God is not logically possible
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 2 Votes - 3 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
31-08-2012, 12:23 PM
RE: God is not logically possible
(31-08-2012 12:03 PM)ideasonscribe Wrote:  
(31-08-2012 08:15 AM)Chas Wrote:  Fabricated opinion like the existence of God? Drinking Beverage

Nice non-answer.

Is it just irony that some of you will demand sources for anything I say, yet when someone who somewhat agrees with you says anything, you just applaud him without much skepticism?

If I ask for a source (As Vosur does to me), what pisses you off about that?

So far, you scoff when a Theist isn't skeptical of his/her own worldview, and you equally scoff when the Theist is skeptical of anything else, including his/her own worldview.
(Aside from Impulse who seems to have a much better understanding of courtesy and a firm grip of what it means for anyone to be rational.)

Either give me an adequate answer or don't expect me to.

If I may be momentarily and humbly pedantic...

If person A is continually asked for evidence yet does not produce it and subsequently asks for evidence from person B.... that's irony.

If person C agrees with the position of person D and then person D shows appreciation... that's at worst, sycophancy and at best, empathy (from person C) and (from person D) it's at worst, confirmation bias and at best, love.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like DLJ's post
31-08-2012, 01:52 PM
RE: God is not logically possible
(31-08-2012 12:12 PM)Chas Wrote:  Egor gave an argument, he is the source; no other is required. You called it fabricated opinion.

I am severely inclined to believe that Vosur either disagrees wholeheartedly with this statement, or is simply so biased against the Theistic worldview that he doesn't care to draw accurate skepticism of all things, just things from Theists.

Egor gave an argument right?
And your response to Egor giving an argument is that "he is the source".
(btw, I asked if it was fabricated opinion. I did not state this as fact. It's called a question.)
So, lets just soak what we have in so far...
Egor made an argument, and your spitting on me for asking for a"source". Interesting...

How about I recap a second -

Does anyone remember my recent argument regarding the Omnipotence Paradox?

I sure do:

ideasonscribe Wrote:Here's the paradox -

"Could an omnipotent being create a stone so heavy that even that being could not lift it?"

The argument is that if the being can create this self-contradicting state of affairs, the being ceases to be omnipotent since it is unable to do something. Namely, lifting the heavy stone.
on the other hand, if it cannot create this stone that is too heavy for it to lift, then that thereby is something it cannot do.

I've been discussing this with some, like A2 and Vosur, and (of course) have come to yet another disagreement.

The argument for the against goes something like this -

Om·nip·o·tent
adj.
Having unlimited or universal power, authority, or force; all-powerful.
n.
1. One having unlimited power or authority: the bureaucratic omnipotents.
2. Omnipotent God.

Most all definitions will say basically the same thing; "All powerfull", "Unlimited power".

In order for something to be "Omnipotent", it must have the power to do "all" things, including creating self-contradicting state of affairs (e.g. Creating a stone it cannot lift).
Since it is nonsensical that a being could ever do such a thing, a being cannot ever be omnipotent.

My argument goes something like this -

The assumption that a being that cannot do things that are incoherent is therefore not omnipotent, is a faulty assumption.
It's assuming that omnipotence includes things that fail to be coherent and fall outside the realm of existing and possible things.

The argument of the paradox is an absurd argument that leads to contradictions. An argument of this form is called a "reductio ad absurdum", meaning reduction the absurd. The idea is that an assumption or group of assumptions leads to contradictions and should therefore be rejected.

A clearer understanding of my argument is that when someone says "all powerful being" they are essentially referring to a being that is capable of performing all logically possible tasks but not necessarily a being that can perform logically impossible tasks.
One understanding of "logically impossible tasks" is that they are simply nonsensical tasks to begin with.
For instance, if I asked "could God hypersuffohockinate?"
You would think that the question was ridiculous. That's because it is.
It's a nonsensical notion that I just created in my mind.
I can make up any notion, and apply it to the paradox.

Another example could be an example from the "Chomsky Sentence": "God dreams colorless green ideas furiously"
Or something like that.

The idea that "all powerful" and "unlimited" does not necessarily mean that said being can "goopadorntaman".
But rather that being can perform "all" tasks that are possible to be performed.

It's funny because this sort of looks like an argument to me.

Then Vosur says -

Vosur Wrote:I'm still waiting for a source on this.

It's extremely interesting that my argument would not be counter-argued by Vosur completely, but instead throws definitions around as if it's settled material.

So, why is it that Vosur can ask me for a source immediately after my argument, but I can't ask Egor for a source after his argument?

Bias? No?

“What you believe to be true will control you, whether it’s true or not.”

—Jeremy LaBorde
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-08-2012, 01:55 PM
RE: God is not logically possible
(31-08-2012 01:52 PM)ideasonscribe Wrote:  
(31-08-2012 12:12 PM)Chas Wrote:  Egor gave an argument, he is the source; no other is required. You called it fabricated opinion.

I am severely inclined to believe that Vosur either disagrees wholeheartedly with this statement, or is simply so biased against the Theistic worldview that he doesn't care to draw accurate skepticism of all things, just things from Theists.

Egor gave an argument right?
And your response to Egor giving an argument is that "he is the source".
(btw, I asked if it was fabricated opinion. I did not state this as fact. It's called a question.)
So, lets just soak what we have in so far...
Egor made an argument, and your spitting on me for asking for a"source". Interesting...

How about I recap a second -

Does anyone remember my recent argument regarding the Omnipotence Paradox?

I sure do:

ideasonscribe Wrote:Here's the paradox -

"Could an omnipotent being create a stone so heavy that even that being could not lift it?"

The argument is that if the being can create this self-contradicting state of affairs, the being ceases to be omnipotent since it is unable to do something. Namely, lifting the heavy stone.
on the other hand, if it cannot create this stone that is too heavy for it to lift, then that thereby is something it cannot do.

I've been discussing this with some, like A2 and Vosur, and (of course) have come to yet another disagreement.

The argument for the against goes something like this -

Om·nip·o·tent
adj.
Having unlimited or universal power, authority, or force; all-powerful.
n.
1. One having unlimited power or authority: the bureaucratic omnipotents.
2. Omnipotent God.

Most all definitions will say basically the same thing; "All powerfull", "Unlimited power".

In order for something to be "Omnipotent", it must have the power to do "all" things, including creating self-contradicting state of affairs (e.g. Creating a stone it cannot lift).
Since it is nonsensical that a being could ever do such a thing, a being cannot ever be omnipotent.

My argument goes something like this -

The assumption that a being that cannot do things that are incoherent is therefore not omnipotent, is a faulty assumption.
It's assuming that omnipotence includes things that fail to be coherent and fall outside the realm of existing and possible things.

The argument of the paradox is an absurd argument that leads to contradictions. An argument of this form is called a "reductio ad absurdum", meaning reduction the absurd. The idea is that an assumption or group of assumptions leads to contradictions and should therefore be rejected.

A clearer understanding of my argument is that when someone says "all powerful being" they are essentially referring to a being that is capable of performing all logically possible tasks but not necessarily a being that can perform logically impossible tasks.
One understanding of "logically impossible tasks" is that they are simply nonsensical tasks to begin with.
For instance, if I asked "could God hypersuffohockinate?"
You would think that the question was ridiculous. That's because it is.
It's a nonsensical notion that I just created in my mind.
I can make up any notion, and apply it to the paradox.

Another example could be an example from the "Chomsky Sentence": "God dreams colorless green ideas furiously"
Or something like that.

The idea that "all powerful" and "unlimited" does not necessarily mean that said being can "goopadorntaman".
But rather that being can perform "all" tasks that are possible to be performed.

It's funny because this sort of looks like an argument to me.

Then Vosur says -

Vosur Wrote:I'm still waiting for a source on this.

It's extremely interesting that my argument would not be counter-argued by Vosur completely, but instead throws definitions around as if it's settled material.

So, why is it that Vosur can ask me for a source immediately after my argument, but I can't ask Egor for a source after his argument?

Bias? No?
Not biased, but a misunderstanding.

I have heard from Vosur that he is waiting on you.

Maybe you should cool down, k? Wanna play some minecraft?

[Image: 0013382F-E507-48AE-906B-53008666631C-757...cc3639.jpg]
Credit goes to UndercoverAtheist.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-08-2012, 02:03 PM
RE: God is not logically possible
(31-08-2012 01:52 PM)ideasonscribe Wrote:  
(31-08-2012 12:12 PM)Chas Wrote:  Egor gave an argument, he is the source; no other is required. You called it fabricated opinion.

I am severely inclined to believe that Vosur either disagrees wholeheartedly with this statement, or is simply so biased against the Theistic worldview that he doesn't care to draw accurate skepticism of all things, just things from Theists.

Egor gave an argument right?
And your response to Egor giving an argument is that "he is the source".
(btw, I asked if it was fabricated opinion. I did not state this as fact. It's called a question.)
So, lets just soak what we have in so far...
Egor made an argument, and your spitting on me for asking for a"source". Interesting...

How about I recap a second -

Does anyone remember my recent argument regarding the Omnipotence Paradox?

I sure do:

ideasonscribe Wrote:Here's the paradox -

"Could an omnipotent being create a stone so heavy that even that being could not lift it?"

The argument is that if the being can create this self-contradicting state of affairs, the being ceases to be omnipotent since it is unable to do something. Namely, lifting the heavy stone.
on the other hand, if it cannot create this stone that is too heavy for it to lift, then that thereby is something it cannot do.

I've been discussing this with some, like A2 and Vosur, and (of course) have come to yet another disagreement.

The argument for the against goes something like this -

Om·nip·o·tent
adj.
Having unlimited or universal power, authority, or force; all-powerful.
n.
1. One having unlimited power or authority: the bureaucratic omnipotents.
2. Omnipotent God.

Most all definitions will say basically the same thing; "All powerfull", "Unlimited power".

In order for something to be "Omnipotent", it must have the power to do "all" things, including creating self-contradicting state of affairs (e.g. Creating a stone it cannot lift).
Since it is nonsensical that a being could ever do such a thing, a being cannot ever be omnipotent.

My argument goes something like this -

The assumption that a being that cannot do things that are incoherent is therefore not omnipotent, is a faulty assumption.
It's assuming that omnipotence includes things that fail to be coherent and fall outside the realm of existing and possible things.

The argument of the paradox is an absurd argument that leads to contradictions. An argument of this form is called a "reductio ad absurdum", meaning reduction the absurd. The idea is that an assumption or group of assumptions leads to contradictions and should therefore be rejected.

A clearer understanding of my argument is that when someone says "all powerful being" they are essentially referring to a being that is capable of performing all logically possible tasks but not necessarily a being that can perform logically impossible tasks.
One understanding of "logically impossible tasks" is that they are simply nonsensical tasks to begin with.
For instance, if I asked "could God hypersuffohockinate?"
You would think that the question was ridiculous. That's because it is.
It's a nonsensical notion that I just created in my mind.
I can make up any notion, and apply it to the paradox.

Another example could be an example from the "Chomsky Sentence": "God dreams colorless green ideas furiously"
Or something like that.

The idea that "all powerful" and "unlimited" does not necessarily mean that said being can "goopadorntaman".
But rather that being can perform "all" tasks that are possible to be performed.

It's funny because this sort of looks like an argument to me.

Then Vosur says -

Vosur Wrote:I'm still waiting for a source on this.

It's extremely interesting that my argument would not be counter-argued by Vosur completely, but instead throws definitions around as if it's settled material.

So, why is it that Vosur can ask me for a source immediately after my argument, but I can't ask Egor for a source after his argument?

Bias? No?

As you're having an argument with two others, I'll walk away and wait 'til we can have our own discussion.

I was merely pointing out that only facts need citations, not opinion or argument.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-08-2012, 02:04 PM
RE: God is not logically possible
(31-08-2012 01:52 PM)ideasonscribe Wrote:  
(31-08-2012 12:12 PM)Chas Wrote:  Egor gave an argument, he is the source; no other is required. You called it fabricated opinion.

I am severely inclined to believe that Vosur either disagrees wholeheartedly with this statement, or is simply so biased against the Theistic worldview that he doesn't care to draw accurate skepticism of all things, just things from Theists.

[snip]

It's funny because this sort of looks like an argument to me.

Then Vosur says -

Vosur Wrote:I'm still waiting for a source on this.

It's extremely interesting that my argument would not be counter-argued by Vosur completely, but instead throws definitions around as if it's settled material.
First of all, why do you bring up the contents of another thread that have nothing to do with this one and drag me into your debate with Chas?

Second of all, not only am I still waiting for a source on your claims to this day, but I also refuted the argument of your OP in said thread. Maybe you'd realize that if you weren't so delusional would have paid more attention.

Third of all, how would you know anything about my opinion about the post you quoted at the beginning of your reply?

And last but not least, why is it that you have ignored Chas' request to provide him with an argument for the existence of your god?

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-08-2012, 03:22 PM
RE: God is not logically possible
(31-08-2012 02:03 PM)Chas Wrote:  As you're having an argument with two others, I'll walk away and wait 'til we can have our own discussion.

I was merely pointing out that only facts need citations, not opinion or argument.

It may just be a misunderstanding like A2 is saying.
What I'm trying to get at is that when I brought out an argument, I wasn't getting very many counter-arguments, and Vosur kept being dodgy with comments about "sources". And yes Vosur, you did provide a counter-argument, but I believe that later I explained that it was just wordplay and that the counter-argument you provided was just emphasis on certain words, not actual argumentation.
At that time, I felt that I wasn't being taken seriously. I put a lot of effort into getting my information correct, and then Vosur comes in with a couple words like he destroyed my argument altogether.. No.
Sometimes it's just frustrating because I see how Atheists constantly accuse anyone that believes in God to be less of a person than them self, incapable of having intelligent conversation and altogether irrational.
The thing is, I could be just as intelligent as you, and just as altogether rational - I just believe in one more thing than you.

But more to your quote Chas - "and wait 'til we can have our own discussion."

I can't keep up with these forums like you guys can. I have so many other things I do, so I'm not sure what discussion we were going to have.
Was it what Vosur is talking about? Evidence for the existence of God?

“What you believe to be true will control you, whether it’s true or not.”

—Jeremy LaBorde
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-08-2012, 03:43 PM
RE: God is not logically possible
(31-08-2012 03:22 PM)ideasonscribe Wrote:  
(31-08-2012 02:03 PM)Chas Wrote:  As you're having an argument with two others, I'll walk away and wait 'til we can have our own discussion.

I was merely pointing out that only facts need citations, not opinion or argument.

It may just be a misunderstanding like A2 is saying.
What I'm trying to get at is that when I brought out an argument, I wasn't getting very many counter-arguments, and Vosur kept being dodgy with comments about "sources". And yes Vosur, you did provide a counter-argument, but I believe that later I explained that it was just wordplay and that the counter-argument you provided was just emphasis on certain words, not actual argumentation.
At that time, I felt that I wasn't being taken seriously. I put a lot of effort into getting my information correct, and then Vosur comes in with a couple words like he destroyed my argument altogether.. No.
Sometimes it's just frustrating because I see how Atheists constantly accuse anyone that believes in God to be less of a person than them self, incapable of having intelligent conversation and altogether irrational.
The thing is, I could be just as intelligent as you, and just as altogether rational - I just believe in one more thing than you.

But more to your quote Chas - "and wait 'til we can have our own discussion."

I can't keep up with these forums like you guys can. I have so many other things I do, so I'm not sure what discussion we were going to have.
Was it what Vosur is talking about? Evidence for the existence of God?

I've been working at my computer for some time, so I am able to check in fairly often. Sometimes I go off-line just so not to be tempted. Smile

We can talk about the existence of God if you'd like. My previous post makes my position clear, to wit:
I see no evidence for the existence of any gods or other supernatural beings, or for the workings of astrology, homeopathy, crystal healing, etc., ad nauseum.

I don't accept the Bible as evidence because the evidence from archaeology, history, and textual analysis are sufficient to convince me that it is a cobbled together collection of myths and tales.

If you've got something else, bring it. However, I'd ask if you need evidence for your belief in God or are you only trying to convince us that it is not faith-based?

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-08-2012, 03:48 PM
RE: God is not logically possible
(31-08-2012 02:04 PM)Vosur Wrote:  First of all, why do you bring up the contents of another thread that have nothing to do with this one and drag me into your debate with Chas?

I brought up those contents because it was relevant to the situation.
I asked for sources to point out that the constant nagging you do to Theists should be the standard in your direction as well.
I wasn't really having a debate with Chas though. Just making said point.

(31-08-2012 02:04 PM)Vosur Wrote:  Second of all, not only am I still waiting for a source on your claims to this day

Well, some of the claims (Resurrection of Jesus, Evidence for Christianity) I can see would need many loads of sources.
But when it comes to to Omnipotence Paradox, there are only so many "sources" that can be provided.
Like anyone else, I gave an argument showing a perspective from logic concerning the paradox, and it was Philosophical in nature. Normally, a person would just come back with an argument to show fallacy in what I'm arguing, but instead your first response was that you wanted the source.
After that, you basically just told me I was wrong about the definitions.
I think it was Chas that was explaining that it was basically a word game that may never end basically.
Perhaps it's just a lost cause when it comes to that paradox, and that's fine.


(31-08-2012 02:04 PM)Vosur Wrote:  but I also refuted the argument of your OP in said thread. Maybe you'd realize that if you weren't so delusional would have paid more attention.

I don't think you refuted the argument. You only attempted to refute it.

(31-08-2012 02:04 PM)Vosur Wrote:  Third of all, how would you know anything about my opinion about the post you quoted at the beginning of your reply?

I'm not sure what you mean here.

(31-08-2012 02:04 PM)Vosur Wrote:  And last but not least, why is it that you have ignored Chas' request to provide him with an argument for the existence of your god?

And this is what I'm not sure about.
I've forgotten who, when and where this all occurred. So, I'm sorry about that, but if we need to have this discussion, then lets have the discussion. But honestly, by now you should already know that it's going to be a while before I get to it. Undecided

“What you believe to be true will control you, whether it’s true or not.”

—Jeremy LaBorde
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-08-2012, 04:04 PM
RE: God is not logically possible
(31-08-2012 03:43 PM)Chas Wrote:  We can talk about the existence of God if you'd like. My previous post makes my position clear, to wit:
I see no evidence for the existence of any gods or other supernatural beings, or for the workings of astrology, homeopathy, crystal healing, etc., ad nauseum.

Perhaps it would be a better discussion if it were 1v1. I have noticed in my time on this forum that I get quite frustrated and disheartened when it's: me vs 10+ Atheists/Agnostics.
I would only be arguing the existence of God since I believe the other things and many others are not necessary or important.

(31-08-2012 03:43 PM)Chas Wrote:  I don't accept the Bible as evidence because the evidence from archaeology, history, and textual analysis are sufficient to convince me that it is a cobbled together collection of myths and tales.

If we were arguing the existence of God, it would not be specific to any religion. Just the general idea of an extremely powerful and intelligent being (obviously capably of creating Universe(s) ). As far as what 'view' of God is the most accurate, that would not be the discussion. That's not even important until you've established the possibility of Gods existence to begin with.

(31-08-2012 03:43 PM)Chas Wrote:  If you've got something else, bring it. However, I'd ask if you need evidence for your belief in God or are you only trying to convince us that it is not faith-based?

Since I was raised in an extremely crooked Pentecostal... situation, I was led to believe there was no God. I was an Atheist for about 3 years. During that time, I looked for evidence to prove the Pentecostal view (What I thought most Christians were like) wrong. I, instead, found no evidence supporting a purposeless Universe, and more evidence supporting a creator.
So since my journey was, is and will always be an evidential journey in search for the truth of reality; An evidential approach to God would be appropriate.

“What you believe to be true will control you, whether it’s true or not.”

—Jeremy LaBorde
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-08-2012, 04:13 PM
RE: God is not logically possible
(31-08-2012 04:04 PM)ideasonscribe Wrote:  
(31-08-2012 03:43 PM)Chas Wrote:  We can talk about the existence of God if you'd like. My previous post makes my position clear, to wit:
I see no evidence for the existence of any gods or other supernatural beings, or for the workings of astrology, homeopathy, crystal healing, etc., ad nauseum.

Perhaps it would be a better discussion if it were 1v1. I have noticed in my time on this forum that I get quite frustrated and disheartened when it's: me vs 10+ Atheists/Agnostics.
I would only be arguing the existence of God since I believe the other things and many others are not necessary or important.

(31-08-2012 03:43 PM)Chas Wrote:  I don't accept the Bible as evidence because the evidence from archaeology, history, and textual analysis are sufficient to convince me that it is a cobbled together collection of myths and tales.

If we were arguing the existence of God, it would not be specific to any religion. Just the general idea of an extremely powerful and intelligent being (obviously capably of creating Universe(s) ). As far as what 'view' of God is the most accurate, that would not be the discussion. That's not even important until you've established the possibility of Gods existence to begin with.

(31-08-2012 03:43 PM)Chas Wrote:  If you've got something else, bring it. However, I'd ask if you need evidence for your belief in God or are you only trying to convince us that it is not faith-based?

Since I was raised in an extremely crooked Pentecostal... situation, I was led to believe there was no God. I was an Atheist for about 3 years. During that time, I looked for evidence to prove the Pentecostal view (What I thought most Christians were like) wrong. I, instead, found no evidence supporting a purposeless Universe, and more evidence supporting a creator.
So since my journey was, is and will always be an evidential journey in search for the truth of reality; An evidential approach to God would be appropriate.

Good, very clearly put.
I am interested in hearing your evidence for a creator. I see none.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: