First  Prev  1  2  3  4  Next  Last
BLOW YOUR MIND!!!
Posted 6/19/12
pretty damn clever I might say.
Posted 6/19/12

thefinalword wrote:

pretty damn clever I might say.


You're a clever man, I bring peace.
78279 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
36 / F
Offline
Posted 6/19/12
OG flash backs of David Bowie in Labyrinth.
27230 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 6/20/12 , edited 6/20/12
I think it depends on whether or not he truly believes his nose will grow. If he believes what he says to be true, it will not grow. If he doesn't believe what he's saying, then it will grow.

After all, truth in mind does not necessarily translate into truth in reality. As long as he believes something to be true, even if it is untrue in reality, he would not be lying if he voiced his belief. He would only be misinformed. People in the middle ages weren't lying when they claimed the world was flat. They truly believed this. They were wrong, but they weren't lying. Pinocchio's nose doesn't grow when he's wrong, it grows when he lies.

Quote wikipedia: 'To lie is to hold something which one knows is not the whole truth to be the whole truth, intentionally.'
Posted 6/20/12
oh God.

I want to explain this but I'm too lazy to <.<;;;

and I might sound like a know-it-all bitch but seriously there is an explanation to this.
69621 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
35
Offline
Posted 6/20/12

uhohimdead wrote:

at the time he says "my nose will now grow" it would be a lie since he has no conscious control over the growth of the nose. it only becomes the truth after the fact he lies. simple


Agreed. Which reminds me of Suzaku's advice to Lelouch in Code Geass. "Even if you lied, you can still make it come true in the end."
35147 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / Nova Scotia, Canada
Offline
Posted 6/20/12
That Pinocchio always did like him some lying. Then he took it too far one day by challenging nasal-related paradoxes.
15717 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 6/20/12
its going to grow right?
6882 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / F / Strawberry Fields
Offline
Posted 6/20/12 , edited 6/20/12
He's nose grows when he lies. That's it, it's simple.
2397 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / In Rainbows
Offline
Posted 6/20/12 , edited 6/20/12

luro24 wrote:

The best way to phrase Pinocchio's mindfuck statement is "My nose grows now." If he says it, but it doesn't grow, then he's lying. But since his nose grows when he lies, then he would be telling the truth. Pinocchio's sentence can be neither true nor false, it's a good example of the liars paradox. This paradox would cause Pinocchio's nose to grow IF AND ONLY IF it does Not grow. Most people that hear the previous sentence end up looking like followed by MIND=BLOWN!!

Another fun/interesting paradox that would make a good forum conversation/debate--which I'll probably make after this tl;dr post-- is the omnipotent one. (Now, be forewarned if you are deeply religious and/or don't like the use of logic and reasoning to question the validity of your god, then read no further).

For those still reading, here is the context of the paradox. It is used by atheists the world over and people who accidentally open the door to annoying Jehovah Witnesses and want to annoy them before they end up being annoyed by them. (It's a vicious cycle of annoyance) (For those outside the U.S. or unfamiliar with the term "Jehovah Witness" google "what are jehovah's witnesses best known for")

All the holy books make it clear and point out that God is an omnipotent being, which means and is defined as almighty, all powerful or infinite in power. He is then a being capable of anything and everything. That is were the omnipotent paradox comes into play to simply and easily disprove the existence of such a being/deity/god.

The paradox-inducing question is "Can God create a rock so heavy that even he can not lift?"

Thus, if he cannot create such a rock, then it means he is Not Omnipotent/Almighty/All Powerful.

If he can create such a rock, then he cannot lift it, which means he is Not Omnipotent/Almighty/All Powerful.

This renders the whole concept of God/ omnipotence/ an all powerful being as a logical impossibility.

This usually shuts up religious fanatics trying to enlighten you in order to save your soul from eternal damnation that their righteous God will bestow upon you, unless you convert/join their particular religious sect.

Experienced Jehovah Witnesses are so familiar with this question that once you get to the word "rock," they will immediately think "irreversible atheist," turn away and excuse themselves for taking up your valuable time, lest any young members with them pick up the bad habit of using logic and reasoning to question the validity of their beliefs.


Scenario:

if he cannot create such a rock, then it means he is Not Omnipotent/Almighty/All Powerful.

If he can create such a rock, then he cannot lift it, which means he is Not Omnipotent/Almighty/All Powerful.

The definition of God is Omnipotent (infinite power, Almighty, All powerful, and so on...) he should, in theory, be able to do anything. However, since God cannot create a stone which he cannot lift or he can create a stone which he cannot lift, it becomes apparent that God is not the All powerful being that religions make him out to be. This means that either in either scenario there is something that God cannot do. Therefore, by simple LOGIC & REASONING it becomes apparent that God is not Omnipotent.

27230 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 6/20/12

Awesum74 wrote:

He's nose grows when he lies. That's it, it's simple.


Yes. If he tells you his nose will grow when he truly believes it will, then it will not grow. If he says that when he doesn't believe it, then it will grow. Pinocchio is allowed to be wrong, since his nose grows when he's lying, not when he's wrong.
Kyrek 
47712 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / Orlando, FL
Offline
Posted 6/20/12 , edited 6/20/12

dyingsoon wrote:


luro24 wrote:

The paradox-inducing question is "Can God create a rock so heavy that even he can not lift?"

Thus, if he cannot create such a rock, then it means he is Not Omnipotent/Almighty/All Powerful.

If he can create such a rock, then he cannot lift it, which means he is Not Omnipotent/Almighty/All Powerful.

This renders the whole concept of God/ omnipotence/ an all powerful being as a logical impossibility.


Scenario:

if he cannot create such a rock, then it means he is Not Omnipotent/Almighty/All Powerful.

If he can create such a rock, then he cannot lift it, which means he is Not Omnipotent/Almighty/All Powerful.

The definition of God is Omnipotent (infinite power, Almighty, All powerful, and so on...) he should, in theory, be able to do anything. However, since God cannot create a stone which he cannot lift or he can create a stone which he cannot lift, it becomes apparent that God is not the All powerful being that religions make him out to be. This means that either in either scenario there is something that God cannot do. Therefore, by simple LOGIC & REASONING it becomes apparent that the GOD that religion talks about is impossible.



I have no religious stance or atheistic views towards a religion, but I kinda have a differing opinion.

The question "Can God create a rock so heavy that even he can not lift?" is simply answered as "Yes." By your definition of omnipotent, there is no question whether or not IF he can create the rock. He is omnipotent, he can create it. That proves that the question itself can be true.

The idea behind the question now comes down to whether or not "even he" would be able to LIFT it and whether or not he is omnipotent. By your definition of omnipotent, he supposed to "be able to do anything." So in that case, God is allowed to create any entity he chooses that could lift the rock in question after he creates the rock itself. Before you say, "But the question has, 'even he' in it! Meaning nobody is able to lift it, including God." To that I say, correct, however that statement only remains true up until the point an entity is created that could. Nothing states that the rock has to be lifted immediately after creation either. So being omnipotent, all-mighty, all-powerful, and all-knowing (key term), God takes the indirect approach since there is no time limit to disprove his omnipotence...

He creates an entity that is allowed to lift the rock. That entity would now be able to lift the rock, but is also able to be lifted by God. Remember, you said God "can do anything," so creating something other than the rock that God can lift is legal. God then instructs the entity to lift the rock in question and proceeds to lift that entity himself, thereby indirectly lifting the rock. He is still "omnipotent" then in that regard because he DID lift the rock to a new height in relation to the height the entity raised it.

"But but but, ALL means he should be able to do it via any method, like by physical strength of his own accord." Fine. God creates wheels under the rock strong enough to HOLD the weight of the rock whilst still being functional. He then proceeds to PUSH the rock up a slope, or spiral slope indefinitely stretching into the sky, because nothing is said that God is not able to PUSH the rock. Once the rock is effectively at a new height, God has now just lifted the rock.

"But but, How did he LIFT the rock!?" Clearly you don't know the fundamental definition of lift... and if you do:

"But but, lift means raise to a higher position or level, so if God creates a rock that he cannot [raise to a higher position or level], that means he can't do anything that encompasses moving the rock itself to a higher position!" You answered your own question here, "rock itself." Because the original question only mentions that rock and that rock alone not being able to be raised to a new height. Now just see my previous entity example about indirect movement.

Alas, I could be wrong. But I felt like taking a stab at a supposedly difficult question. Logical or not, the task itself of lifting the rock was accomplished, am I right?
2397 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / In Rainbows
Offline
Posted 6/20/12

Kyrek wrote:


dyingsoon wrote:


luro24 wrote:

The paradox-inducing question is "Can God create a rock so heavy that even he can not lift?"

Thus, if he cannot create such a rock, then it means he is Not Omnipotent/Almighty/All Powerful.

If he can create such a rock, then he cannot lift it, which means he is Not Omnipotent/Almighty/All Powerful.

This renders the whole concept of God/ omnipotence/ an all powerful being as a logical impossibility.


Scenario:

if he cannot create such a rock, then it means he is Not Omnipotent/Almighty/All Powerful.

If he can create such a rock, then he cannot lift it, which means he is Not Omnipotent/Almighty/All Powerful.

The definition of God is Omnipotent (infinite power, Almighty, All powerful, and so on...) he should, in theory, be able to do anything. However, since God cannot create a rock which he cannot lift or he can create a rock which he cannot lift, it becomes apparent that God is not the All powerful being that religions make him out to be. This means that either in either scenario there is something that God cannot do. Therefore, by simple LOGIC & REASONING it becomes apparent that the GOD that religion talks about is impossible.



I have no religious stance or atheistic views towards a religion, but I kinda have a differing opinion.

The question "Can God create a rock so heavy that even he can not lift?" is simply answered as "Yes." By your definition of omnipotent, there is no question whether or not IF he can create the rock. He is omnipotent, he can create it. That proves that the question itself can be true.

The idea behind the question now comes down to whether or not "even he" would be able to LIFT it and whether or not he is omnipotent. By your definition of omnipotent, he supposed to "be able to do anything." So in that case, God is allowed to create any entity he chooses that could lift the rock in question after he creates the rock itself. Before you say, "But the question has, 'even he' in it! Meaning nobody is able to lift it, including God." To that I say, correct, however that statement only remains true up until the point an entity is created that could. Nothing states that the rock has to be lifted immediately after creation either. So being omnipotent, all-mighty, all-powerful, and all-knowing (key term), God takes the indirect approach since there is no time limit to disprove his omnipotence...

He creates an entity that is allowed to lift the rock. That entity would now be able to lift the rock, but is also able to be lifted by God. Remember, you said God "can do anything," so creating something other than the rock that God can lift is legal. God then instructs the entity to lift the rock in question and proceeds to lift that entity himself, thereby indirectly lifting the rock. He is still "omnipotent" then in that regard because he DID lift the rock to a new height in relation to the height the entity raised it.

"But but but, ALL means he should be able to do it via any method, like by physical strength of his own accord." Fine. God creates wheels under the rock strong enough to HOLD the weight of the rock whilst still being functional. He then proceeds to PUSH the rock up a slope, or spiral slope indefinitely stretching into the sky, because nothing is said that God is not able to PUSH the rock. Once the rock is effectively at a new height, God has now just lifted the rock.

"But but, How did he LIFT the rock!?" Clearly you don't know the fundamental definition of lift... and if you do:

"But but, lift means raise to a higher position or level, so if God creates a rock that he cannot [raise to a higher position or level], that means he can't do anything that encompasses moving the rock itself to a higher position!" You answered your own question here, "rock itself." Because the original question only mentions that rock and that rock alone not being able to be raised to a new height. Now just see my previous entity example about indirect movement.

Alas, I could be wrong. But I felt like taking a stab at a supposedly difficult question. Logical or not, the task itself of lifting the rock was accomplished, am I right?



are you implying that "GOD could create something more powerful than him?"

Kyrek 
47712 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / Orlando, FL
Offline
Posted 6/20/12 , edited 6/20/12

dyingsoon wrote:

are you implying that "GOD could create something more powerful than him?"



He could do so, or he could just create someone of equal power, no? I mean, you did say "in theory, be able to do anything" if I understand correctly. And by the definition of anything, meaning absolutely everything imaginable or unimaginable. There is nothing stating that there can't be more than one omnipotent being either... None of those definitions readily imply a singular being holding all the power. The definition of all those words simply mean the aspect of having unlimited power and/or influence. None have the meaning that ONLY one entity could EVER hold ALL the power.

I could imply that God creates a being more powerful than him, except that God applies a rule to it that the being is eternally ruled by God himself and would never sway from that ruling regardless of the situation. How would that work then...? That entity could still be used to indirectly lift the rock...

Are you implying "anything" means "limited in ability to create entities with only power of lower status then the originator?" Why could there not be a being with a higher power? Seems logical that there could be given then definition of anything... I mean, a King can technically be considered omnipotent in the eyes of some, but he often times holds the absolute command over others that are just as equally powerful. They are just willing to do that bidding of the King without fail on their part. Thus going back to my first idea, it's not like these words expressly limit their definitions to a singular being... So in that sense, wouldn't it be LOGICAL that there could be one or more beings with equal or greater power created?

No hard feelings, I just trying to reason it out for myself....


EDIT: And even after going back to look at my other example, why would he even need to create that entity in the first place? There are a multitude of methods available to lift the rock without physical means needed... Because he can do anything, why not just create a massive hole underneath the rock, create some kind of trans-dimensional portal in that hole that the rock will fall into, and then come out another portal thing that will land the rock higher above its original point? God can create anything right? Valve gave us the portal gun... Couldn't God make it exist? I think your limiting your idea of lifting to God physically touching the rock and lifting it, which is not needed given the context of the original question... And seeing as though omnipotent involves all-knowing as well, God would then know to use such extraneous methods i'd think...

With the portal example, God still lifted the rock because without him creating the method, the rock would never move. Because the rock moved as a result of God creating these actions, God is responsible for lifting the rock. Give someone a forklift and tell them to lift an otherwise too heavy box, odds are they will come out saying "I" lifted the box...
27230 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 6/20/12 , edited 6/20/12

Kyrek wrote:


dyingsoon wrote:

are you implying that "GOD could create something more powerful than him?"



He could do so, or he could just create someone of equal power, no? I mean, you did say "in theory, be able to do anything" if I understand correctly. And by the definition of anything, meaning absolutely everything imaginable or unimaginable. There is nothing stating that there can't be more than one omnipotent being either... None of those definitions readily imply a singular being holding all the power. The definition of all those words simply mean the aspect of having unlimited power and/or influence. None have the meaning that ONLY one entity could EVER hold ALL the power.

I could imply that God creates a being more powerful than him, except that God applies a rule to it that the being is eternally ruled by God himself and would never sway from that ruling regardless of the situation. How would that work then...? That entity could still be used to indirectly lift the rock...

Are you implying "anything" means "limited in ability to create entities with only power of lower status then the originator?" Why could there not be a being with a higher power? Seems logical that there could be given then definition of anything... I mean, a King can technically be considered omnipotent in the eyes of some, but he often times holds the absolute command over others that are just as equally powerful. They are just willing to do that bidding of the King without fail on their part. Thus going back to my first idea, it's not like these words expressly limit their definitions to a singular being... So in that sense, wouldn't it be LOGICAL that there could be one or more beings with equal or greater power created?

No hard feelings, I just trying to reason it out for myself....


EDIT: And even after going back to look at my other example, why would he even need to create that entity in the first place? There are a multitude of methods available to lift the rock without physical means needed... Because he can do anything, why not just create a massive hole underneath the rock, create some kind of trans-dimensional portal in that hole that the rock will fall into, and then come out another portal thing that will land the rock higher above its original point? God can create anything right? Valve gave us the portal gun... Couldn't God make it exist? I think your limiting your idea of lifting to God physically touching the rock and lifting it, which is not needed given the context of the original question... And seeing as though omnipotent involves all-knowing as well, God would then know to use such extraneous methods i'd think...

With the portal example, God still lifted the rock because without him creating the method, the rock would never move. Because the rock moved as a result of God creating these actions, God is responsible for lifting the rock. Give someone a forklift and tell them to lift an otherwise too heavy box, odds are they will come out saying "I" lifted the box...


I believe that paradox is flawed to begin with. How could such a rock possibly exist? To truly be immobile against an irresistible force, it would need to be larger than space itself but it is a rock, so that is impossible, as it requires a space in which to exist. Gravity and magnetism, for instance, are types of forces. If the rock is susceptible to these forces and God created them, then it is not something that God can't move. Even if such an impossible thing were to exist, then God wouldn't be all-powerful anymore. There is either an immovable object or there is an irresistible force. It's impossible for both to exist at the same time.

It's something that isn't logically possible and isn't really a valid question about any god. I'm not Christian or anything, but the 'paradox' is very old and there are a lot of counters to it. It's basically like asking 'If God can do anything, can he draw a square circle?' Of course not. There's no such thing.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.