Quote from Wtf

This is going:

There is god>There's no proof>Show logic argument to support idea>god exists>Show Proof>Show logic argument to support idea>There's no logical argument i could do>Show logic argument to support that idea

And so on..

It's our way of coming out of the closet.

Get involved or go away.

Quote from Exilement

Which of our ideas of logic apply to concepts that don't exist in our "real world", such as omnipotence?

God.
Infinite .

Quote from Exilement

Which of our ideas of logic apply to concepts that don't exist in our "real world", such as omnipotence?

Wait, omnipotence by definition doesn't exist in the real world?

Quote from Fr0zEnPh0eNiX

...like something blowing up and creating the universe?

I've seen explosions like that on earth before.

Evidence doesn't entail direct observation, Pheonix. You should read a book on scientific or philisophical empiricism, it'll do you some good.

In our plane of existence, there isn't anything that exists that's omnipotent, so there's been no reason to try to logically explain it.

For the last time, I'm not saying our current ideas of what's logical and illogical are incorrect. I'm just saying that, since the beginning of time, our perception of logic has constantly been changing. I'm acknowledging the possibility that we currently don't have the means to logically explain a phenomenon such as omnipotence, as an alternative to our logic being 100% correct, complete and universal and thereby disproving the concept of omnipotence with situational statements.

Or, any omnipotent being may possibly exist beyond our rules of what's logical and what isn't. As FP said, nobody said if an omnipotent being exists, it's within our realm of logic as we understand it.

Quote from Fr0zEnPh0eNiX

It's our way of coming out of the closet.

Get involved or go away.

I have been involved in the previews posts, but this thread is coming to a place where you either disagree there's no logic or you say that there is logic and show proof that what you said is true.

Quote from Ash

Why do you all keep assuming that omnipotence is an obviously valid concept that works when we apply logic to it? All of your arguments seem to be based on the assumption that omnipotence is a valid concept, and so if an argument is made to demontrate a flaw in the concept, the flaw is actually in our ability to exercise logic, not in omnipotence itself.

But you didn't answer my question. We can't give an example of "failing logic" to you if we don't know what it means to you.

Quote from Real

But you didn't answer my question. We can't give an example of "failing logic" to you if we don't know what it means to you.

Anything which directly contradicts a known law of logic is proof that that law of logic is incorrect, and requires adjusting or scrapping. Like I said before, an example of this is something contradicting the law of identity. The law of identity is "That which is, is what it is, and is not what it is not". If you give me an example of something that is what it is not, or is not what it is, then I will admit gladly that the law of identity is imperfect. That is what a failing of logic is.

So you started a debate that requires us to disprove innate ideas of logic with hard evidence in order for you to acknowledge the other argument?

I really don't know what you're looking for in this debate

Quote from Ash

Wait, omnipotence by definition doesn't exist in the real world?



Evidence doesn't entail direct observation, Pheonix. You should read a book on scientific or philisophical empiricism, it'll do you some good.

But moooooommmm!!!

There are a lot of books I should read. I'm currently working on Ghandis autobiography.

Exilement, isn't it obvious why he started this thread? He's secretly Schwarzwald from Big O.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HkqWj0eC6yA

Quote from Exilement

So you started a debate that requires us to disprove innate ideas of logic with hard evidence in order for you to acknowledge the other argument?

I really don't know what you're looking for in this debate

I'm trying to see if this argument indeed disproves the idea of a god to which our laws of logic applies. I have already said this, twice, I believe.

Quote from Ash

I'm trying to see if this argument indeed disproves the idea of a god to which our laws of logic applies. I have already said this, twice, I believe.

It doesn't.

It's a bad question, as you stated earlier >.>

Wait, I agreed that it was a bad question? Where?

Uh, yeah, it does.

The variable is "to which our logic applies", or more specifically "our logic". I've been arguing that our logic is insufficient to disprove the concept as a whole, and that your argument is based on what could currently be an incorrect idea of what's logical and what isn't.

But, I can't prove any of that, at least not with the kind of evidence that would convince you, which means your claim essentially can't be disproven.

Good show

The fact that you can't prove that isn't what makes my claim more valid, it's the fact that we have evidence that our logic is effective that makes my claim more valid. If we didn't have direct evidence that our model of logic is actually accurate, then my claim would need proof just as much as yours.

Quote from Ash

No, that's not proof. Being unable to answer an illogical question isn't a failing of logic, it's a failing of the question. The rsponsibility of logic here is to show that the question is illogical, and when we discuss an illogical question, by definition logic has succeeded in showing that it is an illogical question.


The question is only ridiculous is omnipotence itself is a flawed concept. If omnipotence was not flawed, then it could stand up against this question. This question demonstrates that an omnipotent being is logically impossible by showing that, being omnipotent, it can create anything that is not internally logically contradictory, and there is no internal logical contradiction to a rock being heavy, or, to avoid semantics, a bar of metal being difficult to bend. It's only when you introduce omnipotence into the equation that the problem arises, meaning that omnipotence is itself a flawed concept.


By providing an example of something which contradicts currently known logic.

I left the rest in not to take it out of context, but that right there basically tells me it's a bad question. After that it sort of gets redundant because you try to explain why it's a bad question, but there could be other reasons as well that don't support your point as to why it would be a bad question.

I'll tell you why it's a bad question, and it has nothing to do with god, it has to do with the idea of anything being infinite which is what creates the paradox.

It's a question that goes off the basis that the paradox is presenting is true. presents something as being possible that under earthly circumstances would never be possible, and asks whether or not it's possible, which the obvious choice is "no"... it's a loaded, and therefore shitty question.

Ultimately, and this will probably be my final argument... Whether or not god could create something so large he could not lift is irrelevant. It certainly doesn't disprove god's existence because whether there is a limit or not to what a god is capable of is irrelevant.

Even if holy texts say "god can do whatever he wants whenever no matter how illogical" doesn't necessarily make that the case. If you look at anything logically, there is almost always a limit. It's obvious that wherever that limit lies, if in fact it exists, it's so far out of our reality it's unfair for us to even speculate about.

See what I'm getting at?

So even if it proves that god isn't all powerful, so what? It has nothing to do with god's existence.

edit: and it doesn't really even prove that either. All it proves is that humans can come up with clever paradoxes to confuse people. =)