Total Posts:294|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Something to ponder...

Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2013 11:09:41 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
If God can create a being that does evil, why can't he commit a being that can make a perfectly spherical cube? Both goodness and logic are inherent to God's nature if he exists. So, if he can create beings that go against his nature in one way (beings that lie and commit evil), why cannot he create beings that violate logic as well?
themohawkninja
Posts: 816
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2013 11:43:55 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/29/2013 11:09:41 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Why cannot he create beings that violate logic as well?

If we replace the term "create beings", with just "do things", one of the ways to look at the origin of the universe (pre-big bang/multi-verse) is that before things came into being, there was nothing, therefore the law of conservation of energy and mass must have been broken to create the universe. If you believe in beings that live on a higher plane of existence, this failure to logically explain where everything came from would lead you to assert that some higher being must have made everything that exists.
"Morals are simply a limit to man's potential."~Myself

Political correctness is like saying you can't have a steak, because a baby can't eat one ~Unknown
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2013 11:46:06 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/29/2013 11:43:55 AM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 10/29/2013 11:09:41 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Why cannot he create beings that violate logic as well?

If we replace the term "create beings", with just "do things", one of the ways to look at the origin of the universe (pre-big bang/multi-verse) is that before things came into being, there was nothing, therefore the law of conservation of energy and mass must have been broken to create the universe. If you believe in beings that live on a higher plane of existence, this failure to logically explain where everything came from would lead you to assert that some higher being must have made everything that exists.

That has nothing to do with my post... Are you high?
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2013 11:47:30 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/29/2013 11:45:07 AM, AnDoctuir wrote:
So dumb.

You are supposed to talk about why God can create beings that do things that go against his nature in one aspect (he can create beings that do evil), but he cannot create beings that violate logic. This is not a thread for describing yourself. If you want to describe yourself, then please go to the personal section.
themohawkninja
Posts: 816
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2013 11:48:29 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/29/2013 11:46:06 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 10/29/2013 11:43:55 AM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 10/29/2013 11:09:41 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Why cannot he create beings that violate logic as well?

If we replace the term "create beings", with just "do things", one of the ways to look at the origin of the universe (pre-big bang/multi-verse) is that before things came into being, there was nothing, therefore the law of conservation of energy and mass must have been broken to create the universe. If you believe in beings that live on a higher plane of existence, this failure to logically explain where everything came from would lead you to assert that some higher being must have made everything that exists.

That has nothing to do with my post... Are you high?

It's perfectly relevant. You are asking if God could create beings that violate logic, and I am saying that he probably can, because you can assert that he has done things that go against logic (the origin of the universe).

How isn't that relevant?
"Morals are simply a limit to man's potential."~Myself

Political correctness is like saying you can't have a steak, because a baby can't eat one ~Unknown
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2013 11:52:29 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/29/2013 11:48:29 AM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 10/29/2013 11:46:06 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 10/29/2013 11:43:55 AM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 10/29/2013 11:09:41 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Why cannot he create beings that violate logic as well?

If we replace the term "create beings", with just "do things", one of the ways to look at the origin of the universe (pre-big bang/multi-verse) is that before things came into being, there was nothing, therefore the law of conservation of energy and mass must have been broken to create the universe. If you believe in beings that live on a higher plane of existence, this failure to logically explain where everything came from would lead you to assert that some higher being must have made everything that exists.

That has nothing to do with my post... Are you high?

It's perfectly relevant. You are asking if God could create beings that violate logic, and I am saying that he probably can, because you can assert that he has done things that go against logic (the origin of the universe).

How isn't that relevant?

It's not relevant, because the law of conservation of energy is a law of science, not logic. I am talking about the laws of logic, not the laws of physics.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2013 11:53:36 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/29/2013 11:48:29 AM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 10/29/2013 11:46:06 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 10/29/2013 11:43:55 AM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 10/29/2013 11:09:41 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Why cannot he create beings that violate logic as well?

If we replace the term "create beings", with just "do things", one of the ways to look at the origin of the universe (pre-big bang/multi-verse) is that before things came into being, there was nothing, therefore the law of conservation of energy and mass must have been broken to create the universe. If you believe in beings that live on a higher plane of existence, this failure to logically explain where everything came from would lead you to assert that some higher being must have made everything that exists.

That has nothing to do with my post... Are you high?

It's perfectly relevant. You are asking if God could create beings that violate logic, and I am saying that he probably can, because you can assert that he has done things that go against logic (the origin of the universe).

How isn't that relevant?

Also, you contradicted yourself. If there was nothing, that would mean nothing that can be described by conservation laws. Thus, there would be no "rule" existing to break in the first place.
themohawkninja
Posts: 816
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2013 11:56:59 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/29/2013 11:52:29 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 10/29/2013 11:48:29 AM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 10/29/2013 11:46:06 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 10/29/2013 11:43:55 AM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 10/29/2013 11:09:41 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Why cannot he create beings that violate logic as well?

If we replace the term "create beings", with just "do things", one of the ways to look at the origin of the universe (pre-big bang/multi-verse) is that before things came into being, there was nothing, therefore the law of conservation of energy and mass must have been broken to create the universe. If you believe in beings that live on a higher plane of existence, this failure to logically explain where everything came from would lead you to assert that some higher being must have made everything that exists.

That has nothing to do with my post... Are you high?

It's perfectly relevant. You are asking if God could create beings that violate logic, and I am saying that he probably can, because you can assert that he has done things that go against logic (the origin of the universe).

How isn't that relevant?

It's not relevant, because the law of conservation of energy is a law of science, not logic. I am talking about the laws of logic, not the laws of physics.

Isn't science derived from logic? If I all of a sudden had an apple in my hand, in such a way that the entirety of the universe is now one apple more massive, would that not break logic, and the law of conservation of mass?

If there can only be X of A, and I add N amount of A and N is greater than 0, therefore there is now X+N of A, that is illogical, because it was already asserted that there can only be X of A.
"Morals are simply a limit to man's potential."~Myself

Political correctness is like saying you can't have a steak, because a baby can't eat one ~Unknown
themohawkninja
Posts: 816
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2013 11:58:36 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/29/2013 11:53:36 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 10/29/2013 11:48:29 AM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 10/29/2013 11:46:06 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 10/29/2013 11:43:55 AM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 10/29/2013 11:09:41 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Why cannot he create beings that violate logic as well?

If we replace the term "create beings", with just "do things", one of the ways to look at the origin of the universe (pre-big bang/multi-verse) is that before things came into being, there was nothing, therefore the law of conservation of energy and mass must have been broken to create the universe. If you believe in beings that live on a higher plane of existence, this failure to logically explain where everything came from would lead you to assert that some higher being must have made everything that exists.

That has nothing to do with my post... Are you high?

It's perfectly relevant. You are asking if God could create beings that violate logic, and I am saying that he probably can, because you can assert that he has done things that go against logic (the origin of the universe).

How isn't that relevant?

Also, you contradicted yourself. If there was nothing, that would mean nothing that can be described by conservation laws. Thus, there would be no "rule" existing to break in the first place.

If there are no "rules" to govern physics, than who is to say there is logic?
"Morals are simply a limit to man's potential."~Myself

Political correctness is like saying you can't have a steak, because a baby can't eat one ~Unknown
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2013 12:01:25 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/29/2013 11:56:59 AM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 10/29/2013 11:52:29 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 10/29/2013 11:48:29 AM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 10/29/2013 11:46:06 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 10/29/2013 11:43:55 AM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 10/29/2013 11:09:41 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Why cannot he create beings that violate logic as well?

If we replace the term "create beings", with just "do things", one of the ways to look at the origin of the universe (pre-big bang/multi-verse) is that before things came into being, there was nothing, therefore the law of conservation of energy and mass must have been broken to create the universe. If you believe in beings that live on a higher plane of existence, this failure to logically explain where everything came from would lead you to assert that some higher being must have made everything that exists.

That has nothing to do with my post... Are you high?

It's perfectly relevant. You are asking if God could create beings that violate logic, and I am saying that he probably can, because you can assert that he has done things that go against logic (the origin of the universe).

How isn't that relevant?

It's not relevant, because the law of conservation of energy is a law of science, not logic. I am talking about the laws of logic, not the laws of physics.

Isn't science derived from logic?

You need to learn the difference between the laws of science, and the laws of logic. If all of a sudden there was energy added to the net energy of the universe right now, that would violate the laws of science. However, no law of inductive of deductive logic is violated by that. You cannot equate the laws of science with the laws of logic. The law of science are based on logic in the sense that nothing about the laws of science can entail contradiction, or violate logic. That doesn't mean that if the laws of science are violated, then the laws of logic are. That is a fallacious non-sequitur.

If I all of a sudden had an apple in my hand, in such a way that the entirety of the universe is now one apple more massive, would that not break logic, and the law of conservation of mass?

Your scenario isn't even worded coherently.


If there can only be X of A, and I add N amount of A and N is greater than 0, therefore there is now X+N of A, that is illogical, because it was already asserted that there can only be X of A.

This is a Red Herring. The point is that violating the law of conservation does not violate any of the laws of logic. Thus, you equating them is an error.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2013 12:02:31 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/29/2013 11:58:36 AM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 10/29/2013 11:53:36 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 10/29/2013 11:48:29 AM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 10/29/2013 11:46:06 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 10/29/2013 11:43:55 AM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 10/29/2013 11:09:41 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Why cannot he create beings that violate logic as well?

If we replace the term "create beings", with just "do things", one of the ways to look at the origin of the universe (pre-big bang/multi-verse) is that before things came into being, there was nothing, therefore the law of conservation of energy and mass must have been broken to create the universe. If you believe in beings that live on a higher plane of existence, this failure to logically explain where everything came from would lead you to assert that some higher being must have made everything that exists.

That has nothing to do with my post... Are you high?

It's perfectly relevant. You are asking if God could create beings that violate logic, and I am saying that he probably can, because you can assert that he has done things that go against logic (the origin of the universe).

How isn't that relevant?

Also, you contradicted yourself. If there was nothing, that would mean nothing that can be described by conservation laws. Thus, there would be no "rule" existing to break in the first place.

If there are no "rules" to govern physics, than who is to say there is logic?

Exactly, I agree. You are missing the point though lol

If the law of energy of conservation was broken, that wouldn't mean the laws of logic were broke. Thus, your point is not relevant.
themohawkninja
Posts: 816
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2013 12:10:22 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/29/2013 12:01:25 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:

You need to learn the difference between the laws of science, and the laws of logic. If all of a sudden there was energy added to the net energy of the universe right now, that would violate the laws of science. However, no law of inductive of deductive logic is violated by that. You cannot equate the laws of science with the laws of logic. The law of science are based on logic in the sense that nothing about the laws of science can entail contradiction, or violate logic. That doesn't mean that if the laws of science are violated, then the laws of logic are. That is a fallacious non-sequitur.

I think I am just to into science to want to accept that they are two different things, because it makes it sound like science is inherently illogical.


Your scenario isn't even worded coherently.

Oh? How so?
"Morals are simply a limit to man's potential."~Myself

Political correctness is like saying you can't have a steak, because a baby can't eat one ~Unknown
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2013 12:13:20 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/29/2013 12:10:22 PM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 10/29/2013 12:01:25 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:

You need to learn the difference between the laws of science, and the laws of logic. If all of a sudden there was energy added to the net energy of the universe right now, that would violate the laws of science. However, no law of inductive of deductive logic is violated by that. You cannot equate the laws of science with the laws of logic. The law of science are based on logic in the sense that nothing about the laws of science can entail contradiction, or violate logic. That doesn't mean that if the laws of science are violated, then the laws of logic are. That is a fallacious non-sequitur.

I think I am just to into science to want to accept that they are two different things, because it makes it sound like science is inherently illogical.

No it doesn't. As I already explained, none of the laws of science can violate logic, thus the laws of science are inherently logical. That doesn't mean that if a law of science is broken, that a law of logic is broken. That is a non-sequitur; your conclusion does not follow.



Your scenario isn't even worded coherently.

Oh? How so?
themohawkninja
Posts: 816
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2013 12:22:45 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/29/2013 12:13:20 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 10/29/2013 12:10:22 PM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 10/29/2013 12:01:25 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:

You need to learn the difference between the laws of science, and the laws of logic. If all of a sudden there was energy added to the net energy of the universe right now, that would violate the laws of science. However, no law of inductive of deductive logic is violated by that. You cannot equate the laws of science with the laws of logic. The law of science are based on logic in the sense that nothing about the laws of science can entail contradiction, or violate logic. That doesn't mean that if the laws of science are violated, then the laws of logic are. That is a fallacious non-sequitur.

I think I am just to into science to want to accept that they are two different things, because it makes it sound like science is inherently illogical.

No it doesn't. As I already explained, none of the laws of science can violate logic, thus the laws of science are inherently logical. That doesn't mean that if a law of science is broken, that a law of logic is broken. That is a non-sequitur; your conclusion does not follow.

So to simplify it, it is the case of just because A means B, doesn't mean that NOT A means NOT B?



Your scenario isn't even worded coherently.

Oh? How so?
"Morals are simply a limit to man's potential."~Myself

Political correctness is like saying you can't have a steak, because a baby can't eat one ~Unknown
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2013 12:27:34 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/29/2013 12:22:45 PM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 10/29/2013 12:13:20 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 10/29/2013 12:10:22 PM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 10/29/2013 12:01:25 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:

You need to learn the difference between the laws of science, and the laws of logic. If all of a sudden there was energy added to the net energy of the universe right now, that would violate the laws of science. However, no law of inductive of deductive logic is violated by that. You cannot equate the laws of science with the laws of logic. The law of science are based on logic in the sense that nothing about the laws of science can entail contradiction, or violate logic. That doesn't mean that if the laws of science are violated, then the laws of logic are. That is a fallacious non-sequitur.

I think I am just to into science to want to accept that they are two different things, because it makes it sound like science is inherently illogical.

No it doesn't. As I already explained, none of the laws of science can violate logic, thus the laws of science are inherently logical. That doesn't mean that if a law of science is broken, that a law of logic is broken. That is a non-sequitur; your conclusion does not follow.

So to simplify it, it is the case of just because A means B, doesn't mean that NOT A means NOT B?

Exactly! Having a pen means I have something to write with, but that doesn't mean that if I don't have a pen, I have nothing to write with. Similarly, just because science entails logical consistency, that doesn't mean that if science is broken, logic is broken.




Your scenario isn't even worded coherently.

Oh? How so?
themohawkninja
Posts: 816
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2013 12:32:47 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Then let me pose this question.

If God created matter (and therefore nature), did he make logic, or is God himself subject to logic?
"Morals are simply a limit to man's potential."~Myself

Political correctness is like saying you can't have a steak, because a baby can't eat one ~Unknown
Heineken
Posts: 1,230
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2013 12:55:09 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/29/2013 11:09:41 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
If God can create a being that does evil, why can't he commit a being that can make a perfectly spherical cube? Both goodness and logic are inherent to God's nature if he exists. So, if he can create beings that go against his nature in one way (beings that lie and commit evil), why cannot he create beings that violate logic as well?

I quite like the question, but I believe you asked it incorrectly.
You asked:".....why cannot he create beings that violate logic as well?"

Doesn't this question assume that God wants to create a violation of logic, but failed?

The argument should be about the purpose of God's designs, not His ability to design them. After all, Omnipotence always equals "Yes...I can do that."
Vidi, vici, veni.
(I saw, I conquered, I came.)
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2013 1:02:04 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/29/2013 12:55:09 PM, Heineken wrote:
At 10/29/2013 11:09:41 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
If God can create a being that does evil, why can't he commit a being that can make a perfectly spherical cube? Both goodness and logic are inherent to God's nature if he exists. So, if he can create beings that go against his nature in one way (beings that lie and commit evil), why cannot he create beings that violate logic as well?

I quite like the question, but I believe you asked it incorrectly.
You asked:".....why cannot he create beings that violate logic as well?"

Doesn't this question assume that God wants to create a violation of logic, but failed?

I don't see how it does.


The argument should be about the purpose of God's designs, not His ability to design them. After all, Omnipotence always equals "Yes...I can do that."

False. Omnipotence always equals "Yes... I can do that which does not violate the laws of logic".
Heineken
Posts: 1,230
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2013 1:05:49 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/29/2013 1:02:04 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 10/29/2013 12:55:09 PM, Heineken wrote:
At 10/29/2013 11:09:41 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
If God can create a being that does evil, why can't he commit a being that can make a perfectly spherical cube? Both goodness and logic are inherent to God's nature if he exists. So, if he can create beings that go against his nature in one way (beings that lie and commit evil), why cannot he create beings that violate logic as well?

I quite like the question, but I believe you asked it incorrectly.
You asked:".....why cannot he create beings that violate logic as well?"

Doesn't this question assume that God wants to create a violation of logic, but failed?

I don't see how it does.


The argument should be about the purpose of God's designs, not His ability to design them. After all, Omnipotence always equals "Yes...I can do that."

False. Omnipotence always equals "Yes... I can do that which does not violate the laws of logic".

Laws are boundaries. What boundary do you apply to Omnipotence?

Additionally, if God created everything, does he not need to be outside of the creation?
So, even if he was subject to laws, wouldn't he have to exist only within the domain in which the laws are active?
Vidi, vici, veni.
(I saw, I conquered, I came.)
Heineken
Posts: 1,230
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2013 1:07:48 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/29/2013 1:02:04 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 10/29/2013 12:55:09 PM, Heineken wrote:
At 10/29/2013 11:09:41 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
If God can create a being that does evil, why can't he commit a being that can make a perfectly spherical cube? Both goodness and logic are inherent to God's nature if he exists. So, if he can create beings that go against his nature in one way (beings that lie and commit evil), why cannot he create beings that violate logic as well?

I quite like the question, but I believe you asked it incorrectly.
You asked:".....why cannot he create beings that violate logic as well?"

Doesn't this question assume that God wants to create a violation of logic, but failed?

I don't see how it does.

...because you asserted his inability. How would you know that he can't do something?


The argument should be about the purpose of God's designs, not His ability to design them. After all, Omnipotence always equals "Yes...I can do that."

False. Omnipotence always equals "Yes... I can do that which does not violate the laws of logic".
Vidi, vici, veni.
(I saw, I conquered, I came.)
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2013 1:14:29 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/29/2013 1:07:48 PM, Heineken wrote:
At 10/29/2013 1:02:04 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 10/29/2013 12:55:09 PM, Heineken wrote:
At 10/29/2013 11:09:41 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
If God can create a being that does evil, why can't he commit a being that can make a perfectly spherical cube? Both goodness and logic are inherent to God's nature if he exists. So, if he can create beings that go against his nature in one way (beings that lie and commit evil), why cannot he create beings that violate logic as well?

I quite like the question, but I believe you asked it incorrectly.
You asked:".....why cannot he create beings that violate logic as well?"

Doesn't this question assume that God wants to create a violation of logic, but failed?

I don't see how it does.

...because you asserted his inability. How would you know that he can't do something?


The argument should be about the purpose of God's designs, not His ability to design them. After all, Omnipotence always equals "Yes...I can do that."

False. Omnipotence always equals "Yes... I can do that which does not violate the laws of logic".

No educated theist believes that omnipotence means "Can even do the logically impossible", because then we have to throw out logical all together, and thus truth and debate is impossible. Theists hold that God is omnipotent, in that he can do anything logically and metaphysically possible.
Fruitytree
Posts: 2,176
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2013 1:17:14 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Why do you suppose he can't ?!

The evil in men is that they can transgress his commands, if there were no commands , there would be no evil, everything would be fine, but once he sent prophets with commands people became accountable.

I'm not sure what you mean by saying "God able to create beings against his nature ?!" all this evil and good depend on two things: free will, and commands.

God does have free will but none commands Him , what he likes is good, and what he dislikes is evil. you don't say God's nature, but God's will.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2013 1:21:37 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/29/2013 1:17:14 PM, Fruitytree wrote:
Why do you suppose he can't ?!

Because Logic cannot be violated.


The evil in men is that they can transgress his commands, if there were no commands , there would be no evil, everything would be fine, but once he sent prophets with commands people became accountable.

I'm not sure what you mean by saying "God able to create beings against his nature ?!" all this evil and good depend on two things: free will, and commands.

Goodness (not-evil) is part of God's nature, and so is logic (consistency). He can create beings that do evil, therefore he should be able to create beings that violate logic as well. We all know he cannot, as that would violate logic. It follows that God wouldn't create creatures that commit evil. Evil exists. Therefore, God does not exist.


God does have free will but none commands Him , what he likes is good, and what he dislikes is evil. you don't say God's nature, but God's will.

His will is contingent upon his nature.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2013 1:23:09 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Theists have to use this definition of omnipotence:

"'Y is omnipotent' means 'Y can do X' is true if and only if X is a logically consistent description of a state of affairs." [http://en.wikipedia.org...]

Or else they have thrown out logic, and no argument they make from then can be taken seriously.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2013 1:24:28 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Either:

a) God cannot violate logic

b) Logic must be thrown out

All theists in the philosophical literature are smart enough to know that they have to go with a). Only the uninformed think that God can violate logic.
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2013 1:28:42 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
"Haha! If there is evil, how come there are not square circles?! The absence of square circles disproves God!!!"
Fruitytree
Posts: 2,176
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2013 1:31:59 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/29/2013 1:21:37 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 10/29/2013 1:17:14 PM, Fruitytree wrote:
Why do you suppose he can't ?!

Because Logic cannot be violated.

What if logic is God made ?!


The evil in men is that they can transgress his commands, if there were no commands , there would be no evil, everything would be fine, but once he sent prophets with commands people became accountable.

I'm not sure what you mean by saying "God able to create beings against his nature ?!" all this evil and good depend on two things: free will, and commands.

Goodness (not-evil) is part of God's nature, and so is logic (consistency). He can create beings that do evil, therefore he should be able to create beings that violate logic as well. We all know he cannot, as that would violate logic. It follows that God wouldn't create creatures that commit evil. Evil exists. Therefore, God does not exist.


Well I think I agree with you (not on the conclusion) but not the way you put things, It's not God nature is goodness, Good is what God likes. He can do anything, what he does is called good, what he commands is called good, and what he forbids is Evil, good and evil are defined only because of God. Logic is defined by God, he can make another set of logic and this universe wouldn't stand it, he can make another set of commands and our actual good morals would be evil.


Good has no meaning without God, and evil too. Morals have no meaning, if you agree with the existence of Evil then you're a believer in denial.

God does have free will but none commands Him , what he likes is good, and what he dislikes is evil. you don't say God's nature, but God's will.

His will is contingent upon his nature .

what you call his nature, is His will. and He's free like nothing else.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2013 2:09:34 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/29/2013 1:31:59 PM, Fruitytree wrote:
At 10/29/2013 1:21:37 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 10/29/2013 1:17:14 PM, Fruitytree wrote:
Why do you suppose he can't ?!

Because Logic cannot be violated.


What if logic is God made ?!

No informed theist holds this position. If God exists, logic is part of his necessary nature, not created.



The evil in men is that they can transgress his commands, if there were no commands , there would be no evil, everything would be fine, but once he sent prophets with commands people became accountable.

I'm not sure what you mean by saying "God able to create beings against his nature ?!" all this evil and good depend on two things: free will, and commands.

Goodness (not-evil) is part of God's nature, and so is logic (consistency). He can create beings that do evil, therefore he should be able to create beings that violate logic as well. We all know he cannot, as that would violate logic. It follows that God wouldn't create creatures that commit evil. Evil exists. Therefore, God does not exist.


Well I think I agree with you (not on the conclusion) but not the way you put things, It's not God nature is goodness, Good is what God likes. He can do anything, what he does is called good, what he commands is called good, and what he forbids is Evil, good and evil are defined only because of God.

I disagree with the bolded. Will you clarify?

Logic is defined by God

No, its defined by humans.

, he can make another set of logic and this universe wouldn't stand it, he can make another set of commands and our actual good morals would be evil.

That statement presupposes logic though, thus your position is self-refuting. To say God can violate logic, is to throw logic out. Yet, all your arguments presupposes logic. You cannot debate anymore, because you don't adhere to logic. Thus, you are illogical. Logic presupposes that if something is logically contradictory, it cannot happen. You saying something logically contradictory can happen, which means you disagree with logic, and are illogical by definition.



Good has no meaning without God, and evil too. Morals have no meaning, if you agree with the existence of Evil then you're a believer in denial.

Nope. Evil can exist without God.


God does have free will but none commands Him , what he likes is good, and what he dislikes is evil. you don't say God's nature, but God's will.

His will is contingent upon his nature .

what you call his nature, is His will. and He's free like nothing else.

No, a will is not the same thing as a nature, or essence.