Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4 5 6
Results 101 to 109 of 109
  1. #101
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    9,113
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The omnipotence paradox?

    Quote Originally Posted by CLIVE
    I agree. The distinction is entirely a modal one, though, so the language about "can" and "can't" should try to capture the relevant modalities.
    I'm open to suggestions and not married to any specific term.

    Quote Originally Posted by CLIVE
    That's actually kind of an interesting question. Suppose I said that I could square the circle using a compass and straightedge; is that a gibberish statement? It's certainly a contradictory one, but it seems different than saying "feurahfiu2iu r4uhr49ar aor4hroahefa".
    Well as long as a statement uses logically contradictory language within it, it is no different than gibberish because neither comunicate any information.
    I can say "Married Bachelor", and we understand that each word has meaning on it's own, But as a whole it doesn't communicate any more than random bashing of keys..
    To serve man.

  2. #102
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Wheaton, IL
    Posts
    13,847
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The omnipotence paradox?

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Well as long as a statement uses logically contradictory language within it, it is no different than gibberish because neither comunicate any information.
    I can say "Married Bachelor", and we understand that each word has meaning on it's own, But as a whole it doesn't communicate any more than random bashing of keys..
    I'd tend to disagree. Even if there can't be married bachelors, "There can't be any married bachelors" isn't the same as "There can't be any fauehflkreaufhlerkaufhe".
    If I am capable of grasping God objectively, I do not believe, but precisely because I cannot do this I must believe. - Soren Kierkegaard
    **** you, I won't do what you tell me

    HOLY CRAP MY BLOG IS AWESOME

  3. #103
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    9,113
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The omnipotence paradox?

    Quote Originally Posted by clive
    I'd tend to disagree. Even if there can't be married bachelors, "There can't be any married bachelors" isn't the same as "There can't be any fauehflkreaufhlerkaufhe".
    Sure it is the same.
    Or else.. what more meaning does "married bachelor" carry that said gibberish does not?
    I no more have a concept of a married bachelor than a faeufhgl..... And both statements are equally in their truth values.

    I'll let your answer be the final word on this, as I'm not really very interested in debating this point here and it may distract from the main point of the thread. (It is an interesting line though)
    To serve man.

  4. #104
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Wheaton, IL
    Posts
    13,847
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The omnipotence paradox?

    Or else.. what more meaning does "married bachelor" carry that said gibberish does not?
    I mean, showing that two propositions entail a contradiction can be very difficult. Squaring the circle and trisecting the angle were open problems in geometry for hundreds of years. "Married bachelor" has meaning because you know what it would mean for a bachelor to be married--you just know that it would logically entail a contradiction.

    Similarly, you know what it would mean to square a circle (given a circle, construct a square with the same area as the circle) with a compass and straightedge. It turns out that you can't do it, that doing so would entail contradiction, etc.

    Analyzing "married bachelor" is different than analyzing "faieuwhafklwaehlfew", because one is nonsense, and the other can be logically analyzed and shown to entail contradiction. That is, "married" has a meaning, "bachelor" has a meaning, and thus you can consider what it would mean for there to be a married bachelor; upon reflection, you'd conclude that such a thing isn't possible. This is very different than analyzing what it would be for there to be faieuwhafklwaehlfew.

    I no more have a concept of a married bachelor than a faeufhgl.....


    Actually, I'd argue that you do. Presumably you know what it would mean for a bachelor to be married, and you know that it would entail contradiction.

    And both statements are equally in their truth values.
    Contradictions are false. Meaningless words aren't even propositions. We know that "X is a married bachelor" is false. "X is faieuwhafklwaehlfew" has no truth value, because it isn't a well-formed formula. It's like saying "1donkey1watermelon2".
    If I am capable of grasping God objectively, I do not believe, but precisely because I cannot do this I must believe. - Soren Kierkegaard
    **** you, I won't do what you tell me

    HOLY CRAP MY BLOG IS AWESOME

  5. #105
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    9,113
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The omnipotence paradox?

    Quote Originally Posted by CLIVE
    Actually, I'd argue that you do. Presumably you know what it would mean for a bachelor to be married, and you know that it would entail contradiction.
    I have no idea what a married person who is a bachelor is.
    To serve man.

  6. #106
    ODN's Crotchety Old Man

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Location, Location
    Posts
    9,671
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The omnipotence paradox?

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    I have no idea what a married person who is a bachelor is.
    Right, but you DO know what the words:

    ~married
    ~person
    ~bachelor
    ~who
    ~is
    ~a
    ~bachelor

    mean, and because you know what they mean, you can assemble those words thusly "married person who is a bachelor" and be certain that those words, assembled in that way, entail a contradiction.

    Whereas if I claimed that "s56$%fsd s*&^f erdft ffs4)(&% as`!@#rss44", you have no idea if there exists a contradiction in such a statement because you have no idea what any of that means.

  7. #107
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    West / East Coast
    Posts
    3,507
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The omnipotence paradox?

    Quote Originally Posted by Dionysus View Post
    But the Bible plainly says that God hardened Pharaoh's heart. So no matter how hard it was, and no matter how much he "wiled" it himself, the Bible plainly says that God hardened it, which raises questions concerning free will, what the limitations of that are, and the extent to which God respects it.
    The MoSes/Pharaoh drama is an interesting study and reflection on the argument of free will. One short response is: The more we forfeit our ability to use reason, be moral agents, use common sense, be understanding, discern, self reflect and be pragmatic and balanced, yes – we will gradually lose our ability to exercise the dynamic agency of free will. Free will is not a stagnant agency. One example: criminals in jail.

    The Pharaoh owned his hardness of heart long before MoSes shows up. He owned the App; he held the domain name; he had the hash tag #hardheart. Yes, God knew and observed the forces at play in this drama. Will God change a vice in us that we strongly identify and relate to against our free will? No, but the formula of life seems to allow his grace to sometimes get involved to try and champion us so that we can willfully choose to let those little demons go. In this ancient world drama that’s what God appears to have done. He creates viral videos that are very interactive and more spectacular then CGI to the degree of being real in the land so as to point out to this political leader:

    “I know you have a hard heart. I understand you want to own your hard heart, and I understand you think you are a god. But, since you won’t consider my request to let your slaves go free and soften your heart, here’s just a small sampling of my power that I’d like you to observe so that you can possibly reconsider and chose to soften your hard heart and let this slaves go free because it’s going to be several thousand years until the Emancipation Proclamation comes alone and these people and their families held in bondage for over 400 years in Egypt need to go free at this time.”

    Now … any reasonable political and/or social leader of that era who wanted to exercise his free will to use reason, common sense, exercise understanding and discernment and be a pragmatic and caring ruler, would have probably responded after the first or maybe even the second major natural disturbance to his people with something like: “Ok Moses, I don’t know who this God of yours is, but I’m willing to cooperate. I’ll keep my word-- after all I'm a god also and I should be moral (even though we are very cruel and heartless to our slaves). Please have your God clean up the place and I will soften my #hardheart; I’ll stop using my HardHeart App and I will let these slaves Egypt has owned for over 400 years go free. Can we possibly compromise/negotiate and maybe roll out this exodus in stages so that my people can adjust to the new labor policies that I will put in place? Will that work for your God?”

    That didn’t happen. I don’t think that option was off the table. God does not champion us to be victims of our psychological/emotional junk– but we are championed to be realist, pragmatic, reasonable and moral agents. So, when we choose not to exercise the gift of reason, common sense, choose morality, be understanding and self reflect, but instead we choose to run the same old brain patterns that embrace our vice and extremism of that vice, in this case, hardness of heart – time and time and time again, we’re locked into the outcome of probabilities instead of the possibilities. And the law of life will give us just what we've become. So God knew the Pharaoh owned the HardHeart App and after multiple opportunities to have him try the SoftHeart App, he didn’t want to download it. He didn't even want to try before you buy. Thus, God, through the consequences the Pharaoh had self-created and chosen to embrace, updated his HardHeart App because that’s what this political leader wanted. Without those self created hardness of heart patterns in his life; without those consequences, such an action by the Almighty would not have been relevant.
    Last edited by eye4magic; March 14th, 2015 at 03:32 PM.
    "The universe is immaterial-mental and spiritual.” --"The Mental Universe” | Nature
    [Eye4magic]
    Super Moderator

  8. #108
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    9,113
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The omnipotence paradox?

    Quote Originally Posted by DIO
    Right, but you DO know what the words:

    ~married
    ~person
    ~bachelor
    ~who
    ~is
    ~a
    ~bachelor

    mean, and because you know what they mean, you can assemble those words thusly "married person who is a bachelor" and be certain that those words, assembled in that way, entail a contradiction.

    Whereas if I claimed that "s56$%fsd s*&^f erdft ffs4)(&% as`!@#rss44", you have no idea if there exists a contradiction in such a statement because you have no idea what any of that means.
    Certainly,
    I also know what "s" and "5" and "6" and "$" etc are I reason it to be gibberish, just as I would reason "married bachelor" to be gibberish, or "the is air be speckle potato laugh" Is gibberish.

    Certainly you know what each word means? Yet isn't it gibberish?

    We Know that just because known quantities can be placed next to each other, doesn't mean they carry meaning. Isn't that basically what gibberish is?

    Maybe I'm wrong..
    http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gibberish
    gibberish : foolish, confused, or meaningless words


    I would contend that "married bachelor" is meaningless.


    Anyway, if you guys find that explanation unsatisfactory or untenable, then I withdraw the position. Calling it nonsense is sufficient, it doesn't have to qualify as "gibberish".
    To serve man.

  9. #109
    ODN's Crotchety Old Man

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Location, Location
    Posts
    9,671
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The omnipotence paradox?

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Certainly,
    I also know what "s" and "5" and "6" and "$" etc are I reason it to be gibberish, just as I would reason "married bachelor" to be gibberish, or "the is air be speckle potato laugh" Is gibberish.

    Certainly you know what each word means? Yet isn't it gibberish?

    We Know that just because known quantities can be placed next to each other, doesn't mean they carry meaning. Isn't that basically what gibberish is?

    Maybe I'm wrong..
    http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gibberish
    gibberish : foolish, confused, or meaningless words


    I would contend that "married bachelor" is meaningless.


    Anyway, if you guys find that explanation unsatisfactory or untenable, then I withdraw the position. Calling it nonsense is sufficient, it doesn't have to qualify as "gibberish".
    Think of it this way:

    When you see a contradiction, do you recognize it when you see it?

 

 
Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4 5 6

Similar Threads

  1. God: Omnipotence and Omnibenevolence
    By Soren in forum Religion
    Replies: 48
    Last Post: June 30th, 2011, 03:39 PM
  2. God: The omnipotence paradox and miracles
    By eliotitus in forum Religion
    Replies: 70
    Last Post: August 31st, 2010, 01:01 PM
  3. Omnipotence for the Nth time - the stone paradox and my challenge
    By Allocutus in forum Philosophical Debates
    Replies: 217
    Last Post: February 23rd, 2009, 12:08 PM
  4. Disproving omnipotence
    By Zhavric in forum Religion
    Replies: 38
    Last Post: April 15th, 2007, 06:05 PM
  5. The Paradox of Omnipotence
    By emtee10 in forum Philosophical Debates
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: January 11th, 2005, 10:17 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •