And the biblical God vanished in a puff of logic!

[Zarathustra]

I raised the question because most atheists or agnostics or anything inbetween know exactly where they stand and don't like being put into the other cathegories.

But Martian who obviously knows enough about all these concepts, does not know exactly where he stands...... Cannot even (or won't) use them correctly. And he has made untrue claims about this before.
I have decided that I am not going to debate him until he comes out of the closet. (Or until he stops his sophistery, and debates within reason.) His counterarguments are clearly christian in their complete lack of cohesive thinking anyway.

[Martian]

I raised the question because most atheists or agnostics or anything inbetween know exactly where they stand and don't like being put into the other cathegories.

But Martian who obviously knows enough about all these concepts, does not know exactly where he stands...... Cannot even (or won't) use them correctly. And he has made untrue claims about this before.
I have decided that I am not going to debate him until he comes out of the closet. (Or until he stops his sophistery, and debates within reason.) His counterarguments are clearly christian in their complete lack of cohesive thinking anyway.

1. My beliefs have NO BEARING on this topic. (Ad Hominum)
2. You keep on making making accusations a dime a dozen, WITH NO SUPPORT. (Ad... uh... Ad Non-argumentum)
3. Arguments HAVE NO BELIEFS. My argument is neither theistic nor atheistic. It is just logical.

I have made many elaborate attempts to explain to you the problem, but you never explain anything in return. I said I was an Atheist, even though that has nothing to do with what we're talking about. So, until you can respond with an argument, I'm going to have to conclude that you acknowledge my argument as true and are just evading the argument.

[Zarathustra]

I raised the question because most atheists or agnostics or anything inbetween know exactly where they stand and don't like being put into the other cathegories.

But Martian who obviously knows enough about all these concepts, does not know exactly where he stands...... Cannot even (or won't) use them correctly. And he has made untrue claims about this before.
I have decided that I am not going to debate him until he comes out of the closet. (Or until he stops his sophistery, and debates within reason.) His counterarguments are clearly christian in their complete lack of cohesive thinking anyway.

1. My beliefs have NO BEARING on this topic. (Ad Hominum)
2. You keep on making making accusations a dime a dozen, WITH NO SUPPORT. (Ad... uh... Ad Non-argumentum)
3. Arguments HAVE NO BELIEFS. My argument is neither theistic nor atheistic. It is just logical.

I said I was an Atheist,

And you were lying, why?

I'm going to have to conclude that you acknowledge my argument as true and are just evading the argument.

Like any theist would do: Exactly the same strategy as when you assumed that I had dropped my ad hoc allegation.. I have refuted your silly argument several times...But please maintain that assumption, I don't really care!
As long as you won't correct the "agnostic atheist" stance.

[Martian]

But Martian who obviously knows enough about all these concepts, does not know exactly where he stands...... Cannot even (or won't) use them correctly. And he has made untrue claims about this before.
I have decided that I am not going to debate him until he comes out of the closet. (Or until he stops his sophistery, and debates within reason.) His counterarguments are clearly christian in their complete lack of cohesive thinking anyway.

1. My beliefs have NO BEARING on this topic. (Ad Hominum)
2. You keep on making making accusations a dime a dozen, WITH NO SUPPORT. (Ad... uh... Ad Non-argumentum)
3. Arguments HAVE NO BELIEFS. My argument is neither theistic nor atheistic. It is just logical.

I said I was an Atheist,

And you were lying, why?

I'm going to have to conclude that you acknowledge my argument as true and are just evading the argument.

Like any theist would do. I have refuted your silly argument several times...But please maintain that assumption, I don't really care!
As long as you didn't correct the "agnostic atheist" stance.

Shhhh. Please don't say stupid things anymore. It appears that YOU are the imposter! You don't know that agnosticism and atheist are not incompatible things... *shakes head*.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_atheism

And to give you a taste of your own medicine, I will say this to you (which is all I get from you).

"I have refuted YOUR silly argumnt several times...But please maintain that assumption, I don't really care either!"

Put up or shut up.

[Wechtlein Uns]

Hey, zarathustra, remember how I said I was pretty good at sniffing out problems in arguments? Something doesn't smell right. I say this because of you're definition of the term "everything" as encompassing all things, including, well, illogical things. You see, If "everything" exists, and god has been proven by your argument to be a logical impossibility, doesn't that mean that god still exists, seeing as how he would be a logical contradiction, and thus included in "everything" that exists?

I didn't define "everything" as encompassing illogical things. (I don't even know what "illogical things" should refer to.) (Martian tried saying this though.) The point is: There is nothing illogical about creating a math problem that is so hard that you can't solve it. And there's nothing illogical to knowing the answer to all mathproblems. (Athough this is highly improbable, but that is a different story). The problem is that the combination of the two, is undoable. Or illogical, in the sense that it is a paradox.

I get the feeling that in order for the argument to work, when you use the term "everything", the term should only encompass that which exists. After all, every-thing. If something is not a thing, how can it be included?

I agree.    And you were right that it smells when viewed that way.

aha! That makes a lotta of sense. After all, if the ability to solve all math problems is not illogical, and the ability to make one that you can't solve is not illogical, but... you're right. There can be no entity that can do both. The complaint martian was lodging, and I'm not too sure I understand his argument, I think is that... Well...

Let me put it this way. The concept of a god being able to do illogical things is itself logical, and thus existent. I suppose that if christians wanted to have a god be able to do all things, they could believe in a god capable of performing absurdities. Thing is, and playing devil's advocate for a moment, if a philosopher was trying to define god, would he include in it's concept the ability to perform absurdities? I'm not sure he would. But I'm not philosopher. I'm just a guy who's got a really good head on his shoulders. Anyways, I think what martian is trying to say is that it doesn't matter what christians think about their god, because(playing devil's advocate again here.) if an entity existed that was god, it itself would have to be bound by logic. What martian fails to understand, however, is that a god bound by logic could not be both omnipotent and omniscient, which cause a contradiction.

By the way, after giving it some thought, I do believe I've stumbled upon an entire mathematical field I've called paradox theory. It involves sets of theorems that are dependent on other theorems for proof in the negative or positive. It has been my conclusion, that while the singular theorem inside the set of recursive theorems can not be proven negative or positive, the set as a whole can. In fact, I've come to the conclusion that there are an infinite number of these "mega-theorems" which are simply the set of theorems that when examined individually produce a paradox. The result is a new class of numbers that correspond to these mega-theorems, and have inherent vilidity or non-validity!

[Zarathustra]

[

And to give you a taste of your own medicine, I will say this to you (which is all I get from you).

"I have refuted YOUR silly argumnt several times...But please maintain that assumption, I don't really care either!"

Put up or shut up.

[Martian]

[

And to give you a taste of your own medicine, I will say this to you (which is all I get from you).

"I have refuted YOUR silly argumnt several times...But please maintain that assumption, I don't really care either!"

Put up or shut up.

Thank you for complying.

[Zarathustra]

The complaint martian was lodging, and I'm not too sure I understand his argument, I think is that... Well...

You are right... There is nothing to understand. He doesn't answer my points except with technicalities, and his original argument is simply nonsense. It only makes sense, when you understand it for what it is: A theist desperately trying to save his god concept. But that aside, since I have decided I wont spend any more time on his religious "logic" providing basis for a skewed ontology. (For instance he contradicts himself several times in this thread, that god can't do illogical things, and that he can....)

So back to your counterargument that - although you don't (like others) use the same formal terms - is much more challenching... thanks  

By the way, after giving it some thought, I do believe I've stumbled upon an entire mathematical field I've called paradox theory. It involves sets of theorems that are dependent on other theorems for proof in the negative or positive. It has been my conclusion, that while the singular theorem inside the set of recursive theorems can not be proven negative or positive, the set as a whole can. In fact, I've come to the conclusion that there are an infinite number of these "mega-theorems" which are simply the set of theorems that when examined individually produce a paradox. The result is a new class of numbers that correspond to these mega-theorems, and have inherent vilidity or non-validity!

That sounds truly interesting! 2 questions: How did you "stumble upon" anything that complex? Could you describe these theorems further? (In a new thread)

[Zarathustra]

[

And to give you a taste of your own medicine, I will say this to you (which is all I get from you).

"I have refuted YOUR silly argumnt several times...But please maintain that assumption, I don't really care either!"

Put up or shut up.

:|

... P.S. Why were you lying about your faith?

[Martian]

... P.S. Why were you lying about your faith?

Please elaborate on what you're talking about. I am an atheist, and I didn't say I was anything else. What lie are you talking about? I can assure you that I don't have a hidden agenda. I am an atheist and I see the problem with the "paradox" that you have provided.

Also, I don't believe I have been contradicting myself. So far, I have been refining the argument down, and I don't think I've contradicted myself within one post. But perhaps I have been inconsistent with way I go about my argument, from post to post. I'm sorry for that, I am merely trying to find a way to communicate the argument effectively. If you wish to respond to my argument, then please respond to the following:

Here's what I'm saying. The argument asks God to make a math problem that can't be solved by him. But that's logically impossible because a math problem which cannot be solved by God, does not exist (is illogical), for God can solve all math problems. Therefore, to ask God to make a math problem that he himself cannot solve is an illogical request. That is the equivilant of asking God to make a square circle, and then concluding that God is not all powerful or all knowing. Omnipotence and omniscience don't refer to the logically impossible (aka: nonsense). And that's the problem with your disproof.

I think the core problem in our dispute is what "all" ecompasses. It seems to me that you're saying that "all" encompasses that which is illogical and nonsensical as well as that which is logical. But I maintain that "all" refers to the power and knowledge that only logically make sense. Omnipotence does not meanâ€"and has never meantâ€"the ability to bring about a self-contradiction.

---

If the above content has not satisfied you, then I encourage you to explain the paradox and we can work from there. Please specify what "all" refers to. Does it include logical things as well as illogical things? Because if you think that, then I believe that that is a misrepresentation of the Christian God concept and the root of the problem.

P.S. I'm sorry for acting macho earlier, but I was really annoyed by the way you were responding to my arguments. I am an atheist and sincerely believe that there is an issue with the argument you've posted. If you are willing to discuss this, then I would prefer that we discuss it on the forums, but we could discuss it via PMs just as well.

[Zarathustra]

... P.S. Why were you lying about your faith?

Please elaborate on what you're talking about. I am an atheist, and I didn't say I was anything else.

Reread page 3 there you will find both the elaboration, and where you are saying something else...

I think the core problem in our dispute is what "all" ecompasses.

It isn't!
- I think it is your willingnes to bend terms like omni, ignore what "attribute" means and thereby get the wrong idea. And even claiming this to be logical, which I have PM'ed you that I have checked up on with my old professor. It is not.

It seems to me that you're saying that "all" encompasses that which is illogical and nonsensical as well as that which is logical.

I know you think so, and that is part of the problem. Try look at Wechtlein Uns two last posts. Maybe his explanation makes it easier to see how you are missing the target.

But I maintain that "all" refers to the power and knowledge that only logically make sense. Omnipotence does not meanâ€"and has never meantâ€"the ability to bring about a self-contradiction.

I never claimed that it did!! (And this is the last time I'll write this!!) What the paradox shows is that, omnipotence and omniscience is mutually exclusive. Not that either is illogical. (although I do think they are, but that is an entirely different discussion.)

If the above content has not satisfied you, then I encourage you to explain the paradox and we can work from there.

I have tried this several times I think, but now I tried again.

I am an atheist and sincerely believe that there is an issue with the argument you've posted.

OK.I don't even consider it an argument, but a fun little paradox... And there very well might be problems with it. But what you objected originally isn't one of them. As I have written you: I checked this with my old professor who has a ph.d. in logic from Harvard and a doctor degree in this from the University of Copenhagen. She did not think that I blew you off, but that I have been extremely patient.... well I hope reading the remarks between me and Wechtlein helps. I don't know how else to explain this.

If you are willing to discuss this, then I would prefer that we discuss it on the forums, but we could discuss it via PMs just as well.

[Martian]

I think the core problem in our dispute is what "all" ecompasses.

It isn't!
- I think it is your willingnes to bend terms like omni, ignore what "attribute" means and thereby get the wrong idea. And even claiming this to be logical, which I have PM'ed you that I have checked up on with my old professor. It is not.

It seems to me that you're saying that "all" encompasses that which is illogical and nonsensical as well as that which is logical.

I know you think so, and that is part of the problem. Try look at Wechtlein Uns two last posts. Maybe his explanation makes it easier to see how you are missing the target.

But I maintain that "all" refers to the power and knowledge that only logically make sense. Omnipotence does not meanâ€"and has never meantâ€"the ability to bring about a self-contradiction.

I never claimed that it did!! (And this is the last time I'll write this!!) What the "paradox" shows is that, omnipotence and omniscience is mutually exclusive. Not that either is illogical. (although I do think they are, but that is an entirely different discussion.)

I'd appreciate if you explain the "paradox" and what you think is wrong with my argument against your "paradox". Don't direct me to various places for answers, respond directly, or at least provide quotes of what you said earlier that you want me to see.

I am not willing to take your word, nor the word of your professor that my argument is invalid. My argument is in front of you. Discredit it by showing the problem that you think it has in the manner I have specified above.

If the above content has not satisfied you, then I encourage you to explain the paradox and we can work from there.

I have tried this several times I think, but now I tried again.

I am always willing to discuss this and other subjects. I prefer the forums. I am just not into a redundant debate, where we keep repeating ourselves.
My problem is: I posted the paradox. (Just for fun, but it has been taken surprisingly serious.) You responded with an objection. I showed you how that was off the mark. You then proceeded to dismiss this (based on technicalities), repeat your statements and condescend. From here we went in a circle.[/quote]
If you have shown me that I was wrong, then do it again here, and be clear about what you think I was wrong about.

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

Here is a reference for you to respond:

If my understanding of your argument is incorrect, then please correct me.

My formal understanding of your argument: (I haven't taken a class in logic, but I hope you can follow this and accept it.)
1. God can do all things. (God is omnipotent)
2. There exists a problem that God cannot solve, X.
3. God can make X.
4. God can solve X.
5. Iff (3) and (4), then (1).
6. Iff (4), then ~(3).
7. Iff (3), then ~(4).
8. [ (3) and ~(4) ] or [ ~(3) and (4) ].
9. ~(5) or ~(5).
10. ~(1).

Ergo, God cannot do all things. (God is not omnipotent)


My formal objection to my formal understanding of your argument:
Premise (2) is a logical impossibility if you are working with premise (1). Let me show you.

1. God can do all things. (God is omnipotent)
2. There exists a math problem that God cannot solve, X.
3. Iff (1), then ~(2).
4. [ (1) and ~(2) ] or [ ~(1) and (2) ].
5. ~(1) or ~(2).

We have concluded that at least one of the premises for the argument is false. The theist's claim is that God can do all things, therefore the premise that there is a problem which God cannot solve, X, (2) is false, and invalidates the conclusion that God is not omnipotent.

---

My informal understanding of your argument:
God cannot be all powerful (do all things) because he cannot simultaneously make a math problem he cannot solve and solve it.


My informal objection to my informal understanding of your arugment:

Here's what I'm saying. The argument asks God to make a math problem that can't be solved by him. But that's logically impossible because a math problem which cannot be solved by God, does not exist (is illogical), for God can solve all math problems. Therefore, to ask God to make a math problem that he himself cannot solve is an illogical request. That is the equivilant of asking God to make a square circle, and then concluding that God is not all powerful or all knowing. Omnipotence and omniscience don't refer to the logically impossible (aka: nonsense). And that's the problem with your disproof.

I think the core problem in our dispute is what "all" ecompasses. It seems to me that you're saying that "all" encompasses that which is illogical and nonsensical as well as that which is logical. But I maintain that "all" refers to the power and knowledge that only logically make sense. Omnipotence does not meanâ€"and has never meantâ€"the ability to bring about a self-contradiction.

[Zarathustra]

Ok, Martian. First of all. I thought you agreed to stop the condescending tone:

I'd appreciate if you explain the "paradox" and what you think is wrong with my argument against your "paradox". Don't direct me to various places for answers, respond directly, or at least provide quotes of what you said earlier that you want me to see.

Second of all. That is what I have done so far, but you didn't understand. This has been very frustrating for me. Therefore I will thank you for putting up your argument in a formal manner. I don't mind you don't use the right symbols  

If my understanding of your argument is incorrect, then please correct me.

It is, as I have said repeatedly, so consider yourself corrected:

My formal understanding of your argument: (I haven't taken a class in logic, but I hope you can follow this and accept it.)
1. God can do all things. (God is omnipotent)
2. There exists a problem that God cannot solve, X.
3. God can make X.
4. God can solve X.
5. Iff (3) and (4), then (1).
6. Iff (4), then ~(3).
7. Iff (3), then ~(4).
8. [ (3) and ~(4) ] or [ ~(3) and (4) ].
9. ~(5) or ~(5).
10. ~(1).

Ergo, God cannot do all things. (God is not omnipotent)

 

2. There exists a problem that God cannot solve, X.

Whoooops!!! :eek2:  :hail:  :hail:  :hail:  :hail:  :hail:  :hail:  :hail:  :hail:  :hail:  :hail:
(Sorry. Just had to do that.  :borg:
SO:

My formal objection to my formal understanding of your argument:

Is, as I have said all along, way off the mark since you leave out premise 1 from my original statement.

My informal understanding of your argument:God cannot be all powerful (do all things) because he cannot simultaneously make a math problem he cannot solve and solve it

This is of course wrong in the same manner. Can you understand why I did not respond more thoroughly before? You kept disregarding part of the original paradox.

I hope you see the paradox now, as clearly as if I asked: Will you draw me a square circle?

And I'll end this by paraphrasing you. Because I hope we are on the same ground now.  

[Martian]

The problem is: Your representation goes wrong at number 2! That is the point you failed to see, but I am glad you showed this to me.

Hm. Are you saying that the argument doesn't involve a math problem which cannot be solved by God? I have to disagree for the reasons specified below.

2. There exists a problem that God cannot solve, X.

I NEVER postulated that. That would be a paradox in itself. Have you even read the OP?

But more importantly: What happened to premise number 1 clearly stated in my OP?

What you should have written in your reformulation was at least:
2. God knows everything. (God is omniscient)
How can you just forget that?

I didn't forget that. I left it out because it's redundent to have. Omnipotence encompasses all God can do, including making and solving math problems. Omniscience would have made the issue unecessarily complicated. But it seems as though you're saying that it's important to your argument somehow. Though, I am not aware of how that is.

Now these two concepts are proposed as both intrinsic to God, as his attributes. What I am saying is: That cannot be! That is a paradox!

I think "contradiction" would be a more accurate word then "paradox" to describe this argument. Though, I do not agree that it is even that if you accept omnipotence and omniscience at the same time. (In my view, you would only need omnipotence, and you would have to have omnipotence be true continually. But don't worry about this, I'll work from your perspective.)

It is exactly like saying: 1. X is a two dimensional figure shaped like a triangle. 2. X is a two dimensional figure shaped like a circle. It is illogical and therefore also a paradox. An as you stated yourself earlier:

This analogy is false. The reason is that omniscience and omnipotence do not contradict each other. "Omniscience" is the ability to do all that is logically possible. "Omniscience" is the ability to know all that is logically knowable. Omniscience and omnipotence refer to what is logical, and when something becomes illogical, it is no longer applicable to "omnipotence"/"omniscience". In contrast, the definition of a circle and square are fixed to a definition with terms that cannot change based on the argument. I believe that I have seen the problem with what you're saying.

You are looking at one attributes (omnipotence/omniscience) seperately when analyzing them with the question. You are saying omnipotence is true while saying omniscience is false, and then you revert back after you have made the conclusion, and that's what makes the paradox happen. That is the only way you can have a paradox. But that's not the way you're supposed to look at this. The question needs to be looked at when both of the attributes are true at the same time. Omnipotence/omniscience limit the logical possibilities to make the question, "Can God create a math problem, which is so difficult he cannot solve it himself?" invalid, specifically this part: "[a math problem] so difficult he cannot solve himself". That is because when we said that God is omnipotent/omniscient, that indicated that there wasn't a math problem that could logically be made (that God could not solve). So the "paradox" ends there, and hence is not a paradox. The request for God to make something which is illogical does not count as a disproof of his omnipotence/omniscience, because illogical things were are not part of it.

A thing which is illogical is technically not a thing. What is an omniscient, omnipotent being? It's nothing. Nonsense. A logical contradiction is nothing.

... and God vanished in a puff of logic!

Now you make me feel bad for not disagreeing.

[Zarathustra]

Hm. Are you saying that the argument doesn't involve a math problem which cannot be solved by God?

No. I am saying that you are misrepresenting it! Are you so thickheaded that you think, that to ask: "Does there exist a celestial teapot?" is the same as postulating: "There exists a celestial teapot!"

I have to disagree for the reasons specified below.
I didn't forget that. I left it out because it's redundent to have.

No, it is not. Do you really think that to know something is the same as, to act?
You cannot just leave something out of an argument that you are trying to refute. I am done debating you as long as you maintain that.

My original theory regarding you must be right after all. Since your argumentation is based on misrepresentation as is so common with you guys.