So, MY answer to MY poll question is no.because you don't need proof or evidence to persuade someone with your position. It's meaningless to someone like you. It's an exercise in futility. Therefore, it ended even before it began.
Look at Tucker's argument. The whole premise assumes that the illogical cannot be done. That's begging the question. Again, hence why I've stated there is no actual argument against why God cannot be illogical other then our desires to understand.
So, MY answer to MY poll question is no.
That means the thread is over, because...?
Fail. Anything is possible, logical or not, real or not.Premise 1: What is logically possible is defined by what is possible within reality
Well then, my previous statement continues to apply, in full.Please read again, "This thread has ended for you." Did you catch that? Or do you need me to explain?
Well then, my previous statement continues to apply.
Fail. Anything is possible, logical or not, real or not.
You can think otherwise, if you want, but it doesnt change anything.As with my previous statement, what ever makes you feel better. :2wave:
Premise 1: What is logically possible is defined by what is possible within reality
Premise 2: An omnipotent being would define what is possible within reality
Conclusion: Therefore, an omnipotent being would define what is logically possible.
Where is the logical flaw?
Not, not at all.Then "anything" is logically possible.
God is also held as omnipresent, which means that He operates/exists in all dimensions.Isn't it a possibility that only a part of God operates in reality, while the rest of God operates in another dimension where he can do things which are impossible in reality?
The rules of logic are bound by what we perceive reality is. Our perception may be wrong.The rules of logic are bound by what exists in reality.
Isn't it a possibility that only a part of God operates in reality, while the rest of God operates in another dimension where he can do things which are impossible in reality?
If you accept the above, then #2 is not accurate enough.
God is also held as omnipresent, which means that He operates/exists in all dimensions.
Not, not at all.
The illogical is still illogical, just possible.
As -anything- is possible, there's no necessary relationship between logical and possible.
If you want to define omnipotent as the ability to do anything that is possible, then, as anything is possible, your 'limit' to omnipotence is one of mere rhetoric.
That doesn't even make sense.
Reality is: 1 : the quality or state of being real.
Essentially you are saying this other dimension God is operating in is not real.
If it is not real, then it doesn't exist. If it doesn't exist, God cannot operate in it.
But if God can operate in it, it exists, and as such, it is a part of reality.
No, reality is what we understand in this universe. There is no way for you to know, or understand, about a reality in which we do not live in. This does not mean it does not exist by virtue of "absence of proof" fallacy.
No, I used the actual definition of the word. Please click the little linky thing I attached to the word. that's what it is there for.
If you want to invent definitions for words, that is fine. Don't expect me to denounce the real definitions in favor of your inventions though. .
Which is why I laid the disclaimer, "if you accepted the above."
Why on earth would anyone accept a nonsense statement that creates new definitions for words that actually contradicts the real definitions of those words?
My definition doesn't contradict yours, it adds onto it.
Fallacy reminds me of the word fellatio.
:lol:
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?