unlimited paradox: can an unlimited entity, limit itself?

if you answer that the entity can limit itself, then you are saying it's not truly unlimited. yet, if you answer that the entity can't limit itself, it's still not unlimited. it's a paradox.

if unlimited entities exist, how do you reconcile this paradox?

or, if you think about existence and the universe as we know it, we know it is all finite, so maybe that plus the paradox are indicators that unlimited things just don't exist?

I believe the answer has to be no.

isn't saying 'no' saying there is a limit on the unlimited and thus negating itself?

I believe it is not, instead it is a necessary limit to make the being real. All real things have limits.

This is actually why a truly omnipotent being with no limits is logically impossible.

At best you could possit a maximally powerful being.

They aren't unlimited, rather maximal. "Unlimited" requires an addition of illogical formulation, whereas maximal requires only the complete maximum of what is possible. Maximal in concept however does not depreciate the value of there existing a being that has maximal abilities vs an unlimited ability honestly.....which is what counts anyways. 

There exists no unlimited entity. The question is moot, irrelevant, insignificant, without merit, invalid, etc.

Macro-infinite non-occupied space outside of our finite occupied space Universe/God, is closet we can ever come to consideration of you scenario.

SPACE (>*<) i (>*<) SPACE

Can God create a rock so heavy that not even God could move it?

That's what this question sounds like.

God?Universe does not carry rocks, it contains rocks.

Your confusing medio-existent biologilcal entity with a macro-cosmic entity.

Humans are  bilateral and there is no evidence for macro-existent bilateral God/Universe.

I'm not making any claims rxcept that this question sounds like the one I just mentioned.

Yes, it is a ridiculous question.

Why is it a ridiculous question? It illustrates the omnipotence paradox giving us a good startingpoint for discussing it.

Omnipotence means behind all influence.

It literally means that if it is done, God did it.

Which makes sense because if something is done, it is reality, and God is The Ultimate Reality. There is no reality apart from The Ultimate Reality.

In otherwords, the omnipotence paradox, like most arguments intended to undermine God, has its roots in superstitions.

So you have a special personal definition of omniscience too? Ok lets hear it. When you say God did it you seem to imply an agency which reality does not seem to exhibit, at least I'm not sure how we could test reality for conciousness to the degree we cpuld claimed it did something rather than that something happened within its confines.

Personal? No, it's literally in the etymology of the world.

Omni. All

Potence. Effect

Omniscience 

Omni. All

Science. Knowledge 

It means God did everything and all things known are known by God.

Why is this hard to accept?

What do the quantum no deleting theorem and the quantum no cloning theorem mean when you have them both together?It means that nothing is hidden from God, and that God knows things as they truly are, not as abstractions of what they are.

 

You couldn't test reality for consciousness if you wanted to, because you wouldn't even know how to do a test. You don't know what you are testing, and you wouldn't know consciousness if it was right in front of you. What makes you any more conscious than the environment? A tree? How are you any more conscious when there is an entire universe of causality pressing down on you to make you do what you end up doing? 

God is The Supreme Being, that is, the highest and most pervasive existence. It Is What It Is. 

If you believe that reality is necessarily a being and necessarily knows things then seriously misunderstood your definition of what you refer to as God. If this God of yours is not a being then it doesn't know things unless you have a separate definition for know as well. There is evidence that things happen there is no reason to believe that all things that happen are guided by an intelligence. Reality doesn't require intelligence or awareness to exist.

Reality exists whether it is known or not remember.

Being means existence

If it exists it is a being.

What is intelligence? God doesn't learn, God, God does everything perfectly the way it is to be done.

I can keep telling you that you are superstitious and it stems in bad language, but are you really open to that? We'll see.

I am trying to understand but every time I think I do you tell me the definition as I understand it from you is incorrect. Now we are not referring to the same thing with the word being, so allow me to adjust if I can.

Please substitute the phrase (a being with agency) for the word (being) and if you still do not understand my question or it doesn't fit with definitions that are acceptable to you. Eventually perhaps I will find the magic terms that will allow us to communicate. I don't suppose you would be willing to adopt a few of my definitions for the purposes of our conversation?

No, because the atheist does not get to define what I believe. Does a surgeon receive advice from their patient on how to best go about performing surgery?

If I go by your definitions, it will only reinforce your superstitions, because all atheist arguments against God are contingent on bad language.

I willl happily use a dictionary to prove my case. But as you stated before to me, you don't respect the authority of the dictionary when it comes to the defining of terms.

I'd rather not be arbitrary about this. I want you to have a proper understanding of theology, and you should take this opportunity because it isn't common that you will encounter someone with as mucg comprehension of the subject as I. I am not trying to brag, but it is the truth, and most people who know what I do are not masochistic enough to try to educate people who openly profess a position a position that literally means "there is no truth". 

So I am offering my services here to demystify the mysterious and make lucid the obscure. Take advantage of it while you can.

Or not, we can just go back and forth dragging things on unnecessarily while we strive about the meanings of words and other vain and unfruitful pursuits.

I do not claim there is no truth but depending on your definition, which apparently I am still unclear on, I'm not sure I believe there is any Truth. That is I do not currently believe that the truth (capitalized or not) is a being with agency.

By the way how would different words that are possibly clearer to me change what you believe ?

I capitalize The Truth out of reverence, because it is a name of God.

I capitalize God because it is actually a different word than god.

Of course you believe in truth. Most atheists do. What they don't usually know is that atheism against God is the same as saying, "there is no truth".

That is one of the misunderstandings I am here to clear up. Atheism towards gods can be justified,  but atheism towards God is not a reasonable position.

Agency is "the capacity, condition, or state of acting or of exerting power".

Omnipotency means that all agency ultimately comes from God.

If anything is at all, it is by The Ultimate Reality. If it isn't,  then it isn't reality. If it doesn't come from God, it doesn't exist.

Okay how shall we differentiate between a being like me which has thoughts, emotions, and a mind and is both capable and willing to communicate and a being like a rock which would spear to lack all of these attributes? Becaus I have no reason to believe that reality isn't the second one and that is what I am trying to communicate. If you believe in any god(s) including but not limmited to god, God, and GOD which have thoughts emotions or a mind. Or put your way I believe that God is mindless in the same way that a rock appears to be.

You exist

A rock exists.

You are both beings.

It has nothing to do with faculties.

It really is that simple. Make sense?

Are you now claiming that there is no way to differentiate between a being with those faculties and a being without them?

I am not making a claim in either direction, I am saying that something that exists is a being.

So what does The Supreme Being mean?

Everything exists in The Supreme Being, or you aren't really looking at The Supreme Being. If you observe these things in the world, The Supreme Being owns it.

If something is known, it is known in The Supreme Being. 

Omnipotence

Omniscience 

Omnipresence 

All these things are intertwined, they are not qualities that exist by themselves, and they can only be fulfilled by The Supreme Being.

Can a rock own things?If so we will talk about your definition of what own means if not then do not believe that what you refer to as God can own anything.

God certainly can be said...

"to have power or mastery over"

...things

Can a rock have masterybover things? If it can we will talk about your definition of what mastery over means if not then I do not believe that what you refer to as God can have mastery over anything.

We are having trouble with definitions so I thought if I made a comparison it might help us understand one another. I do not have any master unless your definition is different than mine in which case we are still not having the same conversation.

I'm not sure what you mean by justify myself I have still not made any claims only said what I seem to observe. I am just trying to understand your claim but you are using definitions so vague that I cannot puzzle out whether you believe reality is sentient or not.