RE: The attributes of the Christian God exhibit logical contradictions.
September 28, 2009 at 2:13 pm
The first thing I would like to do, is clarify what a loaded question is... and discuss the question seen below. After we have found a common ground on these points, then I would like to move on to other topics we have raised 
"Can God create a rock that he cannot lift?" is not two questions: it is a preposition.
preposition |ˌprepəˈzi sh ən|
noun Grammar
a word governing, and usually preceding, a noun or pronoun and expressing a relation to another word or element in the clause, as in “the man on the platform,” “she arrived after dinner,” “what did you do it for?”
Basically, a prepositional phrase modifies the definition of the preceding noun. In "Can God create a rock that he cannot lift"... the noun is 'rock', and 'he cannot lift' is a prepositional phrase "That" serves as a conjunction between the modifier and the object.
prepositional phrase
noun
a modifying phrase consisting of a preposition and its object.
Examples of this follow ([ b ]=noun, [ i ]=prepositional phrase.
"Can I build a house that I cannot live in?" (Notice, this is not asking "Can I build a house", If so: "can I live in it?"... this is specifically asking: Could you build such a house? (specifically, one that you cannot live in. The answer is either "certainly... I can build such a house (IE: a doll house)." or "I cannot build a house that I cannot live in."
"Can God build a house located on a beach?" (Notice, this is not simply asking if God can build a house... it is asking if he can build one located on a beach. A prepositional phrase can be summed up like so: a few words that change the meaning of the proceeding word.
"Can God create a rock that he cannot lift?" (Notice, this is asking if 'God' can create a rock... specifically: a rock that he cannot lift. If he can make such a rock: a second question could be asked of him... "Can he lift that rock?". It is from this point, that one can see that omnipotence is impossible.
A parallel question can be easily asked in: "Can God create an unliftable rock?"... which is assuming no more than "Can God create a blue rock?". The question has suggested nothing about omnipotence to begin with, it has simply asked if God can create this rock. These questions are not presuming any action... they are a valid, and sound, questions.
Indeed, I can ask a question like: "Where have you hidden the treasure you stole from me?"... and you will find that I am simply asking, "Where have you hidden the the treasure?", specifically the treasure that you stole from me. One may be tempted to answer one question in multiple ways, and then claim that the question was asking more than it was: but do not be fooled... the question asked but one thing, and it may be an invalid question (the action of hiding stolen treasure may or may not have taken place)... but it was alone one question.
As to the 'loaded question's definition itself: We cannot be sure that everyone is on the same page when we refer to "sky"... the definition varies person by person. When people say "god", this gets even more confusing and convoluted.
In this way, all questions asked to another... are loaded. We have to presuppose that everyone is on the same page... when people read books at different speeds (Many have not even learned to read). If a question is 'loaded' simply because it presupposes something... then all of our questions have become loaded.
Even the most fundamental '1 = 1', presupposes what '1' is. It presupposes that 1 is equal to itself... it presupposes what equality is. I don't know how anything can be simpler than the basis of reason... but if a loaded question is fallacy because of presupposition, then it follows to reason that all of reason is fallacy (if the loaded question is truly a fallacy). This is because all of our knowledge is the assumption that we are right... all our evidence is from chance circumstance... and all of our logic is presupposed from the moment it is justified...
Simply, the loaded question is, as you would define it (two or more questions + hidden question that commits the fallacy by making a contentious assumption): to invalidate all questions. For every question... in fact, every rational statement: assumes something. Every word I write could be controversial, and defined differently by another. Also, there is no question that is asking two questions... because then it is not one question... but two questions.
If a loaded question is to mean anything at all, and still apply to "Have you stopped beating your wife?": It would only be to assume within the question that something has been done. A question like "Have you stopped beating your wife?" could be valid or invalid... if the action has occurred: it is valid. If the action has not occurred: invalid. The question's validity does not lie in asking two questions... The question's validity lies in whether the action has been done, or not. I therefore cannot accept the established definition without more evidence of why it is correct, as it ignores what makes the question fundamentally right or wrong... and has assumed answers as a part of the question.
But we are discussing language here... debating fancy words and varied definitions brings us little wisdom. However, it is these lingual rules which we must agree upon... for we are conveying our ideas in the form of language.
"Can God create a rock that he cannot lift?" is not two questions: it is a preposition.
preposition |ˌprepəˈzi sh ən|
noun Grammar
a word governing, and usually preceding, a noun or pronoun and expressing a relation to another word or element in the clause, as in “the man on the platform,” “she arrived after dinner,” “what did you do it for?”
Basically, a prepositional phrase modifies the definition of the preceding noun. In "Can God create a rock that he cannot lift"... the noun is 'rock', and 'he cannot lift' is a prepositional phrase "That" serves as a conjunction between the modifier and the object.
prepositional phrase
noun
a modifying phrase consisting of a preposition and its object.
Examples of this follow ([ b ]=noun, [ i ]=prepositional phrase.
"Can I build a house that I cannot live in?" (Notice, this is not asking "Can I build a house", If so: "can I live in it?"... this is specifically asking: Could you build such a house? (specifically, one that you cannot live in. The answer is either "certainly... I can build such a house (IE: a doll house)." or "I cannot build a house that I cannot live in."
"Can God build a house located on a beach?" (Notice, this is not simply asking if God can build a house... it is asking if he can build one located on a beach. A prepositional phrase can be summed up like so: a few words that change the meaning of the proceeding word.
"Can God create a rock that he cannot lift?" (Notice, this is asking if 'God' can create a rock... specifically: a rock that he cannot lift. If he can make such a rock: a second question could be asked of him... "Can he lift that rock?". It is from this point, that one can see that omnipotence is impossible.
A parallel question can be easily asked in: "Can God create an unliftable rock?"... which is assuming no more than "Can God create a blue rock?". The question has suggested nothing about omnipotence to begin with, it has simply asked if God can create this rock. These questions are not presuming any action... they are a valid, and sound, questions.
Indeed, I can ask a question like: "Where have you hidden the treasure you stole from me?"... and you will find that I am simply asking, "Where have you hidden the the treasure?", specifically the treasure that you stole from me. One may be tempted to answer one question in multiple ways, and then claim that the question was asking more than it was: but do not be fooled... the question asked but one thing, and it may be an invalid question (the action of hiding stolen treasure may or may not have taken place)... but it was alone one question.
As to the 'loaded question's definition itself: We cannot be sure that everyone is on the same page when we refer to "sky"... the definition varies person by person. When people say "god", this gets even more confusing and convoluted.
In this way, all questions asked to another... are loaded. We have to presuppose that everyone is on the same page... when people read books at different speeds (Many have not even learned to read). If a question is 'loaded' simply because it presupposes something... then all of our questions have become loaded.
Even the most fundamental '1 = 1', presupposes what '1' is. It presupposes that 1 is equal to itself... it presupposes what equality is. I don't know how anything can be simpler than the basis of reason... but if a loaded question is fallacy because of presupposition, then it follows to reason that all of reason is fallacy (if the loaded question is truly a fallacy). This is because all of our knowledge is the assumption that we are right... all our evidence is from chance circumstance... and all of our logic is presupposed from the moment it is justified...
Simply, the loaded question is, as you would define it (two or more questions + hidden question that commits the fallacy by making a contentious assumption): to invalidate all questions. For every question... in fact, every rational statement: assumes something. Every word I write could be controversial, and defined differently by another. Also, there is no question that is asking two questions... because then it is not one question... but two questions.
If a loaded question is to mean anything at all, and still apply to "Have you stopped beating your wife?": It would only be to assume within the question that something has been done. A question like "Have you stopped beating your wife?" could be valid or invalid... if the action has occurred: it is valid. If the action has not occurred: invalid. The question's validity does not lie in asking two questions... The question's validity lies in whether the action has been done, or not. I therefore cannot accept the established definition without more evidence of why it is correct, as it ignores what makes the question fundamentally right or wrong... and has assumed answers as a part of the question.
But we are discussing language here... debating fancy words and varied definitions brings us little wisdom. However, it is these lingual rules which we must agree upon... for we are conveying our ideas in the form of language.
Please give me a home where cloud buffalo roam
Where the dear and the strangers can play
Where sometimes is heard a discouraging word
But the skies are not stormy all day
