God is omnipotent.
God can therefore microwave a burrito so hot that not even he could eat it.
Therefore, since God cannot eat it, he is not omnipotent.
Therefore, God is a weak construct of the human mind.
Decanus
Logic
God is omnipotent.
God can therefore microwave a burrito so hot that not even he could eat it.
Therefore, since God cannot eat it, he is not omnipotent.
Therefore, God is a weak construct of the human mind.
Signature.
Re: Logic
God is not necessarily omnipotent.
Dux Limitis
Re: Logic
He would just be a god then such as Zeus.Originally Posted by iudas
Comes Limitis
Re: Logic
So? This doesn't make Zeus any less of a god.
This operates on the assumption that a god is omnipotent.
Indefinitely Banned
Re: Logic
This was explained some time ago.
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...44#post5787044
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...73#post5790773
Decanus
Re: Logic
Read what you wrote. Ridiculous. My logic proves your God to be non-existent.
Signature.
Senator
Re: Logic
I love the its ridiculous because-I-said-so mentality. Would you care to elaborate? You can't because you are suspended, but I highly doubt I would get a halfway decent answer.
"I have only two regrets: I didn't shoot Henry Clay and I didn't hang John C. Calhoun."- Andrew Jackson
Re: Logic
If logic is not universally applicable, where then does its validity stem from?
Under patronage of: Wilpuri
quaeri, si sapis
Re: Logic
We cannot have true validity, only assumed validity. This is because logic is fundamentally flawed. In science, you can only use Logic on the basis of assumed validity (ie something that has already been empirically, or sometimes mathematically, proven) where it can do little harm.
Creationist/Theologian logic, on the other hand, tries to use logic to prove base hypotheses, which is a complete waste of time.
Last edited by Copperknickers II; November 30, 2009 at 04:48 PM.
A new mobile phone tower went up in a town in the USA, and the local newspaper asked a number of people what they thought of it. Some said they noticed their cellphone reception was better. Some said they noticed the tower was affecting their health.
A local administrator was asked to comment. He nodded sagely, and said simply: "Wow. And think about how much more pronounced these effects will be once the tower is actually operational."
Comes Limitis
Re: Logic
Logic is universally applicable.
Then again, we're discussing something that exists outside of physical reality, i.e. the universe.
Indefinitely Banned
Re: Logic
I did, and if you consider that God is outside time, it is quite logical. At least all the posters in the thread agreed.
See you post-ban.
Senator
Re: Logic
Silliest logic I've come across.
"Ghlaoigh tú anuas ar an Toirneach, agus anois bain an Chuaifeach."
Primicerius
Re: Logic
tbh, if something is truly omnipotent, then it isn't bound by logic.
I'm a weak atheist btw.
“The human eye is a wonderful device. With a little effort, it can fail to see even the most glaring injustice.”
Dux Limitis
Re: Logic
Something that isn't logical wouldn't be bound by logic.
Praefectus
Re: Logic
Heh, no?
I think that pretty much sums it up, guys.
The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State. - James Madison
Indefinitely Banned
Re: Logic
But maybe logic is bound to something which isn't logical. Infact, the kind of premises we subscribe determine what logic we apply.
We all agree that there are many different formal techniques for studying logical consequence, and very many different formal systems that each propose different relations of logical consequence. But given a particular argument, is the question as to whether it is deductively valid an all-or-nothing affair? The orthodoxy, logical monism, answers affirmatively. There is one relation of deductive consequence, and different formal systems do a better or worse job of modelling that relation. (See, for example, Priest 1999 for a defence of monism.) The logical contextualist or relativist says that the validity of an argument depends on the subject matter or the frame of reference or some other context of evaluation. (For example, a use of the law of the excluded middle might be valid in a classical mathematics textbook, but not in an intuitionistic mathematics textbook, or in a context where we reason about fiction or vague matters.) The logical pluralist, on the other hand, says that of one and the same argument, in one and the same context, there are sometimes different things one should say with respect to its validity. For example, perhaps one ought say that the argument from a contradictory collection of premises to an unrelated conclusion is valid in the sense that in virtue of its form it is not the case that the premises are true an the conclusion untrue (so it is valid in one precise sense) but that nonetheless, in another sense the form of the argument does not ensure that the truth of the premises leads to the truth of the conclusion. The monist or the contextualist holds that in the case of the one argument a single answer must be found for the question of its validity. The pluralist denies this. The pluralist holds that the notion of logical consequence itself may be made more precise in more than one way, just as the original idea of a “good argument” bifurcates into deductive and inductive validity (see Beall and Restall 2000 for a defence of pluralism).
Re: Logic
Correct. Your logic is fair but irrelevant because God is not bound by logic.
quaeri, si sapis
Re: Logic
If God is omnipotent, then he can eat something so hot that he cannot eat it, duh.
Think before you type.
A new mobile phone tower went up in a town in the USA, and the local newspaper asked a number of people what they thought of it. Some said they noticed their cellphone reception was better. Some said they noticed the tower was affecting their health.
A local administrator was asked to comment. He nodded sagely, and said simply: "Wow. And think about how much more pronounced these effects will be once the tower is actually operational."
Indefinitely Banned
Re: Logic
But here we are saying that it is intrauniversally applicable.
Campidoctor
Re: Logic
Since you are assigning a mathematical value of infinity to both god and the burrito, you may consult a qualified mathematician and seek his professional judgment... You can ask him to divide by zero while you're at it... Oh wait, you can't because nobody takes you seriously..
Last edited by Shams al-Ma'rifa; December 01, 2009 at 01:02 PM.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
