DCTP Forums

Not much to say:

Five competitors -- A, B, C, D, and E -- enter a swimming race that awards gold, silver, and bronze medals to the first three to complete it. Each of the following compound statements about the race is false, although one of the two clauses in each may be true.

â—¦A didn't win the gold, and B didn't win the silver.
â—¦D didn't win the silver, and E didn't win the bronze.
â—¦C won a medal, and D didn't.
â—¦A won a medal, and C didn't.
â—¦D and E both won medals.
Who won each of the medals?

It's the same as "Lateral Thinking XVIII" and "Old Problem of Lateral Thinking XX".  XD

Yup!  This is the third time we've seen this one now!

Damm it! I was sure it was different because I thought this one was a different one!

My most sincere apologies.

Holmes wrote: My most sincere apologies.

You don't have to apologize, actually it's a lot of fun....

Here I have one: It may have a lot of solutions.

NOTE: I PUT THIS PROBLEM NOT BEACAUSE I´M ANTI-RELIGIOUS, IT IS JUST FOR FUN. IF ANYONE WANTS ME TO REMOVE IT, FEEL FREE TO COMMENT IT IN THE THREAD OR PM ME.

Here:

Find a way to explain why something or someone CANNOT be ALMIGHTY or ALPOWERFUL

HINT! --- Create a paradox.

Holmes wrote: Here I have one: It may have a lot of solutions.

NOTE: I PUT THIS PROBLEM NOT BEACAUSE I´M ANTI-RELIGIOUS, IT IS JUST FOR FUN. IF ANYONE WANTS ME TO REMOVE IT, FEEL FREE TO COMMENT IT IN THE THREAD OR PM ME.

Here:

Find a way to explain why something or someone CANNOT be ALMIGHTY or ALPOWERFUL

HINT! --- Create a paradox.

I'm assuming that you mean the argument that if someone/something is all powerful, could it create a rock that it couldn't lift?  If it could create this rock, then it wouldn't be all powerful because it couldn't lift it.  If it couldn't create the rock then it wouldn't be all powerful because it couldn't create it.

Though, as shown above, one can use the rules of logic to set up a scenario where a being would be forced into a situation where it can't do something, there is an inherent assumption in that setup.  Namely, one assumes that the being is bound by the rules of logic.  If a being is all powerful, then it is not constrained by anything, including the rules of logic.  Therefore, creating a logical paradox is not enough to dispute the existence of an all powerful being.

Hmm... since you mentioned religion(serves as a hint  ;D)..
"If everything is created by HIM who is the ALMIGHTY ONE, then what do you call the one who created HIM?"

That's easy:

S.H. wrote: Q: "If everything is created by HIM who is the ALMIGHTY ONE, then what do you call the one who created HIM?"

A: HIM who is the ALMIGHTY ONE.  After all, you said that everything is created by HIM, so therefore HIM had to be created by HIM as well.  There's nothing paradoxical about self-creation.  There just aren't any examples in nature of it happening.

Hahaha 

I really like this paradox, but the one that S.H said I loved it.

And I really like c-square saying that if he is al powerful it isn´t bound to the rules fo logic, that was great! But the answer I knew was the one of the rocks.

This problem is form: Bertrand Russel´s Paradoxs, if anyone is interested in these ...

Holmes wrote: Not much to say:

Five competitors -- A, B, C, D, and E -- enter a swimming race that awards gold, silver, and bronze medals to the first three to complete it. Each of the following compound statements about the race is false, although one of the two clauses in each may be true.

â—¦A didn't win the gold, and B didn't win the silver.
â—¦D didn't win the silver, and E didn't win the bronze.
â—¦C won a medal, and D didn't.
â—¦A won a medal, and C didn't.
â—¦D and E both won medals.
Who won each of the medals?

Want to Clarify. You say mostly false. Or did you enter it wrong and meant mostly true? More thoughts Later. One Questions. Of the 10 statements how many ARE true?

Later

Holmes wrote: This problem is form: Bertrand Russel´s Paradoxs, if anyone is interested in these ...

thanks for the hint, holmes! but admittedly that made it easier AND harder at the same time. the more i read about russel's paradox, the more i get confused!

but here - [finally, my first try at an LT question!] now that i've finished typing it out i feel kinda stupid.. it's far-fetched isn't it?..

@ still.lookig: It´s have it´s logical point, but the thing is, why if he created everything and everyone, it makes us allmighty??? 

But Nice try anyways. Welcome to LT threads, hope to see your answers in the future.

Lets answer the question with a question. If GOD is timeless, as in has not start or end, Does that not mean he  ALWAYS existed?

Is it possible for something to have always existed, or must things have a start?

Later

Nice Question ... *without words*