Metaphysics Debate 3

"This argument looks pretty sound on paper, but it has a fatal flaw. An omnipotent being can do anything, anything. What this evil deceiver would be capable of is incomprehensible to the human mind. It could contradict itself, that's part of being omnipotent. So x could create b either way, even though it seems horribly illogical. X can do anything, even create a contradiction." Omnipotence has known logical problems and paradoxes. Omnipotence in itself in a contradiction. An omnipotent being can be powerful enough to destroy itself, but once destroyed, in a nothing state, it can not posses the power to create itself again. Or, could an omnipotent being force sanctions on itself that it can't even break? Could an omnipotent being make himself not omnipotent? Or how about this one: Can an omnipotent being create a rock so heavy that even he cannot lift it? If he can, then the rock is now unliftable, limiting his power. But if he cannot, then he is still not omnipotent. We can even use Augustine's argument: For he is called omnipotent on account of his doing what he wills, not on account of his suffering what he wills not; for if that should befall him, he would by no means be omnipotent. Wherefore, he cannot do some things for the very reason that he is omnipotent. Thus Augustine argued that an omnipotent being could not do anything or create any situation that would in effect make the omnipotent being not omnipotent. Your counter to LeCroix's famous proof is futile, Pro. Next argument... ""Alright, I'll make it work, it'll be two syllogisms now: 1) 1.There is the possibility of an Evil Deceiver 2. If he exists he has the ability and will to change logic, and the empirical world. 3. We would not be aware of what is true, and what is one of his lies. 4. Therefore, as defined we would not know anything. 2) 1. A wise man is by definition unusually insightful. 2. It is insightful to agree with logic, especially syllogisms that prove odd things. 3. It is wise to agree that we do not know anything (If it is logically proven) 4. It has been logically proven that we cannot know anything. 5. A wise man would agree that he does not know anything."" How can it be logically proven that we know nothing if we know enough to say that we know nothing? Your second syllogism relies on your first being sound, but in fact your first is not sound. A syllogism can be valid, but if it's not sound it doesn't matter - another fact of philosophy you should learn. The unsoundness comes from the fact that you can not change logic. If you change logic, then how can a wise man agree with logic in your second syllogism? Balderdash. Fail again with the syllogisms, Pro. Next argument... ""The fact is we cannot know either way, so the very possibility of the Evil Deceiver opens the can of worms. The possibility of the good deity means it is not definite that the Evil Deceiver, but it does not mean it is definite that he does not exist. My argument stands."" Then, what, the argument is agnostic? Again, Pro, must I explain this again? If something contradicts logic, it can not exist. The rebuttal to this nonsense is pure and simple as that. Next argument.... ""The reason you are being fallacious is you are interpreting this based on how it is worded. The issue at hand is its meaning, which is fairly well known. I proved its meaning, you tried disproving its wording. Its meaning is not a contradiction, all the saying is saying is that we cannot know anything, I proved that. For example, if I said, "Hold your horses!" It would not be logical to say "I don't have any horses!" As it is pretty clear, unless you are not familiar with the English language, I would be meaning that you should wait."" Um... Of course I am interpreting it based on how its worded. I am trying to disprove its meaning by how it's worded... And yes, that's exactly what I'm arguing, that "We cannot know anything" is false (If you know you don't know anything, then you know something, because you -know- that you don't know anything -anything being all things- which then in turn is a contradiction)... And the hold your horses argument... Of course I am familiar with the English language and I would know that is a silly little saying. Please don't pull a straw man fallacy on me here. You, on the other hand, don't seem familiar with the English language (read the next section, as I was saving the best for last): ""Oh the pains of the English language. In my mind I know what I mean, but English cannot describe it. I'll try my best to get it on paper though. Change 5 to "A wise man would agree that he does not know anything." To explain further, he would not know anything, even that, but he would say that it logically follows, even though logic may or may not be real. Ugh, do you sort of see what I'm saying, I only included the wise man because I wanted to use a common saying. The intent is to say that you can't know anything, and it is wise to believe that is most likely the truth. Again it is weird, but I can't do anything about that. Change the English language and get back to me."" If logic may or may not be real, then a "wise man" would in turn know not to trust logic. So that absolutely makes no sense. If logic may not be real, there wouldn't be a wise man to begin with! No one would be the wiser! And, Pro, just because you have a small vocabulary doesn't mean the English language is flawed (that, in itself, is illogical *winks*) Maybe you can't seem to put it into words because it is illogical? Because you can't even word it for me properly, I really can't argue against something that doesn't exist. The wise man is the man who knows he knows nothing is an illogical statement. Quod erat demonstrandum, Pro. Regards, Vi Veri