- Joined
- Jul 28, 2008
- Messages
- 45,596
- Reaction score
- 22,536
- Location
- Everywhere and nowhere
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Progressive
I think I getcha now, so let's try this again:
If God can do anything, nothing is impossible. If nothing is impossible, then is there such a thing as the illogical?
"The illogical" doesn't actually exist for the exact same reasons "the impossible" doesn't exist. "Impossible" and "illogical" are both adjectives.
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.
Is there anything that is impossible to do?
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.