• 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
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.
So, MY answer to MY poll question is no.
That means the thread is over, because...?
 
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.

Actually the argument sets up the idea that if something can be done, it must be logically possible.

The rules of logic are bound by what exists in reality. If something can be done in reality, it must, by the very definition of "logically possible", be logically possible.

You've got he cause and effect backwards. You think that the being is bound by what is logically possible, when in reality what is logically possible would be defined by what the being can do.

It would not be defined by what, if anything, it cannot do.

The argument that God can do things that are logically impossible only shows a lack of understanding of logic on the person who makes the comment and nothing more.

What is logically impossible is only "that which cannot be done". If a being can do something, that specific something cannot be "that which cannot be done".

My premise assumes nothing.


Further more, when you state: "premise assumes that the illogical cannot be done" you are making a few errors.

1. My premise didn't presume such a things as "the illogical cannot be done" because there is no such thing as the "illogical". There are things which are or are not logically possible to be done.

2. You are making an error about what my presumptions are. I am that things that are not logically possible cannot be done. That is because logic is defined by reality. The only way something cannot be logically possible is if it cannot be done in reality. If an omnipotent being can do it, it is then, by definition, logically possible.


Let me write it out:

Premise 1: What is logically possible is defined by what is possible within reality
Premise 2: An omnipotent being would define what is possible within reality
Conclusion: Therefore, an omnipotent being would define what is logically possible.


It's very simple. Saying that this assumes that only that which can logically be done can be done is just getting things backwards.

Look at the premises. They only define the terms. That is what they are defined as. Where is the logical flaw?
 
Premise 1: What is logically possible is defined by what is possible within reality
Fail. Anything is possible, logical or not, real or not.
 
Please read again, "This thread has ended for you." Did you catch that? Or do you need me to explain?
Well then, my previous statement continues to apply, in full.
 
As with my previous statement, what ever makes you feel better. :2wave:
You can think otherwise, if you want, but it doesnt change anything.
:2wave:
 
Premise 1: What is logically possible is defined by what is possible within reality
Premise 2: An omnipotent being would define what is possible within reality
Conclusion: Therefore, an omnipotent being would define what is logically possible.

Where is the logical flaw?

Isn't it a possibility that only a part of God operates in reality, while the rest of God operates in another dimension where he can do things which are impossible in reality?

If you accept the above, then #2 is not accurate enough.
 
Then "anything" is logically possible.
Not, not at all.
The illogical is still illogical, just possible.
As -anything- is possible, there's no necessary relationship between logical and possible.

If you want to define omnipotent as the ability to do anything that is possible, then, as anything is possible, your 'limit' to omnipotence is one of mere rhetoric.
 
Isn't it a possibility that only a part of God operates in reality, while the rest of God operates in another dimension where he can do things which are impossible in reality?
God is also held as omnipresent, which means that He operates/exists in all dimensions.
 
Isn't it a possibility that only a part of God operates in reality, while the rest of God operates in another dimension where he can do things which are impossible in reality?

If you accept the above, then #2 is not accurate enough.

That doesn't even make sense.

Reality is: 1 : the quality or state of being real.

Essentially you are saying this other dimension God is operating in is not real.

If it is not real, then it doesn't exist. If it doesn't exist, God cannot operate in it.

But if God can operate in it, it exists, and as such, it is a part of reality.
 
God is also held as omnipresent, which means that He operates/exists in all dimensions.

Which is why I insisted that God is able to defy logic (where we agree on), but we being in reality, it should not apply to our universe. Thus we should only consider God as a logical being for all practical purposes.
 
Not, not at all.
The illogical is still illogical, just possible.
As -anything- is possible, there's no necessary relationship between logical and possible.

If you want to define omnipotent as the ability to do anything that is possible, then, as anything is possible, your 'limit' to omnipotence is one of mere rhetoric.

There is no such thing as "the illogical". Illogical is an adjective.
 
That doesn't even make sense.

Reality is: 1 : the quality or state of being real.

Essentially you are saying this other dimension God is operating in is not real.

If it is not real, then it doesn't exist. If it doesn't exist, God cannot operate in it.

But if God can operate in it, it exists, and as such, it is a part of reality.

No, reality is what we understand in this universe. There is no way for you to know, or understand, about a reality in which we do not live in. This does not mean it does not exist by virtue of "absence of proof" fallacy.
 
Statement. *snap*
Logic. Illogical. *snap snap*
Rational. Irrational. *snap snap*
Possible. Impossible. *snap snap*
Statement. *snap*
Shoo-wop.
*snap*
Skibby-di-bop.

Yeah, daddy-o.







Yeah.
 
No, reality is what we understand in this universe. There is no way for you to know, or understand, about a reality in which we do not live in. This does not mean it does not exist by virtue of "absence of proof" fallacy.

No, I used the actual definition of the word. Please click the little linky thing I attached to the word. that's what it is there for.

If you want to invent definitions for words, that is fine. Don't expect me to denounce the real definitions in favor of your inventions though. .
 
No, I used the actual definition of the word. Please click the little linky thing I attached to the word. that's what it is there for.

If you want to invent definitions for words, that is fine. Don't expect me to denounce the real definitions in favor of your inventions though. .

Which is why I laid the disclaimer, "if you accepted the above."
 
Why on earth would anyone accept a nonsense statement that creates new definitions for words that actually contradicts the real definitions of those words?

My definition doesn't contradict yours, it adds onto it.
 
My definition doesn't contradict yours, it adds onto it.

No, you actually posited the existence of a place that doesn't exist.

Reality is defined by that which is real. That which is real is all that exists. Something cannot exist outside of reality because that would, by definition, mean it exists outside of existence.

That is purely contradictory.
 
Back
Top Bottom