That sentence has no meaning. You're back doing poetry. — EricH

Really? I'd call it illogical.

Nah, you stopped paying attention. — jorndoe

Don't you just hate it when you intentionally crash and kill yourself!?

Does it have to be conscious controlling, or can there be unconscious controlling? — Philosophim

Nice!

I was both driving and not driving — 3017amen

Nah, you stopped paying attention — jorndoe

Don't you just hate it when you intentionally crash and kill yourself!? — 3017amen

Suicide, then. Unfortunate either way, but not the alleged contradiction.

Are you sure? How could I willfully commit suicide while I was driving and daydreaming?

intentionally — 3017amen

?

Okay!?

A dipolar God is most certainly logically possible. Have you read the book The Mind of God by physicist Paul Davies?

intentionally crash — 3017amen

= suicidal tendencies, yes?

Mmmm interesting. Would those tendencies come from your conscious, subconscious or Freudian unconscious mind?

Are you going to show the alleged contradiction or not, ?

I was both driving and not driving — 3017amen

God OF time

Are you going to show the alleged contradiction or not, — jorndoe

You mean like the liar's unresolved paradox?

Or would you rather parse the nature of [your] causational suicide?

Asking 3017amen a question is a waste of time. Push him if you like, but his history is that he will become increasingly evasive and incoherent - but won't answer. Of course he might, but I'll be surprised if he does.

You mean like the questions you evaded in the Kant thread? Sounds like another angry atheist pivoting LOL

You mean like the questions you evaded in the Kant thread? Sounds like another angry atheist pivoting LOL — 3017amen

Please reproduce. I'll gladly answer. But you have left a long string of questions you've evaded. Including the one just above. Clearly you are more interested in toxic exchange than reasonable discourse - and i think people should know that. So, lolol to you.

Go back on the particular thread and do your homework. Otherwise don't troll this one.

You mean like the liar's unresolved paradox? — 3017amen

Nope, this:

I was both driving and not driving — 3017amen

You keep bringing your car thing up.

Oh gotcha. Okay.

1. He was driving and not driving.

True or false?

On an uncrowded roadway I might turn the driving over to "George", who is a part of me. Sometimes George takes over when I back out of the garage and a few minutes later I wonder if he closed the garage door. Generally, George and I get along fine.

But George is not God.

By George, I think you're onto something!

He seems to be quite mysterious :smile:

People know about liar's, unrestricted comprehension, curry's, principle of explosion, presuppositional error, what-have-you, . Once more:

Are you going to show the alleged contradiction or not, 3017amen? — jorndoe

The "atemporal god"?

Are you going to show the alleged contradiction or not, 3017amen? — jorndoe

1. He was driving and not driving.

True or false or contradiction?

You tell me (everyone), , it's your story.
Last time: show your alleged contradiction or move on.

Nice! — 3017amen

I took this to mean you understood why the driving/not driving idea was not contradictory logic, and did not press the issue. Acknowledgment of such things is unimportant as long as you understand in your own mind. But I see you've continued to insist on this paradox in the thread, and now I'm not sure if you were simply dismissing the point. I have great respect for your viewpoints, and enjoyed our conversation in my last thread immensely.

Do you understand my question about controlling being defined as conscious or unconscious being key to the issue? It is thus. If you define controlling as conscious, then the moment a person controls unconsciously, they are no longer in control, and not driving. Thus their death was due to a lack of driving on their part.

If you define controlling as something that can also be subconscious, then yes, the person drives to their death while daydreaming. We could say that their subconscious control was not enough to handle the vehicle when it came into a situation it needed conscious control.

If you understand, there is no need to reply. This conversation seems to have become a little heated, and in such cases, an acknowledgement does no one any favors. If you disagree however, feel free to reply with a counter point.

Do you understand my question about controlling being defined as conscious or unconscious being key to the issue? It is thus. If you define controlling as conscious, then the moment a person controls unconsciously, they are no longer in control, and not driving. Thus their death was due to a lack of driving on their part. — Philosophim

Philosophim!

Thank you kindly as I indeed have mutual respect. There are a lot of angry atheists on this site so I take it with a grain of salt and just have fun with them.

But I think you're missing the point. I perceived being on the Beach surfing or in some other place and not driving, while at the same time driving. All I knew is that I was at the beach in the beautiful sunlight enjoying myself. Yet simultaneously driving a vehicle. There are multiple truth values associated with my perception from my consciousness.

Although your argument his very intriguing and deserves another thread... , since consciousness itself has yet to be fully explained.

But, as with most logico deductive arguments/propositions (a priori formal logic/logical impossibilities), it's all about words, language, semantics, etc., hence:

He was driving and not driving or, He was kind of driving.

It's either true or false. It can't be both true and false at the same time, otherwise, it's considered logically impossible.

I have never really thought an eternal, immutable, changeless, and timeless God was of much use to anyone.That is the God of some stodgy theologians and some philosophers..
If God is to have relevance to the world, it must be in some relationship to the world, taking in the experience of the world and responding to it, offering possibilities for advance or creativity. That is the God of the Bible.
I think the di-polar picture of God with a primordial and a consequent nature found in Whitehead and in process theology is one notion of God worthy of some consideration and discussion in philosophy of religion.

It was the best of times, it was the worst of times.
OK, Mr. Dickens which was it? Was the best of times or the worst of times. You can't have it both ways. You're violating LEM there Mr. Dickens.

Really? I'd call it illogical. — 3017amen

Exactly - you are asserting an illogical statement that has no basis in reality.

In the right context this sentence could be part of a poem or a work of literature. But there is no logical or philosophical conundrum here.

You mean like the questions you evaded in the Kant thread? Sounds like another angry atheist pivoting LOL
— 3017amen

Please reproduce. I'll gladly answer. But you have left a long string of questions you've evaded. Including the one just above. Clearly you are more interested in toxic exchange than reasonable discourse - and i think people should know that. So, lolol to you.
— tim wood

Go back on the particular thread and do your homework. Otherwise don't troll this one. — 3017amen

I went back. I asked you a question and you did not answer. But you did instead ask a question that I did answer. I answered yours and requested again you answer, and you didn't and haven't. And in one series I asked you six times - or seven, whatever it was. I guess we can add lying to your list of possible responses. LOL. It gets tiresome to attempt to discuss with someone not interested in reasonable discussion, but that same someone still making noise. And of ourse this exchange here is based in your refusing to answer a question. This one:

There is nothing wrong with having logically impossible attributes.
— 3017amen
Nothing wrong, perhaps, but when does it happen? Example, please? — tim wood

I guess we can add lying to your list of possible responses. — tim wood

I'll disagree with you on this one. It's not that they are lying - or even stupid or ignorant.

They have (metaphorically) painted themselves into a philosophical corner. For them to acknowledge even the smallest possibility that they are wrong would require a completely re-wiring of their thought processes & the way they conceive themselves. (I'm sure there are better ways of expressing this)

That is not going to happen due to any online exchange.

The best one can hope for is that a seed has been planted that may take years to bear fruit. Cursing and insults are counter-productive in this regard. My 2 cents. . . .