- Joined
- Jul 28, 2008
- Messages
- 45,596
- Reaction score
- 22,536
- Location
- Everywhere and nowhere
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Progressive
I think I getcha now, so let's try this again:
If God can do anything, nothing is impossible. If nothing is impossible, then is there such a thing as the illogical?
Is there anything that is impossible to do?
God has a car. A Plymouth.
"The illogical" doesn't actually exist for the exact same reasons "the impossible" doesn't exist. "Impossible" and "illogical" are both adjectives.
The only "things" that can have the quality of being illogical are arguments or reasoning. When we say someone is "illogical" we don't mean that the person has the quality of being illogical, we mean that they are a person who uses illogical arguments and reasoning.
But even if nothing is truly universally impossible, it doesn't mean that it is regionally or subjectively impossible.
The Bible directly states that "He drove them out in His Fury".I have it on very good authority that God drives a pea soup green 74 Duster.
Okay, let's get back to omnipotence then.
Given the definitions that we've worked on so far, God is able to do anything He wishes, except the illogical and impossible, only because they do not exist.
The problem however is that we do not know what is possible and what is impossible. That means the term Omnipotence is quite meaningless. Even if we say God is omnipotent, we still do not know what that entails.
And the ultimate answer is still: we cannot know.
The Bible directly states that "He drove them out in His Fury".
once again, this is a rule of logic. Not necessarilly a rule of reality.If a premise does not define it's parameters, it can't be considered to be a true premise.
??? How so?It's the rules of logic that dictate it's use. If what I said isn't true, then logic doesn't exist as a field of study.Please prove/validate why logic is true. If you use logic to do so then isn't that assuming that which you are trying to prove; a fallacy within logic.
I don't follow. Couldn't the conformity of logic to reality simply be coincidental? Or perhaps its only partially correct like Newtons laws before relativity?If it isn't true, then logic doesn't exist as a field of study.Once again, trace the roots of these and explain why you are absolutely sure of their truth/validity.
then why are you claiming logic is consistant with all of reality? Both the reality we have knowledge of and the assumed reality we have yet to perceive or obtain knowledge of?If we don't have knowledge of something, then we cannot make a statement about it and consider it true.
If we make a statement about all of reality, we are making a statement about something we don't have knowledge of, and therefore we cannot consider it true.
We cannot know if we are actually correct. We can only claim that we are correct via logic. There is no omniscient being to tell us if we got the actual correct answer. We simply recognize that our tools indicate it is correct, not that it is actually correct. Therefore our conclusion is contingent upon the accuracy of our tools. These tools appear to be accurate but they could be fooling us because we don't have anything but our possibily faulty tools to evaluate our tools with.Our conclusions are correct if and only if they are actually correct. We can say that we think a conclusion is correct but if it is not actually correct, we are wrong.
Wrong. Because we have evidence and reason to believe the things we do.My point is quite simple all things are possible including the Big Bang Theory or the existance of God.
It only depends on one's beleifs nothing more.
Apply the whole reason + evidence thing and you now understand why.As I have said before when mankind knows for sure that everything that is possible has been done and only impossible things remain.
Then we might as well put evolution on hold there would be nothing left for us to evolve to.this is as good as it gets.
I don't know about you but I can't accept that.
once again, this is a rule of logic. Not necessarilly a rule of reality.
You have yet to show how logic must necessarilly be 100% infallible in representing reality.
Logic is a selfcontained system of rules. It is not contingent upon reality.
??? How so?
Your claim is logic must represent reality without flaw because of an argument to ignorance? Logic must represent reality because you can't imagine a reason it isn't?
I don't follow. Couldn't the conformity of logic to reality simply be coincidental? Or perhaps its only partially correct like Newtons laws before relativity?
Why do you assume its all or nothing?
Furthermore, how are you certain that "logic couldn't exist as a field of study"?
then why are you claiming logic is consistant with all of reality? Both the reality we have knowledge of and the assumed reality we have yet to perceive or obtain knowledge of?
We cannot know if we are actually correct. We can only claim that we are correct via logic. There is no omniscient being to tell us if we got the actual correct answer. We simply recognize that our tools indicate it is correct, not that it is actually correct. Therefore our conclusion is contingent upon the accuracy of our tools. These tools appear to be accurate but they could be fooling us because we don't have anything but our possibily faulty tools to evaluate our tools with.
Ok. I'm with you on this.
The Apostles wrote their gospels 300-400 years after Jesus?
ok, now we're in the old testament...
The Bible was not written before it was verbally passed on. Regardless of whether there is a God or not, and whether it is really his book or not, the fact that it was spoken then recorded by man leaves LOTS of room for error. While some parts of the Bible have been proven historically accurate (empires, cities, historical events) it's completely based in one's faith what they take from the Bible. I mean, the Bible is the best and worst argument for itself.
Once again, if it is all they know, then it IS the entire world to them. While Hindsight shows us they may have been wrong if this were even the case, they knew nothing beyond their borders or what information may have come to them from traders or scouts, etc.
Wrong. Because we have evidence and reason to believe the things we do.
For example, do you think its reasonable to believe that I am actually a talking robot frog living. On planet Venus who just somehow is connected to the internet? You said "all things are possible". So why don't you believe that?
Because you have reason and EVIDENCE to believe otherwise. You may not be absolutly certain but you are pretty damn certain I don't live on Venus.
Evolution and the big bang have lots of solid, verfiable, reproducible EVIDENCE and reason.
God only has testimonial claims. I wouldn't dare call testimony evidence. And if you would then you must admit its the least reliable, most untrustworthy form of evidence
Apply the whole reason + evidence thing and you now understand why.
Does life on other planets disprove the Koran?
Does life on other planets disprove the Rigveda?
Does life on other planets disprove the Book of Mormon?
Etc.
Oh, I see. When you said the Big Bang wasn't possible, you meant it wasn't possible without help.
I don't want to sound mean, but I find myself having a hard time trying to understand your posts because you keep going off on tangents instead of just clarifying your points.
We could have avoided the whole matter and energy thing, if you just came out and said what you really meant...
Does life on other planets disprove the Koran?
Does life on other planets disprove the Rigveda?
Does life on other planets disprove the Book of Mormon?
Etc.
Well I don't want to sound mean either but my friend you are standing in a forest looking for trees.
My point is simple individual thought.
I might beleive in something you may not I can not prove it but it still is what I beleive it does not make it an iron clad law.
You may beleive in something I do not you may not have proof but it is still your beleif although you do not have proof that does not make it an iron clad law.
In short what you beleive and what I beleive may be completely differant ,but both remain "POSSIBILITIES".
My question was asked without parameter, so that the ability of an omnipotent being could be addressed.Loads of stuff can have the quality of being impossible under the right parameters. It depends on a bunch of things.
You haven't understood what I meant...
It doesn't matter to me what you believe in. It doesn't matter to me what anyone believes in. What I was trying to point out to you, hoping you'd take it as advice, was that you gave a very bad presentation of your beliefs. You were not coherent, and you were not good at articulating what you believed. It took so long for you to explain your actual position, which wasn't even the same as the one you initially started with. That is what I meant.
In short, I'm saying you need to improve your writing. Your thoughts are not connected, you do not address the points correctly sometimes, and you go off on tangents talking about something else. Again, sorry if I sound mean.
You're getting defensive instead of taking LightDemon's advice. His point was that your posts are difficult to understand due to poor spelling, incorrect usage of words and a lack of grammar. If you resolve these issues, your posts will be more comprehensible and your argument better understood.Oh look a critic sorry but old news my man.
Perhaps if you spent less time correcting others and focusing more on the point of this discussion about possibilities and beleofs you might make a point.
What next you gonna start a thread called the bad post of presluc?
My post may have been a bad representation but eventualy it came to the point possibilities and does life on other planets disprove the bible.
All you have done is post about how bad my representaion is.
You want perfection you are on the wrong planet
You want to be a critic try Fox news they're always correcting everybody and everything.
This is a Debate forum.
You want perfection you are on the wrong planet
You're getting defensive instead of taking LightDemon's advice. His point was that your posts are difficult to understand due to poor spelling, incorrect usage of words and a lack of grammar. If you resolve these issues, your posts will be more comprehensible and your argument better understood.
A desire for mediocrity (at least) =/= desire for perfection.
Just saying.
Perfection is a journey not a destination.
Unless your post be perfect everytime do not judge mine,
JUST SAYING:2wave:
Oh look a critic sorry but old news my man.
Perhaps if you spent less time correcting others and focusing more on the point of this discussion about possibilities and beleofs you might make a point.
What next you gonna start a thread called the bad post of presluc?
My post may have been a bad representation but eventualy it came to the point possibilities and does life on other planets disprove the bible.
All you have done is post about how bad my representaion is.
You want perfection you are on the wrong planet
You want to be a critic try Fox news they're always correcting everybody and everything.
This is a Debate forum.
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?