Can God Do What Is Logically Impossible?

[QuestioningMind]

This takes me back to what I asked you. You are implying that my outline of what the Bible says about God is not true, or at the very least that these Biblical facts are open to equally legitimate interpretations and therefore we can't say what's true. But you have given no evidence that the Biblical facts I gave are not a true and accurate understanding of the text, or offered any examples of how the text could legitimately be understood to mean something else without either being said to be more true than the other.

So your assertion is baseless. You're making a claim about my post that you can't back up.

"You are implying that my outline of what the Bible says about God is not true,"

I've said no such thing, since I still don't know for certain which God, which bible, and which specific quotes from which bible you are referring to. For some reason you refuse to specify.

 

[Rise]

"You are implying that my outline of what the Bible says about God is not true,"

I've said no such thing, since I still don't know for certain which God, which bible, and which specific quotes from which bible you are referring to. For some reason you refuse to specify.

Because you didn't ask for Biblical quotes to back up what I posted.
If there is a specific point you take issue with and would like Biblical reference for, by all means post it and I will be happy to address it.
If, however, you don't see a problem with anything I said, I don't see what the point of your original post is.

I also reject the premise of your original question to begin with.
There is only one true God, whether you know Him or not.
And there is no such thing as interpreting Biblical truth multiple ways. Truth is singular by definiton.
The understanding I gave you of scripture is either true or false. Reasoned logical analysis can show some understandings to be false, or one to be true. If scripture is too ambiguous to make a determination that something is false then it is indeed a matter of personal interpretation - but factually we know not everything in the Bible is open to personal interpretation because it is not that ambiguous. Therefore, I reject the assumption of your first post that there must be multiple and equally valid ways of interpretting the scriptures I used for my conclusions.

And there is only one work known as the Bible. A simple dictionary could settle any confusion you have about that term: the definition of Bible

 

[Ponder This]

That's a better post than the one I did. We tend to measure God by our own human yardstick.

It's just that the question is essentially asking people if they believe that logic can be discarded when it comes to God. And the problem with that question is that people don't think logically in the first place or necessarily trust themselves to determine correctly what must logically be the case. So it means that the people who hear the question semantically replace the notion of logical with the notion of what we subjectively imagine to be logical. It's not a meaningful question for anyone who isn't a logician in the first place! It amounts to: do you accept my version of God? And the answer will almost always be: no!

 

[QuestioningMind]

Because you didn't ask for Biblical quotes to back up what I posted.
If there is a specific point you take issue with and would like Biblical reference for, by all means post it and I will be happy to address it.
If, however, you don't see a problem with anything I said, I don't see what the point of your original post is.

I also reject the premise of your original question to begin with.
There is only one true God, whether you know Him or not.
And there is no such thing as interpreting Biblical truth multiple ways. Truth is singular by definiton.
The understanding I gave you of scripture is either true or false. Reasoned logical analysis can show some understandings to be false, or one to be true. If scripture is too ambiguous to make a determination that something is false then it is indeed a matter of personal interpretation - but factually we know not everything in the Bible is open to personal interpretation because it is not that ambiguous. Therefore, I reject the assumption of your first post that there must be multiple and equally valid ways of interpretting the scriptures I used for my conclusions.

And there is only one work known as the Bible. A simple dictionary could settle any confusion you have about that term: the definition of Bible

That's funny, because the entire purpose of my original post was to reject your original premise that you can mention God and bible and that everyone should automatically know WHICH god and WHICH bible you're referring to, as if YOU'RE god and bible are the ONLY true choices out there. Telling me that it's the only true god, whether I know him or not, is a childishly useless claim to make, unless you offer some evidence that your claim is correct.

And what world do you live in where there is only a single version of the bible? In the real world there are approximately 100 versions of the bible in English alone. There are so many versions of the bible and hence versions of Christianity because no one can seem to agree on how to interpret the book. Did Jesus come to release mankind from the laws of the old testament or to reaffirm those laws? There are entire Websites devoted to debating that topic alone. What about works vs faith? Sure sounds like folks are interpreting biblical TRUTH in multiple different ways. If it's all so very clear, why is are there Baptists as well as Catholics? How come some Baptists claim that Catholics aren't REAL Christians? Why do some Catholics claim that Baptists aren't REAL Christians?

 

[Rise]

You are in a state of great ignorance because you mistakenly presume that different translations of the Bible are going to alter anything I said about God.
They won't.

This goes along with another baseless assumption you made: presuming that anything in the Bible is up for interpretation and nothing can be logically/contextually to be said to true about what the Bible says. That's not the case..

I will prove this with a challenge to you, using one statement about God not being able to lie, as an example of your fundamental error in presumption:

Hebrews 6:18
Malachi 3:6
Now demonstrate for us that these verses can be legitimately interpreted to say that God can lie, or that different translation will force that conclusion.

You won't be able to. This proves two of your basic premises were wrong to begin with and failures as attempted points - the presumption that there is another way to interpret the verses I used for my theological conclusions and the presumption that there is a specific Bible translation needed to support the statements I made.

 

[Super Universe]

Personally, I've always loved, "Can god make a rock so large that even he cannot move it?"
*brain implodes*

"Ouch"

The answer is yes but the rock does not have to be large. It could be a pebble. If God says "I shall not be able to pick up this pebble", then it shall be so.

 

[Super Universe]

When it comes to the capability of god, I am always reminded of Epicurus.

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”

Able but not willing is not malevolent. Malevolent means you want evil to happen. A caring parent who allows their children to fall down is not malevolent just because they did not prevent it from happening.

You think it should be about you getting what you want.

It's not.

 

[YmirGF]

The answer is yes but the rock does not have to be large. It could be a pebble. If God says "I shall not be able to pick up this pebble", then it shall be so.

Okie dokie.

 

[Tumah]

1) Can god do what is logically impossible? Why or why not?

I think yes. I think G-d was before logic and created it, so is not bound to it. Through it the world was created and so the world follows laws of logic and G-d's interaction with the world also follows it. But G-d precedes it the same as time.

2) If god could do what is logically impossible, would god be nonsensical? Why or why not?

In the sense that we only recognize the dichotomy of sense and nonsense. I understand it more as pre-sense. That is any characterization of sense (or any other quality) simply doesn't apply to G-d as He has no quality. So He is not nonsensical because He lacks sense but because sense either present or lacking are less relevant to Him then they are to a box.

 

[jonathan180iq]

We don't need to prove or disprove something to explore the consequences of assigning attributes to it.

To give an example you might be friendly towards, it would be like saying any discussion of M-Theory is utterly meaningless because it's not proven, and there are a lot of theoretical physicists who would probably disagree with such a statement (particularly since they discuss it and work on it to find a consequence they can test).

However, if you are here just to derail and ruin it for us by going "doesn't matter cause god isn't real!" You can kindly leave and not participate.

It's not that simple.

You're taking a variable, God in this case, and adding whatever attributes you so choose whenever you like and whatever reason. That, in and of itself, makes the conversations meaningless. Without a set parameter, metric, or established standards, you're creating a conversation about absolutely anything that you can imagine. By design, none of the outcomes that you'll reach will have any real weight or merit to them. Even speaking strictly metaphysically, there are no rules to the logic you're employing.

I don't care if the subject is a specific God or an new creation entirely. The problem is the methodology.

"Can Kapalika fly?"
"Kapalika can fly because Kapalika has superhuman abilities."

"Can Kapalika time travel?"
"Since Kapalika probably has superhuman abilities, I don't see why Kapalika couldn't time travel..."

"Can Kapalika read minds and levitate objects?"
"Kapalika is all-powerful, so yes."

What's any of that worth without first establishing any of the numerous claims made?
Does Kapalika exist?
What are Kapalika's qualities?
What are the limits, if there are any, of Kapalika's abilities?
How do we know these things?
Do answers to the above questions change in light of the newly estalbished abilities of Kapalika?
Are we sure we aren't begging the questions?

Those are important questions, regardless of subject.