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'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.

[alive]

I will now draw a Square circle:

Drum roll please....

________________________________


There its laying flat in case your looking for it..

________________________________

Thats a square laying flat as well..


I am now all powerful.

[AquinasD]

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".

A conditional of the form "If p then q" can be denied, you know. It's just a statement of relations which holds between propositions, as are all other logical forms including "p and q" or "p or q." "If p then q" is all a conditional is. See a conditional be used in this very basic logical argument;

1) if p then q
2) p
3) therefore q

You are quite free to deny that p and q hold in such a relationship as stated (or you could also try to deny p in that argument), although it would be nice for you to back up your claims besides constantly repeating something as if it maintains the logical form.

All refers to all. Do you deny this?

Does the set of "all that could be done" include logical impossibilities? If you think they are, what are they that they could be included?

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 60:

A conditional of the form "If p then q" can be denied, you know. It's just a statement of relations which holds between propositions, as are all other logical forms including "p and q" or "p or q." "If p then q" is all a conditional is. See a conditional be used in this very basic logical argument;

1) if p then q
2) p
3) therefore q

Yep.

"If God can do 'p', but he can't do q, then them folks that think he's all 'omnipotent' and all have not only been loosed from their rockers, they've been slung clean clear of the porch."

You are quite free to deny that p and q hold in such a relationship as stated (or you could also try to deny p in that argument), although it would be nice for you to back up your claims besides constantly repeating something as if it maintains the logical form.

Ya know what, when you go to reporting posts you think I've failed to support, you might have an argument. Until you actually do though, I'll not sit silent as you try to impugn my integrity or ability to reason.

It's my firm conviction that I've supported my contentions, and it's my firm conviction that you fail to understand that I've sat there and did it. I'll not long suffer your proclamations to the contrary without I mention the possibility that you may well have a cranio-rectal inversion of such severity that you can't imagine the possibility of your being wrong, even as ya smell the stench of it.

Do you wanna actually debate here, or do you prefer we continually sling excrement at one another until one of us can't poop no more?

All refers to all. Do you deny this?

Does the set of "all that could be done" include logical impossibilities? If you think they are, what are they that they could be included?

English, mother-father, do you speak it?

(clarificational edit)

[1213]

Why would god have us do this stupid step? Why even be born? Just wake up in heaven..

But have you not read the Bible? People were in paradise in the beginning. Then they choose to abandon God and because of that we experience this life. But he still want that people have opportunity to come back and therefore he sent Jesus to show the way back.

God offers eternal life for righteous. So if we want to come back to God, we have to be or become righteous. Basically that is what Jesus taught. If we choose not listen to Jesus and if we want still unrighteousness, then we are not suitable to go to place that is kingdom of righteousness.

Other option could have been that you were directly created to that paradise. Then you could have had opportunity to abandon it. But it is really almost the same thing. If you choose unrighteousness in this life you would do it also in that life. The difference is, if also all bad people could be first in paradise, they would probably destroy it. Therefore it is better that choosing happens in this life which can’t do harm to soul. And also here we can safely experience what life without God means.

Obviously God knows how people will choose, but he wants to give this opportunity also for those who love more darkness than light, because he loves all people.

[alive]

Why would god have us do this stupid step? Why even be born? Just wake up in heaven..

But have you not read the Bible? People were in paradise in the beginning. Then they choose to abandon God and because of that we experience this life. But he still want that people have opportunity to come back and therefore he sent Jesus to show the way back.

God offers eternal life for righteous. So if we want to come back to God, we have to be or become righteous. Basically that is what Jesus taught. If we choose not listen to Jesus and if we want still unrighteousness, then we are not suitable to go to place that is kingdom of righteousness.

Other option could have been that you were directly created to that paradise. Then you could have had opportunity to abandon it. But it is really almost the same thing. If you choose unrighteousness in this life you would do it also in that life. The difference is, if also all bad people could be first in paradise, they would probably destroy it. Therefore it is better that choosing happens in this life which can’t do harm to soul. And also here we can safely experience what life without God means.

Obviously God knows how people will choose, but he wants to give this opportunity also for those who love more darkness than light, because he loves all people.

I remember some parts where before we are born there are some talks of being a sprit or something like that but I dont remember where we (humans) came from heaven and we are just working are way back...

Throw some verses at me...I know you guys love to do that..

[Goat]

Why would god have us do this stupid step? Why even be born? Just wake up in heaven..

But have you not read the Bible? People were in paradise in the beginning. Then they choose to abandon God and because of that we experience this life. But he still want that people have opportunity to come back and therefore he sent Jesus to show the way back.

Then why set up the path for failure to begin with. An omniscient God would have KNOWN a creation would fail a test, why have the test to begin with? Why the rigamarole? That interpretation of Genesis does not make sense.