Guest guest Posted October 10, 2001 Report Share Posted October 10, 2001 Dear James, late again replying to your very interesting posts! But the reason is I wanted to turn them over in my mind for a little while, meditate over them if you will, and not shoot any glib answer from the hip. And mind you, I may well be totally off with what I am going to say. But anyway, here is my little contribution. What constitutes a satisfactory "answer" to a question? Thanks to a number of deep thinkers through the ages we have come up with certain rules, such as propositional calculus and predicate logic. Like, if we know for sure that all carps have gills, and this is a carp, we may conclude that it has gills also. Conversely, if we see an animal with gills, it is not admissible to conclude from this observation alone that it is a carp. These rules of logics seem to conform well with reality. Once in a while, we encounter statements to which the known instruments of logics do not apply. Therefore, not every question that we can formulate in a grammatically correct way can be answered. For instance, try these: 1. Meaningless terms: Do all dondles have myrkins? 2. "Fuzzy" terms (not well-defined): Is the shortest giant taller than the tallest dwarf? 3. Paradoxes: Epimenides, the Cretan, says, "All Cretans are liars." (If he is telling the truth he is lying; and if he is lying, he is telling the truth. This paradox was known for some 2600 years.) Our question regarding God and the stone belongs to the paradox class. I won't go into the details of predicate logic; suffice it to say that self-referential all-quantors (a Cretan making a statement about "all Cretans", the concept of being "all"-powerful, the set of all sets, etc.) are not logically admissible. In the terms of logics, that question about the stone doesn't make any sense at all. As stated above, the systems of logics seem to conform well with reality. That's how they were found, and that's also why we use them. BUT... An here comes the good news. They only apply to that part of reality that we know on this earth plane. There is no doubt in my mind that higher levels of reality exist for which the rules of logic as known around here may be much too narrow, or not applicable at all. Therefore, it may well be that, in this sense and on these levels, your answers, dear James, might not only be beautifully poetic but absolutely correct as well. Take care, Michael -------------- Hi Michael, I'm back with yet another 'answer' to the original question. Yes, 'God' can create a stone to heavy to lift, even for Himself. The stone is Love. Heavily, Love, James --------------- Hi again Mike, The most significant point of the 'process' of these questions is to 'live the answer' which means that the intellect remains quiet, innocent, and one realizes that it is possible to live in the non-mental dimension and use the intellect appropriately. Love, james ---------------- > Hi Mike, > > I also feel that these qusetions are as you say: 'I would offer > that these kinds of questions are instances of the human intellect > proving its own limitations.' > > This is the whole point of these questions - and things like Zen > koans (the sound of a single hand etc.). > > I feel that they are answerable but not in the conventional ways > - the answers are beyond the intellect - they are portals to > intuition, which is much more ancient than the intellect. > > So, the answers are first 'felt' and then the intellect states > the understanding in its own way - the answer will still sound > 'strange'. > > > For example: the answer in this case has two parts- > > 1.) Yes, such a stone can be created, > 2.) The stone here is the question itself - the question is > allowed to live. > > Allowing the question to live facilitates a 'space' where the > intellect sees its limitations. Therefore it 'lets go' and it is > rendered transparent (it is still available - it is simply quiet). > > The transparency of the intellect is a portal to the non-mental > dimension of being where 'the answer' is 'felt'. > > 'Strangely Yours' > Love, > james , MikeSuesserott@t... wrote: > > Dear Eric and James, > > > > thanks for your replies, and my apologies for my responding so late > - seems > > I overlooked both your posts. > > > > Can an all-powerful God create a stone too heavy to lift for > Himself? And if > > so, how can He be all-powerful since He cannot lift it? I do not > know the > > original source of this question, but I am reasonably sure it was > one of the > > paradoxa discussed in the Christian Scholastic literature of the > Middle > > Ages. > > > > I would offer that these kinds of questions are instances of the > human > > intellect proving its own limitations. The finite mind of man, > circumscribed > > as it is by the law of causation, bound in the categories of time > and space, > > seems unable to deal with the qualities of an Infinite Being that is > without > > cause and beyond time and space. > > > > I believe you can't even answer yes or no here. It just doesn't > apply - the > > question itself is already flawed. It's like asking, can an > architect build > > a house that is bigger than yellow? And if he can't, how can he be > an > > architect? > > > > All the best, > > > > Michael Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.