[WikiEN-l] Wikipedia:Paradoxes

[WJhonson at aol.com]

I know you are trying to be rigorous, but your logic has far too many  
assumptions to be so.
Firstly you assume that a property is eternal.  Predicate logic would  
probably assume that if A exists, than that does not change, but the entire  
message I'm proposing is that this property can change.  That is, God can  
create a stone and then make it uncrushable.  Does God turning a stone from  
crushable into uncrushable imply that God has done something which God cannot  
do?  I submit that no it does not because God can simply change that  
property back to crushable once more, and then crush the stone.
 
You are assuming that God is singular, but nothing in your logic requires  
that.
You are also assuming that God is omnipotent.
 
So that's at least three pre-requisites that you did not state  clearly.  
If you want to be rigorous perhaps you should start from a more  basic set of 
axioms.
 
Will
 
 
 
In a message dated 8/1/2009 7:45:12 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,  
brewhaha at freenet.edmonton.ab.ca writes:

Please  allow me to start this proof from scratch and try to go from the 
paradox  that is most interesting to the simple answer of no, and 
generalizing it  to all paradoxes, refuting objections in a monologue, 
because it does not  seem to contain equally powerful participants. Can God 
crush an  uncrushable stone? In mechanically verifiable predicate logic 
notation, I  can write "exists(God) implies not exists(UnCrushableStone)". 
Spelled out  in plain English, that means God can do any thing, and that is 
singular,  because if God can do any combination of things, then he can 
contradict  himself and crush the stone, which does not allow for a 
self-consistent  proof, because that allows God to prove that the 
uncrushable 
stone did not  exist in the first place. exists(UnCrushableStone) implies 
not  
exists(God). Translation: If the uncrushable stone exists, then God does  
not, because the stone's existence implies something God cannot do and God  
can do any thing. Either God exists or the UnCrushableStone exists (and  
not 
both). exists(God) xor exists(UnCrushableStone). For God to crush the  
uncrushable stone requires both God and the uncrushable stone to be  
present 
at the same time. not(exists(God) and exists(UnCrushableStone)).  Their 
existence is mutually exclusive. In any true paradox that demands a  
contest 
between two beings with an ultimate power, and where those two  beings 
exclude each other, the answer is no, because those two beings  cannot 
exist 
at once. So, what happens if God creates the uncrushable  stone? He cannot 
do 
that without changing himself in the same move. In  creating the 
uncrushable 
stone, he creates something that is not possible,  so God would no longer 
be 
omnipotent. If God is no longer omnipotent, then  no God is.
_______
"Another round, Mr. Descartes?" "I think not," said  Descartes, who 
promptly 
vanished.
"Can you think?", I asked, putting  Descartes before the horse.
We are Descartes of Borg: We assimilate,  therefore we are.  




_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l  mailing list
WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this  mailing list,  visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l


**************A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy 
steps! 
(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1222846709x1201493018/aol?redir=http://www.freecreditreport.com/pm/default.aspx?sc=668072&hmpgID=115&bcd
=JulystepsfooterNO115)