Changes

## God exits (Premise)

## God exits (Premise)

## Therefore, God has a cause outside of itself.  

## Therefore, God has a cause outside of itself.  

Again, I don't think you properly respond to what I'm saying.  I claim the idea of a logical impossibility is a hobgoblin of mediocre minds: We have no idea what's logically possible or impossible.  To say we do, and subsequently to claim that somehow human logic limits the omnipotence of god, is foolhardy.  What I was suggesting with your Aquinas example is that things which may at one point in time appear to be facially and obviously contradictory can, in the future, be shown to actually be possible, and the original belief was therefore just an incorrect human assumption and not "logic".  How that argument is a false-paradox straw man is beyond me: It appears you just throw those terms around to try to demonstrate that you're familiar with logical jargon in the hopes that the other side will assume you know better than they do.  When you argue through implicit authority (not to even bring up the Descartes reference), you sound like a liberal who belongs at wiki... -mittromney

Again, I don't think you properly respond to what I'm saying.  I claim the idea of a logical impossibility is a hobgoblin of mediocre minds: We have no idea what's logically possible or impossible.  To say we do, and subsequently to claim that somehow human logic limits the omnipotence of god, is foolhardy.  What I was suggesting with your Aquinas example is that things which may at one point in time appear to be facially and obviously contradictory can, in the future, be shown to actually be possible, and the original belief was therefore just an incorrect human assumption and not "logic".  How that argument is a false-paradox straw man is beyond me: It appears you just throw those terms around to try to demonstrate that you're familiar with logical jargon in the hopes that the other side will assume you know better than they do.  When you argue through implicit authority (not to even bring up the Descartes reference), you sound like a liberal who belongs at wiki... -mittromney

: I would urge you to ask your priest or minister the question of the rock so heavy.  You will likely get a similar answer to mine (and that of Aquinas and Augustine of Hippo).  Omnipotence is a human definition with words that are constrained by our language.  Head to the seminary and you will find half a dozen different definitions of omnipotence and various theologians arguing for and against each one being the correct interpretation of the word.  You will even find Judaism (which also asserts the omnipotent God) claims that God works through persuasion rather than action - the creation of possibility rather than miracles or violations of natural law - that His omnipotence is shown through that means.  Other branches of Christianity use "God cannot make you sin" as part of its philosophy, that if God was to make you sin then you would not have free will and thus would not be sinning.  The only reason to pose the paradox of omnipotence is to try to assert that God does not have such power.  My take on it (and I agree with those sources I have linked above) is that the proper definition of omnipotence is "to have any power that can be had" or to be the maximally powerful being and as such the question of the rock or a square circle or a four sided triangle becomes a silly question - that which cannot exist cannot be created.  If you wish to assert a different definition and solution to this question, then by all means do so. However, I have not seen any reasonable argument against this position from you yet. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 20:41, 19 March 2007 (EDT)  

 

:I would urge you to ask your priest or minister the question of the rock so heavy.  You will likely get a similar answer to mine (and that of Aquinas and Augustine of Hippo).  Omnipotence is a human definition with words that are constrained by our language.  Head to the seminary and you will find half a dozen different definitions of omnipotence and various theologians arguing for and against each one being the correct interpretation of the word.  You will even find Judaism (which also asserts the omnipotent God) claims that God works through persuasion rather than action - the creation of possibility rather than miracles or violations of natural law - that His omnipotence is shown through that means.  Other branches of Christianity use "God cannot make you sin" as part of its philosophy, that if God was to make you sin then you would not have free will and thus would not be sinning.  The only reason to pose the paradox of omnipotence is to try to assert that God does not have such power.  My take on it (and I agree with those sources I have linked above) is that the proper definition of omnipotence is "to have any power that can be had" or to be the maximally powerful being and as such the question of the rock or a square circle or a four sided triangle becomes a silly question - that which cannot exist cannot be created.  If you wish to assert a different definition and solution to this question, then by all means do so. However, I have not seen any reasonable argument against this position from you yet. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 20:41, 19 March 2007 (EDT)  

Guys, you are debating the wrong question which is really only a red herring.  The real question that each must answer is this:  "Will a man become so filled with pride and enamored with thoughts of his own intellectual superiority as to use a silly logical argument as an excuse to close his mind and his heart to the truth of the Gospel and thus reject his only hope of salvation?" --[[User:HSDad|HSDad]] 10:34, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Guys, you are debating the wrong question which is really only a red herring.  The real question that each must answer is this:  "Will a man become so filled with pride and enamored with thoughts of his own intellectual superiority as to use a silly logical argument as an excuse to close his mind and his heart to the truth of the Gospel and thus reject his only hope of salvation?" --[[User:HSDad|HSDad]] 10:34, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

: Or perhaps the real question is, "Why do so many people blindly follow religious stories and texts with nothing to go on but faith with out any facts?". But that's another question for another debate. Lets just stick to the original question.--[[User:Sm355|Sm355]] 12:38, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:Or perhaps the real question is, "Why do so many people blindly follow religious stories and texts with nothing to go on but faith with out any facts?". But that's another question for another debate. Lets just stick to the original question.--[[User:Sm355|Sm355]] 12:38, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Aaaaagh you just disprooved god[[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 15:37, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

Aaaaagh you just disprooved god[[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 15:37, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

cannot be done, than that God cannot do them.</blockquote>

cannot be done, than that God cannot do them.</blockquote>

That is, if God exists, he can do all that is logically possible, and nothing that is not.  So, because there is a contradiction whether God can or cannot create the rock, it cannot be done. [[User:Masterbratac|Masterbratac]] 19:43, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

That is, if God exists, he can do all that is logically possible, and nothing that is not.  So, because there is a contradiction whether God can or cannot create the rock, it cannot be done. [[User:Masterbratac|Masterbratac]] 19:43, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

God is powerful, I like that square circle example. He can creat anything he want to created. Now why would God creat such a rock that even Himself can't lift. If the rock was heavy than God can just use His powers to make it easier to lift duhh. God is too strong to creat a rock too heavy for Him to lift. [[User:Amphibious|Amphibious]] 02:14, 27 October 2007 (EDT)

 

:God is powerful, I like that square circle example. He can creat anything he want to created. Now why would God creat such a rock that even Himself can't lift. If the rock was heavy than God can just use His powers to make it easier to lift duhh. God is too strong to creat a rock too heavy for Him to lift. [[User:Amphibious|Amphibious]] 02:14, 27 October 2007 (EDT)

[added~]

[added~]

haha. its kind of funny arguing about this kind of thing...because personally, i dont believe in higher beings like god. its only a figment of your mind; god holds only as much power as you give him. there is the concept of god for those who want a pillar of support around and them and i realize that there are those who truly would like to believe. and im fine with that. however, for someone like me who believes it is impractical, impossible, and downright strange to have an "omnipotent" being watching over us in such a way, i say heck sure he could. if he existed. but if we're going to put this in the context of fiction, anything is possible. but to me, if the root of this argumnet, god, does not exist, then i consider the possiblity of him creating a rock that he cant lift as invalid.  {{unsigned|KuR0K4R4}}

haha. its kind of funny arguing about this kind of thing...because personally, i dont believe in higher beings like god. its only a figment of your mind; god holds only as much power as you give him. there is the concept of god for those who want a pillar of support around and them and i realize that there are those who truly would like to believe. and im fine with that. however, for someone like me who believes it is impractical, impossible, and downright strange to have an "omnipotent" being watching over us in such a way, i say heck sure he could. if he existed. but if we're going to put this in the context of fiction, anything is possible. but to me, if the root of this argumnet, god, does not exist, then i consider the possiblity of him creating a rock that he cant lift as invalid.  {{unsigned|KuR0K4R4}}

: So what reason do you provide for God's non-existence?  None!  You don't believe He does&mdash;but that doesn't mean He doesn't&mdash;yet you provide absolutely no reason whatsoever for your subjective opinion.  Many people have provided very good arguments supporting the view that God does exist, but you are obviously unaware of them or simply choose to ignore them, because you've made no attempt whatsoever to answer them.  Instead, you simply type some throwaway lines about your personal views and expect that to count as some sort of argument (this ''is'' a ''debate'' page).  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:50, 4 December 2007 (EST)

 

:So what reason do you provide for God's non-existence?  None!  You don't believe He does&mdash;but that doesn't mean He doesn't&mdash;yet you provide absolutely no reason whatsoever for your subjective opinion.  Many people have provided very good arguments supporting the view that God does exist, but you are obviously unaware of them or simply choose to ignore them, because you've made no attempt whatsoever to answer them.  Instead, you simply type some throwaway lines about your personal views and expect that to count as some sort of argument (this ''is'' a ''debate'' page).  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:50, 4 December 2007 (EST)

=== "Everything that exists has a cause outside of itself." ===

=== "Everything that exists has a cause outside of itself." ===

As for the problem of evil, it is only problematic if you assume the attribute of benevolence and the degree to which you hold him responsible for our situation and therefore the situation of others. I deny free will both on empirical, metaphysical and even divine grounds, therefore we cannot be held responsible for our actions or the suffering of others. -Barnes

As for the problem of evil, it is only problematic if you assume the attribute of benevolence and the degree to which you hold him responsible for our situation and therefore the situation of others. I deny free will both on empirical, metaphysical and even divine grounds, therefore we cannot be held responsible for our actions or the suffering of others. -Barnes

==Logical fallacy==

==Logical fallacy==