Wormwood

Thanks man seriously...I need to get back to work, but please check this thread later today because I have a few follow up questions. (sorry I just like to have a really good understanding of things before I debate them). Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedSorry, it took me longer than i thought to get back to this... I guess my initial issue has been addressed. I will try to start a new thread about the chemical imbalance theory in the next few days. Thanks again for your help.

What do you think about these videos? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sWE3UGl7KFk&mode=related&search= http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fzDv6Cublaw&mode=related&search= http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fw0PxgTIT4k&mode=related&search= or this: http://medicine.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pmed.0020392%20&ct=1&SESSID=01a8d18d5e942b67aa69430aae3aa279 ?

Perfect....thanks again. Supposedly there were only two cases in all of medical history...I guess one has a blog I'm sure my friend will denounce the blog as hearsay, but if I can get the pubmed one to work from the library or something, that should do it. After a little more research while waiting on a response, it seems like most of the argument was pulled verbatum from this site: http://www.visionandpsychosis.net/ Usual nonsense, or is there something to this? I can concede that the whole "chemical imbalance" approach to mental illness is highly suspect, but this solution seems too simplistic to me. This site lists Qi Gong (thinking you have powers), "Indigo children", Latah, and Jumping Frenchman of Maine disorder as all parts of the same continuum of psychosis.

Thanks In the first link I didn't see any text or any indication that this meets the criteria. In the second one, how do you know the person was blind from birth? Does it say that somewhere? I need to cite my claims. Thanks again.

HI I was wondering if anyone here knew of any cases of someone being blind from birth and schizophrenic, or blind from birth with panic attacks. I can't find a single example of either, but I know some people here have access to better resources than I do. I'm trying to test the hypothesis that these mental disorders are caused by a visual phenomenon (thus blind people should be immune). Thanks in advance for any help.

Well this is a semantic issue. The questions wasn't can omnipotent being X lift anything, but rather can he create something that he can't lift. The negative is the affirmative here which is convoluted I know. But the being would be attempting to create something he can not lift, so failure is victory in this instance. The arbitrary frame of reference helps accomplish this. I think we are saying the same thing now... it would always be possible to move the object, but at some point "lifting" becomes impossible because of the frame of reference. Like I said, I was only looking for a cheap semantic victory over this supposed paradox to silence it

That's how I was thinking. It isn't really "lifting" beyond a certain point. I really just wanted to show that the "paradox" was stunted because of the terms being used. I think some of you have come to the same conclusion but for different surface reasons. Trying to explain the unlimited using limited terms seems futile. Anyway, thanks to everyone for your responses. ---------------------------------------------------------

Har harI meant for discussions sake...it's a hypothetical...does it really matter who the person is? ------------------------------------------------ It isn't god that is limited in this instance, but the laws of physics and our terminology. Forget the being...think about the object...once it reaches a certain mass, "lift" no longer applies.

What's the difference?

Well obviously it is a hypothetical physics question; sort of a semantic question as well I guess. This was the question that sparked the idea and was a supposed paradox...you don't have to give it any consideration beyond that. My question isn't about the nature of God, but the nature of lifting and gravity. Does that make more sense now?

Ah but the question wasn't "can god create an object so big that he can not push it down, or move it" Besides, if you exert an equal force down, and the object you are lifting is heavier and more massive than the earth, then the earth would move before the object. Anyway, what I am talking about is more like standing on the rock and trying to lift the earth. As mass increases, at some point the gravity of the starting point becomes negligable and the task becomes impossible just because of the nature of gravity and lifting. Anyway, I know this is just some stupid thought exercise, but I was just curious if there was a cheap semantic win hidden in there

Sisyphus: But when you "lift" a rock, you aren't lifting the earth. Also, "Lift" denotes upward and away from the source of gravity...how do you determine up when the object being lifted is exerting more gravitational force? I think the important word here is "lift". Well, the question wasn't can God lift anything, but rather can he create something that he himself can not lift. In a semantic sense I would say yes due to the limitations of words and concepts like "lift" and gravity. At some point you aren't really lifting anymore. To the others: I realize that the mere mention of god or religion is worthy of derision and sarcasm, but my question is actually about the nature of gravity, so please try to resist your knee jerk reaction to make a mockery of the whole thread and still not answer my questions.

I was having a discussion with someone about religion; I'm not particularly religious, that is to say I do not subscribe to any specific mythos, but I don't completely discount those ideas either. I like to defend the religious side because it is usually the tougher position to defend. Anyway, the age old paradox about an omnipotent god creating an object so big that he himself can not lift it came up and I think I answered it, but I want to make sure my reasoning is sound. I said that yes an omnipotent being could create an object so big that he could not lift it, and still be omnipotent. My reasoning was that once an object reaches a certain mass, it can no longer be lifted because it is generating the gravity that you are attempting to lift against. An object can not be lifted against it's own gravity, thus it is a semantic impossibility. All religious implications aside, is my reasoning correct about mass and gravity? Say God was standing on an object with a mass of M, and created an object with a mass of M^10, the gravity of the second object would over take the gravity of the first item making the action of "lifting" the second item impossible in purely semantic terms right?

I am no expert on the subject, but it seems to me that Swansont had it right when he said : If you think about time outside of our measurement of it, it has always existed. How else would we know how old the universe is? Because of measured decay. The fact that we describe this decay in "years" that are relative to us is irrelevant. Even if time is cyclical, there is still a process of decay, entropy, etc that can be measured when starting from an arbitrary point. This is indication of time outside of our measurement of it; the physical decay of a system will use time as a factor. Just my opinion for what it's worth.

Thanks for the link. So which dimension do strings exist in then if not time?