First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  Next  Last
Can God Create...? More Fun with Paradoxes or BLOW YOUR MIND Part 2
Banned
31569 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
34 / M / The Void.
Offline
Posted 6/20/12

dyingsoon wrote:


-Vega- wrote:


dyingsoon wrote:


-Vega- wrote:

Everything is an opinion, there are not such a thing as facts.


you have a brain and that is a "FACT"


How do you even know I'm real? I could just be a bot that is pretending to be human.


because i created everything including you. well, that's what i remember....


Do you believe in God?

837 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
18 / F / Portland
Offline
Posted 6/20/12

-Vega- wrote:

Everything is an opinion, there are not such a thing as facts.


what about objective truth?
Posted 6/20/12
"God" created the "Devil" and he cannot destroy the "Devil".

Therefore, yes he can create a rock so heavy he cannot lift.
2393 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M / In Rainbows
Offline
Posted 6/20/12

-Vega- wrote:


dyingsoon wrote:


-Vega- wrote:


dyingsoon wrote:


-Vega- wrote:

Everything is an opinion, there are not such a thing as facts.


you have a brain and that is a "FACT"


How do you even know I'm real? I could just be a bot that is pretending to be human.


because i created everything including you. well, that's what i remember....


Do you believe in God?



i cannot answer that question.
48218 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M
Offline
Posted 6/20/12
If god forgives all, then why does he care how I choose to live my life?
404 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M
Offline
Posted 6/20/12

Morbidhanson wrote:

Paradoxes don't prove or disprove anything. They are just sentences, not necessarily logical. You could take a bunch of words and put them together, but the resulting sentence won't always make sense. You need to actually test something, not just talk about hypothetical scenarios. Things are not always as they seem on paper, since reality isn't so easily defined.

That being said, this paradox is really old and already has many counters. For one, it is something that can't be proven. An infinitely large rock is necessary if it is to be truly immobile, larger than space itself. But this is impossible, since space is needed for a rock to actually exist. Also, the question is flawed. It's pretty much asking if God can divide by zero or draw a circle with corners if he can do anything. You don't need the rock in there at all except to make it look like a real question. That, in and of itself, doesn't make sense, since it is logically unsound to be telling someone to divide by zero or draw a circle with corners, anyway. Omnipotence still won't allow something to defy logic. Either the rock must be immovable or God is omnipotent. Having both in the same sentence makes no sense.


This whole post makes no sense..........
50298 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
32 / M / US
Offline
Posted 6/20/12
Logic dictates that there can only be one truth, one way that things actually ARE. What is, is. The past is absolute. Only our perceptions differ and change.

Can God make a rock he cannot lift? That is an argument in semantics, not reality. How big does something have to be before it stops being a rock and starts being a boulder, or a planet? What do we define as movement when motion is relative? Are you standing still even though the planet you're standing on is whirling around the sun at great velocity? When we as humans define parameters with language, it cannot be changed because we made it unchangeable, we made the linguistic definition even if that definition has no bearing on reality. Lets take the color of the sky for example: does everyone see the same color? No one knows. There are over 7 billion people, so I'd wager that all people do NOT see the sky the same way (all else equal, not counting the blind or bad weather, etc.) We all know that the color we see when we look up is called "blue" but that does not mean that each individual perceives "blue" in the same way. Maybe what you perceive as blue I perceive as your version of gold, but since we both grew up calling the sky blue we both call that color "blue" regardless of our individual perceptions, because we defined it to be so. Maybe we all have the same favorite color, but because of differences in perception we don't realize that our definitions are different from person to person.

Language is used to describe reality. We define ideas with language in order to better communicate them to others. Language changes along with our perceptions of reality. Reality does not bend to language and a paradox cannot prove or disprove anything other than the inadequacy of our language to describe an imagined circumstance.
Posted 6/20/12 , edited 6/20/12
what's god ? no ones seen it what ever it is is god there
i can call god a gold fish because some thing that no one nose WTF it is
is spiricul being why is it a spiral being how is it one and how do book or person told u no its one and so on and so on
is it even a spiral being
12619 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / California
Offline
Posted 6/20/12 , edited 6/20/12

nanuq wrote:


Morbidhanson wrote:

Paradoxes don't prove or disprove anything. They are just sentences, not necessarily logical. You could take a bunch of words and put them together, but the resulting sentence won't always make sense. You need to actually test something, not just talk about hypothetical scenarios. Things are not always as they seem on paper, since reality isn't so easily defined.

That being said, this paradox is really old and already has many counters. For one, it is something that can't be proven. An infinitely large rock is necessary if it is to be truly immobile, larger than space itself. But this is impossible, since space is needed for a rock to actually exist. Also, the question is flawed. It's pretty much asking if God can divide by zero or draw a circle with corners if he can do anything. You don't need the rock in there at all except to make it look like a real question. That, in and of itself, doesn't make sense, since it is logically unsound to be telling someone to divide by zero or draw a circle with corners, anyway. Omnipotence still won't allow something to defy logic. Either the rock must be immovable or God is omnipotent. Having both in the same sentence makes no sense.


This whole post makes no sense..........


How so? From a logical standpoint, this paradox is just a sentence, no? Just because it is a grammatically correct question doesn't mean it necessarily makes any sense. It's similar to 'spherical rectangle' or 'blackish white.' Meaningless.
56580 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 6/20/12
well this has a whole bunch to do with anime and entertainment. Why don't you go work for one of the TV networks then?! They are also full of people that think they are god, or are at least as smart (in their minds)
Kyrek 
37686 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Wisconsin
Offline
Posted 6/20/12

pakslonglegs wrote:

well this has a whole bunch to do with anime and entertainment. Why don't you go work for one of the TV networks then?! They are also full of people that think they are god, or are at least as smart (in their minds)


Hence the reason we are under the "General" section... Often defined as anything goes by forum etiquette.
47634 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M/F - Michigan
Offline
Posted 6/20/12
Using logical fallacies to prove someone wrong is a sure way to tell if someone doesnt really know or understand what they are talking about.

In this case, the fallacy is called an "argumentum ad ignorantum" (an argument of ignorance).
70966 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / Colorado, USA
Offline
Posted 6/20/12 , edited 6/20/12

Morbidhanson wrote:


nanuq wrote:


Morbidhanson wrote:

Paradoxes don't prove or disprove anything. They are just sentences, not necessarily logical. You could take a bunch of words and put them together, but the resulting sentence won't always make sense. You need to actually test something, not just talk about hypothetical scenarios. Things are not always as they seem on paper, since reality isn't so easily defined.

That being said, this paradox is really old and already has many counters. For one, it is something that can't be proven. An infinitely large rock is necessary if it is to be truly immobile, larger than space itself. But this is impossible, since space is needed for a rock to actually exist. Also, the question is flawed. It's pretty much asking if God can divide by zero or draw a circle with corners if he can do anything. You don't need the rock in there at all except to make it look like a real question. That, in and of itself, doesn't make sense, since it is logically unsound to be telling someone to divide by zero or draw a circle with corners, anyway. Omnipotence still won't allow something to defy logic. Either the rock must be immovable or God is omnipotent. Having both in the same sentence makes no sense.


This whole post makes no sense..........


How so? From a logical standpoint, this paradox is just a sentence, no? Just because it is a grammatically correct question doesn't mean it necessarily makes any sense. It's similar to 'spherical rectangle' or 'blackish white.' Meaningless.


I have to disagree with nanuq, your post was completely sound.

I don't acknowledge a god as well, but I would not use that paradox because I myself can argue against it. What bugs me most about it is that it assumes the use of physics as we experience it. If there was a deity that had the power to create the universe, why assume that it would "lift" in terms we are familiar with? Surely its form would likely be something beyond human constraints. Also, if this being had the power to create the universe and laws, the one who decided "what goes up must come down", then if this deity had reason to fulfill the condition of the intended paradox, then it should be able to rewrite the laws of physics to suit its needs.

Not all theists are idiots. I've have some really enjoyable debates with well-educated theists. Speak this paradox with caution, you can drive away those that believe their religion without questioning it, but that line can't stand well enough to serve as an be-all, end-all.
12619 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / California
Offline
Posted 6/20/12

TerraGamerX wrote:


Morbidhanson wrote:


nanuq wrote:


Morbidhanson wrote:

Paradoxes don't prove or disprove anything. They are just sentences, not necessarily logical. You could take a bunch of words and put them together, but the resulting sentence won't always make sense. You need to actually test something, not just talk about hypothetical scenarios. Things are not always as they seem on paper, since reality isn't so easily defined.

That being said, this paradox is really old and already has many counters. For one, it is something that can't be proven. An infinitely large rock is necessary if it is to be truly immobile, larger than space itself. But this is impossible, since space is needed for a rock to actually exist. Also, the question is flawed. It's pretty much asking if God can divide by zero or draw a circle with corners if he can do anything. You don't need the rock in there at all except to make it look like a real question. That, in and of itself, doesn't make sense, since it is logically unsound to be telling someone to divide by zero or draw a circle with corners, anyway. Omnipotence still won't allow something to defy logic. Either the rock must be immovable or God is omnipotent. Having both in the same sentence makes no sense.


This whole post makes no sense..........


How so? From a logical standpoint, this paradox is just a sentence, no? Just because it is a grammatically correct question doesn't mean it necessarily makes any sense. It's similar to 'spherical rectangle' or 'blackish white.' Meaningless.


I have to disagree with nanuq, your post was completely sound.

I don't acknowledge a god as well, but I would not use that paradox because I myself can argue against it. What bugs me most about it is that it assumes the use of physics as we experience it. If there was a deity that had the power to create the universe, why assume that it would "lift" in terms we are familiar with? Surely its form would likely be something beyond human constraints. Also, if this being had the power to create the universe and laws, the one who decided "what goes up must come down", then if this deity had reason to fulfill the condition of the intended paradox, then it should be able to rewrite the laws of physics to suit its needs.

Not all theists are idiots. I've have some really enjoyable debates with well-educated theists. Speak this paradox with caution, you can drive away those that believe their religion without questioning it, but that line can't stand well enough to serve as an be-all, end-all.


Hmm, I didn't think about that, but it does seem that we are measuring something we can't directly experience in terms that we are familiar with, which could be impossible. However, I think we don't even need to go beyond our own understanding to topple this paradox. I was once a believer myself, though I've slowly changed and am now agnostic. Probably because I don't believe we can speak about something we can't directly experience and expect a thorough understanding of it. I don't think we can truly prove that a god (as we know it) exists, but we can't completely dismiss the off chance that a god could exist, either.
26322 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M
Offline
Posted 6/20/12 , edited 6/20/12
What you're basically asking is whether or not God can make truth into a lie. It's clear that you don't properly understand the concept of omnipotence. May I suggest you read some of the works of St. Thomas Aquinas? But no, you don't want to do that. You don't want someone to actually prove just how nonsensical and stupid your argument is; or rather I should say, you don't want to be corrected, you just want to "troll." It sounds clever to someone uninitiated or unprepared and so can catch well-meaning evangelists off guard enough to leave you alone, so it serves its purpose for you.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.