The unanswerable question, and Gods paradox.

Originally posted by sk0rpi0n
reply to post by inverslyproportional

 

Or can God make a stone so heavy even he cant lift it?

God, being omnipotent can make a stone that is so heavy that he can't lift. But being the Almighty He will still lift it anyway.

Such questions are trollish in nature and serve no purpose. Its like what Satan once asked Jesus...
"can God fit the earth inside an egg without altering their sizes?" to which Jesus replied, "impotence is not attributed to God, but what you said cannot be."

The motive behind such impossible questions is to conclude "Since God cannot do that, he is not omnipotent".

edit on 16-3-2013 by sk0rpi0n because: (no reason given)

I implied nothing, as I have stated the entire time, it is your own personal prejudices that informed your answer.

As I have stated, there are no wrong answers, as all are as valid as another, others are just more likely or better alternatives.

Star for your contribution

I would also add, as I have already stated this is a question older than christianity or Judaism or islam, it does not concern god, it is a thought experiment that shows as much in its answering as it does in its asking.

For some it is a simple question and they answer very quickly, usually making the assumption some alterior motive was involved in its asking, such as trying to prove somthing about god, good or bad.

If god cant do it, it as your example stated, and I already stated above to another, god might point out the only paradox was in mans thinking, or he might simply pat us on the head and tell us how cute we are, and then go back to the things he does.

Or maybe he couldnt do it, because he cant do anything, such as the paradox in the op, because it is a paradox thus undoable by any means

Or even that he made the universe the way he did to teach us a valuable lesson we are not grasping yet perhaps, we cant know the mind or motivations of god anymore then an ant could know or understand the thoughts or motivations of a man.

My particular stance on god isnt realky relevant here, imo, but I dont believe in god, nor do I not believe, I have never seen any actual evidence either direction, though gods lack of any interaction for thousands of years isnt helping his side a lot, the fact the universe seems to be built around life and the elements life as we know it needs to live isnt really hurting his side either.

reply to post by AQuestion


I don't know if it is rational or not but it is common to relate to one of the two in everyday life. Add influence and emotion and it can be sad situation.

Dear wirefly,

Is that truly the best response you have? Are you capable of answering simple questions, that is all I asked, make some effort to correct me if you have such amazing knowledge and understanding of the world.

Perhaps you misunderstood my last post. It was a dismissal. I am not interested in a mental joust with you. I am relaxing and am trying to disregard you. The op was obviously, to me at least, a fun riddle. You, however, are sucking the fun right out of it. Please accept my apology if my remark to the OP dented your apparently fragile ego. Now, if you would be so kind, buzz off.

Cheers

Originally posted by AQuestion

Originally posted by inverslyproportional
reply to post by AQuestion

 

It truly is a paradox, and one not easily approached, especially by the layman, as many a scholar, and theologians alike have asked and thought, to no satisfactory answer.

My take would be, if consciouness cannot end, thus life cannot end, then either it did not really exist at all, or it simpky changes form and becomes a different yet equal entity either via reincarnation or some other method, heaven perhaps.

Though just to be objective, perhaps we were never really alive, or even had free will, perhaos it is like the 13th floor, and we are constructs in ancomputer, and we only think we are deciding, because we are programmed to think we are.

Or even maybe we are the gods themselves, and we have placed ourselves here so we might se what it is like to live a mortals life, before we create them and force existance upon them.

Dear inverselyproportional,

Okay, where is it logical to say that if consciousness exists then a possibility is that we did not? That is not logical. I have asked this before, prove to me that you do not exist and then prove that I do not. This should be simple if it were true it would impossible. That is your unmovable force at work, existence. There is no unstoppable force except it, they are one in the same, they cannot exist apart from one another. Did that answer your question and the little fly.

It isnt up to me if your answer was the right one, nor any other. If you fesl your answer is the satisfactory one, than it is.

If you say it is a stuoid illogical question, and refuse to answer, that is your answer, as decided by you, nk other can decide this, as I have stated already, there are no wrong answers, there are just answers with more or less likelyhood of being the right one, or that would seem to one to be more likely.

The old gresk gods version goes there was a fox that cant be caught, and it was hunted by a dog that never fails to catch its prey.

Same situation, different players, does your answer change or do you still feel comfortable with it when applied to an equal paradox?

As far as consciousness goes, how sure are you of it? Can you prove it exists? I mean your demanding proof it doesnt, when we all know no proof can exist, as we would have to be outside of existance to even say if it were or werent.

My point was, if we were trapped in the matrix, and limited in not only our perceptions but also censored in our content, we would have no way of knowing, we woukd onky know what was allowed us, so woukd not have any access to this knowledge accept as am abstract conversational tool.

What your asking is the equivalent of asking me to prove santa doesnt exist, while I am not asking you to orove he does.

I am not asking any evidence, or demanding any answers, or opinions, I just asked a couple of perfectly benign questions, with no other intent than to see what you guys woukd think the answers could be.

I honestly have no motive except to see what others think, and I must say, so far it has been both informative and fun.

Some are getting a littke uppity, but I believe my intent is starting to be understood, and seen for the exercise it is, just simply examination of the world through the lens of others perceptions.

reply to post by wirefly


Dear wirefly,

Really?

Perhaps you misunderstood my last post. It was a dismissal. I am not interested in a mental joust with you. I am relaxing and am trying to disregard you. The op was obviously, to me at least, a fun riddle. You, however, are sucking the fun right out of it. Please accept my apology if my remark to the OP dented your apparently fragile ego. Now, if you would be so kind, buzz off.

Oh my gosh, I wasn't fun enough for you. I thought we were attempting to have a conversation. Maybe this should have been in the humor forums, I can make fun of you in those and believe me you have given me plenty of ammunition. Shall we play? Or are you still insisting upon being deceitful. I can deal with either. Lets have some fun and amusement.

Originally posted by wirefly

Dear wirefly,

Is that truly the best response you have? Are you capable of answering simple questions, that is all I asked, make some effort to correct me if you have such amazing knowledge and understanding of the world.

Perhaps you misunderstood my last post. It was a dismissal. I am not interested in a mental joust with you. I am relaxing and am trying to disregard you. The op was obviously, to me at least, a fun riddle. You, however, are sucking the fun right out of it. Please accept my apology if my remark to the OP dented your apparently fragile ego. Now, if you would be so kind, buzz off.

Cheers

Dear wirefly,

If you seek to diseregard me than why do you respond to me at all. Lying is just proof of why you really are.

Originally posted by wirefly

Dear wirefly,

Is that truly the best response you have? Are you capable of answering simple questions, that is all I asked, make some effort to correct me if you have such amazing knowledge and understanding of the world.

Perhaps you misunderstood my last post. It was a dismissal. I am not interested in a mental joust with you. I am relaxing and am trying to disregard you. The op was obviously, to me at least, a fun riddle. You, however, are sucking the fun right out of it. Please accept my apology if my remark to the OP dented your apparently fragile ego. Now, if you would be so kind, buzz off.

Cheers

Very nice and polite, I starred you for your kind words where others woukd have taken his bait and derailed the thread just to argue, which I am coming to bekieve is his intent, though I will not be brought down to that level, as there is no need this is just a discussion about nothing really. And as such, nothingabout it should be taken too serious.

Though I do think I like the god rock analogy, I have used several others throughout, and for some reason people keep harping on the god paradox, even though every example so far is basically the same question, which boils down to my first wuestion in the end.

As some force that cant be resisted, woukd come to act against an object that is not abke to be moved.

For example a mother trying to convince a toddler to eat their vegetables. ..one of my favorite examples.

Or the reasoning about the two and their differences.

As unless it has moved an immovable object, how would you know it was an irresistible force, or would an immovable object even exist, if a irresistible force wasnt tryjng to act against it?

For example the American revolution, would the immovable people have even resisted if the irresistible force of britains armies had not tried to act against them.

Or would the roles be reversed, where if the immovable people hadnt resisted, would there have been a need of the irresistible force to begin with?

The list goes on and on, and yet fundamentally, the simllest questions about this still persist, without an answer, as bith could be justified, delending simply on ones personal views, or how one was. Feeling at the time.

Originally posted by AQuestion

LOL, you really don't understand how stupid those questions are..
.......
Your second questions was equally silly.

There are no stupid or silly questions. Only Silly and stupid people who don't realise that there is knowledge to be gained from everything. The fact people have replied here proves it.

reply to post by nerbot


Dear nerbot,

You miss the point, the OP got it. There is nothing new to asking these questions. They are attempts to trick, not sincere. There are no stupid sincere questions, trick questions are stupid because the person asking them knows they are just tricks and no sincere answer is sought.

reply to post by inverslyproportional

Have you been reading my Daniel threads?
I've been using that paradox as a standard introduction.

The simplest way of putting the answer is "One of them gets exposed as a fraud".
(The point being that they can't both exist at the same time)

Originally posted by AQuestion
reply to post by nerbot

 

Dear nerbot,

You miss the point, the OP got it. There is nothing new to asking these questions. They are attempts to trick, not sincere. There are no stupid sincere questions, trick questions are stupid because the person asking them knows they are just tricks and no sincere answer is sought.

No I am sincerely asking these questions.

You misunderstand my premise, this can be the simplest question ever asked, yet it can also be the most complex. The paradox shows us all the flaws in mans perception s, and in his use of reason.

It is meant as nothing more than it appears, there is no wrong answer, however there are correct answers.

I have just been trying to see how others minds would address this question, in order to see how my personal use of logic, would differ from others, when the exact same question were posed, and honestly addressed.

Your assuming an interior motive also shows your personal bias to this question in particular, or you thinking it is a question not worth addressing by someone like yourself, even though you chose to participate, and nobody asked you to do so.

You chose to answerx by not addressing the question, which is still an answer, and quite revealing, I thank you also for your contribution, and award you a star for it.

On a side note, what would you say is the correct answer?

Is it to not answer at all? As this could be taken as quite existential, as this question doesnt really matter in the trand scheme, but it does hokd a lot about the individual answering.

For example, it you were to reply that you thought the answer were too obvious to even comment, it could mean you h nderstand that the question doesnt really matter, yet thought the question being asked, deserved a response, just jot one that took more than the amount of time a simple insult woukd have covered.

Or that you thought. The question to be worth while, but dont think you could add to what has been stated by me already, or one of the others, or even an answer so obvious to you, yet the rest of us dont see it.

Of course, you could also think it complete crap, and throw an insult out. Which would also say a lot about the one who answered. Though it doesnt have to mean anything, it could simply mean nothing at all.

Hence the fun in asking, and the fun in speculating, as to anothers answer.

Originally posted by DISRAELI
reply to post by inverslyproportional

 

Have you been reading my Daniel threads?
I've been using that paradox as a standard introduction.

The simplest way of putting the answer is "One of them gets exposed as a fraud".
(The point being that they can't both exist at the same time)

I wish I could give you more than 1 star, that is one of the best answers I have ever heard.

As only one could possibly exist, one would be a fraud, and one would be as described.

But which would be which, and would one be the cause of the other, or would one only be able to exist after it was tested against the other.

Thank you for your contribution.

Originally posted by inverslyproportional
So the question is.

What happens when irresistible force meets immovable object?

Or can God make a stone so heavy even he cant lift it?

There are many examples of this, and many answers, I was just curious what some of you would postulate is the correct answer.

I will give the most common, and most well known.

It is that they would yield, or both fail, or neither would prevail.

But it can be much more complicated, if one were to say for example, the universe can not have an immovable object and an irresistible force in the same. As one would have to triumph. As Asimov saw it.

Or even that an irresistible force cant even exist until it is tried against an immovable object, and vise versa, so neither coukd actually exist at all.

So what are your answers? I promise no answer can be wrong, though some could be debated for best answer.

edit on 15-3-2013 by inverslyproportional because: (no reason given)

The truth is there is only one irresistible force and only one immovable object. They are one in the same. Love is irresistible and immovable. Love cannot stray away from you only you can stray away from love. Love cannot be moved off its path. Once you find love you will run around searching for ways to find more of it. It is irresistible.

Originally posted by inverslyproportional

Originally posted by AQuestion
reply to post by nerbot

 

Dear nerbot,

You miss the point, the OP got it. There is nothing new to asking these questions. They are attempts to trick, not sincere. There are no stupid sincere questions, trick questions are stupid because the person asking them knows they are just tricks and no sincere answer is sought.

No I am sincerely asking these questions.

You misunderstand my premise, this can be the simplest question ever asked, yet it can also be the most complex. The paradox shows us all the flaws in mans perception s, and in his use of reason.

It is meant as nothing more than it appears, there is no wrong answer, however there are correct answers.

I have just been trying to see how others minds would address this question, in order to see how my personal use of logic, would differ from others, when the exact same question were posed, and honestly addressed.

Your assuming an interior motive also shows your personal bias to this question in particular, or you thinking it is a question not worth addressing by someone like yourself, even though you chose to participate, and nobody asked you to do so.

You chose to answerx by not addressing the question, which is still an answer, and quite revealing, I thank you also for your contribution, and award you a star for it.

On a side note, what would you say is the correct answer?

Is it to not answer at all? As this could be taken as quite existential, as this question doesnt really matter in the trand scheme, but it does hokd a lot about the individual answering.

For example, it you were to reply that you thought the answer were too obvious to even comment, it could mean you h nderstand that the question doesnt really matter, yet thought the question being asked, deserved a response, just jot one that took more than the amount of time a simple insult woukd have covered.

Or that you thought. The question to be worth while, but dont think you could add to what has been stated by me already, or one of the others, or even an answer so obvious to you, yet the rest of us dont see it.

Of course, you could also think it complete crap, and throw an insult out. Which would also say a lot about the one who answered. Though it doesnt have to mean anything, it could simply mean nothing at all.

Hence the fun in asking, and the fun in speculating, as to anothers answer.

Dear inverselyproportional,

You have contradicted yourself; but, we will skip that for the moment. You claim to be sincere; but, you ask a question which you admit cannot be answered. It cannot be answered because the question contradicts itself, it is a dumb question. You accused me of not answering the question, go back and read what I said, I did answer it, it is foolish question and that is the answer. You may not like that answer; but, you believe it too. You said it is unanswerable, what makes it so?

reply to post by sacgamer25



What a beautiful answer, I wish I would have been able to claim such an answer as my own.

Sadly it appears, no matter what my answers were, you would be the superior of us two. As yours was poetry, and all of mine were cold logic, absent love, and thus lacking any fundamental meaning to man.

Just....wow. very very good answer. I am truly jealous. Star for your answer, I wish more would think like you, myself included in those.

reply to post by AQuestion


I already acknowledged everything you say, and much more, that you dont see. I have already throughout this thread expressed there can not be a wrong answer. Even thag refusing to answer, or even insulting my questions, are answers, I never implied my responses or anything I have said is the truth.

How could I contradict myself, when I have admittedly stated a paradox, and asked for any answer that any respondent thought correct.

I never made a single statement about any rules, never told another their answer was wrong, or even offered knsukt to any answer, no matter what it was.

In fact I thanked you and all the others for your contribution, and starred your posts, as I found them all to be relevant.

As it seems to me, the only person with an issue is you, and have been seeking confrontation since your first post.

Well I am the right guy, though this is not the thread, nor is this the company.

You are a pathetic louse, and if you continue to try and cause strife, I will alert a mod to come and explain to you how you can be polite, and contribute without intentionalky trying to cause trouble. Which is a. T and C violation.

I am accusing you of intentionally trying to derail this thread btw, as you probably wont catch the premise here either.

If you respond in anything but a civil tone, I will not hesitate to call mom and dad, and have them sort this out.

Please! Be civil, dont seek conflict!

I apologize to all who view this thread for my lack of control, I do wish to have a civil conversation, and I do both regret and apologise for my words.

I can be a hot head, as once my irish gets up, I tend to act uppity, this is of course no reasonable excuse, as there cant be one, as my behavior in a civil environment negates both my words, and my intnet.

I am sorry for my failings, though I still wish to deny another members ignorance the old way. I suppose it is my wish to confront the opposition head on that causes my failings.

I am only human though, and as such, can take only so much before I will not take any further disrespect, and as such, will bring what weaoons I have at my disposal to counter said disrespect, thus retaliating to it is a tough act to undertake, as my intent was never one of disrespect, but one of the want of learning. Both more about me, and more abojt the reasoning of others, so that I might understand them both better.

reply to post by inverslyproportional


The bible says God is love, I just let the spirit take over and answer. We all have this ability some just arn't ready yet. The bible says no man knows the time or day that love will take over your life, but only the father. Not even Jesus knew the day or time for anyone but himself, and fittingling because it was prophesied about. So Jesus was the only man ever born knowing the time and place of his death. Not sure we would want that even if we could.

reply to post by inverslyproportional

can God make a stone so heavy even he cant lift it?

I would say yes...

IF he created a stone so big that HE himself could not move it... it is his will that prevents him from moving said immoveable object...

Someone asked me that here...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by inverslyproportional

can God make a stone so heavy even he cant lift it?

Yes.
He could make a large stone.
Then, transplant all of his power into another, making himself mortal.
Now, he's created a stone so heavy, he cannot lift it.

There.

Which came first, the chicken or the egg?

The chicken, for the chicken grows within the egg. The very first "chicken" was, like most evolution, a successful mutation, therefore the very first true chicken egg, was within the first true chicken.

etc.,etc.