Debate Logic and God

ah, so it was a loaded question... glad to clear that up.

You say a whole lot about existence and the nature of god and how both of your worldviews relate, but fail to make a point. I think the closest thing to a point was that "even god is bound to his nature making him merely potent as opposed to omnipotent," but I'm not sure.

You claim that function should follow nature meaning, because god it isn't in god's nature, he can't make a square circle to "disprove" omnipotence... what if nature actually followed function? Because god didn't make a square circle, it isn't in his nature? That perfectly allows for omnipotence... Again, just because I don't kill someone, thus making killing not in my nature, doesn't mean I can't.

And, sure this "logic" works on a very judeo-christian god, but what about the other types of "god" out there? There's more than just the garden-variety all-powerful being... what about a collective existence as god? (you know, like some of the more eastern gods)...

 

See, now we're getting into arguing semantics... I'm going to go ahead and claim exactly what I just claimed because you didn't disprove what I claimed, you just reclaimed what you originally claimed.

You still stick with the stance that because it's god's nature not to make a square circle, he cannot make a square circle, thus making him not omnipotent...

I still stick with the claim that because he didn't make a square circle, it's in his nature not to make a square circle, thus making omnipotence possible.

See what I'm getting at here, it's all a debate of the which came first, the chicken or the egg. There isn't a way to prove one way or the other, they both follow different paths of logic...

Adding to the point above, you claim that god, who, according to the judeo-christian point of view, created the universe and all laws that it follows, logic, physics, you name it, he created it... why would he be bound to these rules if, in fact, he were omnipotent? Do you see what I'm getting at? You're making the claim that because he doesn't make sense based on this system of logic that is a law this universe must follow, he can't exist... I'm claiming, for the purpose of this debate, that because he created it, he doesn't have to, otherwise, abiding by this system he created would, in fact, make him less-than-omnipotent.

 

I lol'd there you go no verticies and has four sides. what more do you want

 

See, Nitrous, that's where you went wrong. 2+2=cat.

 

Don't worry about it. This a common mistake.

The History of 2+2=4

In fact, 2+2 does not equal 4. It equals cat.

Wait. Why does everyone think this?

Here we go.

It was started in 1776 by Thomas Jefferson. John Hancock had made a mistake and thought that right to bear arms meant to have guns (but that's a different story). All of the people laughed. Thomas Jefferson said "what's 2+2?" Everyone knew it was cat. Before Hancock could reply, Jefferson blurted, "4?", and the people lol'd some more. It is much like calling a stupid person "Einstein."

The reason why that joke caught on there was because people didn't know any other comebacks. After all, it was the 18th century. However by 1814, the joke was lost forever...or was it?

It game back again during the great depression. People could not afford better jokes, so they settled on that. Later, it was made famous by FDR because it was in his knew deal.

After a while, countries began creating school systems. When the curriculum was formed, something terrible happened. Misconception after misconception. People believed 2+2=4.

That brings us to today.

Why can't we find a cure for cancer? Our calculations are wrong.

Why can't we contact aliens? They understand that 2+2=cat. We have an ass-backward communications system.

Einstein figured out that 2+2 didn't equal 4. Though he died before he discovered it.

I have figured out the 11th dimension.

I have created the string theory (using cat instead of 4).

2+2= cat

 

OK, this could be a bit simply but could God create a rock he could not Lift. Then, later on be able to make it so he could over come any impossibility, as say this said rock after the fact?

I know this is a simple solution, but it seems like he still has the power to both create and over come his limitation, if he was really God.

 

Okay firstly, I'm not appreciating this whole "witty banter" at my expense, I've treated you with nothing but respect and to go off and post, off topic, several posts illustrating just how funny you think my posts are, isn't very respectful. I will, however, try to maintain some level of respect for your position.

In my point wording was key. You misrepresented my arguments by rewording them using your own verbage. If, however, you go back and re-read my post, you'll see that I chose particular language. I was claiming that nature followed function, you were claiming function followed nature. There is a rather large difference and you can't just claim "no, you're wrong," like you have and consider it a logical point. Just because you make a funny (2+2=/=cat), doesn't make your point right.

Aside from that, now you're debating reality... or our perception of reality. You're also still working on the premise that god was formed within our reality, not that he formed our reality. If you're going to be using a judeo-christian god as your base for all your assumptions, at least use all the assumptions, not just pick and choose. You seem to have a problem with that. Like in this post, you chose to ignore the claim that god created our reality (thus being above or beyond the rules of it), however you seem to take claim to his creation of sinners, which is pretty in-line with the nature of the judeo-christian god. Your premises are very biased in nature, overall.

So, you're saying we created logic... fair enough... why in hell would an omnipotent being, who created us, have to answer to us? Seriously, think before you answer... let's say, for the sake of the argument, there is this omnipotent being that created the whole ****ing reality... now along evolves this creature who says "I want to explain everything" then they're like, "wait... how does god fit in?" God suddenly has to go "oh ****, oh ****, oh ****, I need to be more logical to appease this being." Does that make a whole lot of sense? Especially if we take a deistic approach to this whole god thing... that seems a flemsy premise at best.

So, now we have to play by your rules? We can only use your premises? That doesn't seem like a very fair debate at all.

See, I'm not saying that... I've said over and over that nature follows function, you keep claiming that function follows nature... His actions are what form his nature, not the other way.(remember my chicken or egg crack earlier?)

According to your premises... see, I think I've proven that I'm working with quite different, albeit logical, premises. We just seem to keep going back to the same conflict in premises...

Firstly, nature versus function, which comes first?(remember my chicken versus the egg reference?)
Secondly, reality, created by god or with god already built in?
Thirdly, well, this is more on your level... god is christian, wait, no he isn't, wait no he is... that still confuses me, if you're going to use a judeo-christian model at least keep the assumption all the way through.

Oh, and as opposed to popular opinion, if rusty claims something, it doesn't make it true...

 

So friken funny can I put this in my sig?
To Nitrous, if you were to believe in a god, you would believe that he didn't create reality and that it was always there? Then what is the point of the god? He is not needed to make the universe. The only way I see a god existing is if he was at the very beginning and beyond logic.

 

I still want to know what sick pleasure you are getting out of testing people's beliefs, Nitrous. I figured one topic was enough for this, but I see you consistently need to prove a point that cannot be proven and is therefore a poor topic to debate. Now you will respond with something like, "I just want to get people's perspectives", which you do not and just want to build up for some all powerful argument that will never come to fruition because you cannot top the great thinkers that also realize that this is a topic that can never be fully proven unless someone can definitively go beyond human comprehension and find god himself to ask or subsequently a void that kills you when you get too close.

 

Actually, I, for the longest time, was like nitrous... that's how I formed my opinions. I kept testing them against people to figure out if I was wrong or not... turned out I was on a lot of points... The ones I was right about, however, I have a pretty solid argument today towards... in fact, even in this debate, I'm still testing myself, seeing if my premises are logical... sure, they may not be the absolute truth, but they work for me.

 

And that allows you to gain what? A feeling of superiority over others? A feeling of knowing how to explain the world? Just being annoying? All of the above?

 

Really, when trying to establish your own beliefs, it really helps you personally come to terms and find out what you believe... it's not about making others feel inferior, it's about making yourself feel more at piece with the belief system you've chosen.

 

So can't this be done without causing turmoil in a forum for video games? Sorry, that is how I was disguising this question.

 

WEll, it's a good thing there's a nifty subforum for debating.

 

Yes, but I always hate that place, and most of the actual debaters. So I go in and try to destroy it from the inside. It seems like it will be too hard till I prove the existence of god that is.