Jump to content

A Logical Construct


Recommended Posts

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...