Total Posts:217|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

A limitless god is impossible.

KthulhuHimself
Posts: 995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/20/2016 4:43:11 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
1) For something to actually exist, it has to be objective.
2) By definition, objectivity requires the objective concept to be well-defined (which cannot be paradoxical or internally contradictory).
3) Well-ordered definitions require well-ordered formal languages, and in order for the definition to be non-paradoxical, and hence well-ordered, the defined concept must be completely limited by the defining language (to prevent Russell's paradox), i.e. cannot be the "highest" being.
4) God is defined as the highest being.
5) By these necessary standards, god is ill-defined.
6) God cannot be objective.
7) God cannot actually exist.

I dare you, I double dare you; try to refute this.
lightseeker
Posts: 1,034
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/20/2016 4:45:51 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/20/2016 4:43:11 PM, KthulhuHimself wrote:
1) For something to actually exist, it has to be objective.
2) By definition, objectivity requires the objective concept to be well-defined (which cannot be paradoxical or internally contradictory).
3) Well-ordered definitions require well-ordered formal languages, and in order for the definition to be non-paradoxical, and hence well-ordered, the defined concept must be completely limited by the defining language (to prevent Russell's paradox), i.e. cannot be the "highest" being.
4) God is defined as the highest being.
5) By these necessary standards, god is ill-defined.
6) God cannot be objective.
7) God cannot actually exist.

I dare you, I double dare you; try to refute this.

1) For something to actually exist, it has to be objective.
prove this one please.
Cobalt
Posts: 991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/20/2016 5:06:44 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/20/2016 4:43:11 PM, KthulhuHimself wrote:

I really, really, really dislike proofs that attempt to prove/disprove something's existence using the nature of language. I'll explain why. In short, Godel.

1) For something to actually exist, it has to be objective.

2) By definition, objectivity requires the objective concept to be well-defined (which cannot be paradoxical or internally contradictory).

How do you justify this assumption? The definition of objectivity deals with whether it has existence as an object -- not that the object in question requires the characteristic of being consistent with abstract language's protocols for definition.

3) Well-ordered definitions require well-ordered formal languages, and in order for the definition to be non-paradoxical, and hence well-ordered, the defined concept must be completely limited by the defining language (to prevent Russell's paradox), i.e. cannot be the "highest" being.

The "perfect" well-ordered language, as well as the language we are using here, both are capable of describing degrees of magnitude ranging from nil to infinite.

We could easily describe a "highest" being, so long as we describe it as "higher" than other beings in all aspects. We could even list these aspects, given an infinite amount of space.

Notably, an object cannot be limited by an abstracted concept such as language. It stands to reason that there exists an object that is "undefinable" by a well-ordered language. (For instance, 4/0 is undefined, but undoubtedly can be forced to occur in an algebraic operation.)

Godel's Incompleteness Theorem basically guarantees that all well-ordered languages will never be able to adequately describe all phenomena and be entirely self-consistent.

4) God is defined as the highest being.
5) By these necessary standards, god is ill-defined.
6) God cannot be objective.
7) God cannot actually exist.

I dare you, I double dare you; try to refute this.
skipsaweirdo
Posts: 1,872
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/20/2016 5:29:42 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/20/2016 4:43:11 PM, KthulhuHimself wrote:
1) For something to actually exist, it has to be objective.
Fallacy of ambiguity. I'm not objective, I'm a human with emotions and therefore I am a subjective being😎
2) By definition, objectivity requires the objective concept to be well-defined (which cannot be paradoxical or internally contradictory).
Well defined is a fallacy of ambiguity.
3) Well-ordered definitions require well-ordered formal languages,
Circular reasoning, will need proof this is true.
and in order for the definition to be non-paradoxical, and hence well-ordered, the defined concept must be completely limited by the defining language (to prevent Russell's paradox), i.e. cannot be the "highest" being.
Russel's paradox says no such thing. The highest being isn't a set.
4) God is defined as the highest being.
Straw man....God is defined as the highest being which nothing greater can be "conceived". You should look up what conceiving is defined as.
5) By these necessary standards, god is ill-defined.
Please prove God is ill defined and who agrees with this assertion. Gonna need to see proof all people agree.
6) God cannot be objective.
Prove it
7) God cannot actually exist.
Prove it

I dare you, I double dare you; try to refute this.
KthulhuHimself
Posts: 995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/20/2016 6:27:15 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/20/2016 4:45:51 PM, lightseeker wrote:
At 6/20/2016 4:43:11 PM, KthulhuHimself wrote:
1) For something to actually exist, it has to be objective.
2) By definition, objectivity requires the objective concept to be well-defined (which cannot be paradoxical or internally contradictory).
3) Well-ordered definitions require well-ordered formal languages, and in order for the definition to be non-paradoxical, and hence well-ordered, the defined concept must be completely limited by the defining language (to prevent Russell's paradox), i.e. cannot be the "highest" being.
4) God is defined as the highest being.
5) By these necessary standards, god is ill-defined.
6) God cannot be objective.
7) God cannot actually exist.

I dare you, I double dare you; try to refute this.

1) For something to actually exist, it has to be objective.
prove this one please.

Either it's objective or subjective; if it's subjective, it exists only as a notion in one's mind, and is hence limited to one's mind.
KthulhuHimself
Posts: 995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/20/2016 6:35:26 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/20/2016 5:06:44 PM, Cobalt wrote:
At 6/20/2016 4:43:11 PM, KthulhuHimself wrote:

I really, really, really dislike proofs that attempt to prove/disprove something's existence using the nature of language. I'll explain why. In short, Godel.

1) For something to actually exist, it has to be objective.

2) By definition, objectivity requires the objective concept to be well-defined (which cannot be paradoxical or internally contradictory).

How do you justify this assumption? The definition of objectivity deals with whether it has existence as an object
Not at all; objectivity simply regards whether or not a concept or entity is dependent on human (or otherwise) perspective.
-- not that the object in question requires the characteristic of being consistent with abstract language's protocols for definition.

3) Well-ordered definitions require well-ordered formal languages, and in order for the definition to be non-paradoxical, and hence well-ordered, the defined concept must be completely limited by the defining language (to prevent Russell's paradox), i.e. cannot be the "highest" being.

The "perfect" well-ordered language, as well as the language we are using here, both are capable of describing degrees of magnitude ranging from nil to infinite.

We could easily describe a "highest" being, so long as we describe it as "higher" than other beings in all aspects. We could even list these aspects, given an infinite amount of space.

But that's just the thing, we can describe such a being, but never define it; because once we do, we can automatically define something greater.
Notably, an object cannot be limited by an abstracted concept such as language.
Define "object".
It stands to reason that there exists an object that is "undefinable" by a well-ordered language. (For instance, 4/0 is undefined, but undoubtedly can be forced to occur in an algebraic operation.)

It does not; because if it would, then it would have meaning beyond what a subjective perspective would give it.
Godel's Incompleteness Theorem basically guarantees that all well-ordered languages will never be able to adequately describe all phenomena and be entirely self-consistent.

No, is guarantees that no singular well-ordered language will be able to adequately define all phenomena and still be entirely self-consistent.
4) God is defined as the highest being.
5) By these necessary standards, god is ill-defined.
6) God cannot be objective.
7) God cannot actually exist.

I dare you, I double dare you; try to refute this.
KthulhuHimself
Posts: 995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/20/2016 6:40:11 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/20/2016 5:29:42 PM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 6/20/2016 4:43:11 PM, KthulhuHimself wrote:
1) For something to actually exist, it has to be objective.
Fallacy of ambiguity. I'm not objective, I'm a human with emotions and therefore I am a subjective being😎
Actually, you are objective. What you say and believe are subjective; but you, as a construct within this universe, are not.
2) By definition, objectivity requires the objective concept to be well-defined (which cannot be paradoxical or internally contradictory).
Well defined is a fallacy of ambiguity.
Bare assertion.
3) Well-ordered definitions require well-ordered formal languages,
Circular reasoning, will need proof this is true.
How is this circular reasoning?
and in order for the definition to be non-paradoxical, and hence well-ordered, the defined concept must be completely limited by the defining language (to prevent Russell's paradox), i.e. cannot be the "highest" being.
Russel's paradox says no such thing. The highest being isn't a set.
While initially, Russell's paradox regards an issue with sets, it can easily be shown to extend beyond that realm.
4) God is defined as the highest being.
Straw man....God is defined as the highest being which nothing greater can be "conceived". You should look up what conceiving is defined as.
So if saying that god is defined as the highest being is a straw-man, does that mean you believe that God is limited?
5) By these necessary standards, god is ill-defined.
Please prove God is ill defined and who agrees with this assertion. Gonna need to see proof all people agree.
Oh; so we now somehow have to incorporate the argumentum ad populum into this conversation. Fascinating.
6) God cannot be objective.
Prove it
By the standards proven above.
7) God cannot actually exist.
Prove it
Same.

I dare you, I double dare you; try to refute this.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/20/2016 6:49:27 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/20/2016 4:43:11 PM, KthulhuHimself wrote:
1) For something to actually exist, it has to be objective.
2) By definition, objectivity requires the objective concept to be well-defined (which cannot be paradoxical or internally contradictory).
3) Well-ordered definitions require well-ordered formal languages, and in order for the definition to be non-paradoxical, and hence well-ordered, the defined concept must be completely limited by the defining language (to prevent Russell's paradox), i.e. cannot be the "highest" being.
4) God is defined as the highest being.
5) By these necessary standards, god is ill-defined.
6) God cannot be objective.
7) God cannot actually exist.

I dare you, I double dare you; try to refute this.

God is not defined accuracy because we do not have the language to define him correctly. We are constrained by our physical reference points.

And that is where your problem lies, we know very little about the spirit realm, which is not a part of this physical Universe, and I suspect is almost infinitely larger.

However, what you suggest would possibly be true if God were part of this physical world with all its limitations, but he isn't, he is a spirit and therefore the only limitations that are imposed on him are those he imposes on himself.
Chaosism
Posts: 2,674
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/20/2016 6:59:33 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/20/2016 4:43:11 PM, KthulhuHimself wrote:
1) For something to actually exist, it has to be objective.
2) By definition, objectivity requires the objective concept to be well-defined (which cannot be paradoxical or internally contradictory).
3) Well-ordered definitions require well-ordered formal languages, and in order for the definition to be non-paradoxical, and hence well-ordered, the defined concept must be completely limited by the defining language (to prevent Russell's paradox), i.e. cannot be the "highest" being.
4) God is defined as the highest being.
5) By these necessary standards, god is ill-defined.
6) God cannot be objective.
7) God cannot actually exist.

What do you think of this retargeted version?

1-3) [Unchanged.]
4) Eternity is defined as the longest duration.
5) By these necessary standards, eternity is ill-defined.
6) Eternity cannot be objective.
7) Eternity cannot actually exist.

I dare you, I double dare you; try to refute this.

Be careful: don't let yourself become married to an argument. The more you invest into its correctness, the stronger the bias you'll develop, which will create irrational resistance towards criticism. Keep this in mind, and be genuinely willing to modify or abandon an argument should it be refuted. I'll add that conclusions derived from logical reasoning should be treated with ample skepticism until they can be empirically verified.
12_13
Posts: 1,365
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/20/2016 7:32:59 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/20/2016 4:43:11 PM, KthulhuHimself wrote:
1) For something to actually exist, it has to be objective.
2) By definition, objectivity requires the objective concept to be well-defined (which cannot be paradoxical or internally contradictory).
3) Well-ordered definitions require well-ordered formal languages, and in order for the definition to be non-paradoxical, and hence well-ordered, the defined concept must be completely limited by the defining language (to prevent Russell's paradox), i.e. cannot be the "highest" being.
4) God is defined as the highest being.
5) By these necessary standards, god is ill-defined.
6) God cannot be objective.
7) God cannot actually exist.

I dare you, I double dare you; try to refute this.

Interesting opinion you have. Doesn"t seem to be objective and the biggest problem is that it is not true that God is ill-defined. :)
brontoraptor
Posts: 11,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2016 2:08:11 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/20/2016 4:43:11 PM, KthulhuHimself wrote:
1) For something to actually exist, it has to be objective.
2) By definition, objectivity requires the objective concept to be well-defined (which cannot be paradoxical or internally contradictory).
3) Well-ordered definitions require well-ordered formal languages, and in order for the definition to be non-paradoxical, and hence well-ordered, the defined concept must be completely limited by the defining language (to prevent Russell's paradox), i.e. cannot be the "highest" being.
4) God is defined as the highest being.
5) By these necessary standards, god is ill-defined.
6) God cannot be objective.
7) God cannot actually exist.

I dare you, I double dare you; try to refute this.

Even if you prescribe to material or naturalist constructs, In any infinite set + Darwinian evolution (theory), the highest conceivable, possible being must exist by the mathematics and laws of infinity. The highest possible love, the highest possible justice. Put them together...you get the cross.
"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

http://youtu.be...
Cobalt
Posts: 991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2016 3:21:08 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/20/2016 6:35:26 PM, KthulhuHimself wrote:

You're essentially using language as a proof of something. The ability to express or not express an idea in a language is a product of that language and its rules and does not change or define the existence of unrelated objects by itself existing.

If no intelligent life existed, there would be no well-ordered language. Despite this, we know things definitely existed before humans got here. A language is a reflection of human understanding, not the world around it.

As for God, if we "define" him as the "greatest", it doesn't make sense to say there can be something greater. Sure, we have the ability of essentially saying "god + 1", but that statement won't make sense given the definition of God that existed in the first place.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2016 4:34:34 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/20/2016 4:43:11 PM, KthulhuHimself wrote:
1) For something to actually exist, it has to be objective.
2) By definition, objectivity requires the objective concept to be well-defined (which cannot be paradoxical or internally contradictory).
3) Well-ordered definitions require well-ordered formal languages, and in order for the definition to be non-paradoxical, and hence well-ordered, the defined concept must be completely limited by the defining language (to prevent Russell's paradox), i.e. cannot be the "highest" being.
4) God is defined as the highest being.
5) By these necessary standards, god is ill-defined.
6) God cannot be objective.
7) God cannot actually exist.

I dare you, I double dare you; try to refute this.

"the highest being", by definition, must be non-paradoxical. The term "limit" is misleading insofar that it means "non-paradoxical." So basically, you're syllogism falls apart under a false pretext.
bulproof
Posts: 25,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2016 8:57:03 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/21/2016 4:34:34 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 6/20/2016 4:43:11 PM, KthulhuHimself wrote:
1) For something to actually exist, it has to be objective.
2) By definition, objectivity requires the objective concept to be well-defined (which cannot be paradoxical or internally contradictory).
3) Well-ordered definitions require well-ordered formal languages, and in order for the definition to be non-paradoxical, and hence well-ordered, the defined concept must be completely limited by the defining language (to prevent Russell's paradox), i.e. cannot be the "highest" being.
4) God is defined as the highest being.
5) By these necessary standards, god is ill-defined.
6) God cannot be objective.
7) God cannot actually exist.

I dare you, I double dare you; try to refute this.

"the highest being", by definition, must be non-paradoxical. The term "limit" is misleading insofar that it means "non-paradoxical." So basically, you're syllogism falls apart under a false pretext.
A highest being can and must be paradoxical, or it is not the highest being, since any being that can be paradoxical is a higher being and has a greater capacity than the being you claim is the highest.
KthulhuHimself
Posts: 995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2016 10:21:26 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/20/2016 6:49:27 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 6/20/2016 4:43:11 PM, KthulhuHimself wrote:
1) For something to actually exist, it has to be objective.
2) By definition, objectivity requires the objective concept to be well-defined (which cannot be paradoxical or internally contradictory).
3) Well-ordered definitions require well-ordered formal languages, and in order for the definition to be non-paradoxical, and hence well-ordered, the defined concept must be completely limited by the defining language (to prevent Russell's paradox), i.e. cannot be the "highest" being.
4) God is defined as the highest being.
5) By these necessary standards, god is ill-defined.
6) God cannot be objective.
7) God cannot actually exist.

I dare you, I double dare you; try to refute this.

God is not defined accuracy because we do not have the language to define him correctly. We are constrained by our physical reference points.

This is a mathematical proof, not a physical one.
And that is where your problem lies, we know very little about the spirit realm, which is not a part of this physical Universe, and I suspect is almost infinitely larger.

The same exactly goes for mathematics, but we can still understand it.
However, what you suggest would possibly be true if God were part of this physical world with all its limitations, but he isn't, he is a spirit and therefore the only limitations that are imposed on him are those he imposes on himself.

When I say "limited", I don't mean physically limited; but rather limited in general (i.e. limited to logic); meaning that if there is a god, it would have to abide to its own laws of physics, even if they are different than ours.
KthulhuHimself
Posts: 995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2016 10:30:04 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/20/2016 6:59:33 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 6/20/2016 4:43:11 PM, KthulhuHimself wrote:
1) For something to actually exist, it has to be objective.
2) By definition, objectivity requires the objective concept to be well-defined (which cannot be paradoxical or internally contradictory).
3) Well-ordered definitions require well-ordered formal languages, and in order for the definition to be non-paradoxical, and hence well-ordered, the defined concept must be completely limited by the defining language (to prevent Russell's paradox), i.e. cannot be the "highest" being.
4) God is defined as the highest being.
5) By these necessary standards, god is ill-defined.
6) God cannot be objective.
7) God cannot actually exist.

What do you think of this retargeted version?

1-3) [Unchanged.]
4) Eternity is defined as the longest duration.
5) By these necessary standards, eternity is ill-defined.
6) Eternity cannot be objective.
7) Eternity cannot actually exist.

No, this is a non-sequitur. Eternity, by the most common meaning, is effectively omega finite time-frames, making it well-defined.
I dare you, I double dare you; try to refute this.

Be careful: don't let yourself become married to an argument. The more you invest into its correctness, the stronger the bias you'll develop, which will create irrational resistance towards criticism.
Good point, but don't worry; I know which standards this argument upholds to, and it being a mathematical proof, it cannot be refuted in the regular sense, the same way this: (http://www.cs.yale.edu...) cannot be refuted either; I've analysed this proof to a very strict and close level of scrutiny, and it holds up.
Keep this in mind, and be genuinely willing to modify or abandon an argument should it be refuted.
If, by some freak accident; I've made a mistake in the proof; then sure, I'll revise it; but someone will have to show me that that is the case.
I'll add that conclusions derived from logical reasoning should be treated with ample skepticism until they can be empirically verified.

Unlike empirical proof, this proof is mathematical; meaning that it doesn't need to be tested empirically for verification (though there is no harm in doing so); that's the reason it's not in the science forum.
KthulhuHimself
Posts: 995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2016 10:31:31 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/20/2016 7:32:59 PM, 12_13 wrote:
At 6/20/2016 4:43:11 PM, KthulhuHimself wrote:
1) For something to actually exist, it has to be objective.
2) By definition, objectivity requires the objective concept to be well-defined (which cannot be paradoxical or internally contradictory).
3) Well-ordered definitions require well-ordered formal languages, and in order for the definition to be non-paradoxical, and hence well-ordered, the defined concept must be completely limited by the defining language (to prevent Russell's paradox), i.e. cannot be the "highest" being.
4) God is defined as the highest being.
5) By these necessary standards, god is ill-defined.
6) God cannot be objective.
7) God cannot actually exist.

I dare you, I double dare you; try to refute this.

Interesting opinion you have.
Opinion? This is a flawless, logical proof, placed under the lens of scrutiny to the highest degree; so how is this an opinion?
Doesn"t seem to be objective and the biggest problem is that it is not true that God is ill-defined. :)

Bare assertion.
KthulhuHimself
Posts: 995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2016 10:34:00 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/21/2016 2:08:11 AM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 6/20/2016 4:43:11 PM, KthulhuHimself wrote:
1) For something to actually exist, it has to be objective.
2) By definition, objectivity requires the objective concept to be well-defined (which cannot be paradoxical or internally contradictory).
3) Well-ordered definitions require well-ordered formal languages, and in order for the definition to be non-paradoxical, and hence well-ordered, the defined concept must be completely limited by the defining language (to prevent Russell's paradox), i.e. cannot be the "highest" being.
4) God is defined as the highest being.
5) By these necessary standards, god is ill-defined.
6) God cannot be objective.
7) God cannot actually exist.

I dare you, I double dare you; try to refute this.

Even if you prescribe to material or naturalist constructs, In any infinite set + Darwinian evolution (theory), the highest conceivable, possible being must exist by the mathematics and laws of infinity. The highest possible love, the highest possible justice. Put them together...you get the cross.

Sorry, but the moment you define such a thing, and hence make it exist; you automatically manage to define a greater love, justice, etc. simply by definition alone.

Oh, and by the way; there isn't any such actual thing as infinity, not one that exists objectively at least.
KthulhuHimself
Posts: 995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2016 10:39:01 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/21/2016 3:21:08 AM, Cobalt wrote:
At 6/20/2016 6:35:26 PM, KthulhuHimself wrote:

You're essentially using language as a proof of something. The ability to express or not express an idea in a language is a product of that language and its rules and does not change or define the existence of unrelated objects by itself existing.

Define "object".
If no intelligent life existed, there would be no well-ordered language. Despite this, we know things definitely existed before humans got here. A language is a reflection of human understanding, not the world around it.

Sorry, bot no; well-ordered languages are objective, and hence exist independent of any intelligent beings; meaning that they existed before us.
As for God, if we "define" him as the "greatest", it doesn't make sense to say there can be something greater. Sure, we have the ability of essentially saying "god + 1", but that statement won't make sense given the definition of God that existed in the first place.

As a mathematician, I understand this subject more than most people, so let me give you a short explanation regarding this.

If you successfully define something as "greatest", you automatically have to state what it's greater than. Never, no matter how hard you try, can you define it to be greater than everything, because everything in as itself is ill-defined; meaning that you can always find an exception, and hence always find something greater.
KthulhuHimself
Posts: 995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2016 10:41:45 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/21/2016 4:34:34 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 6/20/2016 4:43:11 PM, KthulhuHimself wrote:
1) For something to actually exist, it has to be objective.
2) By definition, objectivity requires the objective concept to be well-defined (which cannot be paradoxical or internally contradictory).
3) Well-ordered definitions require well-ordered formal languages, and in order for the definition to be non-paradoxical, and hence well-ordered, the defined concept must be completely limited by the defining language (to prevent Russell's paradox), i.e. cannot be the "highest" being.
4) God is defined as the highest being.
5) By these necessary standards, god is ill-defined.
6) God cannot be objective.
7) God cannot actually exist.

I dare you, I double dare you; try to refute this.

"the highest being", by definition, must be non-paradoxical.
But this in itself is a paradox, so you can't define it this way.
The term "limit" is misleading insofar that it means "non-paradoxical." So basically, you're syllogism falls apart under a false pretext.

As just explained, no.
KthulhuHimself
Posts: 995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2016 10:42:42 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/21/2016 8:57:03 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 6/21/2016 4:34:34 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 6/20/2016 4:43:11 PM, KthulhuHimself wrote:
1) For something to actually exist, it has to be objective.
2) By definition, objectivity requires the objective concept to be well-defined (which cannot be paradoxical or internally contradictory).
3) Well-ordered definitions require well-ordered formal languages, and in order for the definition to be non-paradoxical, and hence well-ordered, the defined concept must be completely limited by the defining language (to prevent Russell's paradox), i.e. cannot be the "highest" being.
4) God is defined as the highest being.
5) By these necessary standards, god is ill-defined.
6) God cannot be objective.
7) God cannot actually exist.

I dare you, I double dare you; try to refute this.

"the highest being", by definition, must be non-paradoxical. The term "limit" is misleading insofar that it means "non-paradoxical." So basically, you're syllogism falls apart under a false pretext.
A highest being can and must be paradoxical, or it is not the highest being, since any being that can be paradoxical is a higher being and has a greater capacity than the being you claim is the highest.

Which means that it does not exist.
CaptainBallarms
Posts: 24
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2016 10:48:56 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/20/2016 4:43:11 PM, KthulhuHimself wrote:
1) For something to actually exist, it has to be objective.
2) By definition, objectivity requires the objective concept to be well-defined (which cannot be paradoxical or internally contradictory).
3) Well-ordered definitions require well-ordered formal languages, and in order for the definition to be non-paradoxical, and hence well-ordered, the defined concept must be completely limited by the defining language (to prevent Russell's paradox), i.e. cannot be the "highest" being.
4) God is defined as the highest being.
5) By these necessary standards, god is ill-defined.
6) God cannot be objective.
7) God cannot actually exist.

I dare you, I double dare you; try to refute this.

Do you wish to debate this or not?
bulproof
Posts: 25,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2016 10:51:24 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/21/2016 10:42:42 AM, KthulhuHimself wrote:
At 6/21/2016 8:57:03 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 6/21/2016 4:34:34 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 6/20/2016 4:43:11 PM, KthulhuHimself wrote:
1) For something to actually exist, it has to be objective.
2) By definition, objectivity requires the objective concept to be well-defined (which cannot be paradoxical or internally contradictory).
3) Well-ordered definitions require well-ordered formal languages, and in order for the definition to be non-paradoxical, and hence well-ordered, the defined concept must be completely limited by the defining language (to prevent Russell's paradox), i.e. cannot be the "highest" being.
4) God is defined as the highest being.
5) By these necessary standards, god is ill-defined.
6) God cannot be objective.
7) God cannot actually exist.

I dare you, I double dare you; try to refute this.

"the highest being", by definition, must be non-paradoxical. The term "limit" is misleading insofar that it means "non-paradoxical." So basically, you're syllogism falls apart under a false pretext.
A highest being can and must be paradoxical, or it is not the highest being, since any being that can be paradoxical is a higher being and has a greater capacity than the being you claim is the highest.

Which means that it does not exist.
Thank you....................yes.
KthulhuHimself
Posts: 995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2016 11:12:33 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/21/2016 10:48:56 AM, CaptainBallarms wrote:
At 6/20/2016 4:43:11 PM, KthulhuHimself wrote:
1) For something to actually exist, it has to be objective.
2) By definition, objectivity requires the objective concept to be well-defined (which cannot be paradoxical or internally contradictory).
3) Well-ordered definitions require well-ordered formal languages, and in order for the definition to be non-paradoxical, and hence well-ordered, the defined concept must be completely limited by the defining language (to prevent Russell's paradox), i.e. cannot be the "highest" being.
4) God is defined as the highest being.
5) By these necessary standards, god is ill-defined.
6) God cannot be objective.
7) God cannot actually exist.

I dare you, I double dare you; try to refute this.

Do you wish to debate this or not?

Sure.

Oh; I see that you have already challenged me. Very well then.
CaptainBallarms
Posts: 24
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2016 11:14:37 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/21/2016 11:12:33 AM, KthulhuHimself wrote:
At 6/21/2016 10:48:56 AM, CaptainBallarms wrote:
At 6/20/2016 4:43:11 PM, KthulhuHimself wrote:
1) For something to actually exist, it has to be objective.
2) By definition, objectivity requires the objective concept to be well-defined (which cannot be paradoxical or internally contradictory).
3) Well-ordered definitions require well-ordered formal languages, and in order for the definition to be non-paradoxical, and hence well-ordered, the defined concept must be completely limited by the defining language (to prevent Russell's paradox), i.e. cannot be the "highest" being.
4) God is defined as the highest being.
5) By these necessary standards, god is ill-defined.
6) God cannot be objective.
7) God cannot actually exist.

I dare you, I double dare you; try to refute this.

Do you wish to debate this or not?

Sure.

Oh; I see that you have already challenged me. Very well then.

Great I look forward to it!
KthulhuHimself
Posts: 995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2016 11:16:25 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/21/2016 11:14:37 AM, CaptainBallarms wrote:
At 6/21/2016 11:12:33 AM, KthulhuHimself wrote:
At 6/21/2016 10:48:56 AM, CaptainBallarms wrote:
At 6/20/2016 4:43:11 PM, KthulhuHimself wrote:
1) For something to actually exist, it has to be objective.
2) By definition, objectivity requires the objective concept to be well-defined (which cannot be paradoxical or internally contradictory).
3) Well-ordered definitions require well-ordered formal languages, and in order for the definition to be non-paradoxical, and hence well-ordered, the defined concept must be completely limited by the defining language (to prevent Russell's paradox), i.e. cannot be the "highest" being.
4) God is defined as the highest being.
5) By these necessary standards, god is ill-defined.
6) God cannot be objective.
7) God cannot actually exist.

I dare you, I double dare you; try to refute this.

Do you wish to debate this or not?

Sure.

Oh; I see that you have already challenged me. Very well then.

Great I look forward to it!

I'd rather have the voting period be one month, if that's ok.
CaptainBallarms
Posts: 24
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2016 11:16:45 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/21/2016 11:16:25 AM, KthulhuHimself wrote:
At 6/21/2016 11:14:37 AM, CaptainBallarms wrote:
At 6/21/2016 11:12:33 AM, KthulhuHimself wrote:
At 6/21/2016 10:48:56 AM, CaptainBallarms wrote:
At 6/20/2016 4:43:11 PM, KthulhuHimself wrote:
1) For something to actually exist, it has to be objective.
2) By definition, objectivity requires the objective concept to be well-defined (which cannot be paradoxical or internally contradictory).
3) Well-ordered definitions require well-ordered formal languages, and in order for the definition to be non-paradoxical, and hence well-ordered, the defined concept must be completely limited by the defining language (to prevent Russell's paradox), i.e. cannot be the "highest" being.
4) God is defined as the highest being.
5) By these necessary standards, god is ill-defined.
6) God cannot be objective.
7) God cannot actually exist.

I dare you, I double dare you; try to refute this.

Do you wish to debate this or not?

Sure.

Oh; I see that you have already challenged me. Very well then.

Great I look forward to it!

I'd rather have the voting period be one month, if that's ok.

Changed!
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2016 11:56:26 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/21/2016 10:21:26 AM, KthulhuHimself wrote:
At 6/20/2016 6:49:27 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:

God is not defined accuracy because we do not have the language to define him correctly. We are constrained by our physical reference points.

This is a mathematical proof, not a physical one.

In effect it is the same thing, since mathematics are a part of the physical universe.

And that is where your problem lies, we know very little about the spirit realm, which is not a part of this physical Universe, and I suspect is almost infinitely larger.

The same exactly goes for mathematics, but we can still understand it.

That is true, and if we make the effort we can learn to understand God.

In fact he invites us to, as his son did later (John 17:3).

He will even help us to (James 1:5-8)

However, what you suggest would possibly be true if God were part of this physical world with all its limitations, but he isn't, he is a spirit and therefore the only limitations that are imposed on him are those he imposes on himself.

When I say "limited", I don't mean physically limited; but rather limited in general (i.e. limited to logic); meaning that if there is a god, it would have to abide to its own laws of physics, even if they are different than ours.

Jehovah does abide 100% by his own laws, and does nothing that does not fit within the perfect balance of Love Wisdom Justice and Power which is his personality.

However his limitation are all self imposed, since no-one else can limit him. Therefore in essence if not in practice he is a limitless God.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2016 11:57:11 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/21/2016 10:35:37 AM, CaptainBallarms wrote:
Do you wish to debate this argument? It could be fun.

That is what we are doing.