That is their beleif my beleif God does exist
I do not beleive the bg bang theory happend without help
I'm sure there are some on this thread that do
That is their beleif not mine.
Neither can be accuratly proven.
Yet both are beleived by a lot of people.
Which brings back to my point anything is possible.
Tiki bar regular.
My code, never take anything for granted always expect the unexpexted.
Never take anything you don't need ,never want anything you can't have
I don't want to sound mean, but I find myself having a hard time trying to understand your posts because you keep going off on tangents instead of just clarifying your points.
We could have avoided the whole matter and energy thing, if you just came out and said what you really meant...
Logic has multiple definitions. Wiki logic. Someone please enlighten Prelesuc, I can't do a thorough explanation on my phone.
Jesus christ on a bicycle! It seems you are using the word "logical" to mean "is morally acceptable to me".Are you telling me war , destruction attempted genocide muder over a differance of thought , this is logical.
That is, you are discussing morality, not formal logic.
When we resolve your confusion over your use of the word "logic" and "logical" then I will address the rest of this post if you wish me to.That in this world the whole human race is just a syteme of reasoning that is logical?
That sounds a bit close to the old reteric by organized religion.
"We know what is right we know what is wrong"
Think like us talk like us walk like us and you will be right if not you are wrong.
If you believe in the Supernatural then you can become a millionaire!
Questioning or criticizing another's core beliefs is inadvertently perceived as offensive and rude.
The only "things" that can have the quality of being illogical are arguments or reasoning. When we say someone is "illogical" we don't mean that the person has the quality of being illogical, we mean that they are a person who uses illogical arguments and reasoning.
But even if nothing is truly universally impossible, it doesn't mean that it is regionally or subjectively impossible.
Loads of stuff can have the quality of being impossible under the right parameters. It depends on a bunch of things.
For example, things like a yellow circle that is a blue triangle can't really exist. The key here is the word "Is" (not to get all Clintonesque on you)
Such a thing cannot exist because it would actually be a third thing that has the qualities of both a yellow circle and a blue triangle. It would require a new name to describe it, because those descriptions have specific meanings for specific objects that do not have the qualities of the other. They are partially defined by the fact that they don't have the qualities of the other. That's why it could not be yellow circle that is a blue triangle.
But an omnipotent being could create this third thing that has the qualities of both of those objects. It would be a new thing that possesses all of the qualities of those things without the contradictory nature of the definitions of those things. Essentially, the terminology used is inadequate to describe such a thing because it cannot accurately encompass it's nature. This is actually a limitation on language (which is not limitless), not on the omnipotent being.
Whereas I could never do such a thing as create that third object. For me, it is definitely impossible on all levels. So there would still be actions that are impossible as well as things that could not exist based on semantics (think rock so heavy it could not be lifted. This is along the same lines. God could create something that had the qualities of those two things, but it would be a third thing heretofore unconceived of so the terminology used would not accurately describe it).
I explained this poorly before when I used the yellow circle is a blue triangle example. The limitation is not really on the omnipotent being, it is the fact that the thing created could not be described as a yellow circle that is a blue triangle.
So when I said that an omnipotent being couldn't do that, it was an error on my part because I never fully explained that I was trying to point out that such a thing cannot exist as described by our current language. It would necessitate a totally different verbiage.
But there is no limitation that states that an omnipotent being cannot a thing that has all the qualities of a yellow circle and all the qualities of a blue triangle.
Such a thing's creation would be possible, while the creation of a "yellow circle that is a blue triangle" is not possible because the language used in that sentence cannot possibly describe such a thing that would have the qualities mentioned above.
Also, things could be impossible regionally or subjectively. It is currently impossible for me to fart with enough force to launch myself from downtown Chicago to the moon.
So that is impossible under the current parameters. Now, if an omnipotent being decided to grant me that ability, it would easily be possible. It is also possible said entity, if it exists, could choose to grant me that ability. That's why I created the statement as I did. I defined the parameters so that the statement was definitely true.
Take me to your leader.
Bout time some one said that
Given the definitions that we've worked on so far, God is able to do anything He wishes, except the illogical and impossible, only because they do not exist.
The problem however is that we do not know what is possible and what is impossible. That means the term Omnipotence is quite meaningless. Even if we say God is omnipotent, we still do not know what that entails.
And the ultimate answer is still: we cannot know.