1. Standard memberwittywonka
    Chocolate Expert
    Cocoa Mountains
    Joined
    26 Nov '06
    Moves
    19249
    22 Jan '07 23:57
    Can God make a rock that's so big that he can't move it? ๐Ÿ™‚
  2. Standard memberDoctorScribbles
    BWA Soldier
    Tha Brotha Hood
    Joined
    13 Dec '04
    Moves
    49088
    23 Jan '07 02:55
    Originally posted by wittywonka
    Can God make a rock that's so big that he can't move it? ๐Ÿ™‚
    No. Contrary to what is taught in Sunday School, there are many, many things God cannot do.
  3. London
    Joined
    02 Mar '04
    Moves
    36063
    23 Jan '07 18:53
    Originally posted by wittywonka
    Can God make a rock that's so big that he can't move it? ๐Ÿ™‚
    Some Islamic schools of thought think He can.
  4. Standard memberwittywonka
    Chocolate Expert
    Cocoa Mountains
    Joined
    26 Nov '06
    Moves
    19249
    23 Jan '07 21:41
    Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
    No. Contrary to what is taught in Sunday School, there are many, many things God cannot do.
    I don't mean it literally...it's just a paradox.
  5. Standard memberDoctorScribbles
    BWA Soldier
    Tha Brotha Hood
    Joined
    13 Dec '04
    Moves
    49088
    23 Jan '07 21:55
    Originally posted by wittywonka
    I don't mean it literally...it's just a paradox.
    "Contradictions do not exist. Whenever you think you are facing a contradiction, check your premises. You will find that one of them is wrong." -- Ayn Rand
  6. Joined
    25 Sep '04
    Moves
    1779
    23 Jan '07 22:461 edit
    If you want answers I suggest you Google the question and see what you get.
  7. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52615
    23 Jan '07 23:18
    Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
    No. Contrary to what is taught in Sunday School, there are many, many things God cannot do.
    Can god have a baby?
  8. Joined
    06 Jul '06
    Moves
    2926
    24 Jan '07 05:45
    how did this thread turn racist?
  9. Standard memberDoctorScribbles
    BWA Soldier
    Tha Brotha Hood
    Joined
    13 Dec '04
    Moves
    49088
    24 Jan '07 06:318 edits
    The post that was quoted here has been removed
    I take Rand's statement to mean that contradictions don't manifest in reality. That is, it is never the case in any actual universe that both A and Not-A are true, where A is any claim about the way the universe is.

    I don't take Rand's statement to mean that logical statements representing contradictions can't be constructed or conceived of. On the contrary, counterexamples to such an assertion are trivial to find. Here's one: the proposition (A and Not-A).

    This interpretation applies to Russell's paradox in two main ways.

    First, Russel's R, the set of all sets that are not members of themselves, can never manifest in reality, the domain to which I take Rand's claim to refer, so R can never both be and not be a member of itself, as it can never be at all. Thus, R is not a counterexample to Rand's claim. I believe Hilbert's analysis of the R paradox is along these lines.

    Alternatively, Rand's admonition to check ones premises upon finding a contradiction is precisely what set theorists pursued, an endeavor which has enriched the field and led to better understanding. Contrast this to rejecting the admonition, in which case set theorists would have just thrown up their hands, said "Well, that's weird" and moved on. The prior axioms simply corresponded to a set of premises that obscurely entailed (A and Not-A). I think it is clear that the possibility of constructing such a set of premises is not what Rand was denying.

    Finally, I think it is generally accepted that Rand was a legitimate child.
  10. Standard memberBosse de Nage
    Zellulรคrer Automat
    Spiel des Lebens
    Joined
    27 Jan '05
    Moves
    83887
    24 Jan '07 09:46
    Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
    Finally, I think it is generally accepted that Rand was a legitimate child.
    Lucifer played postman in that particular case.
  11. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    24 Jan '07 09:55
    Originally posted by wittywonka
    Can God make a rock that's so big that he can't move it? ๐Ÿ™‚
    The problem here is not in the limits to Gods abilities but in the limit of the language being used. If there exists an entity called God which made the universe then it is possible that he is capable of moving a rock of any size within the universe. However it is theoretically possible for God to make a rock that fills the entire universe and thus cannot be moved as moving would loose its meaning in that case. But loss of meaning is not the same thing as failure to do.
    The evidence is however, that the laws of physics are consistent within the observable universe, so whatever God may be capable of, he doesn't seem to ever violate the laws of physics in an observable way.
  12. Donationkirksey957
    Outkast
    With White Women
    Joined
    31 Jul '01
    Moves
    91452
    24 Jan '07 21:58
    Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
    "Contradictions do not exist. Whenever you think you are facing a contradiction, check your premises. You will find that one of them is wrong." -- Ayn Rand
    DoctorScribbles, today I was reading about this Komodo Dragan in Manchester that is a virgin, yet it gave birth (layed eggs) to about five little Komodos. What is your take on this from two areas? First the whole contradiction discussion as this seems to be a contradiction. Secondly, I have heard nothing but silence from the religious world about this phenomenon. Could they feel threatened by this as it may suggest that Jesus is returning as 5 Komodo Dragons?
  13. Standard memberDoctorScribbles
    BWA Soldier
    Tha Brotha Hood
    Joined
    13 Dec '04
    Moves
    49088
    24 Jan '07 22:348 edits
    Originally posted by kirksey957
    DoctorScribbles, today I was reading about this Komodo Dragan in Manchester that is a virgin, yet it gave birth (layed eggs) to about five little Komodos. What is your take on this from two areas? First the whole contradiction discussion as this seems to be a contradiction. Secondly, I have heard nothing but silence from the religious world about this ...[text shortened]... uld they feel threatened by this as it may suggest that Jesus is returning as 5 Komodo Dragons?
    What is your take on this from two areas? First the whole contradiction discussion as this seems to be a contradiction.

    Reverend, this is the very sort of practical problem that Rand was addressing. We only have a contradiction in the present case if we persist in believing that a mother and father are required to produce a Komodo dragon. When faced with these five bastards, we have a choice: either remain in ignorance, misunderstanding and wonder, or examine our premises, figure out their flaws and repair our beliefs accordingly.

    However, we don't need to look to exotic reptiles to find such applications. We have already seen a mathematical one in this thread. Another is the seeming contradiction of a priest who molests children, steals from the collection plate, or rapes nuns. People generally hold the impression that priests ought to be respected merely in virtue of being priests, and this is a premise that clearly needs to be checked.

    Secondly, I have heard nothing but silence from the religious world about this phenomenon. Could they feel threatened by this as it may suggest that Jesus is returning as 5 Komodo Dragons?

    Well, in contrast to scientists who readily discuss open questions that are bound to shake and call for revision of long held scientific beliefs, many religious leaders are socially and professionally committed to maintaining their beliefs in the face of conflicting evidence, and thus often require time to figure out how their present beliefs can be molded into coherence with the new evidence, so that when they do finally address the subject, it looks as if their religion held the answers all along. Think about it...when is the last time Ivanhoe posted a VIS article with a headline like "New Evidence Calls Veracity of the Flood Story into Question" or "Cosmologists Conclude that Solar System Would Be Destroyed if Sun Actually Stood Still over Jericho." Why would you now expect a headline like "Did Noah Really Need to Put Two Komodos on the Ark?" or "One Man and one Woman: Maybe not God's Design After All."
  14. Joined
    20 Jan '07
    Moves
    1005
    25 Jan '07 00:251 edit
    Originally posted by wittywonka
    Can God make a rock that's so big that he can't move it? ๐Ÿ™‚
    God cannot do everything. He's not superman.

    But god can create the big rock and ask superman to move it.

    Is it the correct answer?
  15. Donationkirksey957
    Outkast
    With White Women
    Joined
    31 Jul '01
    Moves
    91452
    25 Jan '07 02:56
    Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
    [b]What is your take on this from two areas? First the whole contradiction discussion as this seems to be a contradiction.

    Reverend, this is the very sort of practical problem that Rand was addressing. We only have a contradiction in the present case if we persist in believing that a mother and father are required to produce a Komodo dragon ...[text shortened]... wo Komodos on the Ark?" or "One Man and one Woman: Maybe not God's Design After All."[/b]
    OK, this is getting better. I've been exercisin my brain and doing some research. The process is called "parthenogenesis" in which two sets of female chromosomes are used to reproduce. Here's some more discouraging news for some people in this forum. The offspring are always male. So what this means is that mother nature has created a situation in which incest is the means of propogating the population.

    So if momma Komodo gets swept out to sea and ends up on some island with no males, all she has to do is go through this process and try not to eat the bastard lizard.
Back to Top