Wait, if god exists outside of logic then if we are to prove his existence it must be proved using illogical evidence.
GOD IS REAL BECAUSE A BOOK SAID SO
Oh wait.
Can god make a rock so big he can't lift it?
Started by: Ash | Replies: 264 | Views: 7,187
Jul 17, 2009 2:17 AM #461386
Jul 17, 2009 2:18 AM #461388
Quote from MyselfI prefer the Jesus-Burrito paradox
This is a place for high-level thinking, not half-assed simpsons references.
You don't do anything but post useless shit in the debate section, do it again and you're going to start getting infractions for it.
Jul 17, 2009 2:19 AM #461391
Yes. God existing has the same probabilities of Harry Potter(the book version) existing in real life
Jul 17, 2009 2:19 AM #461392
Quote from ExilementThis is a place for high-level thinking, not half-assed simpsons references.
You don't do anything but post useless shit in the debate section, do it again and you're going to start getting infractions for it.
Sigh. Fine.
Jul 17, 2009 2:21 AM #461393
Quote from WtfYes. God existing has the same probabilities of Harry Potter(the book version) existing in real life
Except Rowling isn't going around preaching her books are based on real accounts. Even if she did, come on, don't be an idiot.
Jul 17, 2009 2:22 AM #461394
Quote from Exilementoh 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.
It IS a cop-out, because when you say that a logical contradiction is not really a contradiction, you have to provide evidence of your claim. If you propose that something exists which contradicts logic, but doesn't really contradict logic because our logic is actually flawed, you must SHOW that our logic is flawed. This means providing an example of something which contradicts a known law of logic. For example, to show that the law of identity (what which is what it is is what it is and not what it is not) is flawed, you must give an example of something that is what it is not, or that is not what it is.
Jul 17, 2009 2:23 AM #461398
Why are you talking about the existence of god? We're talking about whether or not God has the power to manipulate something he created. Which is retarded to begin with. The topic of this debate cannot be argued either way without solid evidence, therefore it should be deleted.
Jul 17, 2009 2:23 AM #461399
Quote from ExilementExcept Rowling isn't going around preaching her books are based on real accounts. Even if she did, come on, don't be an idiot.
I'm just backing what Myself said.
Because after all it does make some sense.
The bible, the al coran, etc, are just books that have the same context in different words and languages, that happened to be very well advertised.
Jul 17, 2009 2:24 AM #461400
Quote from AshIt IS a cop-out, because when you say that a logical contradiction is not really a contradiction, you have to provide evidence of your claim. If you propose that something exists which contradicts logic, but doesn't really contradict logic because our logic is actually flawed, you must SHOW that our logic is flawed. This means providing an example of something which contradicts a known law of logic. For example, to show that the law of identity (what which is what it is is what it is and not what it is not) is flawed, you must give an example of something that is what it is not, or that is not what it is.
It's a one-sided argument.
Jul 17, 2009 2:25 AM #461401
Also we are stuck in the paradox of "Proof that god doesn't exist" VS "Proof that god exists"
Jul 17, 2009 2:27 AM #461403
Quote from NoddI don't actually believe in God, I'm just arguing on behalf of those who believe in him.
Ash, you're a hypocrite.
I see a pattern. You keep making assertations without backing them up. You should leave the debate section if you are incapable of debating. For example, you call me a hypocrite, but do not show where I have been hypocritical.
Jul 17, 2009 2:27 AM #461404
Ash, come on, logic cannot be used to prove that logic is flawed. That makes absolutely no sense.
Jul 17, 2009 2:28 AM #461405
Actually I could ask:
How can we prove that our logic is flawed if there's no proof of otherwise?
There's a mind twister.
How can we prove that our logic is flawed if there's no proof of otherwise?
There's a mind twister.
Jul 17, 2009 2:29 AM #461407
Quote from Wtf
The bible, the al coran, etc, are just books that have the same context in different words and languages, that happened to be very well advertised.
This is the truth. For all we know, the Harry Potter series could be fact and Rowling could be on the run from the ministry of magic.
Jul 17, 2009 2:32 AM #461413
Quote from NoddIt's a one-sided argument.
I haven't heard any good two sided arguments in a while.
Being able to show that our logic is flawed would put us above our current capabilities as humans.
The only way that I could possibly "prove" that our logic is wrong, is to say that an answer to that question that actual makes logical sense would be impossible because it's impossible to fathom such a being.
I think I have something better to present though, it's a quote I stole from someone you know well Ash.
"You aren't asking a very good question. It's like asking "What is the flavor of envy" or "Why does the sadness eat toenails". Just because a sentence is grammatically correct doesn't make it a valid question."
This seems to fit pretty well with such a question as this.