'Unliftable Stone' Paradox - Logically flawed argument people make even today

[Madsaac]

That's a philosophical naturalists position. Well, if that's your epistemology, that's fine, but then the topic is about a methodological argument as stipulated in the heading and OP. So you have to make an internal critic, not base your epistemology as the default.

You seem like a pretty smart person, so could I ask a coupe of questions, because I'm at best, an 'arm chair, try hard philosopher'.

You probably are correct, I think knowledge is best acquired through the naturalist approach and it is my default position but everyone has more than one position.

What's your 'default' position and could you quickly explain it, please? And what is an internal critic and how do you make one?

Thanks

 

[McBell]

'Can there be a pregnant virgin?'

yes

 

[Ajax]

I did. That was an example of "Gibberish".

You mean like the pregnant virgin that Madsaac asked you? And not only that, but remained virgin after she gave birth?
Or perhaps the Balaam's talking donkey? Or that the sun stayed still for 24 hours? Splitting the moon? Travel on an animal to heaven to discuss with God and return?

 

[muhammad_isa]

You mean like the pregnant virgin that Madsaac asked you? And not only that, but remained virgin after she gave birth?
Or perhaps the Balaam's talking donkey? Or that the sun stayed still for 24 hours? Splitting the moon? Travel on an animal to heaven to discuss with God and return?

Everything but address the OP.

Virgin: a person who has not had sexual intercourse

..but a bachelor is a person who is unmarried, so he cannot simultaneously be married.
You know this, but continue to heckle for amusement .. it seems to me.

 

[Ajax]

Virgin: a person who has not had sexual intercourse

You don't pay any notice to what others write to you, or you try to avoid answering.
Can a pregnant be virgin and also remain virgin after she gives birth?
Your answer to Madsaac please, who presented the question, not to me.. #300

And it is on the topic, from the moment you presented the married bachelor.

 

[firedragon]

The case for what?

The case for a logical impossibility. The OP.

 

[firedragon]

Also you didn't answer this question. 'Can there be a pregnant virgin?'

Nope. This is not a logical impossibility. It's a physical impossibility. Just google there terms.

 

[muhammad_isa]

And it is on the topic, from the moment you presented the married bachelor.

I did not 'present' it, but I totally agree with what @firedragon is saying.
Address the OP, and stop trying to deviate from the topic i.e. illogical statements

You might not find it logical for a virgin to give birth, but that has nothing to do with the topic.
Giving birth, while remaining a virgin, is about the physical mechanisms of conception.

 

[firedragon]

What's your 'default' position and could you quickly explain it, please? And what is an internal critic and how do you make one?

My epistemic stance I would stay as a theistic rationalist. An internal critique (or internal criticism) involves analyzing and evaluating a belief system or argument from within its own framework and principles. The goal is to identify inconsistencies or weaknesses without stepping outside the system’s foundational assumptions.

 

[firedragon]

You mean like the pregnant virgin that @Madsaac asked you?

Mate. Yes he asked. So he asked, and you worshiped the question?

Seriously why in the world aren't you making a five minute research on "logical impossibilities" and "Logical impossibilities"?

What's the problem? Are you uninterested in expanding your knowledge a little bit about the topic you are intentionally engaging in?

A pregnant virgin is not a logical impossibility. It's a physical impossibility. Don't be so closed up and arrogant. Ask any single educated Atheist philosopher this question. I say "atheist" because you will worship what he or she says. Or just do a bit of googling, find a decent source. Simple. It will take a few minutes.

 

[firedragon]

Giving birth, while remaining a virgin, is about the physical mechanisms of conception.

Exactly. It's a physical impossibility. The OP is talking about a logical impossibility. But these people don't seem to put a few minutes of their time to do a tad bit of research on these terms but they have enough time making effort to do red herrings and handwaving. Seriously unbelievable. No concept of epistemic responsibility.

 

[Ajax]

Mate. Yes he asked. So he asked, and you worshiped the question?

Seriously why in the world aren't you making a five minute research on "logical impossibilities" and "Logical impossibilities"?

What's the problem? Are you uninterested in expanding your knowledge a little bit about the topic you are intentionally engaging in?

A pregnant virgin is not a logical impossibility. It's a physical impossibility. Don't be so closed up and arrogant. Ask any single educated Atheist philosopher this question. I say "atheist" because you will worship what he or she says. Or just do a bit of googling, find a decent source. Simple. It will take a few minutes.

For a start, I never brought about the omnipotence and stone paradox and have already accepted the logical impossibility. I only stated in another topic that omnipotence and omniscience together is a logical impossibility, considering that God can not change what he knows.

But the validity of your statement, depends entirely on the assumptions and definitions of omnipotence, omniscience and logic. For example the Cambridge dictionary defines omnipotence as "unlimited power and the ability to do anything", irrespectively of whether it is logical or not. Also the concept of "logically possible" is different for a world in which omnipotence exists, than a world in which omnipotence does not exist.
And since all these God's attributes are man thought and made, anyone can present any definition he finds suitable, which makes this discussion nonsensical, although interesting to watch and intervene sometimes.

 

[firedragon]

For a start, I never brought about the omnipotence and stone paradox and have already accepted the logical impossibility.

It's not personal mate. It's a highly used hyper dogmatic atheist argument that's addressed in the OP. Not you personally. So don't put that on your head.

I only stated in another topic that omnipotence and omniscience together is a logical impossibility, considering that God can not change what he knows.

Irrelevant to the OP.

 

[McBell]

A pregnant virgin is not a logical impossibility. It's a physical impossibility.

Wrong.

 

[Alien826]

A pregnant virgin is not a logical impossibility. It's a physical impossibility.

Wrong.

Are you talking about parthenogenesis? That's about it if you expand "non virgin" to include IVF, AI and other ways we have developed to introduce sperm to eggs. Or do you think it's a logical impossibility?

 

[McBell]

Are you talking about parthenogenesis? That's about it if you expand "non virgin" to include IVF, AI and other ways we have developed to introduce sperm to eggs. Or do you think it's a logical impossibility?

It is not physically impossible for a virgin to get pregnant.

AND there is no need for fancy doctors, medicines, tubes, etc.

 

[firedragon]

Are you talking about parthenogenesis? That's about it if you expand "non virgin" to include IVF, AI and other ways we have developed to introduce sperm to eggs. Or do you think it's a logical impossibility?

Again, A pregnant virgin is not a logical impossibility. It's a physical impossibility.

Why don't you just spend a few minutes reading up on "logical impossibility" and "physical impossibility"? Why could not a single atheist who spend so much time in this very thread with so much zeal with anti theistic sentiments just google them and study up spending just a few seconds? Is not that easy?

Simply unbelievable.

 

[McBell]

Again, A pregnant virgin is not a logical impossibility. It's a physical impossibility.

Why don't you just spend a few minutes reading up on "logical impossibility" and "physical impossibility"? Why could not a single atheist who spend so much time in this very thread with so much zeal with anti theistic sentiments just google them and study up spending just a few seconds? Is not that easy?

Simply unbelievable.

The fact is, virgin pregnancy is NOT impossible physically or logically.

That you have to flat out ignore this fact in order to stick to your agenda is most revealing.

You really would go good to follow your own advice.

 

[muhammad_isa]

The fact is, virgin pregnancy is NOT impossible physically or logically.

I would agree.

 

[Madsaac]

Yes, I think it is fair to say that a pregnant virgin 2000 years a go is not logically or physically impossible.

However, a pregnant virgin 2000 years a go may not be 100% impossible but its extremely unlikely, yes? 99%

It seems we are talking illogical possibilities are absolute, so you can't discuss logically impossibilities because they are certain. No married bachelors. I agree with that.

So what's the point? What ground is to be made in a theological debate, if we can't have married bachelors or any other logical impossibility?