DProDG:

Actually, it is the other way around. There is nothing illogical about the question so rather, the definition is invalid.

Wrong. Since God is God there's nothing He cannot do.

UyiIredia:
Wrong. Since God is God there's nothing He cannot do.

Then why hasn't the OP gotten a simple yes/no answer since? Do you understand the term paradox?

DProDG:

Then why hasn't the OP gotten a simple yes/no answer since? Do you understand the term paradox?

The usual trick is to say God is not omnipotent if the answer is yes. And to say God is not powerful enough to make something He can't do if the answer is no.

UyiIredia:
The usual trick is to say God is not omnipotent if the answer is yes. And to say God is not powerful enough to make something He can't do if the answer is no.

Trick? How exactly is it a trick? Did you miss the part where I pointed it out as a paradox?

UyiIredia:


The usual trick is to say God is not omnipotent if the answer is yes. And to say God is not powerful enough to make something He can't do if the answer is no.

Lol...You learned a lot during your infiltration of Atheism.

DProDG:

Trick? How exactly is it a trick? Did you miss the part where I pointed it out as a paradox?

It's a senseless question not a paradox.

UyiIredia:


It's a senseless question not a paradox.

And can you point out what is illogical about it?

UyiIredia:

It's a senseless question not a paradox.

That is a classic paradox if you actually know what the word means.

ihedinobi2:

Explain then to me how it is just to rehabilitate a criminal. Say, someone raped and murdered someone else's daughter, how is justice served by rehabilitating him?

The idea behind rehabilitation is the same as that behind punishment, which the the prevention of misconduct. It is just to prevent misconduct. In a case where a life has been taken, and the possibility of restitution is doubtful, as a result of which it is decided not to take another life in return, the owner of the life which has been spared has to undergo rehabilitation of some sort. In such a case, rehabilitation is a veritable means of achieving justice.

We seem to have gone off at a tangent here, as we are supposed to be considering whether mercy and justice are possible at the same time and in the same case.

Omnipotence has nothing to do with wanting such a world. God would want that world if it suits his nature to want it. Omnipotence has nothing to do with it.

True. Omnipotence alone says nothing about the goodness or otherwise of the created world. I had taken it for granted that we were discussing an omnibenevolent deity. Please just assume that it is the case that the deity is also omnibenevolent.

What makes you think he didn't or isn't creating it? My argument has been that God IS creating such a world.

Okay. I guess you explain how when you tell me about logic and good and evil.

You want me to reply a statement I don't understand?

You don't understand it? Really? We'll get to it soon anyway.

Logic is the tool with which we establish consistency between ideas and actual reality. Good and evil are issues of the nature of reality.

I'm still at a loss here. Could you give an example of how good or evil affect logic?

DProDG:


And can you point out what is illogical about it?

Ihedinobi has already done that. Your question is as silly as asking for man to make a sentence he cannot understand.

Redlyn:
That is a classic paradox if you actually know what the word means.

UyiIredia:
Ihedinobi has already done that. Your question is as silly as asking for man to make a sentence he cannot understand.

Some just like refusing to stay "down" after getting knocked to the canvas by ihedinobi2's thread-killer post

They have been told it is a pointless question, just like ihedinobi2 earlier hinted
IMHOit is a pointless question that has no answer,
as this exercise for God, thought up by the original poster is a never-ending one called the "Sisyphean Task"

You will find that almighty God will create a task that's so huge even he can't move or do
but when it comes to moving/doing it, He moves/does it.

So almighty God will create a task that's so huger than the earlier one even he can't move or do all over again
but when it comes to moving/doing it, He moves/does it, again

The cycle or repetition, goes on, constantly repeating over and over again, indefinitely as in on to infinity
Soon realise this is a never ending task
and you wont get an answer to your question because it is an unending and futile task asked off God by OP

The question of God creating something He cant move, is unnecessary,
as there is no outcome capable of producing any useful answer or response the OP anticipates

One wonders if DProDG and his tag team friend Redlyn can explain what they find paradoxical in the question which asks:
Can almighty God create a task that's so huge even he can't do?

The question, without resorting to preemptive tactics, simply, demanded a binary answer

Can God Create A Mountain That God Can't Move

Is your question refering to Christain God Or Muslim God?

If you asking About My God Allah the Almighty I will answer this simple question from Quran

If you refering to Yehweh and His cursed Son then you need to ask christain

MuttleyLaff:

Some just like refusing to stay "down" after getting knocked to the canvas by ihedinobi2's thread-killer post
They have been told it is a pointless question, just like ihedinobi2 earlier hinted
IMHOit is a pointless question that has no answer,
as this exercise for God, thought up by the original poster is a never-ending one called the "Sisyphean Task"
You will find that almighty God will create a task that's so huge even he can't move or do
but when it comes to moving/doing it, He moves/does it.
So almighty God will create a task that's so huger than the earlier one even he can't move or do all over again
but when it comes to moving/doing it, He moves/does it, again
The cycle or repetition, goes on, constantly repeating over and over again, indefinitely as in on to infinity
Soon realise this is a never ending task
and you wont get an answer to your question because it is an unending and futile task asked off God by OP
The question of God creating something He cant move, is unnecessary,
as there is no outcome capable of producing any useful answer or response the OP anticipates
One wonders if DProDG and his tag team friend Redlyn can explain what they find paradoxical in the question which asks:
Can almighty God create a task that's so huge even he can't do?
The question, without resorting to preemptive tactics, simply, demanded a binary answer

UyiIredia:

Ihedinobi has already done that. Your question is as silly as asking for man to make a sentence he cannot understand.

Paradox
-a seemingly absurd or contradictory statement or proposition which when investigated may prove to be well founded or true.
"the uncertainty principle leads to all sorts of paradoxes, like the particles being in two places at once"

-a statement or proposition which, despite sound (or apparently sound) reasoning from acceptable premises, leads to a conclusion that seems logically unacceptable or self-contradictory.
"the liar paradox"

-a person or thing that combines contradictory features or qualities.

I really do not see what the argument is here. Apparently, we both agree on everything except the term used to describe it.

DProDG:
Paradox
-a seemingly absurd or contradictory statement or proposition which when investigated may prove to be well founded or true.
"the uncertainty principle leads to all sorts of paradoxes, like the particles being in two places at once"

-a statement or proposition which, despite sound (or apparently sound) reasoning from acceptable premises, leads to a conclusion that seems logically unacceptable or self-contradictory.
"the liar paradox"

-a person or thing that combines contradictory features or qualities.

I really do not see what the argument is here. Apparently, we both agree on everything except the term used to describe it

Glad that "we both agree on everything" but here is another and impartial definition of paradox

Paradox
- a question statement or proposition that, despite sound (or apparently sound) reasoning from acceptable premises, leads to a conclusion that seems senseless, logically unacceptable, or self-contradictory

Why it is not a paradox, is that, we are unable to say, Yes or No,
and so therefore, the question asked is not necessarily a paradox then

Seemingly senseless, logically unacceptable, or self-contradictory question IS NOT the same as undecided, not known, dont know etcetera.

The answer to the question or matter is up in the air, undecided, not known etc
The jury is still out.

YojuLojuWindow:

Glad that "we both agree on everything" but here is another and impartial definition of paradox

Paradox
- a question statement or proposition that, despite sound (or apparently sound) reasoning from acceptable premises, leads to a conclusion that seems senseless, logically unacceptable, or self-contradictory

Why it is not a paradox, is that, we are unable to say, Yes or No,
and so therefore, the question asked is not necessarily a paradox then

Seemingly senseless, logically unacceptable, or self-contradictory question IS NOT the same as undecided, not known, dont know etcetera.

The answer to the question or matter is up in the air, undecided, not known etc
The jury is still out.

Despite quoting the dictionary definitions of paradox, it is apparent that you guys still do not understand what it means.

Here are some classic examples...
The liar paradox -- "I am lying".
From the statement, is it possible to discern if it is true or false?

The grandfather paradox -- Can a time traveler go back in time and kill his grandfather?
Another seemingly logical question which requires a yes or no answer.

And of course, the omnipotence paradox mentioned here.

Unless you can distinguish it from the rest, I hope these examples help you understand.

finofaya:


The idea behind rehabilitation is the same as that behind punishment, which the the prevention of misconduct. It is just to prevent misconduct. In a case where a life has been taken, and the possibility of restitution is doubtful, as a result of which it is decided not to take another life in return, the owner of the life which has been spared has to undergo rehabilitation of some sort. In such a case, rehabilitation is a veritable means of achieving justice.

We seem to have gone off at a tangent here, as we are supposed to be considering whether mercy and justice are possible at the same time and in the same case.

My friend, justice is about giving to everyone what they deserve, their exact due, nothing more and nothing less. It is neither a rehabilitation system nor a punitive measure. Under justice, if you take a life you must give back a life. If you steal two naira you must give back two naira. The time that you are punished is when you cannot give back what you took. At that time, you must suffer the loss or inconvenience that you caused. Let us not confuse matters here, please.

We can hardly settle that question unless we agree on what justice and mercy both are.

True. Omnipotence alone says nothing about the goodness or otherwise of the created world. I had taken it for granted that we were discussing an omnibenevolent deity. Please just assume that it is the case that the deity is also omnibenevolent.



Okay. I guess you explain how when you tell me about logic and good and evil.

I already explained. I said that a world where humans have and exercise free will and where there is also no pain and suffering is one where humans have learned to use their free will toward good and not evil. Therefore, a world such as the one we live in would necessarily precede it.

You don't understand it? Really? We'll get to it soon anyway.

I don't.

I'm still at a loss here. Could you give an example of how good or evil affect logic?

Affect? I said that logic is what we use to establish the consistency of ideas with reality. And reality can be normally good or normally evil. When you examine ideas logically in a good world, you would be attempting to establish that they agree with all that is good. The converse is also true assuming that evil even permits argument and examination.

DProDG:


Despite quoting the dictionary definitions of paradox, it is apparent that you guys still do not understand what it means.

Here are some classic examples...
The liar paradox -- "I am lying".
From the statement, is it possible to decern if it is true or false?

The gandfather paradox -- Can a time traveller go back in time and kill his grandfather?
Another seemingly logical question which requires a yes or no answer.

And of course, the omnipotence paradox mentioned here.

Unless you can distinguish it from the rest, I hope these examples help you understand.

Your paradoxes are all rather meaningless statements too.

Consider this statement: "he was lying". What would you say to that if someone said it to you out of the blues? If you're honest, you'll admit that you'll ask two questions: "who is he?" and "when he said what?" Or "what did he lie about?"

"I am lying" is not a paradox. It is an incomplete statement that passes on too little meaning if any at all. "I am lying"...when I say what? Or about what?

The question about the grandfather assumed that time-travel has some clear meaning. What does it mean to travel through time? When I go backwards in time, do I get younger and younger and retrace my history until I disappear into my mom's womb and then become nothing? If I do, how would I kill my grandfather if I never killed him before in my history? If I don't retrace my history, what exactly happens when I time-travel? How do I meet my grandfather in a time I never existed? In short, what does time travel mean? And, by extension, what does your question mean?


In any case, even the meaning of paradox does not do you good. If it seems self-contradictory, senseless and logically unacceptable why assume that it isn't?

ihedinobi2:


Your paradoxes are all rather meaningless statements too.

Consider this statement: "he was lying". What would you say to that if someone said it to you out of the blues? If you're honest, you'll admit that you'll ask two questions: "who is he?" and "when he said what?" Or "what did he lie about?"

"I am lying" is not a paradox. It is an incomplete statement that passes on too little meaning if any at all. "I am lying"...when I say what? Or about what?

The question about the grandfather assumed that time-travel has some clear meaning. What does it mean to travel through time? When I go backwards in time, do I get younger and younger and retrace my history until I disappear into my mom's womb and then become nothing? If I do, how would I kill my grandfather if I never killed him before in my history? If I don't retrace my history, what exactly happens when I time-travel? How do I meet my grandfather in a time I never existed? In short, what does time travel mean? And, by extension, what does your question mean?


In any case, even the meaning of paradox does not do you good. If it seems self-contradictory, senseless and logically unacceptable why assume that it isn't?

Don't be a hypocrite. We're dealing with logical and philosophical paradoxes here and you bring in language context that has nothing to do with it.

Since you're the expert here, can you give your own example of logical paradoxes?

unfollows post

DProDG:
Unless you can distinguish it from the rest, I hope these examples help you understand.

ihedinobi2:
Your paradoxes are all rather meaningless statements too.
In any case, even the meaning of paradox does not do you good.
If it seems self-contradictory, senseless and logically unacceptable why assume that it isn't?

@DProDG. We will know if it really is a paradox, if you share what conclusion you arrived at concerning the original question:
"Can almighty God create a task that's so huge even he can't do?"

Your paradox definition, was countered with ANOTHER and IMPARTIAL paradox definition hinging on "a conclusion that seems senseless, logically unacceptable, or self-contradictory"
You chose not to proffer this definition version obviously because the "...a conclusion that seems senseless, logically unacceptable, or self-contradictory" bit puts you at a disadvantage

For a moment DProDG, quit lying down facing where everyone's facing
You dont seem to be getting that the innocently asked question has nothing to do with the almighty "The omnipotence paradox" because it will get an undecided answer because of the assigned "Sisyphean Task"

GOD: Hey I cant lift this mountain
GOD: Oops, I just had
GOD: Let me create a bigger size I cant lift
GOD: Whoops. Done it again, I've just lifted it.
GOD: OK, let's create another bigger size I cant lift
GOD: Whoopsy daisy, I've done it again and lifted this one too
GOD: Here we go again, creating a much bigger than the previous bigger
GOD: Wow, easy peasy lemon squeezy, another one bites the dust, I just lifted that one too
GOD: Hang on, this "Can God Create A Mountain That God Can't Move?" seems like a Sisyphean task, it's a cycle that never ends
GOD: Bet you're never going to find out if I can or I cant, as we'll be here doing this "create-lift repetitions" for ever

DProDG do you not know? Have you not heard? Great is God! No one can measure His greatness.
There is no binary answer to that question. No "Yes He can" or "No he cant".
It's a Jury-Is-Out undecided answer. Inconclusive!

After you've taken a moment to reflect on the above, next, hear me clearly, now if the question were, to be an irresponsibly asked or mischevious one, well, you can, then much to your delight begin fantasizing it with an almighty "The omnipotence paradox"

Once you come to UNDERSTAND that "The omnipotence paradox" has no place in a responsibly asked question, then, you will retract it and asked to be excused for your faux pas

DProDG just let it rest, as GOD is unsearchable, God is not subject to time, not subject to measuring, not subject not subject to any of paraded or fanciful paradoxes

Bottom line, a lot of things about GOD are illogical, so forget the thought of and about fraternising "logical paradoxes" with God. Biko.
To anyone following the herd, this thread has just been unfollowed

Let me break this down

Omnipotence in a nutshell
- Premise 1: X can do anything (logically) possible.
- Premise 2: X can create a stone no one can lift.
- Conclusion: X cannot lift the stone, hence negating the first premise.

YojuLojuWindow:
unfollows post
@DProDG. We will know if it really is a paradox, if you share what conclusion you arrived at concerning the original question:
"Can almighty God create a task that's so huge even he can't do?"

This question shows you still have no understanding of the word 'paradox'. In fact, you probably don't even know what you are arguing for/against. By definition, a paradox results in no logical conclusion which we both agree on.

Your paradox definition, was countered with ANOTHER and IMPARTIAL paradox definition hinging on "a conclusion that seems senseless, logically unacceptable, or self-contradictory"
You chose not to proffer this definition version obviously because the "...a conclusion that seems senseless, logically unacceptable, or self-contradictory" bit puts you at a disadvantage

I was the one that gave the definition so once again, you end up looking confused about what you argument really is. How does this put me at a "disadvantage"? It is the basis of what we are both saying.

For a moment DProDG, quit lying down facing where everyone's facing
You dont seem to be getting that the innocently asked question has nothing to do with the almighty "The omnipotence paradox" because it will get an undecided answer because of the assigned "Sisyphean Task"

GOD: Hey I cant lift this mountain
GOD: Oops, I just had
GOD: Let me create a bigger size I cant lift
GOD: Whoops. Done it again, I've just lifted it.
GOD: OK, let's create another bigger size I cant lift
GOD: Whoopsy daisy, I've done it again and lifted this one too
GOD: Here we go again, creating a much bigger than the previous bigger
GOD: Wow, easy peasy lemon squeezy, another one bites the dust, I just lifted that one too
GOD: Hang on, this "Can God Create A Mountain That God Can't Move?" seems like a Sisyphean task, it's a cycle that never ends
GOD: Bet you're never going to find out if I can or I cant, as we'll be here doing this "create-lift repetitions" for ever

And now what both you and ihedinobi2 are crucially missing. This is an argument based on pure logic and yet you bring up something totally unrelated? What does the Sisyphean Task have to do with logic? The monologue you presented is not even founded on the first premise nor the second. Simply 'God' creating an endless cycle of stones that he CAN lift.

DProDG do you not know? Have you not heard? Great is God! No one can measure His greatness.
There is no binary answer to that question. No "Yes He can" or "No he cant".
It's a Jury-Is-Out undecided answer. Inconclusive!

Once again you define a 'paradox' and the funny part is that you insist that it isn't, because... its result is 'inconclusive' which is the essence of a...paradox. You are basically just being stubborn for some unknown reason about the term to use.

After you've taken a moment to reflect on the above, next, hear me clearly, now if the question were, to be an irresponsibly asked or mischevious one, well, you can, then much to your delight begin fantasizing it with an almighty "The omnipotence paradox"

Once you come to UNDERSTAND that "The omnipotence paradox" has no place in a responsibly asked question, then, you will retract it and asked to be excused for your faux pas

DProDG just let it rest, as GOD is unsearchable, God is not subject to time, not subject to measuring, not subject not subject to any of paraded or fanciful paradoxes

Bottom line, a lot of things about GOD are illogical, so forget the thought of and about fraternising "logical paradoxes" with God. Biko.
To anyone following the herd, this thread has just been unfollowed

So it turns out that the sole reason you refuse to acknowledge the Omnipotence Paradox is because of the religious implications, big surprise. Then again, you acknowledge that the concept of 'God' is itself "illogical". There's just too much oxymoron in that.

From the above, it's almost certain that you're not ready for a logical argument and will rather argue to support what you admit isn't logical but just in case you have a change of mind, like I've asked before, simply give an example of a paradox for a comparison.

(Can God Create A Mountain That God Can't Move?)

The Answer Is YES

Because Allah the Almighty is the Creator And Allah Can do any thing

From Quran:

Al-Baqarah 148

(For each [religious following] is a direction toward which it faces. So race to [all that is] good. Wherever you may be, Allah will bring you forth [for judgement] all together. Indeed, Allah is over all things competent.)

Why this Simple Question take alot of pages !!!

DProDG:
Let me break this down

No! Dont bother with a needless breaking it down
I prefer you do a breakdance or stick to breaking eggs for making an omelette though

DProDG:
Omnipotence in a nutshell
- Premise 1: X can do anything (logically) possible.
- Premise 2: X can create a stone no one can lift.
- Conclusion: X cannot lift the stone, hence negating the first premise.

You're as stubborn as a mule and unable to stick to the original question
You wouldnt be bringing in the above arguments, if you arent confuse about the meaning of Omnipotence.

DProDG:
This question shows you still have no understanding of the word 'paradox'.

You are so presuming that one doesn't know because one is not dancing to the beat of your drum nor Averroes' drum

DProDG:
In fact, you probably don't even know what you are arguing for/against.

You do realise I had unfollowed this thread, so thank you for drawing me out of retiring from unfollowing it
and for giving me the opportunity to publicly reveal what this all about, particularly with you.
I am against you tying the Omnipotence paradox
in other words the original question "Could an omnipotent being create a stone so heavy that even he could not lift it?" with God

DProDG:
By definition, a paradox results in no logical conclusion which we both agree on.

and a paradox also results in "He can" or "He cannot", so if the latter is chosen then it contradicts the omnipotency
You are just as stubborn as a mule in not willing to agree that God retains his omnipotence
as God will continually all over again, be lifting each stone, created heavy enough earlier thought He cant lift

DProDG:
I was the one that gave the definition so once again,

Facepalm. You are right, you did first, give the definition. Must have hsd a blurred vision and missed it when I earlier read it. Sorry about that amigo.

DProDG:
you end up looking confused about what you argument really is.
How does this put me at a "disadvantage"? It is the basis of what we are both saying.

The "disadvantage" my friend, is that "senseless, logically unacceptable, self-contradictory" suits a "He cannot" answer
but in this we have an undecided answer because the task keeps repeating itself unendingly, in a Sisyphean manner if you like

DProDG:
And now what both you and ihedinobi2 are crucially missing.
This is an argument based on pure logic and yet you bring up something totally unrelated?

Exactly DProDG, believe this, we both are familiar with this logic
which is why we are saying you can have fun with the logic
but it really has got nothing on God

DProDG:
What does the Sisyphean Task have to do with logic?
The monologue you presented is not even founded on the first premise nor the second.

Ah-ha! Ah-ha!! You've just smelled the coffee
The Sisyphean Task is the reality spicing up the logic
I would have done same too with Averroes if he were here

DProDG:
Simply 'God' creating an endless cycle of stones that he CAN lift.

Yes, as the proof of the pudding is in the eating
so God creates a stone, thought He cant lift but bingo, He lifted it
now an endless cycle of creating and lifting ensues to find the answer to the question

DProDG:
Once again you define a 'paradox' and the funny part is that you insist that it isn't,
because... its result is 'inconclusive' which is the essence of a...paradox.
You are basically just being stubborn for some unknown reason about the term to use.

No, just saying an "undecided answer" is not self contradicting yet, as this is an ongoing task nowhere near to contradicting an Omnipotent

DProDG:
So it turns out that the sole reason you refuse to acknowledge the Omnipotence Paradox is because of the religious implications, big surprise.

I dont do "religious implications" DProDG.
Go out on a limb DProDG, try something different, try faith sometime,
when you do try faith, you'll be in a good & positive way delightfully surprised...

DProDG:
Then again, you acknowledge that the concept of 'God' is itself "illogical".

Dont put words in my mouth
I know what I wrote. I said "Bottom line, a lot of things about GOD are illogical"
and didnt say the concept of 'God' is itself "illogical".

DProDG:
There's just too much oxymoron in that.

Well the irony is that there are quite a lot of things about GOD we humans find illogical
For example, giving birth after menopause, immaculate conception, etc

DProDG:
From the above, it's almost certain that you're not ready for a logical argument
and will rather argue to support what you admit isn't logical

For the umpteenth time, this isnt about arguing
but rather it's about putting a 12 century record straight that the paradox doesnt gel with God

DProDG:
but just in case you have a change of mind,

You need a change of mind more than I do
Practice what you preach to loosen up the straitjacket you're strapped into

DProDG:
like I've asked before, simply give an example of a paradox for a comparison

Ready to help. Ready and willing to serve you
This is one example of a paradox for your comparison:
"If you didn't get this message, call me."

DProDG:


Don't be a hypocrite. We're dealing with logical and philosophical paradoxes here and you bring in language context that has nothing to do with it.

Since you're the expert here, can you give your own example of logical paradoxes?

I actually took a whole minute to understand what you said here and I still don't understand it very well. I don't know if you are upset that I used the definition you offered to make a point. Or if you think I cheated by drawing out the full meaning of the "paradoxes" you offered. In either case I honestly fail to see what the hypocrisy is and how language has nothing to do with philosophy.

Nor do I see why logical paradoxes are unquestionable reality.

ihedinobi2:


I actually took a whole minute to understand what you said here and I still don't understand it very well. I don't know if you are upset that I used the definition you offered to make a point. Or if you think I cheated by drawing out the full meaning of the "paradoxes" you offered. In either case I honestly fail to see what the hypocrisy is and how language has nothing to do with philosophy.

Nor do I see why logical paradoxes are unquestionable reality.

Oga, you were asked to provide an example of a logical paradox. Please do.

AllNaijaBlogger:




Oga, you were asked to provide an example of a logical paradox. Please do.

And I asked why logical paradoxes must be considered real. Why must they exist?

ihedinobi2:
I actually took a whole minute to understand what you said here and I still don't understand it very well. I don't know if you are upset that I used the definition you offered to make a point. Or if you think I cheated by drawing out the full meaning of the "paradoxes" you offered. In either case I honestly fail to see what the hypocrisy is and how language has nothing to do with philosophy.
Nor do I see why logical paradoxes are unquestionable reality.

The mere fact that you think logic depends on language context show just how much you know about it.

ihedinobi2:
And I asked why logical paradoxes must be considered real. Why must they exist?

I'm not sure what you mean by 'exist' or what you're getting at. No one is asserting that logic exists. You do realize it is as abstract as can be. I am yet to see your own examples of a statement that is self-contradictory since apparently the classic "I am lying" depends on context and hence isn't a paradox.

ihedinobi2:


And I asked why logical paradoxes must be considered real. Why must they exist?

Provide an example.

DProDG:

The mere fact that you think logic depends on language context show just how much you know about it.



I'm not sure what you mean by 'exist' or what you're getting at. No one is asserting that logic exists. You do realize it is as abstract as can be. I am yet to see your own examples of a statement that is self-contradictory since apparently the classic "I am lying" depends on context and hence isn't a paradox.

Incredible. Logic is independent of language. Just incredible.

I asked you, must logical paradoxes exist? Why must they?

AllNaijaBlogger:




Provide an example.

You don't understand what I'm asking, do you? I'm asking this: would I have an example if logical paradoxes don't exist? Why the assumption that they do?

ihedinobi2:
Incredible. Logic is independent of language [context]. Just incredible.

I asked you, must logical paradoxes exist? Why must they?

ihedinobi2:

You don't understand what I'm asking, do you? I'm asking this: would I have an example if logical paradoxes don't exist? Why the assumption that they do?

Why bother quoting me if you are just gonna misquote me anyway?

I really can't tell if you're denying that there are logical paradoxes or not. If you are, there's no point going back and forth. If not, then I can't see your excuse for not giving an example.

DProDG:



Why bother quoting me if you are just gonna misquote me anyway?

I really can't tell if you're denying that there are logical paradoxes or not. If you are, there's no point going back and forth. If not, then I can't see your excuse for not giving an example.

Look, just explain what you meant. What are you talking about with language context?

I don't know any examples of logical paradoxes.

UyiIredia:


Wrong. Since God is God there's nothing He cannot do.

Except logical absurdities of course.