Can God....
 

come up with two positive integers such that when you cube each and add them up, you get the cube of a third integer?

Re: Can God....
 

That depends heavily on your definition of God.

It's much like the question "Can Jesus microwave a burrito so hot that even he cannot eat it"...

If one is to accept God/Jesus as an all powerful being then of course any task might be achieved, even one that removes the free will of the creator.

Re: Can God....
 

This reminds me of a sci-fi story a long time ago. Called 'Scrabble with God'. If you can find it, it's kind of humorous.

b

Re: Can God....
 

Not in my (untrained) opinion.

Re: Can God....
 

WE dont care

Re: Can God....
 

The question is basically a rephrasing of "if god is all powerfull can he make a rock so big he can't lift it?"

And the best response to the question is simply that you are presenting a meaningless question. Just because you can put the grammatical elements together doesn't mean the resulting sentence is semantically sound.

Re: Can God....
 

"The question is basically a rephrasing of "if god is all powerfull can he make a rock so big he can't lift it?"

And the best response to the question is simply that you are presenting a meaningless question. Just because you can put the grammatical elements together doesn't mean the resulting sentence is semantically sound."

Although I don't understand half the stuff you say, I basically agree with your first sentence although it would have been clearer if you had chosen the can God make a four sided triangle question.

But answer me this: What percentage of religious Christians who know that my question was proven to be impossible by mathmeticians, would still claim that God could do it?

Re: Can God....
 

"What percentage of religious Christians who know that my question was proven to be impossible by mathmeticians, would still claim that God could do it?"

Much greater than zero, I am sure. The point, please?

Re: Can God....
 

I am the only 1 that thinks Dave is a weirdo?

Re: Can God....
 

"What percentage of religious Christians who know that my question was proven to be impossible by mathmeticians, would still claim that God could do it?"

Much greater than zero, I am sure. The point, please?


That you should regard them the same way Dick Cheyney should regard someone who votes for Bush becaus he likes Bush's haircolor.

Re: Can God....
 

[ QUOTE ]
The question is basically a rephrasing of "if god is all powerfull can he make a rock so big he can't lift it?"

And the best response to the question is simply that you are presenting a meaningless question. Just because you can put the grammatical elements together doesn't mean the resulting sentence is semantically sound.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are wrong. The sentence is most definitely semantically sound. In fact, there are no reasons whatsoever to assume that it is not. The problem with the sentence is that the proposition expressed by the sentence is paradoxical. Just like "This sentence is false" and other wellknown semantic paradoxes.

However, the best response is by no means to declare the sentence meaningless, because it is clearly not. Even truth-conditional semantics would not declare such a sentence meaningless.

I don't think there is any widespread agreement on how best to solve these puzzles, but i.e. Tarski's idea of object and meta languages is a far better response than merely judging the sentence meaningless

In regards to theological discussions of i.e. god's capabilities, power etc. I find these kinds of examples to be entirely misplaced for the following reason: If I believe that an all powerful omniscient being exiss, it then seems to me, that I thereby transcend the laws of logic and thus transcend the requirement of providing a coherent explanation to such questions as David's. Namely because the idea of an omniscient all powerful being is rather incoherent in itself.

Whether or not such a belief can be considered rational is an entirely different discussion.

Re: Can God....
 

[ QUOTE ]
"What percentage of religious Christians who know that my question was proven to be impossible by mathmeticians, would still claim that God could do it?"

Much greater than zero, I am sure. The point, please?


That you should regard them the same way Dick Cheyney should regard someone who votes for Bush becaus he likes Bush's haircolor.

[/ QUOTE ]

Or: That you should regard them the same way Dick Cheyney should regard someone who votes for Bush becaus he likes Bush's policies.

Re: Can God....
 

[ QUOTE ]
"What percentage of religious Christians who know that my question was proven to be impossible by mathmeticians, would still claim that God could do it?"

Much greater than zero, I am sure. The point, please?

[/ QUOTE ]

Much greater than zero for religious Jews too, I am sure.
hahahahahahahaahaha
wait - my post wasnt funny. oh well i am bored
weeeeeeeeee

Re: Can God....
 

If God does not exist, then does the Devil himself not exist as well?

All this religion talk is making feel like watching Dogma again...

Re: Can God....
 

[ QUOTE ]
If God does not exist, then does the Devil himself not exist as well?

All this religion talk is making feel like watching Dogma again...

[/ QUOTE ]

if the Devil exists does that mean that God exists?

is that the same question but in a different format. i never took a logic class

~A -> ~B
therefore
B -> A?
correct?? if so are there any other eqns that are equivalent? (-> equals implies in case i am misusing it)
thanks

contrapositive
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If God does not exist, then does the Devil himself not exist as well?

All this religion talk is making feel like watching Dogma again...

[/ QUOTE ]

if the Devil exists does that mean that God exists?

is that the same question but in a different format. i never took a logic class

~A -> ~B
therefore
B -> A?
correct?? if so are there any other eqns that are equivalent? (-> equals implies in case i am misusing it)
thanks

[/ QUOTE ]

nm its called a contrapositive
haha i should not fall asleep in cs20 LOL

in case u cared
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If God does not exist, then does the Devil himself not exist as well?

All this religion talk is making feel like watching Dogma again...

[/ QUOTE ]



if the Devil exists does that mean that God exists?

is that the same question but in a different format. i never took a logic class

~A -> ~B
therefore
B -> A?
correct?? if so are there any other eqns that are equivalent? (-> equals implies in case i am misusing it)
thanks

[/ QUOTE ]

nm its called a contrapositive
haha i should not fall asleep in cs20 LOL

[/ QUOTE ]

In Aristotelian logic (or categorical logic), moreover, categorical propositions can have contrapositives.

The contrapositive of "All S is P" is "All P is S." (These are "A" propositions.)
The contrapositive of "No S is P" is "No P is S." (These are "E" propositions.)
The contrapositive of "Some S is P" is "Some P is S." (These are "I" propositions.)
The contrapositive of "Some S is not P" is "Some P is not S." (These are "O" propositions.)
So-called "E" and "I" propositions are logically equivalent to their contrapositives. For example, we can always infer from "no bachelors are women" to "no women are bachelors" (as well as the converse inference) and from "some dogs are flea-bitten animals" to "some flea-bitten animals are dogs" (and conversely).

However, so-called "A" and "O" propositions are not logically equivalent to their contrapositives. For example, from "all violins are musical instruments," we cannot infer "all musical instruments are violins." Similarly, from "some plants are not trees," we cannot infer "some trees are not plants."




Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contrapositive"

Re: Can God....
 

God, if he decided to waste a few minutes on parlor tricks, could certainly violate the rules that he has established for mathematics by showing cube + cube equals cube, or for chemistry by transmuting water into wine.

Having shown you such a non-reproduceable event, having violated the natural laws he's established, what will he have done except convince a person who's willing to believe that God exists and convince a person who is not willing to believe that said person is ready, willing and able to hallucinate?

An omnipotent deity can do whatever the hell he wants, but His results are what? If two such integers exist then they either exist within the natural framework or outside it. If inside it, then people will convince themselves that it is a feature of the natural system. If outside it, then it is meaningless to anyone other than the recipient of this vision.

Re: Can God....
 

Fine, as long as this is understood to be completely irrelevant to those Christians who don't believe that God could do such a thing. To draw conclusions about Christianity as a whole is a different kind of logical error, as I have said elsewhere.

Some atheists are capable of equally irrational beliefs. But I don't see the sense in starting a thread with an example, since it proves very little.

Re: Can God....
 

Mathematics is a creation of man. Being created by man it is limited to the abilities of man. I would say God can't in the present enviroment. Mathematics is not Gods creation. It is a result of his creation. I think this would be a good question for a group of MIT students on Acid.

Re: Can God....
 

David, is your reasoning in this thread so far intended to demonstrate anything about the validity of Christianity?

Re: Can God....
 

Yes, he can, by definition. If he could not do this, he couldn't be omnipotent and then couldn't be God, if God is defined as an omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent being being who takes an interest in humanity (this is important otherwise there would be no difference between God and Nature).

Just because God can do it doesn't mean we can even begin to understand it.

N.B. I don't really have any beliefs about the existence of God as it seems silly to me to believe something which I can neither prove nor have a strong innate feeling about. (I know this is illogical really as that basis for belief is only valid based on itself, but I don't really care because I have nothing better.) All I'm saying is that if God did exist then he would be able to do this type of seemingly impossible thing and it would just be beyond the ability of humans to fathom it.

Some say that this is an evasive answer, and it probably is, but if we accept that there are things which are possible and the we understand that say, ants, do not understand and we also accept that God has higher comprehension powers than ourselves (which I would argue we must accept given how I defined God, above) then it seems logically consistent to say that there are things which God can understand that we cannot.

I suppose it probably comes down to how you define God, or logic, or both.

Re: Can God....
 

Yes, he can, by definition. If he could not do this, he couldn't be omnipotent and then couldn't be God, if God is defined as an omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent being being who takes an interest in humanity (this is important otherwise there would be no difference between God and Nature).

Thus Felson is dumb fo believing otherwise?

Re: Can God....
 

"Thus Felson is dumb for believing otherwise?"

I have been accused of worse.

David, are you going to answer my question in this thread?

Re: Can God....
 

[ QUOTE ]

"Yes, he can, by definition. If he could not do this, he couldn't be omnipotent and then couldn't be God, if God is defined as an omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent being being who takes an interest in humanity (this is important otherwise there would be no difference between God and Nature)."


Thus Felson is dumb for believing otherwise?

[/ QUOTE ]

As you are so fond of saying, it depends.

If Felson believes that God is omnipotent and also that he solve the problem you set out in your original question, well I'd hesitate to call him "dumb" but this certainly seems inconsistent.

If Felson has some other definition of God, well that's up to him.

Felson, I would be interested to know how you do define God. If you want to say that God is so complex and any definition would, inherently, be restrictive as it would be bounding an infinite and abstract being with words which have finite and specific meanings then fine, I can't really argue with this.

Re: Can God....
 

I would rather say that we disagree on the meaning of omnipotent. I don't believe that the definition of omnipotence should include the ability to do things that are logically impossible.

When Christians say that omnipotence means "all-powerful," I think that the "logically possible" part should be assumed. If you disagree, then okay. My understanding of the Christian God is such that he fails to meet your definition of omnipotence. He does satisfy my understanding of the word.

Re: Can God....
 

Your question embraces infinity. In that sense it also embraces God.
/M

Re: Can God....
 

When Christians say that omnipotence means "all-powerful," I think that the "logically possible" part should be assumed.

If God is bounded by logic, where does this stop? Is it logical that you can fly? Can God make you fly? Is it only logical that you can fly if it is God who is making you fly? If so, isn't your definition recursive and therefore useless?

I don't really see how you define what is and is not logical.

Re: Can God....
 

My flying does not entail a logical contradiction. It only violates the laws of nature as we understand them. So yes, an omnipotent being should be able to make me fly.

This is very different from the question David posed or the question of whether God can make a four-sided Euclidean triangle. For those questions, the logical consequences are obvious.

Judging from his posts in this thread, my guess is that David and I have reached a rare point of agreement here. But I would still like to hear his response to my earlier question.

Re: Can God....
 

[ QUOTE ]

My flying does not entail a logical contradiction. It only violates the laws of nature as we understand them. So yes, an omnipotent being should be able to make me fly.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well David's initial question does not entail a logical contradiction then, it only violates the laws of mathematics as we understand them.

What's the difference between nature and mathematics? Is it that the latter is intrinsically logical as it is based on logic?

But when you refer to the "laws of nature", you're really just talking about how an object moves in space, which is physics. Physics is based on mathematics which, in turn, is based on logic. So what's the difference?

Re: Can God....
 

"Well David's initial question does not entail a logical contradiction then, it only violates the laws of mathematics as we understand them."

Yes it does. The nonexistence of a solution to David's question has been formally proved (assume correctly for the sake of argument). Formal mathematical proofs are pure logic. Hence, the existence of a solution implies a logical contradiction.

The laws of physics are our models based on our experiences with the world. The laws of gravity and Newtonian physics are based on what we have seen. But if someday an apple stem breaks and the apple does not fall (and is not otherwise supported by familiar means), it is not a logical contradiction. It means that the laws of physics as we understand them were not a sufficient model of the real world.

If you still can't see the difference, I'm not going to try to persuade you further.

Re: Can God....
 

[ QUOTE ]
The laws of physics are our models based on our experiences with the world.

[/ QUOTE ]

What on earth are you talking about? This is not at all what physics is.

The only way to prove anything in physics is through math. This is why the words "experiment" and "hypothesis" do not mean the same thing as the word "proof".

Edited to add: Why do you not want to try to persuade me further? There have been no personal remarks or general unpleasantness in this thread, it has just been a fairly amicable discussion regarding the nature of God. Your remarks have mainly been those of opinion and belief and thus any disagreement with them has not been worth much. I don't understand why you would want to end the thread with a remark (the one about physics) which is unquestionably wrong. Or maybe this was an attempt to demonstrate the limits of logic? [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]

Re: Can God....
 

Okay, then I'll take another stab at it.

First, my attempt to sign off was simply because I don't think it probable that either 1) either of us will persuade the other or 2) any interesting new arguments will be unveiled. Therefore, this discussion does not look to be productive.

I did not mean to indicate that you had been personally unpleasant to me. Sorry if it sounded that way.

Second, physics is an experimental science. Newton's laws and the law of gravity were arrived at through experimental means: modeling of physical phenomena. Math was used to ensure their internal logical consistency. However, this math does not guarantee that the model matches the universe.

General relativity is the better match. See, when the flaws in Newtonian physics were discovered, they didn't imply that physics was riddled with logical contradictions. They just showed that the Newtonian model was an incomplete model of reality.

Mathematics on the other hand is all model, no reality. If there is a solution to David's sum of cubes question, then that would be a logical contradiction.

If this still doesn't make sense, then maybe someone else can explain this better than I can.

Re: Can God....
 

[ QUOTE ]
come up with two positive integers such that when you cube each and add them up, you get the cube of a third integer?

[/ QUOTE ]

I can, but I have to do it in the universe next door. Things work differently there, youl have to trust me on that one because your feeble ape like mind cant realy comprehend what I am talking about.

As for making a rock that I cant lift. Did that last week. I just turned my self into a ant. There were a lot of feckin rocks I couldnt lift. I obviously turned myself back in to my omni-rock lifting self later.

You didnt say "never" lift did you.I could do this but couldnt explain how here. Yes its that puny ape mind again.

The only problem I have is that only Satan can create funny posts.

Re: Can God....
 

Here is another attempt to show the difference between math and physics.

If you had enough time, enough pen and paper, and enough cleverness, you could derive from scratch every mathematical achievement known to man without ever leaving your desk. That's because math is purely logic.

With the same conditions, you would not be able to duplicate all achievements in the field of physics. For example: the structure of the atom, the particle nature of light, the gravitational constant, or the speed of light. (Perhaps I am wrong about some of these but certainly not all of them.) That is because physics depends on experimentation in addition to mathematical calculation. Physics is not purely logic, in the same sense as math.

If something "unexpected" happens in math, it means that your pen and paper led you astray. If you didn't make any mistakes, then we have a logical contradiction.

If something "unexpected" happens in physics, it might not be the fault of the pen and paper. Maybe you just didn't do enough experiments. This is very different from a logical contradiction.

So God can make me fly. That might violate the laws of physics as we know them. But it still doesn't mean a logical contradiction, because even the current laws of physics are based on our observations of what has happened. They have not been "proved" in the same sense that math theorems have been. We trust them a lot because they've worked very well so far, but we can never know for 100% sure that we have done enough experiments. 99.999999%, maybe. 100%, no.

If something bizarre like that did happen today, you can bet that scores of physicists would be at their desks tomorrow trying to incorporate it.

If something like that happened in math, then we would all be in trouble.

Re: Can God....
 

[ QUOTE ]
God, if he decided to waste a few minutes on parlor tricks, could certainly violate the rules that he has established for mathematics by showing cube + cube equals cube

[/ QUOTE ]

How do you know god established the rules of mathematics? Maybe they exist independently of God?

You might say God created everything, so he created mathematics.
Well he couldn't have created himself, though maybe you would dispute this?
I say its logically impossible for him to create himself in the same way the 4 sided triangle is impossible.

He didn't create Hamlet did he? What about highway speed limit regulations? The Holocaust? Moral facts?

Seems to me man created a lot of things and atleast some things must have no creator and exist independently of God or man.

Thoughts?

Re: Can God....
 

I'd like to rephrase/generalize the question even futher--Can God perform the logically impossible? After all, if we're going to apply logic we want the most general form for our proposition. I think we can take it a step further though. How about, "Is the logically impossible ever possible?" Well, that just amounts to asking whether logic, as a system, is correct. Unfortunately for those of us who think it is, we can't use logic to answer this question, or to refute the people who say we're wrong.

So where does that leave us? Absolutely nowhere, and unless you're a fellow philosopher I doubt you want to stick around there for very long. If you do though, feel free to PM me.

As to why people believe what they do (i.e. that God can do the logically impossible) . . . we could spend the rest of our lives trying to answer it accurately, or just simplify the answer to, "because (they believe) it makes their lives better." Telling someone that their beliefs are wrong because you or I believe so is a very delicate business, and in my opinion, is the great violence possible. So let's assume everyone is correct about what makes their own lives better. They're not, of course. Then again, neither are you and I, but that's for each person to deal with on their own, in the company of trusted intimates.

Scott

Re: Can God....
 

OK, you're correct about the distinction between maths and physics in that physics is often a set of mathematical calculations given that X and Y are true and it's possible (although extraordinaly unlikely) that they're not.

But mathematics is based on human calculations. And, there is some probability that these human calculations have been consistently wrong. Perhaps as humans we assume things in mathematics are true when they just are not.

I mean, logic is like this to an extent. The answer has to stop at some statement. For example, say that we both saw a screwdriver on a table (and there is no chance that we saw it incorrectly or that the light was reflecting strangely or whatever). We also know that my screwdriver is blue and yours is red. The screwdriver on the table is red. (Assume we know the screwdriver must belong to one of us etc.) A conversation could go something like this:

Me: "That's my screwdriver."
You: "No, it's mine."
Me: "Of course it's not yours, it's red."
You: "Yes, mine is red and that one was red therefore that one is mine."
Me: "No, mine is blue and that one was red therefore that one is mine."

You can't prove you are correct any more than by saying that your screwdriver is red and the one on the table is also red. It seems obvious, due to the way that our minds work that this means the screwdriver on the table is yours. But, if our minds worked slightly differently, it might make absolute sense and seem "logically consistent" that because the screwdriver on the table was red and mine is blue then it is mine.

This is why logic is a human invention, it just reflects the way that we think. You can say "The screwdriver on the table is red and my screwdriver is red therefore the screwdriver on the table is my screwdriver." But the initial clause only leads to the therefore because our minds accept that this is the case and dub this trail of thoughts "logic". This isn't proof of anything, it's just how people's minds work. To say that God is bounded by rules invented by humans as a reflection of how our minds work is silly.

And you might say that logic is true because observations based on logic take place. But what were you saying about observations before? That rules are based on observations which is why the observations are true, not vice versa?

Re: Can God....
 

I am not sure that I understand your reasoning.

But what if we replace David's sum-of-cubes question (where we could possibly accept a flawed proof by mistake) with "Can God make a four-sided Euclidean triangle?" It's hard to see how we can make your kind of mistake there.

Re: Can God....
 

You are saying two things which contradict each other can be both be true? I don't follow your reasoning.

Logic doesn't just reflect the way we think. It reflects the way things are.

Thats why making sound logical choices in poker wins the money.
The person who thought that his screw driver is blue, and that the one on table is red so the one on the table is his, would lose all his money at poker. His mind simply doesn't work correctly.

There is a fact of the matter about how things are, minds working differently doesnt change who is the actual owner of the screwdriver, and it doesnt change who is logically consistent. They cannot both be logically consistent, they contradict each other. The crazy dude might seem logically consistent to himself however that is irrelevant to his actual logical consistency.