That's what Eli said also. I'd like to point out that a triangle on a sphere is not a two dimensional object because it has become a 3-dimensional shape, and isn't really a triangle anymore. If it does still count as a triangle then;

Could God create a rock so heavy that he could not lift it?
(Eli said lift is relative to center of gravity, and everything orbits--which I liked, so)

Could God make a Round Square, or cube a triangle?

If he can, the shape is no longer itself, meaning that it can't be, and if he can't do this, he isn't omnipotent. The problem is with having definitions. You could either say this is a proof against logic or a proof against omnipotence, but the two are mutually exclusive. If you disagree, ask Descartes. He disagrees. Though his definition of omnipotence is logical only in terms of being a play on words. It would be good to have ideas without words. They are so misleading.

SO, Arguments about this sort of thing-"what happens when an unstoppable force meets an immovable object"-can't be real. *

Can we establish a system of logic that couldn't be swayed by the Sky God or Brahma or The Father? I think so, simply because logic isn't real anyway.
I mean; 2+2=4, right. That has become a "fact" somehow, but "2" and "2" and "4" are only dots on a screen or lines on a page or sounds in your ear. They are not real and thus unlike the universe, exist within a system of laws all thier own. If "4" represented five objects, than 2+2=4 would be idiotic, but once the rules are established, they are real in a way that real things are not. They stand on their own and do not exist at all simultaneously. The are processes in our wet little 3-lb computers.


Can an omnipotent being establish a system of logic and then violate that system?
I don't think so, but that's because you can't furnish objective evidence for the existence of any such thing. why? because any evidence would have to be outside of said logical system, and as long as we are in said logical system (and it appears that we exist in a system for which logic stands), than we will never actually achieve the necessary evidence without breaking the rules of existence.

*Also, "if by immovable object, you mean that girl over by the bar, and if by unstoppable force you mean Brian, than clearly when you say "a logical paradox ensues" you mean "they do it."

posted by Adrian   [8:38 PM]

[ website ] :: [ contact ] :: [ home ]

XML