Categories
- Art (356)
- Other (3,632)
- Philosophy (2,814)
- Psychology (4,018)
- Society (1,010)
Recent Questions
- Why did everyone start to hate the Russians if the U.S. did the same thing in Afghanistan, Iraq?
- What needs to be corrected in the management of Russia first?
- Why did Blaise Pascal become a religious man at the end of his life?
- How do I know if a guy likes you?
- When they say "one generation", how many do they mean?
There is an old riddle:
– can a God create a stone that he can't lift?
If not, then he is not omnipotent, and if so, then he is not omnipotent.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
We will first take into account the questioner, who is not only in the question, but also in the mistakes, and the questioner's supposed answers: If the question has an imperative (“Prove”), then the question mark is superfluous. If there is a question in the question, then “Prove it”?�
In the question, the subject of what is proved (that which requires proof) is not defined in any way other than as” unprovable”, i.e., as something in respect of which it is impossible to give a meaningful (non-empty and qualitatively determined) and logically consistent reasoning.
In the question, the predicate of the provable (evidential existence) is not qualified either objectively (exists as something real) or subjectively (exists as something mental), but only in a logical (more precisely, of course, quasi-logical) sense, i.e., it exists as something proven, despite the fact that the conditions of proof are not defined in principle.
Thus, the subject and predicate of the question contradict each other, and what the author may see as a sharp paradox is simply a logical confusion. I.e., the statement is logically unprovable in content… but phenomenally quite existing and obvious to a logically thinking person.
Something like that 😉