brianp@shark.UUCP (Brian Peterson) (09/10/84)
This is another interpretation of the God and rock and
"logically consistent task-descriptions" problem.
Lifting rocks is strictly in the domain of physical objects and physical
actions. Making a rock too heavy to lift is NOT in the domain of
physical objects and actions. It is in the domain which includes
such abstractions as sets and mappings of physical objects and actions.
So now we have our "omnipotent" god dealing with sets and membership.
Can god make all x's be y, and also make one be not y? Or,
can he make all coconuts be brown, yet one also not be brown?
(This not the same as making all but one coconut brown.)
This essentially is: can he make a coconut both be brown and not be brown?
It is just like making 2+2 equal 3. It is impossible by definition,
and can only be done by changing definitions.
42 From: 3b2adm1@ihuxo.UUCP (Lloyd Brock)
42 Our thoughts of being omnipotent are finite.
What does it mean for a thought to be finite? What evidence is there
that a thought must be "finite"?
42 We would
42 have to be God to know the complete meaning of omnipotent.
Would we have to be a coconut to know the complete meaning of coconut?
What is meaning? It is definition by the people using the words.
Is it possible for a meaning to exist without any meaners to mean it?
42 Therefore the question .... is impossible for us to answer.
This attitude (in it's current context) does not belong in this
group which is for thinking. It is silly to attempt to participate
in an intelligent discussion while believing that you cannot
know what you are talking about.
42 If you would like
42 to know the answer, follow his commandments, read the Bible, go
42 to church, and ask God for wisdom and the strength to be a true
42 Christian.
How can we know an answer to a question, yet not be able to answer
the question? This last sentence from 3b2adm1 belongs in net.religion.
Brian Peterson {ucbvax, ihnp4, } !tektronix!shark!brianp