A Logical Construct

[emprworm]

I am just going to toss this out there.

Here is a logical construct. I believe it is a reasonable one. Do you agree with it? Do you think it is fallicious?

1. logic is always superior to illogic.

2. any attribute applied to something whos definition is inherently illogical will always be inferior to a logical definition of that attribute applied to it.

3. The most powerful definition, therefore, of an atribute would be one that could actually exist, as opposed to one that could not.

If this commits any logical fallacies, please respond and cite which element commits the fallacy and cite the fallacy that it commits.

Or perhaps you agree that this construct is a rational one? Please dont just disagree with me because I'm emprworm. Many of you voted for me in a previous thread as the one guy you wish you could side with in a debate but could not. Well be honest, and read the statements. Can you agree? I believe the construct is fully reasonable.

[nemafakei]

If I've read it correctly, it seems reasonable enough. The problem comes only in trying to apply it.

[Dude_Doc]

It depends on what logic you are talking about. Remember that it is human logic, some alien species (if in existence) may think it as illogic.

[emprworm]

application in this sense simply means defining something with illogical attributes vs. logical attributes.

my construct is basically saying the following:

"Anything defined with an illogical attribute that cannot exist will always be inferior to something with a logical definition of that attribute that can exist"

[TMA_1]

hehe you had to know this thread wouldnt get many posts. Most people looking at the title are asking. "whats logic??" then going "Whats a freaking construct!!??" lol ;)

[Acriku]

Or they don't care. Or it has not one iota of worth to reply to? Dunno.

[Digital Guerrilla]

All I can think of is business development which implements a logical data model involving logical constructs. Nothing really interesting to talk about.

[TMA_1]

good job with the intelligent word iota. lol ;)

[emprworm]

well i'll tell you what it applies to:

the atheist definition of Omnipotence.

"can god make a rock he cannot lift?" whether yes or no, God cannot do something, therefore he isn't omnimpotent, therefore God is a logical contradiction.

THe problem with that (very frequent) atheist argument is that it uses a definition of omnipotence that cannot exist. Omnipotence = the power to not be omnipotent = logical contradiction = cannot possibly exist.

The Bible never uses any such term to describe God. In fact, the Bible says "God cannot lie" basically: "God cannot cease being God". Does this mean that God is not all-powerful?

Of course not.

Lets look at this question:

"Can an infinite being cease being infinite?"

If yes, then God is an illogical, contradictory being that cannot exist. If he could, then he was obviously never infinite to begin with since his existence was ultimately limited, making the entire question a logical fallacy.

But remember the construct:

"2. any attribute applied to something whos definition is inherently illogical will always be inferior to a logical definition of that attribute applied to it."

So in the case of "Can God cease being God" the answer of NO is actually more powerful then the answer yes. Therefore if we define omnipotence as something that can actually exist- namely "all powerful within the confines of logic," then it is actually a stronger, superior definition of the atheist one that is contradictory and inferior.

God is defined as "omnipotent" but only omnipotent as a meaningful term that can actually exist. Defining omnipotence outside the confines of logic as something that cannot exist is inferior to defining omnipotent inside the confines of logic as something that can exist.

The atheist attempt to say that the Judeo-Christian God is defined as an illogical being fails. The Bible defines God's omnipotence as something that can actually exist- namely God can perform any task that is a logical one. Existence is superior to non-existence, and a God that can actually exist is superior to one that cannot, as the logical construct so clearly illustrates.

Of these two definitions of God.

1. God is all powerful, meaning He can stop being all powerful

2. God is all powerful, meaning He can do anything in agreement with His nature, but nothing contrary to His nature

Only defintion #2 is logially consistent and can actually exist, while #1 cannot possibly exist.

Therefore the God as defined in #2 is superior to the first one. And it is #2, btw, that the Bible defines.

And now to answer the quesiton:

"Can God make a rock he cannot lift?"

Answer: NO! And that is far more powerful of an answer then "yes", and is not contradictory at all. To think that He should be able to, makes him an inferior being to the one that cannot.

[nemafakei]

I'm not about to take part in another religion thread.

[Edric O]

Is there anything I could add to Emprworm's argument? No. :)

You're absolutely right, Emprworm. But I don't remember any atheist on these boards making that argument...

[emprworm]

no, but it is a frequent argument they use to try and say "ha ha your God is a contradiction"

I am not able to prove God exists, but I only brought this up to show that the definition of God is not contradictory. The atheist definition of god is contradictory, not the Biblical definition. But then again, I don't believe in the atheist definition of god anyway, it cannot exist.

[Dude_Doc]

What of the near-death experience?

[emprworm]

i am bumping this thread in light of Acriku's latest "Illogics of the Christian God" thread. funny how he posts a thread like that after this refutation has been here for 2 months.

Until Acriku specifically addresses the refutation presented here, his argument is fully refuted.

[Acriku]

Oh hey look, I replied to that thread a while ago ::)

[emprworm]

where? Please link the post.

[Acriku]

Eh? You have been posting in that thread for the last hour. - the illogic of the Judeo-Christian thread. Duh. Oh wait, you don't read my threads that's right.

[emprworm]

you replied today then. thats hardly "a while ago"

[Acriku]

Two hours is a while ago...

[emprworm]

this post is 2 months old. time is relative.

saying "I replied to this a while ago" in a relative sense to this post requires much longer than a few hours in order to convey accuracy.

[Warlord Ripskar]

If the Bible is taken as literal truth then God has created a rock which cannot be lifted.

It's called Earth.

[emprworm]

huh?

[Warlord Ripskar]

Earth can't be lifted because it isn't resting on anything. There is no 'up' in space.

[Dante]

Logic is relative. Say Person X and I are faced with an angry mob. Person X may think that in order to survive he must win and in order to win he must fight. I, on the other hand, would run away. This goes by the logic, if I don't fight I won't win but at least I won't get hurt.

Thus, logic depends on opinion and there is no such thing as illogic.

[Acriku]

You're right, that there are different reasonings, but there are illogics such as a cornered circle that cannot be logical whatever reasoning you put into it.