Re: Paradoxes
Posted: Thu Oct 13, 2011 7:10 pm
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 wrote:and oh comon you are simply attributing two contradictory attributes to this supposed deity...auto reference rears its ugly head again yet again..
This is not what I said...read again.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
I'm just starting quantification logic, but this doesn't look like a valid deduction to me. Compare:Alliteration wrote:"This sentence is false." might be translated into formal logic as something like this:
Leading to this proof:Code: Select all
Theorem S: ∀x(Cxy → ¬x)
Which, when translated back into English, would look like this:Code: Select all
1) ∀x(Cxy → ¬x)2) ∃!x(Cxy)C) ∃!x(¬x)
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.
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).wristbound wrote:I'm just starting quantification logic, but this doesn't look like a valid deduction to me.
That means that Wheatley got an A? That's a funny paradox right there!Alliteration wrote: Everyone get an A, as the question I was asking was how YOU interpret them.
Evals wrote:You might enjoy it: "If God can do anything, can he create a boulder which He cannot lift?"
Thank you for skipping the philosophical jargon, so people like me could understand what you were saying. *Smile*Alliteration wrote: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.
I disagree with you. In my opinion God can do anything, with the exception of break promises that he has made to mankind.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".
Guess what, I agree with this one. *laughing* *moving on*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...
I'm glad you said, "he's PROBABLY not doing any lifting at all".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.
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.
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.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.
You're welcome :)Shell wrote:Thank you for skipping the philosophical jargon, so people like me could understand what you were saying. *Smile*
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.I disagree with you.
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):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.
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).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.
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.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.
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.Therefore if we can move mountains, a rock shouldn't be a big deal. And if we can, then God most certainly can.
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: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*
btw where did the puzzle thread wind up ?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.
Ohhhh...my bad!whacker44 wrote:no its what eval had said that you were responding to...
It's still there: http://www.milovana.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=7918btw where did the puzzle thread wind up ?