binnyboy wrote:Nope phoenix that's the fight I'm looking for
And FRANK!
If you'll notice my only point of argument was that omnipotence is impossible. You seem to agree,
No I don't...and I did not say, nor intimate that I agree.
I merely pointed out that humans
may be wrong[/b] about that item.
I have no idea if omnipotence is impossible...and I suspect neither do you. But...it is alright with me if you want to assert stuff you do not know.
Quote:... though you have some comment on humans in the process of your agreement. If you'll notice very carefully, the rest of the things I said are just interesting facts, not my argument.
Okay...but since they were presented in defense of what you were saying...I think that is a distinction that is self-serving. But I will agree for the sake of further debate.
Quote:So you seem to agree. An omnipotent god is impossible (though you conject about a "god" that can do things that are not definitionally impossible).
I have absolutely no idea if an omnipotent god is possible or impossible. I do understand that humans can think up definitionally impossible things...but for all I know, gods, if they exist, can handle that kind of thing standing on their heads.
In any case, I doubt anyone with any intelligence at all would define "omnipotence" as being able to do all things...even definitionally impossible ones.
Quote:You also have implied that you believe...
I can stop you right there...because you have never heard me imply that I "believe" anything.
If you have comments on something I have said...why not simply quote what I said rather than characterizing it...and then debating the characterization?
Quote:... anyone who believes anything particular about a god will have some logical point wrong.
No I didn't. I merely speculated about something that might possible be.
If you intend to argue against, or use, anything I have said...please quote what it is you are arguing against.
Quote:But you believe that thinking there is NO god is equally fallable.
I did not mention anything I "believe." If you have something I said to which you want to make reference...please do so with a quote.
Quote:Well, Frank, let me ask you this:
Do you don't have a tail?
Hint: according to your previous argument, your answer, for consistence to apply to your answers, should be "I don't know".
After all, just because there's no evidence you have a tail doesn't mean you don't have one.
Try to get a grip on it, Bin. You are over-reaching by a considerable amount.
But if you really want to make this absurd argument and get your doors blown off...at least do it using some quotes rather than building strawmen.
Quote:faith: Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.
reason: The power to think, judge, and draw logical conclusions.
absurd: Foolishly incongruous or unreasonable; ridiculous. -See Synonyms at foolish.
Source: Reader's Digest Illustrated Encyclopedia (encyclopedic dictionary)
Well, Bin...among the two dozen dictionaries that I have in my study...I happen to have a copy of the Reader's Digest Illustrated Encyclopedic Dictionary...the book to which I assume you make reference...
...and I find that, with your paraphrasing, you have not accurately cited what is written in that book.
I would suggest that if you are presenting definitions from dictionaries...that you quote exactly...or you will run into the same difficulties you did by paraphrasing what I said.
And...even with the paraphrasing...you have not substantiated your assertion that "Many god-pushers advocate an appeal to faith over reason, and that is the definition of a fool! Look it up!"
Quote:I can apply reason to whatever I want, including what anybody says about god.
Yes you can. And I hope you start doing it soon.
Quote: And if what they say is unreasonable, it is absurd. And if what they say is absurd, it is foolish. And that person is a fool.
Well...we have still got to determine who is the fool...the person being charged with foolishness; the person doing the charging; or both.
But that is for the future. Let's take one thing at a time.
Quote:Sorry if that's too much definition hopping. Maybe it's lost in the translation.... See, I'm being reasonable here
It is not too much definition. In fact, it is not enough definition...or more exactly, not accurate definition. And the "translation" is suspect to say the least. But we can chalk that up to zealousness.
But I will agree that you are being "reasonable", Bin.
Good for you.
I'll do my level best to be reasonable back.