[perceptrons]

Originally Posted by GloriousMess

So it's essentially a body transplant?

No, it's essentially a person transplant unless I'm misunderstanding you.

[rawesome]

Originally Posted by ChaplainTappman

this thread delivered, unexpectedly.

Right? This is maybe my favorite thread in the history of AP.

[Dicebox]

Originally Posted by Nevuk

It's actually one of the main theological questions of christianity, pretty much everyone's view on it is a bit different.

There's a wikipedia article for this type of thing :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnipotence_paradox


Quoting wiki :


I personally thought that was kind of a lame sidestepping of it, but it was the fallback for a few hundred years of catholicism

Essentially its like asking God to make a square that is a circle. Categorically, a square and a circle cannot exist as the same thing because of their definitions of what constitutes a square and what constitutes a circle.

A burrito that is bound by physical limitations in regards to how much it can be heated up, cannot be heated up to a measure which exceeds physical limitations. God's inability to create such a burrito isn't evidence to His lack of power, but instead shows that the idea is incoherent to begin with.

[Nevuk]

Yep, pretty much. I prefer Wittgenstein's answer

Quote:

The philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein is often interpreted as arguing that language is not up to the task of describing the kind of power an omnipotent being would have.

Asimov's answer is also a fun one (as an atheist who has studied paradoxes this would be more the type of question I would fall back on) :

Quote:

Isaac Asimov, a confirmed atheist, answered a variation of this question: what happens when an irresistible force meets an immovable object? He points out that Albert Einstein demonstrated the equivalence of mass-energy. That is, according to relativity theory, mass is simply frozen energy, energy is simply liquid mass. In order to be either "immovable" or "irresistible", the entity must possess the majority of energy in the system. No system can have two majorities. A universe in which there exists such a thing as an irresistible force is, by definition, a universe which cannot also contain an immovable object. And a universe which contains an immovable object cannot, by definition, also contain an irresistible force. So the question is essentially meaningless: either the force is irresistible or the object is immovable, but not both. Asimov points out that this question is the logical fallacy of the pseudo-question. Just because we can string words together to form what looks like a coherent sentence doesn't mean the sentence really makes any sense.