posted November 22, 2009 08:00 PM         

i always liked these lyrics:

"do what you want, i don't care - i'll be your lolly pop, you can lick me everywhere!

Juicy Fruit!"

posted November 22, 2009 09:20 PM         

go on

that god and stone argument....a friend told me that its a v classical argument that atheist used to prove there is no god, he explained what was wrong this question. I have forgotten... it had something to do with construction of logical argument

posted November 23, 2009 12:48 AM         

6.11 Therefore the propositions of logic say nothing. (They are the analytic propositions.)

6.111 All theories that make a proposition of logic appear to have content are false. One might think, for example, that the words 'true' and 'false' signified two properties among other properties, and then it would seem to be a remarkable fact that every proposition possessed one of these properties. On this theory it seems to be anything but obvious, just as, for instance, the proposition, 'All roses are either yellow or red', would not sound obvious even if it were true. Indeed, the logical proposition acquires all the characteristics of a proposition of natural science and this is the sure sign that it has been construed wrongly.

6.112 The correct explanation of the propositions of logic must assign to them a unique status among all propositions.

6.113 It is the peculiar mark of logical propositions that one can recognize that they are true from the symbol alone, and this fact contains in itself the whole philosophy of logic. And so too it is a very important fact that the truth or falsity of non-logical propositions cannot be recognized from the propositions alone.

__________

posted November 23, 2009 01:23 AM         

GOD CANNOT MAKE A ROCK SO HEAVY THAT HE CANNOT LIFT IT

as simply a complicated sum and check whether one side matches the other:

- God is omnipotent = God is omnipotent.
- God can do anything = God can do anything.
- There is nothing God can't do = There is nothing God can't do.
- God cannot not do anything. = God cannot not do anything.
- God can not not lift any rock = God cannot not lift any rock.
- God can not not lift any rock, not even a rock he makes himself = God can not not lift any rock, not even a rock he makes himself.
- God cannot make a rock so heavy he can't lift it = God can not not lift any rock, not even a rock he makes himself.
- God cannot make a rock so heavy he can't lift it = God is omnipotent.
That is the logic of the definition of God. People get confused by can't and can't, which aren't the same. Can't lift means not omnipotent. Can't make means something else ... it's the same as saying 'there is'. In other words there is no rock so heavy God can't lift it. This second "can't" confuses us because it sounds the same as the first "can't", but in fact it is different. Basically it's like this:
(A ) does not equal (not A).
(1 = not 1) is not valid.
The first 'not' is not the same as the second 'not':
The first 'not' negation of definition/ identification, while the second 'not' is the negation of logical validity.
So if we had another word/ phrase like, 'something other than' instead of the first 'not' we wouldn't get confused:
We'd have:
(1=something other than 1) is not valid.
So let's find another term for can't. Let's take: 'able to'.
So the we've got:
"God is not able to make a rock he can't lift."
Here: "is not able" is not a question of identification or definition ... "Is not able" is included in the concept omnipotence in the following way:
If you are omnipotent you not impotent.
If you are omnipotent you are not able to not do anything.
So there's actually no problem.
Of course this doesn't prove God exists because a tautology doesn't say anything, it just gives the meaning of a word/ concept. It's like looking up "God" in a dictionary. Similarly it can't prove God doesn't exist so any atheist who uses it sucks at logic.
What keeps me busy however is not all of the above, which is like duh ... painfully obvious, but rather me mentally picturing God struggling with this dilemma:
Like God wakes up in the morning: OK, today is the day I'm gonna finally succeed at making that d a m n rock I can't lift ... and God's workshed is littered with impossibly enourmous objects that totally dwarf the size of the universe and then God spends the whole day (or a couple of nanoseconds anyway) making and even bigger, heavier rock than the previous day, the tries to lift it, and goes" S h i t , I can't not lift this one either! F u c k I'm so impotent ... oh well, tomorrow is another day."

posted November 23, 2009 01:27 AM         

6.241 Thus the proof of the proposition 2 t 2 = 4 runs as follows: (/v)n'x = /v x u'x Def., /2 x 2'x = (/2)2'x = (/2)1 + 1'x = /2' /2'x = /1 + 1'/1 + 1'x = (/'/)'(/'/)'x =/'/'/'/'x = /1 + 1 + 1 + 1'x = /4'x. 6.3 The exploration of logic means the exploration of everything that is subject to law. And outside logic everything is accidental.

posted November 23, 2009 01:47 AM         

i am so on cloud number 9, the light discussion, the smooth conversation, the lively topic has just rejuvenated my spirits.

oh i forgot to mention why i was bored out of my skin, ---i was trying to read mind vs brain debate for a professor--- ah haaaaaaaa....

ok jokes apart, i am gng to look at the links the two of you showed. I might end up running screaming on the roads though...or

posted November 23, 2009 07:00 AM         

Let's look at the probability of you running onto the road if you viewed the 2 proposed youtube clips and they were mind-blowingly boring enough to blow your brain out to the point that you misjudged and miscalculated your bearings providing one of the following were a factor of evidence to support your statement of you running onto the road:

1. the door was opened toward the road

2. the video clips succeeded in blowing your mind

3. you saw a Supreme running past the door

4. a road existed

The probability that you did not run onto the road based on the following possibilities:

1. you don't eat pizza

2. the rock God made was too heavy and it blocked the door

3. you overcame your boredom by discovering why 2+2=4

4. you do eat pizza and shared it with Diana Ross

Well, emma, how could your life be boring when so much could and could not happen to you !!!!