NationStates Jolt Archive

I would really like to hear any well thought out comments or reponses to the paradox. Thankyou.

Can Jesus microwave a burrito so hot that he himself could not eat it?

Well since he's supposed to be omnipotent, he should be able to create it, but since he could not lift it, he would not be omnipotent anymore. The same as egg and hen - which came first?

Well since he's supposed to be omnipotent, he should be able to create it, but since he could not lift it, he would not be omnipotent anymore. The same as egg and hen - which came first?

Not really, because the egg and the hen can eventually exist together. But the Rock paradox is a true contradiction.

I have already answered this before. You see, you make a fallous assumption. This is that you assume God must follow the laws of logic. Since he is not a logical being, you cannot try to limit him to your own thought processes. Simply because something does not make sense logically does not mean that it still affects God. After all, logically speaking he couldn't turn water in blood, or water into wine, in an instant.

In this situation, God is an unstoppedable object and the rock is an immovable object. Two such objects cannot exist in the same universe. Therefore, God either is not omnipotent or simply does not exist.

Well since he's supposed to be omnipotent, he should be able to create it, but since he could not lift it, he would not be omnipotent anymore. The same as egg and hen - which came first?

But if he is omnipotent, he could lift anything. So even after he creates the rock he cannot lift, he will lift it. Aint that so damn cool? I want an omnipotent god too! :( You religious people ruin all my fun.

Not really, because the egg and the hen can eventually exist together. But the Rock paradox is a true contradiction.

BTW, the egg came first. There were alot of animals who lay eggs, and many came long before hens, you know.

Yes, he could make a rock he couldn't lift, but he'd just pick up all of reality around it and jiggle that around a bit.

Can Jesus microwave a burrito so hot that he himself could not eat it?


That episode was hilarious

Yes, he could make a rock he couldn't lift, but he'd just pick up all of reality around it and jiggle that around a bit.

I quote this entry because it is the most clever response I have ever received for this question.

Here's what I've constructed:
If we assume that God has no physical limitations, then there exist metaphysical actions which He can not preform.

But...

And if we assume that God can preform every metaphysical action, then God must have physical limitations

Imagine the implications of that, it would mean that God is finite

It would also mean that God is overcomeable -- and thats why I am much more comfortable with the assumption that God doesn't have physical limitations, and that means that there are some meta or metameta physical actions he cannot preform

That episode was hilarious
I remember that...which show was it?

there are some meta or metameta physical actions he cannot preform
Question: what constitutes a "metametaphysical" action? Or did you just make up metameta because it sounds cool?

Of course, he could always just have Jesus try to move the rock but since Jesus is a man and God he would nto be able to...or would he?

Question: what constitutes a "metametaphysical" action? Or did you just make up metameta because it sounds cool?

Thanks for the compliment on the coolness sounding of it, but it has real meaning.

Meta here is meaning a step above in the logical and powers sense.

We live in the physical world.

Then meta physics are outside the bounds of the physical world.

Then metameta physics are outside the bounds of the meta physical world.

Then metametameta physics... I'm just leaving room by not assuming that God is exactly meta physical, but that he may be meta meta physical or just be above and given meta meta physics.

To quote the Rabbi, "why would God want to do that?"

To quote the Rabbi, "why would God want to do that?"

To see if its possible... so do you think it is or isn't?

To see if its possible... so do you think it is or isn't?

To further quote the Rabbi:

“You are asking can an omnipotent God make himself impotent? The answer is: of course he can! He is omnipotent so he can do anything and everything including that. Nothing is beyond him. But he would not do it because he knows he is omnipotent already; and therefore does not need to do it. Your time would be better spent worrying about yourself, and not God. God has everything under control.”

It goes something like that. I have a lot of Jewish friends.

“... Your time would be better spent worrying about yourself, and not God. God has everything under control.”In other words, stop asking stupid questions and go learn your lessons! :D

Paradox: Can God create a rock that he cannot lift?
I would really like to hear any well thought out comments or reponses to the paradox. Thankyou.
Yes, but he wouldn't.

In other words, stop asking stupid questions and go learn your lessons! :D

you've got to admit the explination makes a lot of sense though. Methinks the rabbi heard that question a few times before.

He would make the entire universe around the rock fall. Thus, in the inertial frame of reference, the rock is being lifted, even if God is not lifting it.

That is of course, assuming that the "universe" can fall. Maybe just make everything move away from the rock so that it "falls" away. Universal expansion and all that. Or perhaps the creation of a rock that large would require space and time to reform themselves further away, to prevent a calamity which a malevolent being could inflict with a rock of that size and caliber.

He would make the entire universe around the rock fall. Thus, in the inertial frame of reference, the rock is being lifted, even if God is not lifting it.

Which inertial frame of reference? There's not just one, and your proposal that the rock remain stationary and the universe move around it suggests that the rock is inertial and everything else in the universe (except the occasional object that happens to be in the frame of the rock) must accelerate to move away from it, which will be detectable by any accelerometer.

If I've misinterpreted you and you instead propose that God is merely *teleporting* everything but the rock relative to the rock, then that's fine.

Which inertial frame of reference? There's not just one, and your proposal that the rock remain stationary and the universe move around it suggests that the rock is inertial and everything else in the universe (except the occasional object that happens to be in the frame of the rock) must accelerate to move away from it, which will be detectable by any accelerometer.

If I've misinterpreted you and you instead propose that God is merely *teleporting* everything but the rock relative to the rock, then that's fine.
The second one :p

Or He could create a rock the size of the universe.
He would be unable to lift it, but not from lack of His own ability.

I have entertained that question before, myself..... and would like to point out that in principles God is infinite, in all aspects, and therefore omnipotent, and because of his omnipotence, he cannot "create a rock that he cannot lift" merely from the simple fact that in the presence of the infinite, there can be no rock like that in the first place... and that therefore the attempt at the question is to make a re-assumption of the concept of omnipotence and the infinite, to try to make logical limitations on it by creating a false idea of inconsistency, that never exists in the first place. It also generally tried to use our own governing three dimentional chain of thought, and apply it to an infinite idea of God... Think of it also in the concept that if God created the universe, who created God... of course creation reguires a temporal origination point..... which implies time, which of course, does not exist "outside" of the universe, and therefore is not relative to something or one who exists beyond it as well. In the concept of the infinite, God can see everything at once, and acts all the time at once... such seems logically beyond our finite, three-dimentional limited minds..... but it is because of that limitation, and not because of and inaccuracy.

More or less, its the equivalent of me saying...

"Everything I say is a lie."

or...

"I never tell the truth."

More or less, its the equivalent of me saying...

"Everything I say is a lie."

A simple lie.

or...

"I never tell the truth."

A simple lie.

I am lying right now.

Yes, thats a much better one.

The Emperor of Terra Zetegenia believes that DeaconDave's response is the most logical. By very definition, an omnipotent being can do anything - including shed its own omnipotence. By creating a limit on Its omnipotence, and therefore ceasing to be omnipotent, God can create a rock that It cannot lift. But by doing so, God has willingly diminished Itself, and why the Hell would God want to do that?

Can you do that which cannot be done..

Almost Zen.

:)

God cannot create a rock that he cannot lift. But, he can create any size rock. Does not really do anything against the argument of a being that which none greater can be conceived (God).

God cannot create a rock that he cannot lift. But, he can create any size rock. Does not really do anything against the argument of a being that which none greater can be conceived (God).

Can you or I, not concieve of infinity? Infinity*squared?*
:)

Infinite math is easy....

Infinity = Infinity

Infinity + 1 = Infinity

Infinity squared = Infinity

The answer is fairly simple. God cannot create a rock that he cannot lift, nor can he lift that rock, because god does not exist. Hence, the paradox no longer applies.

Simple, and probably stupid, but it works.

Which came first? The Chicken or the Egg?

A simple question and easily answered by any with a knowledge of science.
The egg came first, layed by an earlier genetic predecessor of the Chicken. This egg however was a mutant and when it hatched, out came the 'modern' chicken. Just another step in evolution....

Can God create a rock that he cannot lift?

No, God is omnipotent, to him everything is possible. However, being omnipotent, this also means that he cannot concieve of anything that could get the better of him.

Of course, over all this, one must be asking; why would God want to create a rock he could not lift?

He would make the entire universe around the rock fall. Thus, in the inertial frame of reference, the rock is being lifted, even if God is not lifting it.
That's Q, not God. ;-)

Which came first? The Chicken or the Egg?

A simple question and easily answered by any with a knowledge of science.
The egg came first, layed by an earlier genetic predecessor of the Chicken. This egg however was a mutant and when it hatched, out came the 'modern' chicken. Just another step in evolution....

Can God create a rock that he cannot lift?

No, God is omnipotent, to him everything is possible. However, being omnipotent, this also means that he cannot concieve of anything that could get the better of him.

Of course, over all this, one must be asking; why would God want to create a rock he could not lift?
The question is not whether or not he would want to or not. The question is, can he or can he not?

The rock is designed not to move...it is not designed to avoid the effects of devine will....so god does not need to move the immovable rock he needs to alter the nature of the rock to make it movable then move it.

I would really like to hear any well thought out comments or reponses to the paradox. Thankyou.
Sure. The rock sits there, God applies pressure, thermodynamics comes into play and the rest of the universe shifts in whichever direction you have designated as 'down'. The rock remaims immovable yet (courtesy of relative position) is 'lifted'.

well, technically, being omniscient, he would know HOW 2 life it.
his omniscience would deem him ABLE 2 life it
however, does being allknowing and allpowerful also give him the power of telekinesis, as, being god, he has do corporeal body with which to life the rock.

The answer is fairly simple. God cannot create a rock that he cannot lift, nor can he lift that rock, because god does not exist. Hence, the paradox no longer applies.

Simple, and probably stupid, but it works.

I agree with you on that one. It's obvious that "God" is a figment of people's imagination. The same applies to the illusionary Judeo-Xian scapegoat "Satan". Could such a "loving and merciful" deity have so many followers that do not follow the basic tenet of compassion? I doubt it.

Paradox: Can God create a rock that he cannot lift?

So your question is actually: can God limit himself. So if God cannot make such a rock, then that means he cannot limit himself. And if He can't limit himself, does that mean He is limited? I dont think so.

I quote this entry because it is the most clever response I have ever received for this question.


Why, thank you. :)


Here's what I've constructed:
If we assume that God has no physical limitations, then there exist metaphysical actions which He can not preform.


That in itself is a paradox, if you assume that your diety is omnipotent, omnipresent, omnibenovelent, and omniscient, you run into the "problem of evil" - which is a meta-physical problem. If the GCB (Greatest Concievable Being) is omnibenevolent, then every action (or inaction) it makes must be good. Yet evil exists, and being omniscient the GCB knows that it exists. So, through inaction, it condones the evil that exists. So, with that we can make one of two determinations - either the GCB is not omnibenevolent or the GCB is not omniscient. Actually, there is a third determination, if the GCB is omnibenevolent, and ALSO omniscient, then the GCB must not be omnipotent - because being both omnibenevolent and omniscient implies that it is powerless to act against the evil that exists.

Your basically putting up a challenge to omnipotence, but the Christian belief is to not tempt God.

People that believe in God are suppossed to answer "yes", because God can do anything - even though the answer does contradict itself - By acknowledging the answer with a "no", you are admitting that God has fault.

While the question is a device used shortly in philosophical discussion to challenge one's belief, the outcome honestly can never be known and it makes the question invalid. As probably God would never do such a thing.

The same as egg and hen - which came first?

It's very obvious-- the eggplant. :p <insert hysterical (or not so hysterical) laughter here>

Most of this depends on what your concept of "lift" is.

I enjoy the response that alludes to the notion that we cannot concieve the ideas that govern (or do not) Him.

I do think He gets a chuckle out of this question every time someone asks. We'll all find out soon enough :)

Why, thank you. :)



That in itself is a paradox, if you assume that your diety is omnipotent, omnipresent, omnibenovelent, and omniscient, you run into the "problem of evil" - which is a meta-physical problem. If the GCB (Greatest Concievable Being) is omnibenevolent, then every action (or inaction) it makes must be good. Yet evil exists, and being omniscient the GCB knows that it exists. So, through inaction, it condones the evil that exists. So, with that we can make one of two determinations - either the GCB is not omnibenevolent or the GCB is not omniscient. Actually, there is a third determination, if the GCB is omnibenevolent, and ALSO omniscient, then the GCB must not be omnipotent - because being both omnibenevolent and omniscient implies that it is powerless to act against the evil that exists.

In the Christian faith however, there is no such paradox, because Jesus is God's answer to evil for those who choose that option, and hell is the other alternative. (http://www.bbnradio.org/bbnnet/readtheanswer.asp)

YES HE CAN! AND IT'S NO PARADOX! GOD CANNOT JUST DO WHATEVER HE WANTS TO! THE BIBLE NEVER SAYS THAT HE CAN! HE CANNOT BREAK HIS WORD, FOR ONE! NOW, GET OVER IT ALREADY! ALL OF THESE THINGS HAVE BEEN EXPLAINED TIME AND AGAIN! WHY IS THERE EVIL? WE'VE EXPLAINED IT OVER AND OVER! GET A LIFE!

COMPLAIN ABOUT MY cAPSlOCK, IT WOULD BE A BETTER USE OF THESE FORUMS!

P.S.: Kerry RoxX0Rz and Bush stinks of wet messy ass!11oneone111!!!!!!

Could such a "loving and merciful" deity have so many followers that do not follow the basic tenet of compassion? I doubt it.

Could an imaginary deity (bbnradio.org/bbnnet/readtheanswer.asp) have so many that do? I doubt it.

Let's just say hypothetically that God did create a rock that he could not lift.
Not really such a problem there because what God does and what Gad can do are entirely the same thing. Far example, could God do something evil and malicious. Secondly, could God enterfere with our free will. No, he could not. Why not, if he can do anything? Because it is entirely against his nature. Anything that God does quite neccessarily reflects God's nature. Nothing could have come before God (otherwise God would not fit the most basic definition of a god) therefore nothing could have affected God's discion to do anything. This shows that anything God did can only be a direct result of God's own being. If God is truly a benevolent god, he truly could not do something evil and malicious. This, however, is only acaused by God's self. In other words, God created something within God's self that God could not overcome. So, could God create something external to God's self that God could not overcome. I'll say no. But again this is only due to God's nature. God would not (therefore could not) create something more powerful than God, because it would give absolute control over at least that part of where that thing is more powerful than God. If God were to allow that, then something which is not omnibenevelent to have the final authority on certain matter's. Therfore God would not (and thus could not, remember God's "could" and God's "would" are entirely the same thing) create something more powerful than God's self.

Well, noone is really listening to the good advice anyways, so let's have fun. In a power versus power ratio, one source cannot create another source greater than the original.

The God of Christianity certainly could, because he is regarded to be both one being and three beings. Therefore, he could create a rock that one aspect of himself (eg. the son) could not lift, but that another (eg. the father) could. Then he would be both able and unable to lift the rock.

Infinite math is easy....

Infinity = Infinity

Infinity + 1 = Infinity

Infinity squared = Infinity

Really, what about Infinity divided by infinity?

Infinity divided by infinity= any number

"Infinity divided by infinity= any number"
no, it's an undefined number, just like anything divided by zero.


The answer to this thread is that there is no answer. We as humans can only explain God in human terms, which are broken and for the most part lacking a definate shape or definition.

What is this question in itself?


It's a waste of time and energy, really.

Infinite math is easy....

Infinity = Infinity

Infinity + 1 = Infinity

Infinity squared = Infinity

Also, (countable infinity)^(countable infinity) = (denumerable infinite)

Why, thank you. :)



That in itself is a paradox, if you assume that your diety is omnipotent, omnipresent, omnibenovelent, and omniscient, you run into the "problem of evil" - which is a meta-physical problem. If the GCB (Greatest Concievable Being) is omnibenevolent, then every action (or inaction) it makes must be good. Yet evil exists, and being omniscient the GCB knows that it exists. So, through inaction, it condones the evil that exists. So, with that we can make one of two determinations - either the GCB is not omnibenevolent or the GCB is not omniscient. Actually, there is a third determination, if the GCB is omnibenevolent, and ALSO omniscient, then the GCB must not be omnipotent - because being both omnibenevolent and omniscient implies that it is powerless to act against the evil that exists.

Yes! This is the logical analysis I love to hear.

paradoxes are fun to play with.

i hope you dont consider this a valid theological question.

there are no paradoxes for god. his mind is infinitely greater than ours. what seems impossible to us is not impossible for him. it is only the limitations of our own minds that make paradoxes possible. god is not limited by our logical constructs.

no, it's an undefined number, just like anything divided by zero.


Actually, its an indeterminate.

paradoxes are fun to play with.

i hope you dont consider this a valid theological question.

there are no paradoxes for god. his mind is infinitely greater than ours. what seems impossible to us is not impossible for him. it is only the limitations of our own minds that make paradoxes possible. god is not limited by our logical constructs.

If God can not be reasoned about logically, then people who believe in God are illogical. I do not believe that people who believe in God are illogical, thus I believe that God can be reasooned about logically.

Well since he's supposed to be omnipotent, he should be able to create it, but since he could not lift it, he would not be omnipotent anymore. The same as egg and hen - which came first?

What else can we say???

Anyone read the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy? Remember the Babel Fish?

That's what I think would happen to God in this case.

*poof*

Let me fetch the quote.

`The Babel fish,' said The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy quietly,
`is small, yellow and leech-like, and probably the oddest thing in the
Universe. It feeds on brainwave energy received not from its own carrier
but from those around it. It absorbs all unconscious mental frequencies
from this brainwave energy to nourish itself with. It then excretes into
the brain of its carrier a telepathic matrix formed by combining the
conscious thought frequencies with nerve signals picked up from the
speech centres of the brain which has supplied them. The practical upshot
of all this is that if you stick a Babel fish in your ear you can
instantly understand anything said to you in any form of language. The
speech patterns you actually hear decode the brainwave matrix which has
been fed into your mind by your Babel fish.
`Now it is such a bizarrely improbable coincidence that anything
so mindbogglingly useful could have evolved purely by chance that some
thinkers have chosen to see it as a final and clinching proof of the
non-existance of God.
`The argument goes something like this: "I refuse to prove that I
exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am
nothing."
`"But," says Man, "the Babel fish is a dead giveaway isn't it? It
could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore,
by your own arguments, you don't. QED."
`"Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly
vanishes in a puff of logic.
`"Oh, that was easy," says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove
that black is white and gets himself killed on the next zebra crossing.
`Most leading theologians claim that this argument is a load of
dingo's kidneys, but that didn't stop Oolon Colluphid making a small
fortune when he used it as the central theme of his best-selling book
"Well That About Wraps It Up For God".
`Meanwhile, the poor Babel fish, by effectively removing all
barriers to communication between different races and cultures, has
caused more and bloodier wars than anything else in the history of
creation.'

Anyone read the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy? Remember the Babel Fish?

That's what I think would happen to God in this case.

*poof*

Let me fetch the quote.

Douglas Adams was amazing.

I have already answered this before. You see, you make a fallous assumption. This is that you assume God must follow the laws of logic. Since he is not a logical being, you cannot try to limit him to your own thought processes. Simply because something does not make sense logically does not mean that it still affects God. After all, logically speaking he couldn't turn water in blood, or water into wine, in an instant.

Actually, he could. He could have the quarks re-arranged into the right combination for wine.

Well since he's supposed to be omnipotent, he should be able to create it, but since he could not lift it, he would not be omnipotent anymore.
Of course he is able to create it if he's omnipotent. because then it is his will to create a stone that is heavier than he could lift. and then he does create that stone. and can't lift it. just like he wanted to.

If God can not be reasoned about logically, then people who believe in God are illogical. I do not believe that people who believe in God are illogical, thus I believe that God can be reasooned about logically.
interesting notion but i cant see that it makes any LOGICAL sense that a being greater than we can imagine is somehow forced to play by the "childish" rules that our minds can come up with

I believe God would persuade the rock to move in someway or another. Besides wouldn't God already know about this rock since it was God that created it. So it would of already of been in the known that the supposed and assumed rock was immovable. Since God already knows all and has the solution to every problem this 'problem' could never be such.

Could an imaginary deity (bbnradio.org/bbnnet/readtheanswer.asp) have so many that do? I doubt it.

If the Xian god exists, then why is the number of Xians in the world shrinking?

You seem to be saying your "god" exists. I wouldn't be surprised if you thought your beliefs were the one true way. Of course, the 19 hijackers believed when they took control of four jets on September 11th, 2001. People use religion as an excuse to commit atrocities.

Xianity is not original. It steals from other beliefs. For those you out there are Xian, do you even know who Mithras is?

If God can not be reasoned about logically, then people who believe in God are illogical. I do not believe that people who believe in God are illogical, thus I believe that God can be reasooned about logically.
Actually, I would consider faith itself illogical. Kind of like when a girl told me that just because they hadn't found a missing link yet didn't mean that they never would. I just had to have faith (I kid you not). Faith is not based on a logical reasoning system. It simply is. However, the way you came to that conclusion was fallous. You basically tossed something out of your ass that sounded good, but in all honesty made no sense :).

As I have stated before, God is not a logical being, and therefore is not held to your logical perception of the Universe. Hence why he was able to make the entire Universe out of nothing, turn water into wine, and walk on water. Do you understand? None of these events were logical. If you tried to scientifically explain them you would fail. You could propose that there may have been additional events that were left out, but that would be skirting the issue. Based on the information we have, God is not held to the laws of logic.

interesting notion but i cant see that it makes any LOGICAL sense that a being greater than we can imagine is somehow forced to play by the "childish" rules that our minds can come up with
Too true. At least there are others who grasp this idea.

As I have stated before, God is not a logical being, and therefore is not held to your logical perception of the Universe. Hence why he was able to make the entire Universe out of nothing, turn water into wine, and walk on water. Do you understand? None of these events were logical. If you tried to scientifically explain them you would fail. You could propose that there may have been additional events that were left out, but that would be skirting the issue. Based on the information we have, God is not held to the laws of logic.

Actually, it was Jesus who supposedly turned water into wine and walked on water. Jesus cannot be "God" or else the line "My god, my god why have you forsaken me" makes no sense. The Bible wouldn't either, but it doesn't make sense as it is anyway. If you believe that it doesn't have to make sense because it's god, then I have a question for you. Are you ready?

Why do you worship a psychotic deity?

Jesus cannot be "God" or else the line "My god, my god why have you forsaken me" makes no sense.

One word (with an accompanying several):Trinity. The trinity is the combination of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. To put it simply (though somewhat inaccurately) one single god with three facets.

Why do you worship a psychotic deity?

Let's say for a moment that the Christian philosophy is meaningless nonsense. It certainly doesn't hurt anyone, but it helps a lot of people. He's certainly made me a better person, you see a lot of Christians going out and helping people around the world establishing hospitals et c., true Christians are generally nicer than non-Christians, American freedoms are based on Christian ideals, and Christians are happier and have more hope than non-Christians. So, the world is a better place because of the belief in this "psychotic deity".

God can create a rock that he cannot lift and then lift it.

The paradox only works within the universe we inhabit whereas God by his definition is supposed to transcend such limitations. From our perspective he is a being of contradictions, yet by our definition he is a being beyond our perspective.

The whole thing addles the mind, believe or do not believe as you will - as long as you're a good person I don't think it matters.

Actually, it was Jesus who supposedly turned water into wine and walked on water. Jesus cannot be "God" or else the line "My god, my god why have you forsaken me" makes no sense. The Bible wouldn't either, but it doesn't make sense as it is anyway. If you believe that it doesn't have to make sense because it's god, then I have a question for you. Are you ready?

Why do you worship a psychotic deity?

all non-heretical christians believe that jesus, the only begotten son of god, is GOD.

you dont have to believe it. plenty of people do and it doesnt bother them one bit.

im gonna put it down as one of the reasons that god isnt bound by human logic

I think the crux of the matter is that the will of God is eternal and unchanging. Of course he could create a rock he couldn't lift - he limited himself temporarily by coming down to earth as Jesus, and he certainly wasn't omnipotent then. The thing is - If God wanted to create a rock he couldn't lift, then that could only mean that he never wanted to lift it, and if he wanted to lift it, he would have made it so that it could be lifted when the time was right.
God in no way limits his omnipotence by creating a rock he can't lift, if he never has any intention to lift it. Only if God's will could change would this be a paradox. At least, that's how I see it. Of course, I'm not even Christian, but I still think it's a neat logic problem, so that's my 2 cents worth.

One word (with an accompanying several):Trinity. The trinity is the combination of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. To put it simply (though somewhat inaccurately) one single god with three facets.

The "trinity" explanation sounds like a fluffed version of multiple personality disorder. I'd say psychotic deity fits. Perhaps we should use shock therapy to cure your "god".

Let's say for a moment that the Christian philosophy is meaningless nonsense. It certainly doesn't hurt anyone, but it helps a lot of people. He's certainly made me a better person, you see a lot of Christians going out and helping people around the world establishing hospitals et c., true Christians are generally nicer than non-Christians, American freedoms are based on Christian ideals, and Christians are happier and have more hope than non-Christians. So, the world is a better place because of the belief in this "psychotic deity".

Doesn't hurt anyone? You have obviously never heard of the Crusades, the Inquisition, the Salem Witch Trials, or Xian "Pro-lifers" murdering doctors.

What do you define as a true Xian? Who are you to make the decision? I thought only "god" could judge others. Would you want to be judged like that? I doubt it. You are breaking the "Golden Rule". Your statement that true Xians are nicer, happier, and have more hope than non-Xians is discriminating and only subjective.

American freedoms are NOT based on Xian ideas. At least, they weren't when the nation was founded. Xians now want to ban gay marriages. Why? Because the Bible supposedly forbids it yet no one can show me where. Besides, the Bible supports abortion yet Xians get all uppity about it. "Christ" taught compassion and humility, not self righteousness. That would be considered one of the seven deadly sins. You don't sound like a true Xian to me.

I'd further rebut your comment, but I'd doubt you'd understand what was said so far.

all non-heretical christians believe that jesus, the only begotten son of god, is GOD.

Who are you to decide what a heretical Xian is? You obviously missed the message of the gospels. Not surprising though considering that reading comprehension is a lost art.

Actually, it's quite simple. God simply has to take away his own omnipotence for long enough to create the rock. Since he is omnipotent to start off with, he should be able to take away his own abilities. This makes him temporarily limited, but it allows for such paradox.

Either that, or as soon as he tries the universe ceases to exist.

Yes. God can create a rock he cannot lift, AND can lift it as well. Without contradiction. Our sense of logic does not apply to the Divine, no more than an ant can conceive a subway plan for NYC.

I would really like to hear any well thought out comments or reponses to the paradox. Thankyou.

Hmmm...I really should just make a word file to store standard responses to these sorts of questions that pop up every few weeks.

Actually, maybe I'll try a path I haven't used before. That could be interesting. Here we go...

1.) You premise an unlimited God.

2.) You apply logic (a system of limitations) to the unlimited God.

3.) An inconsistency occurs.

4.) You are impressed with yourself and conclude that there is no God.

5.) I chuckle softly and arrogantly condescend to respond to your argument.

Hmmm...I really should just make a word file to store standard responses to these sorts of questions that pop up every few weeks.

Actually, maybe I'll try a path I haven't used before. That could be interesting. Here we go...

1.) You premise an unlimited God.

2.) You apply logic (a system of limitations) to the unlimited God.

3.) An inconsistency occurs.

4.) You are impressed with yourself and conclude that there is no God.

5.) I chuckle softly and arrogantly condescend to respond to your argument.

Yeah, its a pain to weed through these responses. But I have found quite a few choice responses written that I feel makes it worth while to stick with the entire thread.

Yes. God can create a rock he cannot lift, AND can lift it as well. Without contradiction. Our sense of logic does not apply to the Divine, no more than an ant can conceive a subway plan for NYC.

Godmodder ;)

Who are you to decide what a heretical Xian is? You obviously missed the message of the gospels. Not surprising though considering that reading comprehension is a lost art.
Maybe you should read Acts before you decide who is preaching heresy.

God?
What?
Thingo?
There is no reason in our world whatsoever - in our known/unknown universe
whatsoever - to presuppose/need a god.
Except our sad human seeking for pattern & meaning.
Bloody sad that - but hey! the food is good meantime! :cool:

Maybe you should read Acts before you decide who is preaching heresy.

You want me to read Acts again? I'll tell you what. I'll reread Acts when you reread the Bible. If you are too lazy to read the Bible, then reread the gospels. Anyone with a lick of common sense and reading comprehension would see that the Bible is riddled with errors. Bruce Calvert said it best with "Believing is easier than thinking. Hence so many more believers than thinkers."

If you believe that the Bible is absolutely inerrant, then maybe you can explain something. Where are the missing years of "Christ"? How come the gospels are only third party accounts? Why is it that tale of Jesus resembles so much the tales of other incarnations? On second thought, I'll provide the answer to the last question.

There were dozens of well-established religions within the Roman Empire during the 1st century BCE, well before Jesus was born. Each of these faiths worshiped their own version of a godman. Although called by different names, such as Adonis, Aion, Antiochus, Asclepius, Attis, Bacchus, Dionysus, Osiris, Mithras, etc., their life stories were very similar. They were typically born about December 25th of a human virgin in a cave or cowshed. Their father was a god. Their birth was prophesized by a star in the heavens. Dozens of occurrences in Jesus' life, as described in the gospels,*are identical or very similar to events in the legends of these godmen. Many magical and miraculous factors in Jesus' life were simply copied from pre-existing religions. The adoption of Pagan myths was necessary in order for Christianity to compete with other religions in the Empire. Otherwise, it would not have attracted many followers.

I would really like to hear any well thought out comments or reponses to the paradox. Thankyou.

The problem with this "parodox" is the underlying supposition that God is limited to and can be understood through logic. As some famous Vulcan once said, "logic is the beginning of wisdom, not the end." The limitation is not God's but rather the mind that cannot see beyond the world of rationality and reason. Can someone reach an understanding of love through language alone? And if we cannot even understand one of our most basic emotions through language how can we expect it will allow us to comprehend God?

For a better understanding of religious philosophies that transend the world of logic read more about the Kabbala of Jewish mystics, the many paths of Islamic Sufi'ism, or Zen Buddhist koans.

(By the way I edited and rewrote this short, simple answer three times, and, try though I might, cannot be sure those reading it will get the meaning I intended. Logic, language, and reason serve us well, but do not provide all answers to life's mysteries).

I think some others touched on this answer through the thread, but I wanted to try and reword it.

The rock questions is itself a fallicy and rather silly. You could ask these questions instead:

* Can God make a square circle?
* Can God create a color that he cannot smell?
* Can God formulate a proof of his own non-existence?
* Can God outrun himself?
* Can God cauliflower?

These questions can be asked, but just because a question can be asked does not mean that it has any value, or is deserving of any sort of response.

What flavour is Thursday?

Why do bananas enjoy driving tractors?

You can string a bunch of words together to make a syntactically valid question, but if the question is meaningless then what use is it? That, I think, is the case with the Heavy Rock dilemma - it is based on a logical impossibility ("Can God do what God cannot do?") and just becomes so much pointless word-play.

Let's go back to the square circle.

A square circle is an oxymoron. But if a square circle cannot exist, then it cannot be brought into existence, i.e., it cannot be created. Hence you are fallaciously stating: God can create that which cannot be created.

This is a contradiction; thus the original argument is based on unsound premises, and the argument against the coherence of theism itself can be reduced to an absurdity. Moreover, creating a rock too heavy to lift is plainly false; a square circle is not a thing, nor is it even a legitimate abstraction and the same applies for your rock.

It's a nonsense question.

There is no paradox here: God, being of a omniscient, fantastical being con do both.

I think some others touched on this answer through the thread, but I wanted to try and reword it.

The rock questions is itself a fallicy and rather silly. You could ask these questions instead:

* Can God make a square circle?
* Can God create a color that he cannot smell?
* Can God formulate a proof of his own non-existence?
* Can God outrun himself?
* Can God cauliflower?

These questions can be asked, but just because a question can be asked does not mean that it has any value, or is deserving of any sort of response.

What flavour is Thursday?

Why do bananas enjoy driving tractors?

You can string a bunch of words together to make a syntactically valid question, but if the question is meaningless then what use is it? That, I think, is the case with the Heavy Rock dilemma - it is based on a logical impossibility ("Can God do what God cannot do?") and just becomes so much pointless word-play.

Let's go back to the square circle.

A square circle is an oxymoron. But if a square circle cannot exist, then it cannot be brought into existence, i.e., it cannot be created. Hence you are fallaciously stating: God can create that which cannot be created.

This is a contradiction; thus the original argument is based on unsound premises, and the argument against the coherence of theism itself can be reduced to an absurdity. Moreover, creating a rock too heavy to lift is plainly false; a square circle is not a thing, nor is it even a legitimate abstraction and the same applies for your rock.

It's a nonsense question.

Well argued.

God?
What?
Thingo?
There is no reason in our world whatsoever - in our known/unknown universe
whatsoever - to presuppose/need a god.
Except our sad human seeking for pattern & meaning.
Bloody sad that - but hey! the food is good meantime! :cool:

The exsistence of God is really not what the question is here. Atheists can participate in the discussion too, you know!

I think some others touched on this answer through the thread, but I wanted to try and reword it.

The rock questions is itself a fallicy and rather silly. You could ask these questions instead:

* Can God make a square circle?
* Can God create a color that he cannot smell?
* Can God formulate a proof of his own non-existence?
* Can God outrun himself?
* Can God cauliflower?

These questions can be asked, but just because a question can be asked does not mean that it has any value, or is deserving of any sort of response.

What flavour is Thursday?

Why do bananas enjoy driving tractors?

You can string a bunch of words together to make a syntactically valid question, but if the question is meaningless then what use is it? That, I think, is the case with the Heavy Rock dilemma - it is based on a logical impossibility ("Can God do what God cannot do?") and just becomes so much pointless word-play.

Let's go back to the square circle.

A square circle is an oxymoron. But if a square circle cannot exist, then it cannot be brought into existence, i.e., it cannot be created. Hence you are fallaciously stating: God can create that which cannot be created.

This is a contradiction; thus the original argument is based on unsound premises, and the argument against the coherence of theism itself can be reduced to an absurdity. Moreover, creating a rock too heavy to lift is plainly false; a square circle is not a thing, nor is it even a legitimate abstraction and the same applies for your rock.

It's a nonsense question.

You're boardering on implying that God can only create that which exists.

Edit: On second thought, being that you declare everything which doesn't exist "nonsense," you are saying that God cannot create anything that doesn't already exist. If you accept that statement, then it can be concluded that you leave no possibility of there being a moment of creation.

You're boardering on implying that God can only create that which exists.

Aye. That was my problem with that argument, too. He chose a very tried and true approach and used it well, though. I have to give him props for that. Actually, since you seem to be interested in responses to this paradox, I think I'll dig up an older thread that addressed it. Maybe you can have some interesting/thought provoking reading from it.

Aye. That was my problem with that argument, too. He chose a very tried and true approach and used it well, though. I have to give him props for that. Actually, since you seem to be interested in responses to this paradox, I think I'll dig up an older thread that addressed it. Maybe you can have some interesting/thought provoking reading from it.

I would aprreciate reading such material! My goal is not to start flame wars over various religions, but trying to see what can be reasoned about God through our assumptions/faith. Imagine, knowing something about God, using the abilities we have... its makes me euphoric.

I would aprreciate reading such material! My goal is not to start flame wars over various religions, but trying to see what can be reasoned about God through our assumptions/faith. Imagine, knowing something about God, using the abilities we have... its makes me euphoric.

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=363515

There's a lot of nonsense there, but in towards the middle there was some more interesting discussion, with HadesRulesMuch, Clonetopia, and others.

You're boardering on implying that God can only create that which exists.

Edit: On second thought, being that you declare everything which doesn't exist "nonsense," you are saying that God cannot create anything that doesn't already exist. If you accept that statement, then it can be concluded that you leave no possibility of there being a moment of creation.
He sys god can not create impossible things I think. God can create a rock but cannot lift it. So why should god be able to create it if he can't lift it.

On a different note my answer. A rock that god cannot lift would mean that god cannot affect it in anyway. Therefore nothing can affect it. You are arguing that there is an object that would not interact with objects. For by observing it we change it and if we can change it in one way then the object is not infinate. Since we can not affect it, it also cant affect us by the oposite side. By interacting with us it is affected. Thus you have an infinate rock that has no interactions. If it has no interactions then it has no presence relative to eveything else. If it has no presence it doesn exist.

The answer is fairly simple. God cannot create a rock that he cannot lift, nor can he lift that rock, because god does not exist. Hence, the paradox no longer applies.

Simple, and probably stupid, but it works.
Oh really?
Assume the non-existence of God.
God has been defined as being able to do anything.
'anything' include the ability to will one's self into existence.
Ergo, if God does not exist, he can fix that.
At which point we return to the question - so try again.....

He sys god can not create impossible things I think. God can create a rock but cannot lift it. So why should god be able to create it if he can't lift it.

On a different note my answer. A rock that god cannot lift would mean that god cannot affect it in anyway. Therefore nothing can affect it.

You assume that if God can't lift it, then nothing can.

No, because such an object would not be a rock.

No, because such an object would not be a rock.

Why not?

This is a repeat of my previous answer because I felt it was badly worded.

If we assume god can do anything.

He creates a rock he can not lift.

Lifting could be a multiple of any movement. So god can not move that rock in anyway.

If god can't move it then no one can move it. It is unmovable.

The rock therefore stays put. Since by oberving anything we affect it. A small push squeezes the rock and a pull on the other side streches the rock. We can not see it or we will "move the rock."

It cannot affect us. Every action has an equal and oposite reaction states any interaction by the rock would affect it.

If we cannot influence it and it cannot influence us then there is no detection of it.

If it cant be detected then it doesnt exist.

You assume that if God can't lift it, then nothing can.
I am assuming god can do everything, but move that rock.

If god isnt omnipotent then why should he be able to lift that rock?

<snip>
If god can't move it then no one can move it. It is unmovable.
<snip>


That statement is false.

Of course with science at my side there are many more arguments.

The rock by pure chance could move and therefore if god waits long enough he can move it.

Relativity states that there is no set object in space. If the object cannot be moved then it is "set" This is against relativity.

I am assuming god can do everything, but move that rock.
<snip>

Why?

That statement is false.
ok so god cannot move that rock. Well I can move that rock. I push on it and it gets compressed. Well in fact anything moves that rock. An insect could push that rock. Its gravity could pull that rock. Since anything can move that rock, unless god doesnt exist, then god can move that rock.

Why?
Why can god create the rock?

Why can god create the rock?

Why assume God can do anything besides move the rock? There can be other things He cannot do.

Edit (see note): The discussion I was hoping would bring some discussion over exactly that question. Does God have to be able to create such a rock? Perhaps he has no such ability? Or maybe God can create such a rock, and a result of that conclusion would be that there is a physical limitation on God. These are more the questions I was pondering. As an aside, I'm impressed and humbled with your drive on analyzing this question with physics (and not the logic ponder it was meant to be).

Why assume God can do anything besides move the rock? There can be other things He cannot do.
So we assume he can create this rock. Ok still no problem. He creates another rock at the same place. Objects cant exist at the same place so the former rock is moved. Unless of course he cant create anything.

ok so god cannot move that rock. Well I can move that rock. I push on it and it gets compressed. Well in fact anything moves that rock. An insect could push that rock. Its gravity could pull that rock. Since anything can move that rock, unless god doesnt exist, then god can move that rock.

Your arguement is getting a little too far into physics, however it is correct for most instances. Conditions can be supposed in which we don't worry about external forces, but instead of injecting that into the question and making it more of a physics related question, let me throw you a simpler one at you with the same premise: Can God create something with more mass than himself?

Isnt heat vibrations. And therefore by giving heat to the rock he moves it. Of course it moves back and forth but he is moving it.
Well light can produce heat, so he cant shine light on it. In fact by doing anything god affects that rock in some ever so small way so god cant do anything.

That one guy is right.

God isn't limitted to the logic and knowledge even the most intelligent people we have to offer can comprehend. Our whole concept of logic is a completely insignificant "dot," you could say, on the bigger picture.

Your arguement is getting a little too far into physics, however it is correct for most instances. Conditions can be supposed in which we don't worry about external forces, but instead of injecting that into the question and making it more of a physics related question, let me throw you a simpler one at you with the same premise: Can God create something with more mass than himself?
what I am basically saying is that unless the rock is infinatly large a small force will still move it, just a very small amount. I am trying to use examples which are a little far flung.

Yes. god is some mass. He creates something a third of his mass. He does it again and again and one last time. He joins the 4 together to make an object 4/3 his mass.

Here is the best way to describe it.

F=M*A

We assume god has some force. And the rock has some mass. So the acceleration would be gods force/the rocks mass. However we want A to equal 0. Well if god cant do anything then acceleration is 0. However, the only other option is that the rock is infinatly large. No matter what value you give me, it still has some acceleration even if you have a very small force.

If god has no force well, god basically doesnt exist.

And if the rock has no force the acceleration is undefined, which does not mean 0.

Of course he can. If he created the physical laws that make it a paradox, then he can alter them so that the feat is possible.

"You are asking can an omnipotent God make himself impotent? The answer is: of course he can! He is omnipotent so he can do anything and everything including that."
Heheh, how do we know God's not done that already?
:D

You're boardering on implying that God can only create that which exists.

Edit: On second thought, being that you declare everything which doesn't exist "nonsense," you are saying that God cannot create anything that doesn't already exist. If you accept that statement, then it can be concluded that you leave no possibility of there being a moment of creation.

Actually, I was saying that God can't make something that is self-contradicting or impossible, like a square circle. There's no such thing. Could God create things that don't exist? Liiiike ... an ear of corn that can actually hear? Sure, that's silly, but not contradictary.

A rock that's too heavy for God to lift implies that for God to prove He's unlimited, he has to be limited. That's a nonsense question.

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=363515

There's a lot of nonsense there, but in towards the middle there was some more interesting discussion, with HadesRulesMuch, Clonetopia, and others.

Starts about on page 7 and continues about to page 10 if anyone's interested.

It's a decent discussion, but I don't know if either side was particularly well argued. Nice read, though! Thanks for the link.

BTW, had to post my 2 cents on the witchcraft bit since that's the main point of that thread ... slamming the Bible for that one verse:

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=7313031#post7313031

If God is capable of all, is he not capable of lying? Since he can lie, how do you know he's not lying in the Bible, or even about his own omnipotence?

This is how I see it...

God could make a rock bigger than all creation combined, and he could still lift it. The phrasing of the question implies that the rock must at some point become too large; but no rock is too large for God. Even with infinite size and mass, it would not pass beyond his capabilities.

Lift it from what? The earth? Once the mass of the rock becomes greater than the earth, than the rock itself is essentially lifting the earth. Thus, there is nothing to lift it from. Therefore...of course he can't lift it in the spacial frame of earth... Once the rock becomes the largest mass in existence, than it can't be lifted from anything, as everything would have to be lifted from it. You're question is just invalid. It's not a paradox. It's just you getting lost in your own limited philosophy.

That one guy is right.

God isn't limitted to the logic and knowledge even the most intelligent people we have to offer can comprehend. Our whole concept of logic is a completely insignificant "dot," you could say, on the bigger picture.

Is it a dot, or a potential framework?

Lift it from what? The earth? Once the mass of the rock becomes greater than the earth, than the rock itself is essentially lifting the earth. Thus, there is nothing to lift it from. Therefore...of course he can't lift it in the spacial frame of earth... Once the rock becomes the largest mass in existence, than it can't be lifted from anything, as everything would have to be lifted from it. You're question is just invalid. It's not a paradox. It's just you getting lost in your own limited philosophy.

bump, waiting for a response

If God is capable of all, is he not capable of lying? Since he can lie, how do you know he's not lying in the Bible, or even about his own omnipotence?

This reminds me of the thread asking if God couldn't be omnipotent because He was incapable of sin. Well, sin is anything that goes against God's will. How can you go against your own will?

And no one said God's incapable of lying. He just said he doesn't. So far, we can't call His bluff.

Actually, I was saying that God can't make something that is self-contradicting or impossible, like a square circle. There's no such thing. Could God create things that don't exist? Liiiike ... an ear of corn that can actually hear? Sure, that's silly, but not contradictary.

A rock that's too heavy for God to lift implies that for God to prove He's unlimited, he has to be limited. That's a nonsense question.

It doesn't make the question nonsense, it just makes your answer, (before "That's a nonsense question), a good one.

Lift it from what? The earth? Once the mass of the rock becomes greater than the earth, than the rock itself is essentially lifting the earth. Thus, there is nothing to lift it from. Therefore...of course he can't lift it in the spacial frame of earth... Once the rock becomes the largest mass in existence, than it can't be lifted from anything, as everything would have to be lifted from it. You're question is just invalid. It's not a paradox. It's just you getting lost in your own limited philosophy.

This reminds me of the thread asking if God couldn't be omnipotent because He was incapable of sin. Well, sin is anything that goes against God's will. How can you go against your own will?

And no one said God's incapable of lying. He just said he doesn't. So far, we can't call His bluff.

I could call her bluff just fine. Actually, I think I will. Is it at all possible that really, the Bible is just a lie perpetrated by God to weed out the sheeple, and will save the atheists(or agnostics)? Since earlier it was stated that God was illogical, therefore our measures of logic do not apply, this being illogical is then irrelevant.

Lift it from what? The earth? Once the mass of the rock becomes greater than the earth, than the rock itself is essentially lifting the earth. Thus, there is nothing to lift it from. Therefore...of course he can't lift it in the spacial frame of earth... Once the rock becomes the largest mass in existence, than it can't be lifted from anything, as everything would have to be lifted from it. You're question is just invalid. It's not a paradox. It's just you getting lost in your own limited philosophy.

Knock it off with the multiple posts already. We all know it's not possible. It's just a way of viewing (simply) a supposed paradox in a simpler way. Phrase it like this, if you like:

If God is all powerful, can he do the impossible?

Of course, that's much harder to debate, because it depends on your definition of impossible. The folks here have chosen to use "self contradictory" in place of "impossible" (If God is all powerful, can He lose his omnipotence?).

I could call her bluff just fine. Actually, I think I will. Is it at all possible that really, the Bible is just a lie perpetrated by God to weed out the sheeple, and will save the atheists(or agnostics)? Since earlier it was stated that God was illogical, therefore our measures of logic do not apply, this being illogical is then irrelevant.

Who's saying it has to be the Xian god?

And things that are illogical are irrelevant? Boy, I feel sorry for your husband. Love's pretty illogical.

I have already answered this before. You see, you make a fallous assumption. This is that you assume God must follow the laws of logic. Since he is not a logical being, you cannot try to limit him to your own thought processes. Simply because something does not make sense logically does not mean that it still affects God. After all, logically speaking he couldn't turn water in blood, or water into wine, in an instant.

And of course you would have to throw out all reason and logic that all laws of nature follow physics....hmm...in other words...THERE IS NO GOD

Boy, I feel sorry for your husband. Love's pretty illogical.

Love isn't illogical it's Selfish...in fact love is the most selfish thing i can think of...with what else do you get all the satisfaction you want without doing anything?

Love isn't illogical it's Selfish...in fact love is the most selfish thing i can think of...with what else do you get all the satisfaction you want without doing anything?

All the satisfaction you want without doing anything? (Should I say, "Dang, you must be a woman" or "Dang, you must be a man"?)

Well, from my experience, love's a pretty two-sided street. And if it were purely selfish, why would you ever see people willing to give up their lives in place of their lovers?

One more person whose spouse I do not envy.

http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5298

I am an objectivist. Read this article for where i get my point of view on love being selfish from if you'd like, and currently i am single, though that is by choice.

And of course you would have to throw out all reason and logic that all laws of nature follow physics....hmm...in other words...THERE IS NO GOD

Theres no way to prove God does not exist.

You can however prove God CANT exist, but thats an entirely diffrent concept.

if you prove that god can't exist that's the same thing as saying that there isn't one.

Who's saying it has to be the Xian god?

And things that are illogical are irrelevant? Boy, I feel sorry for your husband. Love's pretty illogical.

Wow, that wasn't even close to what I was saying. I was saying that the fact that God can be illogical makes someone saying it's illogical for him to lie irrelevant.

If we assume god can do anything.
[snip]
If god can't move it then no one can move it. It is unmovable.
[snip]
If it cant be detected then it doesnt exist.
No and no.
A God who can do anything can create a rock which he cannot move but which other people can.

Radio waves did not spring into existence when we developed the ability to detect them - the world does not require other beings to detect it to continue existing.

Oh, it's worth noting that philosophical and theological views on God have very little to do with each other. Frex, the pre-Christian Greek philosophers assumed that God never felt emotions, because to do so would involve God being affected by other, lesser beings. Confusing the two just leads to shoddy thinking.

http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5298

I am an objectivist. Read this article for where i get my point of view on love being selfish from if you'd like, and currently i am single, though that is by choice.

I don't think I want to get into the "what is love" issue here, but don't you hope it's more than just two people sitting around saying, "man, I'm glad you're here."?

I see what he's getting at, but I don't like his choice in words. In that regard, everyone anyone ever does is purely selfish.

What then of self-sacrifice? What about stories of the heroes and the great lovers? What about giving up your life for your children? There's loves that /do/ involve sacrifice, and those are the good ones.

Wow, that wasn't even close to what I was saying. I was saying that the fact that God can be illogical makes someone saying it's illogical for him to lie irrelevant.


I could call her bluff just fine. Actually, I think I will. Is it at all possible that really, the Bible is just a lie perpetrated by God to weed out the sheeple, and will save the atheists(or agnostics)? Since earlier it was stated that God was illogical, therefore our measures of logic do not apply, this being illogical is then irrelevant.

Good grief. I apologize for that last bit. Switch the words "illogical" and "being" and you get a whole new sentance. My aixelsyd must be kicking in :(

So now you call the bluff ... time to show the cards. Where's the lie? No proof yet either way. I still maintain that the Christian God /can/ lie, but chooses not to (and we haven't caught him/her/whatever you want in a lie yet).

If we assume that God has no physical limitations, then there exist metaphysical actions which He can not preform.

But...

And if we assume that God can preform every metaphysical action, then God must have physical limitations



Why can we assume either one of these suppositions? Why, if God has no physical limitations, must He have metaphysical limitations, or vice versa? God created the Universe and all its laws, and can change the Universe and its laws at will to fit any supposed "logical" conundrum you can come up with.

As far as i know, God only has one limitation and the only reason God has it is because he wants to stick by it. He cannot prove his existence, for with proof, comes a lack of faith, and he cannot exist without faith.

God created the Universe and in so doing invested every aspect of it with his presence. It is an expanding Universe, subject to laws like entropy. As God's constituent physical self expands and ages along with the Universe of which he is not just a part of, but which is God in entirety, his powers wane and diminish as well. that is, if God is being expected to act in this plane of existence.

Maybe if you could scoop him up and plunk him into some other continuum we could try the rock test, but I have the sneaking suspicion that introducing God into another continuum might just induce yet another Big Bang event. In any case, trying to scoop him back together would necessitate some sort of impossible Big Crunch, which would no doubt leave anything currently existing in the Universe other than omnipresent God without much to look forward to.

Long story short, there is no rock that God has created that he can lift.

Of course an omnipotent deity could perform an action that would remove his/her/it's own omnipotence. The real question is "why would he/she/it?". It's more like the sorceror from Puss in Boots who wanted to prove he was the most powerful being by turning himself into a mouse, thus leaving him vunerable to Puss in Boots.

As far as i know, God only has one limitation and the only reason God has it is because he wants to stick by it. He cannot prove his existence, for with proof, comes a lack of faith, and he cannot exist without faith.

The God I know thinks of Faith as Sin, and rewards the Doubtful. Doubt ultimately leads to wisdom. Faith is an admission of spiritual incompetence.

A rock that will not move. God placed that rock that would not move here on earth for a reason, don't you believe? I do. It would be man that would want to move that rock to where it would roll in the direction it wants instead of staying put as God intended. It would be man that wants to formalize it into something it is not. It would be man that wants to label it as such as being a rock in the way. If you look at Jesus, you will see that the men of that day saw him as a rock that they wanted to formalize into thier own thinking ways instead of having him speak against them with the truth. However I have to disagree with allowing man to do such a thing to Jesus. Jesus revealed his love for his father and to all of us. Yes, but I believe there is a better and more peaceful way to do this. It is the least we can do to reveal our love for Jesus in return by staying put and being ourselves instead of what someone else wants us to be. Don't conform and screw the system. As in screw it to the wall where it becomes something stuck from progressing any further. It comes down to standing up for what you truly know is true. God. Not man with his formalities and labels. Now is the time to fight fire with water. Not fire with fire. Fire is death and destruction. Water is peace, love, acceptance and understanding. Water is GOOD. Fire is BAD. over 70% of this earth is covered with Good old water. It doesn't mean all 100% needs to be water but we do need to put out the fires within these lands. I always wandered why it says that God flooded the earth. Now I know damn well why. I believe.

Thanks for the compliment on the coolness sounding of it, but it has real meaning.

Meta here is meaning a step above in the logical and powers sense.

We live in the physical world.

Then meta physics are outside the bounds of the physical world.

Then metameta physics are outside the bounds of the meta physical world.

Then metametameta physics... I'm just leaving room by not assuming that God is exactly meta physical, but that he may be meta meta physical or just be above and given meta meta physics.

I think my cerebellum just pretzeled.

I think my cerebellum just pretzeled.

Impressive! Mine is not quite so flexible. :(

I think I'll reiterate: there is no rock that God has ever created that God can actually lift. Not even a grain of sand.

I think I'll reiterate: there is no rock that God has ever created that God can actually lift. Not even a grain of sand.

*sigh* I might as well...

Golly gee, DT, why do you say that?

Can Jesus microwave a burrito so hot that he himself could not eat it?


He doesn't microwave burritos himself, he goes to taco bell and gets "full" off the value menu!

The same as egg and hen - which came first?


Easy answer to that one. Neither as they were products of evolution!

If God does not lift that rock then it must be Jesus that does it for God.

Good grief. I apologize for that last bit. Switch the words "illogical" and "being" and you get a whole new sentance. My aixelsyd must be kicking in :(

So now you call the bluff ... time to show the cards. Where's the lie? No proof yet either way. I still maintain that the Christian God /can/ lie, but chooses not to (and we haven't caught him/her/whatever you want in a lie yet).

I wasn't saying that he or she *would* lie, just that he or she could. I don't really need to call it's bluff.

I have already answered this before. You see, you make a fallous assumption. This is that you assume God must follow the laws of logic. Since he is not a logical being, you cannot try to limit him to your own thought processes. Simply because something does not make sense logically does not mean that it still affects God. After all, logically speaking he couldn't turn water in blood, or water into wine, in an instant.

It is only by assuming that we follow the rules of logic that we can even hope to continue a discussion. Were we to abandon logic, we could answer this statement with something like "God can do this because red makes winter longer!"

Make Sense?

What you are dealing with is a combination of teh following problems:

1. Definitions - You need to define omnipotence. This concept does not exist given our present laws of physics, so if you are defining true omnipotence (everything to infinity) you have to assume god does not follow the laws of physics.

2. Semantics - definitions of words are important - the last writer was trying to define god as ineffable and still give her characteristics such as omnipotence. God is eitehr definable or it is not. It can't be both. Second, a rock created by an omnipotent being would be infinitely large (and by extension as large as the universe) thereby not leaving any room within the rest of the universe to move it or lift away from something else. If there were room to lift this infinitely large rock within this infinitely large universe, the rock is thereby not infinitely large!

3. Ignoring physics and the laws of gravity in lifting (this conundrum was created before physics discovered the universal constant of gravity) one need to define omnipotence properly. Without this definition, any argument on the subject become subjective depending on how one views god and teh constraints of the abilities of gods within and without the physical universe within which we define our arguments.

Hope this helps
Tom

Easy answer to that one. Neither as they were products of evolution!


The egg came first. Dinosaur eggs existed long before chickens evolved.

I'd say the egg came first, because...

Once upon a time there was a dinosaur, and by the time the evolution made the dinosaur into a bird which was really much like a chicken we know, but, for an example, it didn't have feather's because it was warm. Then, when it was colder and colder, a one unfeathered hen layed an egg and it hached, revealing a hen we know.

Fir the God and rock paradox...

Solution 1) God does not exist.
Solution 2) When the God starts to create the rock, it comes to kvant fysics (spelling). The world splits into two, in the other one God can't create the rock and in the other one he creates, but in the first world God lifts the rock (that doesn't exist for certain reason, but still can lift it) and in the another one God doesn't - this means God can and can't create the rock at the same time, and he can and can't lift the rock at the same time.

You didnät understand, don't blaime me.

Well, using my "logic" (and I use that word loosely), I would say that God could create a rock he couldn't lift.

Only because in my beliefs, God is all things. That includes strong and weak, intelligent and unintelligent, fallible and infallible.

Therefore, God could create a rock that He couldn't lift for the sake of saying, "I created a rock that I couldn't lift," and go to prove Himself correct. Attempt to lift the rock, and fail.

On the same token, if God were questioned about the same rock in which he could not lift, God could turn around and lift it. It's mysterious, and a little backward, I know. But then again, so is God.

It is only by assuming that we follow the rules of logic that we can even hope to continue a discussion. Were we to abandon logic, we could answer this statement with something like "God can do this because red makes winter longer!"

Make Sense?

What you are dealing with is a combination of teh following problems:

1. Definitions - You need to define omnipotence. This concept does not exist given our present laws of physics, so if you are defining true omnipotence (everything to infinity) you have to assume god does not follow the laws of physics.

2. Semantics - definitions of words are important - the last writer was trying to define god as ineffable and still give her characteristics such as omnipotence. God is eitehr definable or it is not. It can't be both. Second, a rock created by an omnipotent being would be infinitely large (and by extension as large as the universe) thereby not leaving any room within the rest of the universe to move it or lift away from something else. If there were room to lift this infinitely large rock within this infinitely large universe, the rock is thereby not infinitely large!

3. Ignoring physics and the laws of gravity in lifting (this conundrum was created before physics discovered the universal constant of gravity) one need to define omnipotence properly. Without this definition, any argument on the subject become subjective depending on how one views god and teh constraints of the abilities of gods within and without the physical universe within which we define our arguments.

Hope this helps
Tom

AS for the guidelines you give, I was hoping that this thread would discuss what we should/could/would define God with in certain circumstances. We can't have a definite answer since we can't observe anything directly about God, but we can deduce a conclusion from our pre-held philosophies, assumptions, and faith.

Post-election bump

Nice question, give you the answer if you tell me were you want him to lift it too? and were is the space to create the rock?
As the rock would have to follow the rules of phisics and God not, its impossible to Him to create it cause of the limitations of everything else except himself does that give him limitations, theoretical NO physical YES
This would also, exactly make Him without limits (No)(YES)=NO

I, THOR, God of Thunder, Son of Odin, Ruler of Asgard, am an omnipotent God

It's really not all it's cracked up to be. I mean, would you really want to know what is happening everywhere, all the time. I mean, I HATE cricket! It seems dull to one who has smashed moons with a single blow. However, being omnipotent means that, should the thought of cricket cross my mind, I will immediately know what every score in every cricket game ever was. I can't even watch Match of the Day anymore, because I know all scores as they happen.

However, it does have it's benefits. As a God, I can create anything. I can laugh at human attempts to understand my actions. Though, truly, I have yet to understand women's preoccupation with shoes.

Anyway, omnipotence isn't all it's cracked up to be, trust me. Still, if you still really want to, you can leave an application at my office, & I'll see what I can do about helping you ascend to a higher state of being.

May your pillaging be bountious & your women beautiful.

From the keyboard of Thor the Thunder God :cool:

PS: I challenge any other Gods out there to create an immovable object & I swear by my many hammers that I shall move it!

Of course an omnipotent deity could perform an action that would remove his/her/it's own omnipotence. The real question is "why would he/she/it?". It's more like the sorceror from Puss in Boots who wanted to prove he was the most powerful being by turning himself into a mouse, thus leaving him vunerable to Puss in Boots.

Post-election-pre-concession-speech bump

Post-election-pre-concession-speech bump

Now that the national politics debacle is settling, I feel this is the last neccessary bump.

No and no.
A God who can do anything can create a rock which he cannot move but which other people can.

Radio waves did not spring into existence when we developed the ability to detect them - the world does not require other beings to detect it to continue existing.
I could continue arguing this point, but why should god be able to lift anything. Isnt god a spiritual diety. God doesnt actually exist. Look over there, god sitting on that rock trying to move it. if god doesnt exist physically god probably cant move any object.

If God willed himself to not lift the rock then hewould not be able to. If he wanted to lift the rock he would will himself to. It's all about whether or not God wants to lift it, him being a supreme being and all.

If God willed himself to not lift the rock then hewould not be able to. If he wanted to lift the rock he would will himself to. It's all about whether or not God wants to lift it, him being a supreme being and all.

This and responses like it are all just saying "no" to the original question, because they claim that any rock God creates, God can lift.

I maintain steadfastly that there is not one rock that God created, could have created, or ever would be likely to create, that he could possibly move, under any circumstances. Not even a grain of sand.

I maintain steadfastly that there is not one rock that God created, could have created, or ever would be likely to create, that he could possibly move, under any circumstances. Not even a grain of sand.

Is this because you maintain that God is just incomparably weak? Or that God can not create things?

Is this because you maintain that God is just incomparably weak? Or that God can not create things?

Irrational Numbers, hi, great thread, BTW. I look at it this way: God has invested every part of himself into this Universe. I can't say whether God, prior to the inception of the Physical Universe, was capable of movement or not. I also can't say whether God can move outside this Universe, as that's just plain outside my comprehension. But within the constraints of this Universe, his creation, which is entirely him, he can't move anything directly.

I suppose God could direct some aspect of himself (such as a man, or an ape, or an insect) to move some other aspect of himself (a rock), but that sort of thing happens all the time without his intervention anyway. Assuming that God could localize enough energy to be able to so direct an individual in any event.

I don't think he could though. God is everywhere, in every pocket and corner of creation. But his Universe has certain inbuilt laws, like entropy. Add to entropy the established fact that the Universe is expanding, and it paints a picture of a waning power, of something that may have started strong enough to so localize energy, but due to expansion and entropy, less and less so over time.

I'm not wanting to seem like a smartass or troll, I've enjoyed this thread very much, thanks.

The act of creating something in my minds eye implies control over that object. A potter has control over the pot he makes, an artist has control over the painting he creates, a sculpter has control over what shape he is going to make a block of marble into and so on. I could make numerous examples. If God creates something then he has control over it. Sorry maybe I injected too much logic into a *illlogical*(change from logical to illogical in the edit) conversation :)

Can God create a rock that he cannot lift?

He already has. We call them humans.

Or, if you prefer, "free will."

Jeremy Turner

The answer to this question, or rather the reason you cannot find one, is because you are still working under the assumption that onipotency is not bound. I know it might seem strange that I say that the all powerful has bindings, but it must else its concept cannot exist -- one can take God out of the picture and ask "Can onipotency create something that makes it no longer onipotent?" It still seems contradictory, but since we've taken a person out of it and are now simply addressing the idea of onipotency, one begins to see that the answer is no.

All things are limited to what they do. A fish cannot breath air, a dog cannot speak English, because such actions go outside of what they're meant to do. A fish was not meant to breath air, a dog was not meant to speak English, because such things contradict their beings which are defined best by the idea we call "nature".

I'm not referring to the planetary nature, or universal, but the properties and characteristics that define who and what something is. Therefor, if it is God's nature to be onipotent -- if it is God's nature to be The Ultimate of all that there is -- he is incapable of exceeding ultimacy. To more easily grapple the idea, one might compare it to trying to add one more number to infinity: though concievable, it is not possible, because infinity is the ultimate of mathmatical numerical ideas.

So, in short, -- No, God cannot create a rock that he cannot lift, for The Ultimate cannot exceed ultimacy.

If God is all powerful he can create a rock then reduce his strengh if thats what she wants to do.

The problem with this whole argument is that we are defining God. Where do we get our definitions? Our definitions come from God. We are definining God based on what He has been willing to show us. Besides, who are we to define who God is and what God can and cannot do? Who are we as the pots to ask the potter why? Sure God has allowed us the ability to question. In a way God wants us to question because He wants us to seek after Him. In a round about way I'm answering my own questions but I hope this makes sense. The only way to fully understand the nature of God is to look to Jesus Christ, God's only begotten Son. Even then some questions remain but you begin to realize that we never meant to have the answers to those questions.

John 1:5 "The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."

You do not understand God because you do not accept Jesus Christ. Jesus is the earthly revelation of God to the world of men. The search for truth is a common search among humans, the only way you will find it is through Jesus Christ.

John 8:12-20 "Then Jesus again spoke to them, saying, "I am the Light of the world; he who follows Me will not walk in the darkness, but will have the Light of life."
13 So the Pharisees said to Him, "You are testifying about Yourself; Your testimony is not true."
14 Jesus answered and said to them, "Even if I testify about Myself, My testimony is true, for I know where I came from and where I am going; but you do not know where I come from or where I am going.
15 "You judge according to the flesh; I am not judging anyone.
16 "But even if I do judge, My judgment is true; for I am not alone in it, but I and the Father who sent Me.
17 "Even in your law it has been written that the testimony of two men is true.
18 "I am He who testifies about Myself, and the Father who sent Me testifies about Me."
19 So they were saying to Him, "Where is Your Father?" Jesus answered, "You know neither Me nor My Father; if you knew Me, you would know My Father also."
20 These words He spoke in the treasury, as He taught in the temple; and no one seized Him, because His hour had not yet come. "

So, in short, -- No, God cannot create a rock that he cannot lift, for The Ultimate cannot exceed ultimacy.

"It is a sin to regard the fact that God cannot do the impossible as a limitation on His power." - one of the great Christian theologians... forget which one, exactly...

Humorist/philosopher Raymond Smullyan suggests replacing the word "sin" with "error." I like this idea, because "sin," to me, suggests a moral judgement. And this isn't a moral question, just solid metaphysics.

The Rowellan States is absolutely correct. To say that God COULD do this is a lot like saying there can be water that isn't wet. But if something loses the quality of wetness, it ceases to be water.

However, to elaborate on my last post, there is a back door. We have to get a bit metaphorical here, so bear with me. And before anyone smugly points it out, I DO realize that I'm flatly contradicting what I just said.

God CAN (and has) created a Rock He Cannot Lift... Souls, or Minds, are capable of creating their own realities, which are outside of God's "jurisdiction." I can create a reality in which God does not exist, I can create a reality in which water isn't wet, etc, by simply believing it. And though my beliefs may contradict themselves, or even be sheer nonsense, they are capable of mobilizing energy, and hence, they are true in some meaningful way.

To sum up, when God created Capital-R Reality, He included an element of self-contradiction, or paradox. He sacrificed part of His omnipotence, to allow us (and all other sentient beings) the freedom to move independently of Him. Many religions say that the Purpose of existence is to find our way back to God, that He made us "flawed" in order that we may find Redemption, for Redemption is impossible without some kind of Fall. In Alan Watts' wonderful "The Book," he describes Reality as a cosmic game of Hide-and-Seek. Why would God hide Himself? For the same reason we play Hide-and-Seek: the fun of the search, and the satisfaction of accomplishing a challenging goal.

This jibes well with Buddhism and Taoism (the quest for Ultimate Reality), Christianity (the Fall from Eden, and Jesus's sacrifice to restore us), Judaism (the shattering of the vessel), Islam ("I am a hidden treasure, and I want to be found."), and probably a lot of other traditions, although I can't think of any more illustrations.

Note that I am talking about the metaphysical goal of religions, not their social aspects. Obviously religions have served many functions throughout history, but all (or nearly all) have a Gnostic path, which sets forth some view of Reality similar to what I've described.

Jeremy Turner
Dean, College of Existential Philosophy and Rampant Capitalization
Jerameikos University

P.S. - Incidentally, the State Religion of Jerameikos is Hobism, which asserts that the World is Supported on the back of an immense Hobgoblin, which is in turn supported on the back of an even bigger Hobgoblin, and so on, all the way down. The existential goal of Hobism is to, just once in life, catch a whiff of that Nethermost Hobgoblin, whose B.O. sets the Mind awhirl. Those who have smelled Him will never sniff Reality in the same way again.

The act of creating something in my minds eye implies control over that object. A potter has control over the pot he makes, an artist has control over the painting he creates, a sculpter has control over what shape he is going to make a block of marble into and so on. I could make numerous examples. If God creates something then he has control over it. Sorry maybe I injected too much logic into a *illlogical*(change from logical to illogical in the edit) conversation :)

Artisans only have what control they built into the object. An engineer can't just magically control a train he's created. Nor can a potter change the function or abilities of a pot. Unfortunantly, empirical findings can mislead us to false inductions.

Irrational Numbers, hi, great thread, BTW. I look at it this way: God has invested every part of himself into this Universe. I can't say whether God, prior to the inception of the Physical Universe, was capable of movement or not. I also can't say whether God can move outside this Universe, as that's just plain outside my comprehension. But within the constraints of this Universe, his creation, which is entirely him, he can't move anything directly.

I suppose God could direct some aspect of himself (such as a man, or an ape, or an insect) to move some other aspect of himself (a rock), but that sort of thing happens all the time without his intervention anyway. Assuming that God could localize enough energy to be able to so direct an individual in any event.

I don't think he could though. God is everywhere, in every pocket and corner of creation. But his Universe has certain inbuilt laws, like entropy. Add to entropy the established fact that the Universe is expanding, and it paints a picture of a waning power, of something that may have started strong enough to so localize energy, but due to expansion and entropy, less and less so over time.

I'm not wanting to seem like a smartass or troll, I've enjoyed this thread very much, thanks.

I appreciate how much you've liked the thread idea. :) I usually only start a thread if I feel is brings something new to the table. Thanks.

As of your posts I would like to say that if you answer no to the question because God can not do anything physical, then it is very interesting because now we wonder is God an entity or just an abstract idea? Discussion by all on this question is most definitely a hope of this thread.

Can God create a rock that he cannot lift?

He already has. We call them humans.

Or, if you prefer, "free will."

Jeremy Turner

Interesting metaphoric response. I don't believe there really can be "free will," although only as a technicality. Since everything that happens has a cause, whatever is happening now must have a cause in the past. And since the past cannot be changed, the present cannot be changed. And since the present is part of the future's past, the future cannot be changed either. So rather by a technicality rather than a spiritual force do I believe in predetermination. I would like to note that this predetermination does not imply that any forces will have to change their behavior in order to work towards the predetermined goal. Such as you might have implied in a story when someone is trying to escape death and everything in their path is trying to kill them.

The answer to this question, or rather the reason you cannot find one, is because you are still working under the assumption that onipotency is not bound. I know it might seem strange that I say that the all powerful has bindings, but it must else its concept cannot exist -- one can take God out of the picture and ask "Can onipotency create something that makes it no longer onipotent?" It still seems contradictory, but since we've taken a person out of it and are now simply addressing the idea of onipotency, one begins to see that the answer is no.

All things are limited to what they do. A fish cannot breath air, a dog cannot speak English, because such actions go outside of what they're meant to do. A fish was not meant to breath air, a dog was not meant to speak English, because such things contradict their beings which are defined best by the idea we call "nature".

I'm not referring to the planetary nature, or universal, but the properties and characteristics that define who and what something is. Therefor, if it is God's nature to be onipotent -- if it is God's nature to be The Ultimate of all that there is -- he is incapable of exceeding ultimacy. To more easily grapple the idea, one might compare it to trying to add one more number to infinity: though concievable, it is not possible, because infinity is the ultimate of mathmatical numerical ideas.

So, in short, -- No, God cannot create a rock that he cannot lift, for The Ultimate cannot exceed ultimacy.

I like this answer, as it explains again the nature of the question. It should be noted though, that the main reason I broght up the question is to ask the very question implicitly that you asked. What bindings does God have on his "omnipotentcy"?

Assuming God does exist and that God lives in a universe with laws similar to ours, yes God could create a rock that couldn't be lifted.
But then assuming that someone asked God to lift the rock, God would give himself more strength to lift the rock. Even though God could lift the rock at that point, God was not able to lift the rock at the point of its creation because the purpose of the rock's existence was not to be lifted...

but then all this is based on hypothetical assumptions..

Assuming God does exist and that God lives in a universe with laws similar to ours, yes God could create a rock that couldn't be lifted.
But then assuming that someone asked God to lift the rock, God would give himself more strength to lift the rock. Even though God could lift the rock at that point, God was not able to lift the rock at the point of its creation because the purpose of the rock's existence was not to be lifted...

but then all this is based on hypothetical assumptions..

So then you're saying that any rock God creates, he can lift.

bump

the long answer: Maybe
the short answer: Maybe

I don't have time to read every single reply to this topic, but most of you seem to be missing something.

Let's assume we're talking about the Christian God here: omnipotent and omniscient.

Can this type of god create a rock he cannot move?

That is not a good question since principles of religion are based on the wills of gods. Sin is any deviation from God's Will. Simply put, God cannot sin because he is the only law and no one intentially does what he doesn't WANT to do; we often experience reluctance, but you only do what you want to do.

The question should be: Would God do something that he doesn't want to do? or would God create a rock he cannot move?

Even if he could, and did, the spiritual realm cannot be held to the same standards as our dimension. God is part of a dimension levels higher than our own; for him, he comprehends time as having an end and beginning, like we comprehend a 3-dimensional object--we see all sides. Time is relative to whatever dimension a being is passing through. We are 3-dimensional beings passing through the 4th dimension, which we experience as time. God may be a 4-dimensional being passing through the 5th dimension (if time can be applied to God.)

Back to the original topic... What part of God does this question try to contain? His physical manifestation? Jesus couldn't lift a lot with just his physical body.

If a tree falls in a forest and no one hears it, does it make a sound? No. Sound is the reception and interpretation of vibrations by animals.

Isn't it great to chase your tails around over these subjects?

I don't have time to read every single reply to this topic, but most of you seem to be missing something.

Let's assume we're talking about the Christian God here: omnipotent and omniscient.

Can this type of god create a rock he cannot move?

That is not a good question since principles of religion are based on the wills of gods. Sin is any deviation from God's Will. Simply put, God cannot sin because he is the only law and no one intentially does what he doesn't WANT to do; we often experience reluctance, but you only do what you want to do.

The question should be: Would God do something that he doesn't want to do? or would God create a rock he cannot move?

Even if he could, and did, the spiritual realm cannot be held to the same standards as our dimension. God is part of a dimension levels higher than our own; for him, he comprehends time as having an end and beginning, like we comprehend a 3-dimensional object--we see all sides. Time is relative to whatever dimension a being is passing through. We are 3-dimensional beings passing through the 4th dimension, which we experience as time. God may be a 4-dimensional being passing through the 5th dimension (if time can be applied to God.)

Back to the original topic... What part of God does this question try to contain? His physical manifestation? Jesus couldn't lift a lot with just his physical body.

If a tree falls in a forest and no one hears it, does it make a sound? No. Sound is the reception and interpretation of vibrations by animals.

Isn't it great to chase your tails around over these subjects?

First, the question never assumed the Christian God, so sin doesn't enter into it. Aristotle pointed out very nicely that if a god exists and was the creator of the universe (the only uncaused cause), then that god must have certain properties, omnipotence among them. This is a philisophical question that asks if omnipotence is actually possible ... the problem lies (as I discussed much earlier in this thread) that the question is referenced /within the fram of our universe/ whereas this god must exist outside those bounds ... thus the question isn't relevant.

And sound is a transmission of energy as the vibration of molecules carried through a medium in the audible frequency range. So yes. The tree makes a sound.

It's all in the definitions.

How about another one. If we didn't invent language, could philosophers still justify their existance?

Interesting metaphoric response. I don't believe there really can be "free will," although only as a technicality. Since everything that happens has a cause, whatever is happening now must have a cause in the past. And since the past cannot be changed, the present cannot be changed. And since the present is part of the future's past, the future cannot be changed either.

That every event has a cause in the past is a pretty big assumption. As Hume pointed out, the very existence of causality is unprovable. To say that Event A (or even the interplay of Events A,B,C...Z) caused Event XX is really a hypothetical statement, which could be translated as "If Events A through Whatever _had not occurred_, then Event XX would not have occurred." This is obviously unprovable, since Events A through Whatever _did_ occur.

If we accept this view of causality, then Absolute Determinism must follow, I agree. But there are other schools of thought on the matter.

We tend to accept causality as true because it is vigorously supported by our own observations. When I press a key, like this /, a symbol I identify as a slash usually appears on the screen. Perhaps the keypress caused the symbol. But it is equally defensible to say that some agency (the screen, my mind, God) _chose_ to make that symbol appear.

Really, we make a choice whether to accept causality as the explanation, or to accept that some Will _decided_ things would happen that way.

...Or, we _don't_ make a choice... We believe what the Past has programmed us to believe. Do you take butter or jam on your toast? ;)

I'm curious about your phrase "only as a technicality." Would you please elaborate on that?

Jeremy Turner
Secondary Undersecretary, David Hume Fan Club

P.S. In Jerameikos, we have a saying: "Ineffable is what we call things we haven't effed yet."

I quote this entry because it is the most clever response I have ever received for this question.

Here's what I've constructed:
If we assume that God has no physical limitations, then there exist metaphysical actions which He can not preform.

But...

And if we assume that God can preform every metaphysical action, then God must have physical limitations

Imagine the implications of that, it would mean that God is finite

It would also mean that God is overcomeable -- and thats why I am much more comfortable with the assumption that God doesn't have physical limitations, and that means that there are some meta or metameta physical actions he cannot preform

Godel's theorem already proves that.

That every event has a cause in the past is a pretty big assumption. As Hume pointed out, the very existence of causality is unprovable. To say that Event A (or even the interplay of Events A,B,C...Z) caused Event XX is really a hypothetical statement, which could be translated as "If Events A through Whatever _had not occurred_, then Event XX would not have occurred." This is obviously unprovable, since Events A through Whatever _did_ occur.

If we accept this view of causality, then Absolute Determinism must follow, I agree. But there are other schools of thought on the matter.

We tend to accept causality as true because it is vigorously supported by our own observations. When I press a key, like this /, a symbol I identify as a slash usually appears on the screen. Perhaps the keypress caused the symbol. But it is equally defensible to say that some agency (the screen, my mind, God) _chose_ to make that symbol appear.


Yes, but even if that were true, somewhere down the line SOMETHING would have caused that....regardless of whether you know what it was or not.

Technically, nothing can be immovable, if only by the laws of relatvity and gravity. If you warp the space around something, isn't that moving it?

this question is one which is absent from most recent theological debates because it is unintelligible. the person who replaced the word god with omnipotence came closest at making this clear. essentially the statement becomes 'can god do something god cannot do?' which becomes not an interrogation into the metaphysical capabilities of god, but rather an exercise speaking around an essentially invalid question.

a more interesting question, imho regards the other of that godly triumverate (all-knowing, powerful, and good) god's goodness.

what makes god good? or omnibenevolant as the theologians like to say. Is it that all actions by god are good by the very fact that he does them, making him a sort of supreme moral arbiter? or is it that actions have goodness without god and he is merely the supreme moral example? both have interesting consequenses for god.

and just in the interest of philisophical transparancy, I am an athiest, or rather a cynical agnostic

this question is one which is absent from most recent theological debates because it is unintelligible. the person who replaced the word god with omnipotence came closest at making this clear. essentially the statement becomes 'can god do something god cannot do?' which becomes not an interrogation into the metaphysical capabilities of god, but rather an exercise speaking around an essentially invalid question.

a more interesting question, imho regards the other of that godly triumverate (all-knowing, powerful, and good) god's goodness.

what makes god good? or omnibenevolant as the theologians like to say. Is it that all actions by god are good by the very fact that he does them, making him a sort of supreme moral arbiter? or is it that actions have goodness without god and he is merely the supreme moral example? both have interesting consequenses for god.

and just in the interest of philisophical transparancy, I am an athiest, or rather a cynical agnostic

Who said any god is all good? Christians talk /around/ that idea, but it's an incorrect conclusion, or at least, an imprecise conclusion. God of the Bible is /just/, but it defines anything unjust as a sin, and anything that's a sin as something that goes against the will of God. Then they say sin is bad, and since God can't sin, God is good. However, look at that logic train. Basically all you're saying is that God does what He wants and is incapable of doing what He doesn't want to do. Therefore, God is "good", because good is defined as God's will.

God can lift create a rock any size but he will always be able to lift it, no matter how big/heavy it gets so if your goin 2 be fussy then no he cant create a rock so heavy that he can't lift it...

What you really said is,

"Point A is true. If point B is true, point A is false. If point B is false, point A is false. Is B true or false?"

Or in the notation I used in deductive logic class:

A
B -> ~A
~B -> ~A

Where "point A" is "God is omnipotent," and point B is "God can make a rock He cannot move."

Your question cannot be answered because your premises (that God is omnipotent, that if God can make such a rock He cannot move then He is not omnipotent, and that if God cannot make such a rock then He is not omnipotent) violate each other.

It's sort of like saying,

"My favorite color is red. On weekdays, my favorite color is blue. On weekends, my favorite color is green. What is my favorite color on Saturday?"

If you say, "Red," I'll say, "But I told you that on weekends my favorite color is green!" and if you say, "Green," I'll say, "But I told you that my favorite color is red!"


You could make any number of such examples.

The paradox is not in the answer, it's in the question.

EDIT: Assuming, of course, you actually implied God is omnipotent. If you were referring to some non-omnipotent God you could just pick one side or the other.

(Note: I'm an atheisticly-inclined agnostic secular humanist.)

Well, I just read throught this entire thread, and here are the main ideas I've gotten:

- God cannot be omnipotent.
- God is indeed omnipotent.
- Humans cannot explain or define God using our logic.
- God may or may not exist.

Now, my contribution:

All of these points are most certainly valid, depending on your viewpoint. It is possible to justify just about anything, especially when neither side can prove their point with hard facts.

I personally believe that there is no God. However, I cannot truly validate this statement. The best I can do is prove that the existence of God cannot be proven. This same limitation applies to the other side as well. It is impossible to solve (as in determine a definite value) an algebraic equation with multiple unknowns/variables. Likewise, it is impossible to prove or disprove the existence of God, because there are simply too many unknows. And, by this same measure, it is impossible to prove or disprove the omnipotence of God, which is really what this thread is about (as far as I can tell...).

This thread is incredibly interesting. Keep the philosophy flowing!

So I've said this before, but I think it deserves repeating.

The whole paradox collapses if you assume a God with an unchanging will. For the paradox to make sense you have to assume the first God creates a rock, and then later wants to lift it but can't, thus disproving his omnipotence. The problem with this is that God is omniscient too, and his will is unchanging. As a result, if he creates a rock he can't move, its because he doesn't want to move it.

Would you say that your power has been limited if someone prevents you from doing something you have no desire to do, and will never have a desire to do? I wouldn't - at that point, the statement is meaningless. By creating a rock he can't move, God in no way limits his power, because he doesn't wan't to move it, and knows that he never will want to.

I'm an athiest, but I'm pretty sure this is the answer you would get from some of those medieval theologists, who worried about these things, and from them determined the nature of God's omnipotence, omniscience, will etc.

Really, as a logic problem this one is pretty straight forward, I think.