Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!seismo!husc6!uwvax!oddjob!gargoyle!ihnp4!inuxc!iuvax!bsu-cs!dhesi
From: dhesi@bsu-cs.UUCP (Rahul Dhesi)
Newsgroups: sci.math,sci.math.symbolic,sci.philosophy.tech
Subject: Re: Russell's set of sets which... paradox
Message-ID: <902@bsu-cs.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 29-Jul-87 17:03:57 EDT
Article-I.D.: bsu-cs.902
Posted: Wed Jul 29 17:03:57 1987
Date-Received: Sat, 1-Aug-87 04:46:39 EDT
References: <1404@cullvax.UUCP>
Reply-To: dhesi@bsu-cs.UUCP (Rahul Dhesi)
Organization: CS Dept, Ball St U, Muncie, Indiana
Lines: 26
Xref: mnetor sci.math:1698 sci.math.symbolic:114 sci.philosophy.tech:331

In article <1404@cullvax.UUCP> drw@cullvax.UUCP (Dale Worley) writes:
>campbell@utx1.UUCP (Tom Campbell) writes:
[about paradoxes]
>The earliest example that I know of is from the Scholastic philosophy
>(Midaeval Catholic, about 1300?):  "Can God make a stone so large that
>he can't lift it?"  The solution, of course, is that there can be no
>such stone.

Assumption:  God is all-powerful.

Conclusion:  God *can* make a stone that he can't lift.  Then he *can*
lift it.  For being all-powerful means having the ability to violate
the rules of logic, for the rules of logic exist only because God
allows them to;  therefore God can suspend the rules.

If you disagree, it is because your concept of a supreme being (a being
who can do anything provided he abides by your axioms) is different
from mine (a being who can do anything, including changing my axioms to
suit his purpose).

Followups disccouraged, because of the danger of this degenerating into
a reigious debate.  Enough to say that supreme beings are in general
poor subjects for discussion in the same breath as mathematics and
logic.
-- 
Rahul Dhesi         UUCP:  {ihnp4,seismo}!{iuvax,pur-ee}!bsu-cs!dhesi