On Logical Impossibilities
Donating = Loving
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.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
I'm curious to hear what you have to say about Craig contradicting himself.
Anyway consider what I said earlier (that you seemed to take issue with):
Would you now be willing to agree that is true, at least in the limited case of William Lane Craig (in reference to the bold part)? Or is that a bridge too far?
"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."
i honestly can not see the implication. what self contradictory things do we assert apart from the trinity doctrine? because that was never been discussed neither in this thread nor the thread about the omnipotence paradox, and you can not tell me that the trinity thing was your point from the word go, i would say that's a retreat.
that is another Topic if you want to refute trinity because it entails logical impossibility that's fine. but it would be another subject. but what we have been arguing about, is that you think if god can't make what humans can do then he is not all powerful. so we better stick to what we are discussing. and then see who makes logical contradictory claims about god.
I know, that is exactly why I asked you this question. The basic logic seems to have gone totally over your head. Maybe its a language thing...
Are you for real? I'm getting tired of the innuendos. I'm sorry that the language this site is run in is not your native language; but if you want to have a civil conversation; you must stop this.
Are you going to answer the question? Did Craig make a contradictory claims?
To clarify, Christians believe that God by nature has no body and he is not made up in parts. However, we also believe He is a Trinity and that the Second Devine Person took on a human nature to his own hypostasis. So He has both a human and Devine nature, so in a way we can say God has a body, but the Father and Holy Spirit are also God but do not have bodies. Also, we believe there is only on God but three Devine Persons in that God.
And I don't want to argue about Trinitarian theology. I just wanted to clarify that the Devine nature is imaterial and not corporeal.
If god has no body, why does it state in Genesis that god made Adam and Eve in his image?
Because He did. Keep in mind words mean slightly different things in different contexts. We have free will and intellect in an analogous way to how God has them. This is how we are primarily made in the image of God.
Here we go again with the context crap, and the famous or infamous your taking it out of context. The bible plainly stated that god made Adam and Eve in his image, that implies a body right?
i told you before, that could mean that god created humans in a perfect way/image. why would you insist that it means that god has a body?
is it because you just want it to be like that?
Are you scare of god having a body? Does that make god frail and weak?
God has no hands? Maybe he does since all gods are imaginary.
Job 27:11(NKJV) = “I will teach you about the hand of God; What is with the Almighty I will not conceal."
Job 34:19 (CEB) = "Who shows no favor to princes nor regards the rich over the poor, for they are all the work of God’s hands?"
Psalm 19:2 (CJB) = "The heavens declare the glory of God, the dome of the sky speaks the work of his hands."
Psalm 95:7 "He is our God, and we are the people of his pasture, the sheep in his hands. If only you would listen to his voice right now!"
Isaiah 9:12 (CEB) = "Aram from the east and the Philistines from the west— and they devoured Israel with an open mouth. Even then God’s anger didn’t turn away; God’s hand was still extended."
Mark 16:19 (CJB) = "So then, after he had spoken to them, the Lord Yeshua was taken up into heaven and sat at the right hand of God."
1 Peter 5:6 (CJB) = "Therefore, humble yourselves under the mighty hand of God, so that at the right time he may lift you up."
you would make a good salafist.
What if A isn't a positive thing, but a negation of a thing?
I made no assertion that A is a positive thing. Furthermore, I'm not even sure what that would mean. Worse still: I'm not sure what negation of a thing would mean in this context.
What you said also seems to hint that the negation of a thing is the opposite of a positive thing; I would be very cautious about such an idea.
I guess it is somewhat vague without context. Basically, I am thinking about good verse evil.
It comes down to two things, either god is all powerful and can do everything, or god is just powerful and can't do everything.
word salad and complete nonsense
i would say the same about your paradoxes. it fits them more than my post.
The paradoxes are used because theists wrongly use words, they will say god is omnipotent which by definition is (in regards of a deity) having unlimited power...
"God is described as omnipotent and benevolent" i.e. all-powerful, almighty, supreme, most high, pre-eminent...
Unlimited implies there should be nothing out of its power! Theists fail here everytime and then go on a word salad and logical fallacy merry go round to change the definition itself.
There is other situations where this occurs such as describing 'god' as being omniscience... which is by definition... having complete or unlimited knowledge, awareness, or understanding; perceiving all things...
If this is the case then the arguments must be made such as, why did he ask Adam where he was? How could have made so many mistakes?
It also begs the question that if he is all knowing and merciful then he must be aware that some people such as us are non believers and that he has provided no proof of his existence... why would he say he punishes non believers? This is a massive logical and rational problem and raises huge a moral dilemma.
Also omnipresence, meaning he is everywhere at all times... which would assert that he is within our reality and therefore should be testable and falsifiable...
And finally, Omnibenevolent which is described as having unlimited or infinite benevolence... which raises serious questions considering he displays all the morals of a vindictive dictator... the old testament alone is horrific!
These key points are made and never answered truly by theists, purely reverting back to their scriptures from their holy books which have no basis for evidence... they don't even have any coorbarating evidence from non bias sources at the times they claim to have bean made.
Or they simply try to change the meaning of words.
Either way, it's a steaming pile of Ken Ham.
"Unlimited implies there should be nothing out of its power"
regardless the word unlimited, but i would agree that there is not a thing that isn't under his power. and here the problem arises, because you atheists think that logical impossibilities are 'things' which come under the domain of power and be susceptible to be affected therefore there are Possible and that's a contradiction on your side not on ours. Logical impossibilities are Pure negation and what is pure negation does not come under a cause-effect relation.
"that he has provided no proof of his existence... why would he say he punishes non believers?"
is that a necessarily known fact? if it's, then how come that there are many people assert that there are proofs for his existence? or it's true just because you said so?
"If this is the case then the arguments must be made such as, why did he ask Adam where he was? How could have made so many mistakes?"
How is this even an objection? You have never asked a question when you knew the answer?
Why did god ask where Adam and Eve were at when they hid from god? God is suppose to be all knowing.
Maybe he wanted them to be honest. There are so many reasons why he could have asked, just like there are so many reasons why people ask questions that they know the answers to. Just the other day I asked some one a question to be polite even though I already new the answer.
Maybe your just afraid to say your god is not all knowing. If it was all knowing then it wouldn't need to ask where Adam and Eve were.
prove the implication, i do not accept that any question must imply the ignorance of whom he asked.
If god had to call out to Adam and Eve when they hid from, then god is not all knowing.
that's exactly what i need you to prove. you just repeated the same damn thing without proving that the antecedent implies the consequent.
I've never claimed to be omniscient!
In fact, I would say it is a ridiculous notion that does not concord with testable and observable reality.
In regards to adam and eve and his omniscience... he creates them and tests them... all whilst already knowing the outcome because after all he is omniscient
Then punishes them after...
And not just them... all mankind!!!!
Is this logical? Rational? Moral?
yeah it's logical, if your definition for 'logical' wasn't that what matches your ideas, but rather what doesn't imply a contradiction.
Bloody hell, how many logical strawmen will you commit in a thread? You could create a life time of wizard of oz screenplays!
My definition of logic is as it is described... that what is of or according to the rules of logic or formal argument!
So my point is valid and stands!