAS TOTALLY RELEVANT. THAT SENTENCE DIRECTLY ADDRESSED YOUR CLAIM.

Terrible, terrible debating form. Try again.

Quote by: Kamehameha34 No. It doesn't. I don't discuss logic with colloquialisms. I discuss logic with explicit wording and relevant definitions.

Well, that's ironic, seeing how 'do whatever you want' is a colloquial phrase in itself.

That 'straw man' you incorrectly identified rebuts your argument. Take another look at it again.

[Kamehameha34]

.... Oh. My GOD. WHAT I SAID WAS TOTALLY RELEVANT. THAT SENTENCE DIRECTLY ADDRESSED YOUR CLAIM.

Compelling argument. Thanks for capitalizing it, I wouldn't have found your post if you didn't. Careful though, you might look like you're frustrated with your own argument if you do it too much

Well, that's ironic, seeing how 'do whatever you want' is a colloquial phrase in itself.

It's a phrase made out of what?
Words.
Do words have definitions?
Yes.

I told you that the colloquial meaning is irrelevant. Pointing out, again, that it has one is moronic.

That 'straw man' you incorrectly identified rebuts your argument. Take another look at it again.

So I take it you have nothing else to offer?

I suggest you leave, then. Or stay, and keep directing me to the posts I've refuted with an increasing amount of capital letters.

Your next response will dictate if I read any more of your responses on this thread.

[pikatore]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 Compelling argument. Thanks for capitalizing it, I wouldn't have found your post if you didn't. Careful though, you might look like you're frustrated with your own argument if you do it too much

I'm not frustrated with my argument, I'm frustrated with your incompetence. Please don't be mistaken.

Quote by: Kamehameha34 It's a phrase made out of what? Words. Do words have definitions? Yes. I told you that the colloquial meaning is irrelevant. Pointing out, again, that it has one is moronic.

Moronic, eh?

So you want to dissect the living crap out of the phrase 'whatever you want'?! Even reasonable logic has it's boundries. But whatever, we'll try to play your little game.

I looked at dictionary.com, and got definitions of the words 'do', 'whatever', and 'want', and will show you the definitions that would be relavant to thier context in the sentence, and present them in thier literal meaning (which would be idiotic beyond belief).

Do - to perform (an act, duty, role, etc.): Do nothing until you hear the bell.

Whatever - anything that (usually used in relative clauses): Whatever you say is all right with me.

Want - to feel a need or a desire for; wish for: to want one's dinner; always wanting something new.

Hence, to take the phrase apart, it would mean:

Do/Perform the act of
anything that
you
feel a desire for.

That desire is not defined, and hence, there is no limitation on WHAT the desire is. It is assumed the desire can be ANYTHING, or with human anyway, whatever our bodies are capable of doing, plus any cultural/social restraints on our behaviour.

As you can see, it is STUPID to take that definition.

The definition of the phrase used in the title of the thread, in the CONTEXT of the topic, would be

HAVE THE POTENTIAL TO
Do/Perform the act of
anything that
you
feel a desire for.

Which makes a hell of a lot of sense, and would be a more logical assumption to make.

This whole argument boils down to a pointless and idiotic definition debate, one where you have pulled out some alternate definition to hurl at all your opponents. It's horrible debating form.

Quote by: Kamehameha34 So I take it you have nothing else to offer? I suggest you leave, then. Or stay, and keep directing me to the posts I've refuted with an increasing amount of capital letters. Your next response will dictate if I read any more of your responses on this thread.

Oh, it looks like I'm the only one who has bothered to address your nutty argument in the first place. So it looks like snubbing my words will kill the thread altogether, since it looks like a couple of people have been put off by your discourse. No doubt, you'll claim another victory.

[Kamehameha34]

I'm not frustrated with my argument, I'm frustrated with your incompetence. Please don't be mistaken.

Oh, you mean there was an argument between those insubstantial caps?

So you want to dissect the living crap out of the phrase 'whatever you want'?! Even reasonable logic has it's boundries. But whatever, we'll try to play your little game.

Using words correctly does not "dissent the living crap out of" them. You came in ignorant of how I was using the phrase and I explained it to you.

That desire is not defined..

Oh, but it is. It's defined by the gods I'm referring to when I say "some".

Their wants are less than or equal to their power. Therefore, they can do whatever they want without omnipotence.

How many times will I have to explain this?

[pikatore]

[quote=Kamehameha34;373670]Oh, you mean there was an argument between those insubstantial caps?

... insubstantial?!

...?!

Quote by: Kamehameha34 Using words correctly does not "dissent the living crap out of" them. You came in ignorant of how I was using the phrase and I explained it to you.

I knew the whole time HOW you were using the phrase. What confused me was WHY, seeing how the rest of the world would use it differently to you.

Quote by: Kamehameha34 Oh, but it is. It's defined by the gods I'm referring to when I say "some". Their wants are less than or equal to their power. Therefore, they can do whatever they want without omnipotence. How many times will I have to explain this?

You then take the insane step of inventing some deities that would have wants less than thier desires. That's ridiculous. Deities are abstract concepts, and they are SUPERNATURAL BEINGS. They can be ethereal, omnipresent, and don't have to be bound by the barriers of reality. You are unneededly applying natural things like a set CAPACITY of power (or even wants) to deities. It's pointless and absurd.

Which deities are we talking about here anyway?