A couple of questions?

There cannot be any errors in the Bible. There. I said it. If there were, what would we make the moral code?Matt

HUH? How in the world did you make that leap? Could you go through the connection there a bit more step by step?Be careful, if you do somehow manage to make the connection then you could destroy the belief of many who aren't so blind as to be unable to see contractions as you are.

compmage responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

But the statement cannot be taken alone because its very construction requires acknowledgement of the other.

---

​

Not unless your 'other' is different to mine.

---

Not at all. I am specifically talking about your other. The concept of "too heavy" necessarily requires knowledge of whether or not "lift anything" exists. If it does, then there is no such thing as "too heavy" and if it doesn't, then "too heavy" is possible. And on the flip side, "lift anything" requires knowledge of all possible things to be lifted, which might mean there is something that is "too heavy."

quote:

---

Does it require knowledge of all being capable of lifting rocks? Yes, but that isn't the other statement.

---

Only in the most naive sense. Your other statement is equivalent to it.

quote:

---

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...

---

Incorrect. The mere concept of "too heavy" necessarily requires knowledge of everything else. Thus, it cannot be "taken alone." Its very existence is a relationship to everything else and cannot exist on its own.Give me an example of how one can describe something as "too heavy to lift" without invoking the existence of any other object. Since "lifting" is a process whereby one object acts upon another, I'm having a hard time coming up with one, but perhaps you can help me see what I am missing.------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Matt Tucker writes:

quote:

---

There cannot be any errors in the Bible. There. I said it. If there were, what would we make the moral code?

---

Something else. After all, most of the world thinks the Bible is at best an interesting piece of fiction.And yet, surely you aren't saying that two-thirds of the world has no moral code, are you? Heck, even atheists have a moral code, so obviously morality is not dependent upon the Bible being true.------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

quote:

---

There cannot be any errors in the Bible. There. I said it.

---

Bats aren't birds. That's an error in the Bible.There. I said that.

Not that I can see. Where did you get the idea that I want the rock to be considered seperate from EVERYTHING else? This is not what I had in mind. I stated a number of times that stating something is too heavy to lift requires knowledge of 'objects' that can lift other objects. Why are you asking this when it doesn't represent what I have been saying? I will do my best. You don't seem to understand what I am getting at. My position in no way equates to what you represent above. If this is trully what you think I have been saying then we are having serious communication problems.The two objects ("others") in question:1) Rock to heavy to lift.
2) Being capable of lifting all rocks.Now, when I spoke about taking each alone, I was think alone these lines. In a universe where 2 does not exist, 1 is logically possible, also in a universe where 1 does not exist, 2 is logically possible.Does this solve our problem?------------------
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

Indeed you did. That doesn't make it correct though. The same as we have now. Many peoples moral code have nothing to to with your Bible. They don't seem to have any problems.------------------
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

compmage responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

Its very existence is a relationship to everything else and cannot exist on its own.

---

​

Where did you get the idea that I want the rock to be considered seperate from EVERYTHING else?

---

From your continual harping that the statements need to be "taken alone." That cannot be done. The statement defines x in terms of Y. It cannot be taken alone because it necessarily requires a knowledge of Y and all elements in it.

quote:

---

I stated a number of times that stating something is too heavy to lift requires knowledge of 'objects' that can lift other objects. Why are you asking this when it doesn't represent what I have been saying?

---

Because you keep talking about "taken alone."You cannot take it alone. The very definition requires the establishment of a relationship outside itself. It is not self-contained and thus, cannot be "taken alone." It isn't alone to begin with. Before you can even begin to contemplate whether or not it has the property you are interested in, you need to know whether or not Y allows it to have that property.

quote:

---

The two objects ("others") in question:

​

1) Rock to heavy to lift.
2) Being capable of lifting all rocks.

---

These cannot be taken alone. Before you can know if 1) exists, you need to know if 2) exists. Before you can know if 2) exists, you need to know if 1) exists. The only way to do that is to step outside the system, declare one of them to be true, and that will necessarily prevent the other one from existing.

quote:

---

Now, when I spoke about taking each alone, I was think alone these lines. In a universe where 2 does not exist, 1 is logically possible, also in a universe where 1 does not exist, 2 is logically possible.

​

Does this solve our problem?

---

No, because your original statement was thus: You have just admitted that both are not logically possible within the same universe. Therefore, a god capable of any logically possible action would not be capable of both of these since one of them is not logically possible within any given universe.Pick the one you want, but you can't have both.------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

You did read the post a few days back where I conceeded this, did you not?------------------
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

the question "Can god Create a rock that he can not lift?" i read that question in a game book called Demon: The Fallen from Wite wolf gaming vary good read and it tells how it could have been done and for your 2 + 2 = Xdoes 1 + 60 not = 1that is what we use for time and i sure if some one thanks one it they can create a base that will allow for that.just my few bits

No, 1 + 60 does not equal 1. You are suggesting using base 60 and using it incorrectly.The correct forumlation of the question is 1 + 10 = 11 (all in base 60 ) if you mean the 60 to be in base 10.Or 1 + 60 = 61 (all in base sixy) in this case 60(base 60) is 360 (base 10 ) so, in base 10 the equation is 1 + 360 = 361The clock (at least mine) has three hands.

oh sorry ... well it was a good try..I don't know everything but working on it[This message has been edited by Prometheus, 12-15-2003]