First  Prev  1  2  3  4  Next  Last
BLOW YOUR MIND!!!
Kyrek 
58714 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / Boston, MA
Offline
Posted 6/20/12 , edited 6/20/12

Morbidhanson wrote:
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.


And I whole-heartily agree, except only under the context of human reality. Yes, the paradox is flawed in that regard, but your suggesting several things as well that could be possible given a different context and that's where I am coming from.

Logically, in a different reality unbeknownst to us, these feats might be possible. And seeing as how God is purportedly to be living in "heaven" and "heaven" is generally accepted as a space outside of human cognition... These feats could theoretically exist if given the context of "heaven" being an unlimited potential zone...


EDIT: Everything is dependent on so many different things... Lol, one can just get lost thinking about it all...
27348 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M
Offline
Posted 6/20/12 , edited 6/20/12

Kyrek wrote:


Morbidhanson wrote:
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.


And I whole-heartily agree, except only under the context of human reality. Yes, the paradox is flawed in that regard, but your suggesting several things as well that could be possible given a different context and that's where I am coming from.

Logically, in a different reality unbeknownst to us, these feats might be possible. And seeing as how God is purportedly to be living in "heaven" and "heaven" is generally accepted as a space outside of human cognition... These feats could theoretically exist if given the context of "heaven" being an unlimited potential zone...


EDIT: Everything is dependent on so many different things... Lol, one can just get lost thinking about it all...


Well, even if these feats are possible in an alternate, unknown reality, the question aims to make believers lose faith in their religion. The logic (using our familiar brand of reasoning and understanding of how things work) of the paradox is not sound, yet we have to use that very same type of logic to unravel the paradox. If we were to readily accept that everything, as we understand it, is false because all things impossible are actually possible, we would not make very much progress because we aren't designed to comprehend the incomprehensible or the infinite. It does seem a bit silly to say something like: "All life-forms on this planet require water to survive, except in alternate realities unknown to us in which the organisms in an alternate plane that is a copy of this one do not require water to survive."
2450 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Somewhere Only We...
Offline
Posted 6/20/12

Morbidhanson wrote:


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.




define:

ANYTHING-

EVERYTHING-

Let's assume that God created everything that existed we don't usually think that there are things God cannot do. There are many things man can’t do, but there are also things God can’t do. God can’t do all things. It is not because He is unable to, that He is limited in power in any way. It is because of who He is in nature. There are guidelines that even God cannot step over. For example God cannot be God and not be God at the same time. He cannot create another entity that would be made equal with himself. Nothing God makes can be more powerful than Him, creation is never more powerful than its creator. Whatever He created is under his jurisdiction, under His control, but it can never have equality or become superior. God does not have any limit to His power, but everything he created has a limit. Just because He does not show His unlimited power does not mean he does not possess infinite power.
6882 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / F / Strawberry Fields
Offline
Posted 6/20/12 , edited 6/20/12

Morbidhanson wrote:


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.


I meant this is quite tricky.
27348 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M
Offline
Posted 6/20/12

dyingsoon wrote:


Morbidhanson wrote:


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.




define:

ANYTHING-

EVERYTHING-

Let's assume that God created everything that existed we don't usually think that there are things God cannot do. There are many things man can’t do, but there are also things God can’t do. God can’t do all things. It is not because He is unable to, that He is limited in power in any way. It is because of who He is in nature. There are guidelines that even God cannot step over. For example God cannot be God and not be God at the same time. He cannot create another entity that would be made equal with himself. Nothing God makes can be more powerful than Him, creation is never more powerful than its creator. Whatever He created is under his jurisdiction, under His control, but it can never have equality or become superior. God does not have any limit to His power, but everything he created has a limit. Just because He does not show His unlimited power does not mean he does not possess infinite power.


Agreed!
2450 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Somewhere Only We...
Offline
Posted 6/20/12

Morbidhanson wrote:


dyingsoon wrote:


Morbidhanson wrote:


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.




define:

ANYTHING-

EVERYTHING-

Let's assume that God created everything that existed we don't usually think that there are things God cannot do. There are many things man can’t do, but there are also things God can’t do. God can’t do all things. It is not because He is unable to, that He is limited in power in any way. It is because of who He is in nature. There are guidelines that even God cannot step over. For example God cannot be God and not be God at the same time. He cannot create another entity that would be made equal with himself. Nothing God makes can be more powerful than Him, creation is never more powerful than its creator. Whatever He created is under his jurisdiction, under His control, but it can never have equality or become superior. God does not have any limit to His power, but everything he created has a limit. Just because He does not show His unlimited power does not mean he does not possess infinite power.


Agreed!


Thanks!



Posted 6/20/12
>_> what da shit's this? o_O my mind went total blank ._. im gonna go drown myself now
17710 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
(´◔౪◔)✂❤
Offline
Posted 6/20/12 , edited 6/20/12
His nose will grow only if he was lying

So if he says "My nose will grow now" it means "I am lying"
If "My nose will grow now" is a lie then it means "I am lying" is a lie. But if I am lying is a lie, then he would not be lying
So he would be telling the truth, but this has two interpretations:

I am telling the truth or I am lying is true (or I am telling the truth about lying)
2450 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Somewhere Only We...
Offline
Posted 6/21/12 , edited 6/21/12

FlyinDumpling wrote:

His nose will grow only if he was lying

So if he says "My nose will grow now" it means "I am lying"
If "My nose will grow now" is a lie then it means "I am lying" is a lie. But if I am lying is a lie, then he would not be lying
So he would be telling the truth, but this has two interpretations:

I am telling the truth or I am lying is true (or I am telling the truth about lying)



The following sentence is true.
The previous sentence is false.

this should explain it....

haha.. after reading your name FLYINGDUMPLING i remember my fav song in my highschool days
the title is CRYINGLIGHTNING by the Arctic monkeys... i LOL'ed
1894 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / Up in your house,...
Offline
Posted 6/22/12
lolwut?
27348 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M
Offline
Posted 6/22/12 , edited 6/22/12

dyingsoon wrote:


FlyinDumpling wrote:

His nose will grow only if he was lying

So if he says "My nose will grow now" it means "I am lying"
If "My nose will grow now" is a lie then it means "I am lying" is a lie. But if I am lying is a lie, then he would not be lying
So he would be telling the truth, but this has two interpretations:

I am telling the truth or I am lying is true (or I am telling the truth about lying)



The following sentence is true.
The previous sentence is false.

this should explain it....

haha.. after reading your name FLYINGDUMPLING i remember my fav song in my highschool days
the title is CRYINGLIGHTNING by the Arctic monkeys... i LOL'ed


Hm, I don't think you are technically lying if you say something false because you believed it to be factual. Lying involves intentional misinformation, methinks.
558 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / norway
Offline
Posted 6/22/12
my mind is already blown : (
2450 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Somewhere Only We...
Offline
Posted 6/22/12

Morbidhanson wrote:


dyingsoon wrote:


FlyinDumpling wrote:

His nose will grow only if he was lying

So if he says "My nose will grow now" it means "I am lying"
If "My nose will grow now" is a lie then it means "I am lying" is a lie. But if I am lying is a lie, then he would not be lying
So he would be telling the truth, but this has two interpretations:

I am telling the truth or I am lying is true (or I am telling the truth about lying)



The following sentence is true.
The previous sentence is false.

this should explain it....

haha.. after reading your name FLYINGDUMPLING i remember my fav song in my highschool days
the title is CRYINGLIGHTNING by the Arctic monkeys... i LOL'ed


Hm, I don't think you are technically lying if you say something false because you believed it to be factual. Lying involves intentional misinformation, methinks.


it's a paradox a contradiction.
27348 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M
Offline
Posted 6/22/12 , edited 6/22/12

dyingsoon wrote:


Morbidhanson wrote:


dyingsoon wrote:


FlyinDumpling wrote:

His nose will grow only if he was lying

So if he says "My nose will grow now" it means "I am lying"
If "My nose will grow now" is a lie then it means "I am lying" is a lie. But if I am lying is a lie, then he would not be lying
So he would be telling the truth, but this has two interpretations:

I am telling the truth or I am lying is true (or I am telling the truth about lying)



The following sentence is true.
The previous sentence is false.

this should explain it....

haha.. after reading your name FLYINGDUMPLING i remember my fav song in my highschool days
the title is CRYINGLIGHTNING by the Arctic monkeys... i LOL'ed


Hm, I don't think you are technically lying if you say something false because you believed it to be factual. Lying involves intentional misinformation, methinks.


it's a paradox a contradiction.


It would be a contradiction or a paradox if his nose grew whenever he was wrong about something, but he decided to speak those words anyway. In this scenario, we see many people who have mixed up 'lying' with 'being wrong.' Things are not lies simply because they are false or wrong. Things could be true now that might become false in the future. Likewise, things could have been true in the past but have now become false. Lies are characterized by an intention to misinform or hide part of the truth, not by wrongness.

If he says "My nose will grow" while sincerely believing that it will, then it will not grow since he isn't lying. He actually believes that it will. He is not lying, merely wrong, so it will not grow.

If he says "My nose will grow" while believing that it will not, then it will grow because now he is lying, intentionally saying something even though he believes otherwise.

In the Middle Ages, people weren't 'lying' when they described the world as being flat. They believed what they were saying. They were misinformed in that regard, not being dishonest.
27348 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M
Offline
Posted 6/22/12 , edited 6/22/12
Lag!
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.