Things that god can't do!

Lordcow, can you explain to us how a thing can create another thing without being diminished? And further that if said THING created EVERYTHING then IT must shrink to nothing. If not, why not?

Having never dropped a mark in Thermodynamics - I can't wait for this one!

A 'mimic' is the only possible outcome...A thing can only dream of things that exist....which is why god is ultimately made to look like one of us! Every alien ever imagined looks like something already in existence. IT can't use any rules IT chooses...This is the biggest faither fallacy of them all...when you ask them to elaborate they say" oh, god knows, but I don't"...to right they don't and neither would god.

As for a 'super' natural creator. If some THING exists IT would be as natural as a cup of tea and just as interesting! Let's say you can prove there's a god...so what? I still (for one) wouldn't "do as IT told me". I would live my own life, not spend my time sucking-up to IT.

Sorry for the patronising, I appreciate your frankness.

Griff...here's a :) for my fans!
 
polaristutoring@tisc said:
Lordcow, can you explain to us how a thing can create another thing without being diminished? And further that if said THING created EVERYTHING then IT must shrink to nothing. If not, why not?
Click to expand...

i did just that. if you don't think i did, could you explain the fallacy in my cosmologist analogy?

polaristutoring@tisc said:
Having never dropped a mark in Thermodynamics - I can't wait for this one!
Click to expand...

i've also got a pretty good understanding of thermo, but more pertinent here is the philosophy of science, not the science results themselves.

more about it in the 'Maybe we CAN disprove God' thread.

polaristutoring@tisc said:
A 'mimic' is the only possible outcome...A thing can only dream of things that exist....which is why god is ultimately made to look like one of us! Every alien ever imagined looks like something already in existence. IT can't use any rules IT chooses...This is the biggest faither fallacy of them all...when you ask them to elaborate they say" oh, god knows, but I don't"...to right they don't and neither would god.
Click to expand...

mkay, not sure where this comes in.

polaristutoring@tisc said:
As for a 'super' natural creator. If some THING exists IT would be as natural as a cup of tea and just as interesting!
Click to expand...

on what do you base your claim that the supernatural can't exist?

polaristutoring@tisc said:
Let's say you can prove there's a god...so what? I still (for one) wouldn't "do as IT told me". I would live my own life, not spend my time sucking-up to IT.
Click to expand...

i wasn't trying to prove god exists, have never had any intention of doing so previously, neither do i believe one exists.
 
My idea is simple...people call something they do not understand or they regard better than themselves "super"....See "The Incredibles" for a full explanation by Syndrome!

The point is, that to a god , a god is not "super". To a dog I suppose we are super, what with our planes and cars. Unfortunately for god IT fails to impress some of us. I'm impressed more by the idea I've shared a glass of water with Napoleon!

Yet another thing god can't do.


Other fallacy inspired words - meta, para ....

You can believe in god....religious

You can believe there's no god....religious

But I don't 'believe' period. I'm a humanist...for want of a better word.

Griff...I long the day when religion is in its grave!
 
lordcow said:
on what do you base your claim that the supernatural can't exist?
Click to expand...

On what basis can anyone make the claim that something supernatural CAN exist? Anything experienced by us happens within the natural world. If our only tools of perception and measurement are natural, by what means could we even detect something supernatural?

Even something which seems supernatural must interact with the natural world through some mechanism, and in studying that mechanism we usually come to understand that it is a natural phenomenon which previously lacked proper investigation. Take thunder and lightning. People used to think that those were supernatural events, yet now we know there's nothing "super" about it.

If we were to have some detectable and measurable interaction from the supernatural it would then, by all means, fall into the realm of the natural. No "super" involved at all.

I do not believe in the supernatural, but I'm more than willing to state that there are a great many things which we have yet to understand.
 
Now everyone's super! So no one is super!

AudioFreak said:
On what basis can anyone make the claim that something supernatural CAN exist? Anything experienced by us happens within the natural world. If our only tools of perception and measurement are natural, by what means could we even detect something supernatural?

Even something which seems supernatural must interact with the natural world through some mechanism, and in studying that mechanism we usually come to understand that it is a natural phenomenon which previously lacked proper investigation. Take thunder and lightning. People used to think that those were supernatural events, yet now we know there's nothing "super" about it.

If we were to have some detectable and measurable interaction from the supernatural it would then, by all means, fall into the realm of the natural. No "super" involved at all.

I do not believe in the supernatural, but I'm more than willing to state that there are a great many things which we have yet to understand.
Click to expand...


Perfecta mun-do!....languages was never my strong point. Excellent point.

Yes (but) Audiofreak please try to avoid the use of the dread-word...believe.

They'll be on-to-you like Winnie on honey!

Griff...I wondered lonely as a cloud...with 50 billion drips!
 
Marquis de Carabas said:
The argument that paradoxes are things, so that a being unable to perform one is not able to do everything relies on a very particular definition of omnipotence that few serious theists hold to. In other words, it is a straw man.

Power is the ability to act. An omnipotent being possesses the power to perform all actions. The creation of a four-sided triangle or of a rock so big an omnipotent being cannot lift it is not an action. It is meaningless babble.

There may be very good reasons for not believing in an omnipotent god. The alleged inherent contradictions of omnipotence itself is not one of them.
Click to expand...
1. "few serious theists" = "no true Scotsman" = logical fallacy
2. "creation" = action, therefore "creation" + prepositional phrase = an action
3. Paradox = noun = person, place or THING

There are GREAT reasons for not believing in an omnipotent god - such as physical impossibility.
 
Shshsh....

tsg said:
Darkness (the absence of light) would exist if there were no light (in other words, an absence of light), we just wouldn't have a word for it.

If a tree doesn't fall in the woods and there's nobody there to not here it, does it still not make a sound?
Click to expand...


We wouldn't need a word for it...we wouldn't exist then, either!

Does a tree make a sound?

Yes, would be my best answer...as the stomata open and O2 is released; suction noise in the roots; the rustling of growth...etc.

All imperceptible to our ears, but an interesting PhD, if you're interested!

Got any sound gear?

The old 'pub-quiz' style questioning of philosophy...' does a tree make a sound if there's no-one there...?' is for kids; there is 'noise' all around but only a little 'sound'. Thank your lucky ears!

Griff...
 
Dorian Gray said:
1. "few serious theists" = "no true Scotsman" = logical fallacy
Click to expand...
To be guilty of a no true Scotsman fallacy, I would have had to contend that one who believes God can perform the logically impossible is not truly a theist. Nowhere did I contend that. What I did say is that such people are not worth arguing with.

2. "creation" = action, therefore "creation" + prepositional phrase = an action
Click to expand...
Only linguistically. If the prepositional phrase represents a logical impossibility, there is no need to consider the creation of it a real action. It is meaningless babble. That something can be said is no reason to assign any reality to its referent.
 
Effluvia. There are multiple posts.

A thing can only dream of things that exist....
Click to expand...

Not true. Perhaps you mean things that logically are possible to exist, like a unicorn.

But even then, you'd be wrong. The brain dreams of things that are not possible to happen even in theory. I had a dream once where my dad's 1975 Grand Fury station wagon was in the end part of our family room -- where it could not possibly fit. It was not shrunken. The room was not extra large. It was not sticking through a hole in the wall. It was just in there, where it could not possibly be.

The mind creates as a feeling of true, of "actually happening" things that may or may not actually be "out there."
 
Satan

:eek:
Darth Rotor said:
Ever heard of a thing called a joke? A jape? Raillery? Taking the piss?

DR
Click to expand...


Yes! And that's another thing god can't do ...Make satan funny...

Where's this?

DDDwestDDD

And, what's this?

sWATER
h
i
p

And what part of the body lies at the centre of your heart?

Joke:

Inflatable Johnny, goes to an inflatable school. He has inflatable friends, inflatable desks and chairs, inflatable teachers and books, too.

In the yard:

Teacher: "Johnny, what's that, a knife?"
Johnny:"No Miss."

Teach:"Yes it is. Come with me to the Headmaster!"

Head:"Johnny. Where's the knife? I want it!"

Johnny:"I don't have a knife, Sir!"

Head:"Look Johnny; give me the knife. If you don't give me the knife...you'll be letting me down, the school down and yourself down!"

Griff...;)
 
tsg said:
No. He is not defining "serious theists" as someone who believes omnipotence doesn't include doing the logically possible.
Click to expand...
He appears to be making a distinction between 'theists' and 'serious theists', in the same way that someone would make a distinction between 'Scotsman' and 'true Scotsman.'
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom