Re: Re: Re: The Great Stone Paradox

[Marioman969]

i REALLY want someone to make a video response to this!!

[MikeyAbbott]

Everything's a paradox when I'm stoned.

[cerimovic]

it's like making a square circle - contradictory by definition and stupid to talk about

[cerimovic]

it's like making a round square - contradictory by definition and stupid to talk about

[InfiniteMonkey303]

@URProductions: You win the prize for for most humorous comment to my video--really did laugh out loud. Thanks for cheering me up.

[URProductions]

If God ever made a stone to big for him to lift he'd probably just drop it on an atheist.

[666SPEED44DEMON666]

@URProductions but he cant lift it

[Ihatemelee]

you are the dreamer, and the dream.

pantheism.

[xspitfirexx]

he looks like a pokemon when he smiles :)

[rammstein37]

Holy fuck thats creepy! :D

[bboy1022]

If god created a rock heavier than what it could lift couldn't it create another self that could lift the rock. But i guess this would be dualistic and it would still lead to god being powerless to the rock. He would never be able to create a self that is ultimately stronger than the rock.

So using paradox logic, god a)can't be omnipotent b/c he can't make something he can't lift b)or the rock cannot exist (b/c unlimited power)

[DarkwingScooter]

Interesting. The paradox of the rock dissolves when you understand why the trinity is invoked in Christianity in the first place.

Under that of description you get the non-dualism without any concomitant logical problems associated with it.

The question doesn't have a meaning in such a scheme because the concept "lift" requires the lifter to be a lesser included part of the system. In a system comprising only one indivisible atom, what would it mean for that atom to lift a part of itself?

[tranglomango]

awsome intro dude

[83guitarface]

@tranglomango haaa

[TheJustice99]

What uttter nonsense. If this could possibly be th case , then ALL matters of facts and logic would dispaiate. From the principle of dualistic logic Infintemonkey invokes is the principle of biva that propositions cannot be both be true and false under the same epistemic conditions. If one disregards it any first year Logic student could tell you everything follows , for example a triangle is both a triangle and a square and not a triangle and a square and a sphere and george w bush and satan

[InfiniteMonkey303]

@TheJustice99 George W. Bush is both a square and satan. I'm very glad that you responded to point out how faulty use of logic can be used and often is used to justify virtually anything.  10 bonus points to anyone, including 1st year logic students, who can specify the the logic of why my video response is actually not even a response to the paradox but is about something else entirely. No one's pointed that out yet.. I'm a little disappointed/frightened.

[xzanthius]

There are some things which the human mind cannot conceptualize directly. This is the reason for faith on one hand and higher mathematics on the other.

[InfiniteMonkey303]

@xzanthius : Yes, but as the many variations of incompeteness theorem in both math and logic demonstrate, math and logic do not contain the necessary tools with in their toolbox to provide a complete description of the universe, existence, or anything else for that matter--how ever I am not saying that they are not very useful and even esstential tools--it just that their foundations are at least in part are entirely faith based.

[xzanthius]

@InfiniteMonkey303 It is perhaps the very idea of completeness that causes us to error. We would need to properly define faith before attributing it to a scientific mindset. The scientist makes it a point to forgo faith and bases his reality upon "proven" concepts. In the end however, as you point out, even the scientist cannot escape that his very reality is bound by the reality of faith as he assumes the ground he stands on to be finally solid.

[xzanthius]

@xzanthius Still I would rather the (practical) faith of the scientist to the (ungrounded) faith of the religious zealot.

[InfiniteMonkey303]

@xzanthius Well I would say that religious faith used to be the foundation upon which descriptions of reality were based. Now, science is the accepted standard for defining reality--I think largely because it is mostly responsible for the industrial revolution among other things that seem to be judged as human progress.

Another thing I always say is "If it's a paradox, then it must be true!"

[Dadutta]

No, God can not create a rock so heavy even God cannot lift it - because creating such a thing would be a failure, whereas always being able to lift is a success.

It is exactly like saying "are you capable of achieving the success of losing every match?" - you frame losing every match as a success falsely, while maintaining that it is damaging, and present the alternative of winning every match as a negative falsely.

[calholli]

It simply means god is all things, good and evil. he sees all and is all. the alpha and omega. he can grant our wishes but not tell us what to wish for! he is the permanent and the free will. the spiritual and the reality.

[phoeniximperator]

that was pretty good in a weird kind of way

[Jellies256]

...this is just creepy

[DaveDoggOwns]

If God was all-powerful then he can lift the stone no matter what universe its in. If his power depends upon where the stone is then he can't be all-powerful.

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

[cheesedoodle777]

That was cool, wish i can do that, but agree, that God can do both.

[bikaz28]

I would love to know how you did that vid

[InfiniteMonkey303]

The talking animation was done by a program called "Crazy Talk" that I bought on eBay.

[bikaz28]

thanks