NationStates Jolt Archive

Oh how cute. Bringing up the same, age-old thing. "Can god create a rock so large he cannot lift it"?

The answer is yes, he could. He would still be omni-potent, because he is just that, omni-potent.

The real break against logic is the belief you could prove that God was omni-potent using HUMAN logic.

I can't prove that God created logic, and I can't prove to you that it he can break it. Its all a matter of belief.

Though, on the other hand, can you really prove to me that the world is round? No, you can't. Nothing can be proven, but most of us choose to belief things that we belive can be accurately explained. While some people, like the flat-earth society, belive other things.
Human logic? Do you understand what logic is? Since you can't prove whether or not god created logic, then you cannot assert that the did and that he can go against the laws of logic. Therefore, you cannot assert that god CAN create a rock so big that he can't lift it. But if it can't lift it, then he's not omnipotent. But if he can lift it, then he was not able to defeat himself and is not omnipotent. This is why omnipotence is self-contradicting and is logically impossible.

Yes, I would be living a lie, but I'm not living a lie since I belive in God and I belive I'm doing the best I can to follow His plan for me.
So, if you decide to believe when you don't and you admit you would be living a lie, then why ask me to just believe anyway? I would be living a lie, wouldn't I. Therefore, I cannot just arbitrarily just decide to believe, just in case, as you asked me to do earlier.

Neo and myself have responded to that question a number of times and still you use it. So you didnt like our answers?

What answers? I've been following this thread closely and have not found any coherent answer to this question. I have found that you guys convientently left it alone and went off on something else, which leads me to believe that you don't have a coherent answer.

Lets make a different argument then. God is all powerful. Lets say something like this, If someone is all powerful they have the ability to become not all powerful. God can create a rock, limit his power, he is unable to lift the rock, brings back his power, he lifts the rock. There.

That's old, tired and LAME. God is still able to lift the rock, he is simply choosing to not lift the rock.

People skew the definition of omnipotence to prove God doesnt exist. Its like saying omnipotence includes the ability to fail. Someone who is omnipotent cannot fail. So does Gods omnipotence prove he is not omnipotent?

I didn't say god doesn't exist, I said that god, as defined by the bible, cannot exist. Therefore, the bible gives an incorrect definition of god. Therefore, the bible is flawed and is not to be trusted as a LITERAL body of work.

What the hell is the point of the rock argument. It's entirely theoretical. It can't happen - because God really doesn't care about your desire to know if He could make a rock too big for Him to move.
It is simply a logical exercise to think through and prove that omnipotence is a logically impossible attribute; it is self-contradicting and cannot exist. Therefore, god is not omnipotent, as the bible claims him to be.

It is simply a logical exercise to think through and prove that omnipotence is a logically impossible attribute; it is self-contradicting and cannot exist. Therefore, god is not omnipotent, as the bible claims him to be.

Indeed. An omnipotent being would have no motivation to do anything, because s/he would no in advance that any action would succeed. There would be no challenge and no meaning. There is only one thing that an omnipotent being would be motivated to do: Destroy itself.

Read God's Debris by Scott Adams. It's a great thought-provoker.

Indeed. An omnipotent being would have no motivation to do anything, because s/he would no in advance that any action would succeed. There would be no challenge and no meaning. There is only one thing that an omnipotent being would be motivated to do: Destroy itself.

Read God's Debris by Scott Adams. It's a great thought-provoker.
Intresting outlook ... but does your deffinition of omnipotentce include being all knowing (in my book they are seperate but I can see how knoledge could be a form of power)
So if they were seperate you could have an omnipotent being that is not all knolagable

Indeed. An omnipotent being would have no motivation to do anything, because s/he would no in advance that any action would succeed. There would be no challenge and no meaning. There is only one thing that an omnipotent being would be motivated to do: Destroy itself.

Read God's Debris by Scott Adams. It's a great thought-provoker.
That's an interesting thought.

Yep it was his wife. He was a paranoid mofo. Wrote good, though, even if very disturbing at times.
True about the cast and possibilities of Existenz, i think i've simply been spoiled. In a different order of release, i probably would see it differently.
As Lynch goes, gimme your idea of Lost Highway, if you would ...? I think i liked Blue Velvet better. Until the rape - don't like rape. BTW I have The Secret Diary of Laura Palmer. Pretty disturbing. Picked it up in a yard sale. Read it and THEN watched "Fire Walk With Me". Oh, i said. Then i ate a slice of potato pie.
Gilliam rocks. Totally. Did you see Adventures of Baron Von Munchausen (sp)?

I agree, regarding Existenz... if it had been released a few years earlier, it'd fare much better in my personal canon... but I try to separate it out from the rest of the 'collection', and just try to view it in the 'genre'... as much as you CAN define a 'genre' that will accept a Cronenberg movie.. :)

Lost Highway, as far as I can tell, is like Mulholland Drive, in that it explores two aspects of reality at the same time... with one 'character' being played by two actors... one a 'real' version of events, and the other a 'dream' version. I am tending towards the idea that Pullman is the 'real' version.
Of course - it's ALL just my personal view - until Lynch actually comes out and actually explains something (ANYTHING!!!).

Then I ate some delicious Pepperoni Pizza.

Not seen Baron Munchausen, yet. Missed it when it first came out, and none of the rental places seem to carry it, for some reason... then again, not too many seem to carry Brazil, or even Fear and Loathing... either.

Pain and suffering as sacrifice on his part I can sorta see, although I question the meaningfulness of such to an infinite, transcendent etc. divinity. But physical death's gotta be pretty meaningless to someone who goes straight up to Heaven, hangs a bit with Dad, and is back in the game before the dust has a chance to clear.

Although if we were to treat Jesus in a strictly human fashion (ignoring that he's allegedly part of God), at the very least his quality of life must've gone up after his death. Maybe that's why there were a few days before the ressurection; J needed a few days to cool down, relax, listen to some hossanahs (sp?) and so on before diving back into the rather unpleasant realities of 33 CE and eating poorly prepared, likely disease-ridden food.

("I can be three people at once," Jesus points out. "One of them is omnipotent." http://rebecca.hitherby.com/archives/000233.php)
Excellent. That's probably a better way of making my point. Thanks!
Like it reads in Gen, after the 6th day, "god" looked upon it all (?) and saw that it was good. I suppose after all the suffering and such going on in that time, after that whole crucifixion thing, maybe "god" looked upon it and said it also was good. And unless i'm misinterpreting something, which is entirely possible, couldn't jesus manipulate/alter whatever foodstuff was of avail to a more potent (or at least more metaphorically appreciative) type?
One might wonder, again .... *sigh*

EDIT- EXCEPT that good ol' FIG! Waka waka!

What's so impressive about speaking 3 or 4 different languages? My stepmother speaks 6 and is working on her 7th.
Emphasis on DIFFERENT.
Latin --> italian. Not much effort there.
That post was referential to their post about what language one should yell at the pope in.
Note - i have a coworker friend who had a can of chew - Skoal, methinks - blessed for my boss by the pope. Somethin' for everyone, i guess!
;)

Yeah, well God doesn't follow logic. God is kinda, above logic.
I read somewhere that god disappeared in a puff of logic. One could argue (?)that logic was one of the harder structures for god to work on and refine, and when god made contact with it, the natural exclusion principles involved caused the explosion, resulting in the inevitable miasma that MANY discover when they themselves attempt to reconcile the two in natures.
What book was that? I can't remember, mighta been a SubGenii thingie ...

Riiiiiiight, and I can bend spoons with the power of my mind. :rolleyes:
....WELL, the power of your mind to somewhat correctly interpret the nature of the spoon in its state, and with the manifest power and dexterity of some digital extremity to enforce the power of the mind!
Ooh, i should work on my morning affirmations.

That, on the other hand, makes no sense. It does make sense that God doesn't follow logic, since God created everything. Including logic, and sense.
As that dude from King Missile so astutely asserted in the song "It's Saturday":
Sense isn't something that can be made ...
it's something that must be sensed.

Tah!

Oh how cute. Bringing up the same, age-old thing. "Can god create a rock so large he cannot lift it"?

The answer is yes, he could. He would still be omni-potent, because he is just that, omni-potent.

The real break against logic is the belief you could prove that God was omni-potent using HUMAN logic.

I can't prove that God created logic, and I can't prove to you that it he can break it. Its all a matter of belief.

Though, on the other hand, can you really prove to me that the world is round? No, you can't. Nothing can be proven, but most of us choose to belief things that we belive can be accurately explained. While some people, like the flat-earth society, belive other things.

Actually - proving the earth round is ridiculously easy. Just go stand on the coast, and watch a ship sail 'up over' the horizon.

You cannot prove that god created logic, or can function outside of it... it is all about belief... and yet, belief isn't about logic, is it?

Belief, in fact - is the antithesis of logic... since logic REQUIRES evidences, and belief REQUIRES faith, as a replacement for evidence.

Oh how cute.
Nothing can be proven, but most of us choose to belief things that we belive can be accurately explained. While some people, like the flat-earth society, belive other things.
Nothing can be proven?
*boggle*
M'kay. Here we go again ...

(OED)
proof:
1 demonstrate the truth of by evidence or argument
2 be found, emerge as
3 test the accuracy of (as in calculation/math)
.... syn: verify, authenticate, confirm, make good, corroborate, show, support, sustain, back ... turn out, be shown, be established, end up



ADDENDUM: International Flat Earth Research Society
(of Covenant People's Church)
Box 2533 Lancaster, CA 93539

Note - addie as of '88. I truly don't have the time to tie EVERY little detail up. But for the curious or doubtful it might be some other great distraction!
N'joy!

What the hell is the point of the rock argument. It's entirely theoretical. It can't happen - because God really doesn't care about your desire to know if He could make a rock too big for Him to move.

Curious - so 'god' is limited by OUR desires for 'him'?

Neo and myself have responded to that question a number of times and still you use it. So you didnt like our answers? Lets make a different argument then. God is all powerful. Lets say something like this, If someone is all powerful they have the ability to become not all powerful. God can create a rock, limit his power, he is unable to lift the rock, brings back his power, he lifts the rock. There.

People skew the definition of omnipotence to prove God doesnt exist. Its like saying omnipotence includes the ability to fail. Someone who is omnipotent cannot fail. So does Gods omnipotence prove he is not omnipotent?
You know, this line o' tripe kinda inspired a new thought in me, and i thank you for it. It might be god speaking to me to further elucidate, i dunno, maybe holy inspiration.
Your statement about god limiting its power, right there, means by definition that omnipotence isn't happening. Then, by what mechanism exactly, does god extract from itself INTO NON-BEING and then out again, other than omnipotence (which i and quite a few others have deduced here reasonably well beyond the petty argument you're giving), MEANING it was still there. Otherwise, through what mechanism is a god able to achieve more power than it already has? Don't dance around this one, explain exactly the nature of the most powerful (?) conscious entity able to excise something from existence and then bring back into existence something without THE WHOLE TIME STILL BEING OMNIPOTENT?
Gnaw on that a while, and don't rely on your faith (misunderstanding) of ASSUMED deific principle to get you through this. Failure to explain this aspect will put you on the same level of ignorance as anyone else in this matter, including myself, if TRULY human logic isn't enough to encompass the DEFINABLE REALITY of "god".
And, don't assume that anything that is omnipotent is omnijudicial. That is a fallacious argument, so you kinda poked yourself there by saying "someone who is omnipotent cannot fail." Really, did you forget the flood, Sodom and Gamorrah, all those other great instances of inconsistency with your statement? UNLESS ... right back to the integrity of this thread, AND Heikoku's argument.
...waiting...

*NOTE* in case you don't get it ... you inspired me to think that god has a mechanism upon itself where its WORKS merit itself having more power. Not omnipotent but earning its way up. Also implying a structure god itself can't control but can rationalize/deal with. Kinda like a character sheet for a RPG.
Thanks again! You've been sweet.

Curious - so 'god' is limited by OUR desires for 'him'?
In an EMOTIONAL sense, almost ALL of the biblical construct of love and mercy would appear to qualify that. As well as the wrath part. Bleah.

Indeed. An omnipotent being would have no motivation to do anything, because s/he would no in advance that any action would succeed. There would be no challenge and no meaning. There is only one thing that an omnipotent being would be motivated to do: Destroy itself.

Read God's Debris by Scott Adams. It's a great thought-provoker.
I own it/read it. Had to, love Adams.
So who might fit an "avatar" description, IYHO? (prophet)
Still like the zim-zum thing though.

A supernatural God is not a physical being so it wouldn't 'lift' anything

A supernatural God is not a physical being so it wouldn't 'lift' anything
lift
n.

1. The act or process of rising or raising to a higher position.

As long as he moved it to a higher position he could be lifting it (does not specify the process)(sorry you were being technical)

I agree, regarding Existenz... if it had been released a few years earlier, it'd fare much better in my personal canon... but I try to separate it out from the rest of the 'collection', and just try to view it in the 'genre'... as much as you CAN define a 'genre' that will accept a Cronenberg movie.. :)

Lost Highway, as far as I can tell, is like Mulholland Drive, in that it explores two aspects of reality at the same time... with one 'character' being played by two actors... one a 'real' version of events, and the other a 'dream' version. I am tending towards the idea that Pullman is the 'real' version.
Of course - it's ALL just my personal view - until Lynch actually comes out and actually explains something (ANYTHING!!!).

Then I ate some delicious Pepperoni Pizza.

Not seen Baron Munchausen, yet. Missed it when it first came out, and none of the rental places seem to carry it, for some reason... then again, not too many seem to carry Brazil, or even Fear and Loathing... either.
Good descrip on Lost - i think the part Mephisto played just annoyed me though. I tended to think of Altered States when that (isn't that Blake?) pasty f*cker kept showing up to annoy ... i would've liked it better with less of an "avatar" or "crone" aspect to it, especially with the name "Mephisto". Sheesh. But then, i also hate the whole Star Trek preoccupation with only changing cranial bonemass and leaving it largely at that (and assumption of genitalia) - but what REALLY irked me was the whole Romulans/Remans thing. Goddamn for such an advanced show (at first, like ST:TOS) they really scraped for that bs. Sans periphery here, i usually like less explanation ... at least to the degree that i relate.

As for Fear and Loathing, i own it (Depp) but is there another version? I also want to get Where the Buffalo Roam - THAT'S rare.
Got Brazil too, but not the european version, which has that extra missing 15 or 23 minutes that tends to fill in MANY blanks. Still good w/out though.
Von Munchausen probably won't pick up any more than Jabberwocky will. I guess for familiarity it's worth watching but i was drinking some strange beverage at the time and kinda phased off my attention span. *shrugs*

As long as he moved it to a higher position he could be lifting it (does not specify the process)(sorry you were being technical)

A god does obey physical laws of 'moving'. The very supernatural nature of a god means they act outside of the normal physical world. Otherwise they'd just be a really, really, really tall person that's really, really, really, REALLY good at hide and seek.

A supernatural God is not a physical being so it wouldn't 'lift' anything
So you kinda forgot about hellfire and all that other interventive stuff?

You might be mixing the prefix <super> with the prefix ******>, apparently, by your post. Given, few bother with "metanatural" but go instead "metaphysical", same to "superphysical" and "supernatural"
<Super> Meaning above and beyond, also meaning to a great or an extreme degree, extra good or large of its kind, of a higher kind.
******> Meaning denoting a position - behind, above, or beyond ... of a higher or a second-order kind

Apples and oranges to some maybe. Disregard if you like.
For advocacy sake i would say you probably mean that being super-duper-supernatural, it doesn't actually need to endorse characteristics of a natural order, but the bible gives many, many instances of said behaviour.

That is a fallacious argument, so you kinda poked yourself there by saying "someone who is omnipotent cannot fail." Really, did you forget the flood, Sodom and Gamorrah, all those other great instances of inconsistency with your statement? UNLESS ... right back to the integrity of this thread, AND Heikoku's argument.
...waiting...

What about the flood, and sodom and gomorrah?

Suppose a Person X exists and is purportedly omnipotent
Omnipotent beings must be able to do A (create rocks)
Omnipotent beings must be able to do B (lift rocks)
X must be able to do A such that B is not possible otherwise X is not omnipotent.

The arguments says God must do A and B, also doing A so that B is impossible. So:

X must do A
X must do B
X must do A such that B is not possible

Its not logical to do both B and not do B.

Omnipotence does not include the ability to do the logically impossible. Rich Deem said it best: "God cannot turn truth into a lie. If humans define a triangle as a two dimensional object formed by the intersection of three lines, it makes no sense to ask if God could make one that was spherical."

So you kinda forgot about hellfire and all that other interventive stuff?

You might be mixing the prefix <super> with the prefix ******>, apparently, by your post. Given, few bother with "metanatural" but go instead "metaphysical", same to "superphysical" and "supernatural"
<Super> Meaning above and beyond, also meaning to a great or an extreme degree, extra good or large of its kind, of a higher kind.
******> Meaning denoting a position - behind, above, or beyond ... of a higher or a second-order kind

Apples and oranges to some maybe. Disregard if you like.
For advocacy sake i would say you probably mean that being super-duper-supernatural, it doesn't actually need to endorse characteristics of a natural order, but the bible gives many, many instances of said behaviour.


OED -

supernatural

• adjective 1 attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature. 2 exceptionally or extraordinarily great.

ie it ain't lifting anything, cos lifting is physical world

things like moving objects etc are results of a supernatural action, but not necessarily the action in itself.

What the hell is the point of the rock argument. It's entirely theoretical. It can't happen - because God really doesn't care about your desire to know if He could make a rock too big for Him to move.
It's an exercise in logic to prove the self-contradicting nature of omnipotence. Did you notice that, or are you trying to be facious?

What about the flood, and sodom and gomorrah?

Suppose a Person X exists and is purportedly omnipotent
Omnipotent beings must be able to do A (create rocks)
Omnipotent beings must be able to do B (lift rocks)
X must be able to do A such that B is not possible otherwise X is not omnipotent.

The arguments says God must do A and B, also doing A so that B is impossible. So:

X must do A
X must do B
X must do A such that B is not possible

Its not logical to do both B and not do B.

Omnipotence does not include the ability to do the logically impossible. Rich Deem said it best: "God cannot turn truth into a lie. If humans define a triangle as a two dimensional object formed by the intersection of three lines, it makes no sense to ask if God could make one that was spherical."
You, although ignoring much of what i said, make an interesting point of limiting the nature of god to a sense of logic that humans already use with great, great accuracy, so i appreciate that. By same logic used by yourself apparently as well as many, many others, Jesus could represent mankind by being a man while at the same time being god, thus not following your equation very well at all. So is the logic flawed when it comes to god? Like i said, you place yourself at the same level of ignorance as the rest of us humans, with human logic, else you shouldn't attempt to rationalize your statements in any manner other than faith OR MORE ACCURATE THAN LOGIC (ooh, challenge), and in knowing that faith isn't about facts or logic, you kinda tie it all up. Like i said earlier.
As for flood and sodom and gamorrah, read the post carefully. I meant what i said, but since you asked, i'll ask you to consider context and read it again. To the bottom this time.
To be fair, i nitpick as well, but i try to get the jist of the argument/statement first before i post. *nudge*
It stands.

Your statement about god limiting its power, right there, means by definition that omnipotence isn't happening. Then, by what mechanism exactly, does god extract from itself INTO NON-BEING and then out again, other than omnipotence (which i and quite a few others have deduced here reasonably well beyond the petty argument you're giving), MEANING it was still there. Otherwise, through what mechanism is a god able to achieve more power than it already has? Don't dance around this one, explain exactly the nature of the most powerful (?) conscious entity able to excise something from existence and then bring back into existence something without THE WHOLE TIME STILL BEING OMNIPOTENT?
Gnaw on that a while, and don't rely on your faith (misunderstanding) of ASSUMED deific principle to get you through this. Failure to explain this aspect will put you on the same level of ignorance as anyone else in this matter, including myself, if TRULY human logic isn't enough to encompass the DEFINABLE REALITY of "god".

Hhhmmmmm, that means that your opponent is committing several fallacies:
Arguing from ignorance
Presupposition
Special Pleaing
Ad hoc

I wonder how many more there are that I missed. :eek: :cool:

Hey UT, I just noticed the "booby" pic in your siggy. Niiiiiiice!!! Someone put up an "I'd hit it" pic for me please.

A god does obey physical laws of 'moving'. The very supernatural nature of a god means they act outside of the normal physical world. Otherwise they'd just be a really, really, really tall person that's really, really, really, REALLY good at hide and seek.
You're nitpicking the mechanism. "Lifting" doesn't have anything to do with the mechanism as much as it has to do with the actual moving of the object. One could lift with an arm or with telekenitic powers, it's still lifting.

OED -

supernatural

• adjective 1 attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature. 2 exceptionally or extraordinarily great.

ie it ain't lifting anything, cos lifting is physical world

things like moving objects etc are results of a supernatural action, but not necessarily the action in itself.
Funny, what i posted WAS FROM OED.
Uhm explain then the nature of anything other than god involved in the process of lifting ... It's still manifest in a nature that isn't super, but prevalent and empirical. That would be whatever was in the matrix of "natural" performing consequences due "natural" interaction, even if the overarching capability of the one interacting wasn't "natural".
Example - rational thought and spiritual intent in a corporeal matrix.
It could be argued that the nature of thought and "consciousness" is supernatural since no one has actually figured out the nature of consciousness (poor matrix of proof) i would read it as dendritic/synaptic activity on an electro-chemical level (natural) but the nature of intent wouldn't be measurable by any reasonable means w/out communication of some sorts or manifest intent. Still requires a meeting of the two on a natural level else it never happens in a natural MEASURABLE/OBSERVABLE sense.
Capice?

Hhhmmmmm, that means that your opponent is committing several fallacies:
Arguing from ignorance
Presupposition
Special Pleaing
Ad hoc

I wonder how many more there are that I missed. :eek: :cool:
See, Justi, Vynnland spent some time dealing with it. Thanks!
BTW, i TRULY admire your staying power on this thread, Vynnland.
You rock.

You're nitpicking the mechanism. "Lifting" doesn't have anything to do with the mechanism as much as it has to do with the actual moving of the object. One could lift with an arm or with telekenitic powers, it's still lifting.

The question is invalid because a supernatural god is not a physical being. It's power is not determined by how heavy a thing it can move, because it is not bound by gravity. It's very nature puts it beyond such issues.

You, although ignoring much of what i said, make an interesting point of limiting the nature of god to a sense of logic that humans already use with great, great accuracy, so i appreciate that. By same logic used by yourself apparently as well as many, many others, Jesus could represent mankind by being a man while at the same time being god, thus not following your equation very well at all. So is the logic flawed when it comes to god? Like i said, you place yourself at the same level of ignorance as the rest of us humans, with human logic, else you shouldn't attempt to rationalize your statements in any manner other than faith OR MORE ACCURATE THAN LOGIC (ooh, challenge), and in knowing that faith isn't about facts or logic, you kinda tie it all up. Like i said earlier.
As for flood and sodom and gamorrah, read the post carefully. I meant what i said, but since you asked, i'll ask you to consider context and read it again. To the bottom this time.
To be fair, i nitpick as well, but i try to get the jist of the argument/statement first before i post. *nudge*
It stands.
I would have SO much more respect if theists instead of trying to BS their way through atheists questions would say something like, "I don't know, that's why I have faith. If I knew, I wouldn't have faith, I would have knowledge."

The question is invalid because a supernatural god is not a physical being. It's power is not determined by how heavy a thing it can move, because it is not bound by gravity. It's very nature puts it beyond such issues.
Vynnland responded with clarification, not a question, as did i, consider it first.

See, Justi, Vynnland spent some time dealing with it. Thanks!
BTW, i TRULY admire your staying power on this thread, Vynnland.
You rock.
Thanks, I'm a masochist I guess. :cool:

You, although ignoring much of what i said, make an interesting point of limiting the nature of god to a sense of logic that humans already use with great, great accuracy, so i appreciate that. By same logic used by yourself apparently as well as many, many others, Jesus could represent mankind by being a man while at the same time being god, thus not following your equation very well at all. So is the logic flawed when it comes to god? Like i said, you place yourself at the same level of ignorance as the rest of us humans, with human logic, else you shouldn't attempt to rationalize your statements in any manner other than faith OR MORE ACCURATE THAN LOGIC (ooh, challenge), and in knowing that faith isn't about facts or logic, you kinda tie it all up. Like i said earlier.
As for flood and sodom and gamorrah, read the post carefully. I meant what i said, but since you asked, i'll ask you to consider context and read it again. To the bottom this time.
To be fair, i nitpick as well, but i try to get the jist of the argument/statement first before i post. *nudge*
It stands.

I read your post. I dont see your point with the flood sodom and gomorrah, (which is why i asked the question). Ill ask again, what is your point?

The question is invalid because a supernatural god is not a physical being. It's power is not determined by how heavy a thing it can move, because it is not bound by gravity. It's very nature puts it beyond such issues.
You're arguing from ignorance. You don't KNOW ANYTHING about your god, you're just guessing. What you have is faith, not knowledge. If you had knowledge, you wouldn't need faith and it would be a simple matter to prove your god's existence. Your ad hoc argument doesn't work if you don't know anything about your god.

This is the only thread that I have ever seen get past 2000 posts.
This thread gets a gold star.
http://www.tigardchamber.com/members/gold_star.gif

I would have SO much more respect if theists instead of trying to BS their way through atheists questions would say something like, "I don't know, that's why I have faith. If I knew, I wouldn't have faith, I would have knowledge."
EXCELLENT f*cking post.
*bows*
You, again, ROCK.

You're arguing from ignorance. You don't KNOW ANYTHING about your god, you're just guessing. What you have is faith, not knowledge. If you had knowledge, you wouldn't need faith and it would be a simple matter to prove your god's existence. Your ad hoc argument doesn't work if you don't know anything about your god.

Your prejudice and presumption do you a diservice.

MY god?
MY faith?

Who said?

Anyhoo, a stone that an omnipotent god can't lift is a logical fallcy, like a square circle.

What you are arguing, in effect, is 'Can god do something god cannot do'

nonsensical giberish

Anyhoo, a stone that an omnipotent god can't lift is a logical fallcy, like a square circle.

What you are arguing, in effect, is 'Can god do something god cannot do'

nonsensical giberish

Thank you.

Your prejudice and presumption do you a diservice.

MY god?
MY faith?

Who said?

Your first quote:
"The question is invalid because a supernatural god is not a physical being. It's power is not determined by how heavy a thing it can move, because it is not bound by gravity. It's very nature puts it beyond such issues."

What prejudice and presumptions? You were defending god through arguments from ignorance. YOU were saying that god has certain attributes not listed in the bible, what god's form is and is not, where god lives and where he doesn't live. By making it up as you go, you're spinning an ad hoc argument. In fact, you don't KNOW ANYTHING about god. All you can do is guess and, at best, quote scripture that you can't prove is correct.

So, when I call you on your fallacies, that makes ME prejudice and presumptious? Hardly, you're just projecting your flaws onto me.

Anyhoo, a stone that an omnipotent god can't lift is a logical fallcy, like a square circle.

What you are arguing, in effect, is 'Can god do something god cannot do'

nonsensical giberish
If god cannot do the logically impossible, then he is not omnipotent and THAT is the point of the argument. If you can't answer the argument, then I'd have far more respect for you if you just said, "I don't know, that's why I have faith," and left it at that.

I read your post. I dont see your point with the flood sodom and gomorrah, (which is why i asked the question). Ill ask again, what is your point?
M'kay, do you see or maybe even concede the points in that post other than the flood query? (That's why i post ...waiting...)
I said consider the context, meaning note the words around it and follow them in a logical manner. Since you asked, though, i'll point out the context regarded the nature of omnipotence, further to the IDEA that because something is OMNIPOTENT it is NOT by NECESSITY or NATURE incapable of failure.
A feller a little while ago (like Neo-Anarchists said, 2000 posts + ^) posted something very interesting about god realizing how some of its punishments were too far, and then reneged on them. Since i'm somewhat obsessive/compulsive, i like to copy them down for what i rationalize as posterity's sake. So ....

First Chronicles 21:15 "And God sent an angel unto Jerusalem to destroy it: and as he was destroying, the LORD beheld, and he repented him of the evil, and said to the angel that destroyed, It is enough, stay now thine hand. And the angel of the LORD stood by the threshingfloor of Ornan the Jebusite".

God 'regrets' his 'evil' acts against Jerusalem, and calls the angels to reverse his decision.

or Genesis 6:6 "And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart".

God 'regrets' his decision to create such a flawed creature as man.


I apologize for the person i'm *snip*ping since i can't find the posters' name.
That poster can flame me if they surmise that i'm using this case incorrectly.

Your first quote:
"The question is invalid because a supernatural god is not a physical being. It's power is not determined by how heavy a thing it can move, because it is not bound by gravity. It's very nature puts it beyond such issues."

What prejudice and presumptions? You were defending god through arguments from ignorance. YOU were saying that god has certain attributes not listed in the bible, what god's form is and is not, where god lives and where he doesn't live. By making it up as you go, you're spinning an ad hoc argument. In fact, you don't KNOW ANYTHING about god. All you can do is guess and, at best, quote scripture that you can't prove is correct.

So, when I call you on your fallacies, that makes ME prejudice and presumptious? Hardly, you're just projecting your flaws onto me.

You still show your prejudice.

Read my post again, slowly.

If god cannot do the logically impossible, then he is not omnipotent and THAT is the point of the argument. If you can't answer the argument, then I'd have far more respect for you if you just said, "I don't know, that's why I have faith," and left it at that.
It would appear we have a tie-breaker.
*bows*

Good descrip on Lost - i think the part Mephisto played just annoyed me though. I tended to think of Altered States when that (isn't that Blake?) pasty f*cker kept showing up to annoy ... i would've liked it better with less of an "avatar" or "crone" aspect to it, especially with the name "Mephisto". Sheesh. But then, i also hate the whole Star Trek preoccupation with only changing cranial bonemass and leaving it largely at that (and assumption of genitalia) - but what REALLY irked me was the whole Romulans/Remans thing. Goddamn for such an advanced show (at first, like ST:TOS) they really scraped for that bs. Sans periphery here, i usually like less explanation ... at least to the degree that i relate.

As for Fear and Loathing, i own it (Depp) but is there another version? I also want to get Where the Buffalo Roam - THAT'S rare.
Got Brazil too, but not the european version, which has that extra missing 15 or 23 minutes that tends to fill in MANY blanks. Still good w/out though.
Von Munchausen probably won't pick up any more than Jabberwocky will. I guess for familiarity it's worth watching but i was drinking some strange beverage at the time and kinda phased off my attention span. *shrugs*

There is a rereleased version of Fear and Loathing... that much I know... with a whole load of extra material... mainly commentaries, I believe... but I haven't seen it for less than $50 dollars, so, I don't know for sure, yet. :)

The European version of Brazil is MAINLY rearranged, I believe... with a little extra footage in... basically to try to avoid the purported 'happy ending' that the studios decided the US needed. Hard to recall exactly... I DID own the European version... but that was half a decade ago... and I hadn't seen it for a couple of years then...

Jabberwocky... I don't own it.. but my 6 year old daughter does, on VHS... she likes Gilliam movies... :)

The assumption in ST, that all aliens are basically human... and speak english (although, as the series progressed they veered a LITTLE away from that... in fact, creating one of the very BEST ST:TNG episode based on that) was always something of a source of annoyance to me.

I prefered the premise of (the short-lived classic) Firefly, which was that OF COURSE we only encounter humans... since they have avoided an 'alien' scenario. At least THAT explains WHY everyone looks human.:)

If god cannot do the logically impossible, then he is not omnipotent and THAT is the point of the argument. If you can't answer the argument, then I'd have far more respect for you if you just said, "I don't know, that's why I have faith," and left it at that.

omnipotent

/omnippt’nt/

• adjective having unlimited or very great power.

Comes down to semantics about the definition of power.

omnipotent

/omnippt’nt/

• adjective having unlimited or very great power.

Comes down to semantics about the definition of power.
You KNOW, i did post VERY SPECIFICALLY about this topic and how SEMANTICISM was likely to be the crutch.

omnipotent

/omnippt’nt/

• adjective having unlimited or very great power.

Comes down to semantics about the definition of power.
The bible doesn't use the word "omnipotent", it uses descriptions of omnipotence. It says that god is "all powerful", "almighty" and according to Jesus, "there is nothing that god cannot do." If there is nothing that god cannot do, then why can't he make a square circle?

Edit:
Jeremiah 32:17
Ah Lord GOD! behold, thou hast made the heaven and the earth by thy great power and stretched out arm, and there is nothing too hard for thee:

Mt.19:26, Mk.10:27
With God all things are possible.

You KNOW, i did post VERY SPECIFICALLY about this topic and how SEMANTICISM was likely to be the crutch.

Have you re-read my posts?
And realised your presumptions?

There are better arguments against gods than trying to pin them with the old - can they logically be shown to do illogical things - silliness

There is a rereleased version of Fear and Loathing... that much I know... with a whole load of extra material... mainly commentaries, I believe... but I haven't seen it for less than $50 dollars, so, I don't know for sure, yet. :)

The European version of Brazil is MAINLY rearranged, I believe... with a little extra footage in... basically to try to avoid the purported 'happy ending' that the studios decided the US needed. Hard to recall exactly... I DID own the European version... but that was half a decade ago... and I hadn't seen it for a couple of years then...

Jabberwocky... I don't own it.. but my 6 year old daughter does, on VHS... she likes Gilliam movies... :)

The assumption in ST, that all aliens are basically human... and speak english (although, as the series progressed they veered a LITTLE away from that... in fact, creating one of the very BEST ST:TNG episode based on that) was always something of a source of annoyance to me.

I prefered the premise of (the short-lived classic) Firefly, which was that OF COURSE we only encounter humans... since they have avoided an 'alien' scenario. At least THAT explains WHY everyone looks human.:)
I didn't find the end of my version of Brazil quite satisfying in an Americanized sense, myself. I enjoyed the ride though.
Firefly did do a pretty good job in that sense. What line are they taking with the movie?
ADDENDUM- JUST saw trailer for Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. Only a light teaser. Less than the in-leaf. So ... finally ....

omnipotent

/omnippt’nt/

• adjective having unlimited or very great power.

Comes down to semantics about the definition of power.

It is the difference between 'unlimited' and 'very great'.

My understanding is that omni-potent, in terms of etymololgy, means 'all-powerful'.

All-powerful, means there is NOTHING that that entity cannot do... which means that there is no such thing as 'impossible' to an Omnipotent being.

Thus - the arguement that even god cannot make a square circle, is flawed... just because it is impossible, shouldn't be a limit to an 'omnipotent' being.

'Impossibility" is ONLY a limit to non-omnipotent beings... those that MIGHT be VERY potent, but not ALL-potent.

It isn't the concept of god, itself, that is flawed... it is extending that concept to claim Omnipotence... which IS a flawed concept.

The bible doesn't use the word "omnipotent", it uses descriptions of omnipotence. It says that god is "all powerful", "almighty" and according to Jesus, "there is nothing that god cannot do." If there is nothing that god cannot do, then why can't he make a square circle?

square and circle are human explainations of abstract shapes. Perhaps a god could make one, but could you see it for what it is?

The bible doesn't use the word "omnipotent", it uses descriptions of omnipotence. It says that god is "all powerful", "almighty" and according to Jesus, "there is nothing that god cannot do." If there is nothing that god cannot do, then why can't he make a square circle?

Edit:
Jeremiah 32:17
Ah Lord GOD! behold, thou hast made the heaven and the earth by thy great power and stretched out arm, and there is nothing too hard for thee:

Mt.19:26, Mk.10:27
With God all things are possible.

CS Lewis wrote in his The Problem of Pain:

"It remains true that all things are possible with God: the intrinsic impossibilities are not things but nonentities. It is no more possible for God than for the weakest of His creatures to carry out both of two mutually exclusive alternatives; not because His power meets an obstacle, but because nonsense remains nonsense even when we talk it about God."

It is the difference between 'unlimited' and 'very great'.

My understanding is that omni-potent, in terms of etymololgy, means 'all-powerful'.

All-powerful, means there is NOTHING that that entity cannot do... which means that there is no such thing as 'impossible' to an Omnipotent being.

Thus - the arguement that even god cannot make a square circle, is flawed... just because it is impossible, shouldn't be a limit to an 'omnipotent' being.

'Impossibility" is ONLY a limit to non-omnipotent beings... those that MIGHT be VERY potent, but not ALL-potent.

It isn't the concept of god, itself, that is flawed... it is extending that concept to claim Omnipotence... which IS a flawed concept.

The flawed concept is trying to logically argue against something that is inherently defined by being illogical

There are better arguments against gods than trying to pin them with the old - can they logically be shown to do illogical things - silliness
Silliness? You can't answer then, therefore they are silly. Just admit that you don't have a sensical answer to them and that you have faith.

Have you re-read my posts?
And realised your presumptions?

There are better arguments against gods than trying to pin them with the old - can they logically be shown to do illogical things - silliness
Yes, which is why i A) posted what you just replied to, and B) continue to argue from the logical standpoint.
As Monty Python so eloquently handled it ...
"Yes, but if i argue with you, i MUST take up a contrary position."
"Yes, but that isn't just saying 'No, it isn't.'"
"Yes it is!"
"No it isn't!"
So without presumptions of integrity, how exactly is anything you're saying supposed to be deduced as anything other than whim, fancy, or opinion, none of which upholding in a debatable construct? Are you assuming everyone on THIS PARTICULAR THREAD, THIS FAR ALONG is REALLY interested in just going "say, that's nice" and moving on?
???

I didn't find the end of my version of Brazil quite satisfying in an Americanized sense, myself. I enjoyed the ride though.
Firefly did do a pretty good job in that sense. What line are they taking with the movie?
ADDENDUM- JUST saw trailer for Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. Only a light teaser. Less than the in-leaf. So ... finally ....

Hitchhikers is looking very promising... which worries me... I don't want to get all built up, and then get the same sort of thing we got when NBC tried to 'americanise' Coupling...

Note: Despite some worrying connections to people like Speilberg... the remake of War of the Worlds ALSO looks somewhat promising...

Regarding the Firefly movie "Serenity", it looks like they are going to follow the GENERAL idea of the Firefly series, and focus on River and what she means to the powers-that-be, and probably, to various other people, too.

I also hear that we are likely to see some Reaver screen time in the movie - which should be interesting... since the Reavers are the first 'sci-fi baddy' since the Borg (early incarnations, not the wussy 7-of-9 versions) to actually seem implacable and scary.

It is the difference between 'unlimited' and 'very great'.

My understanding is that omni-potent, in terms of etymololgy, means 'all-powerful'.

All-powerful, means there is NOTHING that that entity cannot do... which means that there is no such thing as 'impossible' to an Omnipotent being.

Thus - the arguement that even god cannot make a square circle, is flawed... just because it is impossible, shouldn't be a limit to an 'omnipotent' being.

'Impossibility" is ONLY a limit to non-omnipotent beings... those that MIGHT be VERY potent, but not ALL-potent.

It isn't the concept of god, itself, that is flawed... it is extending that concept to claim Omnipotence... which IS a flawed concept.

All-powerful; having all power. Is there a power to do things that cannot be done?

square and circle are human explainations of abstract shapes. Perhaps a god could make one, but could you see it for what it is?
Words are what we assign to describe things. In this case, the thing in question would be self-contradicting because it would violate the logical law of non-contradiction. A thing cannot be both a square and a circle at the same time. You're saying that "maybe" god could do such a thing and then tell me how I wouldn't be able to see it. Prove it. Otherwise, you're STILL arguing from ignorance. You don't KNOW that god can do these things, you're just guessing (more like hoping) that he can. If you know that god can, then your proof would instantly make EVERYONE in the world a christian, because you would be able to emperically prove god's existence, something that has illuded man since the dawn of time.

All-powerful; having all power. Is there a power to do things that cannot be done?

If you TRULY are ALL-powerful, then yes.

Personally, I don't see the big deal... I'm not THAT godlike, and I can make a square circle...

The flawed concept is trying to logically argue against something that is inherently defined by being illogical

Curious - you 'define' god as illogical?

square and circle are human explainations of abstract shapes. Perhaps a god could make one, but could you see it for what it is?
That's why things remain "abstract" until they are alloted a definable context that can be relied on for structure, observation, manipulation, outcome, and usuable formula yielding results that are consistent with that formula and the natures of said things.
Given a virtual context, say an imposition of a 2D "abstract" onto a 3(?)D matrix, i have the result of, for example's sake right now, the message box that i'm typing this response into. Given its matrix - definitions and requirements - it functions as well as it is SUPPOSED to given its context.
Do you see it that way? Semantically the function is served, pragmatically the function is served. So how abstract is it now? What else is it SUPPOSED to be? Perhaps you can give an example of something other than a (geo)metric shape.

Curious - you 'define' god as illogical?

hell, why not

and those of you who think i am christian, re-read my posts.

and those of you who think i am christian, re-read my posts.
Are you playing devil's advocate then? Or in this case, god's advocate. :cool:

Are you playing devil's advocate then? Or in this case, god's advocate. :cool:

maybe ... ;)

alas, I must to bed. Early lectures.

Ciao amigos

Hitchhikers is looking very promising... which worries me... I don't want to get all built up, and then get the same sort of thing we got when NBC tried to 'americanise' Coupling...

Note: Despite some worrying connections to people like Speilberg... the remake of War of the Worlds ALSO looks somewhat promising...

Regarding the Firefly movie "Serenity", it looks like they are going to follow the GENERAL idea of the Firefly series, and focus on River and what she means to the powers-that-be, and probably, to various other people, too.

I also hear that we are likely to see some Reaver screen time in the movie - which should be interesting... since the Reavers are the first 'sci-fi baddy' since the Borg (early incarnations, not the wussy 7-of-9 versions) to actually seem implacable and scary.
I got the same feeling when i met Douglas Adams. I had all of the hopes that how he wrote was how he was really, and instead, only the abrasive wit he occasionally flashed was what i got - condescendingly - at Americans (you people don't know the difference 'tween a british and an australian accent / you probably don't know what a barrister is). He was at a "great communicators' series" symposium (imagine irony here). I talked to him, as did my friend ... actually i could go on quite a bit about that since it's seared in my memory, but i suffice to say i was willing to kick him down that stairwell and spent a little time in the pokey for a brief but intense taste of satisfaction. That day was a real eye-opener.
Yep about War of the Worlds.
Right on, i don't think they're wasting any time with "Serenity" - that's this year isn't it?

hell, why not

No reason why not, really.

Just that, if people are going to believe that 'god' created the universe... and there is evidence of logical progression in that universe... shouldn't the 'god' who created it, ALOS be logical?

Or - does the average 'christian' believe that the universe was some kind of 'god' accident? A fluke? 'He' was trying to make a pizza?

No reason why not, really.

Just that, if people are going to believe that 'god' created the universe... and there is evidence of logical progression in that universe... shouldn't the 'god' who created it, ALOS be logical?

Or - does the average 'christian' believe that the universe was some kind of 'god' accident? A fluke? 'He' was trying to make a pizza?

"god works in mysterious ways"

If you TRULY are ALL-powerful, then yes.

Personally, I don't see the big deal... I'm not THAT godlike, and I can make a square circle...

Swing by my house and show me, id like to take a gander ;)

El Shaddai, “Is anything too difficult for the LORD?” (Genesis 18:14) If God can do something, he has the power to do so. God has "all power" (Psalm 115:3). God has the power to do anything that can be done. God cannot do what is self-contradictory or nonsensical.

I got the same feeling when i met Douglas Adams. I had all of the hopes that how he wrote was how he was really, and instead, only the abrasive wit he occasionally flashed was what i got - condescendingly - at Americans (you people don't know the difference 'tween a british and an australian accent / you probably don't know what a barrister is). He was at a "great communicators' series" symposium (imagine irony here). I talked to him, as did my friend ... actually i could go on quite a bit about that since it's seared in my memory, but i suffice to say i was willing to kick him down that stairwell and spent a little time in the pokey for a brief but intense taste of satisfaction. That day was a real eye-opener.
Yep about War of the Worlds.
Right on, i don't think they're wasting any time with "Serenity" - that's this year isn't it?

I think we are looking at a September 30th release?

That was the last date I heard mentioned.

Also - heard that they have signed to a trilogy contract, so - if the first one is successful, we should have some more guaranteed Firefly goodness in the NEXT year or so, also.

Shame about Dougas Adams... never met him, but - being a 'limey' in the US, I have to admit that I have run into a whole load of people who really can NOT tell the difference between an English accent and an Australian... Curuious that he chose a 'great communicator' platform for that particular assertion, though. :)

Obviously - you know of Adams.. how conversant are you with Pratchett?

Thank you.
You know i think you might consider qualifying your argument a little more by indulging as much as you ask to.
So far you have (deliberately) dodged three very relevant points i've made to the nature of this thread and the integrity of argument on it.
So i ask you to indulge (as i have before):
Rectify your contradiction about the Genesis issue (read back if necessary)
Qualify the REST of the subject matter in the post that you ONLY responded to the flood/sodom/gamorrah part
Qualify your interpretation of the scripture i cited about failure (in context)

If you can't then maybe Vynnland's advice is best, try admitting that you prefer this context in a matrix that works along your personal intent, ie FAITH and not in one where you can argue logically the subject matter.
If i am wrong i have every intent of changing. As are, in my estimation, MANY other posters on this thread (as in, why bother?) ;)
So if you can QUALIFY/QUANTIFY these differences you would be not only doing a great service to people whose attention/spiritual/emotional/psychological spans are tied into this thread, you may possibly be doing your god a favor as well.
......

Are you playing devil's advocate then? Or in this case, god's advocate. :cool:

Personally, I am playing Devil's Avocado...

I think we are looking at a September 30th release?

That was the last date I heard mentioned.

Also - heard that they have signed to a trilogy contract, so - if the first one is successful, we should have some more guaranteed Firefly goodness in the NEXT year or so, also.

Shame about Dougas Adams... never met him, but - being a 'limey' in the US, I have to admit that I have run into a whole load of people who really can NOT tell the difference between an English accent and an Australian... Curuious that he chose a 'great communicator' platform for that particular assertion, though. :)

Obviously - you know of Adams.. how conversant are you with Pratchett?
I am lacking fortune in appreciating Pratchett - maybe if you hummed a few bars .... ;)
To be fair, Townshend from The Who jumped Adams' sh*t about being so pompous and disrepectful of his fans - they're the ones that got him there! So he recanted later to a few through his "Salmon of Doubt" (which, coincidentally, a few people have brought up in the "nature of god" theory ... much similar to Scott Adams' God's Debris. Curious...).
That was some consolation although some not-so-benign part of my ego still would have got a laugh or two out of kicking him down the stairs then, still earning a chuckle. Oh well, lest i exhume him, i guess that's my revenge. *sigh*
Never heard of Pratchett. Forgive me?
Also, he basically dictated to the audience that they didn't know. Not in a whimsical or funny way. I should have wet-snapped him with the towel i had!!!
;)

Straughn, ive asked twice about the point you are trying to make about the flood, sodom and gomorrah. You have not clearified. Your asking me to answer your questions?

Swing by my house and show me, id like to take a gander ;)

El Shaddai, “Is anything too difficult for the LORD?” (Genesis 18:14) If God can do something, he has the power to do so. God has "all power" (Psalm 115:3). God has the power to do anything that can be done. God cannot do what is self-contradictory or nonsensical.

Take a piece of string.... lay it out around something round.

You have now formed a perimeter of circular design... a 'hollow' circle - surrounding a circular surface area.

Remove the 'round thing, and place four fingers in your loop - moving them apart till they are equidistant.

You now have a square, with regular, identical(ish) sides... surrounding the SAME amount of surface area.

The area is the same, the perimeter is the same... even the materials are the same.. my circle is still all it was before, just square.

Personally, I am playing Devil's Avocado...
How 'bout "Avocado's Number"?
Hum a few bars of that ...?
Remember how that metre goes ...? ;)

Question: how long has this thread been up?

Straughn, ive asked twice about the point you are trying to make about the flood, sodom and gomorrah. You have not clearified. Your asking me to answer your questions?
Here, i'll hold your hand.
MISTAKE. FAILURE. REGRET.
Get it now?
Try reading my posts. That's why i posted it in such an obvious way, so you had that frame of reference. How much clearer do i have to say it?

Take a piece of string.... lay it out around something round.

You have now formed a perimeter of circular design... a 'hollow' circle - surrounding a circular surface area.

Remove the 'round thing, and place four fingers in your loop - moving them apart till they are equidistant.

You now have a square, with regular, identical(ish) sides... surrounding the SAME amount of surface area.

The area is the same, the perimeter is the same... even the materials are the same.. my circle is still all it was before, just square.

Or, take a fishbowl (like the kind they have candy in at the convenience store)... look at it broadside and it is circular.
Then look at it from the edge side and it is square!
Woot.

Question: how long has this thread been up?

Go to the first post and check the date.

Take a piece of string.... lay it out around something round.

You have now formed a perimeter of circular design... a 'hollow' circle - surrounding a circular surface area.

Remove the 'round thing, and place four fingers in your loop - moving them apart till they are equidistant.

You now have a square, with regular, identical(ish) sides... surrounding the SAME amount of surface area.

The area is the same, the perimeter is the same... even the materials are the same.. my circle is still all it was before, just square.

That is not the same thing. You had a circle, now a square. God can take the dust, create a circle, then make it into a square. Its the same thing you did. Your circle and square do not exists at the same time. It is not a squared circle, but a circle, then a square.

How 'bout "Avocado's Number"?
Hum a few bars of that ...?
Remember how that metre goes ...? ;)
Comes in at 6.022 141 99 x 10(23rd power) mol-1 ...
Not too catchy (not even in many dictionaries), but oh, what a beat!
;)
Bleah that was so punnish my spleen is convulsing.

Or, take a fishbowl (like the kind they have candy in at the convenience store)... look at it broadside and it is circular.
Then look at it from the edge side and it is square!
Woot.

So - two different 'mere humans' (we assume) have squared circles in the last... I don't know... an hour?

AND, we haven't had all eternity to work on it, either. :)

Comes in at 6.022 141 99 x 10(23rd power) mol-1 ...
Not too catchy (not even in many dictionaries), but oh, what a beat!
;)
Bleah that was so punnish my spleen is convulsing.

I wasn't even gonna touch it... :)

Ah, delicious chemistry-ness....

That is not the same thing. You had a circle, now a square. God can take the dust, create a circle, then make it into a square. Its the same thing you did. Your circle and square do not exists at the same time. It is not a squared circle, but a circle, then a square.
...waiting....
really i think Grave's commenting on something you might be confusing. Back to semanticism (oh what a great forum that is)?
So you know i'm not ducking, i'm letting you know there will be reallifelag on my part for an undetermined expanse of time, as is common ... after i'm done out forging my way through the elements (not all of them of course) i'll happily again don my ill-fitting bathrobe and respond in kind.
So 'til then, i await your quantification/qualification.
BTW, you're kind of fun to argue with. Just thought you should know. Except when you don't bother replying to stuff that asks you to qualify/quantify a faulty supposition.
My apologies to Grave & Vynnland, whom i hope i'm not assuming too much that i'm bolting on a more than one stimulating conversation.

That is not the same thing. You had a circle, now a square. God can take the dust, create a circle, then make it into a square. Its the same thing you did. Your circle and square do not exists at the same time. It is not a squared circle, but a circle, then a square.

No - my string became my circle... then i made my string into a square... so my circle is still there... just square, now.

You can check the math... it is still the same shape... just a different shape.

(And, of course... you missed the implication of my sides now being equal...)

...waiting....
really i think Grave's commenting on something you might be confusing. Back to semanticism (oh what a great forum that is)?
So you know i'm not ducking, i'm letting you know there will be reallifelag on my part for an undetermined expanse of time, as is common ... after i'm done out forging my way through the elements (not all of them of course) i'll happily again don my ill-fitting bathrobe and respond in kind.
So 'til then, i await your quantification/qualification.
BTW, you're kind of fun to argue with. Just thought you should know. Except when you don't bother replying to stuff that asks you to qualify/quantify a faulty supposition.
My apologies to Grave & Vynnland, whom i hope i'm not assuming too much that i'm bolting on a more than one stimulating conversation.

Enjoy your elements... I still have to sleep before work (in 4 and a half hours), so I might NOT be still around when you return. :)

And which case, we shall resume at a later date. :)

I am lacking fortune in appreciating Pratchett - maybe if you hummed a few bars .... ;)
To be fair, Townshend from The Who jumped Adams' sh*t about being so pompous and disrepectful of his fans - they're the ones that got him there! So he recanted later to a few through his "Salmon of Doubt" (which, coincidentally, a few people have brought up in the "nature of god" theory ... much similar to Scott Adams' God's Debris. Curious...).
That was some consolation although some not-so-benign part of my ego still would have got a laugh or two out of kicking him down the stairs then, still earning a chuckle. Oh well, lest i exhume him, i guess that's my revenge. *sigh*
Never heard of Pratchett. Forgive me?
Also, he basically dictated to the audience that they didn't know. Not in a whimsical or funny way. I should have wet-snapped him with the towel i had!!!
;)

Indeed, you should have bitch-slapped Adams... if for no other reason than it would be one of those stories you tell over a glass of wine on cold evenings. :)

Pratchett is the natural successor to Adams.... although, in my own (I'd like to claim 'humble', but not sure I can) opinion, actually substantially funnier.

Forget all the proposed candidates for 'New' Adams... Anthony and Rankin are amateurs, scraping in wonder before the majesty of Pratchett.

You should pick up a couple of the Discworld books... you'll probably love it. (If you appreciate the 'english' sense of humour).

Indeed, you should have bitch-slapped Adams... if for no other reason than it would be one of those stories you tell over a glass of wine on cold evenings. :)

Pratchett is the natural successor to Adams.... although, in my own (I'd like to claim 'humble', but not sure I can) opinion, actually substantially funnier.

Forget all the proposed candidates for 'New' Adams... Anthony and Rankin are amateurs, scraping in wonder before the majesty of Pratchett.

You should pick up a couple of the Discworld books... you'll probably love it. (If you appreciate the 'english' sense of humour).
For consideration, some people refer me to "Absolutely Fabulous" as representative of Brit humour, and i can't f*cking stand that. At least the ones that came into my proximity at least. Again, i didn't like Simpsons at first, or Monty Python, but, i grew up, so to speak! ON GOOD ADVICE ;) i'll check out Discworld ...
For others finding this thread amusing/taxing, there's another one that talks about dinosaurs and christianity that is kinda funny.

For consideration, some people refer me to "Absolutely Fabulous" as representative of Brit humour, and i can't f*cking stand that. At least the ones that came into my proximity at least. Again, i didn't like Simpsons at first, or Monty Python, but, i grew up, so to speak! ON GOOD ADVICE ;) i'll check out Discworld ...
For others finding this thread amusing/taxing, there's another one that talks about dinosaurs and christianity that is kinda funny.
That's one of those shows that I can't figure out why people like. IMHO, if you want a good example of brit humor, watch Black Adder, but not the first season. The character is much better in the 2nd and 3rd seasons. The 4th season character is good too, but 2nd and 3rd season Black Adder is simply phenominal.

For consideration, some people refer me to "Absolutely Fabulous" as representative of Brit humour, and i can't f*cking stand that. At least the ones that came into my proximity at least. Again, i didn't like Simpsons at first, or Monty Python, but, i grew up, so to speak! ON GOOD ADVICE ;) i'll check out Discworld ...
For others finding this thread amusing/taxing, there's another one that talks about dinosaurs and christianity that is kinda funny.

I wouldn't recommend Absolutely Fabulous as an example of good British Humour.. I'd be more inclined to suggest the classics: Hitchhikers, Red Dwarf and Blackadder.

That's one of those shows that I can't figure out why people like. IMHO, if you want a good example of brit humor, watch Black Adder, but not the first season. The character is much better in the 2nd and 3rd seasons. The 4th season character is good too, but 2nd and 3rd season Black Adder is simply phenominal.

Exactly - took the words right out of my mouth.

+1 Cool Points to Vynnland, for critical Blackadder skills. :)

I wouldn't recommend Absolutely Fabulous as an example of good British Humour.. I'd be more inclined to suggest the classics: Hitchhikers, Red Dwarf and Blackadder.

Hitchhiker's and Red Dwarf have are very similar in style, IMHO. They both have strange parallels of strange travels through space, time and dimension, and constantly contradict themselves. Hitchhiker's seems to contradict itself less then Red Dwarf, but the general parrallels are almost uncanny. It makes me thing that Red Dwarf is directly modeled off of Hitchhiker.

Exactly - took the words right out of my mouth.

+1 Cool Points to Vynnland, for critical Blackadder skills. :)

Sweet. :cool:

I think they could have done more then just the few Black Adder episodes. If M*A*S*H can go on for over 200 episodes and always be more or less fresh, then why couldn't have Black adder done better then 24 episodes and 3 specials? Black Adder could have easily done at least 25 episodes per era, IMHO. So what happened? They found out we liked it and just HAD to put a stop to it while all the crappy shows get put into seemingly endless production? Where's my BS flag gone to? :mad:

A god does obey physical laws of 'moving'. The very supernatural nature of a god means they act outside of the normal physical world. Otherwise they'd just be a really, really, really tall person that's really, really, really, REALLY good at hide and seek.
But the object does rest in the phisical world ... and we are just talking about the change in position of the object

Hitchhiker's and Red Dwarf have are very similar in style, IMHO. They both have strange parallels of strange travels through space, time and dimension, and constantly contradict themselves. Hitchhiker's seems to contradict itself less then Red Dwarf, but the general parrallels are almost uncanny. It makes me thing that Red Dwarf is directly modeled off of Hitchhiker.


There are many similarities between Red Dwarf and Hitchhikers - and I can't help but suspect that Hitchhikers was the probable main inspiration of Red Dwarf.. although there are OBVIOUS references to other shows, like Start Trek Next Gen. Basically - it seems that nothing in the sci-fi genre was considered sacred - as evidenced by a 8-inch-tall robocop-Lister killing a curry monster with a can of lager...

Shame that Red Dwarf hit such a wall after series 6... a truly great series, and the last one worth watching. :(


I think they could have done more then just the few Black Adder episodes. If M*A*S*H can go on for over 200 episodes and always be more or less fresh, then why couldn't have Black adder done better then 24 episodes and 3 specials? Black Adder could have easily done at least 25 episodes per era, IMHO. So what happened? They found out we liked it and just HAD to put a stop to it while all the crappy shows get put into seemingly endless production? Where's my BS flag gone to? :mad:

Well - Blackadder is a typical BBC production, in as much as - they don't like to spend much money... so 6 episodes = one season.

Personally - I think that, given a decent budget... the kind that the US throws at successful shows... Blackadder could have easily covered a hundred or more episodes... and STILL maintained the same quality.

It's always the way, though... it seems like TV hates decent entertainment... Black Adder, Red Dwarf, Firefly.... :(

Take a piece of string.... lay it out around something round.

You have now formed a perimeter of circular design... a 'hollow' circle - surrounding a circular surface area.

Remove the 'round thing, and place four fingers in your loop - moving them apart till they are equidistant.

You now have a square, with regular, identical(ish) sides... surrounding the SAME amount of surface area.

The area is the same, the perimeter is the same... even the materials are the same.. my circle is still all it was before, just square.
Umm, I might be missing what you're trying to say here (in bold), but you might want to check your maths. By my reckoning, a circle of equal perimeter to a square will have an area equal to 4/pi times the area of the square.[/end pedantry]

Umm, I might be missing what you're trying to say here (in bold), but you might want to check your maths. By my reckoning, a circle of equal perimeter to a square will have an area equal to 4/pi times the area of the square.[/end pedantry]
It HAS to have the same area and perimiter length because no material is being added or subtracted.

It HAS to have the same area and perimiter length because no material is being added or subtracted.
No he is right

Ie a square with sides of length 2
will have an area of 4 and a perimiter of 8

A circle with a perimiter of 8 will have an area of 5.093

It HAS to have the same area and perimiter length because no material is being added or subtracted.
OK. Try the same method, only this time move your hands apart and let your fingers come together in two pairs. You'll end up with a double length of string enclosing no area.

Or check the maths:

Perimeter of circle = 2*pi*r
Perimeter of square = 4*a, where a = length of one side
Circle area = pi*r^2
Square area = a^2

Now perimeter of circle = perimeter of square, therefore 4*a = 2*pi*r

So square area = (pi*r/2)^2 = pi*(pi*r^2)/4
= circle area*pi/4

There's a better explanation in calculus, but it's a pain typing maths in text.

It HAS to have the same area and perimiter length because no material is being added or subtracted.

See - that's the exact same logic I was using...

But, they are right.. it doesn't work.

God KNOWS I tried to make it work...

It really DOES seem like it should, doesn't it?

Umm, I might be missing what you're trying to say here (in bold), but you might want to check your maths. By my reckoning, a circle of equal perimeter to a square will have an area equal to 4/pi times the area of the square.[/end pedantry]

Erm... attempt to desperately back-peddle...

Erm.. yes the AMOUNT of "area" is different, but the geographical area is the same....

?

Points for attempted recovery?

Erm... attempt to desperately back-peddle...

Erm.. yes the AMOUNT of "area" is different, but the geographical area is the same....

?

Points for attempted recovery?
We still love you :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle:

We still love you :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle:

Man... all that school... all that college... 3 years at University... and my world comes crashing down over square-circle math... :(

:fluffle:

Heikoku, you seem to think that Christianity is the dumbest thing that earth has ever seen, based on the first few pages. That sounds like INTOLERANCE to me, which is partially what you are accusing Christians of.

Man... all that school... all that college... 3 years at University... and my world comes crashing down over square-circle math... :(

:fluffle:
Thats ok ... I got an advantage of having the 4th 5th year at a university ... thats when you really learn circle math :p

Erm... attempt to desperately back-peddle...

Erm.. yes the AMOUNT of "area" is different, but the geographical area is the same....

?

Points for attempted recovery?
LOL. I was going off-topic anyway. I guess I react to incorrect maths the way you react to incorrect bible knowledge.

It's funny, I came to NS thinking I knew quite a bit about things like religion and science. Then I came across people like you, who actually do know what they're talking about. I'm just grateful to have retained at least some expertise in the NS world.

Heikoku, you seem to think that Christianity is the dumbest thing that earth has ever seen, based on the first few pages. That sounds like INTOLERANCE to me, which is partially what you are accusing Christians of.

I can only speak for myself. Some christians are intolerant, but pointing that out doesn't make someone intolerant. The belief itself is irrational and pretty point for my uses, but it may be what some people need to get them through life. However, it has been a rationale for far too many problems in the world. I think we would all be better off if people who needed religion found themselves a benign religion to follow, like janism or buddhism rather then the war, death, genocide, intolerance and hatred towards each other that is found in the bible. Not that the bible doesn't have good stuff in it, but I see no value in it if there is so much bad stuff in it as well. Why not find a religion that doesn't have so much bad stuff while retaining the good stuff?

Thats ok ... I got an advantage of having the 4th 5th year at a university ... thats when you really learn circle math :p

There you go, see... scuppered by my missed circle-math minor... :)

Crazy thing is... I KNOW that it doesn't work... and yet it STILL seems wrong.

This is one of those things about how human judgement insists on trying to lead us up the wrong paths...

LOL. I was going off-topic anyway. I guess I react to incorrect maths the way you react to incorrect bible knowledge.

It's funny, I came to NS thinking I knew quite a bit about things like religion and science. Then I came across people like you, who actually do know what they're talking about. I'm just grateful to have retained at least some expertise in the NS world.

The annoying thing is... math is one of my better subjects, too... and I didn't even THINK about the implications of what I was typing... until someone pointed out the glaring inconsistency in my premise.

It's very gracious of you to brush my rank idiocy-ish-ness aside, with compliments... thank you. :)