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

[RestlessSoul]

That's the only proven logic that exists.

Exactly. Logic is a human construct, a product of human perception. It would be foolish therefore, to consider logic either infallible or universal.

 

[Madsaac]

Exactly. Logic is a human construct, a product of human perception. It would be foolish therefore, to consider logic either infallible or universal.

Yeah but if you don't think it a human construct, what else could it be? Considering we are humans, it's all that matters isn't it?

 

[Madsaac]

Humans can do that, so it’s logical to assume that God can too

I'm not sure humans can change the laws of logical, it's illogical.

 

[muhammad_isa]

I'm not sure humans can change the laws of logical, it's illogical.

Mmm .. it makes any communication between us meaningless .. nothing to do with G-d.

It becomes a part of language construction and grammar.

 

[Ajax]

Mmm .. it makes any communication between us meaningless .. nothing to do with G-d.

It becomes a part of language construction and grammar.

As long as any God can not be proven by theists, it is also meaningless to talk about his so called attributes given by men.

 

[muhammad_isa]

As long as any God can not be proven by theists, it is also meaningless to talk about his so called attributes..

If you think that, then you are wasting your time making any posts on the topic.
I think otherwise.

 

[Ajax]

If you think that, then you are wasting your time making any posts on the topic.

That's what I said earlier #274

I think otherwise.

Of course you do. If you believe that your prophet flew to the 7th heaven riding a non existent animal, met, discussed and bargained with God and returned to earth, then you could believe anything.

 

[muhammad_isa]

If you believe that your prophet flew to the 7th heaven riding a non existent animal..

..or if I believed that 'fingers crossed' meant that I had a better chance of something happening..
The list is endless, and nothing to do with the OP.

 

[firedragon]

Despite what you write, I never mentioned married bachelor,

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

 

[firedragon]

No. So what...........?

That "No" makes the case.

 

[Kathryn]

Man's logic cannot be universal or infallible. Because man is not.

My gosh, that's common sense! LOL

 

[Ajax]

Man's logic cannot be universal or infallible. Because man is not.

My gosh, that's common sense! LOL

Nobody said that's man's logic is universal of infallible. But does any other logic exist?

 

[Kathryn]

Nobody said that's man's logic is universal of infallible. But does any other logic exist?

I don't know. Do you?

 

[firedragon]

Yeah but if you don't think it a human construct, what else could it be? Considering we are humans, it's all that matters isn't it?

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.

 

[Ajax]

I don't know. Do you?

I said already that in my view, no other logic exists apart from human logic.

 

[Kathryn]

I said already that in my view, no other logic exists apart from human logic.

Well, that's sad but OK. I mean, since by your own words, you said that human logic is neither infallible nor universal.

 

[Ajax]

Well, that's sad but OK. I mean, since by your own words, you said that human logic is neither infallible nor universal.

Nothing is infallible, neither can be totally universal. That ls called progress.
But this in not the topic...

 

[Kathryn]

Nothing is infallible, neither can be totally universal. That ls called progress.

OK, so you say.

 

[CG Didymus]

Exactly. Logic is a human construct, a product of human perception. It would be foolish therefore, to consider logic either infallible or universal.

And don't people in religions try to show how logical their interpretations are?

But is religion infallible? And some people believe their religion is infallible. So, people in a different religion, they'd want to use logic to show how that other religion is wrong. And for non-believers in religion, they want to use logic to show how all religions are wrong.

 

[Madsaac]

That "No" makes the case.

The case for what? What are you trying to prove? Humour me, please.

Also you didn't answer this question. 'Can there be a pregnant virgin?' NB. 2000 years a go