
www.Usenet.com
| <-- __Chronological__ --> | <-- __Thread__ --> |
In talk.atheism Damien Stanton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: : "thing" implies logically possible. It's the "Can god create a rock he : can't lift" problem: easily resolved by saying that such a rock is a : logical impossibility. Asking whether God can do X is only a meaningful : question when X denotes a logical possibility, otherwise it is just a : nonsense question, like asking what I said 200 years ago, it doesn't make : any sense. If I ask, "Can God create a round square?", the answer is not : "No" or "Yes", but rather, "That's a nonsense question, you're not making : any sense." What you say is true, but that doesn't solve the problem that it's the BELIEVERS that defined god in a logically impossible way. You cannot have a being with the three omni's (omnibenevolent, omniscient, and omnipotent) with the universe the way it is, anymore than you can say you have a round square while attempting to speak English. If theists would back down their definition of God to a slightly less extreme one, this problem would go away.
| <-- __Chronological__ --> | <-- __Thread__ --> |