if god is all powerful, he should be able to make something as hot as he wants....but then again, if he is all powerful he should be able to eat something no matter how hot.....

what do you think?

I think you got that off of the Simpsons, congrats.

quote:Originally posted by I_Like_Traffic_Lights:

I think you got that off of the Simpsons, congrats.

Yeah he did, but still...man that is a humdinger of a question!

off course thats where i got it...but flanders couldnt answer it....thought someone else might..

this thread has been done before, but hell, i'll give it a try.

my answer (i'm not a theist btw) is that not only could god make a burrito so how that even he couldn't eat it, but he could then make another one even hotter that he could eat.

Are we talking father/son/holyghost or other? I'll bet Jesus could down teh nuclear burrito.

Not very original. this must be say, the two hundredth time.

That being said - I think Eil pretty much hit the nail on the head.

http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif)

What I want to know is could god (assuming it/he/she is omnipotent) make a thing that even god could not perdict.

quote:Originally posted by I_Like_Traffic_Lights:

I think you got that off of the Simpsons, congrats.

No dude its from thats 70's show Hide said it in the cirlce thing.

Since when must God be logical; sure, He could create the stone with the necessary limitation that it could not be lifted. Thereafter, He could lift it.

Illogical? Yes.

What about Him isn't, though?

Adam

quote:Originally posted by Eil:

this thread has been done before, but hell, i'll give it a try.

my answer (i'm not a theist btw) is that not only could god make a burrito so how that even he couldn't eat it, but he could then make another one even hotter that he could eat.

He would still be unable to eat that one burrito he created, therefore still not all-powerful.

It's just impossible by definition.

Only if you're being strictly logical. And, the baby is out with the bathwater.

I think the answer to this question basically amounts to "God can't break his own rules". It's not a limitation, it would just be like God saying "2+2=5"; sure he could, but then he'd have to change his rules.

quote:Originally posted by Mr.Happy:

He would still be unable to eat that one burrito he created, therefore still not all-powerful.

It's just impossible by definition.

first of all, my reply was an appeal to your intuition, not logic.

secondly, if he had to use a microwave to cook it, then he's not all-powerful.

if he had any necessity or desire to eat it, then he's not all-powerful.

finally, since this is all rhetorical, if the burrito was so hot that he could not eat it, then he does have the absolute power to not subject himself to the pain.

This thread was already done last year, it reached quite a few pages too.

stop the presses! i know the answer!

THERE IS NO GOD!

or im just wrong and there is a divine will that is controlling us all and even what im typing right now...

quote:Originally posted by firefighter12:

if god is all powerful, he should be able to make something as hot as he wants....but then again, if he is all powerful he should be able to eat something no matter how hot.....

what do you think?

Google yields the following answers:

1)No.

The trick here is that many people believe if they can come up with a sentence where the answer involves the phrase, "God can't do (whatever)." they've "proven" that God is not omnipotent, ergo he can't be God. The mistake is assuming that saying "can't do" is necessarily and always a statement of a limitation of power. Not true. Many things can't be done for reasons other than limitation of power or ability. For example, contradictory things "can't be done" by nature not by virtue of a limit in power. Saying, "God can't make a square circle." or "God cannot be God and not-be-God at the same time." are not statements limiting God's power or ability. All they reveal is the illogic of the statements themselves and nothing that is inherently illogical, unreal, or non-existent has the power to contradict (in reality or logic) that which purports to exist (like God).

God can't make anything more powerful or bigger than He is because such a thing is impossible by nature. God is by definition the biggest and most to an infinite degree. Nothing by nature is greater than infinity. If God could make something more or greater than he, then he wouldn't be God, or a limitless God at least. Again, this is not to limit God's power or ability. For God's supposed "lack of power" to make something bigger than He is, is based upon his assumed "all powerfulness". And when basis conflicts with supposition, supposition loses and is shown to be faulty in its assertion.

----------------------------

Aquinas' Thesis: God's omnipotence does not require him to be able to do the logically impossible.

----------------------------

To answer the "stone" question:

To speak of an almighty God creating an object that He cannot lift is to posit a logically contradictory state of affairs. It is a variation on the old question, "What happens when an immovable object (the stone) meets an irresistible force (God)?" The answer is that both an irresistible force and an immovable object cannot exist together in the same universe without creating a logical contradiction. If reason is valid then to speak of the two in the same sentence is to speak nonsense. Similarly, it is nonsense to speak of God creating a stone that he cannot lift.

Another equally valid answer offered in the newsgroup is that God cannot do anything whatsoever. God can only do what is logically possible.

These answers did not satisfy the objectors. Their retort was to accuse the Christians of equivocating. "You admit that there are things that God cannot do, therefore you are admitting that God is not really omnipotent! You have only proved the case against the self-contradictory and self-stultifying Christian conception of God."

At this point I entered the fray to point out that the definition of omnipotence has never meant what the objectors say it meant. The historical understanding of omnipotence never meant that God can do anything whatsoever. The objection is at best a misunderstanding, and at worst, merely an intellectually dishonest straw man argument.

----------------------------

Sources:

http://www.answerbag.com/q_view.php/746

http://www.otterbein.edu/home/fac/ANDPMLLS/Religion/Omnipotence.htm

http://www.answers.org/Apologetics/Omnipotence.html

Faithfully Submitted,

Cesare de Borgia

quote:Originally posted by Lucky:

No dude its from thats 70's show Hide said it in the cirlce thing.

No, it's from the Simpsons. 100% sure.

quote:Originally posted by CesareBorgia:

Google yields the following answers:

1)No.

The trick here is that many people believe if they can come up with a sentence where the answer involves the phrase, "God can't do (whatever)." they've "proven" that God is not omnipotent, ergo he can't be God. The mistake is assuming that saying "can't do" is necessarily and always a statement of a limitation of power. Not true. Many things can't be done for reasons other than limitation of power or ability. For example, contradictory things "can't be done" by nature not by virtue of a limit in power. Saying, "God can't make a square circle." or "God cannot be God and not-be-God at the same time." are not statements limiting God's power or ability. All they reveal is the illogic of the statements themselves and nothing that is inherently illogical, unreal, or non-existent has the power to contradict (in reality or logic) that which purports to exist (like God).

God can't make anything more powerful or bigger than He is because such a thing is impossible by nature. God is by definition the biggest and most to an infinite degree. Nothing by nature is greater than infinity. If God could make something more or greater than he, then he wouldn't be God, or a limitless God at least. Again, this is not to limit God's power or ability. For God's supposed "lack of power" to make something bigger than He is, is based upon his assumed "all powerfulness". And when basis conflicts with supposition, supposition loses and is shown to be faulty in its assertion.

You just took 3 paragraphs to say what I said in two sentences.

quote:Originally posted by deptstoremook:

You just took 3 paragraphs to say what I said in two sentences.

I didn't think your explanation was sufficient; I wanted to do my best to bring this inane thread to an end as quickly as possible.

Faithfully Submitted,

Cesare de Borgia

Your question is peurile and meaningless, as metaphysics transcends physics.

quote:Originally posted by Viscious:

stop the presses! i know the answer!

THERE IS NO GOD!

or im just wrong and there is a divine will that is controlling us all and even what im typing right now...

*Gasps*

It's all a conspiracy theory that God made up! He's controlling us... I'm one of the few not under his control!!!

OH NOEZ!!! BIG BROTHER IS WATCHING US!!!

quote:Originally posted by ArmsMerchant:

Your question is peurile and meaningless, as metaphysics transcends physics.



is that your final answer?