Quote from Fr0zEnPh0eNiX

Nice if/then statement there.

If god is outside of logic then all arguments for or against god's existence don't apply.

Indeed, if god exists and is outsede logic then we can't use logic to prove or disprove him, but this also means that since there is no logical reason to believe that he exists, you admit that God is nothing more than speculation and has exactly the same amount of validity as an infinite number of other claims. The position that a god outside of logic exists is one of nothing more than faith and faith has no place in the debate section.

It isn't possible to logically disprove anything anyway because before you know it whatever you thought was an impossibility could pop into existence. Lots of things that seemed like they should have been an impossibility at one point came back and suddenly weren't so impossible anymore.

If you had gone back in time and told people that we'd be flying around in tons of metal they would have thought you were insane.

The laws of logic don't change, Pheonix, our ability to apply them does. Making a flying machine was never logically impossible.

The point is the idea of an omnipotent being is in fact beyond comprehension because there are limits to what we are able to comprehend or imagine. If there was an omnipotent being it would undoubtedly go beyond those limits and do things we cannot imagine.

Logically, why would an omnipotent being have to follow rules that we assume exist?

edit: One last thing...

What we are trying to do is futile, we're trying to drag something into the realm of logic that doesn't belong.

Only because you assert it to be outside the realm of logic. A god outside of logic is outside of logic, but a god inside of logic is inside of logic, and such a god DOES have a place in the realm of logic.

Quote from Ash

The answer is either yes or no. If logic does not apply to god, then he can make a square circle. If logic does apply to god then he cannot.

Logic does not apply to God

God does not apply to logic

they are irrelevant

What is irrelevant to what?


Nodd, just leave if you are incapable of being borderline coherent.

He obviously meant irrelevant to each other.

How can something be irrelevant when the matter is focused on that?

What, Wtf? I think he's saying when talking about god logic is irrelevant and when talking about logic god is irrelevant.

If one's definition of god is outside of logic, then logic does not apply to the proposition of such a god, and therefore the idea that this god exists is nothing more than a faith-based position, and the person beleiving this god exists must also believe an infinite number of other claims of they have a double standard. This also means that they have no place in the debate section or expecting others to accept or respect their belief.

If logic doesn't apply to one thing, then that thing is illogical, and therefore not welcome in the human mind.

Ash, I think I'm having trouble with you trying to convince me that the logical proof that there is no god is that a belief in god exists outside of the realm of logic.

How can that make sense logically? It's impossible to argue that a lack of logic-use proves anything at all, since proof and evidence in this situation is all based on logic.

I'm now officially baffled.

oh for ****'s sake

They're not saying it's outside of logic, they're saying that our definitions of what is logical and illogical are archaic and irrelevent when considering the infinitely more complex idea of God and absolute omnipotence. It's completely stupid to say a God exists under our laws of logic when we have no capability to comprehend God in the first place.

I heard an analogy once that somewhat applies to this. Consider a camera lens, and a human eye. The human eye is almost infinitely more complex than a camera lens in its function and capabilities. Now consider a human to God, and the complexities between them are even more vast.

Trying to apply man-made logic to a being that's been established as so far out of our comprehension is asinine. I know it probably just sounds like a cop-out to you, but it just doesn't work.

If you want to try to apply logic to it, think of it this way. God can create an object that, at the time of its creation, he is incapable of lifting, if that's his will. If at any other point it's his will to lift it, he will also be able to do that. None of that argument disproves the concept of omnipotence, because if it's his acting will to not be able to lift the rock, and that's what comes of the situation, his omnipotence isn't affected.

Still, thinking about it like that "logically" is still a dumb idea.

I get what Ash is saying, and it makes sense.

The only way that argument really works though is if you believe that god is within the realm of logic, or what you are willing to accept as logical. I don't know why anyone would though.

*FIX*

And that's why the world 'Belief' was invented.
To overpass logic.

I prefer the Jesus-Burrito paradox.

Exilement and FrozenPhoenix said what I was trying to say. Thank you for that.

I don't actually believe in God, I'm just arguing on behalf of those who believe in him.

Ash, you're a hypocrite.