square triangles

If we define a square as a polyeder where all corners is 90 degrees, then we come to the surprising result:
Yes, there are square triangles!

Draw a triangle with corners at (1) North pole, (2) at the point where Greenwich meridian crosses the equator, and (3) the point of the equater 90 degrees east of point 2.

This triangle is a polyeder having all corners with 90 degrees.

Assuming the definition of a square, above, is correct, then there are square triangles.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
If we define a square as a polyeder where all corners is 90 degrees, then we come to the surprising result:
Yes, there are square triangles!

Draw a triangle with corners at (1) North pole, (2) at the point where Greenwich meridian crosses the equator, and (3) the point of the equater 90 degrees east of point 2.

This triangle is a polyeder having al ...[text shortened]... ees.

Assuming the definition of a square, above, is correct, then there are square triangles.

Okay, okay...! 🙂

But that is not the point of Agerg’s question, whether or not you can challenge the particular example he used.

Let’s take an example from logic (modus ponens):

(1) If p, then q;

(2) p;

(3) therefore, q.

Can an omnipotent god create a situation in which (1) and (2) are given, but (3) does not hold?

If one makes such a claim, then how can s/he proceed to make any reasonable arguments about the nature—or even the existence—of such a god?

Just for a simplistic example, let’s plug omnipotence itself into the inference:

(1) If there is a god, then god is omnipotent;

(2) there is a god;

(3) therefore...god is omnipotent.

Well, if the theist makes such an argument, then they have to admit the validity of modus ponens, even as applied to god; if they claim that an omnipotent god is not subject to modus ponens, then they have to allow for (3) “therefore, god is... not omnipotent”!!!

And the fact is that a whole lot of argument that goes on here (between theists and nontheists, as well as between theists and other theists) is of that very nature. And, as long as that is the case, Agerg is perfectly correct in attempting to challenge those theists who claim that God is somehow “beyond” logic.

And, despite your challenge to his particular example here, I think you agree...

Originally posted by josephw
Are you saying that in order for God to be omnipotent He should be able to create a rock to big for Him to move?

That would be like saying that God is omnipotent because He can create an immovable object colliding with an irresistable forse.

God is omnipotent, not stupid.

this does not imply stupidity. it simply implies nobody can be omnipotent.

and yes, god cannot create an immovable object AND an unstoppable force.

Originally posted by zeger55
the answer to your question is, "you are stupid."

by asking a question like this, you have obviously not thought about what God is.

God is outside of logic. God created logic, it was a thought he made, (he who is outside of logic), and put us in it. By asking him to make something taht is inside of logic, that breaks logic while still sustaining logic, you receive the answer, "you are stupid."

god created logic? and you call other people stupid?

reality check here

Originally posted by vistesd
Okay, okay...! 🙂

But that is not the point of Agerg’s question, whether or not you can challenge the particular example he used.

Let’s take an example from logic (modus ponens):

(1) If p, then q;

(2) p;

(3) therefore, q.

Can an omnipotent god create a situation in which (1) and (2) are given, but (3) does no ...[text shortened]... yond” logic.

And, despite your challenge to his particular example here, I think you agree...

in the beginning there was not logic and god thought "asfdagfal4!@#$!#@asdf1432$!@%" so he said "#!%@^$& @#%!Wsad!14"

And then logic appeared. alas, god wasn't yet trained in the ways of the Logic. so he created day and night and plants before the sun, and birds before land animals. To this very day god ignores logic from time to time by inventing platypuses and bible genocides and crusades. and when anyone suggests to him to create an immovable rock AND an unstoppable force he frowns and says "thou shall not tempt your god". And flips that person the finger and in anger, he makes a volcano to erupt.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
this does not imply stupidity. it simply implies nobody can be omnipotent.

and yes, god cannot create an immovable object AND an unstoppable force.

You know, a long, long time ago my friend and debate-nemesis lucifershammer suggested that the term “omnipotent” should just be understood as meaning maximally (and logically) potent. At the time, I thought he was “hedging”. But, in retrospect, I think he had a valid point...

Originally posted by vistesd
Okay, okay...! 🙂

But that is not the point of Agerg’s question, whether or not you can challenge the particular example he used.

Let’s take an example from logic (modus ponens):

(1) If p, then q;

(2) p;

(3) therefore, q.

Can an omnipotent god create a situation in which (1) and (2) are given, but (3) does no ...[text shortened]... yond” logic.

And, despite your challenge to his particular example here, I think you agree...

Let's see the proof again, the one that some fundamentalists are using to 'prove' that god is omnipotent:
P1
(1) If there is a god, then god is omnipotent;
(2) there is a god;
(3) therefore... god is omnipotent.

One way to show that this is a false proof is to change certain objects and see what we get:
P2
(1) If there is a satan, then satan is a good guy;
(2) there is a satan;
(3) therefore... satan is a good guy.

If proof P1 holds, then P2 holds too. Obviously false. But on the other hands fundamentalists are not good in logic (they belive in a god, don't they?), neither in science (the belive in intelligent design don't they?)

You call two opposite groups theists and non-theists. In the group thists we can find muslems, hindus, animists, even those who see the Emperor of Japan or Haile Selassies as a god, so I include them too. Are you a part of the theist group?

Another way of grouping people is rationals and irrationals. As I don't believe in the christian kind of god, I rather stand in the science side, and therefore I am a rational. I wouldn't want to be in the group of irrationals.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
in the beginning there was not logic and god thought "asfdagfal4!@#$!#@asdf1432$!@%" so he said "#!%@^$& @#%!Wsad!14"

And then logic appeared. alas, god wasn't yet trained in the ways of the Logic. so he created day and night and plants before the sun, and birds before land animals. To this very day god ignores logic from time to time by inventing platyp ...[text shortened]... pt your god". And flips that person the finger and in anger, he makes a volcano to erupt.

LOL!! Nicely done!

Originally posted by FabianFnas
Let's see the proof again, the one that some fundamentalists are using to 'proove' that god is omnipotent:
P1
(1) If there is a god, then god is omnipotent;
(2) there is a god;
(3) therefore... god is omnipotent.

One way to show that this is a false proof is to change certain objects and see what we get:
P2
(1) If there is a satan, then satan i ette), and therefore I am a rational. I wouldn't want to be in the group of irrationals.

I am in the non-theist group. I am a non-dualist.

EDIT:

My whole posting on this thread has been to support the logic of Agerg’s opening question. Your post about poly-whatever squares is well-taken. I just didn’t want any dualist-theists to take comfort from your challenge to Agerg’s example.

I do not think that theism (what I, in the interests of strict accuracy, call dualist-supernaturalist-theism) is at all tenable.

This is, as you say, not the science forum; it is the “spirituality” forum—which has also come to mean that it is the forum in which various philosophies get expressed (metaphysics, for example, as opposed to physics).

I have never made an anti-science argument on these threads.

Originally posted by vistesd
You know, a long, long time ago my friend and debate-nemesis lucifershammer suggested that the term “omnipotent” should just be understood as meaning maximally (and logically) potent. At the time, I thought he was “hedging”. But, in retrospect, I think he had a valid point...

of course, if we define correctly a concept, that concept can be applied.

i can say god is a pink fluffy unicorn if by pink i mean very powerfull, fluffy i mean all knowing and unicorn i mean all the traits required to be a god.

but then i cannot use pink and fluffy for their original meaning.

omnipotent means omnipotent. why use this word with a different meaning when we can use words describing the intended meaning or inventing a word precisely for that. otherwise, speech might become useless.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
of course, if we define correctly a concept, that concept can be applied.

i can say god is a pink fluffy unicorn if by pink i mean very powerfull, fluffy i mean all knowing and unicorn i mean all the traits required to be a god.

but then i cannot use pink and fluffy for their original meaning.

omnipotent means omnipotent. why use this word with a d ...[text shortened]... intended meaning or inventing a word precisely for that. otherwise, speech might become useless.

I don't disagree. Speech is normative. But, if someone else uses a term in a particular way, I have to at least acknowledge that if we are to communicate.

I don't think that you and I are at all in disagreement over the basics here.

Originally posted by vistesd
I don't disagree. Speech is normative. But, if someone else uses a term in a particular way, I have to at least acknowledge that if we are to communicate.

I don't think that you and I are at all in disagreement over the basics here.

sure, i was just commenting on your "friend's" claim

if speech is to have any meaning, words must have precise definition, definitions know by the speakers beforehand. i agree with you totally.

Originally posted by vistesd
I am in the non-theist group. I am a non-dualist.

EDIT:

My whole posting on this thread has been to support the logic of Agerg’s opening question. Your post about poly-whatever squares is well-taken. I just didn’t want any dualist-theists to take comfort from your challenge to Agerg’s example.

I do not think that theism (what I, in the interests ...[text shortened]... example, as opposed to physics).

I have never made an anti-science argument on these threads.

I thought I was in the Science Forum, my mistake, I've edited out that erroneous part. And I know, you've never made any anti-science claims. Some do, mostly fundamentalists.

People (not you) trying to prove the existance of god, his omnipotent, or any other claims originating from the bible using logic, science, or other non-theological methods have a weak faith. God doesn't need to be prooven, if they have faith.

Once an astrologist friend of mine (also a religious beliver in his (as he calls it) science) because "We use ephemerid tables, don't we? And they are filled with figures, aren't they? Therefore astrology is science, right?" Wrong, I told him. Astrology is a religion, based on fatalism. Logic used by non-logists trying to prove his point, is bound to fail.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
sure, i was just commenting on your "friend's" claim

if speech is to have any meaning, words must have precise definition, definitions know by the speakers beforehand. i agree with you totally.

But—

If, for the sake of discourse, I accept my friend’s definition, then we can move on from there. That does not mean that the question of definition does not arise in subsequent discourse with others.

If you ask: “What do you mean by X?” And I say: “I mean such-and-such by X.” And you say: “That’s not how I understand X.” Then we have to sort that out before we can have any further meaningful discussion about—well, X.

In the case of my friend, I would probably have used (insisted on using) the phrase “maximally potent” thereafter.

When I say that language is normative, I do not necessarily mean that conventional dictionary definitions are always appropriate. I mean that defining “love”, for example, in a way that allows for “hateful” behavior simply undermines all reasonable discourse. (This is what SwissGambit has called “bizarro speech”.)

Yes, I don’t think we are in disagreement here. As you are applying the strict defintion of “omnipotent”, I agree entirely. The point is that we all need to hold each other’s feet to the fire when it comes to how we use such terms.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
I thought I was in the Science Forum, my mistake, I've edited out that erroneous part. And I know, you've never made any anti-science claims. Some do, mostly fundamentalists.

People (not you) trying to prove the existance of god, his omnipotent, or any other claims originating from the bible using logic, science, or other non-theological methods have a based on fatalism. Logic used by non-logists trying to prove his point, is bound to fail.

Well, I've never thought that you and I really disagreed on these forums. Maybe on a detail here and there, but not generally...