What if I state that the universe that I know was created by me at the moment of my birth and will end at the moment of my death. Can you positively prove me wrong.:confused: After all, once I'm dead I'll find out the answer or I won't but either way I won't really care. :D

<i>What if I state that the universe that I know was created by me at the moment of my birth and will end at the moment of my death. Can you positively prove me wrong.</i>

No.

It's logically impossible to disprove something. You can find
evidence to contradict something however. Anyhow, to even
consider contradictory evidence, you have to 'prove' your claim.
As the 'claimer' that is your responsibility.

This is a theory, therefor I am under no obligation to 'prove' it.:D

Incorrect. If it's a theory then you have a hypothesis with alot
of supporting FACTUAL data. Seeing as this is not the case
then your claim at best would be a hypothesis; however, to
even be a hypothesis you have to have a concious decision
to 'seek proof' of your idea. You mentioned that that's not your
intention so what your left with is an opinion/belief.

Wrong! According to my source(The World Book Dictionary) theory:2b. thought or fancy as opposed to fact or practice. anyway, as I said, it is not up to me to prove my theory, however the burden lies with you if you want to disprove it.:)

THEORY:

an explanation or model based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning, especially one that has been tested and confirmed as a general principle helping to explain and predict natural phenomena

I think the definition your using (assuming it's even accurate)
is deprecated.

it is not up to me to prove my theory, however the burden lies with you if you want to disprove it

Thats just poor logic.

Originally posted by revbill2001
Wrong! According to my source(The World Book Dictionary) theory:2b. thought or fancy as opposed to fact or practice. anyway, as I said, it is not up to me to prove my theory, however the burden lies with you if you want to disprove it.:)
would you be willing to take a polygraph (lie detector)test?
;)

"It's logically impossible to disprove something."
This is a logical fallacy. It is possible to disprove things, because it is possible to prove things.
See here for more info on logical fallacies such as this one:
- http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html

I am a supreme being who can do whatever I want. If something I does seems 'incorrect' it is because I am creating a specific response by you. All that I do is for your own good. I want you too give me all your money.

"the burden lies with you if you want to disprove it"

Persol g1 lol.

Alpha, oy yer' killin' me mang.

Originally posted by Q25
would you be willing to take a polygraph (lie detector)test?
;)

:cool: Bring that mutha on!

Originally posted by Persol
I am a supreme being who can do whatever I want. If something I does seems 'incorrect' it is because I am creating a specific response by you. All that I do is for your own good. I want you too give me all your money.

"the burden lies with you if you want to disprove it" That's not a universal negative. ;)

If you're a supreme being, then create an immovable object and push on it with an irresistable force, then tell us what happens. ;)

Perhaps you'll simply create 3 parallel universes. One in which the immovable object ceases to be immovable (by the laws of this universe created) and the irresistable force passes right through. And the other in which the irresistable force ceases to be irresistable and does nothing to the immovable object.

THEN perhaps the third in which the immovable object is not immovable and the irresistable force is not irresistable and they both obey laws similar to our universe...perhaps that IS our universe :)

....then again...maybe not.

-AntonK

If you're a supreme being, then create an immovable object and push on it with an irresistable force, then tell us what happens.

If I'm not mistaken that's just a weird cancellation. The object
becomes movable while the force becomes resistable.

No, it's a logical paradox. There can be no immovable object or irresistable force, let alone both. Think: immovable relative to what?
There can be no omnipotent being, because it's a paradoxical concept. An omnipotent being cannot do something which is a logical paradox, and so even an omnipotent being has limits, which is contrary to the definition of an omnipotent being, which means the concept of an omnipotent being is invalid.

There can be no immovable object or irresistable force, let alone both

In concept there can.

Think: immovable relative to what?

You asserted the original statement so you tell me. I considered
it a conceptual 'container' as you did not specify otherwise.

There can be no omnipotent being, because it's a paradoxical concept

Sure there can. With omnipotence comes the ability to change
the rules (of logic for example).

In concept there can.Paradoxes are possible in abstract, yes, but not in reality.
You asserted the original statement so you tell me. I considered it a conceptual 'container' as you did not specify otherwise.You're missing the point. It doesn't matter what. The point is, it has to be relative to something, and while it may be able to be immovable relative to that, it can't be immovable relative to everything, otherwise nothing would be able to move! Everything would be immovable.
Sure there can. With omnipotence comes the ability to change the rules (of logic for example).The rules of logic cannot be changed, if they were different they wouldn't fit the definition of logic. An omnipotent being by definition would be able to though, so the very definition of omnipotent is incoherent, and therefore impossible.

Paradoxes are possible in abstract, yes, but not in reality.

I'll partially agree on that one.

You're missing the point. It doesn't matter what. The point is, it has to be relative to something, and while it may be able to be immovable relative to that, it can't be immovable relative to everything, otherwise nothing would be able to move! Everything would be immovable.

I'll admit, I did that to you on purpose for personal entertainment.
Sorry about that, the devil made me do it.

...An omnipotent being by definition would be able to though, so the very definition of omnipotent is incoherent, and therefore impossible.

But your definition for omnipotent is within the scope of logic.
As you acknowledged, omnipotence is not bound to that scope
so of course it's possible.

I'll partially agree on that one.Huh? Paradoxes cannot exist in reality... where do you disagree?
But your definition for omnipotent is within the scope of logic.
As you acknowledged, omnipotence is not bound to that scope
so of course it's possible.It's not. The definition is incoherent. Reread the post.

Huh? Paradoxes cannot exist in reality... where do you disagree?

Agricultural Fact: Having sparrows or insects leads to your crops being eaten.
Agricultural Fact: Having sparrows AND insects leads to a healthy crop harvest.

It's not. The definition is incoherent. Reread the post.

Ok...re-read... looks you said the definition or paradox lacks
cohesion and is therefore "impossible". Now re-read mine.