Can there be an all mighty god?

Quag · Dec 17, 2017

Angel said:
Something is either possible or impossible. That's the Law of Excluded Middle. A Law of Thought. Fundamental Classic Logic.

If something is not impossible, then it is possible. Logic.

Agreed

changes if you add the epistemic dimension (knowing).

If you know that something is not impossible, then you know that it is possible. Logic.

Agreed

ear to be resting your argument on epistemic ignorance: If you don't know whether something is possible or impossible, then....
But this doesn't change the fact that something is either possible or impossible.

Sill agreed

don't know whether it is possible or impossible, you cannot assert anything either way -- you cannot say that it is possible and you cannot say that it is impossible.

Agreed

t to say that if you don't know that it is impossible, then it only "can be" possible.

Yup

But your "can be" is an expression of possibility. You want to say that ignorance of impossibility entails knowledge of possibility. But you cannot say this.
If you don't know that it is impossible, unless you know that it is possible, you cannot say that it "can be" possible.

This is where you get it wrong. I said could be possible which allows for it to be impossible

You are back at the beginning: something is either possible or impossible.
And this is a necessity, not a possibility. Not a "can be."

Agreed so if you do not know if it is possible or impossible you cannot state that it is possible

In fact, there is no logical contradiction in the concept of an almighty God, and so it is not impossible. And this is known.

You do not know if an almighty God is possible or impossible thus you cannot claim an almighty God is possible

Therefor, you know that an almighty God is possible.

No you dont the possibility/impossibility is unknown

Angel · Dec 18, 2017

Quag said:
Agreed
Agreed
Sill agreed
Agreed
Yup

This is where you get it wrong. I said could be possible which allows for it to be impossible

Agreed so if you do not know if it is possible or impossible you cannot state that it is possible

You do not know if an almighty God is possible or impossible thus you cannot claim an almighty God is possible

No you dont the possibility/impossibility is unknown

Well, this is progress. In the past we've spent pages and pages of posts talking past each other.
So the only point of disagreement is on the question whether the concept of God is impossible.
I say it is not impossible; you say it is impossible to say, or in epistemic terms we don't know whether it is impossible or not impossible. Yes?

I take the logical concept of impossibility as dispositive here. The concept of God involves no contradiction or absurdity. Therefore, it is not impossible.
You say that we know nothing about the impossibility of the concept of God. Yes?

William Rea · Dec 19, 2017

Angel said:
Well, this is progress. In the past we've spent pages and pages of posts talking past each other.
So the only point of disagreement is on the question whether the concept of God is impossible.
I say it is not impossible; you say it is impossible to say, or in epistemic terms we don't know whether it is impossible or not impossible. Yes?

I take the logical concept of impossibility as dispositive here. The concept of God involves no contradiction or absurdity. Therefore, it is not impossible.
You say that we know nothing about the impossibility of the concept of God. Yes?

The point of disagreement is your unjustified knowledge claim regarding the true nature of reality.

Angel · Dec 19, 2017

William Rea said:
The point of disagreement is your unjustified knowledge claim regarding the true nature of reality.

What do you know about the true nature of reality, hoss?

William Rea · Dec 19, 2017

Angel said:
What do you know about the true nature of reality, hoss?

I don't know and I don't pretend to know. You want to try to have a discussion or just evasive snark? I am in a forum section here where I have to respect a theological position and not comment upon the non-existence of gods however, I think I am justified in asking you why you think you can claim to know or, you could tighten up on the language. For example, possible could be defined as 'may or may not be true'.

The discussion was about possibility from not knowing something is impossible. If you have evidence for something then that takes it out of the realm of the discussion.

Angel · Dec 19, 2017

William Rea said:
I don't know and I don't pretend to know. You want to try to have a discussion or just evasive snark? I am in a forum section here where I have to respect a theological position and not comment upon the non-existence of gods however, I think I am justified in asking you why you think you can claim to know or, you could tighten up on the language. For example, possible could be defined as 'may or may not be true'.

The discussion was about possibility from not knowing something is impossible. If you have evidence for something then that takes it out of the realm of the discussion.

You're half right, William. For the other half you're kidding yourself and you think you're kidding others.
You should always "respect a theological position and not comment upon the non-existence of gods," not just in this forum but in every forum and in daily life and in the pub as well.
And for the purposes of discussion here I take the meaning of possible and impossible from logic, which is as tight as one can get in the use of language.
Your last remark is obscure. Why would evidence remove a topic from discussion?

William Rea · Dec 19, 2017

Angel said:
You're half right, William. For the other half you're kidding yourself and you think you're kidding others.
You should always "respect a theological position and not comment upon the non-existence of gods," not just in this forum but in every forum and in daily life and in the pub as well.
And for the purposes of discussion here I take the meaning of possible and impossible from logic, which is as tight as one can get in the use of language.
Your last remark is obscure. Why would evidence remove a topic from discussion?

Ok, you don't want a discussion, you just want to vaguely assert things and have your ego massaged by people that agree with you. I thought that in a forum section where I was restricted from having a skeptic approach that you might behave somewhat differently. Same old same old I'm afraid.

Quag · Dec 19, 2017

Angel said:
Well, this is progress. In the past we've spent pages and pages of posts talking past each other.
So the only point of disagreement is on the question whether the concept of God is impossible.
I say it is not impossible; you say it is impossible to say, or in epistemic terms we don't know whether it is impossible or not impossible. Yes?

Technically it applies to any stuation where the possibility/impossibility is unknown

I take the logical concept of impossibility as dispositive here. The concept of God involves no contradiction or absurdity. Therefore, it is not impossible.
You say that we know nothing about the impossibility of the concept of God. Yes?

What you are doing is a logical fallacy
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/56/Argument-from-Ignorance
You dont know enough to claim that the cocnept of God has no contradiction or absurdity and thus cannot make the claim. There may very well be contradictions or absurdities that you are unaware of.
To claim something is possible you must show it to be possible same with the impossible.

I can say the exact opposite and have the same resiult. The impossibility of God contains no contradiction or absurdity. The claim has as much validity as your claim and in neither case are they logical arguments.

Angel · Dec 19, 2017

William Rea said:
... in a forum section where I was restricted from having a skeptic approach...

Indeed. The euphemism, not the dog, is man's best friend.
Why in your opinion does evidence foreclose discussion?
Namaste

Angel · Dec 19, 2017

Quag said:
Technically it applies to any stuation where the possibility/impossibility is unknown

What you are doing is a logical fallacy
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/56/Argument-from-Ignorance
You dont know enough to claim that the cocnept of God has no contradiction or absurdity and thus cannot make the claim. There may very well be contradictions or absurdities that you are unaware of.
To claim something is possible you must show it to be possible same with the impossible.

I can say the exact opposite and have the same resiult. The impossibility of God contains no contradiction or absurdity. The claim has as much validity as your claim and in neither case are they logical arguments.

The concept of God has been fashioned in the human mind in the course of many thousands of years. Knowledge of that concept is not unknown. It is known. And there is no contradiction or absurdity involved in it.

You are arguing from ignorance here, Quag. You are positing ignorance as a bar to thought. My position is not from ignorance, but from knowledge -- knowledge of the concept of God as it has evolved in the human mind.

You do not say "the same thing" in your counter-example. God and the concept of God are not "the same thing."

Quag · Dec 19, 2017

Angel said:
The concept of God has been fashioned in the human mind in the course of many thousands of years. Knowledge of that concept is not unknown. It is known. And there is no contradiction or absurdity involved in it.

It is a concept that is not known to be true or even stable as there are so many different ideas on what the concept actually is. As such there is no way to claim it is without contradiction.

You are arguing from ignorance here, Quag. You are positing ignorance as a bar to thought. My position is not from ignorance, but from knowledge -- knowledge of the concept of God as it has evolved in the human mind.

Actually you are using the argument from ignorance (you cannot think of a reason God is not possible) and reverse burden of proof, saying unless shown to be wrong you are right.
The fact remains to claim something as possible you need to show it is possible not claim you can think of no reason why it is not. (same goes for impossible)

You do not say "the same thing" in your counter-example. God and the concept of God are not "the same thing."

I reversed the terms but it is the same argument just the same having the same logical flaws.
Once again you must prove something to be possible to claim it is possible all you have done is state that you can think of no reason why it is not possible

William Rea · Dec 19, 2017

Quag said:
It is a concept that is not known to be true or even stable as there are so many different ideas on what the concept actually is. As such there is no way to claim it is without contradiction.

Actually you are using the argument from ignorance (you cannot think of a reason God is not possible) and reverse burden of proof, saying unless shown to be wrong you are right.
The fact remains to claim something as possible you need to show it is possible not claim you can think of no reason why it is not. (same goes for impossible)

I reversed the terms but it is the same argument just the same having the same logical flaws.
Once again you must prove something to be possible to claim it is possible all you have done is state that you can think of no reason why it is not possible

I don't know how you can have this discussion with someone that willfully flip flops between 'gods' and 'concepts of god' depending upon what argument suits?

Basically, Angel reverts back to the ploy he has used before of asserting that a 'concept of gods' can exist and therefore 'gods' exist, it's the self same nonsense we had with so called proofs for gods all those months ago. The argument for a 'concept of gods' is simply an argument that we can 'conceive of gods' which is not a question of ignorance, we have knowledge that 'concepts of gods' exist so Angel takes you up to that point and then switches to 'gods' expecting that it will not be noticed. Note, that I am not questioning the existence of gods here, just the method being used to come to a conclusion about them.

Angel · Dec 19, 2017

Quag said:
It is a concept that is not known to be true or even stable as there are so many different ideas on what the concept actually is. As such there is no way to claim it is without contradiction.

Actually you are using the argument from ignorance (you cannot think of a reason God is not possible) and reverse burden of proof, saying unless shown to be wrong you are right.
The fact remains to claim something as possible you need to show it is possible not claim you can think of no reason why it is not. (same goes for impossible)

I reversed the terms but it is the same argument just the same having the same logical flaws.
Once again you must prove something to be possible to claim it is possible all you have done is state that you can think of no reason why it is not possible

Concepts are neither true nor false, Quag. Propositions are.

If something is not impossible (or known not to be impossible), then it is possible )or known to be possible). That's basic logic.

The only proof one needs here is the logical proof provided by the Law of Excluded Middle.

Quag · Dec 19, 2017

Angel said:
Concepts are neither true nor false, Quag. Propositions are.

|concepts are concepts we are talking about existence or no existence

If something is not impossible (or known not to be impossible), then it is possible )or known to be possible). That's basic logic.

No the logic is faulty as you have to prove something to be either possible or impossible to claim it is possible or impossible

The only proof one needs here is the logical proof provided by the Law of Excluded Middle.

Your logic is faulty as already stated you need to prove something is possible to claim it is possible all you are doing is saying you can think of no reason it is impossible (argument from ignorance) then saying thus it is possible (reverse burden of proof)
You cannot make a logical argument based on a logical fallacy and you have used 2 logical fallacies to make your argument
Hence you argument is not logical

Quag · Dec 19, 2017

William Rea said:
I don't know how you can have this discussion with someone that willfully flip flops between 'gods' and 'concepts of god' depending upon what argument suits?

Basically, Angel reverts back to the ploy he has used before of asserting that a 'concept of gods' can exist and therefore 'gods' exist, it's the self same nonsense we had with so called proofs for gods all those months ago. The argument for a 'concept of gods' is simply an argument that we can 'conceive of gods' which is not a question of ignorance, we have knowledge that 'concepts of gods' exist so Angel takes you up to that point and then switches to 'gods' expecting that it will not be noticed. Note, that I am not questioning the existence of gods here, just the method being used to come to a conclusion about them.

God or concept of God is irrelevant.
Angel is claiming X is possible (X can be anything) because he can think of no reason why it is impossible
That's is an argument of ignorance and reversal of burden of proof.
The only way you can claim X is possible is to provide a reason it is possible, you cannot claim X is possible because you cant think of a reason why it is impossible
Inverse is also true you cannot claim X is impossible just because you cannot think of a reason it is possible

Angel · Dec 19, 2017

Quag said:
|concepts are concepts we are talking about existence or no existence

No the logic is faulty as you have to prove something to be either possible or impossible to claim it is possible or impossible

Your logic is faulty as already stated you need to prove something is possible to claim it is possible all you are doing is saying you can think of no reason it is impossible (argument from ignorance) then saying thus it is possible (reverse burden of proof)
You cannot make a logical argument based on a logical fallacy and you have used 2 logical fallacies to make your argument
Hence you argument is not logical

Quag said:
God or concept of God is irrelevant.
Angel is claiming X is possible (X can be anything) because he can think of no reason why it is impossible
That's is an argument of ignorance and reversal of burden of proof.
The only way you can claim X is possible is to provide a reason it is possible, you cannot claim X is possible because you cant think of a reason why it is impossible
Inverse is also true you cannot claim X is impossible just because you cannot think of a reason it is possible

No, we are not talking about existence. We are talking about possibility. Please note the word "can" in the thread title.

Talk of proving possibility or impossibility is close to nonsense, Quag. How does one prove a possibility. By actuality? How does one prove an impossibility?
No, these are logical operators conceptualized as substantives for the purpose of discussion.
There is no "proof" beyond the logical proof provided by the Law of Excluded Middle.
There is no argument from ignorance here.
Something is possible if it is not impossible, and if something involves no logical contradiction or absurdity, it is not impossible.

At this point the only real question we have to consider is whether or not we wish to prolong the agony of this fruitless pas de deux?

Quag · Dec 19, 2017

Angel said:
No, we are not talking about existence. We are talking about possibility. Please note the word "can" in the thread title.

We are talking about the possibility of something existing

Talk of proving possibility or impossibility is close to nonsense, Quag. How does one prove a possibility. By actuality? How does one prove an impossibility?
No, these are logical operators conceptualized as substantives for the purpose of discussion.
There is no "proof" beyond the logical proof provided by the Law of Excluded Middle.

Actually something being done or existing is proof it is possible. You can prove that a person cannot using nothing but their own muscles jump from New York City to Paris because the human body cannot generate the force necessary for the leap and the force necessary would tear them apart

There is no argument from ignorance here.
Something is possible if it is not impossible, and if something involves no logical contradiction or absurdity, it is not impossible.

That's is both an argument from ignorance and an attempt at reversing the burden of proof, thus it is an illogical statement
The ONLY way you can claim something is possible is to provide a reason it is possible but you instead are trying to claim you have no reason to call it impossible as an argument.

At this point the only real question we have to consider is whether or not we wish to prolong the agony of this fruitless pas de deux?

Yes if you refuse to use logical arguments there is not much point in continuing.

William Rea · Dec 20, 2017

Quag said:
God or concept of God is irrelevant.
Angel is claiming X is possible (X can be anything) because he can think of no reason why it is impossible
That's is an argument of ignorance and reversal of burden of proof.
The only way you can claim X is possible is to provide a reason it is possible, you cannot claim X is possible because you cant think of a reason why it is impossible
Inverse is also true you cannot claim X is impossible just because you cannot think of a reason it is possible

If you think so but, Angel doesn't agree that it is irrelevant which is why he keeps 'switching' between a concept that we know exists as a concept in human minds and a definite being that inhabits the realm of ignorance. It is the same kind of argumentation attempt as, 'something, somewhere that did something at some point and I'll call it gods'. Either way, you seem to have spotted it and already have it covered with this, which I missed initially...

Quag said:
...concepts are concepts we are talking about existence or no existence...

Angel · Dec 20, 2017

Quag said:
...
Yes if you refuse to use logical arguments there is not much point in continuing.

My feelings exactly.
Nice chatting with you, as always, Quag.

Quag · Dec 20, 2017

Angel said:
My feelings exactly.
Nice chatting with you, as always, Quag.

Gonna try one last time

We are talking about X
X must be XA or XB
If XA then not XB and vice versa
If X is not known to be XA or XB then it is not known and X can be either XA or XB.
Your argument is that since it is not proven to be XA it must be XB.

Do you see the problem now?

Angel · Dec 20, 2017

Quag said:
Gonna try one last time

We are talking about X
X must be XA or XB
If XA then not XB and vice versa
If X is not known to be XA or XB then it is not known and X can be either XA or XB.
Your argument is that since it is not proven to be XA it must be XB.

Do you see the problem now?

In line 2, you correctly use the modal "must" and render (in your own notation) the Law of Excluded Middle as necessary.
In line 3, you correctly render the logical arguments that follow from line 2.
In line 4, you contradict line 2 (the Law of Excluded Middle) and then recast line 2 (the Law of Excluded Middle) incorrectly as merely possible.
In line 5, you misrepresent my argument. My argument is that since it is not XA, it follows from line 2 that it is XB (again using your notation).
There is the problem.

Quag · Dec 20, 2017

Angel said:
In line 2, you correctly use the modal "must" and render (in your own notation) the Law of Excluded Middle as necessary.
In line 3, you correctly render the logical arguments that follow from line 2.
In line 4, you contradict line 2 (the Law of Excluded Middle) and then recast line 2 (the Law of Excluded Middle) incorrectly as merely possible.

There is no contradiction in fact there is actually no other way it can be interpreted.

In line 5, you misrepresent my argument. My argument is that since it is not XA, it follows from line 2 that it is XB (again using your notation).
There is the problem.

First of all, Johnson is correct. If something is unknown, and does not involve a (known) logical contradiction, then it is possible.

How is the above different than saying it is not proven to be XA thus it must be XB?

Angel · Dec 20, 2017

Quag said:
...
We are talking about X
X must be XA or XB
If XA then not XB and vice versa
If X is not known to be XA or XB then it is not known and X can be either XA or XB.
Your argument is that since it is not proven to be XA it must be XB.

...

Quag, this is the most charitable reading of your argument, as far as I can see:

Let's say X is a number, and A is odd and B is even.

Thus:
We are talking about a number
A number must be an odd number or an even number
If an odd number then not an even number and vice versa
If the number is not known to be an odd number or an even number then it is not known and the number can be an odd number or an even number

Your conclusion just takes us back to X is a number (unknown).

My argument says we know something about the unknown number, let's say that it is not divisible by 2. (This "knowledge" corresponds in our actual argument to the fact that there is no contradiction or absurdity involved in the concept of God.) That bit of knowledge allows the argument to be made.

Your appeal to ignorance (and it was yours, not mine) forecloses the argument before it begins.
Your position is: we are totally ignorant of God; therefore, we can say nothing about God.
That is why I have been trying to get you to see that I am talking about the concept of God, which we are not in total ignorance of since our minds produced it.

Quag · Dec 20, 2017

Angel said:
Quag, this is the most charitable reading of your argument, as far as I can see:

Let's say X is a number, and A is odd and B is even.

Thus:
We are talking about a number
A number must be an odd number or an even number
If an odd number then not an even number and vice versa
If the number is not known to be an odd number or an even number then it is not known and the number can be an odd number or an even number

Your conclusion just takes us back to X is a number (unknown).

Ok that works

My argument says we know something about the unknown number, let's say that it is not divisible by 2. (This "knowledge" corresponds in our actual argument to the fact that there is no contradiction or absurdity involved in the concept of God.) That bit of knowledge allows the argument to be made.

But you dont know that it is divisible by two you have no logical reason to make such a claim.
Just like God you dont actually KNOW anything you can only believe but belief is not knowledge.
Hence we are back with XA or XB and no logical way to claim it is either

Your appeal to ignorance (and it was yours, not mine) forecloses the argument before it begins.

No my argument is based on what we actually know which is nothing

Your position is: we are totally ignorant of God; therefore, we can say nothing about God.
That is why I have been trying to get you to see that I am talking about the concept of God, which we are not in total ignorance of since our minds produced it.

Actually that is not my position
My position is we know nothing about God, therefore we can assert nothing as fact we can only assert our beliefs.
Since belief is not fact we are left with not knowing if it is XA or XB and there is no logical way you an assert XB.

Angel · Dec 20, 2017

Well, we persisted for five or six more posts, but your Pyrrhonism makes any further discussion impossible. If you won't acknowledge that we know our own concepts, then there's nothing more to say. I wonder what you have in mind when you use the word "God" and whether you know what you have in mind?
Peace, Quag.