[WikiEN-l] Wikipedia:Paradoxes

[Jay Litwyn]

<WJhonson at aol.com> wrote in message news:cd5.55c9d341.37a65b2d 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.

That is like a different question altogether, like [Can God create a stone 
that only he can crush, and then crush it.] The answer to that is "yes", and 
it is not a paradox, because it is no longer a contest between two beings 
with mutually exclusive power. God takes the sensible approach and does not 
make the stone totally uncrushable in the first place.

> You are assuming that God is singular, but nothing in your logic requires
> that.

If you make God plural, then you get another story in The
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramayana or a Hellenistic story of an 
interaction between two or more gods that is not a paradox. You are welcome 
to propose a way for three bodies to form a paradox, and it seems like going 
into the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_body_problem in binary mode.

> You are also assuming that God is omnipotent.

Yes. Why would that be a problem? It is a definition in Islam, Christianity, 
and Judaism. I already had to show you why omnipotence does not mean "any 
combination of things". An xor statement, which disallows the possibility of 
neither, was an error, so I am deleting that quotation of myself, starting 
with "Either...". The xor operator is like a sea-saw: as long as such a toy 
in your imagination does not break, it is true.

> 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.

I do not see anything here that readily goes into 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mizar_system language,
and I hav already said a lot which does not. Proofs do not allow for a lot 
of tolerance that I might express on any topic other than logic.

> 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. 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)
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>