And the biblical God vanished in a puff of logic!

[Asmodean]

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  :banna:

[bowmore]

In our case we were given a "circle"(n). What kind of "circle"? A square (adj) one. Thus, this "circle"(n) has four π/2 corners and 4 equal sides. This is also known as a common square(n) in geometry.

If we define a circle as the set of points that lie at a given distance (radius) from a given point (center), it may be possible to define a distance metric that would result in a square. In fact I think a taxi distance metric (Manhattan distance metric) will do this nicely.

 

[Asmodean]

If we define a circle as the set of points that lie at a given distance (radius) from a given point (center), it may be possible to define a distance metric that would result in a square. In fact I think a taxi distance metric (Manhattan distance metric) will do this nicely.

 :hmm: ... ...  :nerd:  :cool:

[Martian]

A square has four sides. A circle has no sides. It is impossible to imagine a shape that has sides while not having sides. That is why it's illogical and cannot exist in the mind nor reality.

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:

1) As far as I can tell, you're accusing me of having a double standard. That is not true. This is because Ad Hoc is an established fallacy with a specific definition for it to be as a fallacy. If you change it, it's not a fallacy anymore. Science would be entirely Ad Hoc then. But that wouldn't be a problem, because Ad Hoc wouldn't represent something that is fallacious anymore. You could say that my argument is Ad Hoc, but then it wouldn't be an objection.

But as for the definition of omnipotence/omniscience, they are used to describe the Christian God concept. The Christian God concept is what Christians interpret the bible as saying. Back in the day when people were writting the bible (or maybe even the time of it's translations), people weren't worrying about refering to things as logical or illogical. All they wanted to convey was that God had a lot of power. So they said "all powerful" and "all knowing" etc. But they didn't care to specify for whether it is illogical power and illogical knowledge or logical power and logical knowledge because it's obvious. If someone says, "All matter has mass" must we specify that we are talking about all logical matter? No, it is implied.

2) When you're being debated, in mostly any case, your debator is questioning your understanding of at least one concept. (You falsely accused me of using the Ad Hoc fallacy. What did you expect me to do?)

3) I did not call you a child. If you think that, then you probably didn't see the analogy.


As a finisher, I will remind you that your argument will never work against a theist for the reason that it's either redundent (they already stupidly believe it) or that it's not applicable. I posted a thread at the Christian Forums to see what response I would get, and as expected, they said that God is logical. http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=7315251

[Asmodean]

A square has four sides. A circle has no sides. It is impossible to imagine a shape that has sides while not having sides. That is why it's illogical and cannot exist in the mind nor reality.

Well, I defended the square circle about as much as I can be bothered to and I'm not willing to engage in a yes/no argument with you so... Think what you will.

[Martian]

A square has four sides. A circle has no sides. It is impossible to imagine a shape that has sides while not having sides. That is why it's illogical and cannot exist in the mind nor reality.

Well, I defended the square circle about as much as I can be bothered to and I'm not willing to engage in a yes/no argument with you so... Think what you will.

And the same to you.

Here's something that may make things a bit more understandable if you care to look into this subject: http://www.dougshaver.com/philos/squarecircle.pdf

[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?

On the other hand, if we were to say that "everything" did not exist, then we would have a logical contradiction on our hands, as what is it that "everything" would be reffering to, if whatever it was, it did not exist?

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 think, however, what everything does encompass includes not logical impossibilites, but the concepts of illogical imposibilites. In this sense, it is possible to have a concept of a god able to do illogical impossibilities, sure. The concept of omnipotence can imply logical impossibilities, but I get the feeling that in practice, if something can not be done, it can not be done. Protons do not decay, and I don't think that the act of a proton decaying is included in everything. Still, the concept of a proton decaying might be.

Yeah, so... about my beliefs. I'm definitely strong atheist when it comes to any entity that might call itself god. I also don't believe the universe as a whole is an entity, nor do I give it the label "god", so that cuts out deism, too. I am absolutely sure that there is no god. At the same time, however, I am absolutely sure that what exists, exists so to speak. I just don't think that among those things is anything I can call god. To me, god is a logical impossibility.

yeah. but like I said, I thought I smelled something fishy. Any comments?

[Zarathustra]

So, my arguments are circular too now? I'm going to ignore the allegation that my argument is circular until you can provide some support.

Gladly, because you even continue now:

I've explained Ad Hoc and shown how it doesn't apply. Ad Hoc refers to a modification to a theory to explain away a specific contradictory datum. Notice though, that I didn't explain a specific contradictory datum, I explained away general contradictory data, which is, in fact, a fundamental principle to the scientific method.

You are quite mistaken. Take it up in another thread please (oh yeah admit, that last sentence was circular... I think it's the third time I asked you that...).
Then you say all the same once again.  
I especially noticed, that the one thing you failed to adress, was Asmodeans and my own points concerning your religion.

Again I say: Please have someone explain the paradox to you, and stop discussing "ad hoc" here.
The issue at hand is whether or not your posited implicit understanding of the concepts were always-already present. They weren't. That's why I call it ad hoc.

[Asmodean]

I especially noticed, that the one thing you failed to adress, was Asmodeans and my own points concerning your religion.

Asmodean was trying to politically correctly avoid that particular bag of worms, but he too made this observation. (Yes, I do refer to myself in third person sometimes)

What I am interested in, Martian, (now that I'm going for the potential worms) is why you claimed to be a "total atheist" when you are not? You said you were "unconvinced" of the existence of god. Almost all people I know who hold that view define themselves as agnostics. The rest define themselves as agnostic atheists or weak atheists or... pick your poison, but nothing as heavily laden with implications as "total" atheist (which is, and DO correct my grammar if I'm wrong again (   ), another way of saying "strong" atheist).

[Zarathustra]

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.

[Martian]

So, my arguments are circular too now? I'm going to ignore the allegation that my argument is circular until you can provide some support.

Gladly, because you even continue now:

I've explained Ad Hoc and shown how it doesn't apply. Ad Hoc refers to a modification to a theory to explain away a specific contradictory datum. Notice though, that I didn't explain a specific contradictory datum, I explained away general contradictory data, which is, in fact, a fundamental principle to the scientific method.

You are quite mistaken. Take it up in another thread please (oh yeah admit, that last sentence was circular... I think it's the third time I asked you that...).
Then you say all the same once again.  
I especially noticed, that the one thing you failed to adress, was Asmodeans and my own points concerning your religion.

Again I say: Please have someone explain the paradox to you, and stop discussing "ad hoc" here.
The issue at hand is whether or not your posited implicit understanding of the concepts were always-already present. They weren't. That's why I call it ad hoc.

What is your complaint with what I'm saying? Please, state what the problem with my argument is and be clear about it. I don't want to hear any of this "you're commiting an Ad Hoc and your arguments are circular, but I don't want to talk about it" nor "you're really a theist, so you are wrong" nor "you don't understand the paradox."

Edit: For simplicity, refer to the following for your criticisms:

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, 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.

[Martian]

I especially noticed, that the one thing you failed to adress, was Asmodeans and my own points concerning your religion.

Asmodean was trying to politically correctly avoid that particular bag of worms, but he too made this observation. (Yes, I do refer to myself in third person sometimes)

What I am interested in, Martian, (now that I'm going for the potential worms) is why you claimed to be a "total atheist" when you are not? You said you were "unconvinced" of the existence of god. Almost all people I know who hold that view define themselves as agnostics. The rest define themselves as agnostic atheists or weak atheists or... pick your poison, but nothing as heavily laden with implications as "total" atheist (which is, and DO correct my grammar if I'm wrong again (   ), another way of saying "strong" atheist).

*sigh*

I'm sorry that I confused you. I'm an agnostic atheist.

Though, I never expected people to concentrate on that, because what-I-believe is not part of this thread.

[Asmodean]

*sigh*

I'm sorry that I confused you. I'm an agnostic atheist.

Though, I never expected people to concentrate on that, because what-I-believe is not part of this thread.

Pointing no fingers here, 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. Especially, the agnostics and agnostic atheists don't like being put into the "strong" atheist cathegory.

[Zarathustra]

*sigh*
I'm sorry that I confused you. I'm an agnostic atheist.

And you are also a square circle? Well then I am a christian muslim... You cannot be both atheist and agnostic, this may be why you are so confused. I still don't think you are being truthful, though.

Though, I never expected people to concentrate on that, because what-I-believe is not part of this thread.

It has become, since your reasoning is flawed and it has become evident that religious dogma is a big part of this.

[Zarathustra]

So, my arguments are circular too now? I'm going to ignore the allegation that my argument is circular until you can provide some support.

Gladly, because you even continue now:

I've explained Ad Hoc and shown how it doesn't apply. Ad Hoc refers to a modification to a theory to explain away a specific contradictory datum. Notice though, that I didn't explain a specific contradictory datum, I explained away general contradictory data, which is, in fact, a fundamental principle to the scientific method.

You are quite mistaken. Take it up in another thread please (oh yeah admit, that last sentence was circular... I think it's the third time I asked you that...).
Then you say all the same once again.  
I especially noticed, that the one thing you failed to adress, was Asmodeans and my own points concerning your religion.

Again I say: Please have someone explain the paradox to you, and stop discussing "ad hoc" here.
The issue at hand is whether or not your posited implicit understanding of the concepts were always-already present. They weren't. That's why I call it ad hoc.

What is your complaint with what I'm saying? Please, state what the problem with my argument is and be clear about it. I don't want to hear any of this "you're commiting an Ad Hoc and your arguments are circular, but I don't want to talk about it" nor "you're really a theist, so you are wrong" nor "you don't understand the paradox."

Edit: For simplicity, refer to the following for your criticisms:

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, 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.