<[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]... >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, > [email protected] 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 > [email protected] > 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 > [email protected] > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l > _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
