malibu&coke

I just think that the question is not accurate at all to anything.

there is an ocean of YESes and NOs and you can just faight with each other till the end of the world. Is the closed question and you have just two answer to stick to it :yes or not and
should not have been posted here .

__________________
spin around!

faraclit

I also agree with the point that it is impossible to prove one side's arguments unopposably, like a mathematical equity like mathematical equity.

But about the paradox, we are asking for "nothing" when we ask the question that German poster asked.

But this is a fact that "the set of married bachelors" is an empty one.
It is empty to ask "can GOD create a triangle with for sides.

this is like saying to the best cook of the world:

Can you make a sandwich without putting anything in the bread?
We would not sy to him
"you dump! u can't evn do such a simple thing"

__________________
"Every village must have its headman; every needle must have its manufacturer and craftsman. And, as you know, every letter must be written by someone. How, then, can it be that so extremely well-ordered a kingdom should have no ruler?" Bediuzzaman Said Nursi"

Johnny Hargreaves

Well God would still be God, even if he couldn't break his own rules, but it'd significantly reduce his omnipotence if he also had rules which he had to obey. It'd also challenge his role as the final answer since the rules by which he operates would still be unexplained.

Now although malibu's point might have truth in it, I think it's only natural for a believer to seek something more tangible than belief to justify his opinion, as it is natural for us to reject these views when they start to get extreme.
There's nothing wrong with trying to drive your point home.
Debate is often the best way to learn of each other's views. I do not fear for two sides who hold eachother at least worthy of debating with-it's only when they think the other side isn't even worth listenning to, and when they think they can judge them without knowing them well enough, that things start to get ugly.

And what's wrong with discussing your ideas with others besides your own? A school of thought that closes itself from interaction with others becomes like the body of a clam - its thick shell is only proof that it needs to fear for its inherent weakness. Only by exposing itself to opposing views and standing the test can a view earn justification for its existence.

malibu&coke

What I say is a nonsense of the question : does god exist.

What you can answer - yes or not, just it. There is no different answer, well might be I don`t know or might exisit, so where those answers can lead us? Into which points?

Disscusion is getting hot but it should be transfer to religion theme threads, people writing about their religions and believs and handing balls to each other.

I can`t see any philosophical hook in here at all, it is closed question plus is rhetorical.

__________________
spin around!

faraclit

I think that the question of God is one of the most important question in the history of philosophy. there are sides, of course, as it is true for almost every topic, e.g the best political system, the best way to happiness, whether there can be a normatiive morality.

I think many of those topics, need the place of a Supernatural being, or metaphysics. We can not say that the question of God, is a non philosophical issue and cannot accept philosophical inquiry.
Plato was a believer, although his society was a politheist one, and he justified this with philosophical inquiry.

Another point is that religions, also have philosophical, (and in the case of Islam), political, ethical, projects which can be criticized from a philosophical perspective.

But of course there are philosophers who reject the area of metaphysics, assuming the laws of nature as the ultimate reality, and rejecting the notions that cannot be understood by physical means, "out of sight, out of might"

We, human beings (especially Western philosophy) tend to explain reality from our sides "metron panton antropos"

HUman need metaphysics to understand the existence, at least they have to be open to discuss. It is also logically necessary for us to have something that cannot be experienced by our bodies, and five senses. Even Materialists argued that the matter was pre-eternal -which is something that we cannot experience by our physical existence-, since was is necessary for being -the chain of causes- to start in a certain place, or go to pre-eternity. This is not very different than the pre-eternity of God.

I think philosophy should not be dogmatized as an alternative religion -with dogmas(for some people) like evolution theory or steady-state theory)-. The science should not be either atheistic and evolutionary, at least for its scientific adequacy and proficiency, since it is not proven yet.

to sum up, I think the question of God, is not something that can not be something unquestable -philosophically-. If we say so we have to say that, "yes the best political system depends person to person, so it is meaningless to discuss it in a philosophical framework.

When it comes to the issue of the "paradox", I think it is a rethorical question, since it logically wants nothing, an empty set.

If God has infinite power, there can be no quantity greater, logically.
There can be no number bigger than infinite, since every quantity added to infinite (it may not be the exact term), is not actually highering its quantity.
It is like asking "can GOd create an married bachelor?, or A triangle with four sides?, since "a bachelor must be unmarried to remain in this category", or the shape which had three sides is on axiomatic( artificial word, I hope it fits) background, is called a "triangle".

Thank you for reading.

__________________
"Every village must have its headman; every needle must have its manufacturer and craftsman. And, as you know, every letter must be written by someone. How, then, can it be that so extremely well-ordered a kingdom should have no ruler?" Bediuzzaman Said Nursi"

malibu&coke

hmmm well the topic went sleep as far I see

Ok, so lets do the hypotethical statement, yes or no

Firstly we can say god does not exsist, so everything has got a earthly grounded reason...

__________________
spin around!

mondher

yes..BUT you may say "every earthly thing has got ..."