I have heard the stupid question my whole life: If God is all powerful, then can He make a rock so large and so weighty that even He cannot lift it Himself (for if He cannot--then He cannot do everything--, and if He cannot do everything, then He is there-fore- not the almighty, Who, by definition, can do anything, and so everything; both all of what positives and negatives at the same time at a once very unto the negation of Himself there-fore- as logic dictates, unless there be a hidden differential somewhere in all that shit).
[That is to iterate the “If He can, then He must’ve’d” circular argument.]
I have heard this stupid question too many times, and have thought of it too often…, even while drifting along the fancy vacational bars, on some islands or other, where the drinks are as cheap as the dime-store hookers and the bar itself is a giant fucking fish tank with a few portly stools parked all stodgy in front of it.
(Those poor fucking bar fish! You can point to one of them inside the bar and the bartender understands your point that that’s the one you want for lunch with a few whiskied mashs to wash it all down about with your thus expensively tasteless sandwich.)
Is man as a designer capable of making a jet-airplane that truds through the clouds unable to outpace a turtle? That would be a slow plane. But since man cannot produce such an aeronautically slow-motion feat, there-fore- man does not exist.
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
What exactly are you arguing for?
HAVE A READ:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnipotence_paradox
After that you will understand that the most logical conclusion is that theists lie about the nature of god everyday.
They do not specify that god is also limited by logic, thus god cannot do everything(repeated in every mass).
Therefor the theistic god is not "absolutely omnipotent".
Although apologetics try to put the blame on the question, they are just shifting the burden of proof.
The question is a legit question that arises from their claims.
They are the one claiming Omnipotence and that god can do everything in every mass.
Logic dictates that the person making the claim must support it.
They must provide a good explanation how the theistic god is incapable of being capable to break logic.
Why must the theistic god obey logic?
Making an other claim that Logic is part of the theistic god is not a good explanation, it is another claim.
See, this is another version of God of the gaps, where we do not know what created logic so for now let god be part of logic itself.
HomunculusThor - "But since man cannot produce such an aeronautically slow-motion feat, there-fore- man does not exist."
If you had started with the postulate that man was omnipotent then you would have reached a contradiction, but you didn't start with that (and no one will take you seriously if you do start with that postulate).
Also, you could easily make such a vehicle, there is just no financial incentive to do so. Ever seen a VTOL plane? Would just need to modify that.
"Is man as a designer capable of making a jet-airplane that truds through the clouds unable to outpace a turtle? That would be a slow plane. But since man cannot produce such an aeronautically slow-motion feat, there-fore- man does not exist."
"Also, you could easily make such a vehicle, there is just no financial incentive to do so. Ever seen a VTOL plane? Would just need to modify that."
Actually there is a military plane that already does that, it is called a Harrier Jump Jet.
History:
http://www.technologystudent.com/culture1/harr2.htm
Slower then turtle, even reverse.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5TmzW05Qe3A
It can stand in air in the same place and it is a jet-airplane so it fits the conditions.
How about a hot air balloon ?
He clearly put the condition that it must be a jet-airplane, a hot air balloon is not the right candidate.
A Harrier is.
However even though his example sucks, the premise is also incorrect since no-one ever claimed that humans were omnipotent.
So he clearly does not know what he is talking about here.
"I have heard the stupid question my whole life: If God is all powerful, then can He make a rock so large and so weighty that even He cannot lift it Himself (for if He cannot--then He cannot do everything--, and if He cannot do everything, then He is there-fore- not the almighty, Who, by definition, can do anything, and so everything; both all of what positives and negatives at the same time at a once very unto the negation of Himself there-fore- as logic dictates, unless there be a hidden differential somewhere in all that shit).
[That is to iterate the “If He can, then He must’ve’d” circular argument.]"
Nope, full stop. The argument at no point assumes that god MUST do what the argument asks if it can, it only asks if it can, there is a distinction. If I claimed to be an expert painter, and you asked me if I was able to paint something, I should be able to answer in the affirmative if I am as much of an expert as I claimed; regardless of whether or not I had any intention to do so. Likewise, if I claimed to be all-powerful and you approached me with such a dilemma, I should be able to answer that question; whether I had any intention of doing so or not.
"I have heard this stupid question too many times, and have thought of it too often…, even while drifting along the fancy vacational bars, on some islands or other, where the drinks are as cheap as the dime-store hookers and the bar itself is a giant fucking fish tank with a few portly stools parked all stodgy in front of it.
(Those poor fucking bar fish! You can point to one of them inside the bar and the bartender understands your point that that’s the one you want for lunch with a few whiskied mashs to wash it all down about with your thus expensively tasteless sandwich.)"
Sorry, I don't go to bars, and I don't devote hours of my time to inanely simplified dilemmas meant to show the logical impossibility of claiming infinite power in a finite universe.
"Is man as a designer capable of making a jet-airplane that truds through the clouds unable to outpace a turtle?"
Yes, if made light and broad enough, once the plane was in the air it could hover if minimal upward thrust is applied. We could build a plane that could hover, we have as a matter of fact, a Harrier Jet can hover stationary(slower than a turtle) at low altitudes.
"That would be a slow plane. But since man cannot produce such an aeronautically slow-motion feat, there-fore- man does not exist."
The argument does not address the existence of god in a broad sense, only the strict omnimax deity of most monotheistic religions, it addresses the properties of said god. An omnimax deity cannot exist, logically, the argument does not work against any deity that doesn't claim to be omnipotent. That means that their god could still exist, just not as described.
Your argument would make good sense, if humanity was also imaginary. It is fair to ask someone who claims they can do everything, to clarify how they do it. Especially if there is no evidence that that something exists.
And you find the bars seedy, yet you go and eat there!? What gives?