What would you ask a person who knew everything?

[Valka D'Ur]

A tetrahedron is not a triangle. . .

And an additional side isn't an extra dimension...

Ask the average person what the shape of a pyramid is, and they'll say it's a triangle. Ask them to draw a triangle, and they'll draw a 2-dimensional one on a piece of paper.

However, a real pyramid exists in three dimensions. And just because most of us HERE on CFC would draw a pyramid differently from most other people, don't assume everybody would do as we would do.

I know that a dodecahedron has 12 sides. I own a lot of them among the d12 portion of my dungeon dice collection. But if you want to see a dodecahedron in a way that involves right angles, you need more dimensions.

 

[madviking]

Ask the average person what the shape of a pyramid is, and they'll say it's a triangle. Ask them to draw a triangle, and they'll draw a 2-dimensional one on a piece of paper.

However, a real pyramid exists in three dimensions. And just because most of us HERE on CFC would draw a pyramid differently from most other people, don't assume everybody would do as we would do.

Well no. Drawing and believing a tetrahedron is a two dimensional figure are both patently incorrect. But more importantly, I am really confused how this has to do with anything.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

I'M not the one who started yakking about pyramids and logic and tetrahedrons!

This thread has been absurd from the get-go. I'm just contributing my two cents.

 

[Mise]

But if something can be true and not true at once, how can it be wrong to make any arbitrary claim about God or anything?

Normally when we say someone is good, that precludes them from being evil. Being able to do something means not being unable to do that thing. Being of the same form as map precludes being shaped like an octopus. But if for a given source being unable do to something, and being able to do something are not contradictions, and able and unable are meant in the same sense(1), then the same standard should logically be applied to every other claim by that source. Normally if someone is good, they are worthy of trust, but if being good does not preclude being evil, that may not be the case. So if your Good Book claims that there are contradictions, and it also claims that God is good, I cannot safely conclude that your God is trustworthy, like I could with any other source claiming someone is good.

It goes further than that in fact. Logicians claim that any arbitrary claim can be proven from a contradiction. So if a contradiction is true, or can be true, then everything is true.

Well, isn't that just saying "ok, we can assume that contradictions can exist, but it wouldn't be very useful." I.e. if contradictions are possible, then it's difficult (impossible?) to come to any logical conclusions. But like I said, that just means that it's not useful, not that it's not true. Maybe it is true, but only about God? We could still use logic IRL, but in discussions about God, we have to accept that he can do logically contradictory things. Can't we do that axiomatically?

That's a genuine question btw. I can't think of a reason why we can't. If we only use the current rules and axioms of logic because they are useful and approximate reality rather well, can't religious people just say, "well, that may work for approximating everything else, but it isn't very useful for talking about God. We need to assume that God can create a rock that he can't lift, and then simultaneously lift it, otherwise there's no way that we could possibly understand Him." It may mean that you can't use logic to determine whether you can trust God, but as you know, religious people don't use logic to determine whether they can trust Him in any case. It may also mean that anyone can claim anything about God, but as you know, that may well be the point

It's far too weird a road for me to go down, personally, and it's a lot easier to just say that God can only do things that are logically possible, but if I had the ear of an omniscient being, I might as well ask the question.

 

[Global Skeptic]

Well no. Drawing and believing a tetrahedron is a two dimensional figure are both patently incorrect. But more importantly, I am really confused how this has to do with anything.

No, because the totality of the bold part is in itself a case of cognitive relativism. I.e. "drawing and believing a tetrahedron is a two dimensional figure" is a case of cognitive relativism AND so is "are both patently incorrect". So what reality, or if you like God, really is, is a case of cognitive relativism. In short what God, a contradiction and related cases are, depends on the person saying what God, a contradiction and related cases are.

 

[Borachio]

How can a being know if it is omniscient?

Easy peasy. Omniscience already includes knowledge of omniscience. Otherwise it isn't omniscience.

This thread is about absurdity. And why not?

 

[Global Skeptic]

Easy peasy. Omniscience already includes knowledge of omniscience. Otherwise it isn't omniscience.

This thread is about absurdity. And why not?

Yes, it is about absurdity. In other words it is about what logic is, if you don't use the 3 laws of logic, but rather start with God is all powerful.

 

[Eukaryote]

1) What would be the best way for the US government to end extreme poverty and protect the planet?
2) How do I convince it to do these things?

I'll think of more later.

 

[Souron]

Well, isn't that just saying "ok, we can assume that contradictions can exist, but it wouldn't be very useful." I.e. if contradictions are possible, then it's difficult (impossible?) to come to any logical conclusions. But like I said, that just means that it's not useful, not that it's not true. Maybe it is true, but only about God? We could still use logic IRL, but in discussions about God, we have to accept that he can do logically contradictory things. Can't we do that axiomatically?

That's a genuine question btw. I can't think of a reason why we can't. If we only use the current rules and axioms of logic because they are useful and approximate reality rather well, can't religious people just say, "well, that may work for approximating everything else, but it isn't very useful for talking about God. We need to assume that God can create a rock that he can't lift, and then simultaneously lift it, otherwise there's no way that we could possibly understand Him." It may mean that you can't use logic to determine whether you can trust God, but as you know, religious people don't use logic to determine whether they can trust Him in any case. It may also mean that anyone can claim anything about God, but as you know, that may well be the point

It's far too weird a road for me to go down, personally, and it's a lot easier to just say that God can only do things that are logically possible, but if I had the ear of an omniscient being, I might as well ask the question.

In short, I agree with all this.

 

[strijder20]

^^Doing one of the two is easy: reduce spending on weapons. Two at the same time is a lot harder...

But the U.S. government certainly hasn't power and money enough (and a large part of the Americans are probably not willing either) to care for the entire planet. We'll have to do it together (the U.S. and the second most important country of the world, Sealand).

 

[Borachio]

Sealand

What? This Sealand?

The first non-smoking nation on the planet?

 

[strijder20]

Yes, that Sealand.

And I was serious in a way though, we should work together to remove poverty and the likes out of the world.

 

[Old Hippy]

Yes, that Sealand.

And I was serious in a way though, we should work together to remove poverty and the likes out of the world.

working together would seem prety hard when even Sealand has a government in exile

 

[strijder20]

working together would seem prety hard when even Sealand has a government in exile

I was referring to humanity in general this time though.