Not exactly my point. First god creates a regular stone, which god can do. Now we can all admit that god, once god has created a green stone, could change the color of the stone from green to red. So this shows that god can change a *property* of a pre-existent object. If "crushable" is a property, then why cannot god change this property to "uncrushable". It is just a property like size, color, density, etc. If crushable is not a property, then what is it. God is not creating the uncrushable stone, god is simply changing a property of a object god previously created.
In a message dated 7/30/2009 4:37:02 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, brewhaha@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca writes:
One is that he is creating something that he cannot do, and then contradicting himself by proving himself incapable of the first act.
**************Hot Deals at Dell on Popular Laptops perfect for Back to School (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1223105306x1201716871/aol?redir=http...)
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 10:41 AM, WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
Not exactly my point. First god creates a regular stone, which god can do. Now we can all admit that god, once god has created a green stone, could change the color of the stone from green to red.
Hm. Read: Making a point decapitalizing "God" and rehashing with what I've said before are nothing more than absurd assumptions about God's capabilities.
In fact it doesn't look like these comments have much other point than to use a decapitalized "God" such as to proudly flaunt both the author's *atheasm, and thear supposedly great capacity to deal with the entire concept of God as only an absurdism.
-Stevertigo
PS: BTW when I designed my own virtual world with completely realistic physics, I never really had to add "crushability" as a "property" of anything - *any sufficiently massive conglomerate of atoms can get "crushed" by a pair of more sufficiently more massive ones.
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 12:42 PM, stevertigostvrtg@gmail.com wrote:
Previous post correction diff: - a point decapitalizing "God" + a point of decapitalizing "God" - and thear supposedly + and their supposedly - a pair of more sufficiently more massive ones. + a pair of sufficiently more massive ones.
-Stevertigo
Point one. I do not presuppose the existence of a single god who is omnipotent. After all, if you believe in one omnipotent god, it doesn't take any leap to believe that that number may be more than one. I tend to write without the use of capitals at times. You assume my religious beliefs, but you're not correct.
Point two. It is I believe a fallacy to claim that a group of atoms can be crushed. What you are crushing is the space between the atoms. Once you have crushed them beyond that point, they tend to dissociate and become simply a neutron ball with no protons, perhaps an electron cloud or something surrounding the ball I suppose. I would think the electrons would rather scatter or something. Can you crush a neutron ball further? I'm not personally very happy with the solutions to the issue of the black hole problems, but there you go.
-----Original Message----- From: stevertigo stvrtg@gmail.com To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Thu, Jul 30, 2009 1:42 pm Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia:Paradoxes
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 10:41 AM, WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
Not exactly my point. First god creates a regular stone, which god can do. Now we can all admit that god, once god has created a green stone,
could
change the color of the stone from green to red.
Hm. Read: Making a point decapitalizing "God" and rehashing with what I've said before are nothing more than absurd assumptions about God's capabilities.
In fact it doesn't look like these comments have much other point than to use a decapitalized "God" such as to proudly flaunt both the author's *atheasm, and thear supposedly great capacity to deal with the entire concept of God as only an absurdism.
-Stevertigo
PS: BTW when I designed my own virtual world with completely realistic physics, I never really had to add "crushability" as a "property" of anything - *any sufficiently massive conglomerate of atoms can get "crushed" by a pair of more sufficiently more massive ones.
_______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 2:43 AM, wjhonson@aol.com wrote:
Point one. I do not presuppose the existence of a single god who is omnipotent. After all, if you believe in one omnipotent god, it doesn't take any leap to believe that that number may be more than one. I tend to write without the use of capitals at times.
There can be only one. Or if you've already mastered oneness, you could move on to two-ness, I suppose. (cf Woody Allen)
You assume my religious beliefs, but you're not correct.
Polytheistic, I suppose?
Point two. It is I believe a fallacy to claim that a group of atoms can be crushed. What you are crushing is the space between the atoms. Once you have crushed them beyond that point, they tend to dissociate and become simply a neutron ball with no protons, perhaps an electron cloud or something surrounding the ball I suppose. I would think the electrons would rather scatter or something. Can you crush a neutron ball further? I'm not personally very happy with the solutions to the issue of the black hole problems, but there you go.
Er, that's why I indicated that both the conglomerate being crushed be of sufficient mass - such as to have crumbling effects - and that the ones doing the crushing be "sufficiently more massive" than the one being crushed. There's an physical equilibrium thing going on where collisions between objects that are too small to generate sufficient gravity, won't break any atomic bonds.
-Stevertigo
<moderator> Does this thread have anything to do with this list? Does anyone care anymore? </moderator>
On Sat, Aug 1, 2009 at 3:46 PM, Steve Bennettstevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
<moderator> Does this thread have anything to do with this list? Does anyone care anymore? </moderator>
I was thinking that as well.
From experience, unless booted elsewhere, these "religion / general
philosophy" threads take on a life of their own and become never-ending and "eyes glazing over" for the rest of us, who thought there was a post worth reading but then saw it was this thread again. And no, I don't use a killfile, but use patience instead, though that runs out eventually.
Carcharoth
On Sat, Aug 1, 2009 at 10:46 AM, Steve Bennettstevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
<moderator> Does this thread have anything to do with this list? Does anyone care anymore? </moderator>
Magic 8-ball says... no. Not that there's anything wrong with the discussion. Perhaps we need an 'open' list for people subscribed to any of the other lists to send threads like this to live out their happy lives.
SJ
Samuel Klein wrote:
On Sat, Aug 1, 2009 at 10:46 AM, Steve Bennettstevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
<moderator> Does this thread have anything to do with this list? Does anyone care anymore? </moderator>
Magic 8-ball says... no. Not that there's anything wrong with the discussion. Perhaps we need an 'open' list for people subscribed to any of the other lists to send threads like this to live out their happy lives.
I'm inclined to be tolerant of these things, even when they're so full of nonsense. In the time that one writes a 100-keystroke one could hit the delete key a hundred times.
Ec
2009/8/2 Samuel Klein meta.sj@gmail.com:
On Sat, Aug 1, 2009 at 10:46 AM, Steve Bennettstevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
<moderator> Does this thread have anything to do with this list? Does anyone care anymore? </moderator>
Magic 8-ball says... no. Not that there's anything wrong with the discussion. Perhaps we need an 'open' list for people subscribed to any of the other lists to send threads like this to live out their happy lives.
At least it tries to be erudite. It's a good sample of what Wikipedians are like when they meet over drinks - talking lots of ridiculously erudite rubbish and confusing all the civilians at the table :-)
- d.
On Sun, Aug 2, 2009 at 9:45 PM, David Gerarddgerard@gmail.com wrote:
At least it tries to be erudite. It's a good sample of what Wikipedians are like when they meet over drinks - talking lots of ridiculously erudite rubbish and confusing all the civilians at the table :-)
Heh. I guess we should at least use an [OT] subject marker or something. I don't really mind if a bunch of messages that are clearly off topic come through. But it sucks when a real thread has a bunch of random philosophising in it.
Steve
"Steve Bennett" stevagewp@gmail.com wrote in message news:b8ceeef70908010746o42498809g41ad3c973fba9626@mail.gmail.com...
<moderator> Does this thread have anything to do with this list? Does anyone care anymore? </moderator>
This list is about wikipedia and anything that goes into it or comes out of it. Hopefully, both of those things include sound logic, and if it verjez into Physics, then so be it -- better than having it verj into religion. IOW, it is unfortunate that gmane does not host the other fourty or eighty thousand newsgroups. I wonder if I could get http://news.individual.net (Berlin's Free University) to host gmane. _______ Pollytheism: The belief that God is a parrot. (Polly-Theism)
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.