Can God create a rock so heavy he can not lift it... [Archive]

Franko

4th February 2003, 08:38 AM

I thought you told me you were an Agnostic?

Your analogy is based on the assertion that I, as a real-world programmer, could of course program a balloon so large that I couldn't blow it up. The problem is that I can't. No matter how "big" I make this balloon, I can always code its destruction. So the answer to this question is "no" in the Quake-universe where I am god; therefore it can't be extrapolated to be an argument that the real God could do it in the real universe.

Wait a minute there Tex … Could you make (program) balloons in the game? (answer: YES) Could you make balloons that you could blow up with the game? (answer: YES) Could you make a balloon so big that you couldn’t blow it up? (answer: YES).

Since you seem to be able to program anything you desire within this game “Universe” how does that make you Non-omnipotent within that “Universe”???

Explain it to me?

You keep making analogies that simply push the paradox back a level.

That’s because there is no paradox. Your problem is that you are using a logically inconsistent definition of the term “Omnipotent”.

Omnipotent doesn’t mean ALL POWERFUL. That is a nonsensical concept. It make no more sense then a 4-sided triangle does.

The paradox is in the phrasing of the question itself. It isn't an earth-shakingly poignant question; on the contrary, it's a simple trick of words.

Only for an A-theists who doesn’t want there to be a God, and needs to use “simple tricks with words” in lieu of an actual proof for his non-belief.

4th February 2003, 08:43 AM

Originally posted by Franko
I thought you told me you were an Agnostic?

Could you make a balloon so big that you couldn’t blow it up? (answer: YES).

HERE is the problem. The answer is clearly no!

Let's leave out all metaphysics and religions entirely.

No matter how big I program this balloon, I can always program code to destroy it. Any programmer could.

I don't know if you're a programmer or not, but follow me here. If I create an "object" with a "size" attribute, I can set that "size" attribute to any number you like - and my object destructor will still work just fine.

So the answer to "Can a programmer create an object so big that he cannot destroy it" is clearly no.

Franko

4th February 2003, 08:46 AM

Sundog:
Let's leave out all metaphysics and religions entirely.

No matter how big I program this balloon, I can always program code to destroy it. Any programmer could.

I don't know if you're a programmer or not, but follow me here. If I create an "object" with a "size" attribute, I can set that "size" attribute to any number you like - and my object destructor will still work just fine.

So the answer to "Can a programmer create an object so big that he cannot destroy it" is clearly no.

Okay, so it sounds like we agree then.

The answer to the age old question regarding whether or not God can create a rock so heavy that even She couldn’t get anyone to lift it for her is NO. Time just had to wait for computers to come along before the point could really be made definitively.

4th February 2003, 08:48 AM

Originally posted by Franko

Okay, so it sounds like we agree then.

The answer to the age old question regarding whether or not God can create a rock so heavy that even She couldn’t get anyone to lift it for her is NO. Time just had to wait for computers to come along before the point could really be made definitively.

The Quake analogy was yours. My contention is that no matter how we try to phrase it, no matter what analogy we use, the answer is still no... pointing out that it's a nonsense question.

4th February 2003, 08:55 AM

I thought of a very interesting way to rephrase this question, one that hopefully reveals that it's a simple trick of words.

A god that couldn't create a rock so big that She couldn't move it would be proving that He/She was not omnipotent.

Can an omnipotent God do something that proves He/She is not omnipotent?

Notice that the "He/She can if He/She wants to" response is entirely unconvincing now.

Franko

4th February 2003, 08:55 AM

Sundog:
The Quake analogy was yours. My contention is that no matter how we try to phrase it, no matter what analogy we use, the answer is still no... pointing out that it's a nonsense question.

Now you have me confused Sundog?

Are you claiming that God could be omnipotent (Most powerful) or not?

Just like the QUAKE programmer is the MOST POWERFUL (Omnipotent) entity of the QUAKE universe, “God” is the MOST POWERFUL (omnipotent) entity of our Universe. If you disagree, then please state exactly and precisely why and where you disagree.

Franko

4th February 2003, 08:59 AM

Sundog:
Can an omnipotent God do something that proves He/She is not omnipotent?

Notice that the "He/She can if He/She wants to" response is entirely unconvincing now.

Now you are talking like a silly mystic. In mysticism you can prove anything is True (or False), because there is no logic in mysticism.

Here is what you are really saying with your “rephrasing” of the question …

Can a God bound by logic do something that proves He/She is not bound by logic?

Can God make a 4-sided triangle (answer: NO, at least not if God is bound by Logic, She can’t).

4th February 2003, 09:00 AM

Originally posted by Franko

Now you have me confused Sundog?

Are you claiming that God could be omnipotent (Most powerful) or not?

Just like the QUAKE programmer is the MOST POWERFUL (Omnipotent) entity of the QUAKE universe, “God” is the MOST POWERFUL (omnipotent) entity of our Universe. If you disagree, then please state exactly and precisely why and where you disagree.

"Omnipotent" to you seems to mean that She could break the rules of logic if She desired. Logically, such a position precludes any argument on my part.

The point is very interesting: The quake programmer isn't omnipotent. Lord of his Universe he may be, but he still can't ignore the laws of logic.

I would have thought you would favor this conclusion, rather than otherwise.

4th February 2003, 09:01 AM

Originally posted by Franko

Now you are talking like a silly mystic. In mysticism you can prove anything is True (or False), because there is no logic in mysticism.

Here is what you are really saying with your “rephrasing” of the question …

Can a God bound by logic do something that proves He/She is not bound by logic?

Can God make a 4-sided triangle (answer: NO, at least not if God is bound by Logic, She can’t).

Exactly, exactly, exactly! I have, by the process of reductio ad absurdum, shown that it is a nonsense question.

Look:

A god who couldn't create the rock so big she couldn't move it, would be demonstrating that She was not omnipotent.

So we can substitute that into the original sentence:

Can an omnipotent God perform an act that would prove She wan't omnipotent?

... clearly showing the logical flaw in the original question.

fidiot

4th February 2003, 09:03 AM

Originally posted by sundog

Exactly, exactly, exactly! I have, by the process of reductio ad absurdum, shown that it is a nonsense question.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but 4-sided triangle is quite different from a heavy rock. Heavy rocks ARE real, the concept of a heavy rock isn't in itself illogical, like the "4-sided triangle" is. Therefore there's a problem with the "all powerful" part of the question.

4th February 2003, 09:05 AM

Originally posted by fidiot

Correct me if I'm wrong, but 4-sided triangle is quite different from a heavy rock. Heavy rocks ARE real, the concept of a heavy rock isn't in itself illogical, like the "4-sided triangle" is. Therefore there's a problem with the "all powerful" part of the question.

(sigh)

Franko

4th February 2003, 09:06 AM

Sundog:

The point is very interesting: The quake programmer isn't omnipotent. Lord of his Universe he may be, but he still can't ignore the laws of logic.

That's my point Sundog.

Either we discuss things logically, or there is no discussion. So logic must be considered inviolate, or we mught as well all become mystics.

Obviously God would bebound by logic, so if you want to have any meaningful concept of the term "Omnipotent", it must be a logical definition or it is utterly meaningless and incoherent.

Coming up with a phoney illogical argument that uses an illogical definition of omnipotence is not a "proof" for the non-existence of "god". It's just a proof of the desperate lengths A-Theists will go to to substantiate their religious Dogma.

fidiot

4th February 2003, 09:07 AM

Hey, I'm trying to learn here, I'm not trying to prove anything, just asking questions. :)

4th February 2003, 09:10 AM

Originally posted by Franko

Coming up with a phoney illogical argument that uses an illogical definition of omnipotence is not a "proof" for the non-existence of "god". It's just a proof of the desperate lengths A-Theists will go to to substantiate their religious Dogma.

I'm uninterested in religion. I am trying to show you - apparently unsuccessfully - why it's simply a silly question, by the rules of logic you claim to hold inviolate.

Simply calling my argument phony doesn't make it so; that's not the way logic works. You must point up the flaw in the argument.

Franko

4th February 2003, 09:10 AM

Correct me if I'm wrong, but 4-sided triangle is quite different from a heavy rock. Heavy rocks ARE real, the concept of a heavy rock isn't in itself illogical, like the "4-sided triangle" is. Therefore there's a problem with the "all powerful" part of the question.

A rock so heavy that an omnipotent being couldn’t lift it is just as much a logical contradiction as a 4-sided triangle.

By definition a triangle has 3 sides – no more, no less.

By the same token by definition there is no rock in this universe so heavy that an omnipotent god (capable of creating the very same universe) could not lift.

Both are violations of Logic, and there is nothing in the definition of the term “Omnipotent” that implies an “Omnipotent” entity would be capable of violating Logic. Omnipotent essentially means “MOST LOGICAL” (same as “Most Powerful”).

fidiot

4th February 2003, 09:11 AM

ok i get it now.

Darat

4th February 2003, 09:12 AM

Originally posted by Franko

Beyond Logical anaylsis -- yes.

Any Christian who believes that God does not obey logic is a mystic. And mysticism is clearly frowned upon in the Bible (thou shall not suffer a witch to live).

I have to disagree - nowhere in the bible does it say that God is constrained by logic. (In fact I'm pretty certain that the word "logic" never appears in the Bible?)

The Bible is very clear that there are no limits to what God can do and here is a very specific passage that very clearly states he can do anything.

Matthew 19:26

Jesus looked at them and said, "With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible."

As you can see Jesus states that all things are possible, he does not limit this to what is possible according to people.

Franko

4th February 2003, 09:13 AM

Sundog:

Simply calling my argument phony doesn't make it so; that's not the way logic works. You must point up the flaw in the argument.

I'm not calling your argument "phoney". I am merely stating that the A-Theists argument that an Omnipotent god being unable to create a rock so heavy that She couldn't lift it somehow disproves the existence of God is a phoney argument.

Franko

4th February 2003, 09:18 AM

Darat:

I have to disagree - nowhere in the bible does it say that God is constrained by logic. (In fact I'm pretty certain that the word "logic" never appears in the Bible?)

Yes, but what evidence is there that indicates god is not logical?

The Christian Bible is actually an Algorithm. Logic is directly implied.

The Bible is very clear that there are no limits to what God can do and here is a very specific passage that very clearly states he can do anything.

Jesus looked at them and said, "With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible."

That passage is subject to interpretation. God can create a universe, but for you at this moment that is pretty much impossible, although in the future … who knows?

What is impossible darat? As a very wise woman once told me “I can’t say impossible”. I bet that if you can conceive of a thing in your head (can you conceive of a 4-sided triangle?), that it is ultimately possible.

4th February 2003, 09:20 AM

Originally posted by Franko

I'm not calling your argument "phoney". I am merely stating that the A-Theists argument that an Omnipotent god being unable to create a rock so heavy that She couldn't lift it somehow disproves the existence of God is a phoney argument.

Then we really DO agree. Anyone who tried to use this argument for ANY purpose is addled, because the question is internally inconsistent.

Nonsense questions DO exist - this is one of them.

Darat

4th February 2003, 09:20 AM

Originally posted by Franko

I'm not calling your argument "phoney". I am merely stating that the A-Theists argument that an Omnipotent god being unable to create a rock so heavy that She couldn't lift it somehow disproves the existence of God is a phoney argument.

I didn't think this argument was used to disprove anything?

Only that it shows that an all powerful being is by definition illogical which is what you seem to be arguing?

Keneke

4th February 2003, 09:26 AM

As a side note, there was a collection of shortshort stories prefaced by Isaac Asimov in the 80's. One of these stories was about God. For some reason, thre author named him Oo, or something.

To summarize: Oo was tired. Pages and pages were spent on closing up the multiverse: sentimental godly sighs mixed with Armageddon, wistful dousing of stars, etc. Finally space and time ceased to be, leaving Oo utterly alone. Then he ended it all. With a twist of his hand, he irrevocably unmade himself and left nothing in the passing of existence but his mark, showing where he had once been.

Spooky stuff, and I couldn't sleep that night. I was just a kid! Ahhhhh!!!!

Franko

4th February 2003, 09:27 AM

Darat: (& Sundog)

Only that it shows that an all powerful being is by definition illogical which is what you seem to be arguing?

I am saying that the term Omnipotent is only logically inconsistent if you apply a definition of “All Powerful”. I have no idea what “All powerful” means. Power is ALWAYS relative to another power, so once you are the MOST POWERFUL, then what does ALL POWERFUL buy you that you didn’t already have with MOST POWERFUL?

The True definition of Omnipotent (the logically consistent definition) is:

Omnipotent = Most Powerful.

Under this definition God can still be Omnipotent without violating Logic. If you want an example of what this means … see the Dungeonmaster, or Quake programmer examples on the previous page of the thread. That’s what God is really like.

4th February 2003, 09:31 AM

Originally posted by Franko

The True definition of Omnipotent (the logically consistent definition) is:

Omnipotent = Most Powerful.

Under this definition God can still be Omnipotent without violating Logic. If you want an example of what this means … see the Dungeonmaster, or Quake programmer examples on the previous page of the thread. That’s what God is really like.

I suspected that might be where you were going with this. Yes, if you define "omnipotent" as "MOST powerful" instead of "ALL powerful", you avoid the paradox and the question is NOT meaningless.

In common usage I think it's safe to say most people use it to mean ALL powerful - especially Christians. But the dictionary does support your definition, if I remember correctly.

Darat

4th February 2003, 09:35 AM

Originally posted by Franko

Yes, but what evidence is there that indicates god is not logical?

The Christian Bible is actually an Algorithm. Logic is directly implied.

I do not define the God that Christians believe in, they do. If their God is defined as all powerful then that God is by definition illogical. I do not think that means he exists or not - that is a matter of faith for a Christian.

Originally posted by Franko

That passage is subject to interpretation. God can create a universe, but for you at this moment that is pretty much impossible, although in the future … who knows?

What is impossible darat? As a very wise woman once told me “I can’t say impossible”. I bet that if you can conceive of a thing in your head (can you conceive of a 4-sided triangle?), that it is ultimately possible.

There are several other biblical passages where the indication is that God is all powerful. I can't think off-hand anywhere in the New Testament that states God is limited in any way what-so-ever.

Certainly the Catholic & Protestant doctrines are very clear that nothing is impossible to their God.

It's their definition and if they want to believe in it then that is their faith :)

(Edited for typos)

Franko

4th February 2003, 09:37 AM

In common usage I think it's safe to say most people use it to mean ALL powerful - especially Christians. But the dictionary does support your definition, if I remember correctly.

Actually (unfortunately) most Dictionaries use the illogical definition of the term – ALL POWERFUL. This was the basis of Tricky arguing against me on this point in the past (the inerrant Dictionary proves your are wrong!).

The problem is Dictionary definitions are not based on Logic, but instead are based on word usage. If the majority of people use a term illogically then it is listed that way in the Dictionary. (my dictionary list Omnipotent as – having unlimited power, just as an example).

Darat

4th February 2003, 09:39 AM

Originally posted by sundog

…snip…

In common usage I think it's safe to say most people use it to mean ALL powerful - especially Christians. But the dictionary does support your definition, if I remember correctly.

Standard dictionary definition is all-powerful - not most-powerful, two examples

Encarta Dictionary

all-powerful: possessing complete, unlimited, or universal power and authority

Dictionary.com

Having unlimited or universal power, authority, or force; all-powerful. See Usage Note at infinite.

4th February 2003, 09:42 AM

Originally posted by Franko

The problem is Dictionary definitions are not based on Logic, but instead are based on word usage. If the majority of people use a term illogically then it is listed that way in the Dictionary. (my dictionary list Omnipotent as – having unlimited power, just as an example).

True, but a little beside the point. Christians are not going to be satisfied with the MOST powerful god - they want the ALL powerful version. :D If we force them to accept your definition of omnipotent, they'll just come up with a new word for it. ;)

I agree with you - the concept of an all-powerful God is internally inconsistent.

Franko

4th February 2003, 09:43 AM

Darat:

Certainly the Catholic & Protestant doctrines are very clear that nothing is impossible to their God.

I don’t agree that this is the unanimous consensus of All Christians (if that is what you are claiming). I don’t believe that even a majority of Christians believe this.

But if anyone believes that God can defy logic there is no point in discussing God with them. If you don’t have logic as a common frame of reference, then conversation is impossible.

But like I said, God can’t defy Logic. God is the most logical entity in existence, that’s why She is Most powerful … that’s how She got to be God in the first place.

4th February 2003, 09:45 AM

Originally posted by Darat

Standard dictionary definition is all-powerful - not most-powerful, two examples

OK, thanks. But I'm willing to let Franko redefine it. Interestingly enough, he DOES recognize that the "rock" argument is illogical, and uses it to conclude that omnipotence is illogical - and thus redefines it.

I find this to be wholly commendable! Not many theists are willing to accept the conclusions of logic and alter their stances based on them.

Akots

4th February 2003, 10:00 AM

Forget the rock... could God create a species capable of atheism? Think about it...

I've always thought of that puzzle as a proper equivelant to the rock puzzle. I'm reasonably sure His "power" was that which defined the universe; to create the universe, He would need only provide laws of physics, chemistry, etc. Add random atoms. Set to 450, bake for gogoplex eons, serve hot.

Why would He interfere with His own arbitrary rules after He's decided on them? A game's no good if the referee breaks the rules... at least, after the game's started.

Tricky

4th February 2003, 10:08 AM

Originally posted by Franko
But like I said, God can’t defy Logic. God is the most logical entity in existence, that’s why She is Most powerful … that’s how She got to be God in the first place.
Well, I didn't vote for her!
http://www.click-smilie.de/sammlung/alles_moegliche/allesmoegliche006.gif

Franko

4th February 2003, 10:30 AM

Forget the rock... could God create a species capable of atheism? Think about it...

Yeah, but what if God is more like the DM in D&D? Then She didn’t create A-Theists, She just created the Universe.

I've always thought of that puzzle as a proper equivelant to the rock puzzle. I'm reasonably sure His "power" was that which defined the universe; to create the universe, He would need only provide laws of physics, chemistry, etc. Add random atoms. Set to 450, bake for gogoplex eons, serve hot.

Why would He interfere with His own arbitrary rules after He's decided on them? A game's no good if the referee breaks the rules... at least, after the game's started.

You are absolutely correct about God not breaking the rules – I mean – why make rules in the first place if you are just going to break them? Now you may want to refine your rules over time, but that is a separate issue.

But think about this … Does the DM in D&D need to “break the rules” to influence the events of the Game Universe? Would you say that the referee (DM) is not interfering with the Game???

Franko

4th February 2003, 10:33 AM

Well, I didn't vote for her!

Tricky, if you were the most Logical entity in the Universe, what makes you think that the other entities of lesser Logical perception would have the intuition to perceive you as most Logical?

Being logical gives you a power whether other entities recognize that power or not. In fact, You have even more power over entities that don’t realize it.

Samus

4th February 2003, 10:36 AM

Originally posted by Franko
Why is it that A-Theists always believe GOD DOES NOT EXIST, but if I am wrong, and God does actually exist, then God must be EXACTLY like the God described in the Christian Bible?

I find this very telling about the true nature of modern A-Theism. As has already been mentioned, I specifically made reference to the Judeo-Christian concept of God in my post. You want me to expand my argument? okay.

Let us assume that Franko's Logical Goddess exists. Can she commit suicide. Can she make herself cease to exist? How would she do this? Hasn't she always been, and always will be?

If she ceases to exist, does the universe then cease to exist? Is her presence required for all things in the universe to be what we understand them to be?

My underlying point was that in the context of various gods, life and death don't make sense. If we have one omnipotent god, they can't logically destroy themselves if we believe that gods don't come and go; they just are.

Franko

4th February 2003, 10:49 AM

Let us assume that Franko's Logical Goddess exists. Can she commit suicide. Can she make herself cease to exist? How would she do this? Hasn't she always been, and always will be?

technically the answer is Yes (She could self annihilate), practically the answer is No (She is least likely to self-terminate).

If she ceases to exist, does the universe then cease to exist? Is her presence required for all things in the universe to be what we understand them to be?

If She ceased to exist then this Universe would also immediately cease to exist along with all of the inanimate objects within it (your physical body, for example) and we would find ourselves back in the naked Omniverse. You and I would be unharmed (technically speaking). It would be as if we were instantly put to sleep … You’d dream, until captured by another entity, or until you devised a solid enough environment to build your own universe, or you would gradually lose energy until you withered into complete inactivity (utter unconsciousness – loss of time perception – ceasing to exist).

My underlying point was that in the context of various gods, life and death don't make sense. If we have one omnipotent god, they can't logically destroy themselves if we believe that gods don't come and go; they just are.

I don’t think that God started out any different then you or I. There is nothing magical about God, and if there is, then you and I are just as magical.

Interesting Ian

4th February 2003, 10:53 AM

Originally posted by Darat

I do not define the God that Christians believe in, they do. If their God is defined as all powerful then that God is by definition illogical.

Of course its not. Didn't you actually bother reading my post in that other thread??

What is illogical about God being able to do absolutely anything? You need to try and understand what logical means.

Samus

4th February 2003, 11:28 AM

Originally posted by Franko
If She ceased to exist then this Universe would also immediately cease to exist along with all of the inanimate objects within it (your physical body, for example) and we would find ourselves back in the naked Omniverse. You and I would be unharmed (technically speaking). It would be as if we were instantly put to sleep … You’d dream, until captured by another entity, or until you devised a solid enough environment to build your own universe, or you would gradually lose energy until you withered into complete inactivity (utter unconsciousness – loss of time perception – ceasing to exist). This is about the answer I was expecting to hear. The universe as we know it, sans LG, ceases to exist. Makes sense, and it leads nicely into your next graf...

Originally posted by Franko
I don’t think that God started out any different then you or I. There is nothing magical about God, and if there is, then you and I are just as magical. This is what peaked my curiousity. Is it safe to say that God is currently any different than you and I? In other words, God started out just like us, but has now changed to become something else? Or am I reading too much into what you're saying?

As for the topic of the thread, physical strength is not an attribute I would normally associate with God as I think of him. Lifting physical objects with his God-hands isn't normally done. I would imagine if God were to take an actual, physical form, he would simply make himself strong enough to lift whatever objects he might encounter. If he creates objects too heavy to lift, that simply means they were meant not to be lifted by human strength alone, and that's that.

Wile E. Coyote

4th February 2003, 11:46 AM

I think Franko is making some pretty valid points. If you are going to attack one concept of a god (specifically, the one written about in the Bible) as illogical and impossible, then you have to concede that your argument is only valid against that one concept of a god. Not all Christians believe in the exact god described in the Bible (I know I didn't when I was one).

A god could be omnipotent in every sense that it needed to be without being illogical. The question posed is ridiculous and I think Franko puts it well when he asks whether an omnipotent god could create a four-sided triangle. We are trying to put concepts beyond our grasp into the words of our limited vocabulary.

Using the dictionary definition of "omnipotent" means nothing if believers are only using that word as the closest thing they have towards describing the abilities of their god. Should we create a word like "logipotent"?

This whole rock thing is just a waste of time.

Franko

4th February 2003, 11:49 AM

dwb,

This is what peaked my curiousity. Is it safe to say that God is currently any different than you and I? In other words, God started out just like us, but has now changed to become something else? Or am I reading too much into what you're saying?

In the same way that You or I are related to a Dog (genetically related), God is similarly related to us.

Think of it like this. Suppose that you and your Dog were immortal (never aged beyond 25). In 1000 years do you think your dog would still be an ordinary dog? Do you think you would still be an ordinary human? Do you think that if enough time elapsed, and the other humans didn’t evolve at all, that eventually your dog may become more intelligent than at least some humans? Say your dog had existed for 10,000,000 years. Do you think his mind may have evolved beyond the mind of an ordinary dog in all that Time?

As for the topic of the thread, physical strength is not an attribute I would normally associate with God as I think of him. Lifting physical objects with his God-hands isn't normally done. I would imagine if God were to take an actual, physical form, he would simply make himself strong enough to lift whatever objects he might encounter. If he creates objects too heavy to lift, that simply means they were meant not to be lifted by human strength alone, and that's that.

Yeah, I agree. Like I said, I think that the Dungeon master analogy is a good one. How is the DM (omnipotent God) gonna make an imaginary rock so heavy he can’t imagine himself lifting it?

4th February 2003, 11:55 AM

Very well said. All this proves is that the common idea of "omnipotence" is illogical. People vary widely in their concepts of their Gods, and this paradox proves nothing about God's existence, of course.

And yet, it's still true that millions of believers of whatever faith will bristle at the very idea that their God isn't "omnipotent". Walking them through the logic is a thankless task.

Tricky

4th February 2003, 12:23 PM

Originally posted by tjwojo
I think Franko is making some pretty valid points. If you are going to attack one concept of a god (specifically, the one written about in the Bible) as illogical and impossible, then you have to concede that your argument is only valid against that one concept of a god. Not all Christians believe in the exact god described in the Bible (I know I didn't when I was one).
It is true that not all Christians have the same concept of God, and indeed, it may even be true that no two people have the same concept. I think most of the non-believers here have tried to be clear that when they were pointing out logical inconsistancies, they were referring to a specific concept of God.

Of course, it would be impossible to go through this process for every concept of God, so it is simpler just to find some of the aspects of the God concept that are common to most beliefs.

For example, most (but not all) Christians believe that "God is loving". To say they believe this and reconcile that with a God that allows (or causes) suffering means that the term "loving" is different for God. If God can kill innocent people for unknown reasons and still be "loving" but a person cannot, then any concept that includes a "loving God" is irrational because it redefines its terms internally.

So that takes care of most varieties of Christians. Other concepts of God must be evaluated on the basis of their beliefs. As you can see, Franko's beliefs (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=323387&highlight=linking+references#post323387) have a completely different set of definitions, and so must be evaluated separately from the Christian God.
Originally posted by tjwojo
A god could be omnipotent in every sense that it needed to be without being illogical. The question posed is ridiculous and I think Franko puts it well when he asks whether an omnipotent god could create a four-sided triangle. We are trying to put concepts beyond our grasp into the words of our limited vocabulary.

That's kinda the reason you have to accept definitions of words. If you define "omnipotent" to include "able to defy logic", then you are stating that an omnipotent God is illogical. (BTW, I have offered to show Franko a four-sided triangle if he will agree that free will exists).
But yes, there are certainly things beyond our grasp. Some choose to believe human-invented explanations for things beyond the grasp of humans. I do not. Neither do I deny they are possible. I can only respond to the (so far) internally inconsistant explanations given so far.

Originally posted by tjwojo
Using the dictionary definition of "omnipotent" means nothing if believers are only using that word as the closest thing they have towards describing the abilities of their god. Should we create a word like "logipotent"?

The clue is that once you have settled on a defintion, you may not change that defintion within the context of your argument. If you define a God as "all powerful" then you may not turn around and say "all powerful, except He cannot defy logic".

Sure, create a new word if you like, but be sure to use that word the same way every time. What would you give as a definition for "logipotent"?

Darat

4th February 2003, 12:26 PM

Originally posted by Franko

I don’t agree that this is the unanimous consensus of All Christians (if that is what you are claiming). I don’t believe that even a majority of Christians believe this.

All I know is what I have read (and to a lesser degree discussed) about Christianity. (And we have a recent example here in the thread started by muscleman that shows how some Christians accepts no limit logical or otherwise to what his Christian God can do.)

Since the various Christian denominations can't even unanimously agree on even the nature of Jesus - I doubt that "Christians" are unanimous in their opinion of anything to do with their faith!

Can you point out anywhere in the official Catechisms or Doctrines of the Catholic or Anglican Protestant Churches that states God is not all powerful? (I have had a check through the various links I keep to the Vatican site etc. and I can't find anything that says "God has limits".)

But as always I am happy to be corrected on my statements.

Originally posted by Franko

But if anyone believes that God can defy logic there is no point in discussing God with them. If you don’t have logic as a common frame of reference, then conversation is impossible.

...snip...

Once again I think we agree. And this was precisely why I wanted (in the thread that muscleman started) to determine if muscleman recognises the logical problem with the "rock question"; I have learnt if a Christian has a belief in an "all-powerful" God that isn't even constrained by logic it is useless to even discuss the matter with them!

Darat

4th February 2003, 12:28 PM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

Of course its not. Didn't you actually bother reading my post in that other thread??

What is illogical about God being able to do absolutely anything? You need to try and understand what logical means.

Yes I did read your response and since you didn't bother addressing my subsequent response I assumed you agreed with what I was saying.

To recap:

This appears to be an issue only to people who don't share the Christian concept of God i.e. all-powerful which means he can't be constrained by logic.

I still maintain that the reason you disagree is that you, like many others here have made an assumption that logic "is" i.e. that logic is a fundamental "rule" or description of the reality we inhabit.

I am genuinely interested in how you, using logic, can show there is not a logical paradox involved in the concept of an "all-powerful" being, i.e. one that is not "constrained" by logic.

Franko

4th February 2003, 12:28 PM

Tricky:

(BTW, I have offered to show Franko a four-sided triangle if he will agree that free will exists).

If you could show me a 4-sided triangle then you would have proof that Free Will exist.

BTW - Rectangles are not Triangles, not unless you want to concede that "free will" is actually Fate.

Tricky

4th February 2003, 12:36 PM

Originally posted by Franko
If you could show me a 4-sided triangle then you would have proof that Free Will exist.
Are you sure Franko? I don't want you reneging on this.

Wile E. Coyote

4th February 2003, 12:41 PM

Originally posted by Tricky

The clue is that once you have settled on a defintion, you may not change that defintion within the context of your argument. If you define a God as "all powerful" then you may not turn around and say "all powerful, except He cannot defy logic".

Sure, create a new word if you like, but be sure to use that word the same way every time. What would you give as a definition for "logipotent"?

I agree. Arguing semantics is tedious and directionless.

logipotent : The condition of having enough power to do anything you want without being able to withstand ridiculous questions.

Skeptical Greg

4th February 2003, 12:47 PM

quoted by Darat:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Franko

But if anyone believes that God can defy logic there is no point in discussing God with them. If you don’t have logic as a common frame of reference, then conversation is impossible.

...snip...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Awwww, c'mon.. Franko really said this?:eek:

4th February 2003, 12:49 PM

Originally posted by Diogenes
Awwww, c'mon.. Franko really said this?:eek:

He's really quite easy to talk to. I don't know why you folks all get so excited. :D :D :D

Tricky

4th February 2003, 12:52 PM

Originally posted by tjwojo
I agree. Arguing semantics is tedious and directionless.
Tedius, yes. Directionless, no. It is absolutely critical to any discussion to have the terms defined in advance if any agreement is to be reached. Interestingly (to me) I've heard that French is often used as a diplomatic language in preference to English, because it has many fewer words, and they are rigidly defined. They don't the problems with homographs that English speakers do.

Originally posted by tjwojo
logipotent : The condition of having enough power to do anything you want without being able to withstand ridiculous questions.
:D

Interesting Ian

4th February 2003, 12:55 PM

Originally posted by Darat

Yes I did read your response and since you didn't bother addressing my subsequent response I assumed you agreed with what I was saying.

To recap:

This appears to be an issue only to people who don't share the Christian concept of God i.e. all-powerful which means he can't be constrained by logic.

I still maintain that the reason you disagree is that you, like many others here have made an assumption that logic "is" i.e. that logic is a fundamental "rule" or description of the reality we inhabit.

I am genuinely interested in how you, using logic, can show there is not a logical paradox involved in the concept of an "all-powerful" being, i.e. one that is not "constrained" by logic.

Logic does not constrain! You cannot have God do the logically impossible because no meaning is attached to the logically impossible. For example what would it mean to say create an object which is simultaneous both a cube and a sphere? This entire discussion is utterly pointless and wholly facile.

And the fact that I do not respond to you or other people does not mean that I agree with what the person has said. You can take it from me that I disagree with about 96% of what is said in this forum, and the reason why I don't respond is because I see no purpose in doing so. Certainly if I do not respond I don't think that person has said anything worthwhile.

Franko

4th February 2003, 12:58 PM

I don't know why you folks all get so excited.

Because I'm a Skeptic ... and Religious Fanatics (A-Theists) hate Skeptics.

You ever notice how A-Theists aren't allowed to be skeptical of Atheism?

What does that tell you??

----------------------------------------------
logipotent : The condition of having enough power to do anything you want without being able to withstand ridiculous questions.

Define “ridiculous question”? I always thought there was no such thing as a stupid question?

But then again why would any “good” A-Theist ever have a need to question his A-Theism??? That would be ridiculous! You start questioning A-Theism, and where is that gonna lead?

-------------------------------------------------------

Tricky:
Are you sure Franko? I don't want you reneging on this.

Hehehe … I still think it is hysterical how Fate contrived that YOU be Tricky (dishonest, deceitful, duplicitous, enigmatic), while I be Franko (Honest, sincere, truthful, plain speaking).

Ahhh, on second thought maybe you are God, and you are trying to tell yourself something?

Okay, so let's see this magical "4-sided triangle" of yours? :rolleyes:

Franko

4th February 2003, 01:02 PM

The Interesting One:
Logic does not constrain! You cannot have God do the logically impossible because no meaning is attached to the logically impossible. For example what would it mean to say create an object which is simultaneous both a cube and a sphere? This entire discussion is utterly pointless and wholly facile.

Okay Mr. Quick, so just to make sure I understand you, you are stating that in your opinion, God is bound by Logic?

You are saying that God obeys the Rules of Logic? Am I understanding you correctly? God CANNOT make a 4-sided triangle any more then She can make a Spherical Cube?

4th February 2003, 01:05 PM

Oh, this should be fun. :D

Franko

4th February 2003, 01:08 PM

For example what would it mean to say create an object which is simultaneous both a cube and a sphere? This entire discussion is utterly pointless and wholly facile.

Tricky, if you do end up having trouble producing the 4-sided triangle (not a rectangle), then I will also accept a Spherical Cube as evidence for your "free will".

Wile E. Coyote

4th February 2003, 01:20 PM

Originally posted by Franko

Define “ridiculous question”? I always thought there was no such thing as a stupid question?

I hope you are joking. "There is no such thing as a stupid question" is something teachers tell you to get you to ask questions without being afraid (I had one honest teacher who admitted that there are stupid questions and he had better not be asked any of them). The truth is, a lot of questions are actually stupid.

Also, I said "ridiculous", not "stupid".

Questioning atheism is a double negative. It is equivalent to questioning your questioning of the existence of a god.

Besides, the only thing I don't have to question is my ability to move objects with my mind and to read other people's thoughts. This is something I was born with and no one has disproven it. Therefore, it is a logical belief.

Franko

4th February 2003, 01:26 PM

Also, I said "ridiculous", not "stupid".

Is there a practical difference between a “ridiculous question” and a “stupid question”?

I find that these terms usually just mean the person being asked doesn’t want to be asked the question.

Questioning atheism is a double negative. It is equivalent to questioning your questioning of the existence of a god.

So you are conceding that A-Theists are about as Skeptical of their A-Theism as fundamentalist Christians are Skeptical of the existence of Jesus?

Besides, the only thing I don't have to question is my ability to move objects with my mind and to read other people's thoughts. This is something I was born with and no one has disproven it. Therefore, it is a logical belief.

Perhaps. But I’d be a bit more impressed with your “mind powers” if you could use them to prove that I actually exist in reality. As it is I fear that I am nothing more than a figment of your imagination. Perhaps your belief in pseudo-materialism will help you prove that I am real???

Wile E. Coyote

4th February 2003, 01:32 PM

The burden of proof is on you.

Tricky

4th February 2003, 01:42 PM

Originally posted by Franko
Hehehe … I still think it is hysterical how Fate contrived that YOU be Tricky (dishonest, deceitful, duplicitous, enigmatic), while I be Franko (Honest, sincere, truthful, plain speaking).

Ahhh, on second thought maybe you are God, and you are trying to tell yourself something?

Okay, so let's see this magical "4-sided triangle" of yours? :rolleyes:
All right, Franko. Lets see how honest you are. I expect to see your admission that there free will exists now.

Darat

4th February 2003, 01:47 PM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

Logic does not constrain! You cannot have God do the logically impossible because no meaning is attached to the logically impossible. For example what would it mean to say create an object which is simultaneous both a cube and a sphere? This entire discussion is utterly pointless and wholly facile.

I agree that the discussion is facile if you give a "special" status to your belief in logic. To a Christian, with a belief in an all powerful God the answer to a question such as "Can God create an object which is simultaneously both a cube and a sphere?" is a "yes".

I have not in this thread (or the previous one) assumed that any particular faith/belief is correct or incorrect merely talked about what other people state their beliefs are. The fact that you believe someone else’s beliefs to be irrational, because it contradicts your beliefs isn't what I have been discussing.

And again I genuinely do want to know how you make your statement that something illogical is in fact meaningless e.g. you said “You cannot have God do the logically impossible because no meaning is attached to the logically impossible.”

How do you come to this conclusion?

Skeptical Greg

4th February 2003, 02:02 PM

Originally posted by tjwojo

I hope you are joking. "There is no such thing as a stupid question" is something teachers tell you to get you to ask questions without being afraid (I had one honest teacher who admitted that there are stupid questions and he had better not be asked any of them). The truth is, a lot of questions are actually stupid.

Also, I said "ridiculous", not "stupid".

Questioning atheism is a double negative. It is equivalent to questioning your questioning of the existence of a god.

Besides, the only thing I don't have to question is my ability to move objects with my mind and to read other people's thoughts. This is something I was born with and no one has disproven it. Therefore, it is a logical belief.

Excellent observation.. Most questions asked by stupid people, tend to be stupid.

Example: Asking, " I wonder if this thing works? " while pulling the pin from a hand grenade, is a stupid question.

Wasn't there, like a " Top Ten " stupid question thing, around here somewhere?

Like the guy who asks you, while you are changing a tyre: " Got a flat?"

4th February 2003, 02:28 PM

Originally posted by Diogenes

Wasn't there, like a " Top Ten " stupid question thing, around here somewhere?

There was, but now we have to make it eleven. :D

Skeptical Greg

4th February 2003, 02:48 PM

Originally posted by sundog

There was, but now we have to make it eleven. :D :D

c4ts

4th February 2003, 04:29 PM

I don't know. Why don't ask God?

Dear eternal Father who art in heaven upon the throne of Judgement whose father son and holy ghost reign supreme on heaven and on earth, can You create a rock so heavy You cannot lift it? If so, why? If not, why? Amen.

(no answer)

Hey! God! Can you create a rock so heavy you can't lift it?

(no answer)

Hey! God! I'm talking to you, stupid!

(still no answer)

God? Jesus? Allah? Buddha? Thor? Zeus? Vishnu? Ra? Ahura-Mazda? Buler?

(no answer)

Buler?

(no answer)

Maybe I'm not speaking the right language here.
Baruch attah adonai...

Franko

5th February 2003, 01:20 PM

All right, Franko. Lets see how honest you are. I expect to see your admission that there free will exists now.

I'll admit that to the same degree which the shape you presented is a "genuine" "4-sided" triangle you have "genuine" "free will".

But that's a nice demonstartion Trixy, essentially you just presented the sum of your evidence against the existence of "god".

... most impressive ... :rolleyes:

Franko

5th February 2003, 01:23 PM

Dear eternal Father who art in heaven upon the throne of Judgement whose father son and holy ghost reign supreme on heaven and on earth, can You create a rock so heavy You cannot lift it? If so, why? If not, why? Amen.

hey c3tb (numbnuts), have you been reading this thread at all you brain dead moron, or are you just out to spread the gospel of A-Theism?

To ask if an omnipotent god can create a rock so heavy that She can't find anyone to lift it for Her is as nonsensical as asking if the DM in a game of Dungeons and Dragons can make a rock so heavy that He couldn't lift it! Do you get it!?!

It is as ridiculous as someone believing they had magic "free will" powers even though they had NO EVIDENCE for that belief.

The Lord God Almighty

5th February 2003, 01:28 PM

Originally posted by c4ts
Baruch attah adonai...

ehyeh asher ehyeh.
V'ha aretz hay tohu v'vohu.

Al tignov!

Franko, unless you pay your bet to Tricky, you will henceforth be known as

WEASELBOY.

The Lord God Almighty

5th February 2003, 01:31 PM

WEASELBOY

5th February 2003, 05:11 PM

Is this supposed to be a logical, rational, clear-headed response from a skeptic?

;)

Tricky

5th February 2003, 05:20 PM

Originally posted by Franko
I'll admit that to the same degree which the shape you presented is a "genuine" "4-sided" triangle you have "genuine" "free will".
You never asked me to define "side" and you never defined it yourself. I can give you lots of examples where "inside" is called a "side". (Scotty: Wha side o' the barrier are you on, Captain? Kirk: I'm on the inside, Scotty.) You can also speak of a sphere as having sides, as in, "I live on the other side of the world from you".

But you have admitted free will exists, and have no doubt that I will point it out to you from time to time. If you deside to regege and say it doesn't exist, well then, heed the words of the Lord God Almighty.

Beleth

5th February 2003, 06:04 PM

That image forgot to label "outside", which makes it a 5-sided triangle. So you still haven't shown a 4-sided triangle!

Anyway, all these questions boil down to the same fundamental question:

Can an omnipotent God do something He cannot do?

And the answer is No, because there is nothing an omnipotent God cannot do. It's not that He CAN'T do something, it's that the set of things He can't do is the empty set!

It's not that logic is somehow constraining or limiting God, it's that the question is fundamentally absurd.

Tricky

5th February 2003, 06:10 PM

Originally posted by Beleth
That image forgot to label "outside", which makes it a 5-sided triangle. So you still haven't shown a 4-sided triangle!
Interesting, because I expected to have Franko bring up that point, but since he didn't, I will point it out to you. It is still a four sided triangle. It is also a one-sided triangle. Nothing was specified that it must have only four sides. For example, how would you answer the question, "How many months have 28 days in them?" The correct answer is of course, all of them.

Question two. Can God defy logic? (I'm not giving you the answer on this one).

c4ts

5th February 2003, 06:14 PM

Originally posted by Beleth
That image forgot to label "outside", which makes it a 5-sided triangle. So you still haven't shown a 4-sided triangle!

"Outside" is by definition, not part of the triangle.

Plutarck

5th February 2003, 06:15 PM

Originally posted by Diogenes

Like the guy who asks you, while you are changing a tyre: " Got a flat?"

"Nope, I was just out driving on the road and the other three just swelled right up on me!"

Beleth

5th February 2003, 06:17 PM

When y'all get done with your semantics yawn-fest, let me know.

Tricky

5th February 2003, 06:18 PM

Originally posted by Beleth
When y'all get done with your semantics yawn-fest, let me know.
When you want to answer the question, "Can God defy logic?" let me know.

c4ts

5th February 2003, 06:49 PM

Originally posted by Tricky

When you want to answer the question, "Can God defy logic?" let me know.
Here's the answer:

Possibly!

Tricky

5th February 2003, 06:59 PM

Originally posted by c4ts

Here's the answer:

Possibly!
SHHHH, c4ts. No fair giving away the answers!

Plutarck

5th February 2003, 07:38 PM

Originally posted by Tricky

SHHHH, c4ts. No fair giving away the answers!

Yes, you could just as well be charging for them. How unprofitable!

The Lord God Almighty

6th February 2003, 04:40 AM

The evidence clearly shows that a large number of THE LORD's creatures can easily defy logic and believe impossible things, so you may conclude that THE LORD himself is able to defy logic as well.

The attributes of THE LORD are clearly reflected even in the least of his creatures.

Franko

6th February 2003, 07:36 AM

Is this supposed to be a logical, rational, clear-headed response from a skeptic?

Trixy, C4TV and crew aren't logical, rational, clear-headed, or skeptical Whodini. They are just good'ol fashion religious fanatics.

Franko

6th February 2003, 07:40 AM

Trixy:
You never asked me to define "side" and you never defined it yourself. I can give you lots of examples where "inside" is called a "side". (Scotty: Wha side o' the barrier are you on, Captain? Kirk: I'm on the inside, Scotty.) You can also speak of a sphere as having sides, as in, "I live on the other side of the world from you".

That's great Trixy -- you stupid moron -- so after all this time you are essentially conceding that you don't really have any "free will", and your claim to possess "free will" really just amounts to a lot of semantic word games.

Basically you have redefined "UP" to mean "DOWN" ... you have redefined Fate (Determinism, Objectivity, Logic) to mean "free will" (Magic, Subjectivity, Mysticism).

Franko

6th February 2003, 07:42 AM

Beleth:

When y'all get done with your semantics yawn-fest, let me know.

It's funny how it's ALWAYS the non-A-Theists on this forum who actually perceive reality as it is.

Tricky

6th February 2003, 07:45 AM

Originally posted by Franko

That's great Trixy -- you stupid moron -- so after all this time you are essentially conceding that you don't really have any "free will", and your claim to possess "free will" really just amounts to a lot of semantic word games.

Basically you have redefined "UP" to mean "DOWN" ... you have redefined Fate (Determinism, Objectivity, Logic) to mean "free will" (Magic, Subjectivity, Mysticism).
The jig is up, Dungeonmaster (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=325726&highlight=dungeonmaster#post325726). You can put the "Franko" character back in your game folio and try another one. You're good, I admit it. Had me fooled for a long time.

6th February 2003, 07:53 AM

Originally posted by Tricky

The jig is up, Dungeonmaster (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=325726&highlight=dungeonmaster#post325726). You can put the "Franko" character back in your game folio and try another one. You're good, I admit it. Had me fooled for a long time.

I wrote a program once based on a Scientific American article about letter-pair frequency. The idea is that when you examine a text in this way, it allows you to make very good analyses of the authorship of documents. It was very good, for instance, at determining the authorship of the Federalist Papers, based on known documents from the possible authors. The algorithm gets more and more accurate with increasing volume of text input.

I'll see if I can dig out that article and rewrite the program. If anyone else findes it before me, let me know; I think it was about 1985 or 86.

Franko

6th February 2003, 07:56 AM

Tricky: (A-Theist)
The jig is up, Dungeonmaster. You can put the "Franko" character back in your game folio and try another one. You're good, I admit it. Had me fooled for a long time.

Trixy, if you think that I mind repeatedly demonstrating the vacuousness of your worldview you are dead wrong.

What is your evidence for the existence of “free will”?
Tricky, 30+ year A-Theist: NONE, but I devoutly and dogmatically believe in “free will” anyway!

What is your evidence for the non-existence of “god”?
Tricky, 30+ year A-Theist: NONE, but I devoutly and dogmatically believe there is NO “god”, and anyone who believes otherwise is a credulous Theist moron!

--------------------------

What is your evidence for the non-existence of “free will”?
Franko, Logical Deist: Atoms obey TLOP; You are made of Atoms; YOU OBEY TLOP!

What is your evidence for the existence of “god”?
Franko, Logical Deist: TLOP (“god”) makes/controls YOU makes/controls CAR.
In the same way that YOU are more conscious then a CAR, TLOP is more conscious then YOU.

Keneke

6th February 2003, 09:19 AM

Let's go back to the original question.

To paraphrase Asimov in one of his Foundation books: A paradox is a situation that causes contradiction by improper assumption.

Something being heavier than you can lift is a quantitative assumption. It's supposedly easy to measure. The concept of the infinte, however, is a theory currently uncapable of measurable materialistic action. We cannot count to infinity. Therefore, juxtapositioning these two unmatching concepts causes a disconnect, resulting in a humorous effect. Comparing apples to oranges is a very useful Zen-like exercise for intellectuals-in-training, or for humor, but one is not supposed to ultimately answer such a question.

Then again, am I treading ground the boards have already covered?

whitefork

6th February 2003, 09:39 AM

Take a classic one for comparison:

What happens when the irresistable force meets the immovable object?

If there is an irresistable force, then there can be no immovable object, and contrarywise.

More than likely, there is neither, but the assertion "X is an immovable object" does not by itself entail a contradiction.

In the case of "X is all-powerful", we've seen arguments that this statement is in itself contradictory, and that it's not, but only becomes paradoxical when coupled with "Y cannot be lifted".

I don't know if "X is all-powerful" contains a concept of the infinite or not.

Tricky

6th February 2003, 09:47 AM

Originally posted by Franko

Trixy, if you think that I mind repeatedly demonstrating the vacuousness of your worldview you are dead wrong.

What is your evidence for the existence of “free will”?
Tricky, 30+ year A-Theist: NONE, but I devoutly and dogmatically believe in “free will” anyway!

What is your evidence for the non-existence of “god”?
Tricky, 30+ year A-Theist: NONE, but I devoutly and dogmatically believe there is NO “god”, and anyone who believes otherwise is a credulous Theist moron!

--------------------------

What is your evidence for the non-existence of “free will”?
Franko, Logical Deist: Atoms obey TLOP; You are made of Atoms; YOU OBEY TLOP!

What is your evidence for the existence of “god”?
Franko, Logical Deist: TLOP (“god”) makes/controls YOU makes/controls CAR.
In the same way that YOU are more conscious then a CAR, TLOP is more conscious then YOU.
Was that your +30 Cut & Paste of Demention? Your characters are stale, Dungeonmaster (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=325726&highlight=dungeonmaster#post325726)

Beleth

6th February 2003, 09:52 AM

Originally posted by Tricky
When you want to answer the question, "Can God defy logic?" let me know. Yeah, you're right. I was hungry and had a full bladder when I posted that last night; now I've eaten, went wee-wee, and got a little sleep, so I'm not as cranky now.

Here's my answer.

When I hear people use the phrase "defy logic", as in, "This new tax law defies logic!", what they usually mean is "defy reason."

There's the mathematical/philosophical definition of "logic," and there's the sociological definition of "logic." The latter is the one that's synonymous with "reason."

The antonym of the latter is "illogical" or "unreasonable."
The antonym of the former is "absurd."

If by "Can God defy logic?" you mean "Can an omnipotent God do unreasonable things?", then the answer is Yes. A good example of what such a God would look like is the Christian interpretation of God.

If by "Can God defy logic?" you mean "Can an omnipotent God do absurd things?", then this boils back down to "Can an omnipotent God do things He cannot do?", which I have addressed previously in this thread.

Or do you mean something else? If so, could you rephrase the question, or perhaps give an example?

Franko

6th February 2003, 09:52 AM

Come on Trixy!

After 30+ years of dedicating your life to the cult of A-Theism this is the best "proof" you have for your Religion?

You are so pathetic ... :(

Tricky

6th February 2003, 09:56 AM

Originally posted by Beleth
Or do you mean something else? If so, could you rephrase the question, or perhaps give an example?

No, I mean actually defy logic, not reason. Here's an example of a perfectly logical syllogism.

Major premise: Everything real has a creator
Minor premise: God is real
Conclusion: God has a creator

Now if you accept the two premises, then you must accept the conclusion, unless you agree that God can defy logic.

Do you disagree with either of the premises?

Beleth

6th February 2003, 10:01 AM

Originally posted by whitefork
I don't know if "X is all-powerful" contains a concept of the infinite or not. "I own all the gumdrops on the table" does not imply that there are an infinite number of gumdrops on the table.

"Omnipotent" does not mean "as powerful as can possibly be conceived." It means "possessing all the power that can be possessed" or "nothing is more powerful."

I went through this about a month and a half ago, right here. Which is fine; there will always be a new class of freshmen to teach, and good teachers do not get frustrated at this prospect.

Beleth

6th February 2003, 10:29 AM

Originally posted by Tricky
Major premise: Everything real has a creator
Minor premise: God is real
Conclusion: God has a creator

Do you disagree with either of the premises? I disagree with one of them, but I'm not sure which yet. What do you mean by "real?"

6th February 2003, 11:26 AM

Originally posted by Beleth
"I own all the gumdrops on the table" does not imply that there are an infinite number of gumdrops on the table.

All your gumdrops are belong to us!

Tricky

6th February 2003, 11:34 AM

Originally posted by Beleth
I disagree with one of them, but I'm not sure which yet. What do you mean by "real?"

How about
From Dictionary.com
1. Being or occurring in fact or actuality; having verifiable existence
2. True and actual; not imaginary, alleged, or ideal

Franko

6th February 2003, 12:06 PM

Tricky:

Real =
1. Being or occurring in fact or actuality; having verifiable existence

So how about proving that I am "real"?

Can you do it in your own mind?

How come I already know you cannot? Maybe it's because I'm not real?

Franko

6th February 2003, 12:09 PM

Watch Tricky, Beleth. His sole purpose for existing is to deceive you.

Major premise: Everything real has a creator
Minor premise: God is real
Conclusion: God has a creator

Everything which exists has an origin.
“God” exists.
God has an origin.

... or ...

Everything which exists has a Source.
“God” exists.
God has A Source.

Beleth

6th February 2003, 12:25 PM

From Dictionary.com
1. Being or occurring in fact or actuality; having verifiable existence
2. True and actual; not imaginary, alleged, or ideal
Those'll work.

Using those definitions, I disagree that everything real has a creator, although the second half of definition 1 would not apply to God's reality either.

What is real but does not have a creator? Well, God, for starters.

Keneke

6th February 2003, 12:39 PM

Originally posted by Beleth
"Omnipotent" does not mean "as powerful as can possibly be conceived." It means "possessing all the power that can be possessed" or "nothing is more powerful."
Yet the common description in a stereotypical theist's mind is infinite power. "God is infinite" is a different meaning than "God is omnipotent", but because we say "God is omnipotent" doesn't automatically include the assumption that he is NOT infinite. However, I still hold by my previously stated declaration of the logical absurdity (though nice mental workout) of this thread.

Tricky

6th February 2003, 12:48 PM

Originally posted by Beleth

Those'll work.

Using those definitions, I disagree that everything real has a creator, although the second half of definition 1 would not apply to God's reality either.

What is real but does not have a creator? Well, God, for starters.
And for finishers, how about the universe? If real things can exist without creators, as you have just admitted, then why not the universe itself? If the universe must have a creator, then why does not God also require a creator?

This is where the concept of "God as the creator of the universe" is caught in a logical paradox, and in order to exist, as you have described Him, then He must defy logic.

Franko

6th February 2003, 12:55 PM

I warned you this A-Theists was just trying to Trick you Beleth. He isn’t interested in honest debate. He has an investment of 30+ years of his life dedicated to A-Theism that he desperately needs to protect. He’s not about to admit that he has been DEAD WRONG for the last 30+ years!!!

Tricky: (A-Theist)
And for finishers, how about the universe? If real things can exist without creators, as you have just admitted, then why not the universe itself? If the universe must have a creator, then why does not God also require a creator?

Everything which exists has an origin.
“God” exists.
God has an origin.

... or ...

Everything which exists has a Source.
“God” exists.
God has A Source.

The Universe has an Origin/Source.
God has an Origin/Source.

This is where the concept of "God as the creator of the universe" is caught in a logical paradox, and in order to exist, as you have described Him, then He must defy logic.

No, because God, Consciousness, Time, and Logic are all manifestations of the same thing.

6th February 2003, 01:02 PM

All this hand-waving - Don't your arms ever get tired, folks? :D

I'm glad I'm not smart enough to care about arguments like this...

Tricky

6th February 2003, 01:06 PM

Originally posted by sundog
All this hand-waving - Don't your arms ever get tired, folks? :D

I'm glad I'm not smart enough to care about arguments like this...
Hey, it's the only excercise I get. :D

But don't worry Beleth. I do not get abusive when I debate. I am enjoying your contribution.

Beleth

6th February 2003, 01:22 PM

Originally posted by Tricky
This is where the concept of "God as the creator of the universe" is caught in a logical paradox, and in order to exist, as you have described Him, then He must defy logic. Errr... no. It means that you must have left out a step.

See, this is why I asked you for the definition of the word "real." I had a feeling you were going to fall into a trap like this.

Nowhere in your definitions of the word "real" was the word "created" mentioned. So equating "real" with "created" at this point of the discussion is pretty disingenuous, frankly.

Everything CREATED has a creator.
God was not created.
Therefore God had no creator.

You can't apply this to the universe, obviously... unless you are arguing that the universe was not created.

Your logic is full of fallacies. Mostly begging-the-question fallacies. But everyone has to start somewhere, and you should be commended for having put more thought into this than most.

Franko

6th February 2003, 01:27 PM

Tricky:

But don't worry Beleth. I do not get abusive when I debate. I am enjoying your contribution.

Ohhh you lying sack-o-sh*t. You are one of the most abusive, nastiest, dishonorable people on this forum Trixy. You are just real "Tricky" about it. Whenever you can, you get surrogates to do your dirty work for you.

6th February 2003, 01:29 PM

Originally posted by Beleth

Everything CREATED has a creator.
God was not created.
Therefore God had no creator.

Your logic is full of fallacies.

So's yours. This is not a valid syllogism.

Beleth

6th February 2003, 01:32 PM

Originally posted by sundog
So's yours. This is not a valid syllogism. How so?

6th February 2003, 01:35 PM

Originally posted by Beleth
How so?

"Everything CREATED has a creator.
God was not created.
Therefore God had no creator."

All bicycles have wheels.
A car is not a bicycle.
Therefore a car does not have wheels.

See the problem now?

Aoidoi

6th February 2003, 01:38 PM

Originally posted by Beleth
Nowhere in your definitions of the word "real" was the word "created" mentioned. So equating "real" with "created" at this point of the discussion is pretty disingenuous, frankly.Well, his statement was "Major premise: Everything real has a creator
Minor premise: God is real
Conclusion: God has a creator"

I suppose you could add "everything that has a creator is created" but that seems pretty tautological. His major premise (which you apparently disagree with) is that everything real was created. Since that's his first premise I don't see the disingenuity... I mean, the premise might be wrong but it's right out there in front of you.

Everything CREATED has a creator.
God was not created.
Therefore God had no creator.If you define God as not being created then the whole argument is moot, the premise and conclusion are the same.

You can't apply this to the universe, obviously... unless you are arguing that the universe was not created.Well, if you choose to define the universe as not being created you're in the same position you are with God... perhaps I'm missing your argument?

Your logic is full of fallacies. Mostly begging-the-question fallacies.Would you mind spelling them out for me? I apparently missed them. Tricky appears to have used a standard Prime Mover argument, which as far as I know is logically consistent... But everyone has to start somewhere, and you should be commended for having put more thought into this than most. That seems... arrogant. Not that there's anything intrinsically wrong with arrogance, but it does tend to make it a bit difficult to learn. I always try to see the other side of arguments, even if I do not agree it makes for an interesting change of scenery. :)

(edit: missed a '/'... not to mention that 4 posts slipped in while I was typing :))

Beleth

6th February 2003, 01:47 PM

Originally posted by sundog
All bicycles have wheels.
A car is not a bicycle.
Therefore a car does not have wheels.

See the problem now? Doh! Yes. Sorry.

And to think my first draft had those in the right order.

Everything created has a creator.
God had no creator.
Therefore God was not created.

There, that's better. And it's more applicable to my argument this way, as well!

Tricky

6th February 2003, 01:54 PM

Originally posted by Beleth
Errr... no. It means that you must have left out a step.

See, this is why I asked you for the definition of the word "real." I had a feeling you were going to fall into a trap like this.
I do not believe it is I who has fallen into a trap. I apologize for trapping you, but it was necessary to show the logical fallacy.

Originally posted by Beleth
Nowhere in your definitions of the word "real" was the word "created" mentioned. So equating "real" with "created" at this point of the discussion is pretty disingenuous, frankly.
Not at all. The first premise of the syllogism was where I tied "real" to created". To have done so in the definition of "real" would have been disingenious. That was the purpose of defining real first. In fact, I also disagree with the first premise, although for different reasons than you. If you deny the first premise, then you must verify the contrary, which is:
"Everything real need not have a creator"

Originally posted by Beleth
Everything CREATED has a creator.
God was not created.
Therefore God had no creator.
I did not ask you to write your own syllogism. I asked you to disprove mine. The first premise of your sylogism is nothing but a tautology. You might as well say, Everything red is red. It does not establish a relationship between two different words as I have done in the first line of my syllogism.

Can you disprove my syllogism as written?

Originally posted by Beleth
You can't apply this to the universe, obviously... unless you are arguing that the universe was not created.
I am in fact arguing that the universe was not "created". Creation implies a conscious effort to construct something. It does not apply to things that "just happen". I disagree with the first premise that "everything real must have a creator", but instead of postulating something like a god, I simply say,

Not everything real must have creator
The universe is real
The universe need not have a creator.

Originally posted by Beleth
Your logic is full of fallacies. Mostly begging-the-question fallacies. But everyone has to start somewhere, and you should be commended for having put more thought into this than most.
I do not believe my syllogism contains any fallacies. However, I urge you to take this syllogism (mine, not yours) to any logician and ask him/her if it contains logical fallacies. We have several people here very well educated in logic. Whitefork is one. He can probably explain in more detail than you or I would understand.

But thank you for the compliment, and also for replying cordially.

Beleth

6th February 2003, 01:58 PM

Originally posted by Aoidoi
If you define God as not being created then the whole argument is moot, the premise and conclusion are the same.This is the main begging-the-question fallacy I was referring to.

Well, if you choose to define the universe as not being created you're in the same position you are with God... perhaps I'm missing your argument?Perhaps I was being too subtle.

Knowing what we know today about cosmology, it is illogical to define the universe as not being created. The universe came into being with the Big Bang. There was a beginning point to the universe. It was created. This is a given.

(Arrogant? No. Unnecessarily patronizing? Yes. I apologize for that too. I really MUST remember to eat lunch BEFORE I post; it makes all the difference in the world in my tone.)

6th February 2003, 02:01 PM

Originally posted by Tricky

Not everything real must have creator
The universe is real
The universe need not have a creator.

Not all A are B.
C is equivalent to A.
Not all C are B.

Perfectly valid.

Beleth

6th February 2003, 02:09 PM

Originally posted by Tricky
Can you disprove my syllogism as written?Everything real has a creator
God is real
Therefore God has a creator

But God does not have a creator
Therefore not everything real has a creator.

Not everything real must have creator
The universe is real
The universe need not have a creator.But one of the statements you used to come to this conclusion is "God is real"!

Aoidoi

6th February 2003, 02:13 PM

Knowing what we know today about cosmology, it is illogical to define the universe as not being created. The universe came into being with the Big Bang. There was a beginning point to the universe. It was created. This is a given.Well, first off we have the Big Bang Theory... ie somebody may come up with a better theory later on. But as Tricky said something simply happening does not mean a creator. I suppose it depends on defining created (sigh, these things always end up arguing semantics) but I don't know that anything in Big Bang Cosmology necessitates a creator (certainly not a sentient one). Someone in here was arguing that it was quantum fluctuations in the ground state (or something similar that I only vaguely understood) which would mean that it was just a property of the universe before the Big Bang that caused the Big Bang.

The usual argument on one side seems to go that the universe had to be created, God created the universe, but God didn't have to be created (is outside of time, or something similar). The counter seems to be that a creator is unnecessary, the universe just happened, anything out side of time is outside of any ability for us to comprehend (or interact). We can play with logical terms, but the fundamental difference to me seems to be that one argument assumes the presense of a creator and the other assumes the absence and there is no evidence to demonstrate one way or the other.

(One can thus apply Occam's razor... but that's not proof, it's just generally useful)

(Arrogant? No. Unnecessarily patronizing? Yes. I apologize for that too. I really MUST remember to eat lunch BEFORE I post; it makes all the difference in the world in my tone.) No problem, it's nice to have a civil discussion. :)

Tricky

6th February 2003, 02:14 PM

Originally posted by Beleth
This is the main begging-the-question fallacy I was referring to.

Okay, let's take a look at the begging the question (http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/toc.htm) fallacy.
Begging the Question: the truth of the conclusion is assumed by the premises.

Now let's look at your syllogism
Beleth's syllogism
Everything created has a creator.
God had no creator.
Therefore God was not created.

Look especially at premise two. What you have said is:

God had no creator.
Therefore God was not created

Can you see that your conclusion is exactly identical to your second premise. This is a prime example of "begging the question".

Perhaps I was being too subtle.
LOL. Perhaps.

Knowing what we know today about cosmology, it is illogical to define the universe as not being created. The universe came into being with the Big Bang. There was a beginning point to the universe. It was created. This is a given.
Well now we come to the root of the situation. You take as a given that the universe was created. Unless I am mistaken, that means you take it as a given that there was a creator.

When you start with those premises, you are going to reach a predictable conclusion. As I explained above, I believe that the universe could have a beginning, but not be created. A cosmic accident, if you will.

Aoidoi

6th February 2003, 02:16 PM

chuckling Ok, too many posts too quick. I'll let Tricky and Beleth keep going and be a spectator for a while (unless I come up with something I think you missed, which seems unlikely at the moment). :)

Tricky

6th February 2003, 02:24 PM

Originally posted by Beleth
Everything real has a creator
God is real
Therefore God has a creator

But God does not have a creator
Therefore not everything real has a creator.
Now you are getting it! You disagree with the first premise.

Now lets use your conclusion to start another syllogism

"(Therefore) not everything real has a creator"
The universe is real
The universe need not have a creator.

Do you deny either premise of that syllogism? I remind you that the first premise is your own exact words.

Originally posted by Beleth
But one of the statements you used to come to this conclusion is "God is real"!

That is correct. That is one of the premises. I asked you in advance if you agreed with this premise. Are you now saying that you do not believe God is real?

Either way, you have acknowledged on of the two things.

1) You do not believe everything real need have a creator.
or
2) You do not believe God is real

You have already said you don't accept number 1, so I ask you again, if everything real need not have a creator, then why does a real universe need a creator?

Beleth

6th February 2003, 02:26 PM

Originally posted by Tricky
Look especially at premise two. What you have said is:

God had no creator.
Therefore God was not created

Can you see that your conclusion is exactly identical to your second premise. This is a prime example of "begging the question".
What I was trying to point out was that your syllogism and mine were actually identical, and that since mine was full of tautologies and question-begging, then yours was too.

But I like this new tack (see the post above) better.

Can you come to the conclusion that the universe was not necessarily created without using "God is real" as a premise?

Beleth

6th February 2003, 02:31 PM

Originally posted by Tricky
Either way, you have acknowledged on of the two things.

1) You do not believe everything real need have a creator.
or
2) You do not believe God is real

You have already said you don't accept number 1, so I ask you again, if everything real need not have a creator, then why does a real universe need a creator? Because to come to the conclusion that a real universe does not need a creator, you had to accept the premise that God was real.

Just because a real universe doesn't NEED a creator doesn't mean that it didn't HAVE one. And since you are willing to assume that God is real, why not also entertain the notion that He created the universe? Nothing you have argued precludes that possibility.

Tricky

6th February 2003, 02:38 PM

Originally posted by Beleth
What I was trying to point out was that your syllogism and mine were actually identical, and that since mine was full of tautologies and question-begging, then yours was too.
I have pointed out the tautology in your syllogism. Would you point out mine? Neither one of my premises is a restating of the conclusion. Would you point out where I have begged the question?

What you did was significantly change my syllogism. They are not even close to being identical.

Originally posted by Beleth
But I like this new tack (see the post above) better.
I am glad. But I still wish you to point out any error in my syllogism.

Originally posted by Beleth
Can you come to the conclusion that the universe was not necessarily created without using "God is real" as a premise?

Of course, it is easy.

Everything real need not have a creator.
The universe is real
The universe need not have a creator.

At no point have I said "God is real" and though I used the word "creator" twice, in both cases, I said a creator wasn't necessary.

Skeptical Greg

6th February 2003, 02:38 PM

Originally posted by Beleth
Nothing you have argued precludes that possibility.

Are you aware of any possibilities that are precluded?

Tricky

6th February 2003, 02:50 PM

Originally posted by Beleth
Because to come to the conclusion that a real universe does not need a creator, you had to accept the premise that God was real.
Not at all. See my syllogism above.

Originally posted by Beleth
Just because a real universe doesn't NEED a creator doesn't mean that it didn't HAVE one
And here we come to the gist of the matter. You have agreed that the universe may or may not have a creator, yet you are taking it as axiomatic that it had a creator. Why?

Originally posted by Beleth
And since you are willing to assume that God is real, why not also entertain the notion that He created the universe?
I have not assumed that God is real. That was the premise of my syllogism and nothing more. I actually disagree with both premises. However, I was trying to get you to agree to both premises. I then attempted to show you that to accept both premises leads to a logical paradox. Using that obvious paradox, I attempted to show you that if you deny one of the premises, then either:

1) The universe need not have a creator.
or
2) God is not real.

Notice I say "need" not. As a good skeptic, I do not deny the possibility of God. I think that there is no evidence for God, and I do not believe things without evidence. All I am pointing out is that the particular conception of "God as the creator of the universe" is a logical paradox.

Originally posted by Beleth
Why not also entertain the notion that He created the universe? Nothing you have argued precludes that possibility.
I agree. However, I must then ask what created God. It's turtles all the way up and turtles all the way down.

Beleth

6th February 2003, 02:55 PM

Originally posted by Tricky
At no point have I said "God is real"
Excuse me?

Is that or is that not your Minor Premise?

You have been using "God is real" as a premise to reach every single conclusion you have come to so far.

Explain yourself.

Tricky

6th February 2003, 03:06 PM

Originally posted by Beleth
Excuse me?

Is that or is that not your Minor Premise?

You have been using "God is real" as a premise to reach every single conclusion you have come to so far.

Explain yourself.
This is simply not true. My last syllogism mentions nothing about god. However, I apologize for the confusion. I should have said, "At no point in THIS syllogism do I use the premise God is real. By THIS syllogism, I mean.

Tricky said
Everything real need not have a creator.
The universe is real
The universe need not have a creator.

You asked me to do this when you said
Beleth said
Can you come to the conclusion that the universe was not necessarily created without using "God is real" as a premise?

Now using the syllogism in this post alone, which does not include the premise "God is real", I have come to the conclusion that the universe need not have a creator. I agree with both premises, and incidentally, so do you.

Beleth said
Therefore not everything real has a creator.

That is, unless you are saying the universe is NOT real. Is that what you are saying?

6th February 2003, 03:08 PM

I'm loving this. Who needs football?

Go, team, go!

Beleth

6th February 2003, 03:21 PM

Are you saying the two syllogisms have nothing to do with each other? I hate to tell you this, but they are inextricably linked.

Let's recap.

Syllogism 1, expanded version (my words, endorsed by you):

Premise 1.1: Everything real has a creator
Premise 1.2: God is real
Conclusion 1.1: Therefore God has a creator

Contradiction 1.1: But God does not have a creator
Conclusion 1.2: Therefore not everything real has a creator.

Syllogism 2:

Premise 2.1: Everything real need not have a creator.
Premise 2.2: The universe is real
Conclusion 2.1: The universe need not have a creator.

The conclusion of the first syllogism is the first premise of the second!

Here's the chain of custody:

Conc 2.1 comes from Prem 2.1 and Prem 2.2.

Prem 2.1 is the same as Conc 1.2.

Conc 1.2 comes from Cont 1.1 and Prem 1.2.

Therefore you can't claim Conc 2.1 without claiming Prem 1.2.

In other words, you can't claim that the universe need not have a creator without claiming also that God is real.

I can't believe you are denying this. I feel like I have wasted my afternoon.

Tricky

6th February 2003, 04:01 PM

Originally posted by Beleth
Are you saying the two syllogisms have nothing to do with each other? I hate to tell you this, but they are inextricably linked.

Let's recap.

Syllogism 1, expanded version (my words, endorsed by you):

Premise 1.1: Everything real has a creator
Premise 1.2: God is real
Conclusion 1.1: Therefore God has a creator

Contradiction 1.1: But God does not have a creator
Conclusion 1.2: Therefore not everything real has a creator.

Syllogism 2:

Premise 2.1: Everything real need not have a creator.
Premise 2.2: The universe is real
Conclusion 2.1: The universe need not have a creator.

The conclusion of the first syllogism is the first premise of the second!

Here's the chain of custody:

Conc 2.1 comes from Prem 2.1 and Prem 2.2.

Prem 2.1 is the same as Conc 1.2.

Conc 1.2 comes from Cont 1.1 and Prem 1.2.

Therefore you can't claim Conc 2.1 without claiming Prem 1.2.

In other words, you can't claim that the universe need not have a creator without claiming also that God is real.

I can't believe you are denying this. I feel like I have wasted my afternoon.
I can't believe you are going through these contortions. I stated in my last post that the syllogism stands alone. I do not require to be shown that I believe that everything real need not have a creator I already accepted it.. In my mind, syllogism 2 stands alone. It is you who first needed to be shown that you do not believe everything real need have a creator, which was established in syllogism 1. Once that is shown, we can say that premise is true.

Again, I invite you to show this to any trained logician.
And again, I invite you to show where I have engaged in "begging the question" or a tautology in my first syllogism. Do not tell me your syllogism is the same. Use exactly what I said. To bring in things I have not said is, as you say, disingenious.

I do not believe you can do this. I am not trying to embarrass you, but rather to show you how logic works. You seem like a very nice person.

Beleth

6th February 2003, 04:18 PM

I was right. I have wasted my afternoon.

You set up a chain of proof, then you deny one of the earliest links of that chain. This is just pure, simple, bad logic. By denying that link, you un-prove everything you say after that.

I point this out, and you try to deflect the discussion back to a point I had stopped arguing hours ago. Bad form on top of bad logic.

I do not require to be shown that I believe that everything real need not have a creator I already accepted it. Absolutely, utterly irrelevant. If you can't prove something to someone else, it doesn't matter what you have already personally accepted.

Again, I invite you to show this to any trained logician.I am a trained logician, sir. Rusty, but trained. But if you want to get Whitefork over here, be my guest.

And you were doing so well...

I do not believe I have anything further to say to you.

Aoidoi

6th February 2003, 04:41 PM

A bit confused:
Conc 2.1 comes from Prem 2.1 and Prem 2.2.

Prem 2.1 is the same as Conc 1.2.

Conc 1.2 comes from Cont 1.1 and Prem 1.2.

Therefore you can't claim Conc 2.1 without claiming Prem 1.2.

In other words, you can't claim that the universe need not have a creator without claiming also that God is real.Conclusion 1.2 comes because the first syllogism leads to an invalid conclusion. Therefore 1.1 or 1.2 is wrong. If we flip 1.1 around then we go merrily on our way to 2, and 2 is then logically valid. This would mean to me that if God is real, the universe doesn't need a creator. Of course, if God is not real then the universe doesn't have a creator since the creator doesn't exist (If god is the creator). It would appear that the existence of God is irrelevant to whether the universe has a creator (using this particular argument).

If I'm recalling my one philosophy class correctly, the opposite of this was refered to as the Prime Mover argument, which was determined not to be a valid proof of God's Existence. In effect the whole chain of logic proves nothing: god may or may not exist, the universe may or may not have been created by him. Which means that yes, you did indeed waste an afternoon, Beleth. Philosophy tends to do that. :)

(It was a terribly frustrating class to an engineer, we covered numerous proofs of Gods existence only to find that, at the end of the day, we knew nothing more than what we started off with... that is, you can't prove one way or the other.)

Tricky

6th February 2003, 04:48 PM

Originally posted by Beleth
I was right. I have wasted my afternoon.

Not really. You learned something.

You set up a chain of proof, then you deny one of the earliest links of that chain. This is just pure, simple, bad logic. By denying that link, you un-prove everything you say after that.
As I say, I asked YOU to tell me if you accepted those premises. You tell me you do not accept the premises. We have then established what premises you DO accept. We then procede from that point using the premises you accept. There is nothing remotely unfair about this.

I point this out, and you try to deflect the discussion back to a point I had stopped arguing hours ago. Bad form on top of bad logic.
Again, I challenge you to show where my logic is bad. You have accused me of begging the question, but you have not shown it. You accuse me of using tautologies, but you have not shown it. If my logic is bad, please show me where so I can fix it. I did, however, point out two specific cases of bad logic in your syllogism, and even provided references. Can you not be equally helpful to me?

Absolutely, utterly irrelevant. If you can't prove something to someone else, it doesn't matter what you have already personally accepted.
Not irrevelant at all. Logic says if you accept the premises and it is a valid logical statement, then you accept the conclusion. It does not matter why you accept the premises. I have shown you that even though you accept the premises, you do not accept the conclusion. Neither have you shown the logical argument to be invalid. You are simply breaking the rules of logic.

I am a trained logician, sir. Rusty, but trained. But if you want to get Whitefork over here, be my guest.
You are trained, but you cannot recognize "begging the question" or tautologies? Where in the world did you study logic?
If I do get Whitefork to weigh in on this, would you accept his pronouncement? Otherwise, I see no point in bothering him if you are going to accept no ones word but your own. Other people on this thread have already stated that my argument was a clear cut case of the standard "Prime Mover" argument. Do you know what that is?

And you were doing so well...
I'm still doing well, thank you.

I do not believe I have anything further to say to you.
As you wish. I hope you will at least note that I have been unfailingly polite.

Tricky

6th February 2003, 04:53 PM

Originally posted by Aoidoi
If I'm recalling my one philosophy class correctly, the opposite of this was refered to as the Prime Mover argument, which was determined not to be a valid proof of God's Existence.
You are correct, Aoidoi. It is not a valid proof of God' existence or non existence. It only shows that "God as the creator of the universe" is a logical paradox. There may be other concepts of God which do not posit him as the creator of the universe. If you say, "God appeared along with the Big Bang", then the syllogism proves nothing, since you have not posited a creator.

However, I still hesitate to say that it is a waste. For example, Beleth has learned not to fall into that logical trap again. Surely that is worth something.

Beleth

6th February 2003, 05:48 PM

All right, after reading Aoidoi's post, things are a little clearer.

But I still have one issue.

It only shows that "God as the creator of the universe" is a logical paradox.I can see how it shows this is a logical uncertainty (i.e. it is neither proved nor disproved), but a paradox? I don't see that.

If God exists, then the universe was not necessarily created by God.
(If God does not exist, then the universe obviously was not created by God.)

I don't see the paradox.

The training was over 20 years ago. Hence my description of myself as "rusty." Did you overlook that? I have admitted that I thought my syllogism was closer to yours than it really is, and have dropped my criticism of your syllogism on tautological and question-begging grounds appropriately. Did you overlook that too? Maybe I was being too subtle there too.

gentlehorse

6th February 2003, 06:17 PM

Tricky:
And for finishers, how about the universe? If real things can exist without creators, as you have just admitted, then why not the universe itself? If the universe must have a creator, then why does not God also require a creator?
Hey, Tricky.

Beleth seems to say that the only real thing that can exist without benefit of a creator is God. Everything else has a creator. He hasn't admitted that "real things" can exist without a creator, unless I'm reading him wrong. With all due respect, I think that saying Beleth's agreed that real things can exist without creators is a misrepresentation of his postion.

This is where the concept of "God as the creator of the universe" is caught in a logical paradox, and in order to exist, as you have described Him, then He must defy logic.

Perhaps. He at least has to defy our grasp of logic. I suppose we could call the existence of God "counterintuitive". The concept of "God as the creator of the universe" isn't necessarily caught in a logical paradox as I see it. For instance, it doesn't seem logical to assume that something can come from nothing (Note: By nothing, I do not mean the post Big Bang vacuum of space, replete with quantum fluctuations, tunneling, etc. I mean Nothing. No spacetime-- No quantum fluctuations-- No tunneling-- Nothing--). With this is mind, it seems logical to assume that something exists without benefit of a creator by virtue of the fact that if there was ever a "time" when Nothing existed, the universe wouldn't be here. As it is here, it would seem that something self-exists which, in one way or another, brought this universe into existence. The question, in my mind, seems to be, "Is the universe the result of a cosmic accident, as it were, or is it the result of a conscious, intelligent act of creation?" Many here seem comfortable with the ideas that the universe popped into existence for no reason whatsoever, that life has no meaning other than that which we attach to it, and that consciousness is nothing more than an emergent property of complexity. They may be right. But, then again, they may very well be wrong. Consciousness may be an inherent, defining component of that which self-exists and this universe may be a glorious act of expression. Who knows? Those with "faith" are usually inclined to lean toward the latter. Atheists lean toward the former and claim that theirs is not a faith-based postition. I wonder about this stance sometimes. The universe exists. Something apparently self-exists. Consciousness exists. Can we say that to actively disbelieve that consciousness had a part in the formation of the universe is truly a postion which requires no faith? (I can hear the questions coming: "What do you mean by actively disbelieve? Will you define the word...) But I digress...:D

Of course we've been down this road before, Tricky. You know where I stand and I know where you stand (and in spite of the fact that you're wrong, I still like you :D ). I just felt compelled to toss in my two cents in a drive-by. I wish I could devote more time to the forum, but life's nuts at the moment.

Peace.

Tricky

6th February 2003, 06:38 PM

Originally posted by Beleth
All right, after reading Aoidoi's post, things are a little clearer.

But I still have one issue.

I can see how it shows this is a logical uncertainty (i.e. it is neither proved nor disproved), but a paradox? I don't see that.
Because it shows that you can never get off the "creator" cycle. If you agree to both premises of syllogism one, then you have said that God (the creator of the universe) has a creator. It is then easy to see that if the creator of the creator of the universe is real, then the creator of the creator of the universe.... ad infinitum. You have created a syllogism that can never be resolved, which is a logical paradox. You either have to invoke an infinite succession of "creators" (turtles all the way down) or you have to say at some point there was a creator that was not real or that something real existed which did not have a creator. Thus, you have violated the original premises. That's why I think those premises are wrong. You picked up on it too. The admission that one of those premises was wrong meant that the converse must be true. That allowed us to set up a second syllogism using premises upon which you agreed.

Originally posted by Beleth
If God exists, then the universe was not necessarily created by God.
(If God does not exist, then the universe obviously was not created by God.)

I don't see the paradox.
As I have said, this is only a paradox if you say that God is the creator of the universe. If you say that God "popped out of the void", then the paradox is gone. However, if you admit that things can "pop out of the void", then you have to admit that the universe could have "popped out of the void" without God. In any case, it removes God as a necessary condition for the existence of the universe.

Originally posted by Beleth
The training was over 20 years ago. Hence my description of myself as "rusty." Did you overlook that?
Yes, I saw that you claimed yourself to be rusty. I apologize if I sounded sarcastic, but since you were using terms like "begging the question", I assumed you knew what they meant. Personally, I have had zero training in formal logic. Most of what I know, I have picked up from reading. When I saw Whiteforks "formal logic" though, I was bumfoozled. I was able to reach the correct conclusion, but I did not understand the notation or the precise names for logical operations. It is a scarily technical field.

Take a look at this (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=223426&highlight=formal+logic#post223426) old thread to see what I mean.

Originally posted by Beleth
I have admitted that I thought my syllogism was closer to yours than it really is, and have dropped my criticism of your syllogism on tautological and question-begging grounds appropriately. Did you overlook that too? Maybe I was being too subtle there too.
It was pretty subtle. I'm looking over your posts and I still do not see where you said that I have did not use tautologies or question begging. You did stop talking about it, but I did not know that this signalled that you had conceded the point. I apologize for harping on the point.

In any case, I hope you do not consider me a rude person, even though we disagree. I certainly consider you a polite person who addresses the points made. We could use more like you.

Tricky

6th February 2003, 09:07 PM

Originally posted by gentlehorse

Hey, Tricky.
Hello EquitableEquine. I apologize. I missed your post in my "frenzy of logic" and the change of pages. I am not ignoring you.

Beleth seems to say that the only real thing that can exist without benefit of a creator is God. Everything else has a creator.
Agreed. But this goes against the major premise that everything real must have a creator.

Everything else has a creator. He hasn't admitted that "real things" can exist without a creator, unless I'm reading him wrong. With all due respect, I think that saying Beleth's agreed that real things can exist without creators is a misrepresentation of his postion.
Respectfully, I disagree. If God is real and god exists without a creator, then that must suggest that at least one real thing can exist without a creator. It is that lone exception which violates the rules of logic. The rules cannot be broken because you make a "special case" for God.

Perhaps. He at least has to defy our grasp of logic.
Yes, and if God can violate the rules of nature, He can do anything. That is why it is impossible to disprove God. You can only show that specific concepts of God are illogical. That is my entire point here. I cannot disprove all concepts of God. No one can.

I suppose we could call the existence of God "counterintuitive". The concept of "God as the creator of the universe" isn't necessarily caught in a logical paradox as I see it. For instance, it doesn't seem logical to assume that something can come from nothing (Note: By nothing, I do not mean the post Big Bang vacuum of space, replete with quantum fluctuations, tunneling, etc. I mean Nothing. No spacetime-- No quantum fluctuations-- No tunneling-- Nothing--). With this is mind, it seems logical to assume that something exists without benefit of a creator by virtue of the fact that if there was ever a "time" when Nothing existed, the universe wouldn't be here.
It is counterintuitive. It seems unbelievable, which is why we have made up so many stories to fill in that "intuitive hole" that gnaws at our understanding of the universe. Just as it is difficult to conceive infinity, it is difficult to conceive nothingness. But of course, I DO assume that something exists without the benefit of a creator. The universe, in fact. But I think we are on the same page here.

Originally posted by gentlehorse
As it is here, it would seem that something self-exists which, in one way or another, brought this universe into existence.
And why cannot the universe self-exist? Why add another layer to an already undecipherable problem? Like Beleth, you need something to create the universe, but you need nothing to create the creator of the universe. At some point, you postulate a creatorless thing. I merely go one less point than you.

The question, in my mind, seems to be, "Is the universe the result of a cosmic accident, as it were, or is it the result of a conscious, intelligent act of creation?" Many here seem comfortable with the ideas that the universe popped into existence for no reason whatsoever, that life has no meaning other than that which we attach to it, and that consciousness is nothing more than an emergent property of complexity. They may be right. But, then again, they may very well be wrong.
I agree completely. Or almost completely. You and I apparently have different definitions of "meaning". I can find meaning without "cosmic significance". I consider my life to be very meaningful, if temporary.

Consciousness may be an inherent, defining component of that which self-exists and this universe may be a glorious act of expression. Who knows? Those with "faith" are usually inclined to lean toward the latter. Atheists lean toward the former and claim that theirs is not a faith-based postition. I wonder about this stance sometimes. The universe exists. Something apparently self-exists. Consciousness exists. Can we say that to actively disbelieve that consciousness had a part in the formation of the universe is truly a postion which requires no faith? (I can hear the questions coming: "What do you mean by actively disbelieve? Will you define the word...) But I digress...:D
Yes, I can see you struggling over it, as do I. I confess that I want there to be something more. I crave it. But I would be dishonest to my principles if I invented it (or believed somone elses invention). I am serious here. It is hard for an atheist to stay faithful to his principles. I can see from your struggles that it is equally hard to be a fair-minded theist. I am impressed with your candor.

Of course we've been down this road before, Tricky. You know where I stand and I know where you stand (and in spite of the fact that you're wrong, I still like you :D ). I just felt compelled to toss in my two cents in a drive-by. I wish I could devote more time to the forum, but life's nuts at the moment.

Peace.
I'm very glad you dropped by, Horse. You remind me of why it is a mistake to underestimate theists :D. Hope your life gets less nuts. We need you in here.

a_unique_person

6th February 2003, 09:39 PM

Originally posted by Franko

You ever play that game Dungeons & Dragons?

In D&D you have a Referee, or Dungeonmaster, who plays the role of an omnipotent “god” -- He or She “creates” the universe. In D&D can the DM create a rock so heavy that he would be unable to lift it?

It’s kind of a nonsense question when you phrase it like that – isn’t it?

So say the DM committed suicide … what do you think would happen to his game (his universe) once the omnipotent “god” ceased to exist?

so in gods universe, he is just a worker at maccas and in his spare time has created this universe for recreation?

gentlehorse

7th February 2003, 10:27 PM

Originally posted by Tricky
Yes, and if God can violate the rules of nature, He can do anything. That is why it is impossible to disprove God. You can only show that specific concepts of God are illogical. That is my entire point here. I cannot disprove all concepts of God. No one can.

I hear ya. But specific concepts of God are not the only things we find which are illogical as we ponder the nature of the universe and ask questions pertaining to beginnings, my friend. Consider the Big Bang. As our model get closer and closer to describing the moment of the Bang, our math and physics serve us less and less as descriptors of the event, until finally they break down all together. As things stand, the moment of the event is beyond description and beyond logic. In short, the Big Bang is metaphysical. Note: The word "metaphysical" tends to carry a lot of negative baggage on this forum. My use of the word simply means "beyond physics", nothing more. As an aside, I personally have no problem with the Big Bang Theory by virtue of the indirect evidence which seems to support it. If things got started with a Big Bang we would expect to see X when we observe the universe. We observe the universe and we see X. Rather straightforward. Be that as it may, the Big Bang is certainly beyond our logic, at least for the time being. This may not mean that the Big Bang is illogical, per se, but it is rather beyond our grasp.

It is counterintuitive. It seems unbelievable, which is why we have made up so many stories to fill in that "intuitive hole" that gnaws at our understanding of the universe. Just as it is difficult to conceive infinity, it is difficult to conceive nothingness. But of course, I DO assume that something exists without the benefit of a creator. The universe, in fact. But I think we are on the same page here.

I agree that we seem to be on the same page. Moreover, we seem to be reading the same passage and coming away with different experiences and interpretations

And why cannot the universe self-exist? Why add another layer to an already undecipherable problem? Like Beleth, you need something to create the universe, but you need nothing to create the creator of the universe. At some point, you postulate a creatorless thing. I merely go one less point than you.

I have no real problem with the idea that the universe self-exists, aside from that pesky evidence that seems to suggest that at one "time" it didn't. Of course, with the birth of the universe came the birth of time, so I guess that technically there never was a "time" when the universe didn't exist. But, then again, if the universe self-exists, why the need for a Big Bang? Hmph... This idea that there is no way to discuss anything that happened "before" the Big Bang is somewhat troublesome. It rather seems like something coming from nothing to me. But, if it happened, it seems that something, be it acausal, random, designed, whatever, must have triggered that puppy, which seems to suggest that there was something before the Bang. Sheesh. Counterintuitive stuff is so damned counterintuitive. At any rate, we seem to agree that something self-exists. We just seem to disagree as to whether or not that "Something" is conscious. One thing we probably agree on, though, is that whatever "it" is, it rather obviously has the potential to generate consciousness. Such a vast universe-- so little consciousness-- It's a pity. :D

I agree completely. Or almost completely. You and I apparently have different definitions of "meaning". I can find meaning without "cosmic significance". I consider my life to be very meaningful, if temporary.

I didn't mean to imply that you consider your life to be meaningless, Tricky. I apologize if what I said came across that way.

Yes, I can see you struggling over it, as do I. I confess that I want there to be something more. I crave it. But I would be dishonest to my principles if I invented it (or believed somone elses invention). I am serious here. It is hard for an atheist to stay faithful to his principles. I can see from your struggles that it is equally hard to be a fair-minded theist. I am impressed with your candor.

And I can see that it is hard for you to detach yourself from your desire for there to be something more. I really can. In fact, I respect you for your efforts to keep from blinding yourself by falling into the unexaimined belief system of another or kidding yourself by creating one of your own. We're certainly more alike than we are different, Tricky. Each of us searches for the Truth. We look at roughly the same evidence, have roughly the same experiences, and come away with significantly different interpretations of what's going on. We look at each other, each of us puzzled by the other, and keep searching. IMO, we're very much in the same boat, my friend.

I'm very glad you dropped by, Horse. You remind me of why it is a mistake to underestimate theists :D. Hope your life gets less nuts. We need you in here.

Thanks for the nice words. I appreciate them.

Peace.

Tricky

8th February 2003, 06:38 AM

Originally posted by gentlehorse
I hear ya. But specific concepts of God are not the only things we find which are illogical as we ponder the nature of the universe and ask questions pertaining to beginnings, my friend. Consider the Big Bang. As our model get closer and closer to describing the moment of the Bang, our math and physics serve us less and less as descriptors of the event, until finally they break down all together. As things stand, the moment of the event is beyond description and beyond logic. In short, the Big Bang is metaphysical. Note: The word "metaphysical" tends to carry a lot of negative baggage on this forum. My use of the word simply means "beyond physics", nothing more.
Given your definition of "metaphysical", I cannot contest your statement that the "beginning" of the universe is metaphysical. Of course when you say, "beyond physics" I am assuming you mean "physics as we currently understand it". However, I do contest that it is beyond logic. Since science does not make statements such as, "every real thing must have a creator", it is not trapped by circular logic. Simply saying "we don't know" is in no way illogical. Logic can just as easily be used to show that we don't know things as it is to show that we do. Recall my syllogism:

Not everything real needs to have a creator
The universe is real
The universe need not have a creator

If you wish to use the word "beginning" for "creator", then it could also be true. Did the universe "exist" before the big bang? We don't know, although certainly it didn't exist in the form it does now.

Originally posted by gentlehorse
As an aside, I personally have no problem with the Big Bang Theory by virtue of the indirect evidence which seems to support it. If things got started with a Big Bang we would expect to see X when we observe the universe. We observe the universe and we see X. Rather straightforward. Be that as it may, the Big Bang is certainly beyond our logic, at least for the time being. This may not mean that the Big Bang is illogical, per se, but it is rather beyond our grasp.
Ah. This is what I was saying earlier. When you say, "beyond our logic", you mean we are unable to make acceptable premises. I do not include the formation of premises as a part of logic. To me, premise-making is the job of science, although it can be done by anyone. Although, it is true, when a lot of people say "I don't accept your logic", what they are often saying is "I don't accept your premises". Logic is especially susceptible to GIGO.

Originally posted by gentlehorse
I have no real problem with the idea that the universe self-exists, aside from that pesky evidence that seems to suggest that at one "time" it didn't. Of course, with the birth of the universe came the birth of time, so I guess that technically there never was a "time" when the universe didn't exist.
Yes, that would be the case, if they are right. I suspect the theories on QM are very much subject to change. It's just so darn difficult to gather evidence. Get back with me in a hundred years and we'll see what's turned up. :D

Originally posted by gentlehorse
But, then again, if the universe self-exists, why the need for a Big Bang? Hmph... This idea that there is no way to discuss anything that happened "before" the Big Bang is somewhat troublesome. It rather seems like something coming from nothing to me. But, if it happened, it seems that something, be it acausal, random, designed, whatever, must have triggered that puppy, which seems to suggest that there was something before the Bang. Sheesh. Counterintuitive stuff is so damned counterintuitive. At any rate, we seem to agree that something self-exists. We just seem to disagree as to whether or not that "Something" is conscious. One thing we probably agree on, though, is that whatever "it" is, it rather obviously has the potential to generate consciousness. Such a vast universe-- so little consciousness-- It's a pity. :D
Very well put. I can but add an awed, "Yup".

Originally posted by gentlehorse
I didn't mean to imply that you consider your life to be meaningless, Tricky. I apologize if what I said came across that way.
I know you didn't mean it as an insult. It just is a sticky point with me that for some people, "meaning" can only refer to "The Master Plan" or some such cosmic concept. I think meaning is just how we interpret it.

Originally posted by gentlehorse
And I can see that it is hard for you to detach yourself from your desire for there to be something more. I really can. In fact, I respect you for your efforts to keep from blinding yourself by falling into the unexaimined belief system of another or kidding yourself by creating one of your own. We're certainly more alike than we are different, Tricky. Each of us searches for the Truth. We look at roughly the same evidence, have roughly the same experiences, and come away with significantly different interpretations of what's going on. We look at each other, each of us puzzled by the other, and keep searching. IMO, we're very much in the same boat, my friend.

Oooo! Can I hold the rudder??

Seriously, though, thank you, my friend.

Beleth

18th February 2003, 08:05 PM

Yes, it's been a while... my brainpower was needed elsewhere. I've been posting in other topics that don't need so much brainpower.
Originally posted by Tricky

Yes, and if God can violate the rules of nature, He can do anything. That is why it is impossible to disprove God. You can only show that specific concepts of God are illogical. That is my entire point here.Okay, but there are two interpretations of the question you posed me in the beginning, which was "Does God defy logic?"

One is "Does God's existence defy logic?"
The other is "Do God's abilities defy logic?"

This thread started out discussing the latter, but it got nudged over to the former.

What you have proven (and I agree with, after all this) is that God's existence defies logic. You can't prove God exists, and you can't prove God doesn't exist. What you've shown is that God wasn't logically necessary for the universe to exist. But I bet a similar argument could be shown that the existence of the universe defies logic as well - in other words, it is not necessary for the universe to exist. I have spent these last few days trying to come up with a syllogism that reaches this conclusion, but haven't found one I like yet.

What started this thread, however, is the notion that God's abilities defy logic, and I still don't concede this point. Existence and abilities are two different things.

So, after all this, I still maintain that God, assuming He exists, cannot make a rock so big that He cannot lift it, because the set of {rocks God can't lift} is logically the empty set, and because God's abilities do not defy logic.

Tricky

18th February 2003, 09:40 PM

Originally posted by Beleth
Yes, it's been a while... my brainpower was needed elsewhere. I've been posting in other topics that don't need so much brainpower.
Okay, but there are two interpretations of the question you posed me in the beginning, which was "Does God defy logic?"

One is "Does God's existence defy logic?"
The other is "Do God's abilities defy logic?"

This thread started out discussing the latter, but it got nudged over to the former.

What you have proven (and I agree with, after all this) is that God's existence defies logic. You can't prove God exists, and you can't prove God doesn't exist. What you've shown is that God wasn't logically necessary for the universe to exist. But I bet a similar argument could be shown that the existence of the universe defies logic as well - in other words, it is not necessary for the universe to exist. I have spent these last few days trying to come up with a syllogism that reaches this conclusion, but haven't found one I like yet.

What started this thread, however, is the notion that God's abilities defy logic, and I still don't concede this point. Existence and abilities are two different things.

So, after all this, I still maintain that God, assuming He exists, cannot make a rock so big that He cannot lift it, because the set of {rocks God can't lift} is logically the empty set, and because God's abilities do not defy logic.
Welcome back, Beleth. I am pleased if anything I said made sense to you.

As I said before, my "proof" only holds for the definition of God as "The creator of the Universe". There are other concepts of God for which this syllogism is invalid. But I would venture to say that most of the more frequently used definitons of God contain logical inconsistancies, but they must be evaluated individually.

As far as the universe fitting the same type of syllogism, it depends on whether or not you postulate a creator. I do not. I freely admit I don't know how the universe came about (which is ignorance, not illogic) but it avoids the "turtles" problem. Certainly it is not "necessary" for the universe to exist, but we have a great deal of evidence that it does. The same cannot be said of God.

But I have always agreed that the "Can God make a rock..." question is simply a contradiction in terms and not meaningful in any serious discussion.

Franko

19th February 2003, 08:32 AM

Tricky:
As far as the universe fitting the same type of syllogism, it depends on whether or not you postulate a creator. I do not. I freely admit I don't know how the universe came about (which is ignorance, not illogic) but it avoids the "turtles" problem.

Not really. Not at all. Not unless you are claiming that the Universe has ALWAYS existed. If it hasn’t ALWAYS existed (as ALL evidence indicates) then it is OBVIOUS that you are wrong, and the Universe was created.

Of course that doesn’t mean that the creator was conscious, the Universe may be an inherent property of Spacetime itself.

But in any event you would need evidence to back up your claim. Just saying that “you don’t know” is not an explanation. Besides … not enough information would make you an Agnostic, not an A-Theist. But you don’t want people to think that “You don’t know’ the answer, so I guess you don’t see much point in being honest and conceding that you don’t know the answer by calling yourself Agnostic.

Certainly it is not "necessary" for the universe to exist, but we have a great deal of evidence that it does. The same cannot be said of God.

No, the fact that YOU exist is plenty of evidence for “God”. In fact, the evidence that YOU exist far exceeds the evidence that the Universe exist. For all you know, (if you are reading this post right now) YOU are all that exist, and the Universe is simply a figment of your subconscious imagination. That is where your Materialism will eventually lead you.

Tricky

19th February 2003, 08:52 AM

Originally posted by Franko
Not really. Not at all. Not unless you are claiming that the Universe has ALWAYS existed. If it hasn’t ALWAYS existed (as ALL evidence indicates) then it is OBVIOUS that you are wrong, and the Universe was created.
Then you OBVIOUSLY haven't understood the result of this little exercise. If it was created, then what created the creator? You cannot escape this loop without postulating something without a creator.

Of course that doesn’t mean that the creator was conscious, the Universe may be an inherent property of Spacetime itself.
That wouldn't be a creator, would it. That would be a cause. "Creation" implies conscious effort. If the universe could be an inherent property of spacetime, then it could "just happen" which is a possibility that I have been suggesting all along.

But in any event you would need evidence to back up your claim. Just saying that “you don’t know” is not an explanation. Besides … not enough information would make you an Agnostic, not an A-Theist. But you don’t want people to think that “You don’t know’ the answer, so I guess you don’t see much point in being honest and conceding that you don’t know the answer by calling yourself Agnostic.
As I have
said before (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=291415&highlight=lexicon+agnostic+admit#post291415), by your definition I am agnostic. And I really don't see the superiority in making up a fantasy tale about origins for which you admit you have no evidence, simply to avoid admitting you don't know. Who is being dishonest here?

No, the fact that YOU exist is plenty of evidence for “God”.

Not by any definition of "God" that I accept. You call lots of things "gods" which I wouldn't think of accepting as valid definitions. Oh yes, As you may recall (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=335064&highlight=define+creator+universe+believe#post3350 64) I have defined God as "The creator of the universe". I am still waiting to hear your definition.

For all you know, (if you are reading this post right now) YOU are all that exist, and the Universe is simply a figment of your subconscious imagination.

What? This again?

Franko

19th February 2003, 08:59 AM

Not by any definition of "God" that I accept. You call lots of things "gods" which I wouldn't think of accepting as valid definitions. Oh yes, As you may recall I have defined God as "The creator of the universe". I am still waiting to hear your definition.

Well if you are the creator of the Universe (it's all inside your head), then how would that make you not "God"? Do other people have to exist in reality for "God" (YOU) to exist in reality?

Tricky

19th February 2003, 09:04 AM

Originally posted by Franko
Well if you are the creator of the Universe (it's all inside your head), then how would that make you not "God"? Do other people have to exist in reality for "God" (YOU) to exist in reality?
So everything outside my head is actually in my head and everything was created inside my head including my head.

Is there any limit to how silly you wish to make yourself look?

Franko

19th February 2003, 09:26 AM

So everything outside my head is actually in my head and everything was created inside my head including my head.

What "empirical" evidence do you have that indicates it is otherwise? Why don't you just tell me what is true about Materialism-Atheism that isn't also True about Solipsism?

Is there any limit to how silly you wish to make yourself look?

I don't exist, so I have no idea how silly you are imagining "I" Look?

Tricky

19th February 2003, 09:45 AM

Originally posted by Franko
What "empirical" evidence do you have that indicates it is otherwise?
Using the dictionary (http://www.yourdictionary.com/ahd/e/e0117100.html) definition of "empirical"

1.
a: Relying on or derived from observation or experiment

b: Verifiable or provable by means of observation or experiment:

2.
Guided by practical experience and not theory.
Thus, very time I meet someone new, I gain empirical evidence. If I imagined them, then it means I don't control my own imagination, because I had no clue who they were before I met them.

Every time I drop a pencil and it falls to the floor, it is evidence since I am experimenting with the reality of gravity.

So how do YOU define empirical evidence? Do you claim it doesn't exist? What is your evidence for this?

Really, Franko, if you want to get back to serious discussion, I am willing. Your little "solipsism" ploy has about outlived its usefulness. It makes it look as if you have to run and hide every time you can't defend your own beliefs.

Franko

19th February 2003, 09:52 AM

Thus, very time I meet someone new, I gain empirical evidence. If I imagined them, then it means I don't control my own imagination, because I had no clue who they were before I met them.

Do you control your own imagination? Can you make yourself dream whatever you want to when you sleep at night? Why not? Do you control your fantasies? Do you control your emotions? You never get angry, or mad? You never get sad?

Every time I drop a pencil and it falls to the floor, it is evidence since I am experimenting with the reality of gravity.

Possibly? Or possibly You are all that exist, and the pencil dropping is just the result of the grand unified equation running in your subconscious mind.

So how do YOU define empirical evidence? Do you claim it doesn't exist? What is your evidence for this?

I don’t exist, so I believe whatever you imagine I believe.

Really, Franko, if you want to get back to serious discussion, I am willing. Your little "solipsism" ploy has about outlived its usefulness.

Hey, I am YOUR figment, what are you whining to me for? If you are tired of this game, then stop imagining it. Or do you believe that I can control your mind now?

It makes it look as if you have to run and hide every time you can't defend your own beliefs.

I don’t have any beliefs Trixy. I only believe what you imagine I believe. Your Materialism is more True then you realized. It is so True that it doesn’t even need the “matter” to work, all it needs is YOU.

Tricky

19th February 2003, 10:06 AM

Originally posted by Franko
I don’t have any beliefs Trixy. I only believe what you imagine I believe.
I imagine you as a snivelling little coward who makes grand claims and refuses to back them up, preferring to hide behind a non-sequitur.

So that must be true, right?

Hey! This solipsism stuff has an upside.

Franko

19th February 2003, 10:08 AM

I imagine you as a snivelling little coward who makes grand claims and refuses to back them up, preferring to hide behind a non-sequitur.

Any claims made have been made by YOU. I don't even exist.

So that must be true, right?

You are on your own. That is True.

Hey! This solipsism stuff has an upside.

It's only natural to assume that you do everything for a reason.

20th January 2007, 06:59 AM

cyborg

20th January 2007, 08:54 AM

20th January 2007, 09:52 AM

If one relates this to Godel's seminal work on computability then it would seem to boil down to basically the same problem; the language is expressive enough to create paradoxes. It's analogous to the set of all sets problem - you just can't have it even though it seems like it would be a reasonable construction.

I take it, then, that any attempt to discuss the actual concept involved would require using restrictive language - which, of course, involves strictly defined terms, right?

Tricky

20th January 2007, 10:04 AM

I take it, then, that any attempt to discuss the actual concept involved would require using restrictive language - which, of course, involves strictly defined terms, right?
Jeez, another semantical argument dredged from the depths.

"Omni" or "Ablsolute" cannot be applied as descriptive of any real thing. They trip over themselves. Any discussion around them eventually resolves to this.

Back to the abyss with this thread!

20th January 2007, 10:15 AM

Jeez, another semantical argument dredged from the depths.

"Omni" or "Ablsolute" cannot be applied as descriptive of any real thing. They trip over themselves. Any discussion around them eventually resolves to this.

However, does this apply to God? Can God not be outside the set of any 'real thing' - i.e. the set of All-That-Is includes what we call 'real', and 'something more than real'? After all - we're talking about omnipotence here - are there definitions of omnipotence in common use with God that would allow for different modes as mentioned above?

And where is Franko these days, anyway? He looks like fun...

Tricky

20th January 2007, 10:33 AM

However, does this apply to God? Can God not be outside the set of any 'real thing' - i.e. the set of All-That-Is includes what we call 'real', and 'something more than real'?
Sure, we can imagine such things, "more than real", "less than real", "other than real". But they're not real. If God isn't real, then whatever He is must be irrelevant in the real world, which doesn't deal with superreal or subreal things.

After all - we're talking about omnipotence here - are there definitions of omnipotence in common use with God that would allow for different modes as mentioned above?
There are definitions of lots of things that aren't real and which allow for different "modes". It is the bedrock of fantasy and science fiction, two genres for which I have great appreciation. But a definition does not make a thing real.

Sure, you and I and many others can concoct a scenario where God exists in another dimension. But... erm... well, so what? Other than an a topic for an interesting discussion, what does it have to do with reality? The only thing that determines whether a thing has an effect on reality is real evidence. But like many sci-fi fans, I'm willing to "what if" until the cows come home. It's great fun. I advise against using it as a guideline for reality.

And where is Franko these days, anyway? He looks like fun...
He was fun. His yappy lapdog, Wraith has made a few guest appearances lately, but he is a poor substitute for his master. He has no original ideas. I miss Franko. He was the Ubertroll, with great imagination and resource. This forum is poorer for his absence.

Iamme

20th January 2007, 02:49 PM

I was thinking about this argument and I think I came up with another interesting one. Can omnipotent God commit suicide? If yes, what would happen? If not, how come? I haven't put too much thought into it, so if this is somehow illogical, I apologize for wasting time.

This line of thinking stems from man's belief that God is a bigger and stronger man, abiding somewhere's in outer space. God is pure energy and all matter stems form this energy source. The Jehovah Witnesses have given me information on this today. It is very scientific sounding.

I have it out in my car. Do you want to hear some of it?

The reason the Jehovah Witness lady dropped off this stuf to me was my question to her, weeks back, as to if the world was only created in 6 days, yet the Jehovah Witnesses (no longer?) believe this is the case, and are leaning to the millions or billions of years old theory...then how do they (any Jehovah Witnesses...Evangelicals...ANYbody...get around the fact that for every creation day in Genesis, the creation day ends by saying that there then was an evening and a morning. I have only skimmed a little of it so far and will ingest it in the evening when I have time. I can't wait, because actually, some very scientifically authenticated things are said. So...I can't wait to see how this might answer my question to her, weeks ago.

20th January 2007, 05:12 PM

Well, let us suppose a scenario - just for fun - in which some uber-being exists, in a hyperreal state. This being sets aside a subset of its reality, and creates more restrictive natural laws to govern it than the reality in which IT exists.

The question, then, I believe, becomes at least interesting. Could such a being exist, capable of interacting in some way with this limited subset that we call reality, yet possessing qualities that exceed the natural boundaries of our 'reality'?

Of course, in order to interact, I would suppose it would have to equally limit itself - unless it had left some natural conduit between sets... Maybe we'll discover some strange thing in the brain that allows for 'suggestions' from Uber-Being to filter into the limited minds of men?

After all, a thing in the mind, though it be fiction, has an effect through the person conceiving it...

Beleth

23rd January 2007, 07:33 PM

Well, let us suppose a scenario - just for fun - in which some uber-being exists, in a hyperreal state. This being sets aside a subset of its reality, and creates more restrictive natural laws to govern it than the reality in which IT exists.
Okay. We have very analogous situations in the real world. Potters create pots. Programmers create computer programs.

The question, then, I believe, becomes at least interesting. Could such a being exist, capable of interacting in some way with this limited subset that we call reality, yet possessing qualities that exceed the natural boundaries of our 'reality'?

Of course, in order to interact, I would suppose it would have to equally limit itself - unless it had left some natural conduit between sets... Maybe we'll discover some strange thing in the brain that allows for 'suggestions' from Uber-Being to filter into the limited minds of men?Given the "more restrictive natural laws" part of the scenario, I would have to say that we have plenty of real-life scenarios that answer the question in the negative, and none that answer in the affirmative.

Likewise, in cases where the thing created can be interacted with (human babies, for instance), the natural laws are not restricted. Given the data from the scenarios we have access to, I would be hard-pressed to justtify an affirmative answer.

cyborg

25th January 2007, 11:18 AM

It is very scientific sounding.

So is Star Trek but I'm wouldn't get my knowledge about reality from it.

Using scientific sounding language without using science is a terrible problem for religious types - it basically means they are admitting that science is incredibly awesome at its job and people respect its productivity.

It is a silent admission of the failure of faith IMO.

25th January 2007, 04:14 PM

So is Star Trek but I'm wouldn't get my knowledge about reality from it.

Using scientific sounding language without using science is a terrible problem for religious types - it basically means they are admitting that science is incredibly awesome at its job and people respect its productivity.

It is a silent admission of the failure of faith IMO.

Or a silent admission of the depth of most people's ignorance...

Mind, I'm just pondering, here. Frankly, I'm a deist... I think that Deity exists, created everything, and since then has become utterly irrelevant and uninteresting, except as a vague thought experiment. Maybe It even died when the material reality was born.

But it doesn't really matter, one way or another, does it?

a_unique_person

25th January 2007, 09:34 PM

Can God create a rock so heavy he can not lift it... (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=21255#post21255)

My god can ;)

SkepticSteph

26th January 2007, 01:11 AM

Maybe the question is "would an ominpotent god commit suicide?" but then what is the reason?
Sort

He woke up and realized that GW Bush was the leader of the free world, decided his human experiment was a gargantuan failure, and did himself in.

Or he started over again with a few fish. Not sure which.

cyborg

26th January 2007, 04:21 AM

But it doesn't really matter, one way or another, does it?

That perspective of god makes it a synonym rather than an entity.

26th January 2007, 05:52 AM

That perspective of god makes it a synonym rather than an entity.

God = Reality.

Except most notions of 'God' entail intelligence, will, desire, etc. So to make them synonyms, we have to be saying, "Reality is intelligent, has desire, etc..."

It loads the concept a bit.

OTOH, we could look at it the opposite way; God lacks will, acts randomly, etc...

Then again, there's always the possibility that life acts as the 'brain cells' of God...

:p

Let's kill a few more brain cells, wot?

cyborg

26th January 2007, 05:55 AM

Except most notions of 'God' entail intelligence, will, desire, etc. So to make them synonyms, we have to be saying, "Reality is intelligent, has desire, etc..."

I think Hammy would be happy with that.

26th January 2007, 02:34 PM

I think Hammy would be happy with that.

And that would be just fine... except we see no discernible, recognizable signs of intelligence, or will, or desire, except for some rigid patterns that we interpret as the 'laws of physics'.

That's my main problem with most forms of idealism; a lack of any indicators that the Universe is anything but dead material.

Myriad

26th January 2007, 03:28 PM

Can God create a thread that's so old He can't bump it?

- Myriad

26th January 2007, 03:34 PM

Can God create a thread that's so old He can't bump it?

- Myriad

NOTHING is THAT omnipotent...

DrDisco

26th January 2007, 03:44 PM

This line of thinking stems from man's belief that God is a bigger and stronger man, abiding somewhere's in outer space. God is pure energy and all matter stems form this energy source. The Jehovah Witnesses have given me information on this today. It is very scientific sounding.

I have it out in my car. Do you want to hear some of it?

The reason the Jehovah Witness lady dropped off this stuf to me was my question to her, weeks back, as to if the world was only created in 6 days, yet the Jehovah Witnesses (no longer?) believe this is the case, and are leaning to the millions or billions of years old theory...then how do they (any Jehovah Witnesses...Evangelicals...ANYbody...get around the fact that for every creation day in Genesis, the creation day ends by saying that there then was an evening and a morning. I have only skimmed a little of it so far and will ingest it in the evening when I have time. I can't wait, because actually, some very scientifically authenticated things are said. So...I can't wait to see how this might answer my question to her, weeks ago.

I'm sure the tract you were given is very interesting for what it's worth: An apologetic hoop-jump to get Genesis to mean what they want it to mean, but what real value does that have when one tries to approach the text as it was written?

There is a very good reason why the days (Hebrew-yom) of Genesis were designating as having an "evening and a morning". And it wasn't literary decoration so that modern believers could publish pretty tracts to hand out door-to-door explaining that "day" doesn't really mean "day" but approximately 750,000,000 years.

26th January 2007, 03:47 PM

I think the Biblical god has pretty much disproven his own omni-anything by the time we reach the end of Genesis.

26th January 2007, 03:55 PM

OK, bear with me here; I'm feeling verbose.

If, for a moment, we assume that, before our material reality began, there was a deity (let's ignore problems of where this deity came from, or what else was here before, etc); and we assume that deity is all-powerful (in this case, truly all-powerful, since even logic and paradox would not yet exist)... do we have any reason to believe this deity was also absolutely immortal? That nothing could cause this deity to cease to be?

Well, first, the deity would have to create time... after all, killing itself would be a specific event, and there would have to be a before-time and an after-time. Meaning it could not kill itself without creating time - meaning it would not be absolutely omnipotent.

Well, so much for that.

Then we should consider logical omnipotency - wherein outright paradox and contradiction are eliminated. Then I don't see why deity couldn't cease its own existence. Of course, then there'd be no deity after the fact... and it wouldn't be truly immortal, then.

But would such a deity be supreme, if it was subordinate to the laws of logic?

Even though I believe some deity exists, I don't think deity can defy the underlying principles of logic. That makes deity just another entity - albeit a mighty powerful one.

Then again, it might also be the most slavish thing in the universe. Think about it - if future, past, and present are already known to this deity, then it lacks power to do anything it was not already going to do, right?

... OK, that's it. The grey matter is revolting against me now...

Myriad

26th January 2007, 06:28 PM

God = Reality.

There's also the slightly more parsimonious:

God = Time

Omnipresent? Definitely. Omniscient? Well, all information that exists must exist somewhere in time, so, kind of. Omnipotent? Again, in a sense; there's no reason to believe that time can bring about logical impossibilities, but along the lines of doing anything that is possible, creating worlds and life, bringing great nations low, moving mountains, etc. -- time can do it.

And it's right there in every physics equation, but nobody really knows what the heck it is (or at least, they never seem to stop asking one another, "what is [the] time?" and "what time is [it]?")... that's really quite a large gap for a God of the Gaps to inhabit.

There are even some tantalizing Bible verses that sound like assertions that God = Time. That Moses could see God's back (the past; memory and history) but never His face (the future, with a few later prophets being special exceptions); that God is the beginning and the end; makes everything new; etc.

Except most notions of 'God' entail intelligence, will, desire, etc. So to make them synonyms, we have to be saying, "Reality is intelligent, has desire, etc..."

It loads the concept a bit.

OTOH, we could look at it the opposite way; God lacks will, acts randomly, etc...

To the extent that I tend toward Deism, I tend to think of it along lines similar to these. That is to say, God as some great force or thing (time, reality, the programmer of the vast computer that is the universe, or whatnot) that is either not conscious or the nature of whose consciousness, will, and desires we cannot understand by any means, especially not by analogy with our own. Any such being that might exist is apparently equally unresponsive to worship and defamation, which is consistent with what science finds in reality, though not with what the Bible says.

And it resolves the unliftable rock paradox in a different way: it renders the words "can" and "cannot" inapplicable, as they imply comprehensible desire or intention. If, for instance, God is time, in setting the universe in motion time will either bring forth a rock that time does not move, or it will not. "Can" and "cannot" don't enter into it.

Respectfully,
Myriad