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 fact that the question is illogical doesn't mean that at some point it won't be. Or in other words it may only be illogical because of our inability to comprehend it... so it could be a failing of logic.

This debate is going in circles =P

Was it the chicken or the egg?

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.

Couldn't one argue that being unable to answer an illogical question is the failing of the logic and comprehension of the person who is being asked?

Quote from Fr0zEnPh0eNiX

...

This debate is going in circles =P

Or just ended.

Quote from Fr0zEnPh0eNiX

Or in other words it may only be illogical because of our inability to comprehend it... so it could be a failing of logic.

That's my entire argument. There's no way to actually prove it, though, so it remains speculation.

Just the mere fact that someone is using logic to turn a situation into an illogical paradox should be enough anecdotal evidence to the fact that it's beyond our logical comprehension, but I really don't get why Ash doesn't understand that.

Quote from Myself

Couldn't one argue that being unable to answer an illogical question is the failing of the logic and comprehension of the person who is being asked?

Not untill they domeonstrate that it is a failing of logic.

Quote from Exilement

That's my entire argument. There's no way to actually prove it, though, so it remains speculation.

Just the mere fact that someone is using logic to turn a situation into an illogical paradox should be enough anecdotal evidence to the fact that it's beyond our logical comprehension, but I really don't get why Ash doesn't understand that.

The only way we can say that the flaw is in our ability to comprehend omnipotence rather than in the concept itself is if we are presupposing that omnipotence is a valid concept.

Logic can't be used as a excuse for everything, Ash.

We are flawless, we haven't uncovered almost nothing that is available to uncover, therefore making for us impossible to know what we consider pure logic or just a logical argument.

Quote from Ash

Not untill they domeonstrate that it is a failing of logic.

Well, logic is relative to the person, so that would be a hard thing to demonstrate.

Ash, what do you mean by "failing logic" exactly? Because it seems to me that an example of something which fails logic has already been given by several folks several times in this thread: omnipotence.

Quote from Ash

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.

This is what he's trying to say Exilement, it's the main point of the entire thread only laid out in a simplified format.

The only issue is that there are a few other things you could throw in that are plausible ideas that would have a similar effect.

Like if the universe is expanding, what is the universe is expanding into? Or the idea that the universe goes on forever. It's only when presented with ideas that our minds can't wrap around that we start to think of things as being illogical, but that isn't really the case.

But just because we don't understand it doesn't make it illogical, it's just a complicating variable we haven't figured out yet, and may never will.

Quote from Ash

The only way we can say that the flaw is in our ability to comprehend omnipotence rather than in the concept itself is if we are presupposing that omnipotence is a valid concept.

And the only way you can say there's a flaw in the concept of omnipotence is if you're presupposing that our current ideas of what logic is can accurately define such abstract, vast concepts.

Like FP said, going in circles here.

Quote from Exilement

And the only way you can say there's a flaw in the concept of omnipotence is if you're presupposing that our current ideas of what logic is can accurately define such abstract, vast concepts.

Like FP said, going in circles here.

And yet we have evidence that our ideas of logic are valid! The fact that when we apply them to the real world we can make accurate predictions about the world mean that the ideas of logic are likely valid.

Quote from Real

Ash, what do you mean by "failing logic" exactly? Because it seems to me that an example of something which fails logic has already been given by several folks several times in this thread: omnipotence.

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.

Quote from Ash

And yet we have evidence that our ideas of logic are valid! The fact that when we apply them to the real world we can make accurate predictions about the world mean that the ideas of logic are likely valid.

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

I've seen explosions like that on earth before.

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..

Quote from Ash

And yet we have evidence that our ideas of logic are valid! The fact that when we apply them to the real world we can make accurate predictions about the world mean that the ideas of logic are likely valid.

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