|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Apr 2, 2024 19:01:32 GMT
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. Do you agree with these definitions: Liftable: 'something which can be lifted' Unliftable: 'something unable to be lifted' ?
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Apr 2, 2024 23:30:50 GMT
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. Do you agree with these definitions: Liftable: 'something which can be lifted' Unliftable: 'something unable to be lifted' ? "Unliftable" is a bit sketchy, but sure, I agree with those definitions. Is it now your contention that our "supposed Perfect Deity who can do absolutely anything" can't lift an unliftable object without rendering it liftable?
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Apr 3, 2024 7:57:17 GMT
Do you agree with these definitions: Liftable: 'something which can be lifted' Unliftable: 'something unable to be lifted' ? "Unliftable" is a bit sketchy, but sure, I agree with those definitions. Is it now your contention that our "supposed Perfect Deity who can do absolutely anything" can't lift an unliftable object without rendering it liftable? That's certainly true and one thing, thank you i.e by our agreed definitions God could not have made an unliftable rock in the first place. Yes, here you are right: we are concluding that there cannot be a deity who can do absolutely everything, for logical reasons of contradiction already uncovered, no matter if it is supposed. A tautology can be nonsense ('pigs can fly and porcine aviation is real') and 'If' after all is only a conditional. The Negation of a tautology is always a contradiction. The problem with the tautological fallacy - and all you are doing is arguing from the same tautology, over and over - is that, as I noted before, the argument claims to have proved something simply by asserting it as true. (When it starts with a conditional though, even its supposed truth is open to question of course) By assuming the proof in its own premise, it results in a circular argument, while it brings no more information to support the conclusion, just repetition. When the tautology is negated by a discovered contradiction, it fails to convince. Thus, while it may be a strictly logically true, if trivial, self-confirming argument, it is not necessarily a correct one in the 'real world' and can be disproved by it. Also, back at the start you were originally triggered when I originally talked of " "a God who supposedly knows everything and yet at times has nevertheless has cause to "repent" " . Note how this is different from "If God can do absolutely anything, then there is something God cannot do." by which mischievously you have misrepresented what I have been saying about God, invoking a contradiction, when I have never written that exact sentence. In the first case I am merely noting an evident contradiction in one supposed God. What God is 'supposed' to be able to do is not that which God 'can' or 'cannot' do. Different emphasis. Naughty. But to continue: Would an all-knowing deity always know that it can lift everything?
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Apr 3, 2024 20:04:39 GMT
"Unliftable" is a bit sketchy, but sure, I agree with those definitions. Is it now your contention that our "supposed Perfect Deity who can do absolutely anything" can't lift an unliftable object without rendering it liftable? That's certainly true and one thing, thank you i.e by our agreed definitions God could not have made an unliftable rock in the first place. Yes, here you are right: we are concluding that there cannot be a deity who can do absolutely everything, for logical reasons of contradiction already uncovered, no matter if it is supposed. A tautology can be nonsense ('pigs can fly and porcine aviation is real') and 'If' after all is only a conditional. The Negation of a tautology is always a contradiction. The problem with the tautological fallacy - and all you are doing is arguing from the same tautology, over and over - is that, as I noted before, the argument claims to have proved something simply by asserting it as true. (When it starts with a conditional though, even its supposed truth is open to question of course) By assuming the proof in its own premise, it results in a circular argument, while it brings no more information to support the conclusion, just repetition. When the tautology is negated by a discovered contradiction, it fails to convince. Thus, while it may be a strictly logically true, if trivial, self-confirming argument, it is not necessarily a correct one in the 'real world' and can be disproved by it. Also, back at the start you were originally triggered when I originally talked of " "a God who supposedly knows everything and yet at times has nevertheless has cause to "repent" " . Note how this is different from "If God can do absolutely anything, then there is something God cannot do." by which mischievously you have misrepresented what I have been saying about God, invoking a contradiction, when I have never written that exact sentence. In the first case I am merely noting an evident contradiction in one supposed God. What God is 'supposed' to be able to do is not that which God 'can' or 'cannot' do. Different emphasis. Naughty. But to continue: Would an all-knowing deity always know that it can lift everything? Does this Perfect Deity we are supposing have unlimited knowledge and power or not?
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Apr 4, 2024 19:54:21 GMT
That's certainly true and one thing, thank you i.e by our agreed definitions God could not have made an unliftable rock in the first place. Yes, here you are right: we are concluding that there cannot be a deity who can do absolutely everything, for logical reasons of contradiction already uncovered, no matter if it is supposed. A tautology can be nonsense ('pigs can fly and porcine aviation is real') and 'If' after all is only a conditional. The Negation of a tautology is always a contradiction. The problem with the tautological fallacy - and all you are doing is arguing from the same tautology, over and over - is that, as I noted before, the argument claims to have proved something simply by asserting it as true. (When it starts with a conditional though, even its supposed truth is open to question of course) By assuming the proof in its own premise, it results in a circular argument, while it brings no more information to support the conclusion, just repetition. When the tautology is negated by a discovered contradiction, it fails to convince. Thus, while it may be a strictly logically true, if trivial, self-confirming argument, it is not necessarily a correct one in the 'real world' and can be disproved by it. Also, back at the start you were originally triggered when I originally talked of " "a God who supposedly knows everything and yet at times has nevertheless has cause to "repent" " . Note how this is different from "If God can do absolutely anything, then there is something God cannot do." by which mischievously you have misrepresented what I have been saying about God, invoking a contradiction, when I have never written that exact sentence. In the first case I am merely noting an evident contradiction in one supposed God. What God is 'supposed' to be able to do is not that which God 'can' or 'cannot' do. Different emphasis. Naughty. But to continue: Would an all-knowing deity always know that it can lift everything? Does this Perfect Deity we are supposing have unlimited knowledge and power or not? Yes, I did say "all knowing deity" and for the purposes of this question we can assume your tautology.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Apr 4, 2024 20:30:08 GMT
Does this Perfect Deity we are supposing have unlimited knowledge and power or not? Yes, I did say "all knowing deity" and for the purposes of this question we can assume your tautology. Then the answer to any question that begins with “can he” is yes.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Apr 5, 2024 21:04:28 GMT
Yes, I did say "all knowing deity" and for the purposes of this question we can assume your tautology. Then the answer to any question that begins with “can he” is yes. The question is how could God think He was creating an unliftable rock and know that He wasn't? Also, as carefully explained to you already (which you last ignored) a tautology is merely a true, circular argument in logic using its own supposition as proof, but not necessarily a correct one, and is typically negated by contradiction. Eg 'If all buses are never late then all buses are on time'. My bus was late today, so it is not true to suppose otherwise. Some buses are late and it can be shown so, and the supposition is negated. Your answer always seems be that buses must be late just because it is assumed so. The same applies to your regular tautology of (summarised) 'If God is all powerful He can do anything' When even logically God cannot do things which are mutually exclusive while in the Bible we learn that God cannot share His glory with anyone [Isaiah 42:8] or swear to a higher power (Hebrews 6:13-14) etc. The supposition is wrong.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Apr 5, 2024 21:09:19 GMT
Then the answer to any question that begins with “can he” is yes. The question is how could God think He was creating an unliftable rock and know that He wasn't? Also, as carefully explained to you already (which you last ignored) a tautology is merely a true, circular argument in logic using its own supposition as proof, but not necessarily a correct one, and is typically negated by contradiction. Eg 'If all buses are never late then all buses are on time'. My bus was late today, so it is not true to suppose otherwise. Some buses are late and it can be shown so, and the supposition is negated The same applies to your regular tautology of (summarised) 'If God is all powerful He can do anything' When even logically God cannot do things which are mutually exclusive (and even in the Bible we learn that God cannot share His glory with anyone [Isaiah 42:8] or swear to a higher power (Hebrews 6:13-14) etc). I hope it helps, but it hasn't so far with your fingers always in your ears lol. But never mind. No, the question is whether or not our supposed Perfect Deity who can do absolutely anything can do absolutely anything.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Apr 5, 2024 21:15:48 GMT
The question is how could God think He was creating an unliftable rock and know that He wasn't? Also, as carefully explained to you already (which you last ignored) a tautology is merely a true, circular argument in logic using its own supposition as proof, but not necessarily a correct one, and is typically negated by contradiction. Eg 'If all buses are never late then all buses are on time'. My bus was late today, so it is not true to suppose otherwise. Some buses are late and it can be shown so, and the supposition is negated The same applies to your regular tautology of (summarised) 'If God is all powerful He can do anything' When even logically God cannot do things which are mutually exclusive (and even in the Bible we learn that God cannot share His glory with anyone [Isaiah 42:8] or swear to a higher power (Hebrews 6:13-14) etc). I hope it helps, but it hasn't so far with your fingers always in your ears lol. But never mind. No, the question is whether or not our supposed Perfect Deity who can do absolutely anything can do absolutely anything. Not read anything I just wrote have you? (Also asking 'how' is not the same as asking 'whether' God can do something) If Admin is wrong and stubborn in this exchange then in this exchange Admin is stubborn and wrong. Wow, I see how it works now! The question here is if you are stubborn and wrong, then you are wrong and stubborn..
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Apr 5, 2024 23:46:56 GMT
No, the question is whether or not our supposed Perfect Deity who can do absolutely anything can do absolutely anything. Not read anything I just wrote have you? (Also asking 'how' is not the same as asking 'whether' God can do something) If Admin is wrong and stubborn in this exchange then in this exchange Admin is stubborn and wrong. Wow, I see how it works now! The question here is if you are stubborn and wrong, then you are wrong and stubborn.. That isn't a question, but at least you stopped trying to find yet another long-winded and convoluted way of saying our supposed Perfect Deity who can do absolutely anything can't do absolutely anything.
|
|
transfuged
Sophomore
@transfuged
Posts: 956
Likes: 307
|
Post by transfuged on Apr 13, 2024 14:40:20 GMT
Alleluia, Alleluia, Alleluia!
|
|