Can God....

[Kripke]

[ 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.

[Kripke]

[ 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.

[FrankLu99]

[ 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

[Lawrence Ng]

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...

[FrankLu99]

[ 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

[FrankLu99]

[ 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

[FrankLu99]

[ 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"

[bisonbison]

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.

[felson]

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.

[uaw420rook]

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.