Well, Could God build it, or not?

Post Reply New Topic

Yep...even an omnipotent God could get bored....he is so High and Mighty---that he might get lonely Up There

If God knows everything, then does he know what its like to have sex with a hooker? If not, then I know more then him. If so, then shame on him.

Does the set of all sets contain itself?

A. Set of all elephants is not itself an elephant.

B. The set of all thoughts is not itself a thought.

C. Set of all sets is not itself a set.


A is unambiguously true. The set of all elephants is indeed not itself an elephant.

B is ambiguous. The set of thoughts is not itself a thought. Except that it IS a thought because you hafta think about it.

C Is unambiguously false. The set of sets is obviously itself a set. Further, it also contains itself.


So...what does this set question have to do with our boulder question?

Well, you should probably think about it. In explaining it I wouldn't be doing anyone any favors.
However, in the case of immovable objects Vs. unstoppable forces it's prudent to contemplate whether force precedes object or object force, as it is prudent to ask which precedes which in the case of things Vs forces which create things. Placing successive iterations of causal dependencies on equal planes and posing them as proofs of inequality isn't really honest. I can make things I can't move for example but it doesn't make me inferior, I can unmake them just as easily and I can't do it unintentionally so it always stems from intention and in the intent is a greater force than a lack of capacity to move a thing I may have created to be deliberately unmovable by myself. Whatever I make which I cannot move there is a yet greater self that can unmake it.
My ability to make such a thing is then evidence of my power not an indicator of a lacking. Me>Boulder and not Boulder><me. there's no equality because complex things don't acausally pop into existence in equal opposition (Not counting virtual particles because they aren't complex). Such a stone is the god of stones so you may as well ask if god can create a god who is equal because it's the same thing and it's more to the point. In terms of dependency, if God is as we assume then there is some level of reality in which God is all there is so there isn't anything above that creating a second and equal God would then be either God falling a level of dependency, or creating a higher one and in another case negating himself. "can God negate himself?": again...the same question. "Can God, Not "God" ?" If God is God's own genesis, then Yes, God can "not God" but he can "re God" just as easily which to me just indicates that the structure of the dilemma is a higher order one and that's what my question has to do with the first.

But you should still think through it.

As for your reply, if you think you have a concrete and indisputable solution to russel's paradox( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_paradox ), you should probably publish that.

Dude! You messed up.

I just now glanced at the article about Russell.

You left a few words out of the sentence, and failed to state it correctly.

It's not "does the set of all sets contain itself?".

It's "Does the set of all sets that do not contain themselves contain itself?"

Big difference.

That's why your post confused me. But now I get what you were.. trying...to say.

There is no contradiction, that I can see, in the statement "does the set of all sets contain itself?".

But if you state Russell's thing correctly then, you're right, it is comparable to my boulder question.

Some sets contain themselves (like the set of all sets), and some do not (like the set of all elephants).

But ...does the set of all sets that do not contain themselves contain itself?

If the answer is "yes" that it does contain itself then ...how can it be in the set of sets that DONT contain themselves?

If the answer is "no", that it does NOT contain itself, then it IS a "set that doesn't contain itself" which means that it IS in the set.....

I did know this, but I did also misstate it. Thank you for calling my attention to this mistake. I cannot promise that I will not commit the crime again as I have zero intention of checking each thing I type for precise referential correctness as this would detract from the amount of time I can spend actually offering thoughtful answers and instead relegate me to something like neurological accounting, or....Library sciences...Both of which are truly noble careers having lead to significant achievements in the history of mankind.

I am glad to see that the misunderstanding has been resolved however. Let us all raise our virtual glasses! To the triumphs of communication over petty error! HERE HERE!

My point would be that 1st order logic does not resolve the question and can in fact NOT resolve it, and you are of course free to follow it through into exhaustion just as you are free to hunt through Pi for a pattern but it won't make it less of an exercise in futility.

If a man possesses everything, does he also possess nothing?

Not in conventional set theory, that would make it a recursive super set.

I like you

If Man possesses nothing do his things posses him?

Well, first-of-all, I never took "omnipotent" to mean "physical strength". IMO, "omnipotent" means "powerful", as in a country's leader, for instance, has power.

Secondly, the question is trying to apply a human's definition of "physical strength" to God----and, IMO, a human can't even BEGIN to fathom God's physical strength (or, even if He has it, or not).

What?

but in Age of Empires....

I'm sorry:

Maybe this makes more sense:

If
[a]
[Man,Everything,Nothing]
Possesses
[Everything,Nothing,Man]
Does
[He,It]
Also
Possess
[Nothing, Everything, Man]
?


they are all valid forms of the same structure of question. just answer as many as you can and deduce the rest of the sequence. I'm not sure how else I could provide the method of solving the problem.

I don't see how your sentence has anything to do with the thread though.