我都想知!

好囉!好囉! 而家連飛雪你都出現埋，叫埋無名同殘劍，我地又可以去劈友囉!

<碰與不碰, 託於無名> 好,開拖吧,明月妹,四人聯手攻打四方城!

仲全能？o岩哂！ 這天羅密歐在修煉神祕樂觀入面o既最後一式，已進入純思狀態，正在體會「回歸自己」之際，忽爾靈光一閃，有如元神出竅般，感到自己由思考之中彈射出來，一時有如神遊太虛，進入了真實又如夢幻般的境界，心想：「啊原來「從思考到思考之上」係咁解o既！哈哈……我終於接通喇！」只見週圍一片白濛濛，遠處有一點白光，羅密歐感到自己正向那白光直飛去，忽然身邊的白濛濛有如雲霧般散開，霎時間豁然開朗，看到一條大路，遠處恍惚有一個人坐在石頭上，羅密歐很快便飛到那人前面降落。 那人一見羅密歐立即站起身，露出笑容曰：「噢！賣新！你終於o黎拿！」 羅密歐見那人身穿白衣，滿面胡鬚，有點面熟，便猶猶豫豫的道：「咦！唔通你係……」 那胡鬚佬含笑搖了搖頭道：「唔係！」 羅密歐道：「呀！咁就一定係……」 胡鬚佬微笑答曰：「無錯o勒！」 羅密歐道：「哦！原來係你！不過你唔好誤會喎，我仲未死個o番！」 胡鬚佬奇道：「咁你點解會上到o黎呢度呀？」 羅密歐道：「我係用李天命o既〈終極一式〉上o黎o既！」 胡鬚佬問道：「李天命？邊個o黎o架？」 羅密歐道：「咪就係話你唔係全能果個o羅！乜你唔知o既咩？」 胡鬚佬問道：「我點樣唔全能法呀？」 羅密歐答道：「佢話你唔能夠造一塊自己舉唔起o既石頭，你造唔到，唔算全能，造得到，舉唔起，又唔算全能，咁囉！」 胡鬚佬道：「啊！咁下嘛！易啦！我唔係造唔到，我「未造」o者。我造得出即係全能啦，我一日未造，又係全能，哈哈，咁就想難到我？你都幾好笑個喎。」 羅密歐低聲的道：「吓！咁都算呀？」 胡鬚佬道：「咩呀！唔得呀？」 羅密歐道：「唔係唔得…不過……」 胡鬚佬道：「不咩過吖，你即係唔信我啦！」 羅密歐道：「唔係唔信……」 胡鬚佬道：「你唔使講o勒！等我做次俾你睇o勒！」講完隨手向地上一指，即時變了一舊石出o黎，然後行埋去用雙手一舉，舉唔起，對羅密歐道：「拿！係咪呀！有無呃你呀？係咪造得出呀！」 羅密歐喜道：「好野喎，得喎，真係造到喎。」 胡鬚佬滿面得意的道：「咁睇小我吖拿，你頭先講果個李乜野話？」 羅密歐道：「李天命呀！……咪住！死o勒！咁你依家造o左舊石出o黎……仲算唔算係全能呀？」 胡鬚佬道：「車！咁就簡單啦，我變走去咪得o羅，呢舊我搬唔起o既石唔o係度，我咪又全能o羅，拿，我變！」話口未完，舊石立刻唔見o左。 羅密歐道：「嘩！好犀利呀！仲利害過大衛高柏飛呀！你依家又全能返喇！」 胡鬚佬道：「哈！碎料o者！」但係諗諗下，又有點不安的道：「但係…但係我已經造過舊石出o黎，咁仲係咪全能呢？」 羅密歐道：「緊係係啦，點解會唔係o者！」 胡鬚佬喜道：「點解仲係呀？快D講o黎聽下。」 羅密歐道：「你舉唔起係「之前」o既事，唔係「依家」吖嘛，以前還以前，依家還依家，未造還未造，無影響o既！」 胡鬚佬讚道：「呀！叻仔喎，咁快就學到野！」 羅密歐道：「咪住先，有D唔妥！」 胡鬚佬緊張的問道：「點呀？又有咩野唔妥呀？」 羅密歐道：「拿！你之所以要造舊搬唔起o既石頭出o黎，係想証明你係全能吖嘛，咁你依家又變走o左…但係你唔變走佢又唔得…」 胡鬚佬道：「我咪就係覺得咁樣唔係幾妥o羅！呀！可唔可以咁呢：凡係有人o黎我就造一次俾過佢睇，咁樣你話得唔得呢？」 羅密歐道：「咁又唔係咁好喎，你諗下，如果好似你咁講，咁無人上o黎果陣，你咪唔係全能o羅，同埋你呢度好似…」羅密歐看了看周圍說道：「…咁靜咁o既！呀！除非……」 胡鬚佬道：「除非乜野呀？」 羅密歐道：「除非你不斷咁重複呢個：「造石，舉唔起，變走」呢個過程咪得o羅！」 胡鬚佬道：「咁樣？等我試下先，」胡鬚佬一路造，一路講：「拿！造舊石出o黎，舉唔起，全能。變走舊石，全能，又造舊石出o黎，舉唔起，又全能。又變走舊石，全能……」 羅密歐道：「喂喂喂！咪住！咁樣太麻煩，不如你變一舊舉唔舉得起o既都係同一舊石，兩位一體，咁仲方便啦！」 胡鬚佬被一語提醒，喜道：「係喎呵！咁都好喎，你早D上o黎我就唔使咁悶啦。好！我變！」只見胡鬚佬烏低身，雙手不斷捧起舊石又放返低：「舉起，舉唔起，舉起，舉唔起，舉起，舉唔起，舉起，舉唔起，舉起，舉唔起，喂！排骨仔！係咪咁呀！舉起，舉唔起……」 羅密歐道：「差唔多o勒！不過最好再快D，唔好俾佢有空隙。一有空隙你就唔係全能架喇！」 胡鬚佬應道：「好！無問題，再快D，舉起舉唔起，舉起舉唔起，舉唔起呀唔係，係舉起舉唔起，舉起舉唔起，舉起舉唔起，舉起舉唔起……」 羅密歐鼓掌道：「係o勒係o勒，就係咁o勒，再快D添，唔好俾佢停呀！」 胡鬚佬道：「舉起舉唔起舉起舉唔起舉起舉唔起舉起舉唔起舉起舉唔起舉起舉唔起，哈哈，依家邊個夠膽話我唔係全能？哈哈……」 羅密歐道：「好玩呀！我又o黎！」說完雙手以極速不斷咁將身上條褲拉低然後又拉返高，說道：「除褲着褲，除褲着褲，除褲着褲，除褲着褲，除褲着褲……」 胡鬚佬看了笑罵：「衰仔吖，咁你都好玩o既！」 羅密歐道：「衫都得架！拿！睇住，除衫，着衫，除衫，着衫，除衫，着衫，除衫，着衫，除衫，着衫……」羅密歐看着胡鬚佬不斷地搬着他所想出來的「兩位一體石」，動作比之前快了很多，有點得意，忽然想到，如果舊石同時又係胡鬚佬個腦，三位一體，咁豈非更妙？想到這裏，忽有所悟，立即穿好衫褲，對胡鬚佬道：「喂，你唔好停呀！我返去話俾你D教徒知呀下，我話你真係全能o架！」 胡鬚佬一聽，發覺有D唔妥，問道：「教徒？咩野教徒呀？」 羅密歐道：「咩野教徒？你o既教徒o羅！基督教果D o羅！」 胡鬚佬道：「基督教關我乜野事呀！邊個話佢地係我o既教徒呀！」 羅密歐道：「乜你唔係……唔係……唔係耶穌咩？」 胡鬚佬怒道：「我耶你個頭呀！老子係拉登，耶穌?!你真係識講笑呀！」 羅密歐驚道：「吓！咁我問你係唔係？你又答我「無錯」？扯！」 拉登道：「扯！」立即掟低舊石。 羅密歐道：「我都覺得唔係幾妥架o勒！連李天命你都居然會話唔知係邊個……扯！」 拉登怒道：「係你講得唔清唔清楚咋！扯」 羅密歐道：「車！我點知你o者，無端端又學人坐o係舊石頭度……扯！」 拉登道：「扯咩呀扯！你好快D快添呀！」 羅密歐道：「走咪走，頭先都唔知有無俾你睇蝕o左添呀！扯」 拉登道：「你仲講！等我仲以為係邊個上o黎！搞到老子身水身汗！扯！」 羅密歐大聲道：「扯！唔好話你自己無腦！o係度扮勁！扯」 拉登喝道：「走啦！信唔信我搵架飛機撞你吖拿！」 羅密歐：「扯！！」 拉登：「扯！！！」 ………………………… 咪話我嚇你地：其實，拉登已經不在人世，不過重未死o者！

哈哈~ "文"的文好鬼長.... 不過都幾好笑. to 三大高手 欠長空, 三缺一的你開唔到四方城吧?? :P 見李先生或其他人未出聲, 我也多口問一句: >[f1(x), f2(x),…. , fn(x)] = all possible functions of x < 是存在的嗎? 或曰是可構造的嗎? 這個定義定得很不自然

明月、飛雪、殘劍 碰碰碰開檯，你地唔係我手腳，我天胡都食過，未達到呢個水準o既，唔好同我打。有人證o架，唔係嚇你！:):)

JoeJoneS 咩呀，無名殘劍飛雪同埋我，咪夠腳law，你做咩話三缺一jek? 你唔會計數ga? 叫埋長空黎巴鬼咩, 打瞢呀? 無名,你唔好咁牙擦，食天胡好叻咩？夠唔夠我食得咋胡多呀?

to:JoeJoneS(2003-01-25 14:11:31) 我的想法是, f(i)x是某個可能的宇宙狀態, (E)x [f(i)x] 即表示x能存在於f(i)x這狀態. 而 (E)x [f1(x)^f2(x)^…. ^fn(x)] 可以視作推論的假設. 然後要探討哪些命題有資格成為{f1(x), f2(x),…. , fn(x)}這集合的elements. 現在問題是: ”複合命題”在集合中的存在性,是否應根據”簡單命題”而決定? (複合/簡單是相對而言.) JoeJoneS和各位有什麼看法? 謝謝賜教… ───────────── to:文2003-01-25 13:58:24 對白超正，笑爆咀~ ───────────── To:無名(2003-01-25 15:38:40) 無名N年前食過天糊！水準是無人能及的！飛雪是非常害怕的！ ───────────── ps. 飛雪=殘劍

天胡? ..... 果然係十步一殺的高手... 明月, 你應該係殘劍的丫環嘛, 所以無計你 :P 飛雪~ >現在問題是: ”複合命題”在集合中的存在性,是否應根據”簡單命題”而決定? (複合/簡單是相對而言.) < 關於存在性, 我只是想問問你原來的定義: >[f1(x), f2(x),…. , fn(x)] = all possible functions of x < 這裡的"all possible" 是可構造的嗎? 對於"無限"的東西要小心處理吧?

let's presume that our universe is finite. ---------- 可以這樣"dun"腳--> 明月+無名+飛雪殘劍+joejoneS 分分鐘可以在牌局中領會哲道的最高境界.

why no Mr.Lee's reply on my question!? >_< ..

你做過啲乜先！ 思考人人都會！白日愛人人都會發！有想有做！有思有恩！有考有進！

與神共話 飛雪與JoeJoneS，多謝捧場，^-^

飛雪想要李天命先生 re 你嗎? 哈, 你想挑戰還是想請教呢? 小心, 萬一每樣都只做一半, 隨時變 "請" "戰" 和 "挑" "教" :P 咭咭

從石頭到石頭之上 「全能的上帝能否造出一塊祂舉不起的石頭？」 (覺得這問題有問題的人請看這裡 http://www.starzine.org/~raassim/faq/B01.htm) 前言：雙引號內的詞語可能超出日常用法的範圍 在回答這個問題之前，先把『整個世界』分成「邏輯有效域」和「邏輯無效域」(註1)。在「邏輯無效域」內的事物的特性正是「A&~A」。那麼，到底全能的上帝能否造出一塊祂舉不起的石頭？ 我們來看看其中一個答案：「既能夠又不能夠」。很矛盾嗎？且慢，那是在「邏輯有效域」的說法，但不適用於「邏輯無效域」。因為在那裡，「可以刺穿任何盾的矛」和「不會被任何矛刺穿的盾」是可以並存的。 回看最初問石頭問題的人的動機，就是要證明「全能的上帝不存在」吧。但甚麼是「全能」､甚麼是「存在」呢？ 如果說，「全能」就是「能做一切邏輯上可能的事」的話，那的確是「不存在」(這種說法其實假定了『整個世界』只有「邏輯有效域」)；可是，如果我們更宏觀一些，將全能解作「上帝能做一切邏輯上可能的事並且能做邏輯上不可能的事」，那不就鮮通了？「全能」的上帝存在而且不存在，但『全能』的上帝卻可以『存在』。 大家明白我要說甚麼嗎？其實我們『無法』用任何語言去『有效』『描述』(註2)「邏輯無效域」中的事物，更不用說否定『全能的上帝』了。石頭問題所否定的「全能的上帝」僅僅是一個「在偏狹觀點中的全能的上帝」，卻未必是真正的上帝；石頭問題所展示的僅僅是與人類無關的「邏輯無效域」中的種種事物(註3)。 故此，全能的上帝 的信徒們(註4)，你們的世界觀應該更擴闊一點，那就不必因為「石頭問題」而感到困惑了。你們仍可憑著信心相信全能的上帝『存在』(註5)，只是請記著一點，不要試圖去「證明」，自己領會到就夠了(註6)。因為「證明」這玩意是在「邏輯有效域」中的。如果以上閣下聽不懂的話，和別人討論時還是改用「至能」好了。 註1：不存在？請問你怎樣證明呢？ 註2：加引號是避免武斷。 註3：試問「甜並且不甜的橙」､「有尾並且無尾的馬」､「跳並且不跳的動作」這些概念，對我們的生活有意義嗎？ 但再進一步想，它們又未必對『整個世界』無意義。 註4：特此分隔，以免有人誤解為「全能的信徒」 註5：正正是因為「不能完全清楚了解」才是信，如果可以「完全清楚了解」 註6：這也可減少許多衝突。 熱切期待小孩､S.C.等高手指教。

從石頭到石頭之上(修改版) 「全能的上帝能否造出一塊祂舉不起的石頭？」 (覺得這問題有問題的人請看這裡 http://www.starzine.org/~raassim/faq/B01.htm ) 前言：雙引號內的詞語很可能超出日常用法的範圍 在回答這個問題之前，先把『整個世界』分成「邏輯有效域」和「邏輯無效域」(註1)。那麼，到底全能的上帝能否造出一塊祂舉不起的石頭？ 我們來看看其中一個答案：「既能夠又不能夠」。很矛盾嗎？且慢，那是在「邏輯有效域」的說法，但不適用於「邏輯無效域」。因為在那裡，「可以刺穿任何盾的矛」和「不會被任何矛刺穿的盾」是可以並存的。 有許多人試圖利用石頭問題以證明「全能的上帝不存在」。但到底甚麼是「全能」､甚麼是「存在」呢？ 如果說，「全能」就是「能做一切邏輯上可能的事」的話，那的確是「不存在」(這種說法其實假定了『整個世界』只有「邏輯有效域」)；可是，如果我們更宏觀一些，將全能解作「上帝能做一切邏輯上可能的事並且能做邏輯上不可能的事」，那不就解通了？「全能」的上帝存在而且不存在，但『全能』的上帝卻可以『存在』。 大家明白我要說甚麼嗎？其實我們『無法』用任何語言去『有效』『描述』(註2)「邏輯無效域」中的事物，更不用說否定『全能的上帝』了。石頭問題所否定的「全能的上帝」僅僅是一個「在偏狹觀點中的全能的上帝」，卻未必是真正的上帝；石頭問題所展示的僅僅是與人類無關的「邏輯無效域」中的種種事物(註3)。 故此，全能的上帝 的信徒們(註4)，你們的世界觀應該更擴闊一點，那就不必因為「石頭問題」而感到困惑了。你們仍可憑著信心相信全能的上帝『存在』(註5)，只是請記著一點，不要試圖去「證明」，自己領會到就夠了(註6)。因為「證明」這玩意是在「邏輯有效域」中的。不過，閣下聽不懂以上的話，和別人討論時還是改用「至能」好了。 後記：本文也許寫得不好(甚至很差^^")但個人想指出的是，「上帝(只)是至能」並非面對石頭問題的唯一合理答案。若上帝是萬有的創造者，為什麼祂不可能創造一些我們無法理解的事物？ 註1： 邏輯有效域："A"與"~A"不可並存 邏輯無效域："A"與"~A"可以並存 註2：加引號是避免武斷。 註3：試問「甜並且不甜的橙」､「有尾並且無尾的馬」､「跳並且不跳的動作」這些概念，對我們的生活有意義嗎？ 但再進一步想，它們又未必對『整個世界』無意義。 註4：特此分隔，以免有人誤解為「全能的信徒」 註5：正正是因為「不能完全清楚了解」才是信，如果可以「完全清楚了解」 註6：這也可減少許多衝突。

呢度呀~~~~~阿梯~~~~~！ ：

To:夢流星 夢流星,其實你所持的觀點跟思考藝術中的全能論者的觀點是大同小異的.只不過你用不同的方式表達出來.因此其實你的論點巳在思考藝術一書給批評過了.不過以此題目去訓練理性思考也算不錯. 在討論之先,首先要聲明一點.就算//上帝能做一切邏輯上可能的事並且能做邏輯上不可能的事//,但我們所生活的空間卻是在「邏輯有效域」,因此,我或你所說的只是要違反邏輯的話,那就必然是錯的,否則你能'超越邏輯'的同時,我也'超越邏輯',討論永遠也不會有結果. 1.閣下認為//在回答這個問題之前，先把『整個世界』分成「邏輯有效域」和「邏輯無效域」//,而其中的「邏輯無效域」是指//"A"與"~A"可以並存//的世界.但我想請問:"A"與"~A"可以並存的世界是一個怎樣的的世界?或問:「可以刺穿任何盾的矛」和「不會被任何矛刺穿的盾」是可以並存的世界是一個怎樣的的世界?上帝是上帝並且不是上帝?閣下可以解釋一下嗎?若不能解釋清楚的話,那麼閣下的的論點便會不攻自破,用以支撐論點的「邏輯無效域」也變得毫無意義,那麼閣下的的論點便會不攻自破. 閣下可能會答//其實我們『無法』用任何語言去『有效』『描述』「邏輯無效域」中的事物，更不用說否定『全能的上帝』了。//但那是不負責任的說法.因為 a)若我們『無法』用任何語言去『有效』『描述』「邏輯無效域」中的事物,那麼閣下所說的//邏輯無效域："A"與"~A"可以並存 //及//因為在那裡，「可以刺穿任何盾的矛」和「不會被任何矛刺穿的盾」是可以並存的。 //是否也'無效'呢?那只是自打嘴巴.若用任何語言去『描述』也無效的話,那只會令閣下所提出的「邏輯無效域」變得毫無意義. b)若因為『無法』用任何語言去『有效』『描述』「邏輯無效域」中的事物因而不能否定『全能的上帝』,我們也同樣不能去肯定『全能的上帝』! 閣下亦可能會答:我只是說邏輯無效域可能存在,而沒有肯定它存在.不過,若只是可能存在, 也只能說明全能的上帝可能存在,閣下會滿足於這個結論嗎? 2.//如果說，「全能」就是「能做一切邏輯上可能的事」的話，那的確是「不存在」(這種說法其實假定了『整個世界』只有「邏輯有效域」)；可是，如果我們更宏觀一些，將全能解作「上帝能做一切邏輯上可能的事並且能做邏輯上不可能的事」，那不就解通了？// 正常人也會明白,如果A是錯的話,那麼無論B是什麼,(A並且B)也必然是錯的!或者說無論X是什麼.如果他做不到A,則X必然做不到(A並且B)!可會有X那麼說:"我雖然不懂游泳,但我卻懂游泳並且能潛水."因此,若能做一切邏輯上可能的事的X是不存在的話,則能做一切邏輯上可能的事並且能做邏輯上不可能的事的X也必不存在!我要再強調一點,就算上帝能違反邏輯,我們卻不可以! 3.//？「全能」的上帝存在而且不存在，但『全能』的上帝卻可以『存在』。 大家明白我要說甚麼嗎？// 你真的明白自己在說什麼嗎? 4.//石頭問題所否定的「全能的上帝」僅僅是一個「在偏狹觀點中的全能的上帝」，卻未必是真正的上帝// 若在一個'偏狹觀點中'也當不了全能的上帝,那麼在'擴闊的觀點中'也必定當不了全能的上帝.設想小B說:'雖然牛我打不過班中的大牛,但我卻可打嬴任何人.'有人會信這種鬼話嗎? 5.//故此，全能的上帝 的信徒們(註4)，你們的世界觀應該更擴闊一點，那就不必因為「石頭問題」而感到困惑了。你們仍可憑著信心相信全能的上帝『存在』(註5)，只是請記著一點，不要試圖去「證明」，自己領會到就夠了// 若真的//可憑著信心相信全能的上帝『存在』//,//不要試圖去「證明」，自己領會到就夠了//,那閣下又為何要寫這篇文章去說(證?)明「上帝(只)是至能」並非面對石頭問題的唯一合理答案呢? 6.//因為「證明」這玩意是在「邏輯有效域」中的。// 我們本來就生活在邏輯有效域當中!難度你能在邏輯無效域當中?你是人並且不是人?這個宇宙中有上帝並且無上帝? 7.//不過，閣下聽不懂以上的話，和別人討論時還是改用「至能」好了。// 阿Q精神! 8.//正正是因為「不能完全清楚了解」才是信// 現在不是不能清楚了解,而是清楚了解上帝不可能是全能的. 9.//若上帝是萬有的創造者，為什麼祂不可能創造一些我們無法理解的事物？ // 對,但不能因此證明了祂是全能的. 總結一下,閣下寫那篇文章的目的,就是想在理性上說服我們,上帝(只)是至能」並非面對石頭問題的唯一合理答案.因此閣下的話是必需符合邏輯,否則就根本說明不了什麼.而我最大的疑問就是希望閣下能清楚說明什麼是'邏輯無效域'.可以的話,亦請閣下回應其它的論點,謝謝!

hello (未看完你的回應) 我自己貼了出來也覺得……哈哈 不過當初也就是有一份「發表慾」而已。我根本不打算用這套「理論」去跟人討論。我不打算證明上帝是「全能」(如果一但證明了，「全能」的定義一定跟我們那理解的不同。那麼這種『全能』還有甚麼意義呢？)，「至能」就已經很好了。 其實是這樣的，我本來想試試找出一些方法去令一些相信「上帝能造出一塊又舉得起又舉不起的石頭」或「上帝能造出又能不出一塊石頭」之類的概念的信徒，或教徒，明白他們的問題所在。也許，他們還是「相信全能」，但我希望至少能令他們不去和別人討論。 雖然，我可能只是在嘗試做一年很多餘的事，但至少，也滿足了那份「發表慾」吧。^_^ P.S.正在看《思考藝術》 P.S.S謝謝你的回應，我會看完的^^

回應其他論點嗎？ 恕我不逐點回應了，因為我的動機根本不是要論證上帝是全能。那篇文章當中確有我不明白的地方，但也是「集思廣益」(全能論)而成的。那篇文章或許是思想混亂下的產物，但寫那文章的動機我是清楚的。或者，我要寫得更亂吧:) (如果有人說「懂」，我真會嚇一跳呢) 再一次感謝閣下認真､用心的回應。 我認為適當時候「放縱」一下自己去犯一下小錯是好的，這樣以後就不會容易犯下大錯了。(不過年紀越大越不適用) //現在不是不能清楚了解,而是清楚了解上帝不可能是全能的.// 想到另一種說法：清楚了解全能的上帝是不可能的。有無問題？ 很高興認識你呢^^

To:夢流星 //也許，他們還是「相信全能」，但我希望至少能令他們不去和別人討論。 // 明白你是善意的,但若他們不和別人討論,那只會讓他們活在虛假的認知當中,離開神更遠(如果有神的話).只怕是好心做壞事. //那篇文章當中確有我不明白的地方，但也是「集思廣益」(全能論)而成的。// 恕我直言,要「集思廣益」才能寫出那埋文字!那只會令我覺得基督徒的思想水平原來是........ //但寫那文章的動機我是清楚的// 就算動機好也不能作為胡言亂語的藉口. //我認為適當時候「放縱」一下自己去犯一下小錯是好的，這樣以後就不會容易犯下大錯了// 同意,但那種胡扯所犯的卻不是小錯.更不是給人拆穿後所用的藉口.而且那種言論只會對基督教有百害而無一利. //想到另一種說法：清楚了解全能的上帝是不可能的。有無問題？ // '清楚了解全能的上帝是不可能的',因為全能的上帝根本不可能存在,但這句話有誤導性,讓人誤以為'全能的上帝'是存在的,不過我們無法了解而巳,那就是這句話的問題. 我也很高興認識你!:-)

^^ 嗯嗯~ 有關「集思廣益」：你要知道，理性基督徒不多……(理性人都不多) 有時候他們也只是聽回來的(他們未必覺得無問題，只是在某些場合不好表達)。 再說我一個人又能認識多少人呢？ 寫出來之前，這個想法我自己也覺得有問題的，可是卻沒想出問題在哪裡(而且不太有空去想)；如果就這樣置之不顧，反而可能有害，於是就貼出來了。 P.S.在此題目下，是否很難離題？ (第一應該沒人會懷疑我是人； 第二，我說自己喜歡思考便可，信不信由你)

May I join the discussion? First of all, I don’t think there is a clear definition about omnipotence in the Bible. Thus, why don’t we restrict our discussion over the issue of whether omnipotence is possible, instead of whether an omnipotent God is possible? //在討論之先,首先要聲明一點.就算//上帝能做一切邏輯上可能的事並且能做邏輯上不可能的事//,但我們所生活的空間卻是在「邏輯有效域」,因此,我或你所說的只是要違反邏輯的話,那就必然是錯的,否則你能'超越邏輯'的同時,我也'超越邏輯',討論永遠也不會有結果.// First, where is our 我們所生活的空間 is irrelevant. No one has been in Mars but this will not hinder our interest in studying it. //因此,我或你所說的只是要違反邏輯的話,那就必然是錯的// should be amended as 因此,我或你所說的只是要違反邏輯的話,那就必然在「邏輯有效域」是錯的 //否則你能'超越邏輯'的同時,我也'超越邏輯',討論永遠也不會有結果.// is not true. Neither party can 超越邏輯'. The current issue is whether omnipotence can 超越邏輯'. //…閣下可以解釋一下嗎?若不能解釋清楚的話,那麼閣下的的論點便會不攻自破,用以支撐論點的「邏輯無效域」也變得毫無意義 // What else explanation are you asking for? I think the definition of 「邏輯無效域」 is quite clear. Certainly, no one can give you a detail description of 「邏輯無效域」. But, taking the 「邏輯有效域」 as the reference, it should not be very difficult to understand what 「邏輯無效域」 is referring to. Virtual numbers may be a good analogy. //若因為『無法』用任何語言去『有效』『描述』「邏輯無效域」中的事物因而不能否定『全能的上帝』,我們也同樣不能去肯定『全能的上帝』!// That is true. But, I think the stone dilemma is meant to disprove the possibility of omnipotence. What we are trying to do is to point out its deficiency. For me, I have never tried to prove the possibility of omnipotence, especially when I found that it is not a Biblical concept. In fact, even though we can prove a being can create an unliftable stone without contradicting his omnipotence, this being is not necessarily omnipotent. There may be other things he cannot accomplish. //如果說，「全能」就是「能做一切邏輯上可能的事」的話，那的確是「不存在」(這種說法其實假定了『整個世界』只有「邏輯有效域」)；可是，如果我們更宏觀一些，將全能解作「上帝能做一切邏輯上可能的事並且能做邏輯上不可能的事」，那不就解通了？// In my opinion, //如果說，「全能」就是「能做一切邏輯上可能的事」的話…// should be amended as //如果說，「全能」就是「能做一切邏輯上可能的事」and 「不能做一切邏輯上不可能的事」的話…// //正常人也會明白,如果A是錯的話,那麼無論B是什麼,(A並且B)也必然是錯的!// This is only true in 「邏輯有效域」. Besides, so far I think we haven’t identify a single task in 「邏輯有效域」 which the omnipotent being cannot accomplish. Creating an unliftable stone without contradicting his omnipotence is a task in 「邏輯無效域」. Finally, have I missed any point? Please remind me if I have. Also, thank you for reigniting this topic.

To:夢流星 //嗯嗯~ 有關「集思廣益」：你要知道，理性基督徒不多……(理性人都不多) 有時候他們也只是聽回來的(他們未必覺得無問題，只是在某些場合不好表達)。 再說我一個人又能認識多少人呢？ // 同意,但不等如明知道是錯的還要找一堆廢話來自欺欺人!! //寫出來之前，這個想法我自己也覺得有問題的，可是卻沒想出問題在哪裡(而且不太有空去想)；如果就這樣置之不顧，反而可能有害，於是就貼出來了// 若是那樣想的話,就請在貼出來前先說明,若等到給人踢爆後才那樣說是很難令人相信的(對不起,因遇到太多類似的案例,因而有感而發) P.S.我會對批評我離題的人說:黐線架你!

andycool andycool: //若是那樣想的話,就請在貼出來前先說明,若等到給人踢爆後才那樣說是很難令人相信的(對不起,因遇到太多類似的案例,因而有感而發)// 我不介意就沒問題吧？(如果我有心跟人討論這個，為什麼不把它推上來，又不再貼在《石頭•夢》那裡呢？)我有時是怪怪的。(不過也可能是怪怪的時候才會留言，所以你未必有機會看到我正常^^") 對原文加點補充： <1>不同意轉載(其實多少混雜了一篇這裡的文章的思想，好像由是小卜子寫的。) <2>本來想寫「雖然我們無法理解那個領域，然而，憑著信，我們可以達到這一點。(了解那種『全能』)」的，但現在又覺得沒有寫的必要了。畢竟「聖徒相通」(聽回來的)也未必等於「教徒相通」(即使前者為真)啊！ P.S. (1)andycool你有興趣和JPY討論嗎？ (話雖如此，但我不認識他) (2)話說回來，竟然真的「後繼有人」呢:)

...... //First, where is our 我們所生活的空間 is irrelevant. No one has been in Mars but this will not hinder our interest in studying it.// 不相干的是閣下才對.我要強調的是在我們的討論中誰所說的違反邏輯就是錯,誰說的不合理就是不合理.不能隨便說什麼「邏輯無效域」就以為自己可以違反邏輯而沒錯.當然不是叫人去看看火星有沒有人. ////因此,我或你所說的只是要違反邏輯的話,那就必然是錯的// should be amended as 因此,我或你所說的只是要違反邏輯的話,那就必然在「邏輯有效域」是錯的// 這正正就是我要表達的,這個宇宙,包括你我,包括這個討區也在你們所說的「邏輯有效域」中,因此誰所說的只是要違反邏輯的話,那就必然是錯的.閣下的修改只是多此一舉. ////否則你能'超越邏輯'的同時,我也'超越邏輯',討論永遠也不會有結果.// is not true. Neither party can 超越邏輯'. The current issue is whether omnipotence can 超越邏輯'.// 這句的意思”如果”我們能超越邏輯,”則” 討論永遠也不會有結果.而不是斷言有人能超越邏輯.看見” 否則”這詞語嗎? 我想問題應該是全能的X有沒有可能存在? // What else explanation are you asking for? I think the definition of 「邏輯無效域」 is quite clear.// 你既然知道我要的是explanation,那麼又跟’the definition of 「邏輯無效域」 is quite clear.’有什麼關係呢?為何你不直接說// no one can give you a detail description of 「邏輯無效域」.//呢?要經過特別安排才可說出這句嗎?撇開這點不談,你覺得那所謂的definition很清楚嗎?根據所謂的定義 //邏輯有效域："A"與"~A"不可並存 邏輯無效域："A"與"~A"可以並存// 再看一遍,令我覺得這個世界是「邏輯有效域」這個想法可能要修改,因為這種定義很可能是在邏輯無效域中的腦袋才想得出.人與非人,蠢與非蠢,在這地球也是並存的,難道這裡是邏輯無效域?我們的邏輯也不是邏輯,通通無效?依我看,無效的是這定義才對!請想清楚才說那定義清楚吧.不過也難怪,若是略懂邏輯也不會認為有什麼邏輯無效域存在 //But, taking the 「邏輯有效域」 as the reference, it should not be very difficult to understand what 「邏輯無效域」 is referring to.// 既然那麼容易理解,為何不把你所理解到的說出來讓大家明白? //Virtual numbers may be a good analogy.// Virtual number=complex number? good analogy?有懂complex number的人會對你說” no one can give you a detail description of complex number?全無內容的邏輯無效域能根well-established的complex number相比? // Besides, so far I think we haven’t identify a single task in 「邏輯有效域」 which the omnipotent being cannot accomplish.// taskA=X能造出一塊祂舉不起的石頭,taskB=X能舉起的任何石頭.無論X是什麼.他一是做不到task A或者做不到taskB.而taskA及taskB也是single task. 其實「邏輯無效域」的提出不但不能有所作為,反而是越幫越忙.本來我們之間也有一個共識就是神不能做違反邏輯的事情,但若神能在邏輯無效域做違反邏輯的事情,就會令人產生一個疑問.若神只能在邏輯無效域做違反邏輯的事情而不能在「邏輯有效域」中做違反邏輯的事情,那神還算不算是全能?

邏輯無效區 >不存在? 你怎麼證明? 問得好, 請參看「真理不因時而變?」一題, 了解一下, 是正方有責任指出它如何存在, 還是應由反方證明它不存在。

To Andycool Thank you for your reply especially when it was posted on about 4 o’clock in the morning. However, it seems that you are quite angry (am I right?) and the tone of your message is not very friendly. To me, so far, it is still okay but please be reminded to control yourself. One can only show how childish he is when he loses his temper and makes personal attacks (and the discussion/argument has to be ended abruptly until and unless he apologizes and promises to discuss/argue in a proper manner in the future). As what suggested by SC under another tread, if you don’t want to continue permanently or temporarily for whatever reason, just go ahead and take your time. Back to our argument, if I don’t understand it wrongly, there is only 1 point raised in your previous post (tell me if I do miss any other points), which is “「邏輯無效域」 does not exist”. In my opinion, when you proclaim that “「邏輯無效域」 does not exist”, it is better if a valid proof is also given (to me, simply alleging something is unconceivable does not constitute a valid proof). Otherwise, your proclamation will become merely a postulate, similar to mine of “「邏輯無效域」 may exist”. It is true that I don’t have a proof of “「邏輯無效域」 may exist” either especially after you reject my analogy of complex numbers (not virtual numbers, thank you for your correction; and please tell me more about what the square root of –1 means if you are interested and have time). However, unlike what you suggested “「邏輯無效域」 does not exist at all”, my suggestion is “「邏輯無效域」 may or may not exist” but not “「邏輯無效域」 does exist”. In other words, you insist on a particular stance while I don’t. As such, the burden of proof is on your side. Please refer to Mr Lee’s approach in his debate with Horner. Instead of taking a particular stance, he simply asserted “theism is not more reasonable than atheism” (but not “atheism is more reasonable than theism”). Neither did he give a proof of this particular “stance”. Now, I think this is be a good time to revisit what our underlying issue is again. 1. At first, there are people (most likely some Christians) claiming that there is a being (most likely God) who is omnipotent (“Stance 1”) without giving any proof. 2. Then, there are other people (most likely some atheists) claiming that there can’t be omnipotence (“Stance 2”) by giving a proof. 3. Now, it is our turn to query the sufficiency of the proof of Stance 2. Suppose Stance 2 is overturned eventually, does it imply Stance 1 is automatically proven? Obviously not! On the other hand, do I need to provide any proof for Stance 1, omnipotence and/or 「邏輯無效域」? No, because it is not my intention. My intention is simply to invalidate the proof of Stance 2 by casting some doubt on it so as to render the 2 stances equally reasonable and/or unreasonable. And this can be achieved if there is not a valid proof to eliminate the possibility of omnipotence and/or 「邏輯無效域」. In addition to the above, there is another point worth further exploration. You claim that there is a 共識 of 就是神不能做違反邏輯的事情,. First, is it really a mutual understanding? From the layman’s point of view (such as mine), omnipotence refers to the ability to do everything without specifying whether it is logical or not. Certainly, if you prefer to restrict its application by qualifying the definition, it is fine with me. Are there any other limitations you want to add? Should the following conditions be also added? 1. cannot violate laws of Physics, Chemistry, Biology, Mathematics, …; 2. cannot violate laws of HK, China, the US, …; 3. cannot violate any generally accepted moral standards; and 4. cannot violate any other laws we may from time to time specify. For simplicity, let’s take only the limitation as suggested by you. In this respect, omnipotence refers to the ability to do everything but not those tasks which are in breach of any laws of logics. Q: Can an omnipotent being do something illogical? A: No because it is not within its power as given by the definition. Q: Then, has the being been proven not omnipotent? A: No, because being able to do something illogical is not a condition of being omnipotent. Q: Can an omnipotent being create an unliftable stone? A: No because creating an unliftable stone contradicts to the state of being omnipotent and is therefore an illogical task. Q: Then, has the being been proven not omnipotent? A: No, because being able to do something illogical is not a condition of being omnipotent.

Some other supplements //我要強調的是在我們的討論中誰所說的違反邏輯就是錯,誰說的不合理就是不合理.不能隨便說什麼「邏輯無效域」就以為自己可以違反邏輯而沒錯.// I think I haven’t 違反邏輯 myself. What I did is asking whether the omnipotent being, if any, has the ability to alter rules in logics (which you may answer “yes” or “no”) and/or demanding a valid proof of the non-existence of 「邏輯無效域」. //我想問題應該是全能的X有沒有可能存在?// To answer this question, we need to first answer questions like whether there is 「邏輯無效域」 (if no, what is the proof?) and/or whether X can alter rules in logics. //你覺得那所謂的 definition (「邏輯無效域」) 很清楚嗎?// I can understand your query. How about changing the definition to “where rules of logics is not applicable”? //taskA=X能造出一塊祂舉不起的石頭,taskB=X能舉起的任何石頭.無論X是什麼.他一是做不到task A或者做不到taskB.而taskA及taskB也是single task. // Both tasks A & B are a single task which are fairly easy to achieve separately. But, now the task is creating an unliftable stone without contradicting the state of being omnipotent. //但若神能在邏輯無效域做違反邏輯的事情,就會令人產生一個疑問.若神只能在邏輯無效域做違反邏輯的事情而不能在「邏輯有效域」中做違反邏輯的事情,那神還算不算是全能?// If you can understand the definition of 「邏輯無效域」 and the trick as shown above, you will realize that any 違反邏輯的事情 fall into 「邏輯無效域」. According to definition, there cannot be situation of 在「邏輯有效域」中做違反邏輯的事情.

to those who live in 邏輯無效域 1. 我們可以想象生物學無效域, 甚至物理學無效域, 其意即在某一獨特時空裏, 那裏的生物學定律或物理學定律與我們現今世界並不相同. 這類科學無效域是邏輯上可能的. 但甚麼是邏輯無效域? 在某些多值邏輯系統裏的確出現一些違反邏輯定律的情況, 例如在Kleene 的3值邏輯系統裏, 同一律p --> p 失效, 即是在這系統裏p --> p並非必然地真或它並非重言句. 這樣的邏輯系統的出現並非表示邏輯無效域是可能的. 這只表示這類系統違反了我們的理性, 並要被修正, 直致其符合理性. 因此即使不同的邏輯系統可能出現不同的基本邏輯定律失效, 這不表示邏輯無效域是可能, 甚致存在的, 這最多只表示這類系統的基本定義有缺憾. 說邏輯無效域存在的, 可能混淆了至少以下1點: 1. 邏輯不是科學, 它不描述經驗世界. 而邏輯和數學的性質很類似, 它們都是重言句, 並不描述經驗世界. 例如: 非歐幾何的建構最初是純數學的, 它的”空間”的概念只有抽象的數學意義, 當物理學使用非歐幾何作為工具的, 非歐幾何的”空間”概念才有物理意義, 但並不表示非歐幾何的數學研究本身就顯示物理上非歐”空間”的存在. 同樣地, 即使我們改變某些定義而得出一些邏輯定律失效的邏輯系統, 也不表示某時空存在著邏輯無效域. 2. 我們可以想像生物學無效域, 甚至物理學無效域. 假如按此類比認為”邏輯無效域”是有意義的說法的話時, 只要我們對邏輯的特性有足夠的了解的話, 這不難看出”邏輯無效域”其實是犯了偽語意投射的毛病, 是沒有意義的說法. 2. 很多教徒喜歡把上帝說為超越邏輯. 但甚麼是”超越邏輯” ? 假如”超越”的意思為與邏輯沒有關係, 那麼一個馬桶, 一隻蟻也超越邏輯. 假如上帝是存在的並且人是不可能完全地了解上帝的旨意, 那麼面對眾多疑問或批評的時侯最恰當的做法是, “當我們不能說時, 就應該保持沉默”

翔,你看看這裡第一個留言,說說你的看法吧.

To 翔 Thank you for your input. I think you are trying to prove “邏輯無效域 does not exist” and I guess the key is “只要我們對邏輯的特性有足夠的了解的話, 這不難看出”邏輯無效域”其實是犯了偽語意投射的毛病, 是沒有意義的說法.” To me, it is rather 難 to 看出”邏輯無效域”其實是犯了偽語意投射的毛病. Please further elaborate.

To 飛雪 Sorry for distracting your original discussion.

數學肥腫與邏輯無效域 //I think you are trying to prove 邏輯無效域 does not exist// 更正確的說法是我認為”邏輯無效域”這字是沒有意義的. 我們可以理解”數學”這字的意思, 也可以理解”肥腫”的意思, 假如隨便的把這兩個字拼湊在一起成為”數學肥腫”, 便沒有意義, 這不是”數學肥腫”存不存在的問題, 是我們根本不明白這個字的意思. 同樣地, 用最籠統的說法, “邏輯”是指研究思考和推論的學問, 它沒有使我們對經驗世界的知識增加, 只是抽象的運算, 它並不指涉經驗世界的任何事物. “無效域”通常是指在某些規律沒有效力的某些時空. 例如: 中國法律的無效域, 即是指某些地方中國法律是沒有效力的, 如美國. “無效域”是有關經驗世界的概念 當“邏輯”與“無效域”拼貼在一起時, 便組成一個無意義的字“邏輯無效域”. 因為原本兩個字的用法是不相容的. 誤以為“邏輯無效域”是有意義的人是錯誤地以把邏輯與物理學混為一談.

to 飛雪 你全能的定義不好

翔,at least u have to give a reason, or an suggestion.

? //However, it seems that you are quite angry (am I right?) and the tone of your message is not very friendly.// not very friendly=angry?? 你說我無情似乎較為恰當. personal attacks?若如此則網編必會有所行動.君不見留言規則: "不可人身攻擊、誹謗、及 中傷別人" 不是你說有便有的.//As what suggested by SC under another tread, if you don’t want to continue permanently or temporarily for whatever reason, just go ahead and take your time. // 論証:神是不全能的. 定義:邏輯超效域=在邏輯有效域中可能被做到在那裏都不能被做到及在邏輯有效域中不可能被做到在那裏也不能被做到. proof:因為在邏輯有效域中能做的事便會不能在邏輯超效域中便不能,因此神不是全能的.因此他起碼有一件事做不到,例如不能在邏輯超效域中食米粉.

correction 論証:神是不全能的. 定義:邏輯超效域=在邏輯有效域中可能被做到的事在那裏都不能被做到及在邏輯有效域中不可能被做到的在那裏有X%機會能被做到,而X是虛數. proof:因為在邏輯有效域中能做的事便不能在邏輯超效域中做,因此神不是全能的.因為他起碼有一件事做不到,例如不能在邏輯超效域中食米粉.

To:翔 謝謝你的回應,令我看到我忽略了的東西.:-)

"邏輯無效域"??? 邏輯無效域即"A與~A可以並存"...咁重唔係自相矛盾? 現試在"邏輯無效域"中，答石頭問題如下. 問:上帝能否造一塊祂自己舉不起的石頭? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 答:你今日食左飯未?

致敬：翔、Theodore、andycool 兩招 (仿<<高處不勝寒兮...>>)： 揭其「偽語意投射」兮 一招中竅 戲之以「子矛子盾法」兮 一招了

To 飛雪 It seems that they are not interested in your topic very much. Maybe, yours is a bit too technical while they prefer easier topic.

To 翔 First, I have to admit that your post last night did scare me a bit because it was filled with terms I don’t rather understand. However, after reading and thinking it over and over, I realized what you wrote is actually nothing more than confirming the proclamation of “「邏輯無效域」 does not exist” is in fact a postulate and no one can challenge it despite the absence of a valid proof. If I am not wrong, then you must have a very strong faith on your belief. Moreover, you also asked me to shut up if I don’t accept this postulate. Although the intention is very rude, it was presented in a professional manner. I promise I will seriously consider it. In fact, after arguing with quite a few people insisting that the stone dilemma can overturn the possibility of omnipotence, I think basically I have known what their main reason is, namely the postulate of “nothing even though omnipotence may alter rules in logics”. Am I right? If so, then when one comes across this issue of omnipotence again, he must realize that that he still needs faith but not 100% rationality, no matter he believes there is or there is not omnipotence. PS //To those who live in 「邏輯無效域」// Who are you referring to? From our argument so far, it seems that there is no one except the omnipotent being (if there is one) who may be capable of (depends on the definition of the omnipotence) doing something in 「邏輯無效域」. //這不難看出”邏輯無效域”其實是犯了偽語意投射的毛病, 是沒有意義的說法.// It is appealing. However, even though 「邏輯無效域」 is a 語意投射 of 生物學無效域, 甚至物理學無效域, like what you suggested, how can you establish it is 偽? I think you miss a proof for this. In my opinion, analogy is not a valid proof. //「邏輯無效域」這字是沒有意義的.// No matter it is “「邏輯無效域」 does not exist” or “「邏輯無效域」這字是沒有意義的’’, you cannot avoid giving a valid proof to support your disproof to omnipotence. Without a valid proof, they are simply postulates and/or definitions such that you still need to base your argument on faith but not 100% rationality. From what you wrote in your second post, it seems that you are tackling the definition of 「邏輯無效域」. But if it merely constitutes a redefinition, it doesn’t help.

To andycool //你說我無情似乎較為恰當.// I think 無情 is an appropriate mood for discussion and/or argument. Never get personal! //personal attacks?若如此則網編必會有所行動// 網編 is a kind person. He/she/they even allow(s) 『壯陽教』. To me, I can’t argue with this type of persons. //邏輯超效域// Very innovative! But, I think you don’t understand the trick yet. First, 域 doesn’t refer to any physical location. Besides, with the introduction of 邏輯超效域, the definition of 邏輯無效域 can be amended to include all achievable and/or unachievable tasks in both 邏輯有效域 and 邏輯超效域. It is just a matter of definition. You still need to prove “「邏輯無效域」 doesn’t exist”. In fact, the underlying issue behind this 邏輯無效域 is whether omnipotence comprises the ability to alter rules in logics and/or other disciplines. Yes or no? If the answer is no, I could easily let go the 「邏輯無效域」.

To theodore //答:你今日食左飯未?// I think you don’t expect to have a detail discussion/argument with me. But your joke is interesting and sounds like a Sim’s story! When you have time, share some more!

To 陌上花, the cheerleader Let’s do it together. 3 cheers to 翔 ,Theodore and andycool! Hip, hip, Hurrah!

A Simulation Before this argument is closed (as urged by 翔), why don’t we simulate the debate once again? A: Can an omnipotent being create an unliftable stone? B: Before answering this, I need to know whether omnipotence includes the ability to alter rules in logics. A: What do you mean by altering rules in logics? B: By the phase of “altering rules in logics”, I refer to doing an illogical task without being illogical. A: It doesn’t make any sense. Doing an illogical task without being illogical is by itself illogical. Being illogical is something that cannot be tolerated. Even though you may conceive a model which can tolerate illogical argument, you should not tolerate this model but amend it until it become a model which conforms all rules in logics. B: Even an being which is omnipotent cannot be exempted from this? A: Of course not. What do you think that being is? What is the big deal of being omnipotent? Can you give me an example of such a being? Can you give me any description about that being? B: Okay, that means even an omnipotent being (if there is one) cannot alter rules in logics. A: Absolutely not! B: In this respect, I think an omnipotent being can in no way create an unliftable stone. A: See, you finally got it. B: …… A: Therefore, we hereby conclude that omnipotence does not exist at all because there is at least 1 single task it cannot accomplish. B: Wait! I think the omnipotent being may still be omnipotent. A: What? Can you remember what we have agreed? Do you have amnesia? Why don’t you keep silent if you don’t know anything? B: It is true that the omnipotent being cannot create an unliftable stone because creating an unliftable stone by an omnipotent being is a contradictory (or an illogical) task. By definition as agreed, omnipotence doesn’t comprise the ability to alter rules in logics and therefore not the ability to do illogical task. However, the fact of being unable to accomplish an illogical task should not be considered as a breach of the definition of omnipotence because accomplishing an illogical task is not within the power of the definition. As long as there is not an example of a breach against the definition, the being may still be omnipotent. A: You know nothing about logics. I don’t want to waste my time on you. Go back to read more books and take some courses of fundamental logics. Don’t come back unless and until you agree that the omnipotence has already been disproved by the stone dilemma. B: Okay. I presume your advice is a friendly advice. I shall seriously consider it.

石頭! 硬是不肯讀書 硬是不懂什麼叫做"不當預設的謬誤"!

To ! //硬是不懂什麼叫做"不當預設的謬誤"! // You may be right! Please tell me more!

//You know nothing about logics. I don’t want to waste my time on you. Go back to read more books and take some courses of fundamental logics. // 自己鬧自己,黐線. 成日叫人prove,自己又prove過D乜? 多口一問,請問有多少非基督徒給你這套理論講服?

to 飛雪 你全能的定義不好,例如 1. existential quantifier 應用 and 不是imply 2. (E)x [f1(x)^f2(x)^…. ^fn(x)]意思為有一x 為f1 and f2 and...fn , 這不會是全能的意思吧?

To andycool Just before I turn off my PC, I find this post. //自己鬧自己,黐線. // This is real life experience. I have been scolded like this before. //成日叫人prove,自己又prove過D乜? // You are right. I didn’t prove anything. I am challenging those who claim they have proven something. If I want to prove anything, I will not use the stone dilemma. //多口一問,請問有多少非基督徒給你這套理論講服?// You are right again. Not even one non-christian was convinced before. But, as said above, I merely cannot bear those who claim they have proven something. BTW, omnipotence, as I mentioned earlier, is not a biblical concept (or at least there is not a clear definition of it from the Bible). Personally, I don’t regard it as a theological issue. Anyway, that is all for tonight. Good night!

禱告 石頭呀,石頭, 你可會點頭, 還是我們太強求?

求救 文: 看來羅密歐又要出來打救世人喇,若羅密歐得閑的話....

To : andycool //自己鬧自己,黐線.//(andycool) 有目共睹的是 : JPY的討論態度是很好的,很值得欣賞的.andycool對JPY原文的文意是否有點誤解? To : JPY <思辯隨筆>(in<<李天命的思考藝術>>)

翔, 你好像不太清楚...還是看看我答joejones的留言再講吧.

我還是希望看看和仔的意見.

飛雪 1. //(E)x [f(i)x] 即表示x能存在於f(i)x這狀態// 不對, 這"(E)x [f(i)x]" 意思為f(i)存在,不是x 在這狀庇態存在 2. //(E)x [f1(x)^f2(x)^…. ^fn(x)] 可以視作推論的假設// 推論甚麼? 推論全能者存在? 你定義f 為可能的宇宙狀態, 那麼(E)x [f1(x)^f2(x)^…. ^fn(x)]意思為存在著f1 至fn 的宇宙狀態. 3. //然後要探討哪些命題有資格成為{f1(x), f2(x),…. , fn(x)}這集合的elements.// 你不是己經定義了f 為宇宙狀態嗎? 4. 技術上, "(E)x [f1(x)^f2(x)^…. ^fn(x)]--> (A)y[xCy] ^ (A)y[xDy]" i. (A)y[xCy] ^ (A)y[xDy]因為有x 這個變數, 之前的extential quantifier 應該包括(A)y[xCy] ^ (A)y[xDy]. 即: {(E)x {[f1(x)^f2(x)^…. ^fn(x)]--> (A)y[xCy] ^ (A)y[xDy]} ii. (A)y[xCy] ^ (A)y[xDy]裏的(A)y[xDy]的y應該改為z, 避免與之前的y 重複. 5. 回到你的定義"(E)x [f1(x)^f2(x)^…. ^fn(x)]--> (A)y[xCy] ^ (A)y[xDy] " 根據你的用法,嘗試解讀為: 如果f1 至fn 的宇宙狀態存在, 則某宙狀態可以創造所有y 並毀滅所有有y . 但這符合我們全能的定義嗎? ps. 技術上的細節可參考 Hurley

更正 4 i 應為: i. (A)y[xCy] ^ (A)y[xDy]因為有x 這個變數, 之前的extential quantifier 應該包括(A)y[xCy] ^ (A)y[xDy]. 即: (E)x {[f1(x)^f2(x)^…. ^fn(x)]--> (A)y[xCy] ^ (A)y[xDy]}

更正2 太多筆誤,請見諒 參考書目應為hurley

奇怪..我打了書名,,但不能顯示 書名: A Concise Introduction to Logic 作者: Hurley

翔,你在找我麼? >>石頭呀,石頭, 你可會點頭, 還是我們太強求?<< 石頭怎會不點頭!袛是我搖頭低歎太多了,才令你誤會,石頭有血有肉,有情有義,終陷情愛之中,不能自拔,誤己誤人!我還在尋找我那錯失的至愛。黛玉呀,妳在何方?請問各方高人,在"邏輯無效域"中可否找到我那永恆的戀人?全能而又無能的上帝呀,請打救這塊在時空中漂泊的頑石!

翔 yes, f(i)x should be fi(x) in fact i discovered this fault right after i posted the message, but i was quite sure that ppl can catch the meaning from f1(x)...fn(x) so i didn't bother to correct it. anyway, thanks. however i think u failed to catch the essence of my question.

飛雪 what is the essence of the question?

公理與理性 //This is real life experience. I have been scolded like this before. // 閣下有否想過是麼原因? //I am challenging those who claim they have proven something. // 世上有一種東西叫公理,它是合乎我們理性,不能被證明但卻無可至疑地對的判斷.就正如(P^~P)是必然地錯一樣.而人類的歷史當亦從末出現過一件東西,它是自已並且它不是自己.但閣下卻認為有一個邏輯無效域,在那裡有東西可違反邏輯而沒錯,正常人當然想也不用想就知道那是不可能的.但閣下竟然叫我們去證明它不存在,那是否合理?老實說,我們根本不是'證明'邏輯無效域不存在,而是知道它不存在.五歲小也不信會有個地方媽媽沒給零用錢就等如媽媽給了零用錢. 我合理地給閣下解釋,你又說和邏輯無效域無關.那你要我怎樣說?要亂講才可以和邏輯無效域有關? //omnipotence, as I mentioned earlier, is not a biblical concept // 全能這個詞語很難理解嗎?要看聖經的話不如看辭海好了.而且閣下也對全能一詞有自己的見解.難道我是和一個連全能也不知道是什麼的人討論全能嗎? //or at least there is not a clear definition of it from the Bible// 所有正統教義也認為神是全能的,但如今給閣下指出了原來聖經對全能的定義並不清楚!那基督教是否要摺埋? //You are right again. Not even one non-christian was convinced before. // 真的是眾人皆醉你獨醒? 人類所獲得最大的恩賜是用理性分辨是非的能力,但謙厚的上帝卻把功勞讓了給魔鬼.但無論如何,拒絕以這恩賜去思考的話,那應該是對神最大的不敬.

翔 that is, should we define (E)x(E)y [xCy --> -(xDy)] as an element of (E)[f1(x)^...^fn(x)] (in fact u havn't point out what makes this definition of omnipotent "not good".) (hard to type logical symbols here..) (hope ur still in this forum )

(E)[f1(x)^...^fn(x)] should be {f1(x)^...^fn(x)}

to be more precise... {f1(x),f2(x),...,fn(x)} (sry 有點煩/..)

翔&&飛雪 >>{f1(x),f2(x),...,fn(x)} << 1.請問x的domain是什麼? 2.{f1(x),f2(x),...,fn(x)}是否一個Universal Set?

飛雪 1. (E)x(E)y [xCy --> -(xDy)] 正統的邏輯語法應該是existential quantifier 用 and 而universal quantifier 用 imply 2. //as an element of (E)[f1(x)^...^fn(x)] // 你的意思為C = fk, D = fj?? 即C 為某個f ,D 為某個f ? 根據你f 的用法, 即f 是某個宇宙狀態.那麼C (創造) 可以說是某個宇宙狀態?或 D (毀滅) 是某個宇宙狀態? 我們可以說創造這過程是於某個宇宙狀態進行,但不是等於說創造等於某個宇宙狀態. 正如我們可以說寫作是於某個心理狀態下進行, 但不是說寫作就等於某個心理狀態. 3. 我之前的post己經說過你全能的定義不好, 因為: i. 這定義的邏輯語法不符合慣常的邏輯語法. ii. 我之前嘗試解讀你的定義,其意為: 如果f1 至fn 的宇宙狀態存在, 則某宙狀態可以創造所有y 並毀滅所有有y . 但這不符合我們全能的概念, 全能的概念應為: 所有x, 如果x 能做所有事, 則x 是能的. 你不應一開始便把C 和D 寫進定裡.

數學狂 //1.請問x的domain是什麼? // 我都想知.. //2.{f1(x),f2(x),...,fn(x)}是否一個Universal Set? // 我都想知..

又更正 又有筆誤..唉 //所有x, 如果x 能做所有事, 則x 是能的. 你不應一開始便把C 和D 寫進定裡. // 應為 所有x, 如果x 能做所有事, 則x 是全能的. 你不應一開始便把C 和D 寫進定義裡.

我都想知! 誰人能為我們解惑釋疑? 飛雪請幫幫忙!

翔&數學狂 除非我們不把上帝定義為邏輯宇宙的一部份, 否則都要把"上帝創造某物件"視作一宇宙狀態. ( 別忘了我們的思維與概念都是邏輯的.) 另外,{f1(x),..,fn(x)}是set of all possible funcctions of x. 不是universal set of functions. if we're going to construct a proposition P : (E)x [ f1(x)^f2(x)^...^f(n)] imagine we firstly put all the so called "simple propositions" {A(x) , B(x) , ... , Z(x} into it: (E)x [A(x) ^ B(x)^...^Z(x)^...] the next step is to add "complex propositions" such as -A(x) however P already contain A(x), the question arise---- 1)if we put -A(x) into P, P comes to be a contradiction 2)if we do not put -A(x) into P, then we should admit that -A(x) is not a possible function of P. just like (q^-q ) can't be a possible state of the universe. the question is : should we construct complex prop. with reference to simple prop.

wtf (E)x [ f1(x)^f2(x)^...^f(n)] should be--> (E)x [ f1(x)^f2(x)^...^fn(x)]

// 奇怪..我打了書名,,但不能顯示 // In a message, if you want to display &ltTITLE> put a space before and after TITLE and make it < TITLE > -- otherwise it will be wiped out.

偉良 原來如此,謝了 數學狂 你有興趣繼續討論嗎? 我決定放棄了.. 飛雪 你還沒有回答x的domain是什麼..

給相信有邏輯無效域的人 論証:神是全能的. 前提:神是全能的. 結論:神不是全能的. 完!

為甚麼會假設是可數集? {f1(x),f2(x),...,fn(x)}

翔,never mind whenever u join this discussion or not, it makes little difference. //3. 我之前的post己經說過你全能的定義不好, 因為: i. 這定義的邏輯語法不符合慣常的邏輯語法. // <---這是填鴨的想法 //ii. 我之前嘗試解讀你的定義,其意為:如果f1 至fn 的宇宙狀態存在, 則某宙狀態可以創造所有y 並毀滅所有有y . 但這不符合我們全能的概念, 全能的概念應為: 所有x, 如果x 能做所有事, 則x 是能的. 你不應一開始便把C 和D 寫進定裡.// <---你好像不懂什麼是歸謬法. ps.i don't think the domain of x has any importance to the discussion.

//ps.i don't think the domain of x has any importance to the discussion.// Why do you don't think so?

why do u don't u think what i do think so so? we're actually not doing maths, so it's quite unnecessary to put it into for example N,Q,R ...ect. just take x as a viriable is enough. or we can define it as "logical existence".

翔 >>你有興趣繼續討論嗎? 我決定放棄了.<< 我同你一樣--放棄! 與上帝或基督教相關的問題,我很久以前己感到厭倦,今次只是插科打諢,無聊而己!

To andycool I think you get lost from what we are talking. Should we start it over? First, there are some (probably some Christians) claiming that there is one being (probably their God) who is omnipotent, without giving any valid proof. Then, there are some others (probably some atheists) claiming that there cannot be omnipotence, by giving a proof (the so-called “stone dilemma”). Now, it is our turn to examine the proof of the second group of people. After examining the stone dilemma, we found that the proof is built upon a postulate of “nothing (even it is omnipotent) can violate any laws of logics” (or “邏輯無效域 does not exist”). By definition, a postulate can be true or not true (even though it seems to be okay) because we don’t have any convincing supporting proof (where no faith is necessary) for it. In this regard, the stone dilemma is not 100% rational but still requires a certain amount of faith to establish. In other words, both claims of the first and second group of people are the same in nature. If what was mentioned above is correct and logical, then we should be able to conclude that no one has 100% proven that there cannot be omnipotence. Instead, he may merely say I believe there is not omnipotence. However, if he is too shy to use the term “believe”, he may change his statement as “if even omnipotence does not comprise the power to alter rules in logic, then an omnipotent being cannot create an unliftable stone” (but whether that being is still omnipotent is another issue). It is true that normally we would not query the postulate of something like “nothing can violate any laws of logics and/or any other disciplines” because such queries would render the whole discussion meaningless. However, please note that we are now tackling the concept of omnipotence, which, from layman’s point of view, means the ability to do anything. Now, on one hand, we have a postulate of “nothing can violate rules in logics”. On the other hand, we have another definition of “omnipotence can literally do everything”. Please tell me which one should prevail. In my opinion, the answer would depend on where one wants to bet his faith. Finally, let me reiterate that I haven’t said there is omnipotence and/or there is 邏輯無效域. Neither have I tried to interfere any rules in logics and/or acted in the 邏輯無效域. The establishment of 邏輯無效域 is merely to illustrate the insufficiency of the stone dilemma and/or the implied adoption of faith by those people who claim there cannot be omnipotence. Have I made it crystal clear? PS //但如今給閣下指出了原來聖經對全能的定義並不清楚!那基督教是否要摺埋? // For those who think it is, please do me a favor by sharing what is the official definition and referring it to the Bible. Please also interview some Christians to see what they think about the stone dilemma. If one is going to look for the explanation from a 辭海, please also check how it says about whether omnipotence includes a power to alter rules in logics. BTW, Heaven & Hell, everlasting life and the like are terms frequently used. But I doubt how many know exactly what they mean in the context of Christian beliefs. //閣下有否想過是麼原因?// I think this is because that is what they thought. //真的是眾人皆醉你獨醒?// In this respect, you may help by sharing why you are not convinced.

To ! //有目共睹的是 : JPY的討論態度是很好的,很值得欣賞的.// I appreciate your appreciation. //<思辯隨筆>(in<<李天命的思考藝術>>)// But, I would appreciate it even more if you could share some more.

to : JPY 我都同 ! 君咁睇 //有目共睹的是 : JPY的討論態度是很好的,很值得欣賞的.// 尋晚有冇去 Faustus 同我個生日會呀 ? 我趕唔切返去，又冇車搭，成晚嚮街上面遊蕩 ah !

Burden of proof: Whoever makes a claim has the burden of proof of that claim. If I make a claim X, I am the one who is required to give evidence to prove X, not anyone else. “I” have to prove X, but not others to disprove X. If I can’t, I cannot say that X is proven. Examples: Reincarnation in Buddhism: Buddhists can’t raise enough evidence to prove it. Therefore we cannot say it is scientifically well proven. It’s not a scientific fact. However, reincarnation does not violate logic or science either. Therefore reincarnation remains in what we called the “pure faith” regime. Now Christians say that there is an omnipotent being, the God who created the universe. Who makes this claim? The Christians. Therefore they have the burden of proof of that claim. Can they prove it? No. What about logicians and atheists? Can they disprove its existence? YES. By using the stone dilemma, they can prove that the very concept of omnipotence is logically impossible. Therefore there can’t be an omnipotent God at all. Now someone argues that there may (or may not) exist a “Logic Invalid Region” where logical rules do not hold. Who makes this claim? Can that “someone” really prove that such a “region” exists? Note: the term “Logic Invalid Region” is ambiguous. The term “region” usually refers to space while logic does not concern our empirical world. Example: Teacher: 1+1=? JPY: 1+1=3. Teacher: Wrong. 1+1=2. JPY: 1+1=2 is only true in a “Mathematics Valid Region”. May be (or may be not) there exists a “Mathematics Invalid Region” where 1+1=2 does not hold. Teacher: What is “Mathematics Invalid Region”? Can you even define it and prove its existence? JPY: NO. I can’t prove its existence while you can’t prove its non-existence either. So we both lack a 100% valid proof. I am merely pointing out the deficiency of your mathematical theory. Teacher: You are merely pointing out the deficiency of your brain power. Do you really understand what you are saying? PS: Does omnipotent God exist in such a so-called “Logic Invalid Region”? In such a region, “omnipotent God exists and omnipotent God does not exist” can be true. So does he or does he not exist? Can you even imagine such a “region”? Do you really need a proof at all? //my suggestion is “「邏輯無效域」 may or may not exist” but not “「邏輯無效域」 does exist”. // When you say “Logic Invalid Region” may or may not exist, you really say nothing at all.

To:Benson Thank you very much.願alpha保佑你!:P

PPS: A supplement. Whoever makes a claim has the burden of proof of that claim. If you claim X exists, you have to give evidence to prove it. If you claim X does not exist, again you have to give reasons to prove its non-existence. If you claim X exists without giving any evidence while you demand others to prove its non-existence instead, you commit the fallacy of "Shifting the Burden of Proof". If you claim X may or may not exist, you say nothing at all since it is always true. It contains zero information and is trivial. To: anycool You are welcome Andy. May God bless us all in the "Logic Valid Region". :)

HI, JPY Nice to see you. One advice: it is really annoying to see your favourite remark: //Please share more// Why don't you find out by yourself? Some kind-hearted friends have hinted the whereabout of 偽語意投射 in Dr.Lee's book.

可能係，可能唔係 //When you say “Logic Invalid Region” may or may not exist, you really say nothing at all.// 我可能係上帝，可能唔係； 我可能收 ＪＰＹ 做我o既子民，可能唔收； 我可能整一個天堂，一個地獄，可能無整.......

//I would appreciate it even more if you could share some more.// = I don't want to read. I would appreciate even more if you could spoonfeed me.