Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 1/22/07 03:57 AM, Imperator wrote: A is an impossible action IN A DEFINED setting. Change the setting, and you change A. Therefore, A may no longer become impossible.

Changing the definition of impossible by changing the setting is cheating. It's like god faking the inability to lift something. It's a lie. The rock was never unliftable, because the ability to change stuff around created it's liftability.

Shit, I can do that... no need for a god.

lol. University of Michigan, creating gods since 1815.....

And since noone's asked, I'll tell you how. First the definition of a triangle:

tri·an·gle (trī'āng'gəl) Pronunciation Key

n. 1. The plane figure formed by connecting three points not in a straight line by straight line segments; a three-sided polygon.

Now we take a spherical plane, give it an arbitrary "North" pole, and place one point on the pole. Place your second point on the "equator". Place your third point also on the equator, on the point that desribes a 90 degree arc. Connect the three points. Triangle. The angles are 90, 90 and 90 degrees, adding up to 270.

Euclidean geometry = pwnd.

The answer is yes, God performs said tasks. He chooses to be unable to lift it to be correct, and he shuts hearing it out. At any rate i still cant hear him, perhaps the question is God capable of talking loud enough to be heard? Ooo thats a paradox too...damn i think i made it worse. Besides, why would god lift a mounitain? Did he hide something there? Or did he lose the remote that stops women from bitchin (sorry, i can't spell whinin, or is it wineing..o forget it)?

At 1/23/07 01:57 AM, Ravariel wrote:

And since noone's asked, I'll tell you how. First the definition of a triangle:

tri·an·gle (trī'āng'gəl) Pronunciation Key

n. 1. The plane figure formed by connecting three points not in a straight line by straight line segments; a three-sided polygon.

Euclidean geometry = pwnd.

Polygon -
A closed plane figure made up of several line segments that are joined together.

closed plane

At 1/23/07 01:57 AM, Ravariel wrote: Euclidean geometry = pwnd.

This is bit of a unrelated question but...do you beleive in the work of Einstein? Because accounting to his Theory of General Relativity, there is no Euclidean geometry.

Changing the definition of impossible by changing the setting is cheating. It's like god faking the inability to lift something. It's a lie. The rock was never unliftable, because the ability to change stuff around created it's liftability.

In that case, you are going to need to explain WHY the rock is unliftable. "Unliftable" in itself will not suffice for me, since I perceived it to be due to the weight and density of the object (ie, God can't lift it because it is too heavy). Thus my answer would be that he would manipulate that which causes weight, namely gravity, or the position of the universe.

If that's "cheating", then I'm gonna need you to provide a "rule book".

At 1/23/07 09:23 PM, Imperator wrote:
If that's "cheating", then I'm gonna need you to provide a "rule book".

Rule #1: Outwitting logic is teh HaXX LoL

Rule #2: God can't pwn me!

Rule #3: I can prove it, God can't. I win.

Honestly, it's like the genie granting three wishes, but interpretted so the wish, in reality, is no wish at all but a bane on the fools' existance.

the paradox I heared about went like this:

if god is omnipotent and all knowing, as well as the past as the future, can he then alter his own destiny?
if one knows his own future one can change it meaning it didnt really knew its own future. Or when you state he can only travel in his own set future (not able to change it) meaning he is not omnipotent.

At 1/23/07 08:55 PM, Humbucker740 wrote:

At 1/23/07 01:57 AM, Ravariel wrote: Euclidean geometry = pwnd.

Polygon -
A closed plane figure made up of several line segments that are joined together.

closed plane

If attaching goes wrong

Closed plane. Note that the sphere is the plane, and that the lines are straight, observed in the spherical plane, with angles adding up to 270.

At 1/23/07 09:23 PM, Imperator wrote:

Changing the definition of impossible by changing the setting is cheating. It's like god faking the inability to lift something. It's a lie. The rock was never unliftable, because the ability to change stuff around created it's liftability.

In that case, you are going to need to explain WHY the rock is unliftable. "Unliftable" in itself will not suffice for me, since I perceived it to be due to the weight and density of the object (ie, God can't lift it because it is too heavy). Thus my answer would be that he would manipulate that which causes weight, namely gravity, or the position of the universe.

If that's "cheating", then I'm gonna need you to provide a "rule book".

Unliftable rock is just an example. In essence it's about performing the fundamentally unperformable.
For all intents and purposes it's the same as "making angles of a triangle add up to 270 in EUCLIDIAN geometry", but unliftable rock is easier to picture for most people.

At 1/23/07 09:01 PM, Tankdown wrote:

At 1/23/07 01:57 AM, Ravariel wrote: Euclidean geometry = pwnd.

This is bit of a unrelated question but...do you beleive in the work of Einstein? Because accounting to his Theory of General Relativity, there is no Euclidean geometry.

Of course I believe in the work of Einstein. His theories of relativity gave birth to much of the science and math we now use to describe the universe. It was an important stepping-stone to where we are today in physics. However, it doesn't erase Euclidean geometry altogether... it still works... as long as the planes described are perfectly flat... just so happens there are no perfectly flat planes in our universe...

Regardless, I bent the rules a bit... not showing that I could do the impossible but that the poster's assumtion of the nature was flawed.

Unfortunately, no such flaw has yet ben ascribed to the problem in question... which is this:

At 1/23/07 09:23 PM, Imperator wrote: If that's "cheating", then I'm gonna need you to provide a "rule book".

Rule book = logic.

Possible and impossible are both self-defining and mutually exclusive (by definition).

X cannot be both possible and impossible.

I appreciate all the people who have pointed out that God could do these things in (say) non-Euclidian geometry, but I personally think this is avoiding the question. If I rephrased "Can God make a rock e.t.c.... in Eucledian geometry?" you wouldn't have that route.

It seems inarguable to me that God cannot do the logically impossible, but a philosopher I've been reading has suggested a solution. (Anthony Kenny, if anyone's interested)

If God is omnipotent, He can suspend his own omnipotence
As long as He never tries to make this rock, He remains omnipotent
He is therefore currently omnipotent
Were He to try and make this rock, He would not longer be omnipotent

At 1/29/07 03:06 PM, Goldensheep wrote: I appreciate all the people who have pointed out that God could do these things in (say) non-Euclidian geometry, but I personally think this is avoiding the question. If I rephrased "Can God make a rock e.t.c.... in Eucledian geometry?" you wouldn't have that route.

It was pointed out to show that solving the problem by "changing the setting" as some have proposed is ridiculous.

It seems inarguable to me that God cannot do the logically impossible, but a philosopher I've been reading has suggested a solution. (Anthony Kenny, if anyone's interested)

If God is omnipotent, He can suspend his own omnipotence
As long as He never tries to make this rock, He remains omnipotent
He is therefore currently omnipotent
Were He to try and make this rock, He would not longer be omnipotent

I disagree. By the same logic, I would be omnipotent as long as I don't try to do anything I can't do.Omnipotence implies capability of doing something, not actually doing it. Trying or not trying to do it has nothing to do with being omnipotent or not.

At 1/18/07 02:56 PM, Grammer wrote:

At 1/18/07 02:34 PM, Goldensheep wrote:

If God were not omnipotent, then there should be something God cannot do

He can do anything, even bend the rules of logic and human understanding as we know it.

What happened to the whole 'Free will' argument?

God cannot not exist (or if He can, then He does not exist)

Of course it does, in a way. Whether he's right or not, I don't know. I'm neither an educated philosopher, nor do I own a degree in theology, so I'll leave that as it is.

Besides, God can't exist without not existing. Newton's third law. The creation of the universe should have had an equal and opposite reaction on god, omnipotent or not.

Want an aesthetic paradox? There is no infinite, or that would be a "god". Time therefore had a beginning. Time was created before or at the same time as matter(supported by Mr. Big Bang theory himself Steven Hawkins). Matter cannot be created or destroyed.

People try and make sense of God in logic. In order to pertain a logical conversation, it has to be bound within the knowledge of the five senses. God is obviously out of the realm of the five senses, therefore we cannot bind him by human logic.

You may say this as an easy answer to the paradox. I see the paradox as an easy challenge to people who can't think of a better way to poke at the more tender areas of religion.

I find the incredibly large amounts of religious topics in the "Politics" forum slightly amusing.

At 1/29/07 10:38 PM, PBass wrote: Want an aesthetic paradox? There is no infinite, or that would be a "god". Time therefore had a beginning. Time was created before or at the same time as matter(supported by Mr. Big Bang theory himself Steven Hawkins). Matter cannot be created or destroyed.

What? There is no infinite (where did you get that from)? That would be a "god" (That's all god is, infinity?). Therefore time has a beginning?! How are any of those logically connected? And yes, matter CAN be created and destroyed. Nuclear fission 'destroys' matter, fusion 'creates' matter. Energy can't be destroyed, but matter is a form of energy that can be transformed into other forms of energy.

People try and make sense of God in logic. In order to pertain a logical conversation, it has to be bound within the knowledge of the five senses. God is obviously out of the realm of the five senses, therefore we cannot bind him by human logic.

Bound within the five senses? We're perfectly able to work with abstract concepts like vector spaces and so on. Logic is completely and totally unconnected to "the five senses". Logic needs an axiom system and that's it.

You may say this as an easy answer to the paradox. I see the paradox as an easy challenge to people who can't think of a better way to poke at the more tender areas of religion.

I see this as a completely wrong answer to the paradox... "Logic does not apply to God, stop thinking about what we are saying and just accept it! OR BURN IN HELL!"

"God" is a well-defined entity with certain characteristics and hence logical deductions can be made. In fact, that's what religion does. From the order "stone adulterous women" it's deduced that God thinks adultery is immoral. Applying logic to God is being done, and perfectly possible.

At 1/30/07 04:13 AM, Togukawa wrote: Energy can't be destroyed, but matter is a form of energy that can be transformed into other forms of energy.

He's right - that's what E=mc(squ) means.

Bound within the five senses? We're perfectly able to work with abstract concepts like vector spaces and so on. Logic is completely and totally unconnected to "the five senses". Logic needs an axiom system and that's it.

Only if you're a rationalist. If you're an empiricist, logic requires the five senses in order to remain consistant. Empirists would argue we cannot work with vector space - we need to transform it into something concrete in order to express ourselves. Wittgenstein (not an empiricist as far as I'm aware) says something quite similar about language.

"God" is a well-defined entity

Hah! If asked to give the name of the least well defined being in the history of human thought, the answer is always going to be "God". Why else do you think there is all the religious violence in the middle east, or different scisms of Christianity?

At 1/30/07 01:29 PM, Goldensheep wrote:

At 1/30/07 04:13 AM, Togukawa wrote:

Only if you're a rationalist. If you're an empiricist, logic requires the five senses in order to remain consistant. Empirists would argue we cannot work with vector space - we need to transform it into something concrete in order to express ourselves. Wittgenstein (not an empiricist as far as I'm aware) says something quite similar about language.

Then empirists are wrong, since we obviously can do amazing stuff with vector spaces ;).

"God" is a well-defined entity

Hah! If asked to give the name of the least well defined being in the history of human thought, the answer is always going to be "God". Why else do you think there is all the religious violence in the middle east, or different scisms of Christianity?

Haha true enough, but my point was that people have an idea of what you are talking about when you say "God", as opposed to "zfiahgnkbn". God has certain characteristics that make God God, and not something else. And based on those characteristics, we can use logic and conclude things about the way we describe God.

What distinguishes God from that vase in the corner of the room, if active omnipotence is not a requirement for omnipotence? I'll bet it's not vector space ;)