|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Mar 29, 2024 21:23:45 GMT
"Context, man. Context. You know... that thing you lose when you quote chop? "
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Mar 29, 2024 22:20:23 GMT
"Context, man. Context. You know... that thing you lose when you quote chop? " Speaking of, you seem to have overlooked this: "If God can do anything, can he..." Yes. No matter what follows "can he," and no matter how paradoxical or contradictory it may seem to you, my non-omniscient, non-omnipotent, non-omnipresent friend, the answer is yes.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Mar 30, 2024 1:42:49 GMT
"Context, man. Context. You know... that thing you lose when you quote chop? " Speaking of, you seem to have overlooked this: "If God can do anything, can he..." Yes. No matter what follows "can he," and no matter how paradoxical or contradictory it may seem to you, my non-omniscient, non-omnipotent, non-omnipresent friend, the answer is yes. "If all chocolate teapots hold hot water, why can't mine?" Just because something is said (especially when it includes a conditional) does not make it logically true or unquestionable. If you wish to have a more fruitful discussion as to why a supposedly Perfect Deity, absolutely omniscient and omnipotent can lead to logical inconsistency and absurdity, you know where to find me.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Mar 30, 2024 3:47:34 GMT
Speaking of, you seem to have overlooked this: "If God can do anything, can he..." Yes. No matter what follows "can he," and no matter how paradoxical or contradictory it may seem to you, my non-omniscient, non-omnipotent, non-omnipresent friend, the answer is yes. "If all chocolate teapots hold hot water, why can't mine?" Just because something is said (especially when it includes a conditional) does not make it logically true or unquestionable. If you wish to have a more fruitful discussion as to why a supposedly Perfect Deity, absolutely omniscient and omnipotent can lead to logical inconsistency and absurdity, you know where to find me. The logical inconsistency and absurdity is demonstrated by imposing limits on what is presumed to be unlimited. A supposed God who knows everything would not struggle with what we non-omniscient beings consider contradictions and paradoxes, and a supposed God who can do anything would be able to create that rock without compromising his omnipotence. Unlimited literally means no limits. Hope that helps.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Mar 30, 2024 11:46:48 GMT
"If all chocolate teapots hold hot water, why can't mine?" Just because something is said (especially when it includes a conditional) does not make it logically true or unquestionable. If you wish to have a more fruitful discussion as to why a supposedly Perfect Deity, absolutely omniscient and omnipotent can lead to logical inconsistency and absurdity, you know where to find me. The logical inconsistency and absurdity is demonstrated by imposing limits on what is presumed to be unlimited. A supposed God who knows everything would not struggle with what we non-omniscient beings consider contradictions and paradoxes, and a supposed God who can do anything would be able to create that rock without compromising his omnipotence. Unlimited literally means no limits. Hope that helps. If all chocolate teapots hold hot water, why can't mine? Enjoy your tea.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Mar 30, 2024 20:06:44 GMT
The logical inconsistency and absurdity is demonstrated by imposing limits on what is presumed to be unlimited. A supposed God who knows everything would not struggle with what we non-omniscient beings consider contradictions and paradoxes, and a supposed God who can do anything would be able to create that rock without compromising his omnipotence. Unlimited literally means no limits. Hope that helps. If all chocolate teapots hold hot water, why can't mine? Enjoy your tea. I'm not sure how that applies to anything I just said, but I'd bet Nestlé Master Chocolatier John Costello has the answer: www.odditycentral.com/foods/teapot-made-entirely-from-chocolate-can-hold-boiled-water-without-melting.htmlEnjoy your logical contradiction.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Mar 30, 2024 21:06:40 GMT
FF: If all chocolate teapots hold hot water, why can't mine? I'm not sure how that applies to anything I just said, It applies as although one proposes that all chocolate teapots can make tea, if I have one which doesn't then it invalidates the proposition. Since you don't wish or are unable to answer that question here is the classic conundrum broken down for you, something else for you to ignore: If God can do absolutely anything then can He make a stone He cannot lift? 1. Yes, God can make a stone He cannot lift 2. If he cannot lift a stone then there is something God cannot do 1. No, God cannot make a stone He cannot lift 2. If God cannot make such a stone then there is something God cannot do. In connection with this you have claimed that " a supposed God who can do anything would be able to create that rock without compromising his omnipotence" please show how exactly that would be achieved when any rock is either liftable or not. Hint: saying something does not make it true.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Mar 30, 2024 21:15:57 GMT
I'm not sure how that applies to anything I just said, It applies as although one proposes that all chocolate teapots can make tea, if I have one which doesn't then it invalidates the proposition. But I am sure you can see that really. Since you don't wish or are unable to answer that question here is the classic conundrum broken down for you, something else for you to ignore: If God can do absolutely anything then can He make a stone He cannot lift? 1. Yes, God can make a stone He cannot lift 2. If he cannot lift a stone then there is something God cannot do 1. No, God cannot make a stone He cannot lift 2. If God cannot make such a stone then there is something God cannot do. I hope that helps. Do you really think I have been avoiding that? I've been addressing it head-on. Here it is again: When you presume that God can do absolutely anything then conclude that there is something he can't do, you took a wrong turn somewhere along the way. Let me know when you find the end of infinity.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Mar 30, 2024 21:47:45 GMT
"If God can do anything, can he..." Yes. No matter what follows "can he," and no matter how paradoxical or contradictory it may seem to you, my non-omniscient, non-omnipotent, non-omnipresent friend, the answer is yes. Show how then. Evasion will be noted. The point here would be that if one doesn't know how the paradoxical or contradictory can be done, then how do you or we know you are right? Hint: saying something still does not make it true . Ultimately the question is, who do I give weight to, some guy on a message board who makes stubborn statements and cannot back them up, or careful and wise thinkers like Aquinas? (Even William Craig Lane is with me on this!) With very few exceptions philosophers believe that no account of the doctrine of divine omnipotence is adequate if it entails that God can do what is logically impossible. For instance C. S. Lewis argues that when talking about omnipotence, referencing "a rock so heavy that God cannot lift it" is nonsense just as much as referencing "a square circle"; that it is not logically coherent in terms of power to think that omnipotence includes the power to do the logically impossible. So asking "Can God create a rock so heavy that even he cannot lift it?" is just as much nonsense as asking "Can God draw a square circle?" The logical contradiction here being God's simultaneous ability and disability in lifting the rock: the statement "God can lift this rock" must have a truth value of either true or false, it cannot possess both. Just give it up,for you sound stubborn more than informed. When you presume something and then obstinately refuse to accept when the presumption proves problematic unfortunately the wrong turn is all yours. I You also seem unaware of when, back at the start, I wrote of a God "a God who supposedly knows [include 'can do' here] everything.( Suppose = " generally assumed or believed to be the case, but not necessarily so.') whereas only you have been talking of things presumed ('= suppose that something is the case on the basis of probability.) See what you did there?
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Mar 30, 2024 22:21:03 GMT
"If God can do anything, can he..." Yes. No matter what follows "can he," and no matter how paradoxical or contradictory it may seem to you, my non-omniscient, non-omnipotent, non-omnipresent friend, the answer is yes. Show how then. Evasion will be noted. The point here would be that if one doesn't know how the paradoxical or contradictory can be done, then how do you or we know you are right? Hint: saying something still does not make it true . Ultimately the question is, who do I give weight to, some guy on a message board who makes stubborn statements and cannot back them up, or careful and wise thinkers like Aquinas? (Even William Craig Lane is with me on this!) With very few exceptions philosophers believe that no account of the doctrine of divine omnipotence is adequate if it entails that God can do what is logically impossible. For instance C. S. Lewis argues that when talking about omnipotence, referencing "a rock so heavy that God cannot lift it" is nonsense just as much as referencing "a square circle"; that it is not logically coherent in terms of power to think that omnipotence includes the power to do the logically impossible. So asking "Can God create a rock so heavy that even he cannot lift it?" is just as much nonsense as asking "Can God draw a square circle?" The logical contradiction here being God's simultaneous ability and disability in lifting the rock: the statement "God can lift this rock" must have a truth value of either true or false, it cannot possess both. Just give it up,for you sound stubborn more than informed. When you presume something and then obstinately refuse to accept when the presumption proves problematic unfortunately the wrong turn is all yours. I You also seem unaware of when, back at the start, I wrote of a God "a God who supposedly knows [include 'can do' here] everything.( Suppose = " generally assumed or believed to be the case, but not necessarily so.') whereas only you have been talking of things presumed ('= suppose that something is the case on the basis of probability.) See what you did there? I happen to agree with CS Lewis, and I've quoted his "nonsense remains nonsense" line many times. But when it's presumed (ie, supposed) that God can do absolutely anything, it's illogical to conclude that there is something he can't do. I don't know why this is so difficult for you to accept, but I believe it has something to do with your aversion to agree with me. "If God can do absolutely anything, | then there is something God cannot do." | ^ premise ^ | ^ conclusion ^ |
Your words, not mine. As for "evading" the question, I'll be clear this time: I don't know. But I know who would: Someone who can do absolutely anything.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Mar 31, 2024 1:11:36 GMT
I happen to agree with CS Lewis, and I've quoted his "nonsense remains nonsense" line many times. Good; then you will remember him, just above where he disagrees with you: "The logical contradiction here being God's simultaneous ability and disability in lifting the rock: the statement "God can lift this rock" must have a truth value of either true or false, it cannot possess both." You will also recall where I have just carefully distinguished between suppositions and presumptions, which are not the same. It is more illogical not to question a premise if the each possible conclusion is nonsense pace Lewis. And, as already mentioned, since you do not know how the logically impossible might be achieved, how can one tell if you are right - let alone how can you know yourself? I don't know why this is so difficult for you to accept, but I believe it has something to do with your aversion to agree with me. I can help with both these. The answer to the question is that the supposition of the premise is found wrong; chocolate teapots do not all hold boiling water or, duh, mine would work. God cannot remain all-powerful if He successfully acts to reduce that power, or conversely can't do so. No matter how much a premise is insisted on it doesn't necessarily make it right. *It appears you do not know a lot. You do not know that a premise can be deduced wrong, or how God can work to do what is logically impossible. And based on that lack, the reader is asked to believe you have better "understanding" over the likes of Aquinas, Augustine of Hippo, CS Lewis and all the others. Really? Tell us then how, if such a entity exists, it might create a four-sided triangle or swear by a higher power. But hey: I am guessing you don't know that, either...LOL Thank you for playing.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Mar 31, 2024 1:32:33 GMT
I happen to agree with CS Lewis, and I've quoted his "nonsense remains nonsense" line many times. Good; then you will remember him, just above where he disagrees with you: "The logical contradiction here being God's simultaneous ability and disability in lifting the rock: the statement "God can lift this rock" must have a truth value of either true or false, it cannot possess both." You will also recall where I have just carefully distinguished between suppositions and presumptions, which are not the same. It is more illogical not to question a premise if the each possible conclusion is nonsense pace Lewis. And, as already mentioned, since you do not know how the logically impossible might be achieved, how can one tell if you are right - let alone how can you know yourself? I don't know why this is so difficult for you to accept, but I believe it has something to do with your aversion to agree with me. I can help with both these. The answer to the question is that the supposition of the premise is found wrong; chocolate teapots do not all hold boiling water or, duh, mine would work. God cannot remain all-powerful if He successfully acts to reduce that power, or conversely can't do so. No matter how much a premise is insisted on it doesn't necessarily make it right. *It appears you do not know a lot. You do not know that a premise can be deduced wrong, or how God can work to do what is logically impossible. And based on that lack, the reader is asked to believe you have better "understanding" over the likes of Aquinas, Augustine of Hippo, CS Lewis and all the others. Really? Tell us then how, if such a entity exists, it might create a four-sided triangle or swear by a higher power. But hey: I am guessing you don't know that, either...LOL Thank you for playing. "If God can do absolutely anything, then there is something God cannot do." Your words, not mine.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Mar 31, 2024 13:01:46 GMT
"If God can do absolutely anything, then there is something God cannot do." Your words, not mine. "Context, man. Context. You know... that thing you lose when you quote chop? " Your words, not mine. The context was (if you had honestly included all of what I said) still, if the supposition of an original premise is found wanting, no matter how it is insisted on, then it ought to be discarded. "I don't know why this is so difficult for you to accept, but I believe it has something to do with your aversion to agree with me." Again, your words not mine. I leave you with the wise words of CS Lewis, which you have quoted but have since oddly ignored: " 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." His words not mine. God cannot both make a stone it can both lift and also cannot, so God is not 'all powerful' ... no matter how one persists with a false supposition. QED.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Mar 31, 2024 19:24:29 GMT
"If God can do absolutely anything, then there is something God cannot do." Your words, not mine. "Context, man. Context. You know... that thing you lose when you quote chop? " Your words, not mine. The context was (if you had honestly included all of what I said) still, if the supposition of an original premise is found wanting, no matter how it is insisted on, then it ought to be discarded. "I don't know why this is so difficult for you to accept, but I believe it has something to do with your aversion to agree with me." Again, your words not mine. I leave you with the wise words of CS Lewis, which you have quoted but have since oddly ignored: " 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." His words not mine. God cannot both make a stone it can both lift and also cannot, so God is not 'all powerful' ... no matter how one persists with a false supposition. QED. Those are indeed not your words. Your words were: "If God can do absolutely anything, then there is something God cannot do."
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Apr 1, 2024 16:29:39 GMT
"Context, man. Context. You know... that thing you lose when you quote chop? " Your words, not mine. The context was (if you had honestly included all of what I said) still, if the supposition of an original premise is found wanting, no matter how it is insisted on, then it ought to be discarded. "I don't know why this is so difficult for you to accept, but I believe it has something to do with your aversion to agree with me." Again, your words not mine. I leave you with the wise words of CS Lewis, which you have quoted but have since oddly ignored: " 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." His words not mine. God cannot both make a stone it can both lift and also cannot, so God is not 'all powerful' ... no matter how one persists with a false supposition. QED. Those are indeed not your words. Your words were: "If God can do absolutely anything, then there is something God cannot do." Once again: "Context, man. Context. You know... that thing you lose when you quote chop?" Your words, not mine, and you do it with this one more. Sorry, but I am still with C S Lewis and an illustrious majority, not with some obstinate guy let alone one who "does not know" how obvious logical contradictions in his presumption can be resolved..
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Apr 1, 2024 22:00:22 GMT
Those are indeed not your words. Your words were: "If God can do absolutely anything, then there is something God cannot do." Once again: "Context, man. Context. You know... that thing you lose when you quote chop?" Your words, not mine, and you do it with this one more. Sorry, but I am still with C S Lewis and an illustrious majority, not with some obstinate guy let alone one who "does not know" how obvious logical contradictions in his presumption can be resolved.. Let us suppose there is a Perfect Deity who can do absolutely anything. If we conclude that there is something that Perfect Deity can't do, then we aren't supposing there is a Perfect Deity who can do absolutely anything. Premise: God can do absolutely anything. Conclusion: There is something God can't do. As requested, I continue to note that you only talk of a supposed God and not one necessarily supposed by you. Perhaps you could be so so kind as to return the favor, especially after I clearly stated that I, too, am with CS Lewis. But unless you were pasting directly from Wiki again, those are indeed your words. Even if they aren't, you're still standing behind a logical contradiction. absolutely: Completely and without qualification; totally and definitely; without question.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Apr 1, 2024 22:50:51 GMT
Once again: "Context, man. Context. You know... that thing you lose when you quote chop?" Your words, not mine, and you do it with this one more. Sorry, but I am still with C S Lewis and an illustrious majority, not with some obstinate guy let alone one who "does not know" how obvious logical contradictions in his presumption can be resolved.. Let us suppose there is a Perfect Deity who can do absolutely anything. If we conclude that there is something that Perfect Deity can't do, then we aren't supposing there is a Perfect Deity who can do absolutely anything. OK then, let's play it your way. If God can do anything then He can create a stone that He cannot lift, right?
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Apr 1, 2024 23:07:22 GMT
Let us suppose there is a Perfect Deity who can do absolutely anything. If we conclude that there is something that Perfect Deity can't do, then we aren't supposing there is a Perfect Deity who can do absolutely anything. OK then, let's play it your way. If God can do anything then He can create a stone that He cannot lift, right? Not only can he do that, he can do so without compromising his ability to do absolutely anything. Can you hear me now?
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Apr 2, 2024 7:00:42 GMT
OK then, let's play it your way. If God can do anything then He can create a stone that He cannot lift, right? Not only can he do that, he can do so without compromising his ability to do absolutely anything. Can you hear me now? Can God lift something that He made so that He cannot ? Yes or no will do.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Apr 2, 2024 7:39:29 GMT
Not only can he do that, he can do so without compromising his ability to do absolutely anything. Can you hear me now? Can God lift something that He made so that He cannot ? Yes or no will do. You just responded to a yes, but here it is with the actual word included to satisfy your linguistic pedantry: If he can do absolutely anything, then yes, he could, and he could do it without compromising his ability to do absolutely anything.
|
|