Help!

[AttentionKMartShoppers]

cc5k, why should we take your reasoning and logic as a valid starting point? Also, while I'm at it, why should we take your reasoning and logic to be valid? How are your rules binding on us? Why must we follow them? Transcendence? Anyone?

It's not MY reasoning and logic. It's the reasoning and logic that (I thought) all humans agreed on and relied upon to effectively communicate with each other. If there is an issue with the logic I have used that you would wish to address, I'm open to hearing what you have to say.

SO, in other words, valid reasoning and logic are only valid because most people follow it? How do we know most people use it? How does that make it valid if most people do use it? And, as august is demonstrating, you are not using the logic and reasoning that "most" people use.

[Kurieuo]

CS Lewis wrote in his The Problem of Pain:
<blockquote>It remains true that all things are possible with God: the intrinsic impossibilities are not things but nonentities. It is no more possible for God than for the weakest of His creatures to carry out both of two mutually exclusive alternatives; not because His power meets an obstacle, but because nonsense remains nonsense even when we talk it about God.</blockquote>So for example, the feat of God creating a rock so big He can't lift, may seem valid upon first glance; however, it is really in the category of nonsense Lewis describes above. Just because I can say a cat is lying on the mat while running doesn't mean I've said anything meaningful. Thus, God's creating a world wherein all beings freely choose Him may actually be unfeasible for God to do, not on account of a lack of power, but on account of the logic involved which is God can't force someone to freely choose Him.

Some other links you might like to read are:
- Can God Make a Rock So Big He Can't Lift It?
- Can God Create a Rock So Heavy He Can't Lift It? - Can God Truly Be Omnipotent?

Kurieuo

[cc5k]

cc5k, why should we take your reasoning and logic as a valid starting point? Also, while I'm at it, why should we take your reasoning and logic to be valid? How are your rules binding on us? Why must we follow them? Transcendence? Anyone?

It's not MY reasoning and logic. It's the reasoning and logic that (I thought) all humans agreed on and relied upon to effectively communicate with each other. If there is an issue with the logic I have used that you would wish to address, I'm open to hearing what you have to say.

SO, in other words, valid reasoning and logic are only valid because most people follow it?

Well it's valid for communicating from human to human. Do you have a better way to define logic? I'd be happy to hear it.

How do we know most people use it? How does that make it valid if most people do use it? And, as august is demonstrating, you are not using the logic and reasoning that "most" people use.

Wow, this is something I've never been accused of before. Can you support this claim?

My intention was to discuss the issue with someone who is "playing by the same rules" so to speak. Let's clear up what definition of logic we should be using and go by that. The ball's in your court.

[cc5k]

Hi Kurieuo! Good points and thanks for the links. I found the first one to be a great explanation:

The only way this could make sense is if it is an attempt to pit one aspect of God's ability against another--in this case, His creative ability against His ability to lift. The goal is to show that there are some things God can't do, thus undermining the Christian concept of an omnipotent Creator. This illustration, however, miscasts the biblical notion of omnipotence, and is therefore guilty of the straw man fallacy.

Very well put. I agree with this 100%, assuming both the illustration is referring to the "biblical notion of omnipotence" and that definition is not the same one as the dictionary's.

For this very reason, I claim two things:

1 - An omnipotent being cannot exist (using the definition from the dictionary).

2 - Christians should not use the term 'omnipotent' to describe their God, but should instead use a term like "most powerful".


...perhaps we can come to agree on this?

[Kurieuo]

1 - An omnipotent being cannot exist (using the definition from the dictionary).

2 - Christians should not use the term 'omnipotent' to describe their God, but should instead use a term like "most powerful".


...perhaps we can come to agree on this?

Disagree.

Omnipotence to me simply means being able to do all things that are logically possible. If you wish to define it as encompassing the logically impossible which are nonsensical things, then I would agree talk of omnipotence is nonsense. Yet, I don't believe my God is a God of nonsense, but rather is a God of logic. Therefore when I use omniscience of God, I mean it to encompass all that is logically possible.

Kurieuo

[Kurieuo]

Here is my 'proof' to demonstrate its impossibility:
Simply ask, does this all-powerful being have the power to assemble something (using any tools and methods he desires) so heavy that he does not have the power to lift it? Give me a hammer, some nails, and 2X4's and I can complete this task in under an hour. Can this omnipotent being do it? Because if he can assemble such a thing and cannot lift it, he's not all-powerful. If he does not have the power to assemble such a thing, then is also not all-powerful.

The paradox of being "all-powerful" comes from the fact that you can define your success in one thing by your failure in another. There's nothing illogical about that. This is not an attack on the Christian god, but simply an attack on the attribute "omnipotent" or "all powerful".

If I am to hold onto omniscience, then I need to demonstrate how this is illogical. It may not as be readily apparent that is as illogical, for example, a 2D square circle, but it still is nonetheless illogical when one reflects more deeply on it.

For example, if I ask you whether you can defeat yourself in a fight, such a question is illogical because it treats you as though you are two separate subjects (where one is stronger than the other). Yet, you are only one. I believe asking whether God can assemble something so heavy that He can't lift it is illogical is the same way. For you are asking whether God is powerful enough to create something so heavy, that He defeats his own power because He can't lift it (or vice-versa).

Kurieuo

[August]

See my most recent post.

Which one?

I'm saying such an object will always exist UNTIL you say the being is "omnipotent", in which case the question is no longer answerable.

How can such an object "always exist"? How can such an object exist outside the context of the question? Prove it.

Hit 'submit' instead of 'preview' on accident and then went to a meeting. Didn't see it til I got back.

No worries, just messing with you.

The question is not nonsense until you use the term "omnipotent". That is my point. Same thing as my example of does your shape roll. As soon as you say your shape to test is a "square circle" the question no longer makes sense. That's your fault for imagining up an illogical subject to be tested.

What the heck? It was your question in the first place. I did no "imagining" of illogical subjects, it was already in your question. You posed a question that makes no sense, no-one here is inserting anyhting into it. Otherwise, please demonstrate how an object that God cannot lift "always" exists. Where does it come from? What are its properties? Where is it?

Why, you ask? It's asked for someone who saying "an omnipotent being can possibly exist", just like my question for the shape is asked for the person saying "a square circle can possibly exist". It's to provide a simple mental exercise to the person to demonstrate the paradox in the object they have claimed to be possible.

But it does not work as a "simple mental exercise" because your question is fallacious. What paradox are you talking about? What object? You have not defined the subject of your question, despite my numerous requests to do so.

I don't have a concept of it that makes sense because I'm saying it does not make sense. I used the definition from the dictionary, and I told you that.

Ok, so let me get this straight. You are trying to make a logical statement to disprove something that you have no concept of, based on a definition you read in a dictionary that you say does not make sense. So you are saying it does not make sense because you say it does not make sense, even though there is such a defintion in the dictionary. That is mere assertion and not any form of logical argumentation.

How on earth can you attempt to disprove something that you have no concept of? How can you disprove the subject of your question if you cannot define what the subject is supposed to be? Sorry friend, but you are making less sense as this goes on.

It is my question but your 'omnipotent' being that we are applying my question to. My point is that the illogical part comes from what you bring to the table, not me.

Huh? How can it be my omnipotent being if it is your question? I did not bing anything to the table, I just pointed out that your question is nonsensical. Regardless, you keep on blindly asserting the "illogical part", yet you do not prove it.

My misuse of terms does not change the fact that the 'omnipotent' part is the fallacy, and no other part of the question. You seem to be ignoring that.

I am not ignoring anything, I have addressed all your points and questions. You have so far ignored:
1. Do you mean those things that are described by the laws of logic?
2. What were your starting premises?
3. If you do not have the concept that God is omnipotent, on what basis do you then level any contra-argument?
4. How do you define omnipotence as self-contradictory if you do not have a concept of the manifestation of omnipotence?
5. Where do your supposedly seperate concepts of God and omnipotence come from?
6. So then you agree your "valid reasoning" is bound by your finite experience?
7. Who or what defines valid reasoning?
8. Where does it come from?
9. On what basis do you presume to know what God's power "should be", if not by your own extrapolation?
10. Do you know in what ways God's omnipotence necessarily manifest?
11. How can an object that is too big for an all-powerful being to lift exist?
12. Numerous requests for a logical proof of your object.

You are the one ignoring things.

You have asserted, re-asserted and asserted again that omnipotence is a fallacy, but not proven the fallacy you keep on mentioning. Once more, please provide a logical proof for your statement in the form of a syllogism.

I'm trying to disprove that an 'omnipotent' being can exist. This is a similar exercise as disproving that a 'square circle' can exist.

Uh, ok, but we are back to your concept of an omnipotent being.

Why don't we make it easy, why don't you start with the logical disprove of a square circle? Then we can see how that translates into the disprove of an omnipotent being.

My point exactly. It's logically impossible because it's a logically impossible being that we're asking this task to.

So you are trying to defeat the setup of an experiment or competition that involves an object that cannot exist?

You have not proven that such a being is logically impossible. I have already pointed out that your argument commits the fallacy of the illicit minor.

Most powerful means there is nothing with more power. All powerful has no meaning because it is a self contradiction.

How is all powerful a self-contradiction? Prove it.

I made no claims of whether or not the object could be lifted. That is determined by the being's abilities.

The object in question will always exist. The part that never exists is the omnipotent being, and that's my point.

Sure it is determined by the beings abilities, and since the ability is omnipotence, such an object cannot exist. Please show where this object "always" exists, and define its characteristics while you are at it.

Look, we have been around in circles on this a few times now. You are blindly asserting without logical proof. If you do not provide any kind of logical proof, then I will assume you have none, and you are merely asserting. Your assertions carry no more value than anyone elses, and in this case, since they are devoid of any logical proofs, even less than others.

If I don't see any logical proof, the thread will be locked and stand as an example of your illogical assertions.

[cc5k]

If you wish to define it as encompassing the logically impossible which are nonsensical things, then I would agree talk of omnipotence is nonsense.

It's not me that encompasses it, it's the definition itself. I'm going by the definition in the dictionary. But we agree on the rest. I'm saying the 'square circle' is nonsense in the same way as 'omnipotence'.

Is there a problem with the term "most powerful" to describe the Christian God instead? It doesn't fall victim to the same issue.

[August]

Sorry, I could not resist:

Can God make a rock so heavy He can't lift it? Depends on who you ask....

Educated Catholic
You'll have to define 'make' and 'rock' and 'big' within the context of current culture.

Normal Catholic
Shame on you for asking.

Church of Christ
No mention of a huge rock is ever made in the New Testament, therefore rock music is bad.

Mormon
One day you'll be a god, too. So just wait and ask yourself.

Atheist
Who?

A Chick Tract
Now we'll tell you the story of a man who never repented of his sins. As you can see in panel 8, a big rock fell on his head. You must repent for it is written in Jeremiah: "Even in the womb I knew ye, and prevented huge rocks from smacking your action."

Methodist
Question and Answer Period is after the two songs, liturgical reading, the doxology, and prayer requests, and before the offering, another song, the Lord's prayer, a closing song, and the benediction. Go back to your seat.

Charismatic
I'd tell you, but you wouldn't understand.

Baptist
Not important. Have you accepted Jesus Christ as your Lord and Personal Savior? If you did then raise your hand.

Episcopalian
That depends. What did the Catholic say?

[cc5k]

For example, if I ask you whether you can defeat yourself in a fight, such a question is illogical because it treats you as though you are two separate subjects (where one is stronger than the other). Yet, you are only one. I believe asking whether God can assemble something so heavy that He can't lift it is illogical is the same way.

Acutally, it's not the same thing. The fight example is always illogical. My example is not. It does not require to the two subjects to exist at the same time (which would make it impossible to be the same being). Instead, it requires the being to assume the position of one subject, the assembler (to assemble the structure), and then stop, and then next assume the position of the other subject as the lifter to lift it. The scenario makes perfect sense. The part that does not make sense is when you say the being is "omnipotent".

[cc5k]

I am not ignoring anything, I have addressed all your points and questions. You have so far ignored:
1. Do you mean those things that are described by the laws of logic?
2. What were your starting premises?
3. If you do not have the concept that God is omnipotent, on what basis do you then level any contra-argument?
4. How do you define omnipotence as self-contradictory if you do not have a concept of the manifestation of omnipotence?
5. Where do your supposedly seperate concepts of God and omnipotence come from?
6. So then you agree your "valid reasoning" is bound by your finite experience?
7. Who or what defines valid reasoning?
8. Where does it come from?
9. On what basis do you presume to know what God's power "should be", if not by your own extrapolation?
10. Do you know in what ways God's omnipotence necessarily manifest?
11. How can an object that is too big for an all-powerful being to lift exist?
12. Numerous requests for a logical proof of your object.

I have answered every one of these questions, if not explicitly, then at least implicitly. If you want to debat this, I need to you read and not just type.

[August]

I am not ignoring anything, I have addressed all your points and questions. You have so far ignored:
1. Do you mean those things that are described by the laws of logic?
2. What were your starting premises?
3. If you do not have the concept that God is omnipotent, on what basis do you then level any contra-argument?
4. How do you define omnipotence as self-contradictory if you do not have a concept of the manifestation of omnipotence?
5. Where do your supposedly seperate concepts of God and omnipotence come from?
6. So then you agree your "valid reasoning" is bound by your finite experience?
7. Who or what defines valid reasoning?
8. Where does it come from?
9. On what basis do you presume to know what God's power "should be", if not by your own extrapolation?
10. Do you know in what ways God's omnipotence necessarily manifest?
11. How can an object that is too big for an all-powerful being to lift exist?
12. Numerous requests for a logical proof of your object.

I have answered every one of these questions, if not explicitly, then at least implicitly. If you want to debat this, I need to you read and not just type.

These type of comments are usually indicators that someone feels that they are in danger of losing the debate, whether they will acknowledge such a loss or not.

cc5k, It is clear that you are intellectually dishonest and not really willing to admit that you have committed numerous logical fallacies with your question, and it is therefore a nonsensical question.

You have very specifically NOT answered those questions, either implicitly or explicitly. If you have then please do point it out, instead of just asserting that you did. To accuse me of not reading and just typing is disingenous, and I would venture, somewhat of a personal attack.

[August]

As it seems we have gone about as far as we can in this thread, let's examine the validity of our friends question:

Can an omnipotent God make an object so big that He cannot lift it up?

The question is represented by the following syllogism:
1. An all-powerful being can lift anything
2. The object in question cannot be lifted by the all-powerful being
3. Therefore, the object is something that cannot be lifted by an all-powerful being

The fallacies in the question are numerous.:
1. Fallacy of contradictory premises - clearly the major and minor are in contradiction, no such object can exist in relation to an omnipotent being.
2. Category error - the object and subject are not logically connected
3. Fallacy of the illicit minor - the object in the minor premise is nonsensical
4. Assumptive fallacy - broad assumptions are implicit in the descriptions of the premises
5. Petitio Principii (Circular argumentation) - our friend assumes the conclusion as one of his premises

We can therefore conclude that this is nothing but a lazy attempt to attack the Christian God, based on numerous fallacies. Repeating the fallacies will not make them any more logical.

[Kurieuo]

For example, if I ask you whether you can defeat yourself in a fight, such a question is illogical because it treats you as though you are two separate subjects (where one is stronger than the other). Yet, you are only one. I believe asking whether God can assemble something so heavy that He can't lift it is illogical is the same way.

Acutally, it's not the same thing. The fight example is always illogical. My example is not. It does not require to the two subjects to exist at the same time (which would make it impossible to be the same being). Instead, it requires the being to assume the position of one subject, the assembler (to assemble the structure), and then stop, and then next assume the position of the other subject as the lifter to lift it. The scenario makes perfect sense. The part that does not make sense is when you say the being is "omnipotent".

It is clearly the same. You are ultimately asking God (or an omnipotent being) to defeat Himself no? This is only possible if two entities of some sort are invoked. To illustrate this, let me resolve your question of whether God can assemble something so heavy that He can't lift it using Christian doctrine. Christianity can actually resolve the illogical implications of your question through the doctrine of incarnation where God took on human form as Jesus Christ.

In the first instance, God can assemble a structure so big which He cannot lift when bounded by human form. Yet, this does not take away from God's power, as God can also lift this structure with recourse to His divine power. Therefore the answer to your question is both "yes" and "no" using the doctrine of incarnation. Yet, it clearly requires two instances. If God is kept to only one instance, then the implications of follow on questions (such as "Did God succeed?") become illogical; for God both succeeds and looses against Himself (as is the case with anyone who answers your question affirmatively or negatively!).

Now I'd recommend you get a new argument on several grounds: 1) You require someone to accept your definition of omnipotence which includes doing nonsense (which isn't really anything, but are a category of non-entities as CS Lewis describes); 2) What you are actually asking God to do (given only one instance) is illogical even if you can't see it. This latter point is perhaps the reason why many who debate Theists tend to focus their attention on other arguments (e.g., pitting God's omnipotence against his benevolence). It is only a good argument against someone who believes God can do logical acts as well as illogical nonsense.

Kurieuo

[bizzt]

Sorry, I could not resist:

Can God make a rock so heavy He can't lift it? Depends on who you ask....

Educated Catholic
You'll have to define 'make' and 'rock' and 'big' within the context of current culture.

Normal Catholic
Shame on you for asking.

Church of Christ
No mention of a huge rock is ever made in the New Testament, therefore rock music is bad.

Mormon
One day you'll be a god, too. So just wait and ask yourself.

Atheist
Who?

A Chick Tract
Now we'll tell you the story of a man who never repented of his sins. As you can see in panel 8, a big rock fell on his head. You must repent for it is written in Jeremiah: "Even in the womb I knew ye, and prevented huge rocks from smacking your action."

Methodist
Question and Answer Period is after the two songs, liturgical reading, the doxology, and prayer requests, and before the offering, another song, the Lord's prayer, a closing song, and the benediction. Go back to your seat.

Charismatic
I'd tell you, but you wouldn't understand.

Baptist
Not important. Have you accepted Jesus Christ as your Lord and Personal Savior? If you did then raise your hand.

Episcopalian
That depends. What did the Catholic say?