Paradoxes

[whacker44]

and oh comon you are simply attributing two contradictory attributes to this supposed deity...auto reference rears its ugly head again yet again..

[Alliteration]

and oh comon you are simply attributing two contradictory attributes to this supposed deity...auto reference rears its ugly head again yet again..

Where have I done that? I don't see a contradiction...

[whacker44]

actually refering to the original premises
a deity which is all powerful
but a deity that might create something that would deny that it is all powerful

[Alliteration]

actually refering to the original premises
a deity which is all powerful
but a deity that might create something that would deny that it is all powerful

This is not what I said...read again.

[wristbound]

"This sentence is false." might be translated into formal logic as something like this:

Code: Select all

Theorem S: ∀x(Cxy → ¬x)

Leading to this proof:

Code: Select all

1) ∀x(Cxy → ¬x)2) ∃!x(Cxy)C) ∃!x(¬x)

Which, when translated back into English, would look like this:

Theorem S: For all x, if x is a sentence with content y, then x is false.

1) For all x, if x is a sentence with content y, then x is false.
2) There exists exactly one x such that x is a sentence with content y.
C) Therefore, There exists exactly one x such that x is false.

I'm just starting quantification logic, but this doesn't look like a valid deduction to me. Compare:

1) For all x, if x is the capital of New York, then x is a city in New York.
2) There exists exactly one x such that x is the capital of New York.
C) Therefore, there exists exactly one x such x is a city in New York.

Clearly, this isn't correct. It looks like you're trying to treat Cxy as a necessary condition for ¬x, when your premise just says that it's a sufficient condition.

[les]

Thinks are all these guys in denial
and looking for distractions,
Where the teases are non sexual ?
Scratching the head between their shoulders rather than between their legs??

[Alliteration]

I'm just starting quantification logic, but this doesn't look like a valid deduction to me.

Well, I just typed it up quickly without thinking about it, so it might not be; but the point is that the sentence clearly doesn't translate well (or, at least doesn't translate well into non-paraconsistent systems - you could always just drop disjunctive syllogism and do ∃x(Tx ^ ~Tx).

[Bandit224]

Everyone get an A, as the question I was asking was how YOU interpret them.

That means that Wheatley got an A? That's a funny paradox right there!
For those that don't know, Wheatley is a fictional robot that always answers incorrectly on every question.

[shell]

Okay, I'm nervous about doing this, but I am going to try. I don't think I'm really in the right league to try and express my thoughts on this, but I KNOW Allit will be kind when he responds....so here goes.......*gulps*

And I am once again putting a disclaimer on a post of mine.....these are MY opinions....so WARNING, PROCEED WITH CAUTION! *giggling*

***

You might enjoy it: "If God can do anything, can he create a boulder which He cannot lift?"

Alright...I'm going to dissect this apparent paradox several different ways; and I'm going to try to avoid most of the philosophical jargon, so everyone can understand.

Thank you for skipping the philosophical jargon, so people like me could understand what you were saying. *Smile*

First let's look at God. Can God do, literally, anything? Most people these days say no. For example, God can't make 2+2=5, he can't cause a flood that was not caused by him, and he can't create a square circle. I don't like this answer, though, as it says basically "God cannot create true contradictions". The problem is that *I* can create true contradictions, using paraconsistent logic. A better thing to say would be something like "God cannot create true contradictions in a system which does not allow them".

I disagree with you. In my opinion God can do anything, with the exception of break promises that he has made to mankind.
I believe if God wanted to make 2+2=5 or make a square a circle, he could do it, but there is no reason to do it, therefore he won't.

*Takes a breath and moves forward*

The comment, "he can't cause a flood that was not caused by him".....okay....this was when I knew I would respond, even though it's hard.

It is my belief that he does not cause floods.
The Bible says, "The thief comes to steal, kill and destroy". A flood kills, and destroys. Therefore it's the thief that is doing things like that, and hurricanes, and other destructive "nature" type things.
God made the rain to water the plants on the earth. Satan distorted that into storms that cause destruction.

God did indeed flood the earth once. And afterwards he gave his promise that he would never do it again.

God gave us the one law/rule in the New Testament, "love they neighbor, as thyself". He will not break a rule that he gave us to follow.

*Takes another breath and moves to the next point*

***

That brings us to a second point...is there anything else which might limit what God can do? The answer is yes...his own nature. Yes, God is omnipotent, but there's also other things about him. He's also perfectly good - and this means he can't do something immoral (such as torture us all for shits and giggles). The point here is that yes, there's something he can't do, but it's not because of a lack of power. Which brings us to a third point...

Guess what, I agree with this one. *laughing* *moving on*

***

Let's examine this rock for a second. What's it like? Is it just massively heavy? If that's all, then there's two things to point out here...one, that God isn't a physical being, so he's probably not doing any lifting at all; and two, that there's an upper limit to how heavy the rock can be, based on the physical properties of the universe. And of course, a rock that heavy would collapse under it's own mass. Basically, "God cannot do anything inconsistent with his own nature".

Now, maybe the rock isn't just really, really heavy. Maybe it's really slippery as well. If so, then again there's no lack of power if God cannot lift the rock.

I'm glad you said, "he's PROBABLY not doing any lifting at all".

I disagree with this. Just because we live in a physical world and most of us are confined to this world, he is not confined to just the spirit world.

When I was a little girl, we lived in Colorado. Some of the mountain roads there are famous for their rock slides.
My family was in our car going down one of those roads. Up ahead we saw the rock slide begin. There was a boulder the size of.....a motor home, or 18 wheeler truck. It was moving down the mountain faster then Daddy could react to. Daddy said, out loud, not in cursing way, but in a direct line to God way, "JESUS"!!!!
The boulder froze in mid air....with just enough room for our Volkswagen Bug to drive under it.....and just as we passed beyond it, my brother and I watched out the back window and watched the bounder smash across the road.

Could it have been the angels that froze the rock, sure. But I choose to believe, that since Daddy spoke the way that he did, that it was Jesus himself that put his hand under the rock, until we passed by.

Next.....

***

A bit more complicated of an answer is this...God never actually does anything in the sense that we do things; he merely causes things to be, by willing them.

A final way to view this question goes back to what I said at the beginning...such a rock would be a logical contradiction, as it's a rock that an all-powerful being cannot lift. People like to think that this question points to some fault in the idea of God, but maybe it points to a fault in the idea of a God-defeating rock.

Okay......on this one....."as it's a rock that an all-powerful being cannot lift", I can not get past what I believe to be true.
Jesus was talking to the disciples, a little frustrated because they were still uncertain of the power that they had within them. He said, "And Jesus said unto them, Because of your unbelief: for verily I say unto you, If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove; and nothing shall be impossible unto you." Matthew 17:20 - King James Version

God will not tell us to do something that he can not do. Therefore if we can move mountains, a rock shouldn't be a big deal. And if we can, then God most certainly can.

***

I know that I can't go up against all the of philosophical stuff.....I don't have the education to do that.
What I have is faith.....faith in my God.....
I think that is why I delayed in my response to this.....because I knew I couldn't debate the brain stuff. But my faith is why I also knew I had to respond..........and now I have. *Smile*

[Alliteration]

Thank you for skipping the philosophical jargon, so people like me could understand what you were saying. *Smile*

You're welcome :)

I usually include at least a bit of it...but this rock question seems to come up a lot, and for some reason people think it's a good point...when it's really not. Philosophers don't take it seriously at all.

I disagree with you.

Actually...you don't! :P This is probably the part of my post that's the hardest to understand: "God cannot create true contradictions in a system which does not allow them". What I'm saying here is that we have different 'systems' of logic...in some, there can be true contradictions, in others, there can't be.

It helps to think of it like chess. Chess has a certain set of rules which must be followed - if you break them or change them, you're not playing chess, but something similar to chess.

Can God create a true contradiction? In logic system 1, yes. In logic system 2, no.
Can God move a pawn across the board? In chess, no. In "chass", yes.
Can God say the words "I am the alpha and the omega"? In English, yes. In French, no. (He could translate that sentence into French, of course...I'm referring to those specific letter and word combinations, which have no meaning in French.)

Therefore it's the thief that is doing things like that, and hurricanes, and other destructive "nature" type things. God made the rain to water the plants on the earth. Satan distorted that into storms that cause destruction.

You might be interested in the work of Richard Swinburne. His view is different than yours, but he explains these things like this (paraphrased, not a quote):

There are bad things about hurricanes and other natural disasters, yes, but there are potentially good things about them as well. For example, an earthquake has the potential to bring us together in a time of disaster and learn to help each other, which will lead to us being better people. It also motivates us to advance our technology in order to prevent them from causing damage. So, in the long run, an earthquake might help us to learn and grow as a species - which is more important to God than saving individual lives (which will end up in heaven anyway, so it's not quite as bad as it sounds), as more people will be better off later on down the road.

If, on the other hand, nothing bad ever happened...we would never learn anything about how to be good people.

As for "he can't cause a flood that was not caused by him"...another way to think of it is this: God cannot cause "Hurricane Andrew hit Florida, *and* this was not caused by God".

I disagree with this. Just because we live in a physical world and most of us are confined to this world, he is not confined to just the spirit world.

There's actually quite a bit of debate over whether God could cause himself to exist *completely* within a physical form, and if he could, what it would be like. I kind of skipped it though, cause it would involve a lot of that jargon I was trying to avoid :P Of course he could create an "avatar", or exist partially in the physical world (Christians believe he has done the latter, in the form of Jesus - but Jesus is "God the Son", only part of the trinity).

Could it have been the angels that froze the rock, sure. But I choose to believe, that since Daddy spoke the way that he did, that it was Jesus himself that put his hand under the rock, until we passed by.

Swinburne again...He's said that perhaps God sometimes chooses to give part of his power to other beings; however, it still counts as *his* power, as the other being (an angel, something else, etc.) is acting under God's will, and not his own. He would do so, presumably, to serve two purposes - one, to get done what he wanted to get done, and two, to reveal his greatness to more beings.

Therefore if we can move mountains, a rock shouldn't be a big deal. And if we can, then God most certainly can.

Exactly! This is the main reason I think the rock question is so silly...it kind of assumes God doesn't exist from the outset. If he does, then such a rock can't exist at all; and there's no real reason to assume the rock could exist over God. In fact, I'm more inclined to believe in God than an infinitely heavy rock.

I know that I can't go up against all the of philosophical stuff.....I don't have the education to do that.
What I have is faith.....faith in my God.....
I think that is why I delayed in my response to this.....because I knew I couldn't debate the brain stuff. But my faith is why I also knew I had to respond..........and now I have. *Smile*

Actually, I think that's a good thing. I think, in most cases, having beneficial beliefs is more important than having true beliefs. I do disagree with you about God, as you know, but that's not as important as whether you're happy. There's really only two situation in which I actively try to deconvert someone:

1) If the person is another philosopher (and even then, not always).
2) If the beliefs a person holds are doing harm to himself or others (things like racism, homophobia, extreme cults, etc.).

A final point is this: as I said before, personal experiences are good reasons to believe for the person having them. To add to that, the only real way to defeat them is to have been there myself, and to offer a completely airtight alternative explanation; which is near impossible.

[whacker44]

no its what eval had said that you were responding to...

whacker44 wrote:actually refering to the original premises
a deity which is all powerful
but a deity that might create something that would deny that it is all powerful


This is not what I said...read again.

btw where did the puzzle thread wind up ?

[Alliteration]

no its what eval had said that you were responding to...

Ohhhh...my bad!

btw where did the puzzle thread wind up ?

It's still there: http://www.milovana.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=7918