Metal Reviews

Jaden, judging from your reply, you didn't understand a thing of what I said.

Read it again.

Maybe I mucked up my definition of laws of nature (so I edited the first part for clarity), but that's sort of irrelevant to my point.

I'm dealing with contradiction. My point is essentially...
A can equal 1
B can equal 2
B cannot equal 1 and 2.

Maybe God can contradict a law of nature, but he cannot contradict himself.

Think of it this way. You can imagine God flying through space with nothing to propel him (contradicting laws of nature). You can imagine it in your head: the idea is hypothetically possible.

Now imagine someone lifting something and not lifting it simultaneously. You cannot, because the idea is not hypothetically possible.

I just edited that response about a billion times for clarity. I hope you get it now.

Yeah, I totally understand your point, but all I'm saying is that logic is not language, but logic is mathematics. In your story, I'm saying that A equals B, because the laws of nature = the laws of logic. At this moment, scientist have reduced every law in nature to four, and they are busy reducing them to three. Your statement can be expressed in mathematics as follows (breaking it down from my previous post)
At one instance (B is a constant not a variable):
B = 1
B = 2
This means:
1 = 2
which means:
1 != 1 ("!=" means is not equal to)

This is a mathematical impossibility.

Now to refine my statement: the laws of nature consist of mathematics, if you set up enough boundary conditions by logic (or mathematics, which is the same), and add matter (or energy, again the same thing) the direct result is these laws. So if you break a law, for example, you more a particle with mass m with possive a by force F that is zero, you'll get 0 = m a, which is just as mathematically impossible as 1 = 2.

The only space where I can think of the rules of mathematics, and thus logic, can be broken is in a space that is devoid of time (there is no instance on which two values can be considered one), but then again, such a space cannot have any influence on anything outside.

Alright, I completely get what you're saying now, but it's still not enough to discredit what I'm saying.

Let us assume that God does not exist as matter, but rather, in a metaphysical reality.

In this metaphysical reality, God can fly around space as much as he likes. He may even appear to be in our reality, but is essentially disconnected from it, and in his own.

This is just one idea of how God could contradict (or appear to contradict) the laws of nature. In truth, God could have the ability to move, bend, create, and destroy matter and it still wouldn't disprove my point.

Now, even if God were in a metaphysical reality or transcendant of physics, how is it possible for God to do something and not be able to do it at the same time? It's a proposition that really has nothing to do with physics (which I know is your specialty more than mine). It has nothing to do with reality either. It only has to do with God, and God cannot contradict God. Your examples have only shown God contradict the (physical) universe.

I go to a Catholic school (fuck off) even though I'm not Catholic, but I still have to take the classes...here's what I understand, and it's the official teaching.

Humans have free will, but God knows us so well that he will always know what we will choose...for example, if Jaden loves candy, and we set in front of him a bowl of candy and a bowl of salad, we know which one he will choose, even though he still has the choice. Thus, we have free will and at the same time God knows what we will choose. But, what we choose is not necessarily what God WANTS us to choose, so he is not restricting our free will.

EDIT: After reading back, I see that this has already been said...oh well .

I read back through all the posts in this thread, and the rock example is ridiculous...God isn't a physical being and so debating whether he can lift a rock or not is irrelevant.

Also, I understand the point, but that argument is really just a play on words and not really anything substantial. And besides, not even the Catholic Church claims that their explanation of God is perfect...that's the entire point, he's beyond our understanding.

If you cannot understand God, then you cannot possibly know that he exists. Besides, as far as we know, nothing can understand reality better than a human being.

It doesn't matter that it's a rock or that it's physical. The idea is that God cannot contradict himself, and is thus bound by logic.

We don't know. That's why it's called faith .

By the way, I'm not Catholic...I disagree with most of their teachings on issues in this world. But, I do agree with most of the Catholic beliefs in God, etc.

Not by me. This is not the pre-determination that I am proposing. If God knows everything, then he does not even need to know our nature to figure out the choices we'll make. He should not be constricted by time and thus able to see the future.

I bet those muslims who flew planes into towers had more faith than you. They died for their faith.

In fact, soldiers who die for their country might have more faith than you too, not just in God, but faith in their own idealized nation.

Faith does not come together unanimously, and it's not even exclusive to religion. Faith proves shit all.

...what? What does that have to do with what I said? I seriously have no idea what you're talking about...I was talking about how we really don't know if God exists or not, and belief in God is called faith because of that. What does terrorists having more faith than me have to do with anything? And yeah, they probably do...

And you do have a good point in that God not knowing the future is limiting God. I'll have to ask my teacher .

Well, I'm explaining why faith isn't a good reason to follow God.

I understand why you place the physical laws under the laws of logic, but just because you've seen birds fly and can imagine a physical law broken, doesn't mean logical laws are harder or impossible to break. Why do you think the laws of nature can be broken and the laws of logic cannot, and why do you think the laws of nature are confined to this universe and moreover, why the laws of logic are not?

Just a thought guys, but there seems to be too many additional variables added into the equations that you keep refering to. In Misha's original equation, logic, mankind, nature and superpowers are used, but in Jaden's approach, God, Humans and the ability to do two things at once (a & b) were added. Later, mass and force were referred to as well as a mention of language. Your equations will always evolve, reaching a large, complex and incomplete theory always to be disproved by someone (hello! ).

To add a different view and kinda vindicate what I mentioned in an earlier post that as a race we cannot agree on the perfect answer, as there is always too much room to add disclaiming variables for us to agree in harmony, I'll add my thoughts in basic maths. In a simple sense, my therory is nothing and life, therefore in a mathematical sense I'll use nothing = 0 and life = 1.

1 could never be divided, multiplied or equal 0, causing (whichever way you look at it) an impossible equation to calculate and this defies logic. I'll add 'variables' to try and please all like the Chaos theory, a 'big bang' chemical reaction, and lets asumme that's 0 too as it is similar to evolving from nothing. Science = 0

I'll even use an all powerful entity that created all - 'God' and give that a number of infinity as it defies 'logic' in the sense that it is opposite to science as it can never be proved by that means. Infinity cannot be multiplied by 1 either, as it is illogical to multiply it by a simple number, meaning infinity must have an end if it can be equated. God = ∞

You're left with up to three impossible to prove theories so why equate something that couldn't be logically proved or create an equation that serves no purpose? I guess that's the point. The general debate here is noone is right. But in the same vein, everyone is right in the same sense for having their own theories and beliefs. Best to make peace and agree to disagree I think.

Conclusion is that logic can always be defied by nature because logic is bound by rules, yet nature is an ever evolving entity that always defies logic, in this world and for in the rest of the universe.

Just realised the very Scientology approach I used,

You know, this discussion is +- 1000 years old. This began with the medieval discussions about the following question: "is God above nature or is it vice versa".

The laws of nature are physically impossible to break. This "law of self-contradiction" is impossible to break, period.

1+ (not only physically, but also psychologically - just in case)
tsk tsk.. what's going on inside your head, Mies?!? ha ha