|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jun 02, 2009 1:30 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jun 03, 2009 5:55 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 05, 2009 5:26 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jun 06, 2009 1:51 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jun 07, 2009 10:52 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jun 10, 2009 7:28 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jun 16, 2009 7:08 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jun 17, 2009 5:43 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jun 17, 2009 9:38 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jun 24, 2009 7:06 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jun 24, 2009 7:30 pm
|
|
|
|
Please, no wall-o-text. It's called the enter key.
Kagayaku Shirou Designer Genes A being of infinite power would have ways of accomplishing this task that a human could not possibly conceive. Human logic only goes as far as human understanding. Which is the same as relying on " can't be explained but it happens". That cannot be explained only means that it hasnt been explained yet, Like I said before, a paradigm can't be proven wrong whitin the same paradigm therefore if we assume that omnipotency exists then its impossible to deny that the stone can be created but if we conceive the stone as perfect as well the its impossible for it to be lifted, leaving as the only answer that perfection only exists as a concept of human logic, the ideal form or the perfect form can't exist in a multiverse of laws, since to exist it should break rules denying it existency, thus omnipotency can only be cosidered as real in a logic with no laws, in other words, omnipotency is as irrational as irrationality itself.
Okay. Assume for a moment that God works within human logic, and has power over all non-logical rules. (God cannot make 2 = 5, essentially.) So, therefore, God can do anything to something that would not make a logical fallacy, but cannot affect logic.
In other words, God can change the natural parameters, but he cannot make them contradict themselves.
So, the stone. Here are our premises:
1. God has power over all things, providing he does not violate logic. 2. Creating a stone so large that God cannot lift it would be illogical, if God is all-powerful. 3. Therefore, God cannot do this.
The success of the argument hinges on premises one and two.
Premise 1. God has power over all things, providing he does not violate logic.
This premise implies first that God exists. This is a subjective matter, and will be skipped. (Why? Because you probably don't believe in God. Neither do I. But I don't care if you believe in him or not, you can run OS X on a Windows machine if you run it virtually, so do the equivalent here. Moreover, lack of evidence for God's existence does not equate to evidence that he does not exist.)
The secondary implication is that God is all-powerful. All holy texts say that god is all-powerful. I see no problem here.
The third and final implication is that while God holds all logical powers, he holds no illogical power. God cannot make 2 = 5. God can, however, alter the density of water so it can be walked upon. (Jesus, anyone?)
If God were to make 2 =5, that would be illogical by definition. Therefore, it cannot happen. But, by the same token, it does not need to. God does not need to make 2 = 5, for he can create three more. 2 +3 = 5.
Therefore, the first premise succeeds.
Premise 2. Creating a stone so large that God cannot lift it would be illogical, if God is all-powerful.
Premise one holds that God is, in fact, all-powerful. Creating the stone would be illogical, for if God cannot lift it, it violates the first premise, and the first premise succeeds.
However, if God is not able to create a stone so big he cannot lift it, that does not violate the first premise. God cannot be illogical. Creating the stone that is too big is illogical, for God can affect anything. Therefore, much like God cannot make 2 = 5, God cannot make the stone that is too big.
Premise 2 succeeds.
You spend a lot of time talking about how creating or not creating the stone is a logical fallacy, and you are right for putting an emphasis on logic, but you mistakenly refuse to think in a creative way.
Essentially, you're blinded by your own bias against the existence of God. That's cool that you don't believe, but if you must take part in a discussion of whether or not God can do something, work from the premise that God exists.
After all, the discussion here is not "Does God exist?" The discussion is, instead, "Can God create a stone so big that he himself cannot lift it?"
Moreover, omnipotence is not irrational. Omnipotence as defined by the argument that God can do anything that is not a logical contradiction is not an irrational thing. Please, refrain from harking down on the irrationality of omnipotence, if you are going to irrationally refuse to accept a secondary definition of the term.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jun 25, 2009 9:43 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jun 25, 2009 5:25 pm
|
|
|
|
Kagayaku Shirou
Ok, sorry for wall-o-text I was in a hurry.
For my argument about the matter wheter god can or cannot do something I quite sure I did the same or at least equal process you did.
About the supossed(sp?) bias of wheter god exists of not I asure you that I did not let it affect my logic.
Omnipotency has no limits therefore if there it is something it can do it is no longer omnipotency thus not allowing the existency of god as an omnipotent being, leaving as only result that inside logic god cannot exists.
It may still do not sound as I wish, the language barrier is still kind of bothersome when it comes down to more elocuent(sp?) conversations.
It's quite alright, I wasn't angry or upset. (Though I do have a talent for coming off that way.)
What I'm suggesting is that what we call "Omnipotence" is not an accurate term, if we are going to take it in the literal sense. Literally, "omnipotence" means "all-powerful". You know this, and show a strong grasp of the term.
However, perhaps "omnipotence" is too strong a term for what God has. Perhaps -- instead of being quite literally all-powerful, and having control over logic -- God has power only over natural and physical parameters, and has a kind of "omnipotence" within those realms. Sort of how like a very good programmer can have a complete and intimate grasp of one programming language, but is completely incompetent in a new, or foreign programming language.
If this were the case, and God only has this omnipotence in natural or physical things, then his "omnipotence" could logically exist.
I'd like to point out your fourth line of text:
Quote: Omnipotency has no limits therefore if there it is something it can do it is no longer omnipotency thus not allowing the existency of god as an omnipotent being, leaving as only result that inside logic god cannot exists.
Well, you're right that the common definition of "omnipotence" cannot logically exist.
However, that does not make the only result that God cannot logically exist, for the above alternative meaning of "omnipotence" would allow the logical (theoretical) existence of God.
((You mentioned a language barrier, and, out of curiosity, what is your native language?))
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 26, 2009 4:35 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|