A couple of questions?

No, only ignorant Fundamentalists insist that there are no errors in the Bible.I guess you think that it is "stupid" to know that Christianity has many denominations with different beliefs and some of the differences between them ?Assuming no trickery with definitions all the things you list are logical impossibilities and therefore even an omnipotent being cannot do them.Now please learn what you are talking about. Otherwise you are no better than the Christian fundamentalists.

Or I affirm its membership to the set of objects that cannot be lifted.I still don't understand how this makes it a negative action.
Create object x, which falls within set y.
y being the set of objects that cannot be lifted.
Create is still a positive action...or I am arguing past you?
Are you calling it negative because one of the 'properties' of set y contains 'cannot', which is considered negative, even though the action is a creative one, which is considered positive? Let's step back a little. There are some that claim that god is capable of performing all logical possible actions. Each of the actions used in this (rock) argument are logically possible when taken alone (i.e. in there own systems, these systems having the characteristics of this universe). Do we agree up to this point?------------------
Freedom, morality, and the human dignity of the individual consists precisely in
this; that he does good not because he is forced to do so, but because he freely
conceives it, wants it, and loves it.
- Mikhail Bakunin, God and the State, from The Columbian Dictionary of Quotations

Yes, lets. Why do you hold this as a premise if you are an atheist? Y'know, there are actually a good many theists that don't even hold this to be true. No, it just means that your original premise "the bible is the word of God" is false. No, all this proves is that the Bible is not the actual word of some non-self-contradictory god. It is impossible for him to do so. It is impossible for anyone to do so. "Omnipotent" doesn't necessarily mean "able to do any ridiculous and impossible thing I can imagine." It can mean "able to do all possible things." "Getting to the end of pi" is NOT an element in the set of all possible things. Therefore, that God cannot do this doesn't necessarily negate his omnipotence.Please also understand that I do not believe the Christian God to exist, and I'm not trying to argue that the Christian God does exist. However, your arguments for his non-existence are horribly fallacious, and I'm simply trying to show you that they are so that perhaps you will be inspired to devise better ones.

quote:

---

pi is infinit, well if god is omnipotent then he should be able to get to the end of pi shouldnt he or is it impossible for him to do that?

---

If God is omnipotent, then should she be able to tell the color of the marble in my hand even though I am not holding a marble? I don't think any definition of omnipotence requires the ability to do something that is logically impossible.

once again people i remind you when i say "god" i am talking only about the christian god. and for those who say that only ignorant fundamentalist say the bible is the word of god, well my friend when i read the bible am i suppose to take it literaly? yes i am, give me another way i should take it, if it doesnt make sense litealy what makes that a good belife system. in the bible it says that it is the word of god. in the bible it says that god is omnipotent. so when you prove these things not to be true, what have you done? you certainly havent helped prove that god ( the christain one i remind you ) does exist.-here are some passages from the bible to help support my argumentjeremiah 32:27
matthew 19:26
-these state he is omnipotent
Isaiah 55:11
-this states the bible is the word of god[This message has been edited by CygnusX, 12-07-2003]

compmage responds to me:

quote:

---

y being the set of objects that cannot be lifted.

---

How does one describe this using only elements of y? This property only exists as a relationship to other elements.You are trying to set up the following:There exists an element x of X such that x > y for all elements y of Y.There exists an element y of Y such that y > x for all elements x of X.As soon as one of those things is true, the other cannot logically be. So only one of them is true at the most.

quote:

---

There are some that claim that god is capable of performing all logical possible actions. Each of the actions used in this (rock) argument are logically possible when taken alone

---

No, they're not. Some are logically impossible given that others logically are possible.It is akin to the distinction between incomplete and inconsistent. You can have one, but not both. One is essentially a different way of looking at the other. The system can have one, but it cannot be made to have both. It would be logically impossible to have both. You have to choose which way you want to deal with the system beforehand.This entire question doesn't have to mention god at all. It is simply the question of "What happens when the irresistable force meets the immovable object?"What is an immovable object if not a type of irresistable force? Every action has an equal and opposite reaction, right? When I jump up, it is not just me moving...the earth moves slightly, too. Its inertia is so great that the amount it moves is miniscule compared to mine, but it still moves. That's because I press against the earth and the earth presses against me at the same time with the same amount of force and we both move.But an immovable object, on the other hand, would press against me with more force than I press against it...just enough to keep it from moving. It has infinite inertia, essentially.Now, suppose the force is pushing outward (such as a free electron and the electric field it generates). You could try to push against it, but no matter how much force you apply to it, it will overwhelm you. You can try to move it, but you will fail. Its vector is, essentially, infinite and the sidetracking vectors you try to apply have no effect.So what happens when an irresistable force meets an immovable object? Those two are merely different ways of looking at the same thing, so pick one and you'll have your answer.And since the description of such things seems to require an infinity, it could be said that they cannot exist in the first place.

quote:

---

Do we agree up to this point?

---

No, we don't. Not all of those actions are not logically possible when taken alone because they cannot be taken alone to begin with. Those actions necessarily require definition in terms of the other and thus "taken alone" makes no sense.How do you know something is "too heavy" if you don't already know what the hoisting capacity is of everything else? How do you know if something can "lift anything" if you don't already know the weight of everything else?Both of those things can exist, yes, but only by examining everything else which then restricts the ability of the other one to exist. The existence of one necessarily precludes the existence of the other.------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

:ae: writes:

quote:

---

"Getting to the end of pi" is NOT an element in the set of all possible things.

---

Hmmmm...I'm having a vision of a sort of epsilon-delta proof for this. One of the problems that happened with the differential calculus was the idea of getting the actual tangent.You see, the way you take a derivative is, essentially, to fake it. Rather than use the value you want, you use that value plus-or-minus a given offset and find those values. You then draw a line between those two values to approximate where the tangent is. Want a better approximation? Use a smaller value for the offset. As you let this offset go to zero, you get the actual tangent.But wait a second..."go to zero"? Once you hit zero, you can't draw the line because you only have one point and you need two, so you'll never actually get there.So the epsilon-delta proof comes along and it says: You tell me how close you want to get to the right answer (the delta) and I will give you an epsilon around the actual value such that every single value in that area surrounding the actual value is at least as close as your limiting factor or better.Since we can do this for any delta proferred, no matter how small, then we say that the curve is continuous and the derivative therefore exists.So you tell me how close you want to get to the end of pi, and I can give you a decimal expansion that is at least that precise. After all, there are numbers larger and smaller than pi, the reals are continuous, so there is a definite "position" of pi on the number line.Note...this is me just thinking out loud. It may not be sufficient for what we want.------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Isaiah 55:11 does not mention the Bible at all - how could it, when much of the Bible had yet to be written.Did you actually read Isaih 55 or are you relying on what some fundamentalist says about it ? (always a mistake - fundamentalists often talk about what they want the Bible to say rather than the actual text)

I don't recall denying this. I even granted this when I said that saying "to massive to be lifted" makes assumptions and/or statements about all being capable of lifting objects. How does this make it the action negative? While this is the main trust of our discussion, the point you are replying to was in regards to how creating a rock to large to lift is a negative action. I don't see how it relates. Excuse me, but when I say "taken alone", I ment losing "assuming that contradictory action/statement is false". My english might not be wonderful but I really thought you would be able to see that. Therefore, "taken alone", each is logically possible. I see that you did actually understand what I ment when I said "taken alone". I think we would have progressed faster had you admitted that earlier.That being said, I have given this much thought and to be honest, I don't know why it took so long for me to see what you where getting at. You are correct. The conclusion to my argument should have been that in any given universe, only one of these actions is actually possible, which makes the argument useless since it doesn't address the point it attempts too.I would still like to know why you think that creating a rock to large to lift is negative.------------------
Freedom, morality, and the human dignity of the individual consists precisely in
this; that he does good not because he is forced to do so, but because he freely
conceives it, wants it, and loves it.
- Mikhail Bakunin, God and the State, from The Columbian Dictionary of Quotations

Don't know if you'll see this Rrhain, but here are my comments nonetheless... Actually I think your idea is rather clever, however I'm not sure about the implications of the proof.It seems to me that your proof would demonstrate that there does indeed exist a single precise (albeit theoretic) value for pi (an "end," if you will), however it wouldn't necessarily provide us with an actual numerical figure. I think then it would be reasonable to conclude -- given your proof -- that going "to the end of pi" must possible in principle, however representing it numerically would not necessarily be.In the context of my interaction with CygnusX, I took "going to the end of pi" to be equivalent to "stating the final digit of pi's full numerical value" which I think is still impossible given that pi is irrational.And that's all I have to say 'bout that.

compmage responds to me:

quote:

---

How does this make it the action negative?

---

Because it defines a set as those members that are excluded. You must have knowledge of the set of things that can be lifted and "too heavy to lift" is everything outside that set.But I'll take it all back. Forget about positive or negative statements, it was a silly thing to say, it's getting us nowhere, and appears to be a dead end.

quote:

---

quote:

---

No, they're not. Some are logically impossible given that others logically are possible.

---

​

Excuse me, but when I say "taken alone", I ment losing "assuming that contradictory action/statement is false".

---

But the statement cannot be taken alone because its very construction requires acknowledgement of the other.There exists x in X such that x > y for all y in YYou have to have a Y before you can construct this statement. So if the definition of Y is:There exists y in Y such that y > x for all x in XThen you cannot have both of these statements. They cannot be taken alone. The very nature of their existence is in relation to the other.

quote:

---

Therefore, "taken alone", each is logically possible.

---

Not at all. You cannot know what "too heavy" means without knowing the hoisting capacity of everything else. And if there is something that has an infinite hoisting capacity, then there is no such thing as "too heavy." You cannot consider "too heavy" alone because the very nature of its existence is in relation to the hoisting capacity of everything else.------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

:ae: responds to me:

quote:

---

In the context of my interaction with CygnusX, I took "going to the end of pi" to be equivalent to "stating the final digit of pi's full numerical value" which I think is still impossible given that pi is irrational.

---

Yeah, that's pretty much where I was going with it, too. Pi has a specific value, but it cannot be expressed as a terminating decimal in base-10.But in base-pi, it's easy! It's 1! ------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

What are your foundational principles you bring to any piece of information when attempting to critique it? Obviously one of them is Logic/Reason. That is what's the problem with the science communities these days. They cannot accept things that do not coincide with reason. Why reason? Why couldn't you presuppose a God and then be able to explain some of the "apparent contradictions" within the Scriptures.P.S. - I am a star wars freak, so I'll take you up on your offer. I'll let you call a winner.Matt

Matt Tucker writes:

quote:

---

Why reason?

---

Because experience has shown us that when we abandon reason, we lead ourselves to models that don't work.

quote:

---

Why couldn't you presuppose a God and then be able to explain some of the "apparent contradictions" within the Scriptures.

---

Same problem. Abandonment of reason results in a model that doesn't work. If the only way to recognize god is to assume it exists and then abandon reason, we're not going to get very far.------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Not unless your 'other' is different to mine. Does it require knowledge of all being capable of lifting rocks? Yes, but that isn't the other statement. Only if one of these beings is capable of lifting all rocks is the 'other' pressent and given that "taken alone" (in the sense I explained), excludes the possibility of the contradictory statement...Is anyone else having problem understanding what I mean when I said "taken alone"?------------------
Freedom, morality, and the human dignity of the individual consists precisely in
this; that he does good not because he is forced to do so, but because he freely
conceives it, wants it, and loves it.
- Mikhail Bakunin, God and the State, from The Columbian Dictionary of Quotations