Fallacy of "can God make a rock not even he can lift?"

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

Holiday20310401
 
Reply Wed 25 Jun, 2008 11:30 pm
@midas77,
midas77 wrote:
"What will happen if an unstopable object collides with an immovable object." Unthinkable.



Answer: The two objects will never collide if living and if not then they would cease to exist, although it would be interesting to note whether causality has any influence on the abiotic.
 
midas77
 
Reply Wed 25 Jun, 2008 11:48 pm
@Holiday20310401,
Holiday20310401 wrote:
Answer: The two objects will never collide if living and if not then they would cease to exist, although it would be interesting to note whether causality has any influence on the abiotic.


Holiday, might it be, the Armageddon?
 
Holiday20310401
 
Reply Thu 26 Jun, 2008 09:15 am
@midas77,
I suppose but first we would have to figure out whether the two objects had a cause for existence, it seems crude though.
Unstoppable, vs. unmovable are universal, the two objects would always have that quality.
Good and evil aren't universal views, they are subjective, and one's view of somebody being evil may be another's view of the same person being being.
 
midas77
 
Reply Thu 26 Jun, 2008 01:50 pm
@Holiday20310401,
Holiday, its only a mental calisthenics on logic. It does not need to be actually real. If two concepts are mutually exclusive of its other, if one exists, then the other must not.
 
Holiday20310401
 
Reply Thu 26 Jun, 2008 05:13 pm
@midas77,
Couse it does. God has to be real, and the rock must be potentially real in order for the situation to potentially occur.
 
midas77
 
Reply Sat 28 Jun, 2008 02:41 am
@Holiday20310401,
Holiday, a brief discussion on the rules of contrary terms. If A is True, B is always false. If B is true, A is always false. If B is false, A may be false or may be true.
The possibility of the concept of an immovable rock is incosistent with the concept of an irrisitable mover-god. IF such rock exist, no irrisitable mover-god exists.

Its just logic, mental calisthenics.
 
Holiday20310401
 
Reply Sat 28 Jun, 2008 09:39 pm
@midas77,
Ok, sorry. This seems to parallel math with positive and negative, but what if two things are compared that aren't opposites in the perception that you are trying to grasp the true and false of?
For example, an orange is true to be orange and round, though those are two different perceptions of the orange, which are not opposites. In respect to opposites, an immovable object, an unstoppable object; then the rule applies, both are false. But why should that logic apply when you consider god, when nothing can be accurately defined as its opposite? When having an undefined variable the logic is useless, left to the imaginary.
 
midas77
 
Reply Sun 29 Jun, 2008 02:56 am
@Holiday20310401,
Holiday20310401 wrote:

For example, an orange is true to be orange and round, though those are two different perceptions of the orange, which are not opposites.


In this case holiday, the attributes orange and round can exist in the same orange. Roundness and orangeness is not mutually exclusive of each other. But a square and circular orange is an impossibility.

Quote:
In respect to opposites, an immovable object, an unstoppable object; then the rule applies, both are false.

It is not necessary that both is false. It is just that the non-existence of another can not be a sufficient reason for the non-existence of another.

Quote:
But why should that logic apply when you consider god, when nothing can be accurately defined as its opposite? When having an undefined variable the logic is useless, left to the imaginary.


that's the point. It is fallacious in form and substance. Sophistic in intent.
 
VideCorSpoon
 
Reply Sun 29 Jun, 2008 10:35 am
@midas77,
http://i25.tinypic.com/33ae52r.jpg

Gentlemen... I present the hylomorphic squarange... [cheering and applause to ensue]
 
Holiday20310401
 
Reply Sun 29 Jun, 2008 05:00 pm
@VideCorSpoon,
Lol. The question is.. can the orange be a square and a circle at the exact same time, with the potential of a circle and the potential of a square at the same time. I mean it kind of looks like a 2D circle in a 3D cube.:rolleyes:
 
VideCorSpoon
 
Reply Sun 29 Jun, 2008 11:11 pm
@Holiday20310401,
http://i29.tinypic.com/1g6sgk.jpg
 
midas77
 
Reply Mon 30 Jun, 2008 04:31 am
@VideCorSpoon,
VideCorSpoon wrote:


Videcorspoon, I had a training in scholasticism, so thats the way i think. Do i follow that school. To a point yes.

To the squarange. Predicating a square and a circle in the same orange is impossible in the strict supposition of the terms. Let me rephrase the original proposition, an orange can not be both circular and square at the same time. The orange fruit can not be the close figure circle and close figure square at the same time and the same respect.

Lets consider at genetically altered squared orange. It is true, that said orange, can contain a circular figure inside a square figure. The same way an orange fruit can be both orange in color and black at the same time, in case of a rotten orange fruit. But to say the orange is both black and orange at the same respect is an impossibility.

My point. To treat the orange in its entirety as a close figure circle excludes a square orange in its entirety.
 
VideCorSpoon
 
Reply Mon 30 Jun, 2008 09:46 am
@midas77,
http://i25.tinypic.com/rw2peo.jpg
 
Holiday20310401
 
Reply Mon 30 Jun, 2008 01:07 pm
@VideCorSpoon,
I enjoyed reading this but I'm not sure I understand what you find important. When I stated potential, this is what I feel is important with the discussion to solve the problem.
Also a 3D circle, I was bluntly referring to a sphere.

Lets say we are given a spherical mirror, that reflects light in a way that corresponds to the attributes of reflection upon a sphere. Roughly speaking, the orange follows the same potential, light's angularity when reflected is matched to that of a sphere, thus we know it is a sphere, it's potential is the same of that. We know that it can't be a cube because the potential is inconsistent with that of a cube, light is not reflecting like it would if it were a cube. If we were even to say that an orange can be a circle and a square at the same time then their potentials must be both construing together equally and at 100 %, but then we would have 200 % and that is impossible.
However, splitting up the perceptions of the orange allows us to do so. We could say that an orange behaves like a sphere while reflecting light, but perhaps another perception would gives it the potential of a cube ( can't think of any off hand though).
So while the orange can't potentially be cubic and spherical at the same time while sought at the same perception for its correlating potential in reality it doesn't change, so it can be two things at once, which I think is simply absurd.... but thats my conclusion so far. Split the perceptions and it becomes more than one thing.
I believe this has important implications to the wave particle duality theory. At such a quantum scale it is hard to determine the actuality of something so we rely on it's potential to find it's corresponding physical attributes.
So what becomes of the actuality of the orange? It doesn't matter, it's actuality is that of its potential, humanity harnesses potential as that is what causes actuality to coexist with reality.

Who cares to try and prove whether an orange can be a circle inside of a sqaure, or a square inside of a circle. Technically, when it comes to the inside of the orange you are loosing the perception of its entirety so it becomes an impossibility for the entirety to be that of a circle and a square at the same time.Smile
 
VideCorSpoon
 
Reply Mon 30 Jun, 2008 03:49 pm
@Holiday20310401,

"Who cares to try and prove whether an orange can be a circle inside of a sqaure, or a square inside of a circle. Technically, when it comes to the inside of the orange you are loosing the perception of its entirety so it becomes an impossibility for the entirety to be that of a circle and a square at the same time."(Holiday20310401)

 
Holiday20310401
 
Reply Mon 30 Jun, 2008 06:17 pm
@VideCorSpoon,
Well then I don't see any importance in dealing with metaphysics if it is not construed with empirical thought for rationalistic purposes. Theoretical reasoning must rely somewhat on what is empirical otherwise it is irrational.
You seems to think that I believe an orange to be that of whatever advocates for the potential it has or is displaying under terms of possible experiment. I believe that most of the potential of an entirety like an orange exists outside of what is empirical.
But it is interesting to note that potential is a two way process. Something tends to have more potential on us when we choose to have potential on it; perhaps that choice is that of having more potential than what was already distributed.
I don't understand your views though. Do you believe that the substrates of an orange when viewed individually are still an orange?
And no I have never read a single piece of Aristotle's work thus his very work is metaphysical in nature to me;), That of course doesn't mean that it isn't important:rolleyes:. lol.

Also, how do you define metaphysical, and why do you find it important? (I'm not saynig its a waste of time I actually like it over philosophy sometimes)
 
VideCorSpoon
 
Reply Mon 30 Jun, 2008 08:59 pm
@Holiday20310401,
http://www.philosophyforum.com/forum/images/icons/icon14.gif LOL!
 
Holiday20310401
 
Reply Mon 30 Jun, 2008 10:16 pm
@VideCorSpoon,
VideCorSpoon wrote:
Metaphysics is one of those philosophical processes that rely on abstract notions beyond empirical principles. That theoretical reasoning's must rely on anything empirical is an irrational statement. That's exactly what theoretical means.

But one needs to have insight to even begin to have a theory, otherwise it is just a hypothesis, and it is much more fun to prove a theory rather than speculate upon a hypothesis, although I suppose that is just an opinion.:rolleyes:

VideCorSpoon wrote:
Your thoughts have merit, but not in the sense of metaphysics or ontology. My thoughts relate more to Aristotelian ontological metaphysics.

What pride do you get from your hypothetical reasoning if not from vanity in thinking, perhaps this is the difference between a rationalist and an empiricist. I have yet to classify myself as one of the two.SurprisedSad


VideCorSpoon wrote:


Interesting how when discussing God we end the thread deviating from it. lol.
 
VideCorSpoon
 
Reply Tue 1 Jul, 2008 09:33 am
@Holiday20310401,
One needs a hypothesis to have a theory. Insight is a relative term. Metaphysics and empirical systems provide hypotheses in their own different ways since they are different methods of thought. Insight is that fundamental factor that is incorporated in both, however in different perspectives, whether it be abstract or evidential. But speculating on a hypothesis is philosophy in a way. I agree with you, it is more fun to develop a theory than speculate wildly. I suppose that that is why I find truth functional logic (in all its forms) a fundamental necessity in philosophical practicability.

The pride I get from hypothetical reasoning is this. First, pride is hubris thus I never put any philosophical system on a pedestal where I would be particularly gleamy-eyed over it. Francis Bacon delivered a memorable translation by St. Thomas Aquinas which stated, "Man doth like an ape that the higher he climbed, the more he shown of his behind." This is all too true. The more people tend to understand even a single concept, the more special they seem to think of themselves. That understanding, that one is more special than the other, has led to numerous atrocities in history. It seems like many people enter the philosophical realm in order to gain some bit of power, whether it be knowledge, oratorical prowess, whatever. (
 
Holiday20310401
 
Reply Tue 1 Jul, 2008 12:49 pm
@VideCorSpoon,
I'll try to come up with proof for how god exists some time, or perhaps God's very meaning is for the concept of faith and transcendence. I figured that must be the case so I tried to rationalize the concept of having some sort of faith in my life, and have yet to see its value.
And no I'm not really 'mad' or angry that I believe now that God doesn't exist in my opinion. I think it is just that I have come to rationalistic terms with the insight I have gained in the past that allows me to conclude its nonexistence.
Perhaps why we deviate from the original topic is that people rather have a finite perspective instead of logically constructing the views of an 'ultimate' like God sort of.
 
 

 
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 08/15/2020 at 02:00:13