emotional

Forget it. I didn't say anything. I don't have a clue!

Vomik

I was looking at your website emotional and read your bio. (I haven't read anything else so perhaps the answer is hidden there). But as I read it seemed to me that the sole reason you believe in a god at all is because you are scared of death? You have no actual reason to believe in god nor do you have any proof. It just makes you happy to pretend? I mean... that's all fine and dandy but it's not something you should try to argue as real.

emotional

Yes, that's right.

What use is this belief to me if I don't believe it's real? I must believe life after death is real in order for the belief to have this healing effect upon me.

But you're right, I shouldn't go presenting evidence and logic for my position.

wordsmyth

emotional,

What is it about death that scares you?

emotional

Oh, not again!

... the thought of non-existence. The thought of being totally switched off. The thought of ceasing to be. The thought that all my life is actually writing on sand. The thought that, since the universe only exists subjectively while I am conscious, the universe will one day cease to exist. The thought of building a beatiful mansion, only to have it blown up by dynamite after 70 years or so. The thought that all our endeavours, all life, is futile.

livius drusus

I couldn't agree more.

If anyone wishes to discuss emotional's personal theology, please do so in private or in one of the several other threads dedicated to the subject (Seeking Certainty, Rational BAC and EMOTIONAL).

This thread is about logical restraints on an omnipotent deity. Return to the topic at hand, please.

Thank you,
livius drusus
Moderator - GRD

ex-xian

If there is a god who is seperate from logic then rational discussion about that god is impossible, since we would have no way to understand anything about him. So in effect, his existence would have no practical bearing on our lives.

If god is subject to logic, then he probably doesn't exist. The omni-max god is self-contradictory, and other formulations of god fall prey to the negation inherent in the impossibility of predication of an infinite being. If god is not omni-max, and not infinite re: his existence, then logical proof of him would be difficult, if not impossible.

Anyway, that's my opinion.

Nectaris

I know the Catholic church defines their god’s omnipotence as being able to do anything, but the inherently impossible. The examples they give are: making a square circle, and god performing an evil action. I wonder if the wording shows some sort of motive, i.e. why use “inherently” impossible as opposed to logically impossible. The problem I have with that idea is that would mean that there is something beyond their god, some rules that he cannot break. Some reason that does not jive with the idea of an omni-whatever creator.

I understand the reasoning by defining a god as incapable of doing the impossible. It just become more complex when looking into even if something appears inherently impossible to us, it might not be for a god (if there were one). Sure we can’t create a square circle, but who is to say god can’t, after all he (assuming the Christian god) can poof a universe into existence by uttering words. Which of those two things seems more inherently impossible?

Volker.Doormann

An opinion is not a subject of logic. It is a subject of omnipotence, which do not cares about truth. What means nothing, because no one can give a proof of his own existence (!).

Rusting Car Bumper

Theologian philosophers have generally conceeded that omnipotent means that god can go anything LOGICALLY possible. In other words, they have accepted the constrainsts of logic.

DC