And the biblical God vanished in a puff of logic!

[Wechtlein Uns]

Hello Wechtlein

I agree with some of what you are saying, since I have been there myself.And philosophically I have high esteem for phaenomenology, so you won't get an argument from me against dissolving the subject/object distinktion!
 I have a few suggestions, though.
- Since your argumentation is quite incoherent, and could easily be refined.

Omnipotence = All powerful

Omniscent = All knowing

Yes, we can agree as far   Others strongly disagrees.

then no such thing as desire can be made apparent, thus no such thing as control can be exerted, thus there is no real ground for power to exist, let alone omnipotence.

Whoops!! There you lost everyone! Maybe you should take a look back at your beginning again  

Thanks for the help, zarathustra.  

[Martian]

That was just restating the same once again, and I tend to disagree, but I won't stray. I'm not in this thread to debate about the meaning of ad hoc.

Good. You have withdrawn your Ad Hoc allegation.

Good for you! And I don't like bad arguments either, which is why I am so puzzled why you accept this "logic-claim" of yours. But that aside, you do come across as christian. Why not fill out worldview or write god with a small 'g'?  

Your posts lack criticisms, and I am forced to rephrase and expand upon my original point. I'll try again.

Point 1:

The God concept that your disproving is a God that is able to do everything, including illogical things. We'll call this "illogical God".
In contrast, there is another God concept where God is able to do everything logical. We'll call this "logical God".

When you are trying to disprove illogical God, you are successful. But the ironic thing here is that illogical God is already disproven by the very fact that he is illogical. So, your disproof is redundent. You have proven that illogical God is illogical.
But, when you are trying to disprove logical God, the argument fails. That is because logical God can only do things which are logically possible, whilst the argument shows only that an illogical God is illogical. So, your disproof is not applicable.

So, either the argument is redundent (effectively proving nothing), or it's not applicable. Yes, there are people who are stupid and believe an illogical thing can exist (they obviously don't know what they're talking about). But, the disproof doesn't change anything though; they've already said that their God is "illogical" (the equivilant of "disproven").

Point 2:

As for the definitions of "omnipotence" and "omniscience", there isn't a problem. Omnipotence means "all powerful". Omniscience means "all knowing". To harp on the fact that these definitions don't sepcify that "all" refers to "everything that is logical" is just asking for them to state the obvious. What you're doing is the equivilant of a child lifting the toys in his room an inch off of the ground and then putting them back down in quick movements, after his/her parents asked him/her, "pick up your toys". The pandering to this petty technicality, where the actual meaning is understood perfectly, is just annoying.

[Martian]

Last I asked a fundie type if there was something - anything - his god couldn't do, I got "no" for an answer. Well, Zarathustra illustrated (in but one way of many) how such a god is no more than a bunch of BS.

No, the fundie person whom you spoke to illustrated how his god concept is a BS. That is, if he knew that you meant "anything" to include illogical things. If so, then he basically said, "my god concept is disproven by logic, but I don't care."

Now since you claim to be an atheist, why should I even work with your definitions and your take on semantics? You have no god so it needs no debunking.

In my book, any bad argument needs debunking, especially the ones that atheists will use to defend atheism.

...You already know that god is a load of crap so why the need to hear me/us confirm it for you?

I don't know what you're talking about. Where did I say anything like this?

[Asmodean]

I don't know what you're talking about. Where did I say anything like this?

You stated that you were an atheist... Went as far as to say "I'm a total atheist" actually, did you not? So if you do not know the god for a bunch of bs that it is, why did you use the term? I believe the proper one for you would then be "Agnostic" or "pretender". NOT total atheist. I will not speculate into which one of the two is correct, but one of them ought to be, no?

EDIT: Just to address the first issue: Everything does include the realm of illogical, physically impossible and every other denomination of things unless specified otherwise. For instance, everything within my body excludes everything outside. Everything within the universe excludes everything outside. And everything within the realm of logical possibility excludes everything outside.

Everything by itself means just that.

[Martian]

I don't know what you're talking about. Where did I say anything like this?

You stated that you were an atheist... Went as far as to say "I'm a total atheist" actually, did you not? So if you do not know the god for a bunch of bs that it is, why did you use the term? I believe the proper one for you would then be "Agnostic" or "pretender". NOT total atheist. I will not speculate into which one of the two is correct, but one of them ought to be, no?

I meant to say that I am totally unconvinced that God exists.

EDIT: Just to address the first issue: Everything does include the realm of illogical, physically impossible and every other denomination of things unless specified otherwise. For instance, everything within my body excludes everything outside. Everything within the universe excludes everything outside. And everything within the realm of logical possibility excludes everything outside.

Everything by itself means just that.

A thing which is illogical is technically not a thing. What is a square circle? It's nothing. Nonsense. A logical contradiction is nothing.

There is nothing outside of logic, and many theists don't realize this.

[Asmodean]

I meant to say that I am totally unconvinced that God exists.

Not a "total" atheist then. You corrected yourself though so I withdraw the original statement which was aimed at a "total" - or as I understood it - strong atheist.

A thing which is illogical is technically not a thing. What is a square circle? It's nothing. Nonsense. A logical contradiction is nothing.

There is nothing outside of logic, and many theists don't realize this.

A square circle is a square.

To answer the point though, the word "everything" does, and now I am repeating myself, encompass not only what lies within the realm of logical possibility but that which lies outside it too. For example, fantasy is as much a part of "everything" as reality, and there are many logical paradoxes in that particular realm. (Yes, I could probably think of a better example but at the moment I'm well into my tenth hour of reading math books I can barely lift off the table and thus am not in the best state of mind to do so   )

[Martian]

A thing which is illogical is technically not a thing. What is a square circle? It's nothing. Nonsense. A logical contradiction is nothing.

There is nothing outside of logic, and many theists don't realize this.

A square circle is a square.

To answer the point though, the word "everything" does, and now I am repeating myself, encompass not only what lies within the realm of logical possibility but that which lies outside it too. For example, fantasy is as much a part of "everything" as reality, and there are many logical paradoxes in that particular realm. (Yes, I could probably think of a better example but at the moment I'm well into my tenth hour of reading math books I can barely lift off the table and thus am not in the best state of mind to do so   )

A square circle is not a square. I don't know how you come to that conclusion. A square circle is nothing. It is not a square and it is not a circle. Try imagining a circle that has four perpendicular corners and four straight sides of equal lengths while not having four perpendicular corners and not having four sides of equal lengths. A = ~A. It's impossible.

In an fantasy world everything must be logical in order for it to be imaginable. Like I said, you can't imagine a square circle.

[Zarathustra]

That was just restating the same once again, and I tend to disagree, but I won't stray. I'm not in this thread to debate about the meaning of ad hoc.

Good. You have withdrawn your Ad Hoc allegation.

Nope not at all. But if that is the meaning you get from my sentence, then no wonder the paradox is problematic for you. Your dismissal of god (a proposed entity, with certain attributes) not being a theory or hypothesis  - which you seem to think implies, that I can't allegate you of ad hoc - is simply false!
- But I won't go there here, as I said. You can start up another thread if you need to refine your notions on this subject!

Your posts lack criticisms, and I am forced to rephrase and expand upon my original point. I'll try again.

You don't have to    You are still basing your idle sophistery on a misconception. Your original point is off the mark!! How can I put it more clear than that? That's why my posts are lacking "critcisms". We don't disagree about what YOU are saying (as to logical acting and God), but you haven't really read my explanations, why this is a misunderstanding.... Will someone else please explain the nature of the Paradox, since Martian keeps objecting with the same thing?

[Asmodean]

A square circle is not a square. I don't know how you come to that conclusion. A square circle is nothing. It is not a square and it is not a circle. Try imagining a circle that has four perpendicular corners and four straight sides of equal lengths while not having four perpendicular corners and not having four sides of equal lengths. A = ~A. It's impossible.

Now you are getting too cryptic with a simple thing. Let us examine the "square circle" here; "square" is an attribute of "circle" which is an object having that attribute. Everything square has four Ï€/2 corners with the sides of equal length. Thus, our "circle" - which is the name of the object having the attribute square - is a square - which is a physical condition of object. You see, this square peg does fit into the round hole  

In an fantasy world everything must be logical in order for it to be imaginable. Like I said, you can't imagine a square circle.

Sure I can imagine a square circle. It is, after all, just a humble square. For the overall point, I disagree.

[Zarathustra]

A thing which is illogical is technically not a thing. What is a square circle? It's nothing. Nonsense. A logical contradiction is nothing.

Exactly. That is what the paradox shows.
But I think that Asmodean is right, you seem to be agnostic or a pretender.
My current theory is that you are the latter. There are various reasons why this is. Your resistance from adressing the problem in a proper manner, is only one of these.
I have seen people revealed as pretenders on other atheist forums. Your way of writing/arguing resembles their writing a great deal. Especially when viewed all at once, they really shows that you are not truthful about your original claim to me, that you are a "total atheist". (Anyone else reading this thread, that thinks I'm wrong: Try this.) This is the main reason.
You don't fill out the worldview for 10 months, and now when asked you write "naturalism"...  :upset:

[Asmodean]

A thing which is illogical is technically not a thing. What is a square circle? It's nothing. Nonsense. A logical contradiction is nothing.

Exactly. That is what the paradox shows.

Well, in the square circle case I have to disagree. You can have a square rug, bottle or picture on your square wall. Here, rug, bottle, picture and wall are names of the objects while square is their defining characteristic. By the same, a square circle is a square-shaped object named "circle". You can argue that this name is then inappropriate for the named object, but that is a whole different story.

Another thing that comes to mind when you mention square circle is a thick disk with thickness equal diameter. From two opposing sides, it's a circle. from the other two, it's a square. Thus, it is both a square AND a circle when viewed in two-dimentional space.

[Zarathustra]

Lol, Zarathustra, I admire your intellect. As I'm sure you know, I am not a professional philosopher, and I did oversimplify things a bit. I am interested in you're etymologies though, of "potence" and "scient". Those were very interesting definitions that I had not previously thought of directly.

Thanks. As I wrote earlier I have been there myself. That's why I decided to study philosophy.

However, with the defintion of "potence" as the ability to do all things, I think we can agree that there can not be an entity that weilds omnipotence.

No problem here  [/quote]
No problem. I think with your interest in the subject/object distinktion and intentionality, you'd really like Husserl.

[Zarathustra]

Another thing that comes to mind when you mention square circle is a thick disk with thickness equal diameter. From two opposing sides, it's a circle. from the other two, it's a square. Thus, it is both a square AND a circle when viewed in two-dimentional space.

That is called a cylinder, since there are also proper names for three-d geometrics   "Circle" and "square" are both two-d geometric terms, which is why they are mutually exclusive.

[Asmodean]

Another thing that comes to mind when you mention square circle is a thick disk with thickness equal diameter. From two opposing sides, it's a circle. from the other two, it's a square. Thus, it is both a square AND a circle when viewed in two-dimentional space.

That is called a cylinder, since there are also proper names for three-d geometrics   "Circle" and "square" are both two-d geometric terms, which is why they are mutually exclusive.

Bold text.

Anyhow, the point is still being my first example since it's the attributes that define something, not its name. You can call anything a circle without it actually being circular

[Zarathustra]

Anyhow, the point is still being my first example since it's the attributes that define something, not its name. You can call anything a circle without it actually being circular

Of course you can
Omniscience and omnipotence are both described as attributes of God, so no confusion as to what their linguistic function is. (Except for one confused individual, who thinks that they have a "real" (strangely hidden) meaning. Now where have we heard things like that before   )