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.
no it doesn't stand, what makes something logical is that it does not imply a contradiction.
"God knows the outcomes of his creatures" does not contradict "God created and tests his creatures"
you could say all kinds of things, starting with that would not be necessary and so on.
and we can clarify our view. but again, you can not say that is not logical unless it implies contradiction.
We are still working with different definitions of omnipotence and all knowing.
Most of us say, when you say "all knowing" we take it literally. ALL... Knowing.... which yes is sets up all kinds of logical contradictions when you talk in absolutes.
Most theist when asked to define it, will say all knowing: but... except...in god's situation... etc.
We are simply working with two different definitions of all knowing. Your definition of all knowing, there is no contradictions, no logic flaws. Most of us atheist definition of "all knowing" there is logical flaws all over.
We do this demanding of a precise definition, to hold people to something, instead of trying to grasp at cooking oil floating in water. If anyone is allowed to loosely define words and how they use them, they can never be held accountable to their words. We can not go well you said "x" now you are saying "x + y," now you are just saying "z."
We already figured out when it comes to descriptions of your god, the standard, agreed upon definitions do not apply. We try to pin down a certain definition, then we point the flaws out of the new definition. Then you guys add to that definition. Or add descriptor words to the base word.
I feel like we are down to: the definition of god is: "god" no other words are good enough. Everything else is perhaps a close but not exact description, it is impossible to clearly define god. Why? Because as soon as you do, suddenly this "god" idea is open to actual examination, actual standards of proof. Most theist are fine with loose definitions, not carefully clearly concisely defined words. Being vague is often a tactic used by liars and people that have something to hide. When it takes paragraphs to explain a simple concept like: "all powerful" you know you got a problem. When most people use absolutes they do not have to defend them. We will all some day die. No need for something like: "we will all die except when it makes no logical sense that we will die."
We atheist like clear and precise and concise. We can all agree that is the superior method. Theist agree with that except apparently when it comes to their religion/god.
Definition of atheist: Not theist. That is it. Try to find a logic flaw in that simple very short definition. There is no: "can an atheist create a rock that is to heavy for the theist to lift."
There is no: "If an atheist know everything how can there be free will." We make no such claims. We do not have to write in exceptions to the definition of atheist.
For example we never have to write something like:
"An atheist is: not a theist except: when its logically impossible to not be a theist."
"We try to pin down a certain definition, then we point the flaws out of the new definition. Then you guys add to that definition. Or add descriptor words to the base word."
why don't you call it clarification rather than adding?
"When it takes paragraphs to explain a simple concept like: "all powerful" you know you got a problem"
when it takes paragraphs to explain a simple concept like: 'Logical impossibilities are not Possible in themselves' you know you got a problem.
i admit that, but i also know which side got these problems.
"We atheist like clear and precise and concise."
if you like concise then stay away from philosophy and theology, Comic books would be good for you. and it's not even true that whatever you can not comprehend is not precise.
Clear, simple precise examples: (note: these are my views, I do not represent the views of all atheist.)
-God has not been proven via supporting evidence. The default then is: there is no god. The burden is on theist to prove their god, not for people to prove no god.
-The soul has not been proven via supporting evidence. The default then is: there is no soul. The burden is on those that believe in souls to prove souls, not for people to prove that there is no soul.
-Holy books are written by man. There is no proof of some sort of divine input via supporting evidence. The burden is on those that believe holy books are more than just books written by people, not for people to prove that which has not yet been proven.
-Evolution is how living things adapt and change to their hostile environment, that has limited resources. There is an enormous amount of supporting evidence we can test and retest that supports this scientific theory. It is a burden for those that say evolution is not correct to come up with more supporting evidence to their alternative.
Just some examples of clear and concise. No long books or explanations needed.
My philosophy is very simple, easy to explain because it is clear, precise and concise.
I personally did not take paragraphs to explain logical impossibilities are not possible themselves.
I like movies based on comic books, they tend to be even more concise. I also like to read philosophy books, physics books, psychology books, they tend to be not so concise. I have an interest in debating theology topics, but i do find most theology books quite boring.
We are not talking about what I cannot comprehend we are talking about what I can comprehend.
An example of the importance of burden of proof:
You owe me 1 million dollars. <== a claim not supported by evidence.
Would it be your job to prove that you do not owe me 1 million dollars? What if you actually did do all the work to prove you do not owe me 1 million dollars. Now I simply turn around and say you owe me 1 million and 1 dollars. Do you again have to prove you do not owe me 1 million and 1 dollars? Of course not that would be insane.
Therefore the burden of proof is not on you to prove that you do not owe me 1 million dollars. The burden of proof is on me to show you owe me 1 million dollars. I made the claim, (in this case an extraordinary claim.) This is the importance of understanding the concept of the burden of proof, backed by evidence. I also cannot just write a long complex book that explains why you owe me 1 million dollars and simply say my book is the truth that you owe me 1 million dollars, much more is needed for my extraordinary claim. I need real evidence.
You already know this burden of proof requirement, for hopefully, nearly every other aspect of your life (like my money example.) Just suddenly, the rules change when it comes to theist and their religions. You may feel you have proof of your god. You don't, and most certainly: you and other theist do not proof that is needed to have other rational people accept the very! extraordinary claims of your god idea.
"Prove the implication"
The labels of omnipotence etc.. are claimed by theists, you have the burden of proof! Trying to shift the burden of proof is yet another logical fallacy.
irrelevant, i did not say prove that god is not omnipotent or omniscient. xenoview has asserted a certain claim and i asked him to prove it. nothing else
I assert that logical impossibilities are impossible. However that most defiantly does NOT mean that these "paradoxes" (I would use the word contradiction here) are meaningless. Listen; I don't want to insult you but I don't see a way around it. If you think contradictions are meaningless; then clearly you don't know how formal logic and proofs are done. Period. I'm sorry.
do you assert that what is impossible in itself could be affected or be as a receiving part to an effect? if you do then you're saying that's what is impossible are possible in itself not as you said. but if you don't then how can something like 'can god make 2+2=5 OR can he predicate two contradictories on one subject OR can he cease to exist or turn something necessary in itself into something contingent in itself and so on.' not be meaningless?
I'm starting to get tired of answering this question. For the last time: I don't believe that, I have never suggested that I do believe that. Stop asking; it is becoming spam at this point.
Again; if you think contradictions are meaningless; then you are in so deep over your head there is no reason to continue. I'll make it really simple for you:
p1) Joe is a dog.
p2) All dogs wear hats.
p3) Joe does not wear a hat.
What conclusion can be made from this? If you can't do this; well I don't know what to say.
I'm also still waiting for a response to this post.
And also this one.
what can not be affected, can it be affected? that nonsense is what the 'paradox' asks.
Added: "For the last time: I don't believe that, I have never suggested that I do believe that"
well, these are the reasons why i see those 'paradoxes' as a complete nonsense, they should even never be asked. what is your problem with that as you don't believe of those things either?
P2 either means that all dogs wear hats Potentially Or Actually
if it's the latter then there can not be something that can be said to be a dog but not wears a hat so P3 would be false. if it's the former so P3 seems sound because P2 would say all dogs potentially wear hats, so Joe can be a dog and not wearing a hat
i don't see how does this relate?
If you don't see how it relates, you got a big problem. Please be serious. I gave you 3 simple postulates. All you need to do is write the simple conclusion, and there is only one possible conclusion. This couldn't be easier. Please try again.
did you even read what i have written? Do you know the difference between Potentiality and Actuality? clarify your P2. does it mean that all dogs 'can' wear hats or they actually wear hats?
One last chance; and I'll remove the language barrier for you:
p1) a ∈ A
p2) A ⊆ B
p3) a ∉ B
how can we make conclusions from contradictory premises? one of them must be false. it's either that a isn't an instance of A or it's that A isn't a subset of B or it's that a Is indeed an instance of B.
P1 & P2 entails that a ∈ B, then how come that its negation is a premise with them? that would imply that a is and isn't an instance of B or a is not a.
You are getting close! You've almost passed kinder-garden logic! Keep trying!
there cannot be any conclusions other than contradictory ones
So you are incapable of finding the one and only conclusion; even with hints, in the simplest example I can think of. Not good.
yeah i haven't even reached the kinder-garden level in logic, what would be the conclusion?
At least one of the postulates is false.
i said that one of them must be false.
So you've upgraded from sneaking in 1 liner postulates as necessary to defend your proof; to importing whole books? No thanks.
you just ignored the whole comment and that the only thing that catches your eyes?
Added: referring to the books was because of the language thing, just in case you can not understand these concepts better from what i have wrote. and whoever seeks truth, a Topic in a book should never be an issue for him.
"i do not know what contingent and necessary mean and i would not read about them to know what they mean but any one gonna use them i'm gonna say to him that i will have to consider any appeal to them as fiat" that's an absolute Arrogance.
And there it is, the ultimate straw-man; the fraudulent quote! I'm done being nice. You have degraded from offering a formal proof to just posting strawmen, bad logic, innuendos, and finally just blatant lying. You also seem unable to make even the simplest deduction. I think we are way beyond the language barrier at this point.
i did not say that you said that but i put them in a quote because that's what your behavior says. you just ignored what i wrote you don't even wanna read about these concepts and you don't want me to use them. what would you call that?
If you did that in a university; your career would be over as you'd be expelled for dishonestly. You are a liar.
so the problem is that i quoted what you didn't uttered but meant and it's not your Arrogance right?
The problem is that you have been exposed as a liar.
i'm not a liar. that's what you're, an arrogant. and that is what you said even if you did not write it the same way i did.
When you put quotation marks around a statement, you are claiming that it was said EXACTLY the way you wrote it. That is what the fucking quotation marks mean, EXACT. If you change even a single letter (without marking the change) it is lying. You fabricated the whole thing!
Oh my god, are we gonna argue and insult each other just because quotation marks? i told you that i know you didn't write the exact same words but i write what you meant. are you upset because i used the quotation marks not in a precise way?