Ii DOES have to do with a certain KIND of god's existance, that is, a god which is omnipotent and to which our model of logic applies.


Notice that if I ask this of any other being, it is a perfectly reasonable question. Can Suzy create a house so big she can't lift is? I expect so. Can Johnny smelt together a bar of steel that he can't bend? Indeed, in fact, that's an easy feat.

This means that the question is not internally logically contradictory. It is a valid question. If we define god as "A being which is can do anything within the bounds of logic", then it's perfectly fine, the question is still valid, and this god is not disproven. It's only when we introduce omnipotence into the equation that it falls apart. This means that the concept is the thing which is flawed, because it is the only example of a thing with sentience which is incapable of doing this.

This question is only meant to address the claim that an omnipotent being to which logic applies exists. I agree that it is not a disproof of all concepts, or even most concepts of god.

I wasn't aware that GOD had to follow MAN MADE laws of logic, Ash.

Nodd, you are incapable of debating, and thus should leave the debate section.

Quote from Ash

Nodd, you are incapable of debating, and thus should leave the debate section.

you sir, are making claims without providing the proper evidence to back them up.

(your above post is my evidence for you being a hypocrite)

go ahead, ignore my addition.

Wrong, I already provided the evidence in an earlier post. You may note that I have already pointed out your inability to debate. This means that I am not a hypocrite.

Quote from Ash

This question is only meant to address the claim that an omnipotent being to which logic applies exists. I agree that it is not a disproof of all concepts, or even most concepts of god.

Firstly, I must note that I had to decipher the high amount of typos in that last post.

More importantly, though, this is pretty much what we were saying. So, sure, you can prove here that this concept of a god to which our logic applies cannot exist. But the concept of god that most people probably think of has not been disproved. I am glad we finally understand each other.

Quote from Nodd

you are so much better than me it makes me wanna kill myself

You know what, I really do think I'm better than you, because I judge a person's intrinsic worth based on their ability to exercise critical thought. I am better than a guy named Joe with a club foot and a missing frontal lobe, and I'm better than you, because who I think I'm better than is based entirely on my own standards of judgement. I am glad that your standard of judgement aligns with my own.

Okay guys come on, get back on topic... though I think resolution is at hand.

Quote from Ash

You know what, I really do think I'm better than you, because I judge a person's intrinsic worth on their ability to exercise critical thought. I am better than a guy named Joe with a club foot and a missing frontal lobe, and I'm better than you, because who I think I'm better than is based entirely on my own standards of judgement. I am glad that your standard of judgement aligns with my own.

i'm glad you're able to reassure yourself with support from yourself. but you don't have to, because i'm telling you that you are better. you don't have to worry any longer

Quote from Ash

Ii DOES have to do with a certain KIND of god's existance, that is, a god which is omnipotent and to which our model of logic applies.


Notice that if I ask this of any other being, it is a perfectly reasonable question. Can Suzy create a house so big she can't lift is? I expect so. Can Johnny smelt together a bar of steel that he can't bend? Indeed, in fact, that's an easy feat.

This means that the question is not internally logically contradictory. It is a valid question. If we define god as "A being which is can do anything within the bounds of logic", then it's perfectly fine, the question is still valid, and this god is not disproven. It's only when we introduce omnipotence into the equation that it falls apart. This means that the concept is the thing which is flawed, because it is the only example of a thing with sentience which is incapable of doing this.

This question is only meant to address the claim that an omnipotent being to which logic applies exists. I agree that it is not a disproof of all concepts, or even most concepts of god.

I disagree, the structure of it may not be, but once you start throwing in variables that don't fit, it breaks the questions.

Your example:
Can Suzy create a house so big she can't lift is?

Makes perfect sense based off the selected creature an object. These are the variables in the question. As soon as you replace "Suzy" with "God" it becomes an illogical question because god is supposedly endlessly powerful.

The only reason it ceases to make sense is because we can reasonably assign what suzy will be able to logically lift and create.

The problem with throwing "God" in the mix is because it's like tossing an unknown variable into the equation. We don't know how powerful god is and also don't know what the limit, if there is a limit, to what he could create.

If gods creation power AND lifting power were both infinite, it would be impossible for us to actually fathom that because in our minds they contradict each other, and for humans the equation would break down.. which it does. That doesn't necessary mean the equation doesn't make sense, but since it has to do with the infinite, it just doesn't work.

It's like trying to do a math problem with multiple infinites in it, it's simply a pain in the ass.

A shitty question and shitty equation.

@Nodd:
And I'm glad you're able to feed yourself with your head up so far up your ass.

Quote from Fr0zEnPh0eNiX

I disagree, the structure of it may not be, but once you start throwing in variables that don't fit, it breaks the questions.

Your example:
Can Suzy create a house so big she can't lift is?

Makes perfect sense based off the selected creature an object. These are the variables in the question. As soon as you replace "Suzy" with "God" it becomes an illogical question because god is supposedly endlessly powerful.

The only reason it ceases to make sense is because we can reasonably assign what suzy will be able to logically lift and create.

The problem with throwing "God" in the mix is because it's like tossing an unknown variable into the equation. We don't know how powerful god is and also don't know what the limit, if there is a limit, to what he could create.

No, we DO know the limit to God's power. The limit is that there IS no limit. It's not like throwing an unknown variable into the equation, it's like throwing infinity into the equation. And that doesn't work does it? But why not? Because if we try to use infinity as a number, then we will never stop calculating the equation. This means that infinity CAN'T INTERACT WITH LIMITED VALUES. This means that even if my logical conundrum is incorrect (And I am still not convinced it is incorrect) then there is still the problem of how something of infinite power can interact with fobjects that contain finite values.

If gods creation power AND lifting power were both infinite, it would be impossible for us to actually fathom that because in our minds they contradict each other, and for humans the equation would break down.. which it does. That doesn't necessary mean the equation doesn't make sense, but since it has to do with the infinite, it just doesn't work.

As I said before, that we can't actually fathom something doesn't mean we can't be right about it. We can't fathom the very large or the very small, and yet when we apply math to them we can still use such values.

It's like trying to do a math problem with multiple infinites in it, it's simply a pain in the ass.

A pain in the ass but not impossible.

Quote from Ash

@Nodd:
And I'm glad you're able to feed yourself with your head up so far up your ass.

You kids quit fighting.

If you want to fight, take it to the PM box plz.

Enough with the personal attacks, yo.

Quote from Ash

@Nodd:
And I'm glad you're able to feed yourself with your head up so far up your ass.


No, we DO know the limit to God's power. The limit is that there IS no limit. It's not like throwing an unknown variable into the equation, it's like throwing infinity into the equation. And that doesn't work does it? But why not? Because if we try to use infinity as a number, then we will never stop calculating the equation. This means that infinity CAN'T INTERACT WITH LIMITED VALUES. This means that even if my logical conundrum is incorrect (And I am still not convinced it is incorrect) then there is still the problem of how something of infinite power can interact with fobjects that contain finite values.

As I said before, that we can't actually fathom something doesn't mean we can't be right about it. We can't fathom the very large or the very small, and yet when we apply math to them we can still use such values.


A pain in the ass but not impossible.

WRONG. It just means that we can't calculate them because we'll die long before we finish, because they'll go on forever... which furthers points made earlier of simply not being able to comprehend this question.

Go add infinity plus infinity. Give me an actual numeric answer.

I think the big problem with this is you don't like the idea that there are things beyond human comprehension. Our minds aren't limitless though. I'm sure dogs think they're pretty smart too.

Ever try to teach a dog how to speak English? You may think you're comprehending it, and in a very archaic way you might, just as I think I can too, but that doesn't mean we really understand it.

If in fact our logic would allow us to fathom something that is omnipotent, this question wouldn't be an issue.

edit: What this debate boils down to is one of two answers.

Either it is impossible for god to be infinitely powerful.

or

God is infinitely powerful and our minds can't comprehend it.