The Ability to do the Illogical (moral, reject, Earth, beliefs)

[Fluffy]

Originally Posted by www.philosophyquotes.net

In saying that God has the freedom and power to do that which is logically impossible (like creating square circles), you are saying that any discussion of God and ultimate reality cannot be constrained by basic principles of rationality. This would seem to make rational discourse about God impossible. If rational discourse about God is impossible, there is nothing rational we can say about God and nothing rational we can say to support our belief or disbelief in God. To reject rational constraints on religious discourse in this fashion requires accepting that religious convictions, including your religious convictions, are beyond any debate or rational discussion. This is to bite a bullet.

The above quotation was taken from a quiz designed to test your beliefs for logical fallacies. If you say something that is completely illogical then you take damage. If you say something which is logically consistent but has an unfortunate implication on your faith then you 'bite a bullet' where the full implications of holding such a belief are made aware to you.

This particular implication came up after the question "If God exists she would have the freedom and power to create square circles and make 1 + 1 = 72." To which I answered "True". Do you agree that this implication follows on from such an assertion?

Do you think that omnipotence requires the ability to do that which is logically impossible? If not why not?

[michel]

Originally Posted by Fluffy

The above quotation was taken from a quiz designed to test your beliefs for logical fallacies. If you say something that is completely illogical then you take damage. If you say something which is logically consistent but has an unfortunate implication on your faith then you 'bite a bullet' where the full implications of holding such a belief are made aware to you.

This particular implication came up after the question "If God exists she would have the freedom and power to create square circles and make 1 + 1 = 72." To which I answered "True". Do you agree that this implication follows on from such an assertion?

Do you think that omnipotence requires the ability to do that which is logically impossible? If not why not?

I don't know about omnipotence requiring the ability - I think maybe it is the other way around. Omnipotence:- an agency or force of unlimited power . Logic is only logical in the context of which the logic was made; an example - to Newton, it might well have been logical that an apple would have fallen off a tree on the moon; we know better.

Logic only works within the frame of reference in which it was constructed ?

[stemann]

Logic only works within the frame of reference in which it was constructed ?

Logic is the only infallible thing, since in order to disprove it you must use it. The definition of omnipotence as being able to do anything at all is impossible, even for God, because then He couldn't find something He couldn't do, and if He could, then He couldn't do that.

I remember going on that website once, it told me I was bizare.

[michel]

Originally Posted by stemann

Logic is the only infallible thing, since in order to disprove it you must use it. The definition of omnipotence as being able to do anything at all is impossible, even for God, because then He couldn't find something He couldn't do, and if He could, then He couldn't do that.

I remember going on that website once, it told me I was bizare.

Ah, since you quote your belief as 'logic' I see where you are coming from.. of course you could not contemplate omipotence; I would go as far as to say that your sentence beginning The definition.........shows what I believe to be a flaw in your logic; you accept that there is a definition for omnipotence, and yet in the same sentence denounce the definition of the word as being flawed. You can't have it both ways, you know.

BTW, I hope there is room for a little bit of abstract in your life, as well as the logic - I would be most unhappy being logical all the time.

[Druidus]

If God exists, I would not say that God could create square circles, or alter laws of mathematics. If God can do that, could not God also make all things we consider wrong, right, and all things we consider right, wrong? Could God make murder, thievery and rape good, while generosity, love and assistance evil? Not in my opinion.

[michel]

Originally Posted by Druidus

If God exists, I would not say that God could create square circles, or alter laws of mathematics. If God can do that, could not God also make all things we consider wrong, right, and all things we consider right, wrong? Could God make murder, thievery and rape good, while generosity, love and assistance evil? Not in my opinion.

Who says that he couldn't make all things that we consider wrong right ? - but there again, why on Earth should he want to ?

[stemann]

Ah, since you quote your belief as 'logic' I see where you are coming from.. of course you could not contemplate omipotence; I would go as far as to say that your sentence beginning The definition.........shows what I believe to be a flaw in your logic; you accept that there is a definition for omnipotence, and yet in the same sentence denounce the definition of the word as being flawed. You can't have it both ways, you know.

What I meant was that that definition of omnipotence was wrong, and so nothing could have that property.

BTW, I hope there is room for a little bit of abstract in your life, as well as the logic - I would be most unhappy being logical all the time.

I have always wondered why people say this, and I think it's because I don't take the time to explain myself properly. If you have heard of Utilitarianism, then I kind of apply that to myself only- The greatest possible happiness for me. This sounds incredibly selfish, but i also theorize that everyone in the world acts on this principle- another form of determinism, since if you only act out of what you think is best for you, you have no freedom of choice. It would take me a long time to justify these views, and one day I promise I will try. I'm sure they seem stupid to you now.

Could God make murder, thievery and rape good, while generosity, love and assistance evil? Not in my opinion.

Another gigantic argument which I don't have the time or the patience to apply myself to. Search for 'Euthyphro Dilemma' on google or something. In my opinion (which I seem to love to give nowadays) God's Will is identical to morality- some philosopher said 'He could no more cease to be good than He could cease to be God.'

[Shadow Wolf]

If God exists she would have the freedom and power to create square circles and make 1 + 1 = 72."
Ill logically pick apart the small quote.
1+1=72 - True, because 1 yard + 1 yard = 72 inches.
Square circle, a.k.a. wrestling ring.
The assumption of god having unlimited power would make what seems illogical become logic, impossible become possible.

[michel]

Originally Posted by Luke Wolf

If God exists she would have the freedom and power to create square circles and make 1 + 1 = 72."
Ill logically pick apart the small quote.
1+1=72 - True, because 1 yard + 1 yard = 72 inches.
Square circle, a.k.a. wrestling ring.
The assumption of god having unlimited power would make what seems illogical become logic, impossible become possible.

Now that was just too clever for words - Fruballworthy!

[michel]

Originally Posted by stemann

What I meant was that that definition of omnipotence was wrong, and so nothing could have that property.


I have always wondered why people say this, and I think it's because I don't take the time to explain myself properly. If you have heard of Utilitarianism, then I kind of apply that to myself only- The greatest possible happiness for me. This sounds incredibly selfish, but i also theorize that everyone in the world acts on this principle- another form of determinism, since if you only act out of what you think is best for you, you have no freedom of choice. It would take me a long time to justify these views, and one day I promise I will try. I'm sure they seem stupid to you now.


Another gigantic argument which I don't have the time or the patience to apply myself to. Search for 'Euthyphro Dilemma' on google or something. In my opinion (which I seem to love to give nowadays) God's Will is identical to morality- some philosopher said 'He could no more cease to be good than He could cease to be God.'

1.Have you seen my quoted Faith/Religion?; if you are a Utilitarianist (1 : a doctrine that the useful is the good and that the determining consideration of right conduct should be the usefulness of its consequences; specifically : a theory that the aim of action should be the largest possible balance of pleasure over pain or the greatest happiness of the greatest number), I see no reason why you believe you can roughride over all aspects with just logic.

2.Besides, you contradict yourself - having quoted your religion as Logic, you say "If you have heard of Utilitarianism, then I kind of apply that to myself only- The greatest possible happiness for me. " - make up your mind; if you rely solely on pure logic, how can you then go into an emotional description of your Utilitarian methodology......

3.Another gigantic argument which I don't have the time or the patience to apply myself to. Search for 'Euthyphro Dilemma' on google or something.

If you haven't the patience to prove your argument, why on Earth should I do the donkey-work for you? Really, stemann...........