11 Dec 10
Originally posted by AgergI get the square circle not being possible, it isn't any more possible than the
Heh...if we define a circle as being an object for which all points that define it lay equidistant from some other point, it's centre (and relax the condition that this centre has to be coplanar with the other points defining the circle), define a square as usual then placing the centre of said square lying on the plane x,y=0 at a point on the z axis: lim_{z-> ...[text shortened]... at a point infinity) then we do (I think!) get a square circle (albeit with infinite radius) 😵
very best baseball pitcher playing against the very best baseball batter while
both being the same being, it is a meaningless question concerning some means
to discover what is real and true.
Kelly
11 Dec 10
Originally posted by KellyJayYeah my last post wasn't that serious; a square circle consistent with any useful definitions of circle and square is impossible. Moreover, the OP imposing on "God" the condition that it must perform the logically impossible to qualify for being"omnipotent" is, in my opinion; a misunderstanding of the word. It neither proves nor disproves anything useful.
I get the square circle not being possible, it isn't any more possible than the
very best baseball pitcher playing against the very best baseball batter while
both being the same being, it is a meaningless question concerning some means
to discover what is real and true.
Kelly
11 Dec 10
Originally posted by twhiteheadYes the Balllpark must be constructed with logical laws for evolution to occur.
I am not convinced that logic is a product of humans. Logic, just is.
The basic question is: can illogical entities exist? And I think the answer is: without logic all talk is meaningless. We cannot talk of something existing or not unless we first assume that logic is universally valid.
I'm agreeing with you 100%, if I get you right.
12 Dec 10
Originally posted by AgergI agree
Yeah my last post wasn't that serious; a square circle consistent with any useful definitions of circle and square is impossible. Moreover, the OP imposing on "God" the condition that it must perform the logically impossible to qualify for being"omnipotent" is, in my opinion; a misunderstanding of the word. It neither proves nor disproves anything useful.
Kelly
13 Dec 10
4 edits
Originally posted by 667joeYou are focusing on a god that satisfies "omnipotence" subject to your (naive) interpretation of the word; and then concluding this god (which I assume is a placeholder for all of them) cannot exist.
I disagree. If god could create the universe and keep track of all our activities, he must be able to play baseball. Since he can't fulfil the baseball paradox, he can't exist any more than a square circle can exist.
Bad logic!
13 Dec 10
Originally posted by AgergNow we are making progress! You say god is not omnipotent. Just how impotent is he? And, if he is impotent, would viagra help?
You are focusing on a god that satisfies "omnipotence" subject to [b]your (naive) interpretation of the word; and then concluding this god (which I assume is a placeholder for all of them) cannot exist.
Bad logic![/b]
13 Dec 10
Originally posted by 667joeyou also confuse omnipotent with omniscience, many people further mistake omniscience with the ability to accurately predict the future. knowing everything as it unfolds through observation is not the same as picking the right horse in the Belmont stakes. Though if I knew everyhting I could make very good educated guess couldn't I?
I disagree. If god could create the universe and keep track of all our activities, he must be able to play baseball. Since he can't fulfil the baseball paradox, he can't exist any more than a square circle can exist.
13 Dec 10
2 edits
Originally posted by 667joeI don't say god is not (or gods are not) omnipotent (I don't have any default assumptions of what a god should be/can do/etc...), I simply say you've got a bad definition of thr word.
Now we are making progress! You say god is not omnipotent. Just how impotent is he? And, if he is impotent, would viagra help?
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
13 Dec 10
667joe clearly has an erroneous notion of omnipotence, believing it covers even impossibilities. Clearly he also does not understand baseball either, believing that a game in which a player is his same opponent could possibly constitute a competitive sport. The situation he has described does not satisfy the conditions for a real game of baseball.
14 Dec 10
Originally posted by Conrau KYou are wrong. To simplify it for you, does god the pitcher have the skill to strike out god the batter every time, and does god the batter have the skill to hit a home run off god the pitcher every time. Remember Babe Ruth was both a pitcher and a batter. You could make the case that, being omnipotent, god could pitch the ball and run to the plate and bat against himself. (The point of this thread is to show how silly the idea of a supernatural god is.) Virgin births and resurrections are also impossible, but that is no impediment for Christians.
667joe clearly has an erroneous notion of omnipotence, believing it covers even impossibilities. Clearly he also does not understand baseball either, believing that a game in which a player is his same opponent could possibly constitute a competitive sport. The situation he has described does not satisfy the conditions for a real game of baseball.
14 Dec 10
Originally posted by 667joeThis is the real reason you ask your questions to be insulting, why bother
Now we are making progress! You say god is not omnipotent. Just how impotent is he? And, if he is impotent, would viagra help?
with hiding behind your version of logic when this is all you are really after?
Kelly
14 Dec 10
2 edits
Originally posted by 667joeYou are failing to understand the problem I and others have raised with your definition of "omniptence".
You are wrong. To simplify it for you, does god the pitcher have the skill to strike out god the batter every time, and does god the batter have the skill to hit a home run off god the pitcher every time. Remember Babe Ruth was both a pitcher and a batter. You could make the case that, being omnipotent, god could pitch the ball and run to the plate an ...[text shortened]... Virgin births and resurrections are also impossible, but that is no impediment for Christians.
In a logical sense, X will always strike out Y
(= X here)
precludes the possibility of Y ever scoring a home run. In other words, Y failing to not score a home run given that the actions of X guarantee Y will not score a home run is a logical contradiction. Sensible people don't tend to work with definitions that are inconsistent with logic.
You might as well argue that if some god is claimed omnipotent then it must have the potential to make itself both existent and not existent at the same time, or it must have the potential to make 4 > 5, or make square circles, etc...
14 Dec 10
Originally posted by AgergSo clearly then you agree with me that god is logically impossible and therefore cannot exist. Thank you.
You are failing to understand the problem I and others have raised with your definition of "omniptence".
In a logical sense, X will always strike out Y[hidden](= X here)[/hidden]precludes the possibility of Y ever scoring a home run. In other words, Y failing to [b]not score a home run given that the actions of X guarantee Y will not score a home run is ...[text shortened]... at the same time, or it must have the potential to make 4 > 5, or make square circles, etc...[/b]
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
14 Dec 10
Originally posted by 667joeTo simplify it for you, does god the pitcher have the skill to strike out god the batter every time, and does god the batter have the skill to hit a home run off god the pitcher every time?
You are wrong. To simplify it for you, does god the pitcher have the skill to strike out god the batter every time, and does god the batter have the skill to hit a home run off god the pitcher every time. Remember Babe Ruth was both a pitcher and a batter. You could make the case that, being omnipotent, god could pitch the ball and run to the plate an ...[text shortened]... Virgin births and resurrections are also impossible, but that is no impediment for Christians.
It is not so much that God is incapable of that, rather that such a situation is not possible because 1. it is logically impossible for any agent simultaneously to win as pitcher and as batsman, as success in one implies failure in another, and 2. such a situation would not be described as baseball in the first place.