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?

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.

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.

Couse it does. God has to be real, and the rock must be potentially real in order for the situation to potentially occur.

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.

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.

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.


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.



that's the point. It is fallacious in form and substance. Sophistic in intent.

I agree with you midas77. I also see you utilize Aristotelian substantial predicates

You are right to suppose the attributes of orange and round can exists within the same substance. But remember that the word orange is itself an attribute of the substrate. But I agree with you completely. But I think there is an interesting conversation to be had on squarish circularity? I think is may be possible to have that shape within that system.

Also, on the impossibility of a square and circular orange...



Gentlemen... I present the hylomorphic squarange... [cheering and applause to ensue]

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:

Well... the question really is "can god make a rock not even he could lift?" LOL!

Midias77 eludes (at least in content) to an abstract form of ontological metaphysics. I really have no idea if midas77 follows that school, but I do to a point? hence the squarange and my comment.

But besides the main question, the other 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?"

Sure. An orange can be a square and a circle at the same time because the orange (if we adhere to ontological metaphysics) is the "thing which underlies" all predicates, or "attributes" put to it. Can an orange be square and circle at the same time? So if you look at the issue ontologically, yes it can because the orange is the substrate that the geometric attributes are predicated of. I would suppose that the "potential" of either geometrical configuration lies with that substrate? ontologically.



As to the 2D circle in a 3D cube? is there a way to draw a three dimensional circle?

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.

It's interesting that you follow scholasticism, Descartes will be none too pleased. LOL! I think scholasticism has many merits? it's pretty much the foundation of modern philosophy. Mixing Aristotelian philosophical reasoning with religious dogma was essential to a broader understanding of philosophy. But I think that's why there's such a rejection of the conception, especially today. So I appreciate the school as well.

I think one of the main hang ups is (utilizing Aristotelian methodology) is the orange itself. Let me be clear on this point first. Once we start predicating an attribute to the substrate, anything that describes it is a predicate? even the label "orange." Also, this is an understanding in abstract metaphysics. Can the same orange be both circular and square in this system? Yes. Can it be viewed as the same thing outside of that system? Yes and No. I suppose it goes as far as you want to take it. I'm dealing with this system because you express reasonings which in turn leads to me to suppose this is the system to examine. Also, both you (midas77) and Holiday20310401 imply terminology which lends weight to the system (i.e. "potential", "in the same orange," "predicating a square?", etc.)

I disagree with you on the fact that "predicating a square and a circle in the same orange is impossible in the strict supposition of the terms."(midas77) Again, I point out the fallacy of the identification "orange" because that itself is an attribute. Second, we cannot suppose a primary being within its own normative framework (i.e. strict supposition)? it either is or it isn't. If we deal with hypothetical's, we end up with a myriad of tautologies. It's almost as though it is a closed logical system.

I think the problem lies with the fact that, since we are dealing with a metaphysical system, the empirical sense of "orange" and the literal geometric configurations are being thrown into a mix that will not support these assumptions because the system itself is abstract.

This may help explain things a little bit better.




The "potential", the "in the orange" that has been said before is possible because the nature of the configuration is infinite. A square can contain a circle, which contains a triangle, which contains a square, etc. etc. etc. The geometric representations are infinite. But they are attributes of a certain substrate, the preverbal "limit." Closed figure, open figure, whatever? it is all possible within the system. Any attribute will work and meld together.

But you agree that the "orange" can contain a variety of geometrical configurations. Mathematical probability would say the shapes are inscribed to the square, to the circle, etc. That is the abstract concept. But then you mesh the empirical sense of definitive attributes to this assumption. It is a collision of two drastically different worlds. That much is clear to me. We may disagree, but there it is.

But even to say that an orange cannot be both black and orange at the same time again rings of a fallacy of colliding notions. Scientifically, the colors of an orange are a combination of every single color in the spectrum. (i.e. RGB) That is a scientific fact? well theory really. Orange is not orange in itself, it is red, green, blue, black, etc. (But then again orange is one of the those words where it has different meanings.) Perhaps the supposition that it is an "impossibility" is a bit too severe to say.

But your thoughts are not discounted. Far from it. If we were to suppose that the fruit is a fruit purely as a fruit in itself and you dispense with attributes and predicative ideas, and abstract reasoning and look at the orange as its own naturally occurring element in the universe? I suppose it could be granted that both geometric and color configurations are both different, denying any sort of substrate, atomic composition, etc.

So I disagree that geometrical configurations could be treated differently based on a metaphysical normative framework but concede that in limited empirical sense, you could separate and distinguish dis-conjunted shapes if you dispense with metaphysical notions.

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.

What I find important is the distinction between metaphysical and empirical conceptions. I think there may be some confusion with empirical understandings and metaphysical understandings and a problematic mix between the two of them. These two systems are dramatically different from one another and they seldom work well together.

Within the sphere of ontological metaphysics (the exclusive system I am using for my comment) I think we understand the idea of a substrate on different terms. But I think the word "potential" has different connotations for you than the way I have come to understand it. I believe that your conception of potential (if I understand the way you utilize it) refers the empirical conception of a given shape? not the metaphysical conception of it. Potentiality, actuality, notions of humanity, etc. are irrelevant baggage on Aristotelian metaphysical theory. It's not that you are wrong, it's just that your thoughts refer to your own particular normative framework, not metaphysics.

"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)

This seems like why philosophy exists. Triviality ad absurdium. But I addressed this a few posts ago. The orange that people are referring to is not an orange, it is a predicate of the substrate (working within the realm of Aristotelian metaphysics) Geometric configurations do not matter because the substrate contains the "potentiality" so to speak of all shapes.

Your thoughts reveal that what you want to look is purely the empirical notion of an orange. It is understandable if you do. It is easy to understand things in that sense. You see a round, orange-ish object and label it orange and but deny the metaphysical sub-substantial notions. You are totally entitled to those opinions? though they are not metaphysical.

(wink) Yay for emoticons!

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)

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. Not proven in extended terms, only the supposition of fact.

You seem to refer to potentiality like physicists refers to entropy. Simply, potential is the wrong choice of words for this particular issue. Your thoughts have merit, but not in the sense of metaphysics or ontology. My thoughts relate more to my interpretation of post #28 and the subsequent replies as it relates to Aristotelian ontological metaphysics.

Do I believe that the substrate of an orange when viewed individually are still an orange? No. The attributes of the orange (i.e. the shape, color, geometrical configuration, etc.) are predicated (which basically means the describe the thing but are not the thing themselves) of the substrate (the underling feature that is a composite of what we know to be an orange.

How do I define metaphysics? Well, the particular modus I am involved with for this general discussion is Aristotelian ontological metaphysics. First it should be noted that this is a particular method, not my view. Good philosophy involves knowing multiple methodologies but never succumbing to a single one. The main reason it even surfaced was because connotations were interpreted from an earlier post at my discretion. Metaphysics basically translates as "beyond nature." This is also why I disagree with the fact that anything empirical could surface from a study that is purely abstract. In Aristotelian texts, it was an examination of primary being, essentially "what underlies" substance. Aristotelian accounts in Book Zeta delve in to the question of attributes and substrates within the first few sub chapters of this particular subject, hence "Aristotelian" and "ontological." The orange is the sacrificial cow so to speak which was deconstructed in an attempt to explain the concept.

Why do I find it important? Again, certain references necessitated a reply on this exact field. Metaphysics is also believed to be one of the primary ways to understand the gods (in Aristotelian terms)and creation in a logical, syllogistic way. Thus we can to some point tie into the overall discussion

Besides that, it is a complete deviation from the original topic while pertaining loosely to the original subject if the conversation wanted to back track? which I believe is whether god could lift some boulder and sneeze or something like that.

Thumbs up emoticon!!! LOL!

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:


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.




Interesting how when discussing God we end the thread deviating from it. lol.

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. (I know I did. I'm not an idealist, I take philosophy for what it is. Philosophy has something to offer that the concrete sciences could never offer? abstraction.) It is evidenced whenever a philosophical argument or debate ignites. We stress proving a point rather than collectively hashing out a theory. Is this type of "philosophy" for knowledge or progression? Sure. But I suppose philosophy will never return to relativistic hypothetical frameworks anytime soon the way Aristotle and the ancients had hoped for. So whether you choose between rationalist or empiricist? you side with a particular train of thought and narrow you understanding of the other in the process. When we see the moon, we see the light and the dark sides, but always forget the penumbra, that grey part in between the two sides that reveals the sharp details of cavernous valleys and elevated mountains. The penumbra is the locus of truth.

I agree. It is interesting that most discussions about God quickly deviate from the original topic. Not to mention the fact that 2 out of every 3 threads on this forum is about God and how he/she sucks. But what strikes me the most is the ratio of threads of those that try to disprove God as opposed to prove God. Philosophy should never be partial, yet I read many times over how insane it is to believe in God. But it is always anger, never rationalization that surfaces in these arguments. And when there is some modicum of rationalization against God, anger always underlies it. I have yet to see a thread where anyone, believer or not, has tried to constructively prove the existence of God. Philosophy is abstract reasoning, yet those that would disprove God uphold the fundamental notions of ignorance by limiting the notion and supporting opposition rather than fundamental abstract discussion. The same goes for those that adherently apply for the existence of God.

This thread falls into a different category though, since it is a logical examination of the subject and has the potential to come to some constructive answers.

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.