Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote in message
news:b8ceeef70908010746o42498809g41ad3c973fba9...@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
wjhon...@aol.com wrote in message news:cd5.55c9d341.37a65...@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,
Samuel Klein wrote:
On Sat, Aug 1, 2009 at 10:46 AM, Steve Bennettstevag...@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
2009/8/2 Samuel Klein meta...@gmail.com:
On Sat, Aug 1, 2009 at 10:46 AM, Steve Bennettstevag...@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
moderator
Does this thread have anything to do with this list? Does anyone care anymore?
/moderator
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
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
Message-
From: stevertigo stv...@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, wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
Not exactly my point.
First god creates a regular stone
On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 2:43 AM, wjhon...@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
, Jul 24, 2009 4:47 pm
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia:Paradoxes
On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 3:07 PM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
An electron is uncrushable.? Can an electron decay?
An electron is not matter. Its a subatomic particle and constituent of
matter. It cannot be crushed, because
wjhon...@aol.com wrote in message news:c60.4955af03.3794c...@aol.com...
Your belief in something however does not effect it's own existence.
However I have a new twist on this old issue.
Given: God can do anything
Assume: God creates an object which can do more things than God
Explain:
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
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 10:41 AM, wjhon...@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
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 12:42 PM, stevertigostv...@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
On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 5:29 PM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
An electron is not matter.
Interesting idea. Do you have an authority for that statement ?
Sounds a little odd to me.
Well not all things are matter. Light, for example. But there's a
bit of a semantic ambiguity issue with the word
If by light you mean the wave portion, than I'd probably agree with you,
that it's not matter. However light is also a photon, which as a
particle, I would have to say is matter, massless or no.
I seem to recall however this little thing called the particle-wave duality
of nature. That
On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 9:58 AM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
If by light you mean the wave portion, than I'd probably agree with you,
that it's not matter. However light is also a photon, which as a
particle, I would have to say is matter, massless or no.
I seem to recall however this little
I tried twelfth-dimensional thinking for a while, but my pineal gland
started to protrude from my forehead, so I had to stop.
Protruding Pineal Glands are not very attractive.
In a message dated 7/27/2009 11:41:19 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
stv...@gmail.com writes:
Eh. I understand
wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
I tried twelfth-dimensional thinking for a while, but my pineal gland
started to protrude from my forehead, so I had to stop.
Protruding Pineal Glands are not very attractive.
You'd have found it a lot simpler to visualise the problem in N dimensions
and then set N=12.
On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 12:18 PM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
I tried twelfth-dimensional thinking for a while, but my pineal gland
started to protrude from my forehead, so I had to stop.
Protruding Pineal Glands are not very attractive.
Tell me about it. My own protuberance gets quite profound,
An electron is not matter.
Interesting idea. Do you have an authority for that statement ?
Sounds a little odd to me.
-Original Message-
From: stevertigo stv...@gmail.com
To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Fri, Jul 24, 2009 4:47 pm
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l
On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 5:40 AM, Daniel R. Tobiasd...@tobias.name wrote:
There is also the possibility that *neither* of these things [God
uncrushable stones] exist, and that is the possibility that seems
most logical to me.
The God paradoxes don't involve so much the issue of God's
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia:Paradoxes
On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 5:40 AM, Daniel R. Tobiasd...@tobias.name wrote:
There is also the possibility that *neither* of these things [God
uncrushable stones] exist, and that is the possibility that seems
most logical to me.
The God paradoxes
2009/7/16 Jay Litwyn brewh...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca:
Here is the simple way to explain why the answer to any paradox is no.
Can God crush an uncrushable stone?
If God exists, then the uncrushable stone does not.
If an uncrushable stone exists, then God does not.
Emacs can create a core
On 16/07/2009, Jay Litwyn brewh...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca wrote:
Here is the simple way to explain why the answer to any paradox is no.
Can God crush an uncrushable stone?
If God exists, then the uncrushable stone does not.
If an uncrushable stone exists, then God does not.
___
I do not
Your belief in something however does not effect it's own existence.
However I have a new twist on this old issue.
Given: God can do anything
Assume: God creates an object which can do more things than God
Explain: Why this fallacy is a logical violation.
Second new twist
Given: God can
[[Wikipedia:Paradoxes]] - just some high-level brainstorming about
the basic sillinesses of wanting stuff to be stuff, even while that
stuff is always changing.
-Stevertigo
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from
26 matches
Mail list logo
