1
   

Can your god make a boulder so big that he can't move it?

 
 
visavis
 
  1  
Reply Sun 21 Mar, 2004 11:38 pm
But on the subject of my statement about your original reply to me do you agree that this:

In other words, as JM touched on, just blindly believe and all is well. Ignore inconsistency and use circular arguments.

"The concept of omnipotence is a paradox, and is self defeating."

"Nope, my God is omnipotent so that must not be true."

was or was not assumption?
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Sun 21 Mar, 2004 11:42 pm
visavis wrote:
FINALLY you countered somthing heh ok.. so God exsists within my head - I have had my own doubts and this is where I went with it.. then how was the universe created? and that well 2 year venture brought me to believe in the God I do now.


Re: "how was the universe created", perhaps you might consider that it wasn't and perhaps you might consider the beliefs that conveniently answer your questions might be sourced in said desire for the answers more so than in actual veracity.

As an aside, please note that you ask how the universe was "created", automatically excluding other theories.

Quote:
But anyways.. my dismissal of your 'stances' has been in response to your dismissal of mine -


I don't think I dismissed anything you said. I think you are conflating "dismiss" with "disagree and refute".

The operative difference is that one one hand you have not refuted or even attempted to refute much of what I said, on the other I have disagreed with you and argued against your position.

While you might think the two comparable insofar as acceptance of the other's ideas go they are not comparable insofar as intellectual rigor is concerned.

Quote:
I am dissapointed in a person with a rather large vocabulary (you) that your origional reply to mine failed to supply anything along the lines of a counter arguement where as you just assumed I believed in an omnipotant God and attempted to bully me into as you said 'cessation'


1) I did not attempt to "bully" you into cessation. That was your role. You told me to stop posting. I don't do the same to you and, in fact welcome your posts as this is delightful and fun for me.

2) I did not assume you believed in an omnipotent god just as I didn't assume that you were asserting "50 sales". Both were examples of circular logic to illustrate the deficiencies of the arguments you did make.

You, on the other hand, did assume that it was a reference to your beliefs.

I understand that you might be frustrated by having been lumped into other groupings in the past, but I did not do so with you.

My examples about omnipotence and the "50 sales" were precisely that, examples. The examples afforded you a close look at circular logic.

The circular logic you demonstrated was to incorporate your own belief (of an alternative dimension for your god) to substantiate the god.

It was a classic example of circular logic and I would be happy to discuss it with you.
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Sun 21 Mar, 2004 11:43 pm
visavis wrote:
But on the subject of my statement about your original reply to me do you agree that this:

In other words, as JM touched on, just blindly believe and all is well. Ignore inconsistency and use circular arguments.

"The concept of omnipotence is a paradox, and is self defeating."

"Nope, my God is omnipotent so that must not be true."

was or was not assumption?


It was an example, just like the ones about the "50 sales". A simulated dialogue to illustrate the fallacy of circular logic.

The assumption began when you assumed it was a reference to your beliefs, which I will not attempt to divine and will let you represent yourself.
0 Replies
 
visavis
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Mar, 2004 12:07 am
In other words, as JM touched on, just blindly believe and all is well. Ignore inconsistency and use circular arguments.

heh - in other words means what? (im gona let you answer your questions for you)

and your right this is a barrel of laughs as many of times has been for me talking with people like you..
0 Replies
 
visavis
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Mar, 2004 12:11 am
oh and just incase you may 'carp' on my lack of reply as to only that one thing its not because i cant come up with a sufficient arguement or what other 'examples' you may come up with its because i am exhausted and must sleep wish i didnt but gota.. talk to you tomorrow but ya define what you ment by 'in other words' im very curious about that.. gnight
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Mar, 2004 12:22 am
That was a reference to your circular logic, in using an element of your belief (the dimension that houses your god) to substantiate the very belief in the god.

When self-substantiating belief is an acceptable contruct any construct becomes acceptable (as any can be formed in a way that is self-validating, no matter how absurd).

Your belief's veracity can't be self-substantiating and still lay claim to intellectual rigor.

This doesn't mean your belief is untrue, but does mean that the argument you used was sloppy logic.

Have a good night.
0 Replies
 
visavis
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Mar, 2004 12:39 am
heh all 'belief's' can be 'writtin off' as self substantiating good job - thats old news

and you said 'in other words' that means you are restating what i said and what i said was my beliefs and so you restated my beliefs using your limited knowledge about me and my beliefs therefore assuming... but just be comfortable be a sheep use your own circular logic and dismiss my circular self sbstantiating logic and never think from someone elses view point.. nono.. seriously be subjective your entire life.. its fun i swear.. - goodnight
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Mar, 2004 12:47 am
visavis wrote:
heh all 'belief's' can be 'writtin off' as self substantiating good job - thats old news


Please substantiate this. ;-)

Quote:
and you said 'in other words' that means you are restating what i said and what i said was my beliefs and so you restated my beliefs using your limited knowledge about me and my beliefs therefore assuming...


huh?

Quote:
but just be comfortable be a sheep use your own circular logic


You are establishing a pattern in which you resort to these names in lieu of an intellectual response.

You've alleged circular logic on my part and I'd enjoy seeing you at least try to make that case.

Quote:
and dismiss my circular self sbstantiating logic and never think from someone elses view point.. nono..


Upon what basis do you assume I have never thought from your position?

Quote:
seriously be subjective your entire life.. its fun i swear.. - goodnight


This doesn't make sense. "Be subjective"? Laughing

G'night.
0 Replies
 
visavis
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Mar, 2004 05:32 am
You are establishing a pattern in which you resort to these names in lieu of an intellectual response.

You've alleged circular logic on my part and I'd enjoy seeing you at least try to make that case.
G/J you recognize your own game

This doesn't make sense. "Be subjective"?
Being subjective means you cannot think beyond your own nose - i am sorry sir you have a rather exspansive vocab but debating with you isn't fun .. (me being dismissive whatever)

but the fact remains (if you want to admit it or not i dont care) but until you can state somthing difinitive about you saying 'in other words' i wont reply to you lol do you care? i dont think so and haven't i made similar 'threats' ya.. thats because I dont enjoy debating with people who use bill clintons political word-holes / word- loops like 'what is 'is' '

you avoid subjects for boorrish bullying and lol if you want to play the preeschool 'you started it' game lol fine you started it.. your first reply was an assumption and you wont denuonce it with any substancial.. so good bye mr reigan
0 Replies
 
Relative
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Mar, 2004 06:19 am
Can God make such a large boulder that he cannot lift it?

My take on it: I haven't read the whole thread so this might repeat, but I think like this:

1.) He can make a boulder so large that nothing in the Universe can lift it.
2.)He can change the rules of the universe so he can create a Lifter to lift the boulder.
3.) He can create another Boulder that the Lifter cannot lift.
4.) As he changes the rules of the universe, he can do basically anything. Maybe there are rules he cannot change, and maybe there are things he cannot do. Maybe he cannot change the fact that 1+1=2 given logic and Peano axioms.

In other words, I see the God as a creative force, but not as an acting force of the Universe, if God exists. He is not necessarily omnipotent. As he is not a part of the system, he cannot act, but can create actors. So the statement 'can he hurt himself' is not applicable, for we cannot say what lies outside the Universe.
0 Replies
 
visavis
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Mar, 2004 07:15 am
heh this guy that has been replying to me will most likly say his part of 'your ignorant follow the leader' b.s. but ya... anyways - saying God is outside our universe is really the only way to answer this question (as I have said) heh but anyways You are right.. omnipotance is not required to answer this quesiton and to that guy who stared this thread ask 'does omnipotance exist' if thats what you wanted to ask. I think thats the major falling out between you and I is that I was answering the question you asked - not playing into your mind games and thats where you assumed what I believed and as you repeated many times in not replying to what i was saying with posts of substance. and lol you really should admit (not on the post to yourself) that you did assume and just move on.. it would open you up so much.. and we could have debating things that actualy had substance rather than me reacting to your bullying. examples can be assumptive just to counter that before you restate it. heh introspection is good man.. use it.
0 Replies
 
visavis
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Mar, 2004 07:29 am
Craven de Kere wrote:
In other words, as JM touched on, just blindly believe and all is well. Ignore inconsistency and use circular arguments.

"The concept of omnipotence is a paradox, and is self defeating."

"Nope, my God is omnipotent so that must not be true."

Laughing

It's tantamount to saying: "I am not wrong because I am right."


I am replying again to this to try and draw you out to understand ( dont care if you agree or not) but please understand the word game you started - the whole 'bill clinton ' what is 'is' ' ' thing you said

"in other words"

which means you took my post and restated - and you WHERE wrong. if in NOTHING ELSE in what I said in my post lol and therefore you assumed.. I am spending time on this because if you and I cannot get passed this then we cannot debate.. because you are obstinant and not intuitive and i will not debate with a brick wall.. a brick wall with a large vocab.. but still a brick wall..

if you stick a rose in a pile of ****.. i wont be one to admire it...
0 Replies
 
visavis
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Mar, 2004 07:33 am
and somthing i KEEP FORGETTINg to refer to

read the lyrics to 'disgustipated' by the band Tool.. great song but well.. the 'read lyrics' are great to denouncing modern church masses following without question. you seem to strike me as the person who would be interested in this. heh in that matter i am assuming Smile
0 Replies
 
Relative
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Mar, 2004 08:15 am
Upon reading the thread a bit I now see that clearly there are many debates within it:

1) Can God literally make such a boulder.
2) Is the definition of Omnipotence a logical inconsistency (like set of all sets)
3) How to define Omnipotence to express the intuitive meaning, but produce a logically consistent construct.
4) Must God reall obey logic??
5) Others (not listed because of my ignorance)

The question I find the most interesting is whether God must obey the rules of our (man-made) logic. We percieve that the Universe obeys logic at least to a large degree, and (most of) the western philosophy builds on absolute value of logic.

I wonder how God himself would answer this question? And would we understand the answer?
Maybe we can ask:
If we ask God the following question, what can his answer be?
We : "Can you make a pizza so hot you can't eat it?"
God : "Sure I can."
We : "But arent' you omnipotent, and this means that there can be no pizza so hot you can't eat it?"
God: "Surely not. This is just an illusion you have because you are using the Human logic. if you'd use the God logic, it would be clear to you that It's OK."
We : "But God, you can surely disprove our Human logic then, if it is incorrect."
God : "I surely can. You can never be sure whether the systems you build on your logic are consistent. Further, you can encounter assertions you can't prove or disprove. This doesn't happen in God's logic. (see God(el)'s proofs)"
We : "But can you prove that God's logic is better?"
God : "Sure i can. But if I formulate this so that you can understand me with your Human logic, it will appear as an unprovable assertion to you."
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Mar, 2004 11:03 am
visavis,

You are not making much sense, and since you don't seem to have any plans to substantiate the incoherent ramblings I guess there's not much I can do except to wish you luck.

Should you decide to embrace intellectual rigor and actually debate (as opposed to simply call names and spout clichés from lyrics), I would be more than happy to join.

Have a good day visavis.
0 Replies
 
visavis
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Mar, 2004 11:17 am
heh yea the first thing some people are going to reply to you relative is that you are using circular logic and you are trying to say 'im right because i am right' and other things they may feel.. but its just simply how deep someone has gone into the question defines how they answer it. and lol its just a matter of logic, and each side either

premise 1) answering it using an approach of 'God is above us therefore in some way we cannot answer this

premise 2) everyone who believes premise 1 is using circular logic and is blindly following like sheep using ignorance.

each side has its own circular logic.. but to me this is no paradox (an question that cannot be answered) its just simply which premise you follow that dertimes weather or not you can answer it. But rest assured listener that if you dont believe in God the creator of the universe whats outside the universe and earth and humanity than dont attack those that do.. acknowledge that we explain existance by means of a God of Love (or God in other formats) where as you use a God of science, God of your own circular logic or whatever makes you able to go to sleep at night..

so am I right just becuase I am never wrong? (I never said anything close to that) your making things up.... (no substance as to what I am 'making up' ... no facts or theories to counter it) **** you anyone who ever says that bullshit cop out. stick to the essence of the question and dont cop out..

opinions are like assholes - some poeple know that theirs exist and use it as needed - but dont refine them and clean them up.. so they are shitty ones

its a matter of your beliefs i have mine you have yours.. i have several friends who disagree with me whole heartedly about well everything. My best friend is my exact opposite other than he believes in God - he hates God and hates humanity.. but he is open minded and does not seriously attack my beliefs. we debate all the time and we have debated this omnipotance question a long time ago and with him helped me re asses my views of God as not being omnipotant.
0 Replies
 
visavis
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Mar, 2004 11:18 am
"Should you decide to embrace intellectual rigor "

whenever you start ill join in as well
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Mar, 2004 11:23 am
visavis,

I have spoken about the logical deficiencies in your arguments, you chose not to defend them but to parrot the words I use without showing an understanding of logical fallacy.

Then you just toss in your vulgarisms and clichés.

My offer stands, if you decide to actually debate, and defend your arguments as opposed to playing adolescent games I will be happy to join you.

But spewing clichés and simply calling names is not substantial enough. Thus far you are debating on a level of "I know you are but what am I", merely repeating back the flaws mentioned in your reasoning without being able to substantiate them.
0 Replies
 
visavis
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Mar, 2004 11:31 am
1) im playing the game you started

2) you have not offered ANYTHING of substance i take that back you offered ONE thing of substance that God exists only in our minds.. but you didnt do anything else with it i offer to you to re read our posts and then come back.. I have placed alot out there that HAS NOT YET BEEN REFUTED you have replied to several things with 'incorrect's or 'no' so again do some introspective thought and come back
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Mar, 2004 11:41 am
I started no such game, I simply pointed out your argument's logical inadequacies to which you responded with vulgarisms clichés and adolescent repetitions along the lines of "I know you are but what am I?"

Your tactics are to simply hurl names and claim no argument has been made, and to then repeat the terms used in reference to your argument's logical deficiencies.

visavis, this is no playground, and such tactics won't get much play here.

Have a good 'un.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 08/05/2021 at 02:58:39