On Logical Impossibilities

159 posts / 0 new
Last post
Peripatetic's picture
On Logical Impossibilities

To Atheists, it's either you think that logical impossibilities are things/possible, can come under the domain of Power in general, and can serve as a receiving side to an effect i.e its essence/nature is susceptible to be affected OR you don't.

if it's the latter then why all that nonsense about Omnipotence paradoxes? and if it's the former then suppose that we, theists, say that yes, God can do logical impossibilities, he can make two contradictories coexist at the same time. So we would say yeah he can create a rock but can't lift it. then what? what would be your point here?

would you say that he is impotent? yeah he is impotent and therefore he is omnipotent. remember, we have acknowledged that two contradictories can coexist at the same time and logical impossibilities are possible in themselves. so affirmation and negation can be predicated upon one subject at the same time.

god can make himself cease to exist, so what! he would be susceptible to nothingness and therefore contingent? it's okay he would still be necessary in himself. what would be wrong with that? You can not say that's impossible or you'd be refuting yourselves
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Forgive me for my messy English ( i don't even know if that is an appropriate expression) but it's not my first language and i'm trying my best.

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.

chimp3's picture
Word salad or word meatloaf?

Word salad or word meatloaf?

Randomhero1982's picture
Because it is the same old

Because it is the same old bollocks theists use!
You use a word to define something, then when the logical inconsistencies are pointed you try to change what you mean or the definition of the word(s) in question.

Theists cannot provide any real evidence and always try to shift the burden of proof, which is one major stonewall logical fallacy!

And that's something you need to work on because theology is the only strand of 'evidence' you have... No genuine science, cosmology, historical non bias documentation supports your assertion.

Peripatetic's picture
it's you who misuses language

it's you who misuses language and think that whatever can be put together to make a sentence must have an essence and therefore possible, and can receive effects. even if that sentence negates what it affirms.

xenoview's picture
Word salad.

Word salad.

RedleT's picture
So everything that goes over

So everything that goes over your head you call a word salad. That shows how smart you are or maybe you do understand it since it was pretty basic English and you just don't know how to refute it.

xenoview's picture
It is a word salad. It's not

It is a word salad. It's not over my head. It doesn't prove a god is real. Can you prove a god is real?

RedleT's picture
Did he say he was trying to

Did he say he was trying to prove God is real?

xenoview's picture
He claimed god could do

He claimed god could do logical impossible things, that is saying a god is real. So Dumb Ox can you prove a god is real?

RedleT's picture
No that is not what he said.

No that is not what he said. I suggest you reread his post.

xenoview's picture
So your saw god is not real?

So your saying god is not real?

RedleT's picture
No, I am saying that he DID

No, I am saying that he DID NOT say that God can do logicically impossible things, which is what you said he said.

RedleT's picture
Very, very good point

Very, very good point Peripatetic and your English is fine.

Nyarlathotep's picture
Peripatetic - either you

Peripatetic - either you think that logical impossibilities are ...possible...OR you don't.
if it's the latter then why all that nonsense about Omnipotence paradoxes
if it's the former...what would be your point here?

If logical impossibilities are impossible; then what most theists tell us (at least some part of it) must be false, since it is self contradictory; god is not logical (at least as he is typically presented).

If logical impossibilities are possible; then nothing is logical.
----------------------------------
Your English (at least in written form) is good enough to pass as a native speaker, IMO.

Peripatetic's picture
"what most theists tell us

"what most theists tell us (at least some part of it) must be false, since it is self contradictory; god is not logical (at least as he is typically presented)"

How is that true? if you are talking about asserting that god is all powerful is self contradictory, No it isn't. what is self contradictory is treating logical impossibilities as if it can be susceptible to Power, then it would be you who contradict when you asking about them being affected by god. a man who is not a man IS NOT a thing at all in order to be affected and be brought to existence. and that defect is not in god's side. it as if you saying Everything under god's power, logical impossibilities are not things, therefore logical impossibilities must be under god's power.

even if we go along with you and treated logical impossibilities as if they were possible in themselves, that would lead to absurd consequences as we saw. you would not be able to prove anything, god's imperfection would mean that he is perfect, god's nonexistence would mean that he exist. there would not be any reason to believe that a valid and sound argument for the non-existence of god would not prove his existence.

in short, if you sustain that logical impossibilities are impossible in themselves and necessitate their nonexistence then you have to stop treating them as if they are possible, thus your paradoxes would be meaningless.

if you sustain that it's possible even by god only, then i could agree with you but after all, you would not be able to prove nothing.

Nyarlathotep's picture
Peripatetic - ...you are

Peripatetic - ...you are talking about asserting that god is all powerful is self contradictory

Strawman; I haven't said that, hinted at it, asserted it, nor do I believe that.

The postulate that X is all powerful is not a contradiction. If however we add to that: X can't do A, but Y can do A; that forms a contradiction. One (or more) of those statements must be false.

It is the adding of additional statement to absolute statements that typically leads quickly to contradiction.
------------------------------

Peripatetic - if you sustain that logical impossibilities are impossible in themselves and necessitate their nonexistence then you have to stop treating them as if they are possible

Another strawman. That is in fact the opposite of what I have done. Yikes!

Peripatetic's picture
i did not say that you have

i did not say that you have said the exact same thing. i just said "IF you are talking about .... " because i did not understand how do theists make self contradictory claims.

If A means that being able to create a thing but can't lift it. then all what Y can do is creating a thing. and X indeed can do that.
Y cannot lift it, but that is not an ability it's a disability. you're misusing language. we do not say that humans have the ability not to lift extreme heavy objects. that's a disability not an ability. so we do not say that humans can can't lift that thing.

so A would be composite of an ability and disability, you're treating disability as if it's an ability, and make humans surpass god by being disabled.

so what you are really saying is that Y can not do something but X can, so X is not all powerful. and that's absurd.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
and by the way we do not say that god has a body and muscles. but humans have, so humans can not lift something because it's heavier than what they can bear to lift. But as for god, this is not the case, so there would be no reason to think that he would not be able to lift the rock. the power/ability in these two cases are not the same. In humans case, Physical power would delineate their ability, so they might not be able to lift something. But in god's case, he would not be dependent on his muscles to lift the thing he can do it without even touching it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Added:
straw man is about assertions not about assumptions, If i say " IF you sustain that, then the answer would be ............ and if you sustain this, then the answer would be ............." then it isn't a straw man because i'm not saying that you sustain that, i just mentioned the possibilities

Nyarlathotep's picture
Peripatetic - Y cannot lift

Peripatetic - Y cannot lift it, but that is not an ability it's a disability. you're misusing language

I haven't said a word about lifting anything: strawman.
----------------------------------

Peripatetic - what you are really saying is that Y can not do something but X can, so X is not all powerful

Again, not my argument, I haven't said that, I don't mean that, and I don't believe that: strawman.
----------------------------------
Is it possible for you to address what I actually wrote; and not some fantasy version of what I wrote?

Peripatetic's picture
yeah it's possible, how about

yeah it's possible, how about you stop talking about what you have not said, and just clarify what you have.

i did not say you have said that, i said "IF A means .... then ......"

Again, what did you mean by what you have said and how does it relate to my post? what could 'A' be?

Nyarlathotep's picture
Peripatetic - i did not say

Peripatetic - i did not say you have said that, i said "IF A means .... then ......"

-------------------------------

Peripatetic - you're misusing language.

That is not a conditional.
-------------------------------

Peripatetic - what you are really saying is...

Again, not a conditional.
-------------------------------

Peripatetic - how about you stop talking about what you have not said, and just clarify what you have

Which part do you want clarified?

Peripatetic's picture
what is your objection to

what is your objection to what have been posted? and what do you mean by 'A'? just give me an example

Nyarlathotep's picture
Peripatetic - what do you

Peripatetic - what do you mean by 'A'? just give me an example

p1) A means "juggle 3 knives at once".
p2) X is all powerful.
p3) Y can do A.
p4) X can not do A.
Do you agree that this forms a contradiction?

Peripatetic's picture
i would say that's ridiculous

i would say that's ridiculous, because why not also saying, Y can sneeze, take a piss, ride a car, get married, play for Barcelona and so on, But god can't, therefore god is not all powerful? is that the kind of reasoning you use?

as for juggling 3 knives, i would say that god has no body, and no hands, but i would say that god can make the knives go up and down just in the same way that one can juggles them.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Added:
but what do you think of the post, we were talking about logical impossibilities. what do you think of them? are they possible in themselves or not?

If you assert that it's the latter, do you accept that the paradoxes would be meaningless? and if you assert the former, do you accept that there would be absurd consequences and therefore you would not be able to prove your point?

Nyarlathotep's picture
Peripatetic - because why

Peripatetic - because why not also saying, Y can sneeze, take a piss, ride a car, get married, play for Barcelona and so on, But god can't, therefore god is not all powerful?

I couldn't agree more. If God can't play for Barcelona, then god is not all powerful. Now I've always assumed that if god were real, then he could play for Barcelona (or whatever); after all, I've been told my whole life that god can do anything! But recently theists have been posting things that god can't do, that humans can do. Leading to a contradiction smorgasbord.

Tip: don't use the word "all", if you don't mean "all".

Peripatetic's picture
but all of these would imply

but all of these would imply that he must have a body, but if he has a body then he would be contingent since every body changes and is composite of its parts and therefore he would be causally dependent on them. But a necessary being can not turn to contingent that's a contradiction
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Added: about the words 'Omnipotent' 'all powerful' 'has unlimited/infinite power', in Arabic we don't use these words we just says the he is powerful and by that we mean that he has power over everything and that what i mean when i use these words. i'm just using them because you guys are familiar with.

Nyarlathotep's picture
Peripatetic - would imply

Peripatetic - would imply that he must has a body

Again, I've been told my whole life by theists that god does/did in fact have a body. If god can't have a body, god can not be all powerful!
---------------------------

Peripatetic - every body changes

If God can't stop a body from changing, then god is not all powerful!
---------------------------
And I see you are sneaking in more postulates. You ever going to rewrite that formal proof and include the missing pieces?

Peripatetic's picture
it's either Christians are

it's either Christians are dumb in theology or it's the case that atheists are the dumb. However i once listened to William Craig and he asserted that god has no body and is immaterial non physical entity. so i think it's pretty outrageous in theology.

that's like saying if god can't stop the impossible things from being impossible that would mean that he isn't all powerful.
being susceptible to changes is something that the essence delineates, if something is contingent then it must be susceptible to change and be affected, if it isn't then it would have been either necessary or impossible, and that's a contradiction

i think you'd have to read more in theology.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Added: i see strategy changing here. it was, can god do logical impossibilities? then it becomes can god do what man do? what happened?

Nyarlathotep's picture
Peripatetic - it's either

Peripatetic - it's either Christians are dumb in theology or it's the case that atheists are the dumb. However i once listened to William Craig and he asserted that god has no body and is immaterial non physical entity

I wouldn't take anything Craig says too seriously; in fact:

William Lane Craig - But Christ has exited this four-dimensional space-time continuum....Similarly, Christ's human nature, no longer immersed in spacetime, does not manifest itself as a body. But someday Christ will return and re-enter our four-dimensional space-time continuum, and then his body will become manifest. In the new heavens and the new earth Christ will be corporeally present to his people. Christ, then, has a human nature which is manifested as his physical resurrection body when he exists in a spatio-temporal universe.

So much for William Lane Craig.
--------------------------------

Peripatetic - i see strategy changing here. it was, can god do logical impossibilities? then it becomes can god do what man do? what happened?

Nothing happened because that was never my argument/strategy. In fact I already agreed with you that god not being able to make a square circle does not contradict being "all powerful". But when people started listing things that I can do that god can not; that does contradict being "all powerful".
---------------------------------------

Peripatetic - it's either Christians are dumb...

Something we can agree on?!

Peripatetic's picture
But when people started

But when people started listing things that I can do that god can not; that does contradict being "all powerful"

but that is a contradiction. because god would have to be contingent in order for him to do these things. and what is necessary or impossible does not turn into contingent and vice versa. so what you are really asking about is the ability to do what is logically impossible. so it's no different than making a square circle.

Nyarlathotep's picture
Peripatetic - because god

Peripatetic - because god would have to be contingent in order for him to do these things

Perhaps, but I'm still waiting for your rewrite on necessary and contingent beings; until then I will have to consider any appeal to them as fiat. Sorry.

Peripatetic's picture
A necessary being exists

A necessary being exists through itself, its nature guarantees/necessitates its existence. it can not fail to exist as its essence is not even susceptible to nothingness, so it can not be brought to existence as it has always existed.

as for god he can not have a body cause he would have parts so he would be complex. so he would only exist through these parts so he lacks/needs them, so he is dependent on them and therefore contingent upon them but we have assumed just the opposite, so he cannot have a body.

there's a doctrine in Islamic theology and philosophy states that Complexity denotes Contingency. and we mean by complexity that something is composite of parts. we also uphold that lacking/needing/dependency/being affected contradicts necessity and therefore denotes contingency.

Bodies change, so they are being caused, they are susceptible to effects. but a necessary being isn't, because then it would have been causally dependent on something else that which affect on it. and that is what changes can not be necessary because otherwise it would still as it was, as the necessary defined as a thing that the supposition of its nonexistence entails an impossibility. so, what is necessary never changes.

Changing denotes Occurring which denotes being caused which denotes dependency which denotes Contingency.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If you get that, then we say that Contingency/Possibility simply means the negation of necessity. so when we say that something is contingent we mean that this thing neither its essence necessitates/guarantees its existence nor precludes it (i.e necessitates its non-existence). a thing that the supposition of its existence or nonexistence doesn't entail an impossibility IS indeed contingent/possible.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
the impossible would be a thing the supposition of whose existence entails an impossibility.

that's the best i can do, it may seem messy and not well organized. i wish you could understand Arabic so i could explain it to you better than that. but i think there are books in English about Ilm al kalam (theology) and Islamic Philosophy. these topics are essential in both of them so they would be well explained in these books, you can read about them if you're interested.

Pages

Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.