cc5k wrote: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.
