Intelligent and religious?

katsucats said:
Logic isn't just something us humans engage in for our pastime, logic is what's conceivably possible. Not even God can defy deductive logic.

dankickyou said:

Continuing from past thread, Omnipotent God? Yes he can.

katsucats said:
No, he cannot. If something is illogical, it is inconceivable.

Post-Josh said:
Ignorance of what information? There's no compelling evidence against God's existence, as far as I'm aware.

More importantly though, as demonstrated in this post, atheists only seem to want to play at atheism's home field. Why do atheists, and people in general for that matter, assume that the ability to understand and verbally communicate tangible information is a perfect proxy for intelligence? It is not, and only constitutes a very narrow definition of intelligence. How you "feel" matters, how your subconscious "feels" matters, and how your actions unknowingly reflect those feelings matters. These are extremely important things, even if they aren't readily visible, and they are things which religions tend to embrace.

Just as I trust someone with a strong sense of logic to teach me about science, I trust someone with a strong sense of "feelings" to teach me about spirituality, or whatever secular term you wish to use. There is no reason for this to be the case, there just exists an unfounded belief that logic and spirituality are in binary opposition. Neither has more authority than the other on the question of God's existence.

dankickyou said:

Too bad logic is now an 11 year old lesbian girl.

katsucats said:
He might be able to change the meaning of the word, but it is inconceivable that he could change the meaning of the idea. Even God cannot make a triangle with more than 180 degrees -- it is inconceivable and impossible.

If you believe logical impossibility is a possibility, then tell me why I should take you seriously?

dankickyou said:

too bad bad is goo, too good bad is bad, goodbadggoodoog.
Katsucats, STAHP

katsucats said:
I guess your response is self-explanatory.

dankickyou said:


It is. Omnipotent is unchallengeable and unbeatable thingy. Trying to argue against it is a lost cause.

dankickyou said:


It is. Omnipotent is unchallengeable and unbeatable thingy. Trying to argue against it is a lost cause.

katsucats said:
Omnipotence is logically contradictory. Trying to defend it logically is a lost cause. It's like using logic to disprove logic. You might as well attempt to use science to prove Young Earth Creationism.
Dankickyou, STAHP

dankickyou said:

Too bad all those concepts are now cookies. and God is eating those cookies. With milk from katsucat's tears.

katsucats said:
Yeah, figures. Even the language you use is incomprehensible if you disregard logic. "Cookies" in your post doesn't even express a distinct idea that means a "small, flat, round cake" that people usually associate with the word because you've thrown away your intellectual capacity in order to justify a logically impossible Creator. You might as well have just said, "balh i'd blah bloop" and it would have had the same meaning without logic.

TookMe6Years said:
dankickyou is practically saying Omnipotent is illogical. Both of you are right about omnipotent can't argue for or against it.

TookMe6Years said:
However when you stated: "It's a logical contradictory," you are wrong. That basically implies that there is a logic that contradicts the previous logic. Assuming there are two logic, when again stated,Omnipotent is illogical it has no logic.

TookMe6Years said:
In the end, omnipotent was given a vague definition. It can't be explain any further. In other words: Here lies the junk, and good luck of getting out without a headache.

dankickyou said:


and then suddenly there was a chocobo.

LOL I dont even believe in an omnipotent God. But since you mentioned a hypothetical Omnipotent, you cant say that it cannot do this or that. Beyond limits and beyond infinity. The rules of this universe does not compare. Incomprehensible. Beyond the Beyond.

katsucats said:

If you think something that is hypothetical must exist, then you must think no hypothetical scenario could ever be proven wrong. So if we said something like, "Assume dankickyou is gay..." That automatically becomes reality?

dankickyou said:


but dankickyou is gay No. my point is omnipotence cannot be limited in any way or form. Because its LOLOMNIPOTENCE

katsucats said:
That's why it's illogical and necessarily impossible.

It is contradictory use logic to claim that logic impossibility is possible (not the least because you are not that hypothetical, impossible God), therefore in order to be consistent you need to either choose to accept logic or dismiss logic.

If you accept logic, you must also accept that logical impossibilities are impossible.
If you dismiss logic, then anything you say is incomprehensible.

See how that works? You can't win, Dankickyou.
STAHP

dankickyou said:
Omnipotent God says that is not true. Its not True. katsucats. Just STAHP. Also, your mother is now an ostrich.

dankickyou said:
PS. We are kinda bringing the thread off-topic, comment on my profile or make a new thread if you wanna continue.

katsucats said:
You argue against it because it is illogical.

katsucats said:
There is no such thing as "previous" logic. Logic is logic, and omnipotence contradicts logic. It is illogical, as you've admitted.

katsucats said:
Haven't you ever heard of the parable involving an unstoppable force and an immovable object?

P1. An omnipotent being has more power than any other being.
P2. An omnipotent being cannot have more power than another omnipotent being.
C1. Therefore, an omnipotent being is impossible.

TookMe6Years said:

I didn't argue against. Stop putting words in my mouth. I was reiterating what dankickyou was trying to say to you. It can't be argue for/against. Deal with it.

TookMe6Years said:
It's call Logic 1/A and Logic 2/B. Two consecutive/different logic. It isn't hard to comprehend mate.

TookMe6Years said:

Let's get this straight. First of all. No double posting.

Second its illogical, that's it. There is no point of trying to reasoning, as much you want to adhere the reasoning. So please stop hurting yourself.

TookMe6Years said:
Third, immovable and unstoppable was actually a paradoxical joke.There are two logic going with that. Again you unintentionally implied Omnipotence can and can't be both? Because you stated P1 and P2 to reason. And then you pointed C1(conclusion?) it's impossible. When I stated it can't be argue for/against. Just drop it.

TookMe6Years said:
If you want to continue, here is a more concrete distraction for you, Energy cannot be create or destroy. Chew that on for a while.

katsucats said:
Well, you should. Illogical propositions can and should be argued against.

It's called something is logical or it is not. 1/A and 2/B are arbitrary distinctions that you just made up on the spot, they are meaningless. I challenge you to define them.

A proper argument requires evidence. Contradiction is something a 4 year old child is capable of.

I will not drop it; I prefer to keep going until you are thoroughly made a fool of, thank you. Omnipotence is a paradox due to the logic above. If you can refute it, point to whether premises P1 or P2 are unsound, or whether C1 is invalid, and why? If you cannot do so, be the bigger man and humbly admit defeat.

Chew on this -- irrelevant.

katsucats said:
]I will not drop it; I prefer to keep going until you are thoroughly made a fool of, thank you. Omnipotence is a paradox due to the logic above. If you can refute it, point to whether premises P1 or P2 are unsound, or whether C1 is invalid, and why? If you cannot do so, be the bigger man and humbly admit defeat.

TookMe6Years said:

You are correct. I should be a humble man and allow you, an undesirably debater makes a fool out of yourself and learn from their mistake.

I, too, should stop debating you, because honestly, each time you post it becomes inconsistency and flawed.

dankickyou said:
Implying Omnipotence is ruled by logic. Logic is ruled by Omnipotence.

katsucats said:
Such is the face of someone who wants to voice his opinion but lacks thought to support his argument: he cries, scratches, bites, and contradicts, and it all rings hollow. It took you 6 years... hopefully since birth.

TookMe6Years said:


So your best insult is my username. I will acknowledge it. After all I choose that: check my introduction forum if you have the free time.

TookMe6Years said:
Hopefully, your quote is a sign of calm, rational, and collective voice instead of "Arrogant Pride." Oh wait...... I forgot: "I will not drop it; I prefer to keep going until you are thoroughly made a fool of, thank you."

TookMe6Years said:
Second its illogical, that's it. There is no point of trying to reasoning, as much you want to adhere the reasoning. So please stop hurting yourself.

TookMe6Years said:
But alas, I was make a fool out, of, and yet you aren't satisfy. Such gluttony for the knowledge of Omnipotent. You are mad.

jkun said:
nice oxymoron

TookMe6Years said:
No, no, no. When I meant mad. I meant insanity. As Albert Einstein states: "Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." By constantly berates every post I make, hopefully I answer your question differently.

TookMe6Years said:
If there is one thing I acknowledge: You are relentless person.

TookMe6Years said:

Also how about creating "Energy Cannot be Create or Destroy" debate? Will you accept the challenge? Not now, but when ever.

Trapalicious said:
Well I want to make it clear here that I'm talking of Religion as a whole, not the belief in a God alone. With Religion comes all sorts of ideologies, be it that the Earth is a mere few thousand years old, that the sun rotates the Earth, or that "heaven" is above the clouds. These are all things we know aren't true anymore, yet there are people who still believe things like this. I don't think I'm being unfair to say that these people are likely a little dimmer than those who don't.

What I was trying to say before is that it's unfair to use a time period where something is unknown, then suggesting it is similar it to a period where it is. One is a genuine lack of information, the other is straight up ignorance. If by some time we ever have infallible proof that god does or does not exist, then I would say the same for those who ignore the evidence then.

Anyway, I'm Agnostic Atheist. I'm open to the idea that a God exists (not one which cares how long my hair is, or who I wish to fuck, however). I still don't think that's ever a valid reason to believe in something without evidence though.

amichaaan said:


Are you serious? I really don't want to want to get into a debate about religion, as we all know they go nowhere, but I might have to. Religion's like christianity and islam are the worst things for society.
Your arguement (in a nutshell) is that religion is the best thing for society because it makes us better people, and that religious people help others?
I thought you were pretty clued up, but I'm starting to question your intelligence.

Not_Biased said:

I don't even know why you're comparing christianity to islam. Just because the muslim guys do bad things in israel, palestine or wherever does not mean that religion is bad.

Catholicism did a lot of bad things in the past and it's now dying, the same will happen to islam.

Candor said:
Get your facts right before arguing. What's going on in Israel and Phalestine is more complicated than just "Muslims doing bad things". Also, did you know that Muslims also think Christianity is dying out? Yet neither of you guys are basing your claims on facts. Though did you know that there are more than 1,5 billion Muslims around the world? and if anything they're increasing, so what was that thing you were saying about Islam dying out? Also, Did you ever wonder why only Christianity is the "right" religion? Because Muslims think Islam is the "right" religion too.

Again, get your facts right, start with Wikipedia.

Not_Biased said:

in the Muslim culture, aggressive behavior, especially threats, are generally seen to be accepted, and even expected as a way of handling conflicts and social discrepancies. If a Muslim does not respond in a threatening way to insults or social irritation, he, not "she" (Muslim women are, mostly, expected to be humble and to not show power) is seen as weak, as someone who cannot be depended upon and loses face.

Do you want the world to be like that? I don't.

Not_Biased said:

Catholicism did a lot of bad things in the past

Not_Biased said:
(Muslim women are, mostly, expected to be humble and to not show power)

Not_Biased said:

Christianity is the right religion because muslims are taught to be aggressive, insecure, irresponsible and intolerant

in the Muslim culture, aggressive behavior, especially threats, are generally seen to be accepted, and even expected as a way of handling conflicts and social discrepancies. If a Muslim does not respond in a threatening way to insults or social irritation, he, not "she" (Muslim women are, mostly, expected to be humble and to not show power) is seen as weak, as someone who cannot be depended upon and loses face.

Do you want the world to be like that? I don't.