questions of origin for the Atheist
Posted on: July 25, 2009 - 6:19am
Offline
questions of origin for the Atheist
Forgive my ignorance, but I am curious about Atheists' beliefs about the universe. What is a singularity? Compressed matter of infinite density, a mass of infinite gravity? Two problems with the BB that have been bothering me are 1) Gravity existed after the BB; and 2) Gravity is a measure of force (attractive) between matter, meaning particles had to have existed before the BB - albeit packed together in infinite density. Is this correct?
Do Atheists believe in BB thoery, String theory or 11 Dimensional theory (sometimes called 26D theory I think)? I know most Atheists believe in evolution, but what about the origins of the universe?
Sorry if these have already been answered btw.
- Login to post comments
I beg to differ, my friend. Logical impossibility is the opposite of logical possibility. It is logically possible that God exists (you said so yourself, it just can't be proven) and it is logically possible that he does not exist. So, it is a clear contradiction that God can simultaneously both exist and not exist, that is, it is a logical impossibility that God can be both. LI is another way of saying there is a contradiction. A square cannot be round, that is, there is a contradiction in terms of "square" and "round." If you ascribe LI to God, then he could make a square circle, or simultaneously exist and not exist. The question that you failed to address is if you believe that "omnipotent" means capable of LI, which makes your question:
Irrelevant and without context until you ascribe powers and liabilities to an omnipotent being. This is found in any introductory logic textbook, I suggest you brush up your skills.
BTW, "powers" is a specific Philosophical term, so does not need inverted comma's. People can have powers and liabilities as well. Look the term up.
Ya just don't get it do ya Scotty? Refer LI above, or refer answer below:
Then you have answered your own question by ascribing powers and liabilities to God - namely "omnipotentence" is not capable of LI, therefore stones and unbreakables are irrelevant, since "making a stone so heavy" is an LI for an OOO being (a contadiction in terms). I'm disappointed that I had to spell that one out for you though.
So, what particles were you referring to that appear out of nothing?
You don't seem to have grasped my point - your response does not really address it in any way. God can't be proven, but any particular definition can be potentially disproven, if it involves a contradiction.
I was not addressing the logical possibility or impossibility of God, as such, rather the implications of describing the capabilities of any entity as being able to do all things not logically impossible, and the claim that was not a purely negative definition. I certainly was not thinking of anything as simplistic as the 'square circle' thing.
The idea of something having being "capable of LI" is nonsensical.
The question you then quoted was really a rhetorical question, pointing out that two individually logically possible capabilities cannot both be true for one entity, of any kind.
Obviously no possible being is capable of a LI.
Any logical argument incorporating at least one contradiction in the sequence from the assumptions to a specific conclusion means that that conclusion is unproven.
Actually there are at least three categories of logical statement - true, false, and undecidable/unprovable. The classic example of the last is the Liar paradox. "This sentence is false", etc).
If any contradiction or undecidable statement is present undetected in an argument, then the argument can appear to 'prove' anything.
I ascribed no powers to God. I merely pointed out that ascribing "the ability to do anything not logically impossible" is not definitive - it doesn't distinguish between sets of possible powers which cannot be possessed simultaneously by the one entity. I see nowhere you have actually addressed this.
Both particles of the pair.
You were the one who tried to argue that the anti-particle already existed by virtue of moving backwards in time in another dimension. I just pointed out this was a non-sequitur.
Now, maybe under some hypotheses, both virtual particles do exist in some other dimension, and just move into our dimension. If you had proposed that idea, it would be worth considering. But that is another line of argument.
There is a common thread between the appearance of virtual particle pairs, and the emergence of the singularity, which among other things, avoids violating Conservation of Energy. If the particles become separated by the event horizon, the one going off into external space has the opposite polarity of energy to the one absorbed by the BH.
In the BB, two kinds of energy can be imagined as emerging from the minimum energy-state background, one conventionally regarded as positive, the other gravitational,which can be validly treated s negative.
EDIT:
Mathematically, its like
0 => (+N) + (-N) ... where N can be any large number.
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
Yeah. He's a hack. If you have a concern of his, in particular, go ahead and bring it up. Am I dodging? No, I think Plantinga is lame, and his arguments are boring to read. So excuse me if I don't jump when you demand that I read a third-rate philosopher.
Locke, for instance, is interesting, as are Wittgenstein and Popper. Interesting. Plantinga is less so.
Oh hey, I agree -- Plantinga has taken a first-year logic course. He can sure do logic. But his premises are suspect, which is why he's about as much of a philosopher as I am.
To reply to your second question "Who cares if this so-called problem is 'solved'":
It's mostly just blowing off steam, to be frank. The argument from evil isn't so much philosophy as it is having a good rant or expressing frustration.
Did you want me to explain why evil is a social construct? All you have to do is read some modern ethics. It turns out there's very little argument to be made for a determination of such absolutes, so evil is relative. I'm sure we could all find something we find awful and repugnant as an action, but deciding that there are things that are evil requires the invocation of an authority, and if that authority is human, it's a social construct.
If that authority isn't human, then it's begging the question.
Ignorance is an exceedingly good point. We don't know what happened before the big bang, and what happened going back to the big bang is largely a matter of mathematics and indirect observation.
There -- that's what we have. So, if you're genuinely curious about atheism, what is it that's bothering you about the above?
It's not something only a physicist can answer, it's something I can only answer to someone who understands at least a little math. The way you worded your questions made it fairly clear that you weren't familiar with the math.
So ... you're going to have to be specific, because there are entire scientific journals devoted to astronomy, with long histories, and many involve mathematics that -- it's true -- I don't understand.
But I don't see that as the question you're asking. You're asking maybe why I believe the description of the beginning of the universe? Maybe? Well, when it comes down to it, you're asking me why I believe the universe expanded from a single point. The "single point" part is mathematical abstraction. I believe that in the sense that it's the logical conclusion. The actual singularity is plausible to me, but I don't uphold it as a strong belief. It's simply the most likely situation at this point.
What you might see as evasion has been nothing but an honest admission of ignorance. We don't know a lot, so instead of claiming to know, an empiricist (in the loosest sense) reserves judgement, and does not enter the fray until a good explanation is available. "The universe has been expanding for a few billion years, so it points to the beginning being a singularity" is a good explanation.
"This guy did it" is a bad explanation.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
So you would like a list?
Experience is empirical. Knowing is transcendental. Which are you ascribing to omnisicience? If it is the former, what gives you the impression that God is experiential? If it is the latter, then there is no contradiction. You are making hasty assumptions again. Just look at the last statement you made. We have no idea whatsoever about free will and determinism. It is purely subjective. Who gave you the authority to declare God an incompatabalist?
Looks convincing, but:
1. An OOO being can not do what is LI
2. Contradictions in terms (CIT) constitutes LI's
3. Making then breaking an unbreakable vase is a CIT
---
4. An OOO being cannot make then break an unbreakable vase.
They are actually LI's in themselves, as in, it is not God's omnipotence that produces the contradiction, rather the terms unbreakable breakables are contradictory. A more obvious analogy: "Two immortal men are fighting to the death, which one wins?" It is not the person who cannot answer the question that is contradicting himself, rather the person posing the question. Nice try though.
I only ask that any reply to the above be in strict standard form. I'm sick of the fancy-pancy talk that actually amounts to nothing more than hot air.
Perhaps you should have taken more time with the "simplistic circle" thing. Once you have the "No OOO is LI" premise, its all down hill from there. You addressed the implications of an omnipotent being, just invalidly. If you disagree, I'd like to see the logical form of your argument, not the waffle on top.
In other news: Both particles of what pair?
Hiswillness:
Ahh, so you are getting confused with the word "evil." I see. Plantinga (as well as mackie) uses the word evil to mean those very repugnant actions you speak of. Use the latter phrase if you wish. What do you mean by determination of such absolutes? You seem to draw the conclusion that "repugnant actions" (AKA evil) are relative from that premise so I'm interested in what you actually mean. I have a decent background in Ethical Theory so let rip.
He he. Thats actually kinda funny.
Except for one minor problem, BBT does not posit a singularity, remember? Was reading an elective at your school? It appears under the GIANT LETTERS reading COMMON MISCONCEPTIONS. You might want to read my previous posts as well, or get an adult to read them to you, because that is not what I am asking. I can see why you call yourself a "lay philosopher at best."
Um, no. It isn't. Refer the link above. You're right about the first half though.
Unless you provide some list of actual attributes, even just ias examples, or in broad terms, not just what he can't do, then God is not defined.
Knowledge is just information encoded in your brain, as a result of experience.
What gives you the authority to assert anything about what would or would not be the attributes of such a hypothetical, poorly defined, basically impossible being?
You still don't get it. I am not asserting that omnipotence implies any such thing. You really are thick.
He can have either the power to create an unbreakable vase, or the power to break any vase, without raising a LI, but not both.
The LI would not be in any specific power. The LI would be in one being possessing more than one of a set of mutually incompatible, but individually not LI, powers simultaneously. A logically valid being could not simultaneously have the ability to create unbreakable objects and break any object. Both powers are valid in themselves, but no being can possess both powers, therefore he cannot have all logically possible powers.
I am not talking about "unbreakable breakables".
The contradiction would be in a definition of omnipotence which did not exclude the possession of two mutually incompatible abilities, which would require specification of only one of such possibilities.
Your inability to see this is very revealing.
If you cannot comprehend what I spelled out above, and see how it what you just said is irrelevant to my point, please be honest enough to admit it.
The virtual particle-antiparticle pairs proposed to spontaneously emerge, normally for a very brief time before recombining, in 'empty' space. I just checked and realize it was QED who first raised the subject of virtual particles, so forgive me for assuming you knew what I was referring to.
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
Let rip? If you have a decent background in "ethical theory" (you mean ethics?), then I just DID cover it. Did you miss the part about authority, etc? Are you keen on me using jargon or something? Absolutes in morality don't hold water. If you're already familiar with ethics, I don't even have to cite that statement.
Also, I don't care about the argument from evil. It's stupid. It's like asking "if centaurs exist, then why do they play chess?"
Of course it is. It's like wondering about the number of angels that can fit on the head of a pin.
I'm sorry, did I use the wrong word? How lazy of me. It's that you don't inspire rigour of any kind.
Yeah. You sure got me -- on the internet. I was wrong, and it took a re-read of the scientific literature to remind me. Maybe it was my second year electromagnetics professor (the man was obsessed with saying the word "singularity"
. Or maybe it was an argument with that other guy who was on about the big bang being a singularity. Sometimes I just give up and address whatever nonsense my interlocutor spouts, and it's taken you to point out the hazard of that occupation. It's a good thing science was around to correct those facts. Don't go trusting science, though, because remember, it's just empiricism based on assumptions.
Not that you seem to care, but I make it a note never to be braver on the internet than I'd be in person, with that person looking right at me. You obviously don't have that rule.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
That almost sounds like a threat. I speak to everybody - who blindly offers objections - the same way. Its hard to remain courteous when you continually (100 posts on) have to repeat the question until people FINALLY get it. Afortiori when said people are attacking my beliefs without reason. Go back over this thread completely objectively - I have been called stupid, thick, unintelligable etc for asking valid questions to which you dont even have an answer. I retalliated and I apologise.
I'm really not trying to prove you wrong. Rather I'm pointing out that you share a lot in common with your theist counterparts - namely cherry-picking information, biased assumptions, poorly formed arguments etc. Read my first few posts if you don't believe me. I stated from the outset that so long as you are happy being ignorant about origin, I am happy with my belief in God. If you disagree with this comparisson, I'll need something more than "I don't know/We can't know" to shift me, like anargument or evidence (and read the link again if you still think that BBT is evidence of origin.)
Read the Bibe. Or:
Omnipotent - cannot do what is logically impossible. Can do what is logically possible. eg. Cannot make a round triangle, can create the universe.
Omniscient - transcendent and not emperical or experiential. Knows everything possible to know (even LI or sin). eg. X knows what Y will do beforehand. Y still has a choice even if X does not make its prediction known and X is never wrong.
Omnipresent - being transcendent and omniscient leads to omnipresence. There is still debate about whether this means with or without time.
Omnibenevolent - this is a huge topic. Plenty of literature on this one. eg. Plantinga, Mackie, Taylor and the Bible.
Why are you answering my question with a question?
Ok, lets take this really slowly so I understand (I did ask that you use standard form):
1. Creating an unbreakable vase is logically possible; and
2. Breaking any object is logically possible
(* An unbreakable vase is an object
- supressed premise.
3. No being can possess both powers; so
4. God cannot have all logically possible powers.
To see what you have done, here is an analogy:
1. Being immortal is logically possible (if its not, then neither is an immortal vase)
2. Being able to die is logically possible
3. No God can be both immortal and be able to die
4. God cannot have all logically possible powers.
In logical form:
1. All A is B
2. All C is B
3. No G is A and C
---
4. No G is B
Substitution instance for the above:
1. All dogs are animals
2. All cats are animals
3. No Goldfish is a Dog or a Cat
---
4. No Goldfish is an animal
...And checkmate. You have made an invalid argument. The contradiction comes from you, on premise three, "No God can possess both powers." No being can possess both powers not because a being's omnipotence contradicts those powers, rather those two powers constitute a logical impossiblity. I addressed this question before, in my last post. But you obviously diddn't understand it. Thanks for playing though.
EDIT: For those that pick at "or" in logical form (premise 3), replacing it with "and" exemplifies the LI perfectly - there is no such thing as a catdog, that is, a catdog is a logical impossibility.
No, no, no. Your analogies don't make any sense at all.
God can only create an unbreakable vase or destroy any vase. It is logically impossible for him to possess both powers. If he destroys his own vase, then he cannot make an unbreakable vase. If he can't destroy his vase, then he can't destroy all vases. A better line might run:
1. An animal can be a dog.
2. An animal can be a cat.
3. An animal that is not a dog AND a cat is not ______. (nothing seems to fit here)
4. No animal can be a dog AND a cat.
5. No animal can be a ______.
Edit:
See, you even wrote the correct reasoning yourself, similar to the one I just typed.
Being immortal is possible and being able to die is possible. It doesn't say all entities are immortal or all entities can die. Plus, the point of this line of reasoning is to show that God cannot possess both traits, so we're referring to A, the same entity, throughout.
1. A can be B.
2. A can be C.
There is an implicit premise here.
3. If A is not B and C, then A is not D. (D being all-powerful)
Now, you wrote, "No God can be both immortal and be able to die." God is "A." Immortal is "B." Being able to die is "C."
3. No A can be B and C.
4. No A can be D.
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare
Are you serious?
Still a few negative defines in there. I have demonstrated that it is LI to do everything LP, despite your pathetic attempt to find a fault with my argument - see later. I haven't got the arguments in front of mind at the moment, but I think Omnibenevolent has similar issues to Omnipotent.
Because it is the most appropriate way to show the irrelevance of your question to the issues.
Fail.
Let's try this again:
A is LP
C is LP
if A then not C
if C then not A
======
(A AND C) is not LP
Get it now?
IOW, (possession of all LP powers) is LI
If this is representative of your ability to analyze argument for logical validity, you would be better advised to go back to do some study on the subject rather than continuing to waste our time demonstrating your incompetence...
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
Did you even read what Bobspence wrote?
That's exactly what he wrote; it's a logical impossibility for any being to possess both such powers because they would contradict. Whether or not this adheres to the definition of 'omnipotent' is just semantics.
Nevertheless, I do wonder which of God's powers are stronger, his ability to create vases or destroy them.
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare
It's not. It would be cowardly in the extreme to threaten someone on the internet. I can understand how you might have confused my posts with someone else's, and interpreted my confusion as malicious abuse. At worst, I should hope I only give the impression of playful abuse, but given the medium, confusion of tone is inevitable.
Well of course! We're humans! We argue in much the same way, and lots of people use the same tactics.
Here's where the frustration starts, though: to compare something observed with something unobserved, and then act like it's unreasonable to object to that comparison ... it's a bit weird. The big bang is an indirectly observed and reasoned description of the process near the beginning of the universe, and God is completely unobserved, subject to cultural interpretation, and experienced on a completely subjective level.
So you see the difference?
God also seems to be dependent on geography and time a lot for his definition. In parts of the middle east, it's Allah, in India it's a ton of different names, and a few thousand years ago, we preferred a pantheon. I suppose it's simply convenient for you that you were born somewhere that favoured the bible, is it? I imagine if you believe as hard as you can, then you're the right-est.
The thing is, people who truly believe they talk to God all the time are crazy. (At least, when he talks back.) I'm not saying you're crazy, I'm just saying someone who believes completely and with their whole being that they commune with the Almighty is nuts. They're the ones who believe the most. I imagine you've found the middle ground wherein you can keep yourself sane and functioning, and also believe that a mystical force wrote a confusing book for generations of people to argue over.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
The omni attributes are not unlimited. They are bound by the laws of logic. Thus, to be omnipotent simply means that God can do whatever is logically possible to do. There is nothing problematic about this definition. The fact that such a definition can be turned into a negative statement is irrelevant.
In regards to omniscience, one should not confuse this with experiencial knowledge. It is better to think of it in terms of propositional knowledge. That is, for any proposition p, God knows the truth value of p in every possible world.
By the way, how do you know that I have no justification for positing the existence of God? Seems you are merely begging the question.
Here again you are begging the question. You are basing your claim, that physical reality is all we have to build real arguments upon, on your presupposition of a naturalistic worldview.
Who says I'm pulling concepts out of thin air?
I disagree. My statement is valid as is.
Right, there is only one actual world (there cannot be more than one). All other worlds remain possible. They could have been actual, but happen not to be.
How does God add complexity to reality? It seems to me that God adds far less complexity than some of the naturalistic accounts of ultimate reality (e.g. multiverse theories, colliding brane theories, etc.)
The apparent problem here seems to be contrived. The problem stems simply from the fact that one ability is defined in terms of the other. A more appropriate way to understand this issue is the following:
God has the power to create a vase of any strength.
God has the power to destroy a vase of any strength.
The above two abilities do not limit each other. Creating an unbreakable vase is simply a pseudo-task once one ascribes omnipotence to God.
What about God's sister? I posit the existence of God's sister.
What alternative are you suggesting? That we learn about the supernatural? How might we do that?
"Ultimate reality" or the "thing-in-itself" is a well-trodden path, but it fails rather miserably. There's the easy objection that since the thing-in-itself is unreachable and indescribable, discussing it is a bit difficult. As a result, the naturalist is far more of a phenomenologist by default.
As for God adding complexity, you're suggesting that along with the reality that we know, there's an invisible anthropomorphic creature as well. That's an added bit of complexity.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
But they are undefined, unbounded, since you just used the word 'any' again.
Meaningless, just like God.
EDIT:
At the very least, this demonstrates that you have to exclude negatively defined terms like 'unbreakable', even though 'unbreakable' is not ''logically impossible". It is almost certainly physically impossible.
So perhaps you should restrict the attributes to all physically possible powers...
EDIT again:
Maybe "Creating an unbreakable vase" is a psuedo-task, but it is not logically impossible.
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
I really hate to link in posts, especially wikki, but it's all there in one spot and will save me some time.
That link did NOT really address the scenario I have been trying to get you to grasp. It did however demonstrate how stupid theologians and philosophers can be...
The basic problem in the 'unbreakable X' scenario is the term 'unbreakable'. It is not really physically possible, implying infinite strength of the material of which it is composed. Now does that make the attribute 'unbreakable' logically impossible? That may well be in the third category of logic statement, undecidable. IOW the form appears valid but the proposition cannot be determined to be either true or false.
It is the sort of problem you are likely to encounter in logic and math when you introduce infinities, either implicitly or explicitly. Which is precisely why we have all these endless arguments about the impossibility or incoherence of the God concept.
In the 'rock' scenario, the problem is really the idea of an infinitely heavy rock.
Defining God as a finite but very powerful, knowledgable, and benevolent being is not going to run into these problems.
So the central problem arises from the insistence on God having attributes which are infinite in any sense. So the real debate should be "are the OOO attributes necessary?"
Obviously there are other problems with the God hypothesis, but all these paradoxes of the omni- attributes strike me as self-inflicted by the believers assumptions about the 'necessary' attributes of God.
After all, the naturalistic/scientific hypotheses of origins (or of anything else, in fact) avoid infinities wherever possible - they usually signal that a theory has a problem. This is why there is ongoing debate about the idea of a singularity in the Big Bang and in Black Holes - it implies infinite density. Is it an artifact of the mathematical model which is inevitably a simplified description of the real objects/events?
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
In what sense are they undefined? Since we are speaking of a physical vase, the strength of the vase must be in terms of properties concerning its atomic structure. Given this physical nature, one might surmise that there is a limit to how strong it can be, unless of course, God changes the strength of certain fundamental forces. Since these fundamental forces are well defined and could conceivably be changed, there is nothing meaningless about God having the power to make an increasingly "strong" vase.
Creating an "unbreakable vase" becomes a contradiction once you ascribe omnipotence to God. So nothing is lost by admitting that God cannot create an "unbreakable vase". Also, if we insist that the vase be physical, then it is logically impossible to create an "unbreakable" vase, given that it is physically impossible. Thus, as long as "vase" carries with it the implicit assumption of being physical, then it would be logically impossible.
What do you mean? You just solved your own problem! We'd actually have to change the meaning of "exist" for God to exist.
OR we could say that God is an idea, and everything falls into place nicely. It exists, but doesn't really exist, etc.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
What you have here is a strawman. The underlying operating assumption, here, is that positing the existence of God is as unjustified and arbitrary as positing a sister for God. "Sister", however, is a loaded word that carries with it connotations of a biological relation. It also entails the existence of parents, which misrepresents the theist position and view of God (or at least my position). Besides a strawman, you are also begging the question, since positing arbitrary entities does not prove that I have done so.
As for for your apparent lack of ability to see outside of a naturalistic framework, you are operating under what seems to be a position of logical positivism. But logical positivism is a dead philosophy and so one should not rule out the possibility of having knowledge outside of science.
Finally, I do not believe in an invisible anthropomorphic creature. Or, before I make any hasty denials, what exactly do you mean by "anthropomorphic creature"? And no, I am not asking for the definition of 'anthropomorphic'. I want to know in what sense or in what ways you believe God to be anthropomorphized.
Okay. Clarify your position so I don't have to misunderstand.
Yeah, so does "He". The use of a male signifier means all the same things you just said: parents, biological connections, etc. Anything male had parents.
Oh, I didn't realize you could see into the supernatural (which makes absolutely no sense at all). Please enlighten us with your impossible knowledge of the supernatural, so that I can free myself from the shackles of a mistaken reality.
I guess you haven't seen me quote Popper (the so-called destroyer of the Vienna Circle). No, I'm not taking the position of logical positivism.
That was a pretty quick non sequitur. A group of people are wrong, therefore there is a possibility of knowledge outside of science. Not very tight as a syllogism.
Not that it matters, really, because to a certain extent, I agree that "There are no married bachelors". These, I take to be a priori, and thus there are things that are not empirical. That wasn't difficult.
The "God created man in his own image" thing. That. Or how God has been portrayed in art, or in non-Christian religions, how gods are always portrayed as creatures that can communicate in exactly the same way people can, or ... etc.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
If you are in the context of attributes of God, 'any' strength does not define the range of material strength he can create, as you just demonstrated.
Ok, if you want to nit-pick, 'inadequately defined' rather than 'undefined'.
Is it made of physical 'material'? What would a non-physical 'vase' mean?
If you mean any finite strength, then unless you specify this, you have not completely defined the 'power'. 'Any' does not preclude 'unbreakable'.
'Increasingly'?
The problem for the idea of 'omnipotence' is that unless the powers include actual infinities, as in the power to create a truly unbreakable object, they are not impressive as attributes of a God, ie they do not adequately distinguish such an entity from merely strong and powerful mortals, but if they do include some infinities, it is not possible to show that they are coherent. This is why we have debate about the 'paradox' of 'omnipotence': it is a particular case of the problem of making a clearly valid logical argument incorporating infinities.
Here I rather agree with part of the quote from CS Lewis in that link:
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
I wasn't making a hard and fast conclusion here. You are right, though, that the following reasoning is invalid:
(i) If LP is true, then it is not possible to obtain meaningful knowledge outside of science.
(ii) LP is not true.
(iii) Therefore meaningful knowledge is possible outside of science.
Of course, the problem with the above argument is that it commits the fallacy of denying the antecedent.
I guess my point was that we should not rule out knowledge outside of science on account of logical positivism. But if you do not hold to such a view, then I stand corrected.
While I cannot speak for other religions and their depictions of god, the "in God's image" idea that you refer to simply means that humanity is endowed by God to be rational and moral. It has nothing to do with physical appearance (at least in my interpretation).
Since you agree that it does not make much sense to speak of a non-physical vase, then I stand by my statement that an "unbreakable" vase is logically impossible given that it is physically impossible. Thus, God's ability to do whatever is logically possible in this case would mean: For any vase V with physical strength S (S being a function of physical properties and fundamental forces) God can make a vase V* with strength S*>S. It is in this sense, then, that God's ability is unlimited, which does, IMO, distinguish God from a merely "strong and powerful" mortal.
NOTE: The existence of actual infinities is logically suspect, which is why physicists have questioned the reality of singularities.
Okay. then what we have so far is that you believe in an invisible creature that is both rational and moral. I suppose we could figure out what that means if we knew how that could happen. Also, if that's true, then "image" is a poor choice of words.
Your version of God is not just rational and moral, but secretive. It requires your interpretation of its words. Interpretation of those words also leads to a great deal of destruction, death, torment and confusion. One might wonder what particular type of moral your God is.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
How what could happen?
Why is "image" a poor choice of words? It is no worse than the analogical way in which we use words today.
Any form of communication requires interpretation on the part of the recipient, so I don't see how that is a valid objection.
OK so if there is a God, it must logically be finite. Fine. I agree.
We then similarly eliminate all the other illogical arguments, like the 'Uncaused first cause', and we are saying, along with Dawkins, that there could be a finite but very powerful being that maybe even conceivably 'seeded' the Earth with life, then chooses to occasionally interact in ambiguous ways with some people, but these days keeps a very low profile so that non-belief in his existence is very plausible, and so on...
Where are we going with this? And is there actually any evidence for this this vaguely possible entity? And what would be its connection with the Christian God (and similar entities).
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
I guess it depends on what you mean by "finite". I am not saying that God is some physically transparent being with measurable size. Nor am I saying that God is composed of parts (which would have to be finite). Under my position, it would not be right to say that God is a being that happens to exist (contingently) within our physical universe (or perhaps space), but our space obtains within the larger reality of God (not to be confused, however, with pantheism or panentheism).
So why do believe in the existence of this entity, and how do you determine what its attributes are?
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
An invisible creature could be rational and moral. Or that you could ascribe rationality or morality to something invisible. Actually, not just invisible, but immeasurable in every sense. They would have to be moral or rational in some different way, like other-rational and other-moral, because they're not rational like we are, right?
Yeah, but it's vague enough so that I could say it means that God painted man into a painting he was working on. Why is it necessary for God to be vague in the bible? He's so specific with other stuff, like stoning. It's a good thing the later part says "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" because otherwise, the seriously faithful would be going nuts with those stones.
You'd think a god would know that, though. You'd think a god would be able to anticipate the confusion it caused. It seems more like men wrote the bible, instead of something that could anticipate future events, or even phrase things in such a way as to not be confusing.
For instance, every creature walks on three points contacting the earth all the time. From centipedes to humans, we all touch three balance points to the ground in our normal stride. That's an interesting fact about the natural world that's missing from the Bible. Instead, we get facts like beetles being four-legged in Leviticus.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not interested in a biblical errancy debate, because given the lack of archeological evidence for enough biblical liturature, it's like beating a dead horse. (Looks like Exodus didn't happen, or if it did, it's not like in the Bible -- big surprise.) But "God works in mysterious ways" seems to not cover it when dealing with the belief in a creature whose only contribution is to give us a piece of literature we can confirm contains outright false statements.
In fact, if the plan was to eventually forgive, what's with Leviticus? The whole book is ridiculous. I think people with bad eyesight are targeted, if I remember correctly. Is the bible some kind of bad attempt by men to write down the message?
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
Okay, you have some good questions here. Let me try to address them in turn:
(1) The fact that God is "invisible" only means that God is not the sort of being that absorbs and emits photons. But such a property does not preclude God from being rational or moral. God is rational in that God understands all things and moral in the sense that God is perfect... God's actions are always good (or perhaps neutral). Does that clarify? Or am I missing your question?
(2) Your question about ambiguity (or vagueness) in the Bible is a good one. IMO, this difficulty is largely due to the limitations of language and context. The meaning of something at any given time is largely determined by the background and context of the one using the language. Thus, much of our confusion arises when we read a text from our 21st century framework without due diligence in first understanding the historical context in which the thing was written and then translating it into roughly equivalent ideas in our context.
(3) If it seems like men wrote the Bible, it is because men did write the Bible. I would never claim that the Bible magically descended from Heaven in divine shrink-wrap. I would claim, however, that God "spoke" to certain people who recorded these things with their own words and in their own frame of reference.
This is a very good question, to which I would like to give a substantial response. Permit me then to gather my thoughts so that I may give an adequate response. Perhaps, later tonight, as other affairs of the day are demanding my attention.
Oh, well then. You know this how? I mean, how much experience do you have with things that do not emit or absorb photons, but are rational or moral?
Again, I'm not sure where you got any of this. When we understand things, we use our brains. God doesn't have a brain like we do (ours would absorb and reflect photons). God has a God-brain. We'd have to say, then, that God has God-morals and is God-rational, because God is not rational like we are, nor moral like we are.
So no, God is not moral, and God is not rational. Those things are what humans do. God must, by the properties described, be doing something else, in the context that God does not interact with photons.
Because God says that every action of God's is good. Right. I'm sure I don't have to point out that your argument is circular.
That would be an excuse for a creature that did not understand, like a person, but less so for the apparent broken telephone that resulted. It's difficult to know which parts fall short of the original message.
Sidestepping first the obvious destination of those who hear voices in their heads, their own frame of reference was chosen specifically by God. If God understands everything, and yet made sure to pick a time and context and level of education that would get his message extremely wrong, then God is actually stupider than I am.
I'm pretty full of myself, but I doubt anyone would say that I understand everything. God's talent at picking the perfect era in history to be misunderstood for thousands of years is phenomenal.
So ... God's aim was to be misunderstood. I think it's fair to say that creates more problems than it solves.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
Well Bobspence1, I wrote:
1. An OOO being can not do what is LI
2. Contradictions in terms (CIT) constitutes LI's
3. Making then breaking an unbreakable vase is a CIT
Then I said:
"it is not God's omnipotence that produces the contradiction, rather the terms unbreakable breakables are contradictory."
"It is not the person who cannot answer the question that is contradicting himself, rather the person posing the question."
"A square cannot be round, that is, there is a contradiction in terms of "square" and "round."
"[This is all] Irrelevant and without context until you ascribe powers and liabilities to an omnipotent being." - IOW which way you look at it.
Direct quote from me:
"I personally am undecided about logical impossibility. It may be a sensible construct, universally so, it may not." - sensible here means "things that are able to be sensed."
"The last two sentences are waffle unless you sate what the powers and liabilities are for an "OOO" being." - IOW how you look at it.
I think somebody was right all along...
I suppose it's the only thing that makes sense, since omnipotence means that God could change the rules at anytime. Of course, as I've argued elsewhere, an omnipotent being is in complete control of all things, so the way it is is exactly the way the omnipotent being wants it at all times.
Of course, sin can't exist in that framework.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
Well, if God is indeed real, then I guess I have more experience with such things than you think.
I get this from thinking about it. But it is begging the question to suggest that a brain is necessary for rationality. We only know this for physical beings. Rationality is rationality and does not depend upon a brain. The brain is merely the instrument that allows us to be rational. It would be a mistake to define rationality and morality as things humans do. Rather, they are things in which humans participate.
Really, I think you are concluding way too much from the fact that God is not "visible".
First, I didn't give an argument, I made an assertion. Second, I never claimed that God's actions are good because God says so... where are you getting this?
Not sure what your point is here.
I think you are in danger of a strawman again by automatically jumping to suggestions of schizophrenia.
Now, who says that anyone got God's message wrong? The bible is not meant to be a scientific handbook. Also, the same problems of understanding arise no matter what time is chosen.
This is why a thorough understanding of Plantinga is necessary. I'm assuming you are trying to derive a contradiction between God's omnibenevolence and sin?
By sin, you are saying evil, right?
Evil is (according to you) a social construct. That is, if you believe sin is created by God, then it can't be a social construct?
Or do you take that sin is created by humans and therefore is not created by God, rather, God is comitted to eliminating sin yet has not; thereby deriving the contradiction?
I think you will have to clarify what you mean for me to answer any of the above. Mind you, if I take your statement to be serious, then your comments about Plantinga being a "Hack" (among other things) are completely unfounded.
In other news, I didn't get to address Bobspence1's particle pair thing. These pairs, you say, pop out of nowhere. That is not correct. Quantum foam theory states that quantum tunnelling may be responsible. The pairs that appear could be from another area of our universe, crossing both time and spacial dimensions that otherwise limit matter particles; instataneously. This would give the impression of "vanishing" from one area, and "appearing out of nowhere" in another. By saying they spontaneosuly formed out of nothing is a blatant disregard of the empirical extrapolation (you so desperately need) in order to make sense of your theory.
It seems you set aside various elements of physics and hypothesis as and when you feel, in order to win an argument.
That's a big "if", so I guess I'll have to take you at your word ... which is the problem.
I see. It's difficult for me to balance that with scientific rigour.
Here, you're really stretching the applicability of knowledge. If your idea is that we can trust any information our brains process entirely (things like "I think about this, so it must be true" ) it opens a very large can of worms. On the other hand, if you start from available information, you have things like brain damage to the left hemisphere eliminating the ability to be rational. That means that not only do we need a brain to be rational, we specifically need the left hemisphere to function to be rational.
Okay, that's fine. I was talking about human behaviour, and of course we need a social context for morality and rationality.
Well, no. If God is immeasurable, then God is made of completely different stuff than we are. The way in which God does things cannot be the way that we do things, and thus, God's morality is different than ours, because we use a brain to perform moral thinking. To what degree God's moral thinking is different, we can't know, if God is immeasurable.
Actually, it was a guess. Go ahead, tell me why God's actions are always good.
If your information about God is coming from the Bible, and the Bible is a bit spotty about its information, that's circular.
Here we are again, where you seem to know the important parts of God's message, and I'm left wondering how you know that. The factual parts seem unimportant to the message, so which parts are?
That's a given.
That implies your exhaustive knowledge of past and future, which I assume you don't have.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
No, omnipotence, just like I wrote. It's impossible to displease an omnipotent creature.
Nope, I'm saying displeasing God, which would be impossible if God were omnipotent.
I don't have to show you that Plantinga's a hack. He does that all by himself.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
You could be a little more explicit than that, surely?
For example:
1. God is omnipotent
2. God is omniscient
3. God is omnibenevolent
4. Sin exists
a) Omnipotent things have unlimited power
b) Omniscient things know everything possible
c) An omnibenevolent thing will forgive all sin
etc....
How do you figure an omnipotent thing cannot be offended? I think I read some other post of yours that said an omnipotent thing cannot have emotion or something. Is this what you are referring to?
EDIT: I just went and looked at other posts about the topic. I'm guessing its an "emotions are reactionary" type argument you are employing, correct?
No, I'm just talking about omnipotence. Let's stick with omnipotence. We're not talking about offense, either.
Let's make it simple: if there are two creatures in the universe, and one is omnipotent, and the other is less than omnipotent, who gets their way? The omnipotent creature, right?
That's what I'm saying. A creature that is omnipotent is ALWAYS getting its way. Always. There is never a time when that omnipotent creature is not getting its way, because omnipotence is power over everything at all times.
So ... how would that creature not get its way? That situation cannot happen. Therefore, there is no such thing as doing something that creature does not want you to do.
In fact, that creature cannot really "want" anything, since there's never a time when it doesn't have exactly what it wishes.
So IF God is omnipotent, then there is no point at which God is not getting what God wants. This has nothing to do with omni-benevolence, and omniscience is implied by omnipotence.
It's not an argument from evil.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
"I get this from thinking about it." is not an an answer - of course you "thought about it". A real response would reference what evidence, observations, concepts, arguments, you based your conclusion on.
We only have knowledge and experience of rational thought as something that occurs in physical objects with certain forms of very complex structure with complex interactions between their constituent elements, such as neurons.
The idea that a formless non-material entity (whatever that may mean) could do something like this is completely unsupported by experience and investigation. It is pure speculation, without foundation.
Morality is a category of ideas which thinking agents use in judging actual or possible actions, derived from a combination of instinct and learned rules, IOW just a sub-category of thought within the mind of a conscious agent.
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
"Getting their way" is a poor way of putting it. For example, say the omnipotent being's "wants" are for the lesser being to have free will. Presumably then, the lesser being now has the will to do whatever it wants, which may contradict what the omnipotent being "wants."
I don't think the omnipotent being "ALWAYS" gets what it wants, even if it has the means to do so, but that does not mean a limit to omnipotence. You are assuming that having omnipotence means acting omnipotent.
Omnibenevolence is an inevitable sub-argument in this scenario. If an omnibenevolent being is committed to doing all good things possible, then that being is comitted to giving a lesser being the ability to choose between options, some of which may contradict the OOO being's OOO. Sure, it has the power to take it back (or judge someone for future events) but that would be a very bad thing, and hence contradict it's omnibenevolence. It gets even more complex when you think in terms of absolutes. An inferior being's life may be wholly bad, and God's omniscience would dictate that that being should never exist. However, if that being has children that are going to produce a whole geneaology of good people, then what should God's action be?
This is why a thorough understanding of Plantinga is necessary. Plantinga logically sets out what an OOO being can and cannot do, in terms of contradictions. Had you have read Plantinga, you would know this already.
I think you have built a straw man factory.
"Acting" omnipotent? What are you talking about? If omnipotence is unlimited, then it's unlimited. An omnipotent creature could suffer no moment of want (ie lacking something).
Since this is getting into crazy town, where contradiction is no issue, we can just stop. You already have an emotionally anthropomorphic invisible creature with all power, so ...
Why? How does omnibenevolence follow omnipotence? Not that either concept makes any sense at all, but omnibenevolence just means "standard for good", so since your being IS, apparently your standard for good, OF COURSE it's omnibenevolent! That's circular. Again.
I read it, I just think it's nonsense. Congratulations to Plantinga for making the rules for the rule maker.
It would be a lot easier for me to avoid a straw man if your ideas were clear. You present an ever-moving target, and then accuse me of creating a straw-man! It's funny, I'll admit it, but it's not a strong argument.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
Fascinating!! So an omnipotent being can decide that he will, at will, refrain from opposing the will of another being. His will is that this other being be allowed to act against his (the omnipotent being's) will....
So if at the same time, the other being's will is to submit to the Omni-being's will...
This whole subject is just semantic play - the concept of will, let alone 'free will', is such an all but meaningless abstraction. You can construct all sorts of arguments and 'definitions' which appear to be logically constructed, legitimate nouns, verbs and adjectives strung together, but until you start trying to apply them, and come up with these convoluted, circular, or spiral arguments, you can't be sure they actually are workable. It is then you reveal the consequences of the hidden assumptions or flaws in the concepts being applied, such as the omni attributes themselves.
Throw it in the dustbin with the rest of misconceived medieval philosophy, and any other 'thinkers' who take the whole omni- attributes crap seriously.
Seriously, better to speak of desires, preferences, likes and dislikes, wishes, etc.
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
I am not asking you to take my word for it. I understand that you would be skeptical.
That is fair, but I don't believe that science is the sole source of knowledge. This is not to say that science is irrelevant and has nothing to say concerning ultimate reality. It is, however, limited and cannot, IMO, be our only resource.
Oh, I would never hold to so audacious and illogical a claim as "I think about this, so it must be true"! You are right that we need our brains (and specifically the left hemisphere) to be rational. But rationality is still rationality even if there are no brains. If you think rationality is simply a matter of proper function, then how would you know who's brain is functioning more properly: the atheist or the theist?
Respectfully, I question the accuracy of this statement. If there are moral facts, then social context is only needed for morality and rationality to be instantiated. What is in fact moral and what is in fact rational does not change, even in the absence of social context.
What do you mean by "immeasurable"?
In light of my above comments, the "stuff" out of which something is made is irrelevant to whether or not it can be rational or moral. The only question is whether a being is capable of participating in morality and rationality. The means by which a being participates in morality or rationality is of no concern.
The answer to this question depends on who you ask. IMO, God's actions are always good by definition. IOW, I take the concept of God to include moral perfection. Thus, if any being, no matter how powerful exists, but is not morally perfect, then I would not attribute the title 'God' to such a being.
Do I believe that the Bible yields information about God? Yes. Would I appeal to the Bible to prove such information? No (at least not directly).
I would not claim to be absolutely right in my understanding of... well, just about anything. But I think time, reflection, reasoning and proper criticism can lead one down the right road at least. The bible, however, appears to be incredibly accurate if looked at in the proper light. True, there are errors, which can be attributed to scribal error or copying error, etc. but I believe that if one can truly get a handle on the purpose for the writing and the context in which it was written, then it really does emerge as a remarkable work.
You assume correctly. I have no such knowledge. But consider, for the sake of argument, that God is real and wants to communicate to mankind a message. If God waits too long, then a vast amount of people never get to hear it. And even if God waited for a longer period of time, generations from now would most likely accrue the same level of skepticism that you possess. The problem is simply inherent to finite beings with finite language and communication and seems to be independent of time or place.
Gratifying to hear that even omnipotent entities have take waiting into consideration sometimes. I'll be checking out my fellow rain-sodden commuters at the 37 bus stop with a little more attentiveness from now on.
What is the opposite to skepticism according to you by the way? Believing any old shit? Shouldn't "realism" be in the mix somewhere?
I would rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy
It is a valid objection as well as being an obvious one. Why would difficulties regarding human comprehension be a problem for a God who allegedly designed the human mind ? I mean really, in spite of his divine intellect and his vast creative resources, God was unable to work out a satisfactory solution to overcome such a banal obstacle ?
Apparently God, despite having every advantage that being OMNI confers, hits a creative wall if he is confronted with iron chariots ( Judges 1:19 ) or beings that have limited intellects.
But it is the only approach to knowledge which has a rigorous process for assessing the reliability of the ideas and models of reality that it constructs. That is its essence, awareness of the fallibility of the human mind and its perceptions, and subjecting all hypotheses to as impartial and objective a testing process as can be devised. Also an explicit rejection of any form of "argument from authority".
There is no way to establish such absolute moral facts. It is an empty concept.
Why can God not repeat his message whenever the memories fade and the message gets scrambled? The problem then disappears. Such a being certainly should know that it is inevitable that mere mortals, even with the best will in the world, will eventually lose things, misinterpret, and progressively drift away from any path. Languages drift, so the meaning of ancient texts will inevitable become ambiguous, even if the authors took great care originally.
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
Forgive me for interrupting the flow of the original theme regarding BBT with a mundane biblical perspective....just a theological consideration in respect to the above statement that God cannot do what is logically impossible.
A major doctrine of orthodox Christianity asserts that the incarnate Jesus was fully man and fully God. That would be impossible, a blending of attributes perhaps, but in no sense could Jesus be fully ( ie, totally, exclusively ) God while being simultaneously fully ( totally, completely ) human. These are mutually exclusive conditions and could not exist within a single being. It is not logically possible.
You and I are examples of what it means to be fully human. That entails an existence which is defined by very pronounced limitations regarding every aspect of our being. God's attributes are the complete antithesis of the human condition. The moment a human being possesses Divine attributes he has ceased to fully human.
It would be just as logical to say that a person could physically be both fully and completely male and at the same time be fully and completely female. It is not possible, logically or otherwise.