Why live?

[alive]

Why would god have us do this stupid step? Why even be born? Just wake up in heaven.. We make no sense. A true god that most are wanting that created everything in the universe would not need living specks of like on a grain of sand in the universe...Why even make anything outside of heaven... I don't think believers have put a real effort on if there realy was a god what the heck would even bother with us...Would you?

For a second take god out of existance...There are countless ways life could of happen...Now add god back in and you were god... I have a universe with maybe 100's of millions of planets...My only thing Im worried about is getting humans to heaven?

I hope Im still alive when everyone wakes up..

[AquinasD]

I contend it shows those who claim to know of an "omnipotent" god who just so happens to be incapable of doing the very things that'd make him omnipotent is the moot part of it.

It is your claim then that God is only God if He is logically absurd?

Let's just suppose God could do the logically impossible, shall we?

Whatever can be done is logically possible.

If God can do the logically impossible, it follows that the logically impossible is possible. But this completely destroys the point of saying that there is something logically impossible. By your reasoning, logically impossible = logically possible.

In other words, by your reasoning, there is no such thing as logic.

That is what is wrong with your definition of omnipotence and that it must include the ability to do the logically contradictory. The logically contradictory is, as I've already explained, nothing, and thus not a loss from our all.

Let me try putting this another way.

Suppose there were a list of everything. Your read over it, and you didn't find nothing listed. Does a list of everything include nothing? How could it? Were I to say "This list includes nothing," wouldn't that mean it couldn't be a list of everything? Clearly, therefore, lacking nothing is still to have everything.

Please note, I've never said that square circles are possible. I have consistently maintained that an "omnipotent" god that can't do something is not an omnipotent god.

Why do you believe that a 'square circle' is a something? As I (and the other theists, those who came up with the word omnipotence to describe something particular) reckon it, 'square circles' are not things. To ask "What is a square circle like" can only receive the answer "It isn't something at all!"

It's your god, your claims.

That's the thing, you keep coming up with this new definition of "omnipotence" that no one ever meant.

I'll continue to assert that something that is "omnipotent", who just so happens to not be able to do something, is, by definition, not "omnipotent".

That's correct, but your application is mistaken since you keep insisting on saying logical impossibilities are (some)things. You are persisting in treating nothing as though it were a particular sort of thing which one might do. It's a plain mistake of language or logic on your part. That is all.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 49:

I contend it shows those who claim to know of an "omnipotent" god who just so happens to be incapable of doing the very things that'd make him omnipotent is the moot part of it.

It is your claim then that God is only God if He is logically absurd?

It's my claim you're far too intelligent to rely on strawmen.

I responded to a claim that a god is "omnipotent", but somehow just can't do something.

Let's just suppose God could do the logically impossible, shall we?

Whatever can be done is logically possible.

I prefer not to debate in hypotheticals as they can be constructed to produce the results they're constructed to produce.

If...

If. Again, I don't debate on "if". I debate on sound reasoning and logical conclusions. The sound reasoning and logical conclusion of, "This god's all omnipotent and all, he just can't do this deal here" is that one is not arguing from sound reasoning and logical conclusions.

In other words, by your reasoning, there is no such thing as logic.

Nope. Logic dictates that one who can't do something is not omnipotent.

That is what is wrong with your definition of omnipotence and that it must include the ability to do the logically contradictory.

Do you deny that the root there, that whole "omni" thing, means all?

The logically contradictory is, as I've already explained, nothing, and thus not a loss from our all.

I take "our all" to mean "the part of 'all' that doesn't include that part of 'all' that upsets the whole notion of 'all'".

What part of all do you struggle to comprehend?

Suppose there were a list of everything. Your read over it, and you didn't find nothing listed. Does a list of everything include nothing? How could it? Were I to say "This list includes nothing," wouldn't that mean it couldn't be a list of everything? Clearly, therefore, lacking nothing is still to have everything.

I'm not here to play games of semantics. Either all means every danged bit of it, or it doesn't.

Why do you believe that a 'square circle' is a something?

'Cause you keep carryin' on about it.

As I (and the other theists, those who came up with the word omnipotence to describe something particular) reckon it, 'square circles' are not things. To ask "What is a square circle like" can only receive the answer "It isn't something at all!"

Or, it's a concept theists / Christians like to bandy about when they declare their god can do "all - 'cept for that little bit there".

That's the thing, you keep coming up with this new definition of "omnipotence" that no one ever meant.

Then if they didn't mean omnipotence, they hadn't oughta used it.

That's correct, but your application is mistaken since you keep insisting on saying logical impossibilities are (some)things. You are persisting in treating nothing as though it were a particular sort of thing which one might do. It's a plain mistake of language or logic on your part...

I'm not the one insisting a god is "omnipotent, 'cept for that stuff he can't do".

That is all.

Indeed, that is all. That is "all" it takes to show some theists'll abuse definitions to suit their aims, and get upset when ya call 'em on it.

What part of "all" do you most struggle with the comprehending?

(speling edit)

[Bust Nak]

There are certain facts which must obtain in order for a square or a circle to be obtained. We can state these facts as relating to the possibility of other shapes being obtained by a logical schema...

You can produce a logical contradiction...

I can do the same with the trinity. God = father & God = son & God = ghost, but father != son != ghost.

They are conceptually confused.

Just as someone who insist square circles are not illogical would accuse you of being conceptually confused.

I can see how some would do so in their confusion, but I understand there to be no parallel. There can be no equivocal parallels between God and other things.

If there is no parallels between God and the created, then God cannot create a nondescript being with 3 persons, a generic trinity of some sort?

I'm not playing word games. I am merely elaborating on a tautology...

But it not a tautology, I've seen prenty of Christians claim God can do seemingly contradictary actions, can indeed make weights so heavy that he cannot lift, and then go right ahead and lift those very same weights. Does a-logical vs illogical, paradox vs contradiction ring any bells? Your version of omnipotent is but one of many.

Because it's a complete negation of omnipotence.

"God can instantiate anything."

"God can instantiate nothing."

Sounds like an equvation. The latter can mean a) God is unable to instantiate anything, or b) God is able to not instantiate. Only a) is incompatible with omnipotent.

That's the problem with including nothing in the set of all things. Logically, when we use the word nothing, it entails a negation of the act. If I were to say "I am writing nothing" then we would understand it to be the case that I am not writing. To x nothing is to not-x. To instantiate nothing is to not instantiate.

Exactly, you are talking about meaning in b here, and "not instantiate" is indeed something that God can do.

[AquinasD]

I responded to a claim that a god is "omnipotent", but somehow just can't do something.

That's the word you keep turning on without giving any commitments whatsoever. That's your entire problem. You present no commitments, you refuse to lay out any commitments. You keep moving the goalposts around.

You insist that I'm saying there is something God can't do. Do you then believe that the logically impossible is something?

I do not believe that the logically impossible is something. As such, when I say "all," my "exclusion" of the logically impossible is not arbitrary or ad hoc. It simply isn't anything that you could logically include as part of the "all" I or other theists speak of in reference to omnipotence. You haven't done anything to show that logical impossibilities are things of some sort; you just keep insisting they are, without anything to back it up. I'm asking you to back up your claim, what is your evidence to take a contrary position than the one I provide? The way you speak of me "as a theist," it seems to be "Well theists are wrong and loony, therefore this must be wrong and loony as well."

I prefer not to debate in hypotheticals as they can be constructed to produce the results they're constructed to produce.

So you're saying you won't engage my argument? Why are you even here?

The only hypothetical in place is "Suppose God could do the logically impossible." I then produced a reductio ad absurdum argument, a handy tool that people in arguments might use against their opponents. The hypothetical is meant to show that, supposing I were wrong about whether omnipotence must include "the ability to do the logically impossible", a contradiction results.

If. Again, I don't debate on "if".

I'm sorry that you never learned about conditionals. Read up, see that I was making use of a conditional premise, i.e. of the form "If p, then q."

See how it works in this way;

If someone doesn't understand how a conditional works, they are logically incompetent and can offer no worthwhile arguments within debate.

See my point now?

I debate on sound reasoning and logical conclusions.

Says the person who doesn't understand conditional premises.

What part of all do you struggle to comprehend?

The part where you refuse to answer me otherwise on whether the logically impossible is included in the all. I've presented several arguments for why it isn't; you haven't responded to them. Either you don't recognize the arguments for what they are or you are persisting in ignorance for some psychological reason I don't care to speculate on.

Address my claim on "all." Back up your own counter-claims. I am asking for you to document your evidence, something you are obligated to do on this site if I am not mistaken.

I'm not here to play games of semantics. Either all means every danged bit of it, or it doesn't.

Why is your understanding of all correct? Please give me your evidence.

[AquinasD]

I can do the same with the trinity. God = father & God = son & God = ghost, but father != son != ghost.

This doesn't address my claims here. If you want to debate the logicality of the Trinity, there's another thread for that which is currently alive, feel free to bring your arguments there.

Just as someone who insist square circles are not illogical would accuse you of being conceptually confused.

Too bad for them. I'd like to see them draw a square circle. I'd pay them a million dollars.

But it not a tautology, I've seen prenty of Christians claim God can do seemingly contradictary actions, can indeed make weights so heavy that he cannot lift, and then go right ahead and lift those very same weights. Does a-logical vs illogical, paradox vs contradiction ring any bells? Your version of omnipotent is but one of many.

Yes, you see, the difference is that I'm correct. Or maybe I'm not. But you could at least have the decent civility to argue with my understanding as its presented, rather than bringing up someone else's misunderstanding as if it must be mine.

Sounds like an equvation. The latter can mean a) God is unable to instantiate anything, or b) God is able to not instantiate. Only a) is incompatible with omnipotent.

Within the context, A is quite clearly what I meant. Though obviously this is still logically consistent with B.

Exactly, you are talking about meaning in b here, and "not instantiate" is indeed something that God can do.

Can not and cannot are two different things. I fail to see the relevance of this "can not" that you bring up. Are you just conceding to my claim about how logical impossibilities are not included in the set of all things?

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 52:

I responded to a claim that a god is "omnipotent", but somehow just can't do something.

That's the word you keep turning on without giving any commitments whatsoever. That's your entire problem. You present no commitments, you refuse to lay out any commitments. You keep moving the goalposts around.

I'm not the one "committed" to an omnipotent god that just so happens to have a problem being just that. I've been consistent as I can, and see no need to move any goalposts.

You insist that I'm saying there is something God can't do. Do you then believe that the logically impossible is something?

It is something in that it's a concept. And according to the "omnipotent God hypothesis", is something God can't do.

I do not believe that the logically impossible is something. As such, when I say "all," my "exclusion" of the logically impossible is not arbitrary or ad hoc. It simply isn't anything that you could logically include as part of the "all" I or other theists speak of in reference to omnipotence. You haven't done anything to show that logical impossibilities are things of some sort; you just keep insisting they are, without anything to back it up. I'm asking you to back up your claim, what is your evidence to take a contrary position than the one I provide? The way you speak of me "as a theist," it seems to be "Well theists are wrong and loony, therefore this must be wrong and loony as well."

Can your god sin?

I prefer not to debate in hypotheticals as they can be constructed to produce the results they're constructed to produce.

So you're saying you won't engage my argument? Why are you even here?

I won't engage hypotheticals, no. I'm here because I wish to be.

The only hypothetical in place is "Suppose God could do the logically impossible." I then produced a reductio ad absurdum argument, a handy tool that people in arguments might use against their opponents. The hypothetical is meant to show that, supposing I were wrong about whether omnipotence must include "the ability to do the logically impossible", a contradiction results.

The only contradiction I'm arguing is an "omnipotent" god who can't do the things it'd take to show he's omnipotent.

If. Again, I don't debate on "if".

I'm sorry that you never learned about conditionals. Read up, see that I was making use of a conditional premise, i.e. of the form "If p, then q."

I'm well aware of what constitutes a conditional. Again, I don't debate ifs.

See how it works in this way;

If someone doesn't understand how a conditional works, they are logically incompetent and can offer no worthwhile arguments within debate.

See my point now?

If one claims a god is omnipotent, except for that which the god can't do, they're logically incompetent and can offer no worthwhile arguments within debate.

See my point now?

I debate on sound reasoning and logical conclusions.

Says the person who doesn't understand conditional premises.

That you fail to understand that I do indeed understand conditional premises is your own row to hoe.

What part of all do you struggle to comprehend?

The part where you refuse to answer me otherwise on whether the logically impossible is included in the all.

All is included in all. That your god can't perform a logical impossibility indicates your god isn't "omnipotent".

I've presented several arguments for why it isn't; you haven't responded to them.

I've responded to each and every point, other'n the hypotheticals, and I gave my reasons for that. That my responses upset you is not my problem.

Either you don't recognize the arguments for what they are or you are persisting in ignorance for some psychological reason I don't care to speculate on.

Can't possibly be you guilty of any of it, can it?

Address my claim on "all."

I have.

Back up your own counter-claims.

I have.

I am asking for you to document your evidence, something you are obligated to do on this site if I am not mistaken.

Please report any post you feel I've not sufficiently supported and let's see what the mods have to allow. Otherwise, I'll not continue to engage this rant of a complaint on your part.

I'm not here to play games of semantics. Either all means every danged bit of it, or it doesn't.

Why is your understanding of all correct?

Because it doesn't end with, " 'cept for that bunch of stuff right there".

Please give me your evidence.

I have, in the form of logic and such. That you refuse to accept it is not my problem.

[AquinasD]

I'm well aware of what constitutes a conditional. Again, I don't debate ifs.

What justifies this as a form of argument?

What is so special about you that you get to just wave off the argument of your opponent?

Why not also wave off disjunctives, identities, quantifiers, extensions, biconditionals, conjunctions, sets, negations, and the rest of logic? Why do you reserve your spite for conditionals of all things?

All is included in all. That your god can't perform a logical impossibility indicates your god isn't "omnipotent".

Could you please show me why logical impossibilities are included in the "all that could be done" of which the "all" of omnipotence refers to? That is, your claim is something like this.

Bryce says: x(Dx -> Dgx) • ¬Dga

Allow me to translate:

Bryce says: "For all x, if x is something that can be done, then God can do it; and God cannot do a."

This is what you claim I am saying. However, I do not believe I'm saying this.

I believe I am saying something more like this:

x(Dx -> Dgx) • (¬Da • ¬Dga)

"For all x, if x is something that can be done, then God can do it; and a is not a thing to be done and God cannot do a."

If you understand logic (as you claim to do), then you should see that you cannot derive a contradiction from what I believe I am saying. That is the bare logical bones of the matter.

Now what is it that I'm saying isn't a thing to be done? Logical impossibilities. I have presented good reasons for this, some of which you have waved off because I violated the rule of "Don't use the word if because Joey doesn't like it when the scary theist uses logic."

My first reason was that logical impossibilities cannot under any condition be said to be possible. You'd be saying that something is a logical impossibility and it is a possibility. That is, to most people, nonsense. Something is one or the other, but not both. The claim that logical impossibilities are possible is proven nonsense through reductio ad absurdum.

My second reason was that all logical contradictions resolve to nothing, and when you lack the ability to do nothing, you can still do everything. My example was that of a list: if this list has everything, then it lacks nothing.

My third reason was that the "power to do" refers to things which can be done. As logical impossibilities are not included in the set of "things which can be done," then lacking the ability to do things which can't be done is no loss, and we can still say that, for all things which can be done, they can be done.

What is your counterclaim? You need something beyond "Well you're just saying God can do everything except this," because that was the claim you started out with and you've offered nothing else to demonstrate that this is what my claim grounds down to. You might need to write off more than one sentence replies to my individual points.

[bjs]

I’m surprised to see debaters, particularly the experienced ones, suggesting that omnipotence includes being able to do the logically impossible.

I would like to attempt to support AquinasD’s point from a different angle.

Requesting that God do the logically impossible is just playing with grammar. It is throwing words together like “square circle� or “married bachelor� and pretending that something meaningful has been said when in reality the request has no meaning.

This would be like asking God to “walk computer white.� Or it would be like saying that God is not omnipotent unless He can “Go nine green indwell logophile ravine cold cuts.� Or any other random combination of words we can come up with.

Clearly the problem is with the speaker, not with God, since when we request something that is logically impossible we are requesting something that has no meaning.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 55:

I'm well aware of what constitutes a conditional. Again, I don't debate ifs.

What justifies this as a form of argument?

Hypotheticals can be arranged to lead one to a given conclusion, and I will not debate based on, "If this condition is present, then you must accept this other condition over yonder".

What is so special about you that you get to just wave off the argument of your opponent?

'Cause my opponent's argument is goofy.

Why not also wave off disjunctives, identities, quantifiers, extensions, biconditionals, conjunctions, sets, negations, and the rest of logic? Why do you reserve your spite for conditionals of all things?

'Cause I don't think the term all needs a "conditional" - unless that "conditional" includes the notion of "what is in the set of all is, indeed, and don't it beat all, all".

Could you please show me why logical impossibilities are included in the "all that could be done" of which the "all" of omnipotence refers to? That is, your claim is something like this.
...

All refers to all. Do you deny this?

If you understand logic (as you claim to do), then you should see that you cannot derive a contradiction from what I believe I am saying. That is the bare logical bones of the matter.

The "bare bones" of the matter is you have a god you're real proud about, whom you declare is "omnipotent", but dangitall, don't ya know there's some stuff this "omnipotent" god is incapable of doing.

Now what is it that I'm saying isn't a thing to be done? Logical impossibilities. I have presented good reasons for this, some of which you have waved off because I violated the rule of "Don't use the word if because Joey doesn't like it when the scary theist uses logic."

I object to your misrepresentation of my argument, in the form of I don't like it 'cause it's "scary".

If you're incapable of treating me with respect, I must respectfully ask you to stick your arguments up your forth point of contact.

"God's omnipotent!"

"Can he do x?"

"No."

"Your god ain't impotent, and you're kinda goofy for having said so."

My first reason was that logical impossibilities cannot under any condition be said to be possible. You'd be saying that something is a logical impossibility and it is a possibility. That is, to most people, nonsense. Something is one or the other, but not both. The claim that logical impossibilities are possible is proven nonsense through reductio ad absurdum.

I contend what is "proven nonsense" is such a statement as, "God's omnipotent - 'cept for that he can't do."

My second reason was that all logical contradictions resolve to nothing, and when you lack the ability to do nothing, you can still do everything. My example was that of a list: if this list has everything, then it lacks nothing.

Yet on that list, you absolutely refuse to add the stuff your god can't do.

My third reason was that the "power to do" refers to things which can be done. As logical impossibilities are not included in the set of "things which can be done," then lacking the ability to do things which can't be done is no loss, and we can still say that, for all things which can be done, they can be done.

I don't deny your god may well have the "power to do". What I do deny is the ability of your god to do "omnipotence".

What is your counterclaim? You need something beyond "Well you're just saying God can do everything except this," because that was the claim you started out with and you've offered nothing else to demonstrate that this is what my claim grounds down to. You might need to write off more than one sentence replies to my individual points.

I see no need to write a book, when the one sentence shows how goofy the notion of an "omnipotent, 'cept for the stuff he can't do" god actually is.

Perhaps I do need more'n that to convince you of the error of your thinking. However, I'm here to help the observer, not one tied to a completely and irrevocably illogical notion such as a god who's impotent - but he just can't get around to being it.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 56:

...
Requesting that God do the logically impossible is just playing with grammar. It is throwing words together like “square circle� or “married bachelor� and pretending that something meaningful has been said when in reality the request has no meaning.

While I contend what "has no meaning" is such a notion as, "God's omnipotent - 'cept for that he can't do".

This would be like asking God to “walk computer white.� Or it would be like saying that God is not omnipotent unless He can “Go nine green indwell logophile ravine cold cuts.� Or any other random combination of words we can come up with.

Indeed, such a "random combination" of words occurs when one declares their god "omnipotent, but don't it beat all, you've sat there and mentioned the one thing he can't do".

Clearly the problem is with the speaker, not with God, since when we request something that is logically impossible we are requesting something that has no meaning.

I've requested nothing. What I've done is show that when the theist declares their god "omnipotent", they're incapable of showing such to be the case.