Jump to content
BrainDen.com - Brain Teasers

denverdubster

Members
  • Content Count

    4
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0

About denverdubster

  • Rank
    Newbie
  1. 1. Let's say (hypothetically) there is a bullet, which can shoot through any barrier. Let's say there is also an absolutely bullet-proof armour, and nothing gets through it. What will happen, if such bullet hits such armour? In my oppinion they would negate, almost like matter and anti-matter. One is an absolute, and so is the other one. Most times when this happens both things obliterate and at execedeling volitile levels if the theoretical physicists got it right on the stage of matter development. So realistically they would neglect to occur in our universe anymore not so much distroeyed b
  2. But the conditions were not defined that this is his action, his action/ his verb (thats whats happening ) is that he is unable, so he is capable of not being capable of lifting the stone which is in itself the "screwy-ness," of the paradox. If it said that god said he would not pick it up you would be 100% correct, but because his action is to not be capable of the other action, he is an entity by definition, so he as an individual is incapable. If he could it would mean he is capable of being impossible to his own rules. Which as god by definition would be possible, because he can do the
  3. Not to disagree...(paradox hehe) but these are paradoxes by logical progression. Because of the way they were written they become paradoxes. If they were to be explained the way you explained them they would have been written that way. However by the choice of words, their sequencing, and by gramatic and word definition if you follow their order they are paradoxes. If this wasn't true we would have no paradoxes because you could use the same words to define them differently in a new sentence and then remove them from paradoxical conversation. So by logical progression they dont make sence b
  4. Very intelligent viewing of it flamebride, and I agree a paradox isn't a lie because it could be true but proves itself false by predisposition, but predisposition is just the nueral networks of your brain coming to a conclusion on a topic of choice based off of previous experience. The cognition of the thought is real beacause the chemicals in your brain are allowing for the creation of that thought based off of old chemical imputs. So the way I like to think of it is, as you have a dual reality in your own existence. Your thoughts are real because they are chemical, but how you think of t
×
×
  • Create New...