Insults from alt again! (who reminds me of my neighbor)
I insulted nobody. Please don't make mountains out of molehills.
Please re-read my original post.
No, you reread our argument thus far. Either that, or we dismiss this as as misunderstanding.
And also, if god made the world he would also have created logic itself.
Then he created logic as dictating that 2+2=4. Just because he created something doesn't mean he can violate it - god is all-powerful, but he cannot do what cannot be done by power, because such things are nothing and cannot exist. God cannot do everything - he cannot tolerate evil, or commit sin, or do the logically impossible. Why? Because the logically possible cannot be done by any amount of power or ability because it is nothing and cannot exist. I have backed up my point multiple times, and you haven't done a thing to refute it.
Cool, try doing it again, but this time don't let amino acids jump on the ten foil.
This claim is completely unsupported. It does nothing to refute my point and therefore is invalid.
You know, i'ver heard the earth was hot when evolutionists say when stuff was evolutioning (evolving or whatever) but, it seems tough to evolve when the planet your on is in the sun.
Both of your sources are painlessly and easily refuted by
this.Also, check the table of contents and make sure to not make any of the other silly arguments refuted by that site. kthxbai.
Odd "coincidence" indeed...
No. Think of our Earth as the mold. We are the item created by it. It is not a coincidence that we fit the mold - we were made from the mold and materials in it, therefore we should fit perfectly.
Unless your text books have been changed again there is also a lot of stuff against it.
Cite some evidence that isn't overshadowed by the evidence for it.
Nooooo, it would say "Take me to your leader" duuuuhhh :P
I bet it would make one of those corny particle jokes.
A neutron walked into the bar. It asked, "how much for a drink?"
"For you, no charge!"
Well then just remember our previous argument on logic. Oh no wait that didn't conclude either. "Sigh" human logic is subjective, God's logic is objective as he is omniscient; something being logically impossible to us doesn't mean it is necessarily illogical to him. The logically impossible tasks refer to things such as creating a spherical triangle, this is impossible because we have a concrete understanding of a sphere and a triangle. We don't have a concrete understanding of our reality however as it's subjective.
Actually, I won that debate. Logic is objective unless you're an existentialist or a Foucault studier and it's safe to say that if you take either of those sides, you're necessarily crazy to not be qualified to debate, lol. Not to be mean.
The reason god cannot do the logically impossible is - and I've stated this a TON - is because god has infinite power, but that which cannot be accomplished by power or other abilities cannot be accomplished by god. God doing the logically impossible is the same as god creating a rock he can't lift - it's a contradictory circumstance.
If everyone in the world decided the 2+2=5, would 2+2=5? Does the majority control logic?
No. Logic is necessarily correct(again, unless you're a Foucaulter or an existentialist, and not to poopoo these guys, but they're irrelevant here). When it comes to argument like this, logic is necessarily correct and cannot be wrong. Instances of people being wrong are people being illogical, not using bad logic.
I'm sorry if yo can't grasp it, but in essance that's it and I can't choose what you can and cannot discern. Not to mention AG messaging isn't the best for the relaying of complex ideals.
Either way, you're not really refuting my point at all . . . you're just saying that the Catholic church, to the best of your knowledge, disagrees with me. That doesn't refute my point at all, and until you can knock it down, it still stands.
I can definitely grasp it - please try to not come off as condescending - but when it comes to the argument, I'm simply winning on this one, and I will be until you can provide an actual refutation.
But could "we" change that standard?
We couldn't. If 2+2=5, it would be our definitions that change, not the laws of the Universe. So, unless your definition of 5 was the same as everybody else's definition of 4, you would be wrong.
