• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Does life on other planets disprove the BIble

See OP

  • Total voters
    67
Jerry said:
Anything at all whatsoever: if it exists in this universe, it therefore must be logical and have a perfectly rational nature.

Otherwise it could not exist in this universe.

Rather we understand that logic or nature is another matter.
Click to expand...

Because....

You do realize you are making unfounded assertions without any backing evidence and expecting me to take them on face value?

Your whole argument is really just one begging the question.
 
Lightdemon said:
Well if you're going to describe omnipotence in that manner, why go through the charades and pretenses of trying to be logical. Why go through the trouble of establishing logical evidences and such?
If God doesn't follow the rules of logic, why use logic to explain it?
Click to expand...
Again, not sure how there is a necessarily relationship here.
That God has the capacity to defy the laws of logic does not mean that God cannot be proven or disproven through logic.
 
Goobieman said:
That would be limited.
Omnipotent is unlimited power.

You may not understand how The Omnipotent defies the laws of logic -- but that in no way means He cannot do it.
Click to expand...

It just makes the owner of that trait nonsensical and illogical, but does not invalidate its existence.

Still, you are a little late, Tucker and Jerry are using a modified form of omnipotence to bypass the paradox created by the capacity to do anything. In that aspect, limited power does not have the associated problems. The problem with their argument is that they assume the illogical cannot be done. For that argument, they have yet to provide any reasoning other then their innate desires for that to be true.
 
Jerry said:
See that doesn't even make any sense.
Click to expand...
Do you really think that the Omipotent God is limited to doing what humans might understand?
 
Tucker Case said:
Such a being can do everything that can be done. The fact that something simply cannot do something doesn't place a limitation upon the power of the omnipotent being.

For example, an omnipotent being cannot make a yellow circle that is a blue square. That's because a yellow circle that is a blue square cannot exist.

Some things just simply cannot be done. It is not a limitation upon teh omnipotent being to be unable to do the impossible.
Click to expand...
God's Omnipotence is not limited by what you can conceive.

Flatlanders could not conceive of "up", just as you cannot conceive of a yellow circle that is a blue square; because you deem something 'imposible' does not mean that God cannot do it.

Omnipotent power is unlimited.

[ame]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flatland[/ame]
 
Last edited:
Goobieman said:
God's Omnipotence is not limited by what you can conceive.
Click to expand...

Change "limited" to "bounded" and we agree.

The boundaries of what can be done are not defined by the boundaries of what can be conceived.


If an Omnipotent being can do something, then that doing that thing is possible. If it is possible to be done, it is therefore logically possible, by the very rules of logic.

Premise 1: Anything that can be done is that which is logically possible
Premise 2: An omnipotent being can do anything that can be done.
Conclusion: An omnipotent being can do anything that is logically possible.

Are you stating that premise 1 is false? That anything that can be done is that which is logically impossible? :confused:

Simply put, an omnipotent being cannot do that which cannot be done. If the omnipotent being can do it, then it can be done.

If something is logically possible, then it can possibly be done.

It is not a limitation to say that an omnipotent being cannot do that which cannot be done. As soon as the omnipotent being can do it, such a thing can no longer be classified as "that which cannot be done".


An omnipotent being would have unlimited power. It can do everything that can be done. It cannot "do that which cannot be done" because that is a contradiction of terms.

"Power to do anything" does not include "that which cannot be done", because "that which cannot be done" is something that does not exist. It is not a "thing" it is a "nothing".
 
Goobieman said:
Again, not sure how there is a necessarily relationship here.
That God has the capacity to defy the laws of logic does not mean that God cannot be proven or disproven through logic.
Click to expand...

Okay, let me ask you to clarify some things then...

You're saying logic can't prove or disprove god? I assume that's because God can defy the laws of logic. If so, then I don't understand why we're disagreeing, that's what I've been saying all along. I guess the only difference between me and you is that I won't take that position seriously because...well...it isn't logical. Both positions are valid, it's just that I prefer to be logical rather than illogical. But to press the point further...

If you're not going to use logic to prove or disprove god, why do you ask for proof, why do you even expect proof to change anyone's beliefs if that was the case? Isn't this entire thread an exercise in futility if you hold this position? You're not expecting God to be logical all the time, so why approach the matter in a logical way? You don't need to ask for proof. You don't need evidence. But to press the point even further...

If not logic, then what do you use to prove or disprove god? Illogical evidence? Incomprehensible evidence? Contradicting evidence? What, if not logic? Emotions? Feelings? :confused:
 
Tucker Case said:
Change "limited" to "bounded" and we agree.

The boundaries of what can be done are not defined by the boundaries of what can be conceived.


If an Omnipotent being can do something, then that doing that thing is possible. If it is possible to be done, it is therefore logically possible, by the very rules of logic.

Premise 1: Anything that can be done is that which is logically possible
Premise 2: An omnipotent being can do anything that can be done.
Conclusion: An omnipotent being can do anything that is logically possible.

Are you stating that premise 1 is false? That anything that can be done is that which is logically impossible? :confused:

Simply put, an omnipotent being cannot do that which cannot be done. If the omnipotent being can do it, then it can be done.

If something is logically possible, then it can possibly be done.

It is not a limitation to say that an omnipotent being cannot do that which cannot be done. As soon as the omnipotent being can do it, such a thing can no longer be classified as "that which cannot be done".


An omnipotent being would have unlimited power. It can do everything that can be done. It cannot "do that which cannot be done" because that is a contradiction of terms.

"Power to do anything" does not include "that which cannot be done", because "that which cannot be done" is something that does not exist. It is not a "thing" it is a "nothing".
Click to expand...

/thread




..............
 
Tucker Case said:
Change "limited" to "bounded" and we agree.
Click to expand...
But, the term is "limited".

If an Omnipotent being can do something, then that doing that thing is possible. If it is possible to be done, it is therefore logically possible, by the very rules of logic.
Click to expand...
Yes... and anything is possible - including those that are not logically possible.
:mrgreen:

Simply put, an omnipotent being cannot do that which cannot be done. If the omnipotent being can do it, then it can be done.
Click to expand...
This is true, with the understanding that anything is possible, and therefore anything can be done.
Thus, The Omnipotent can do anything; His power is unlimited.

If something is logically possible, then it can possibly be done.
Click to expand...
"Logically possible" is a not a valid limit. Anything is possible, logically or not, including having the power to violate logic.
 
Last edited:
Goobieman said:
Not hardly.
Click to expand...

Actually, it ended at the very first post. Someone who believes that God cannot be bound by logic has no business asking about proof or evidence or anything that uses logic.

If you start out believing that God can be illogical, you don't need proof, you don't need evidence. All you really need is faith alone. This thread has ended for you since the beginning.
 
Lightdemon said:
Actually, it ended at the very first post. Someone who believes that God cannot be bound by logic has no business asking about proof or evidence or anything that uses logic.

If you start out believing that God can be illogical, you don't need proof, you don't need evidence. All you really need is faith alone. This thread has ended for you since the beginning.
Click to expand...
Yes. Keep thinking that.
 
Lightdemon said:
Actually, it ended at the very first post. Someone who believes that God cannot be bound by logic has no business asking about proof or evidence or anything that uses logic.
Click to expand...

There's a difference between believing and seeing no reason as to why God is bound by logic. I don't believe in an all powerful God or any mainstream notion of Deities, but I don't see a reason why if such a being did exist why it would be bound.

Look at Tucker's argument. The whole premise assumes that the illogical cannot be done. That's begging the question. Again, hence why I've stated there is no actual argument against why God cannot be illogical other then our desires to understand.

If you start out believing that God can be illogical, you don't need proof, you don't need evidence. All you really need is faith alone. This thread has ended for you since the beginning.
Click to expand...

That I'd agree with.
 
Lightdemon said:
No rebuttal? As expected. :cool:
Click to expand...
There's been plenty of rebuttal that negates your statement.
You can think otherwise, if you want, but it doesnt change anything.
:2wave:
 
Goobieman said:
There's been plenty of rebuttal that negates your argument.
You can think otherwise, if you want, but it doesnt change anything.
:2wave:
Click to expand...

negates my arguments? :rofl
Why do you even use logic, you don't need it to explain a God who can be illogical.


LOL, "negates my arguments" as if it means anything to someone with your position.
 
Lightdemon said:
negates my arguments? :rofl
Click to expand...
Like I said - You can think otherwise, if you want, but it doesnt change anything.

LOL, "negates my arguments" as if it means anything to someone with your position.
Click to expand...
Tell me:
What IS my position?
 
Tucker Case said:
Change "limited" to "bounded" and we agree.

The boundaries of what can be done are not defined by the boundaries of what can be conceived.


If an Omnipotent being can do something, then that doing that thing is possible. If it is possible to be done, it is therefore logically possible, by the very rules of logic.

Premise 1: Anything that can be done is that which is logically possible
Premise 2: An omnipotent being can do anything that can be done.
Conclusion: An omnipotent being can do anything that is logically possible.

Are you stating that premise 1 is false? That anything that can be done is that which is logically impossible? :confused:

Simply put, an omnipotent being cannot do that which cannot be done. If the omnipotent being can do it, then it can be done.

If something is logically possible, then it can possibly be done.

It is not a limitation to say that an omnipotent being cannot do that which cannot be done. As soon as the omnipotent being can do it, such a thing can no longer be classified as "that which cannot be done".


An omnipotent being would have unlimited power. It can do everything that can be done. It cannot "do that which cannot be done" because that is a contradiction of terms.

"Power to do anything" does not include "that which cannot be done", because "that which cannot be done" is something that does not exist. It is not a "thing" it is a "nothing".
Click to expand...

Aren't you assuming that logic is correct? That if logic dictates something is false then it absolutely cannot be true?

If logic is somehow flawed or incorrect then proving something logically false does not mean it necessarilly is impossible. It is only impossible within the scope of logic which may not accurately reflect reality.
 
Last edited:
scourge99 said:
Aren't you assuming that logic is correct? That if logic dictates something is false then it absolutely cannot be?

If logic is somehow flawed or incorrect then proving something logically false does not mean it necessarilly is.
Click to expand...

I agree with you, it is an assumption. It's a matter of preference to be logical or illogical. Which are you going to choose?
 
Lightdemon said:
That God doesn't have to be logical.
Click to expand...
Exactly correct.

How does that necesitate that "This thread has ended for you since the beginning"?
 
Lightdemon said:
I agree with you, it is an assumption. It's a matter of preference to be logical or illogical. Which are you going to choose?
Click to expand...

Don't assume that merely because I posit an idea that such are my personal beliefs or that my personal beliefs are relevant to such a matter.
 
Goobieman said:
Exactly correct.

How does that necesitate that "This thread has ended for you since the beginning"?
Click to expand...

because you don't need proof or evidence to persuade someone with your position. It's meaningless to someone like you. It's an exercise in futility. Therefore, it ended even before it began.

You have no use for logic. Why bother with making this thread?
 
scourge99 said:
Don't assume that merely because I posit an idea that such are my personal beliefs or that my personal beliefs are relevant to such a matter.
Click to expand...

Actually, you agree with me since I said it earlier in the thread. You're just echoing me. :mrgreen:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom