Originally posted by 667joe If god were a baseball player, it would be safe to say god would be the best baseball player, right? The question is could god the pitcher strike out god the batter? Conversely, could god the batter hit a home run off god the pitcher? No matter how you look at this riddle, god comes out less than omnipotent. In my view this riddle makes a case that there is no god.
I have a better question. Could God the philosopher, who is all powerful and all knowning, run circles around 667joe finite logic abilities?
Originally posted by 667joe So clearly then you agree with me that god is logically impossible and therefore cannot exist. Thank you.
No I don't agree with you; especially since you seem to be letting "god" represent *all* potential gods.
All you've reminded us of (albeit with a clumsy reformulation of the rock god can't lift argument), is that a logically impossible god cannot exist if one holds that logic is a universal law (I do) - big deal!!
Your notion of god, and your argument is a strawman.
Originally posted by whodey I have a better question. Could God the philosopher, who is all powerful and all knowning, run circles around 667joe finite logic abilities?
Well according to joe, nope. 😛
You are absolutely correct. In fact god can't even out think you, because god does not exist! You are more potent than god!
Originally posted by Agerg No I don't agree with you; especially since you seem to be letting "god" represent *all* potential gods.
All you've reminded us of (albeit with a clumsy reformulation of the rock god can't lift argument), is that a logically impossible god cannot exist if one holds that logic is a universal law (I do) - big deal!!
Your notion of god, and your argument is a strawman.
Originally posted by 667joe A straw man is more real than any god!
do you understand what a straw man is? coz i think you are just using it like a kid uses "you are stupider". nobody ever argues why this or that is a straw man. they just use it as a means of having the last word in a debate. or to sound intelligent. which its not. in fact it is quite stupid.
agerg made a good point and you constructed a flimsy argument. why don't you try again?
Originally posted by Zahlanzi do you understand what a straw man is? coz i think you are just using it like a kid uses "you are stupider". nobody ever argues why this or that is a straw man. they just use it as a means of having the last word in a debate. or to sound intelligent. which its not. in fact it is quite stupid.
agerg made a good point and you constructed a flimsy argument. why don't you try again?
A real straw man is more than a non existing god. What is so hard for you to grasp about that? Why not throw in a red herring?
Originally posted by 667joe A real straw man is more than a non existing god. What is so hard for you to grasp about that? Why not throw in a red herring?
yep, you don't understand. you just heard the concept once and thought it was cool. perhaps you should wiki it. just so you don't sound like a buffoon.
Removed
Joined
15 Sep '04
Moves
7051
15 Dec '10 11:30
Originally posted by 667joe A real straw man is more than a non existing god. What is so hard for you to grasp about that? Why not throw in a red herring?
You are clearly confused about what these terms mean. A strawman is an argument in which a person misrepresents his opponent's argument, thus making it easier to refute.
Originally posted by Conrau K You are clearly confused about what these terms mean. A strawman is an argument in which a person misrepresents his opponent's argument, thus making it easier to refute.
A straw man (argument) is not a strong position to have. Believing in any sort of god is an even weaker position. That's what my point is. The baseball analogy (or the god and the rock analogy) are paradoxes that merely use qualities that theists appoint to god that are contradictory to the realm of possibility therefore suggesting that god does not exist. For the theist to be consistent, he would have to say a square circle exists!
Removed
Joined
15 Sep '04
Moves
7051
15 Dec '10 12:44
Originally posted by 667joe A straw man (argument) is not a strong position to have. Believing in any sort of god is an even weaker position. That's what my point is. The baseball analogy (or the god and the rock analogy) are paradoxes that merely use qualities that theists appoint to god that are contradictory to the realm of possibility therefore suggesting that god does not exist. For the theist to be consistent, he would have to say a square circle exists!
A straw man (argument) is not a strong position to have. Believing in any sort of god is an even weaker position. That's what my point is.
Well, that seems to be a category mistake. A straw man is an argument; belief in God is not an argument but a contention. A straw man is always a fallacy whereas the validity of theism depends on the strength of the arguments put forward.
The baseball analogy (or the god and the rock analogy) are paradoxes that merely use qualities that theists appoint to god that are contradictory to the realm of possibility therefore suggesting that god does not exist. For the theist to be consistent, he would have to say a square circle exists!
Well, no, he wouldn't. You are not respecting what the theist normally means by omnipotence. When a theist claims God is omnipotent, they do not usually mean to commit themselves to the idea that God has the power to be a batter and pitcher simultaneously winning in both roles in an impossible game of baseball, which, granted the normal rules of baseball, would not actually be a game of baseball. Can't you see how ridiculous that sounds?
Is Anything wrong with my logic?
14 Dec '10 14:20
Back to Top