It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Let's Talk Paradoxes!

page: 2
8
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 5 2016 @ 08:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: facedye

originally posted by: HarryJoy
a reply to: facedye



Yes Harry, but we always WANT to think in absolutes don't we?

And if there are exceptions to every rule as you say (which i totally agree with), then in my mind that just means that the most mystifying experience of all is conscious thought.

Based on this, everything can be called into doubt. Slippery slope indeed. :cheers :




Yes.....it is very much like accepting the concept of infinity. We know it to be true and yet it presents a circumstance that our finite minds are unable to fully grasp.

And yes it does create a "bottomless pit" of sorts by not giving us a firm place to stand philosophically. But it also causes us to become much more lenient and merciful in our assessments of others actions...it is a good thing to come to a knowledge of our limitations....

I certainly would not want to be tasked with judging humanity.....while being human. Here's another question....could love truly be made manifest in a world of absolutes ?

]
edit on 5-9-2016 by HarryJoy because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 5 2016 @ 09:04 AM
link   
a reply to: facedye


Without any boundaries on this philosophy which means the strictness of your premises are, at best, arbitrary, then we have to say that human logic cannot be applied to tailor the outcome into an either/or manner.

You can only have a discussion if you allow the existence of a god or not. Why can't we say that there is no god and the whole premise you propose is without foundation?

Why argue over something that has no basis in fact and is merely a word game?


edit on 5-9-2016 by Aliensun because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 5 2016 @ 11:40 AM
link   
"Why argue over something that has no basis in fact and is merely a word game?"



Exactly, it is a contradiction and can not exist, nor can a round square ......



posted on Sep, 5 2016 @ 03:36 PM
link   
Simply my ruminations on the two paradoxes:

God-v-bolder. God is considered to be all things; yet in most instances is thought of Ethereally. The bolder, as a bolder, would be matter. There requires a differentiation between the two or we would have matter making and lifting matter. Hence: God (ethereal) -v- bolder (matter). In order for the bolder to be the size of God, it would have to consist of all matter. As such there would be no way to know/measure whether the bolder has moved or not since there would be no way to reference it's position. If even one molecule were removed from the bolder to establish a reference, then the bolder is no longer as large as God could make it; and so would be movable.

Irresistible force -v- immovable object. Using the general idea of movement being from point A to point B, then the immovable object would just need to contort; since contortion is generally considered to be misshaped as opposed to movement. The force would not have been resisted; the object, unmoved (but not unaffected).



posted on Sep, 5 2016 @ 04:31 PM
link   
I think that I have one that is thrown about fairly willy-nilly:

All truth is subjective.
If the statement is to mean that all truth is open to interpretation, can the statement itself be open to interpretation?

I prefer to bypass the actual truth of this statement; the vast majority of people believe in absolute objective truths, yet I'm convinced that with sufficient time and intellect, any such truth can be argued against rationally. I sometimes think that paradoxes are like black holes...points of dense looping rationality where common sense just breaks down.
But I'm poetical like that.



posted on Sep, 5 2016 @ 04:51 PM
link   
a reply to: facedye

This is the first paradox I stumbled on to (I would run such things through my head as a kid when I got bored).

What happens if two things are completely unrelated (have nothing in common)?



posted on Sep, 5 2016 @ 05:32 PM
link   
a reply to: facedye


Given God created the Universe which means Everything God cannot create a boulder he cannot move.

It would mean making the boulder larger than everything which God created.

As to what is beyond everything that God created there is No-thing.

Therefore no such thing as a boulder larger than everything can exist as beyond everything related to God as omnipotent or all powerful is No-thing.

So not weight.



posted on Sep, 5 2016 @ 05:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: DISRAELI
a reply to: facedye


If you find a statement paradoxical, look first to the definitions.



Quite, a rock is a thing, ergo movable, an immovable rock is an oxymoron. The only immovable is God, which being extra dimensional is omnipresent, ie simultaneously both in motion and immobile.




posted on Sep, 5 2016 @ 05:52 PM
link   
a reply to: facedye



Here's a popular one: God is omnipotent.

As the creator of the universe and all things within it, it is all powerful. With this, then, can god create a boulder large enough that it cannot lift the object?

If it can create a boulder large enough, it is not omnipotent. If it cannot, then it again and ultimately is not all powerful.

Who can reason themselves out of this?


No one (of sound mind) can reason themselves out of paradoxes. Particularly the one you proposed regarding the topic of omniscience which is full of paradoxes on its own.

en.wikipedia.org...

All paradox are simply an exercise in logic, not meant to be postulated as a possible reality, as you stated.

A few years ago, I found myself debating this paradox on a long flight with the passenger sitting beside me who thought he had succeeded in doing so by using the science of aeronautics as his proof. That is an entirely different rabbit hole by itself.

It is logically impossible to have these two entities - an unstoppable force (infinite energy) and an immovable object (infinite inertia + infinite mass) - exist simultaneously within the same reality. The idea of an irresistible force existing cancels out the notion of an immovable object existing, and vice versa. Especially within a finite universe.

The paradox of 'An Unstoppable Force vs. An Immovable Object' has been explained in similar fashion for decades. What I have shared is nothing new or unique concerning the topic.



What does ATS think this means about the way we understand our environment?


I presume it means we think in finite ways (use scientific understanding) when philosophizing about this particular paradox, which should be expected since the paradox arises from scientific principles and the fact we exist in a finite physical reality. This is why I posted the link above about *omniscience* earlier in hopes it would cause one to pause for a moment before going down the metaphysical path as an alternative approach to this paradox.

Then again, I have no idea where you are going with that question and could be way off the mark.

Thought provoking post and thread.
edit on 5-9-2016 by Involutionist because: Grammar and punctuation SUCKS!



posted on Sep, 5 2016 @ 05:56 PM
link   
What happens if Pinnochio says: My nose grows now



posted on Sep, 5 2016 @ 06:12 PM
link   
a reply to: Involutionist

Omniscience means "all knowing" there is no paradox their but you made an interesting point outside of that.



posted on Sep, 5 2016 @ 06:27 PM
link   
a reply to: TheElectricAnt


The Blind Men and the Elephant that is my favorite.



posted on Sep, 5 2016 @ 06:31 PM
link   
a reply to: facedye

Your example only works if Omni is one dimensional.

Does Omni have a mind or does Omni run around mindlessly making boulders to cancel Omni out?



posted on Sep, 5 2016 @ 06:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: facedye

Here's a popular one:

God is omnipotent.
As the creator of the universe and all things within it, it is all powerful.
With this, then, can god create a boulder large enough that it cannot lift the object?
If it can create a boulder large enough, it is not omnipotent.
If it cannot, then it again and ultimately is not all powerful.

Who can reason themselves out of this?


There is no paradox here.

You have already said that God is all powerful and omnipotent. It follows , therefore, that there will be no rock that he cannot lift.

if you want, You can go ahead and prove that he is or is not omnipotent by finding a big rock for him to lift. Unfortunately, you cannot meet God and carry out the experiment. So why do you create a paradoxical speculation.

You should find a better example of a paradox and there are many . A real one and then I will be happy to discuss.



posted on Sep, 5 2016 @ 06:59 PM
link   
a reply to: Kashai



Omniscience means "all knowing" there is no paradox their but you made an interesting point outside of that.


Thank you. Here is something to contemplate, my friend:


There is a distinction between:

inherent omniscience - the ability to know anything that one chooses to know and can be known.

total omniscience - actually knowing everything that can be known.


This distinction opens a can of worms (paradoxes).

If you go to the link on omniscience below, and scroll down to 'controversies' and contemplate the arguments for both sides with an open mind, you will find there are many paradoxes involved related to the nature of omniscience, particularly 'the circular time contradiction'.

en.wikipedia.org...

However, I'm open to any insight you may have to share that might highlight the nature of omniscience being absent of paradoxes.



posted on Sep, 5 2016 @ 07:11 PM
link   
a reply to: Involutionist


That by definition Omniscience means "all knowing"....



Omniscience
Omniscience /ɒmˈnɪʃəns/, mainly in religion, is the capacity to know everything that there is to know. In particular, Hinduism and the Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam) believe that there is a divine being who is omniscient. An omniscient point-of-view, in writing, is to know everything that can be known about a character, including past history, thoughts, feelings, etc.



en.wikipedia.org...

The "Universe" by definition is all time and space as well as it contents.

I do not see where the issue can possibly fall under the context of "inherent omniscience", as you choose to define it.


All knowing would be going beyond any choice as it would present the matter of understanding all choices in perpetuity.



posted on Sep, 5 2016 @ 08:30 PM
link   
a reply to: facedye


"If it cannot, then it again and ultimately is not all powerful"

You are trying to prove a negative as offered.



posted on Sep, 6 2016 @ 12:40 PM
link   
Yaaay, my favorite topic! I've got many. For instance:

Language is the attempt to transfer knowledge of an experience from one awareness to another. However, to fully understand and use any knowledge, one must first experience it. Therefore offering the knowledge without experience is ultimately futile.



posted on Sep, 6 2016 @ 01:45 PM
link   
a reply to: facedye



God is omnipotent.
As the creator of the universe and all things within it, it is all powerful.
With this, then, can god create a boulder large enough that it cannot lift the object?
If it can create a boulder large enough, it is not omnipotent.
If it cannot, then it again and ultimately is not all powerful.


You can also say that the fact it can not do it, is proof of its omnipotence. How can an omnipotent being create something it can not overcome?
edit on 6-9-2016 by Visitor2012 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 6 2016 @ 03:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Kashai



I do not see where the issue can possibly fall under the context of "inherent omniscience", as you choose to define it.


To discuss this further will be off topic. You should start a thread on the *omniscience* along with your personal views and perhaps we can philosophize about it then.


******

a reply to: crowdedskies



You should find a better example of a paradox and there are many . A real one and then I will be happy to discuss.


That is a wonderful suggestion considering some have climbed the signpost instead of following it by injecting God into the equation instead of science and logic.

The paradox introduced in the OP is a modern adaptation of the ancient Chinese paradox of 'the spear and the shield'.

There once was a man who was attempting to sell both a spear and a shield.

A) He claimed that the spear can pierce any shield.

B) He also claimed the shield cannot be penetrated by any sword.

C) He was then questioned: What would happen if his sword was used on his own shield?

Here lies the paradox.

Thoughts?

Again, it's the exact same question (equation) asked in the OP using a different scenario.
edit on 6-9-2016 by Involutionist because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join