"Can God make a stone so heavy he himself can not lift it?"

Yes, it's an old one, and many of you have heard it before, but it's so fucking true I can't stand it.

Here, let me lay out the two possibilities for you;

1) God can make a stone so heavy that he cannot lift it, therefore he is not omnipotent because he cannot lift it.

2) God cannot make a stone so heavy that he himself cannot lift it, therefore he is not omnipotent because he cannot make it.

It is assumed in Christian philosophy that God is all-powerful and has no limits. What a load of crap.

Technically you only proved that God cannot be omnipotent, not that he doesn't exist. After all you aren't omnipotent but I'm reasonably certain you exist.

What happens when an unstoppable force hits an immovable object?

quote:Originally posted by DaedalusOwnsYou:

Technically you only proved that God cannot be omnipotent, not that he doesn't exist. After all you aren't omnipotent but I'm reasonably certain you exist.

True, but capitalizing the 'G' in God almost always refers to the God of Abraham.

A small technicality, I know...

How do you define omnipotent DXM?

quote:Originally posted by rent-a-revolution:

What happens when an unstoppable force hits an immovable object?

LOL you definatley play World of Warcraft, I forgot that one xD

quote:Originally posted by shadowmartyr:

LOL you definatley play World of Warcraft, I forgot that one xD

Why does he necessarily play World of Warcraft? That hypothetical problem wasn't invented by Blizzard or that games community last time I checked.

DXM, Everything I tell you is a lie.

Does that make me a liar or someone who tells the truth?

OH NOES! I MUST NOT EXIST BECAUSE OF A SIMPLE PARADOX!!! http://www.totse.com/bbs/eek.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/eek.gif)

quote:Originally posted by DaedalusOwnsYou:

Why does he necessarily play World of Warcraft? That hypothetical problem wasn't invented by Blizzard or that games community last time I checked.

Lol, are you always critical of everything? You need some help man. And yes if you played the game you would understand why its funny, and I could care less if it wasn't invented by Blizzard. The comment could have been mere quicidence, if so, my apologies.

10 points given to your Epeen.



[This message has been edited by shadowmartyr (edited 12-20-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by DXM User:

True, but capitalizing the 'G' in God almost always refers to the God of Abraham.

A small technicality, I know...

So you're argument dosn't work then, because its only focusing on a general, over-simplified opinion of what God is. An opinion which assumes alot of things about God too.

With my concept of God, If God made a stone, it would be a part of God. Even if God and the stone were seperate entities, God isn't a being.

It dosnt work for me, because as soon as god makes that stone, god is it. the stone is a part of god. it would add to gods godliness.

All the old religions concepts of God have lost their true context.

quote:Originally posted by Siash:

DXM, Everything I tell you is a lie.

Does that make me a liar or someone who tells the truth?

OH NOES! I MUST NOT EXIST BECAUSE OF A SIMPLE PARADOX!!! http://www.totse.com/bbs/eek.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/eek.gif)

No, it must mean that not everything you tell him is a lie.

http://www.totse.com/bbs/confused.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/confused.gif) I've never played Warcraft.

If not everyhting I tell him be a lie, how can everything I tell him be a lie?

quote:Originally posted by shadowmartyr:

Lol, are you always critical of everything? You need some help man. And yes if you played the game you would understand why its funny, and I could care less if it wasn't invented by Blizzard. The comment could have been mere quicidence, if so, my apologies.

10 points given to your Epeen.



Could someone explain the significance of this from World of Warcraft? I've never played it and I hate missing jokes.

quote:Originally posted by Siash:

If not everyhting I tell him be a lie, how can everything I tell him be a lie?

You just lied when you said that "everything I say is a lie."

Not everything you say is a lie, just that part. You tell the truth sometimes.

It's not complicated.

Unscrew back of head, pour gasoline, and move switch to "On."



However, if, say, billions of people believed that you always lie even though you just said that you always lie, the people would simply be wrong. Again, not complicated.

The OP's comment proves nothing.

I find the argument falwed because it assumes that god is physical, as in that somewhere there is this big floating bearded man figting the silver surfer...

... Uhh... wait, crossover.

Stop wasting your time trying to disprove others religious beliefs, and concentrate on your own.

quote:Originally posted by shadowmartyr:

Lol, are you always critical of everything? You need some help man. And yes if you played the game you would understand why its funny, and I could care less if it wasn't invented by Blizzard. The comment could have been mere quicidence, if so, my apologies.

10 points given to your Epeen.



Sorry shadowmartyr, I have my good days and bad days. Didn't mean to be too critical.

quote:Originally posted by IanBoyd3:

You just lied when you said that "everything I say is a lie."

Not everything you say is a lie, just that part. You tell the truth sometimes.

It's not complicated.

Unscrew back of head, pour gasoline, and move switch to "On."



However, if, say, billions of people believed that you always lie even though you just said that you always lie, the people would simply be wrong. Again, not complicated.



yet if everything I said wasn't always a lie then when I said "everything I tell yuo is a lie" It wasn't true at the same point that any paradox isin't true therefore God can exist.

Swich the gasoline you use to supreme my friend.

quote:Originally posted by rent-a-revolution:

What happens when an unstoppable force hits an immovable object?

Simple. The object doesn't move, but still feels the force. Now if you replace "force" with "object", then you may run into a problem.

The paradox the OP uses is in its self flawed.

quote:Originally posted by Pirate Hippie:

Stop wasting your time trying to disprove others religious beliefs, and concentrate on your own.

You determine your own religious beliefs by looking around at the world with an open mind and trying to find evidence proving and disproving different theories and beliefs.

It's funny how nonsensical statements, when worded correctly, can often seem wise.

quote:Originally posted by Siash:



yet if everything I said wasn't always a lie then when I said "everything I tell yuo is a lie" It wasn't true at the same point that any paradox isin't true therefore God can exist.

Swich the gasoline you use to supreme my friend.

That was incredibly incoherent, and besides which, wrong.

There is no paradox there. Your statement simply proves itself wrong.

quote:Originally posted by rapydfyre:

Simple. The object doesn't move, but still feels the force. Now if you replace "force" with "object", then you may run into a problem.

Woops. My bad.

OP, all you did was state a paradox.

it's a paradox which disproves either omnipotence or infinite weight, so its quite relevant

Unless this infinite weight were also infinitely dense (in which case its volume would be 0, thus non-existent), it would be infinitely present - if it were an infinite weight that were infinitely present, it would be all that is as no other weight could exist alongside it without immediate incorporation.

So the question is basically asking if an omnipotent, omnipresent object could make another omnipotent, omnipresent object.

So to answer the question: No. Two objects that occupy the same space and have the same qualities are the same object. God is the Rock.

What definition of omnipotent is being used?

quote:Originally posted by bitplane:

it's a paradox which disproves either omnipotence or infinite weight, so its quite relevant

quote:Originally posted by rent-a-revolution:

What definition of omnipotent is being used?

Infinite in power.

At the subatomic level, small particles have been shown to exhibit odd behavior. Our mathematics systems break down at this point, all unpredictable results in calculated attempts to predict the activity of the particles at this scale are apparent. Left is right, you can be old and younge, etc. It is chaos, crazy. God might exhibit this behavior, if atomic particles can; thus resolving the paradox.

quote:Originally posted by DXM User:

"Can God make a stone so heavy he himself can not lift it?"

Yes, it's an old one, and many of you have heard it before, but it's so fucking true I can't stand it.

Here, let me lay out the two possibilities for you;

1) God can make a stone so heavy that he cannot lift it, therefore he is not omnipotent because he cannot lift it.

2) God cannot make a stone so heavy that he himself cannot lift it, therefore he is not omnipotent because he cannot make it.

It is assumed in Christian philosophy that God is all-powerful and has no limits. What a load of crap.



Here's your answer. If god is omnipotent than the fact that we are unable to comprehend the methods by which he is omnipotent is only sensable.

Are you so arrogant that you profess to understand the workings of an omnipotent being? Think before you open your mouth.

quote:Originally posted by IanBoyd3:

Could someone explain the significance of this from World of Warcraft? I've never played it and I hate missing jokes.

What happens when The Unstobable Force (http://wow.allakhazam.com/db/item.html?witem=19323) hits The Immovable Object (http://wow.allakhazam.com/db/item.html?witem=19321)?

quote:Originally posted by bitplane:

it's a paradox which disproves either omnipotence or infinite weight, so its quite relevant

A paradox is designed to be unable to reach a conclusive (contradiction-free) answer, even if we were to draw assumptions from it. See how you said 'either' infinite weight or omnipotence?

Edit: Furthermore, it's only arrogant to claim one has proof for something unprovable. You can't prove God doesn't exist, nor can you prove that he does.

[This message has been edited by socratic (edited 12-21-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by socratic:

A paradox is designed to be unable to reach a conclusive (contradiction-free) answer, even if we were to draw assumptions from it. See how you said 'either' infinite weight or omnipotence?

Not sure why he's going on about infinite weight, but he's right in that this "paradox" is relevant. It's showing that either our system of logic is flawed, or God is not omnipotent - it only becomes a paradox if you try to hold both that we are able to understand how omnipotence would work, and that God is omnipotent.

One of the refutations of this that I've often encountered is that "well, God would obviously be able to find a way that we can't understand." This is resolving the paradox by explaining that it only seems to be a paradox, because our logic is flawed or we're too limited to see the solution or something like that. Another way around it is to claim that omnipotence cannot be an actual property of anything, since it would lead to a paradox. I prefer the latter, since logic has served me well so far and to throw it out for a being for which I see no evidence strikes me as silly.

[This message has been edited by Twisted_Ferret (edited 12-21-2006).]

I think someones had too much DXM...

This theory is the subject of a featured article on Wikipedia. It's worth looking up.

it's not about omnipotence, because that's nature's role.

it's about omniscience http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif)

he who knows all, controls all. so the only way a god can exist is for a mortal to assume the role of technologically aspiring to know everything. only then, once everything has been knowledgebly attained, can someone claim a deity..

if that makes sense.

and this deity, wouldn't be immortal - just.. omnipotent in the sense that knowledge = power.

quote:Originally posted by Twisted_Ferret:

Originally posted by socratic:

A paradox is designed to be unable to reach a conclusive (contradiction-free) answer, even if we were to draw assumptions from it. See how you said 'either' infinite weight or omnipotence?

Not sure why he's going on about infinite weight, but he's right in that this "paradox" is relevant. It's showing that either our system of logic is flawed, or God is not omnipotent - it only becomes a paradox if you try to hold both that we are able to understand how omnipotence would work, and that God is omnipotent.

One of the refutations of this that I've often encountered is that "well, God would obviously be able to find a way that we can't understand." This is resolving the paradox by explaining that it only seems to be a paradox, because our logic is flawed or we're too limited to see the solution or something like that. Another way around it is to claim that omnipotence cannot be an actual property of anything, since it would lead to a paradox. I prefer the latter, since logic has served me well so far and to throw it out for a being for which I see no evidence strikes me as silly.

You make an interesting point, I'll have to look this up some time. In the mean time, would you say it stands as feasible evidence for God's lack of existence? To me it seems like a nonissue because it tends to run in logical circles or end in paradoxes.

It really doesn't matter. If god is omnipotent, then he would just make gravity go away, therefore he can still lift then rock.

Think about that...

oops. I didn't mean to have that "n" on the end of "the".

This isn't a paradox.

It comes down to the question of wether an omnipotent being can supress their own powers. And yes, I believe by definition they can.

So I don't see why it wouldn't be possible for a god to create a rock that is too heavy for them to lift. But by creating the rock they will destroy their omnipotent powers.

It would be the same if the god decided to give up their omnipotent powers completly, it would be possible, but they would no longer be omnipotent.

/thread.

There is no god, I worship myself therefore I am my own god http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

Can God microwave a burrito so hot, not even he can eat it?

Damnit! I'm Atheist. But just to be funny, I looked up the definition of "god". What I got was, "To treat as a god; to idolize."

So I guess anything, fact or fiction, can be a god. So, therefore, god exists. Just not in a Christian or Islamic way.

Yay! I idolize myself, and others idolize me also. I am a god!!

You could always just say that god, being omnipresent, and not a physical entity, does not interact with matter in a physical way. Therefor he does not "lift" things. He could, however, manifest himself in a physical form too weak to create a rock he created.

Thats all hypothetical though, and i'm an atheist. I just don't like that paradox very much, because it doesn't seem to apply to the diety people try to apply it to. There are many much more compelling reasons to doubt god's existence.

Why don't we roll all the religions up into one big ball and destroy it? Because a new god will be born and he will be the one that destroyed it! We will start worshiping him and rival Gods start playing with all sorts of balls to get respected and worshiped until everyone is playing with eachothers balls...

Moral of the story: Don't play with someone else's balls!

Riiiight...

To the original poster: What you're doing is taking a human concept and applying it to divine standards. That doesn't make sense at all because how can you compare something that is manmade with that which is infinite.

P.S. I'm not Christian, it just makes logical sense to me. Just my 2 cents.

quote:Originally posted by socratic:

You make an interesting point, I'll have to look this up some time. In the mean time, would you say it stands as feasible evidence for God's lack of existence? To me it seems like a nonissue because it tends to run in logical circles or end in paradoxes.

Well, I think it's evidence of God's lack of omnipotence (as defined a certain way). Doesn't say much about his existance, though.



quote:Originally posted by Painkiller8350:

It really doesn't matter. If god is omnipotent, then he would just make gravity go away, therefore he can still lift then rock.

Think about that...

quote:Originally posted by anonymous-coward:

This isn't a paradox.

It comes down to the question of wether an omnipotent being can supress their own powers. And yes, I believe by definition they can.

So I don't see why it wouldn't be possible for a god to create a rock that is too heavy for them to lift. But by creating the rock they will destroy their omnipotent powers.

It would be the same if the god decided to give up their omnipotent powers completly, it would be possible, but they would no longer be omnipotent.

/thread.

The problem with both of these is that they're not addressing the paradox, but just playing with the question. It's easy to create a question that bypasses these "answers": Can God create a rock so big he can't lift it, without suppressing his powers or changing gravity?

Of course, I'm sure you could come up with an answer that avoids the point in this question, as well. You just have to realize that the question isn't just meant for that specific instance - the essential point, the thing it's diving at, is "can God do something logically contradictory." THAT'S why it's a paradox - it's really got nothing to do with rocks, when you get down to it.



[This message has been edited by Twisted_Ferret (edited 12-24-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by Hexadecimal:

Unless this infinite weight were also infinitely dense (in which case its volume would be 0, thus non-existent), it would be infinitely present - if it were an infinite weight that were infinitely present, it would be all that is as no other weight could exist alongside it without immediate incorporation.

So the question is basically asking if an omnipotent, omnipresent object could make another omnipotent, omnipresent object.

So to answer the question: No. Two objects that occupy the same space and have the same qualities are the same object. God is the Rock.



Wow.....just, wow.

quote:Originally posted by suck_my_muffin:



Wow.....just, wow.

What, I can't be a douche bag on the forum full of douche bags?

quote:Originally posted by Hexadecimal:

What, I can't be a douche bag on the forum full of douche bags?

I think it makes perfect sence.

THe question is of the fallicy of a double question. It ask two question in such a way that demands two answeres.

Question one - I Can God create a rock of any size without any upward limits?

Question two - Is there any rock of any size that God could not lift?

Next time you try to disprove God, try to go about it in a fallicy-free way.

quote:Originally posted by WorBlux:

THe question is of the fallicy of a double question. It ask two question in such a way that demands two answeres.

Question one - I Can God create a rock of any size without any upward limits?

Question two - Is there any rock of any size that God could not lift?

Next time you try to disprove God, try to go about it in a fallicy-free way.



Additonally is should be noted that not being able to do soemthing implies a lack of power, however not being able to not do something when the fancy strikes is a sign of power.

quote:Originally posted by WorBlux:

THe question is of the fallicy of a double question. It ask two question in such a way that demands two answeres.

Question one - I Can God create a rock of any size without any upward limits?

Question two - Is there any rock of any size that God could not lift?

Next time you try to disprove God, try to go about it in a fallicy-free way.

But that's the fucking point --- 'God' can't escape a simple logic loop. How powerful could he be?

quote:Originally posted by Hexadecimal:

What, I can't be a douche bag on the forum full of douche bags?

It's not that so much that you're a douche bag, as it is that your reply was - as usual - incredibly silly.

1. It's a hypothetical scenario. To analyze the laws of physics as if that somehow refuted the underlying intention/problem is ridiculous.

The problem can be reworded at will, and it would still stand - outlining the silliness of your objections. Ultimately it is a question of whether god can do the illogical or not - to interpret it so obtusely as you are, is to miss the point.

2. An object can have infinite weight without having infinite density or infinite volume. Your objection fails anyway.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 12-25-2006).]

The universe exists, it seems pretty full of energy to me, most humans have at some point considered the fact that this "energy" in our lives could be this creator, or primary cause, or whatever.

In the end, we're experiencing reality, maybe that's God, and maybe it's not, either way, silly questions like the OP asked don't prove shit, they're far too restricted by that pesky "logic" http://www.totse.com/bbs/tongue.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/tongue.gif)

First of all, why is God bound to human logic?

Second, He may be all powerful over our universe, which He created, but He may not be all powerful in his own.

Just an idea, don't take it too seriously.

if God so desired to make a stone that heavy, yes.

quote:Originally posted by WorBlux:

THe question is of the fallicy of a double question. It ask two question in such a way that demands two answeres.

1.) What's a fallicy? http://www.totse.com/bbs/tongue.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/tongue.gif)

2.) Two questions, two answers... sounds okay to me...

3.) http://www.totse.com/bbs/confused.gif (http://tinyurl.com/ttkmw)

4.) It's not even asking two questions... just one. Can God do something logically contradictory? That's it.

quote:Additonally is should be noted that not being able to do soemthing implies a lack of power, however not being able to not do something when the fancy strikes is a sign of power.

That doesn't even make any sense. Not being able to control your impulses is a sign of power? You're unable to resist doing something when the fancy strikes?

You can't use a paradox to prove anything. Paradoxes are designed merely to play on the ambiguity of words and concepts to make you think outside the box, and they have 0 logical or scientific basis of reasoning and, so, cannot be applied to proofs at all.

However, a working logical disproof of God can and has been created.... The thing is, though, that it can be defeated by someone simply saying that God doesn't have to fit into human understanding of logic and rationale.

Edit: A working logical disproof of the traditionally accepted view of God* (IE, the Abrahamic God).

[This message has been edited by Iam (edited 12-29-2006).]

I am no Christian or a member of any other religion...

But it is impossible to prove something is false. It is only possible to prove something is real.

Lay off the DXM. God will create a stone so large he cannot lift it, and then will subsequently make himself so strong that he can.

You lose.

quote:Originally posted by DXM User:

But that's the fucking point --- 'God' can't escape a simple logic loop. How powerful could he be?



Well, let's test your theory:

Sentinel says: "I am lieing right now"



*sentinel looks in mirror*

Sentinel still exists.

I have just defied a logic loop, and I still exist, so therefore, one can defy a logic loop and still exist.

quote:Originally posted by Sentinel:

Lay off the DXM. God will create a stone so large he cannot lift it, and then will subsequently make himself so strong that he can.

You lose.

Than once he's strong couldn't he make a bigger stone?

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

Just fuckin' with you.

God can do anything by definition, so yes, yes he can.

Can god create a being that he does not control?

Oh, yeah, free will.

The question and discussion is really meaningless and stupid, anyway. Merely semantics, without a discussion on the true nature of the idea of a God (or god head).

quote:Originally posted by Rizzo in a box:

God can do anything by definition, so yes, yes he can.

Can god create a being that he does not control?

Oh, yeah, free will.

The question and discussion is really meaningless and stupid, anyway. Merely semantics, without a discussion on the true nature of the idea of a God (or god head).

I know a kid with the last name Rizzo. He thinks that he is a bad ass at football but he's really a douche bag.

Easyness. If god make it so it is. God gave us freewill, Does that mean that we Can't give it up?



put that loaded revolver to your head and come back to me,.

quote:Originally posted by Vargv:

I know a kid with the last name Rizzo. He thinks that he is a bad ass at football but he's really a douche bag.

lmfao

quote:Originally posted by Vargv:

I know a kid with the last name Rizzo. He thinks that he is a bad ass at football but he's really a douche bag.

What a douche.

quote:Originally posted by Iam:



However, a working logical disproof of God can and has been created.... The thing is, though, that it can be defeated by someone simply saying that God doesn't have to fit into human understanding of logic and rationale.



Does this proof have a name? Got a link, or can you explain it? I'm curious to know more.

quote:Originally posted by Whore of God:

Does this proof have a name? Got a link, or can you explain it? I'm curious to know more.

No, it doesn't have a name, and finding a link is unnecessary. It wasn't published in a science magazine or anything, and it's really not very complex at all. It's basically like...

If God is going to punish or reward us as a result of what we do or beleive in this life and not be a malicious being, he must provide a viable means for us to know what we're supposed to do/believe. Now, a religionist of any group could claim that his path is the one that has had this knowledge revealed to it, but such a claim is erroneous because the knowledge isn't available to everyone and it's impossible to decide which religion is right of the many here. Science is the extent of our human knowledge (defined as being a collection of all the things we know) and science, thus far, is inconclusive as to what we should do or believe. Thus, God has not provided a viable method for us to KNOW... anything.

This leaves as four obvious options concerning the traditional view of God:

1) God is malicious

2) God is incapable of letting us know him (not omnipotent)

3) God doesn't judge

4) There is no God

quote:Originally posted by Iam:

No, it doesn't have a name, and finding a link is unnecessary. It wasn't published in a science magazine or anything, and it's really not very complex at all. It's basically like...

If God is going to punish or reward us as a result of what we do or beleive in this life and not be a malicious being, he must provide a viable means for us to know what we're supposed to do/believe. Now, a religionist of any group could claim that his path is the one that has had this knowledge revealed to it, but such a claim is erroneous because the knowledge isn't available to everyone and it's impossible to decide which religion is right of the many here. Science is the extent of our human knowledge (defined as being a collection of all the things we know) and science, thus far, is inconclusive as to what we should do or believe. Thus, God has not provided a viable method for us to KNOW... anything.

This leaves as four obvious options concerning the traditional view of God:

1) God is malicious

2) God is incapable of letting us know him (not omnipotent)

3) God doesn't judge

4) There is no God

Actually

supposedly we have knowledge of God inherently inside of us anyway, in our hearts. So even those who haven't been preached to or reached by missionaries are still supposed to know Him.

quote:Originally posted by chubbyman25:

The paradox the OP uses is in its self flawed.

quote:Originally posted by Merlinman2005:

Actually

supposedly we have knowledge of God inherently inside of us anyway, in our hearts. So even those who haven't been preached to or reached by missionaries are still supposed to know Him.

Like I said, you can say things like that, but the bottom line is that any and all religions could say that (and various do). We humans as a collective do not KNOW if God exists or if he existed, what he would want us to do. Science (the entire realm of human knowledge) has proven incapable of finding this 'inherent truth'. As such, if God exists, he failed to provide a viable means of knowing him.

quote:Originally posted by rent-a-revolution:

What happens when an unstoppable force hits an immovable object?

Like if juggernaut ran into the blob?

quote:Originally posted by trichocereus pachanoi:

The OP's comment proves nothing.

it proves hes not catholic

quote:Originally posted by Iam:

No, it doesn't have a name, and finding a link is unnecessary. It wasn't published in a science magazine or anything, and it's really not very complex at all. It's basically like...

If God is going to punish or reward us as a result of what we do or beleive in this life and not be a malicious being, he must provide a viable means for us to know what we're supposed to do/believe. Now, a religionist of any group could claim that his path is the one that has had this knowledge revealed to it, but such a claim is erroneous because the knowledge isn't available to everyone and it's impossible to decide which religion is right of the many here. Science is the extent of our human knowledge (defined as being a collection of all the things we know) and science, thus far, is inconclusive as to what we should do or believe. Thus, God has not provided a viable method for us to KNOW... anything.

This leaves as four obvious options concerning the traditional view of God:

1) God is malicious

2) God is incapable of letting us know him (not omnipotent)

3) God doesn't judge

4) There is no God

This doesn't prove that there is no god, simply that the Abrahamic god doesn't exist. as the title of this topic was simply "proof God cannot exist", this doesn't work. and no, a god w/ a capital G doesn't specifically mean the abrahamic god, it simply means a singular god of any religion translated into english. when u prove that there is or is not higher power (which at this point is impossible even to the ppl who spend all day trying to do), then you'll have something.

quote:Originally posted by Iam:

You can't use a paradox to prove anything. Paradoxes are designed merely to play on the ambiguity of words and concepts to make you think outside the box, and they have 0 logical or scientific basis of reasoning and, so, cannot be applied to proofs at all.

However, a working logical disproof of God can and has been created.... The thing is, though, that it can be defeated by someone simply saying that God doesn't have to fit into human understanding of logic and rationale.

Edit: A working logical disproof of the traditionally accepted view of God* (IE, the Abrahamic God).



As you see, I had already said that it was a logical disproof the Abrahamic God. The very first post I made I said it; before I even posted the proof I said it was only a disproof of the Abrahamic God. People still asked for it and so I posted it. Read before you post things please.

[This message has been edited by Iam (edited 01-04-2007).]

quote:Originally posted by Sentinel:



Well, let's test your theory:

Sentinel says: "I am lieing right now"



*sentinel looks in mirror*

Sentinel still exists.

I have just defied a logic loop, and I still exist, so therefore, one can defy a logic loop and still exist.



You did not defy a logic loop.

Why does everyone keep repeating this?

Your statement just logically proves itself false.

It can't be true. There's no paradox or problem there. You simply are lying.

quote:Originally posted by Merlinman2005:

Actually

supposedly we have knowledge of God inherently inside of us anyway, in our hearts. So even those who haven't been preached to or reached by missionaries are still supposed to know Him.

On every major social issue of the day, from abortion, gay marriage, contraception, euthanasia, to the death penalty, sincere, praying, bible believing christians come down on both sides of the issues.

You may get pompous self righteous people (like DS) claiming that they're not real christians is they don't agree with her about absolutely everything because she is obviously correct (or infallible), but really, these people have no other agendas, they really do believe in God, and the bible, and they think that what they believe is right.

If we really have knowledge of God in our hearts, why should this be?

Again, many christians may give pompous self righteous answers that condemn everyone who disagrees with them (and the people saying this will all disagree too), but they all believe in Jesus, they don't have "secular agendas" (as is [strangely] always claimed whenever science disagrees with them).

You really can't claim we all have knowledge of what God wants in our hearts if the most sincere people who believe in the correct God and seriously pray for discernment completely whole-heartedly disagree about all the important issues.

Erm, at least, you can't claim that while being intellectually honest.

Which, actually, doesn't seem to be an issue for some people.

quote:Originally posted by Iam:

You can't use a paradox to prove anything. Paradoxes are designed merely to play on the ambiguity of words and concepts to make you think outside the box, and they have 0 logical or scientific basis of reasoning and, so, cannot be applied to proofs at all.

I've already dealt with this. Paradoxes can disprove something; if you take two assumptions, and find that - if you hold both of them as true - a paradox results, then obviously one or the other (or both) is false. You can't hold both that logic is real and useful and that God is omnipotent... at least this type of omnipotent.

quote:Originally posted by Sentinel:

Lay off the DXM. God will create a stone so large he cannot lift it, and then will subsequently make himself so strong that he can.

You lose.

Then he can lift it, obviously. Like I said before, this is just playing with the question - it's not addressing the actual issue the questions brings up.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Twisted_Ferret:



I've already dealt with this. Paradoxes can disprove something; if you take two assumptions, and find that - if you hold both of them as true - a paradox results, then obviously one or the other (or both) is false. You can't hold both that logic is real and useful and that God is omnipotent... at least this type of omnipotent.

No you can't. The nature of a paradox is one wherein you take two simply feasable scenarios and play on the ambiguity of language to make them impossible. With the case of "Can God create a stone so heavy he can't lift it" If he can't do such, it doesn't make him lack omnipotence. He is all powerful, so to complete an action requiring him to lack this omnipotence is impossible. Not because he's not omnipotent, but because he can lift a stone with infinite weight.

You have to look at it like. God is omnipotent, he can do anything that is logically possible. OR you can look at it like, God is omnipotent and can reconcile the logically impossible. In which case the logical impossibility of making a stone so heavy he can't lift is is perfectly possible through him and our logic doesn't apply to him. Obviously, you must take the former if you want to try to prove anything. If you take the former in this case, then you prove nothing. If you take the latter, you prove nothing.

Bottom line: The OP didn't prove anything.

quote:Originally posted by Iam:

No you can't. The nature of a paradox is one wherein you take two simply feasable scenarios and play on the ambiguity of language to make them impossible.

The basic issue here is "can god do the logically impossible." It isn't a linguistic paradox; in fact, it is not a paradox at all if you answer the question "no."

quote:You have to look at it like. God is omnipotent, he can do anything that is logically possible. OR you can look at it like, God is omnipotent and can reconcile the logically impossible. In which case the logical impossibility of making a stone so heavy he can't lift is is perfectly possible through him and our logic doesn't apply to him. Obviously, you must take the former if you want to try to prove anything. If you take the former in this case, then you prove nothing. If you take the latter, you prove nothing.

I addressed this. Maybe you should read my posts more carefully. You must take the latter to try to prove anything; this paradox proves that the latter type of omnipotence is not a logically feasible concept, since it requires logic to be done away with in a special case for it to work. It also proves that the type of omnipotence God must possess is the former, if you accept the existance and applicability of logic. It doesn't prove that God doesn't exist, but it's a useful tool to bring up when believers insist God can do anything.



[This message has been edited by Twisted_Ferret (edited 01-05-2007).]

I haven't ever read a bible, but I have never heard of God lifting or moving anything. I assume this is because God has no physical form, but rather is a omnipresent spiritual presence.

I don't have any info to back that up, its based on minimal knowledge of Christianity http://www.pbfcomics.com/?cid=0PBF08066BC-Eden.jpg#10

quote:Originally posted by Pirate Hippie:

Stop wasting your time trying to disprove others religious beliefs, and concentrate on your own.

This leads to violence, well, both ways do actually...

God isn't clearly defined. Especially by the average religious person.

my freinds god is every thing, god is your reality and we are all one.

quote:Originally posted by Twisted_Ferret:



I addressed this. Maybe you should read my posts more carefully. You must take the latter to try to prove anything; this paradox proves that the latter type of omnipotence is not a logically feasible concept, since it requires logic to be done away with in a special case for it to work. It also proves that the type of omnipotence God must possess is the former, if you accept the existance and applicability of logic. It doesn't prove that God doesn't exist, but it's a useful tool to bring up when believers insist God can do anything.



Lol. You just said that God being able to reconcile the logically impossible is illogical......

"Zomg guys, it is illogical to assume that the illogical can be performed!"

I already said that you need to assume the former to be able to get anything done through logic (that is, logically). Omnipotence including the ability to reconcile the logically impossible is a possibility here, and I don't understand why you think God MUST possess the former form of omnipotence I presented. For his omnipotence to work through the logical impossibility of the paradox presented here he can either be able to reconcile the logically impossible or his omnipotence means that he can do everything that is within the realm of logical possibility. He can possess either form.

As I said, though, he must possess the former form of omnipotence if you want to be able to attempt to logically deduce anything about God, because if you assume the latter, then any logical impossibility found in a combination of his properties can be made possible through his omnipotence.

[This message has been edited by Iam (edited 01-06-2007).]

Yeah, you def. proved God doesn't exist.

Dumb.

Just because you cant make sense of it doesn't mean it doesnt exist. You might just not fully realise what your referring to. Religion, and ideas which charachterize God are a bunch of man made nonsense, easily criticized. But God (proper)is not supposed to be accessible in the manner you're trying to. God exists between the lines that reason draws. You wont find God in a cogent argument or at the end of a proposition (The bible included). These things obscure the idea of God.

I am an atheist and I hate to do this but...

The stone analogy if flawed because the "infinitely heavy stone" would have to be attracted gravitationally to another "infinitely heavy object" simple physics. Such gravitational force would negate the universe due to the laws of physics once again (Infinite acceleration towards the center for all objects). Because of physics the two objects (or even one of them) couldn't exist at all. Thus, such situation is for all purposes simply ridiculous and preposterous and any scrutiny into it that diverges from simply examining the paradox reveals how flawed it is.

On another note: if god exists and is omniscient then he knows everything that will happen, therefore fate is predetermined and humans have no real free will, only perception of such. In that case all religions based on crime and punishment (Johnny if you don't clean your room you will go to hell) are in effect flawed, because humans have as much personal choice to commit or withdraw from a crime as a piece of paper has choice whether you are writing on it.

quote:Originally posted by DXM User:

But that's the fucking point --- 'God' can't escape a simple logic loop. How powerful could he be?

No, your conception of God can't escape a simple logic loop.

quote:Originally posted by Lamabot:

The stone analogy if flawed because the "infinitely heavy stone" would have to be attracted gravitationally to another "infinitely heavy object" simple physics. Such gravitational force would negate the universe due to the laws of physics once again (Infinite acceleration towards the center for all objects). Because of physics the two objects (or even one of them) couldn't exist at all. Thus, such situation is for all purposes simply ridiculous and preposterous and any scrutiny into it that diverges from simply examining the paradox reveals how flawed it is.

Are you 12? http://www.totse.com/bbs/tongue.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/tongue.gif) I can't even begin to explain how stupid this is. To begin with, an infinitely heavy stone was never even mentioned...

quote:Originally posted by Iam:

Lol. You just said that God being able to reconcile the logically impossible is illogical......

"Zomg guys, it is illogical to assume that the illogical can be performed!"

Indeed. The thing that isn't immediately obvious to everyone is that omnipotence is an illogical concept.

quote:Omnipotence including the ability to reconcile the logically impossible is a possibility here, and I don't understand why you think God MUST possess the former form of omnipotence I presented.

He could possess the latter in the same way that this entire universe could be the dream of a pink fairy in wonderland. It's possible, but not reasonable. Logic works; to assume the existance of a being that negates it... you're throwing out a basic facet of the universe so that you can believe in something for which there is no evidence at all.

something always had to be hear right? gases for 'the big bang' lol, so the gases are infinite. space its self has to be infinite, if not how can that appear out of nowhere?

and even believing in the big bang, the odds of it happening would be about equal to getting hit by lightning twice. so why did it happen? are we that lucky?

athiest are fake intellectuals who have a flawed view, and they laugh at people with faith, when you need faith to believe in 'nothing' wich is i guess what they believe was here before space. because they say 'how do you know god exist' so my question to them, is how do they know nothing exists. show me 'nothing'

quote:Originally posted by rent-a-revolution:

What happens when an unstoppable force hits an immovable object?

divide by 0 OH SHI-

quote:Originally posted by rent-a-revolution:

What happens when an unstoppable force hits an immovable object?

Paradoxes. Worth giving a thought!

God, JHWH, Allah, Jahve, Jesus, INRI, The Holy Bible, The holy ghost, 2 billion Christians around the world, The holy grail..

All this just can't be found up. It just has to be some truth in it.

I'm not a great fan of religion and all this, but hey that's my opinion!

EVOLUTION.

kthxbai

[This message has been edited by 11 (edited 01-06-2007).]

quote:Originally posted by Mister-Sawed-Off:

something always had to be hear right? gases for 'the big bang' lol, so the gases are infinite. space its self has to be infinite, if not how can that appear out of nowhere?

and even believing in the big bang, the odds of it happening would be about equal to getting hit by lightning twice. so why did it happen? are we that lucky?

athiest are fake intellectuals who have a flawed view, and they laugh at people with faith, when you need faith to believe in 'nothing' wich is i guess what they believe was here before space. because they say 'how do you know god exist' so my question to them, is how do they know nothing exists. show me 'nothing'

-lol

-The atheist's idea of "nothing" existing doesn't mean that literally Nothing exists. It means that there is a lack of something, namely, in the atheistic viewpoint, the lack of a deity. We can't show this.

-And No, something didn't always have to be "hear."

-Gases aren't infinite.

-Neither is space.

-Atheists don't collectively claim to be intellectuals, so you can't call them fake ones.

-The odds of the big bang happening? What are you talking about? How do you calculate the odds of this event? That's like saying "the odds of you randomly laying these 52 playing cards out in this order are so enormous.. why did it happen that way?"

-And I've never ever heard an atheist ask "how do you know God exists"

[This message has been edited by Merlinman2005 (edited 01-06-2007).]

quote:Originally posted by Twisted_Ferret:



Originally posted by Iam:

Lol. You just said that God being able to reconcile the logically impossible is illogical......

"Zomg guys, it is illogical to assume that the illogical can be performed!" [QUOTE]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Twisted_Ferret:

Indeed. The thing that isn't immediately obvious to everyone is that omnipotence is an illogical concept.

Omnipotence including the ability to reconcile the logically impossible is a possibility here, and I don't understand why you think God MUST possess the former form of omnipotence I presented.

quote: He could possess the latter in the same way that this entire universe could be the dream of a pink fairy in wonderland. It's possible, but not reasonable. Logic works; to assume the existance of a being that negates it... you're throwing out a basic facet of the universe so that you can believe in something for which there is no evidence at all.



I agree with everything that you said here. The OP still proves nothing, though. If he adopts the view that God's omnipotence means that he can perform anything within the realm of logical possibility, then his omnipotence isn't threatened by the impossibility of the situation described in the paradox.

BTW, I don't believe in God either, I just think that everyone should explore it as a possibility and form and educate opinion.. Something I don't believe the OP has done.



[This message has been edited by Iam (edited 01-06-2007).]

quote:Originally posted by Iam:

I agree with everything that you said here. The OP still proves nothing, though. If he adopts the view that God's omnipotence means that he can perform anything within the realm of logical possibility, then his omnipotence isn't threatened by the impossibility of the situation described in the paradox.

I think I see the problem here. You're right - the OP doesn't actually prove anything. I meant to just discuss the paradox by itself; I was ignoring the actual thread topic. http://www.totse.com/bbs/tongue.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/tongue.gif) Sorry, shoulda made that clearer.

quote:BTW, I don't believe in God either, I just think that everyone should explore it as a possibility and form and educate opinion.. Something I don't believe the OP has done.

Well, he seems to be trying. I don't think he's quite correct in his post, but at least he is dedicating some thought to the matter.

quote:Originally posted by DaedalusOwnsYou:

Technically you only proved that God cannot be omnipotent, not that he doesn't exist. After all you aren't omnipotent but I'm reasonably certain you exist.

True. But since god cannot be omnipotent, can he still be immortal? I think not. No one can escape death, even god....unless he was onmipotent-which he has been proven not to be.

quote:Originally posted by rob0ts are US:

True. But since god cannot be omnipotent, can he still be immortal? I think not. No one can escape death, even god....unless he was onmipotent-which he has been proven not to be.





Does it even matter? What if his lifespan is so long he dies a moment before the end of the universe? I'm sure that even if He could die, it would happen long after we're gone (as a species), and long after all of his so-called creations are gone, too.

But anyway, GOD CAN'T DIE. (The nonexistant) God's not even alive. Does He have blood vessels and muscles? Lungs? What kind of a lifeform is He? Not the type we see every day. Hell, the only way I could envision Any deity existing is if they're not even an entity to begin with. Which means no body to die. It's like an eternal mind, that can influence events and matter by sheer will, without physical interaction.

EDIT: And No, His supposed omnipotence hasn't been disproven yet, and really can't be disproven with a mere single sentence/question such as the rock dilemma.

[This message has been edited by Merlinman2005 (edited 01-07-2007).]

Im agnostic but saying god doesnt exist due to some ancient guy, maybe even the bible being wrong in anything about god (including the description of him as being omnipotent) doesnt mean that there is no such thing.

People talk shit, and especially in the times of Jesus and all that crap.

Explorers used to tell stories of battling dragons, sea monsters and going off the edge of the Earth for gods sake.

I dont believe any of that stuff including history is like what was written in the bible, but it doesnt mean there is no god.

Edit- kinda like some kid telling anyone jimbo did a 5 foot kickflip yesterday, its just his veiw, in jimbos veiw it was 2 feet high.



[This message has been edited by luckyphill (edited 01-07-2007).]

quote:Originally posted by luckyphill:



Explorers used to tell stories of battling dragons, sea monsters and going off the edge of the Earth for gods sake.





heh reminded me of something:

Live giant squid caught.. but killed in the process http://tinyurl.com/yfexkz

I can't disprove every God, but I can the christian "all powerful, all loving" God with one statement (I will provide arguments for both sides after to prove it):

Suffering exsists.

Now an all loving God would want to cut suffering out of people's life, because He loves them, and wants no harm to come to them. Being all powerful, He would be able to do that. The standard reply is usually something about giving us free will, but that is a moot point. People underestimate the "all powerful" part, He could create a rock so big he couldn't lift it, then lift the said rock. It's impossible, but he is all powerful, He can do it. Just like He could give people free will, while still controlling what they do, make sense?

If an all powerful, all loving God exsisted, suffering wouldn't. I'm not saying there isn't a God (even though I don't believe in one), but I am saying that whatever entity exsists is either not all power or all loving.

quote:Originally posted by NewRage:

I can't disprove every God, but I can the christian "all powerful, all loving" God with one statement (I will provide arguments for both sides after to prove it):

Suffering exsists.

Now an all loving God would want to cut suffering out of people's life, because He loves them, and wants no harm to come to them. Being all powerful, He would be able to do that. The standard reply is usually something about giving us free will, but that is a moot point. People underestimate the "all powerful" part, He could create a rock so big he couldn't lift it, then lift the said rock. It's impossible, but he is all powerful, He can do it. Just like He could give people free will, while still controlling what they do, make sense?

If an all powerful, all loving God exsisted, suffering wouldn't. I'm not saying there isn't a God (even though I don't believe in one), but I am saying that whatever entity exsists is either not all power or all loving.

This was the point of my post. I wasn't trying to say gods in general don't exist --- if you think that, you're misunderstanding. I'm referring to the 'omnipotent' God of Abraham. That's why I CAPITALIZED the G. You can talk about a god, or a group of gods, but there's really only one 'God' that would come up. We're not talking Hinduism or anything here.

Yeah, I got that from your post, I was just making a better argument. That stone thing is cliche, and a rather loose argument against heavy religious folk, because they simply state He can do both. God can create a rock so heavy He can't lift it, then He can lift it. For example, think in terms of a game (easiest scenario). God has 10 strength, He creates a rock that needs 11 strength to lift (He cannot lift it), He then modifies himself and adds +1 strength, He can now lift that rock.

It can't be denied that suffering exists, and it can't be denied that if God were all loving He would not want His people to suffer. If He were all powerful, He would be able to halt that suffering, while still allowing us free will.

I've heard the analogy that it's like telling your friend his chick is ugly. Although you can see it, he has to learn for himself. Or parents letting their kid ride a bike, it can hurt him, but he enjoys doing (or he has to learn that himself, or something like that). Those don't really take into thought how powerful "all powerful" really is. It is more like taking a ice cube outside in the middle of summer and telling it not to melt. You know it's going to melt, you have the power to put it back in your freezer and keep it from melting, but you are just going to stand their and tell that melting ice cube it's doing it wrong...

quote:Originally posted by Twisted_Ferret:



Are you 12? http://www.totse.com/bbs/tongue.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/tongue.gif) I can't even begin to explain how stupid this is. To begin with, an infinitely heavy stone was never even mentioned.. [/QUOTE]

First post in this thread

quote:Originally posted by DXM User:

"Can God make a stone so heavy he himself can not lift it?"

Yes, it's an old one, and many of you have heard it before, but it's so fucking true I can't stand it.

Here, let me lay out the two possibilities for you;

1) God can make a stone so heavy that he cannot lift it, therefore he is not omnipotent because he cannot lift it.

2) God cannot make a stone so heavy that he himself cannot lift it, therefore he is not omnipotent because he cannot make it.

It is assumed in Christian philosophy that God is all-powerful and has no limits. What a load of crap.

quote:Originally posted by Lamabot:

First post in this thread

I don't see where "infinitely heavy" is mentioned...

quote:Originally posted by Siash:

DXM, Everything I tell you is a lie.

Does that make me a liar or someone who tells the truth?

OH NOES! I MUST NOT EXIST BECAUSE OF A SIMPLE PARADOX!!! http://www.totse.com/bbs/eek.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/eek.gif)

My thoughts exactly.

quote:Originally posted by rent-a-revolution:

What happens when an unstoppable force hits an immovable object?

0_o

That's a good one, I'll have to use it...

Cheers,

MOTO

quote:Originally posted by chubbyman25:

First of all, why is God bound to human logic?

Second, He may be all powerful over our universe, which He created, but He may not be all powerful in his own.

Just an idea, don't take it too seriously.

Exactly right. I've considered that "rock" question and cracked it pretty easily.

Look...Essentially, God is omnipotent in OUR universe, since this is the one he created. When you ask this question, you are broadening the spectrum way past what ANYONE has defined God to be (and way past the comprehension of a human mind.) It's like asking whether God can make an EXACT clone of himself. He can't control anything beyond his domain, and so in order for the question to work, we have to stay within the limits.

Assuming we are talking within this universe, I offer this answer:

God can make the stone and not lift it under his own will. The second he wills it, though, he's able to lift it. This follows the rules, in that he created a rock that he can't lift, because he does not will it. If he wants to, he'll be able to lift the rock.

quote:Originally posted by IanBoyd3:

On every major social issue of the day, from abortion, gay marriage, contraception, euthanasia, to the death penalty, sincere, praying, bible believing christians come down on both sides of the issues.

You may get pompous self righteous people (like DS) claiming that they're not real christians is they don't agree with her about absolutely everything because she is obviously correct (or infallible), but really, these people have no other agendas, they really do believe in God, and the bible, and they think that what they believe is right.

If we really have knowledge of God in our hearts, why should this be?

Again, many christians may give pompous self righteous answers that condemn everyone who disagrees with them (and the people saying this will all disagree too), but they all believe in Jesus, they don't have "secular agendas" (as is [strangely] always claimed whenever science disagrees with them).

You really can't claim we all have knowledge of what God wants in our hearts if the most sincere people who believe in the correct God and seriously pray for discernment completely whole-heartedly disagree about all the important issues.

Erm, at least, you can't claim that while being intellectually honest.

Which, actually, doesn't seem to be an issue for some people.

Oh c'mon...that's an easy one to tackle. God has no obligation to enlighten us. He has no obligation to show us the right way.

Any God (yes...even deterministic Gods) allows people FREE WILL. That gives us free range of what we want to do. Differing opinions among christians only shows that people's opinions, governed by their free will, is different. It tells nothing about the nature or actions of God. If we didn't have free will He would just come down and tell us exactly what to follow...but the cost to this is our entire freedom as a human race. We wouldn't want that...

It's the basic 3-planet scenario.

1.) The first planet has suffering and free will.

2.) The second planet has no suffering and free will.

3.) The third planet has suffering and no free will.

If you are talking about the 3rd planet, you are not talking about an all-loving God, since he controls the suffering. So it gets eliminated.

The second planet may seem like an attractive choice but if you look at it deeply its very flawed. This is because there are 2 options: Suffering allowed or No suffering allowed. If you eliminate "No Suffering" you are eliminated the entire CHOICE of "Suffering" thereby destroying free will entirely.

So we are left with choice 1. Suffering is allowed because it does not conflict with our free will.

[This message has been edited by MikeTheWalrus (edited 01-11-2007).]

quote:Originally posted by NewRage:

Yeah, I got that from your post, I was just making a better argument. That stone thing is cliche, and a rather loose argument against heavy religious folk, because they simply state He can do both. God can create a rock so heavy He can't lift it, then He can lift it. For example, think in terms of a game (easiest scenario). God has 10 strength, He creates a rock that needs 11 strength to lift (He cannot lift it), He then modifies himself and adds +1 strength, He can now lift that rock.

It can't be denied that suffering exists, and it can't be denied that if God were all loving He would not want His people to suffer. If He were all powerful, He would be able to halt that suffering, while still allowing us free will.

I've heard the analogy that it's like telling your friend his chick is ugly. Although you can see it, he has to learn for himself. Or parents letting their kid ride a bike, it can hurt him, but he enjoys doing (or he has to learn that himself, or something like that). Those don't really take into thought how powerful "all powerful" really is. It is more like taking a ice cube outside in the middle of summer and telling it not to melt. You know it's going to melt, you have the power to put it back in your freezer and keep it from melting, but you are just going to stand their and tell that melting ice cube it's doing it wrong...



Again, it's a matter of free will. If God stopped all the murderers from murdering people, then we would have no freedom over ourselves.

So...how can he reveal himself without jepordizing our free will? When you accept him into your life, then he accepts you into his.

Mike

(Look...I'm not Christian and I'm not sure where I stand on God. My point is that all of these arguments you guys give have been given many times over in the last century, and it's always a stalemate. There's (il)logical answers on both sides of the spectrum...take any religion and philosophy course and these arguments will be talked about 100 times over.

quote:Originally posted by rent-a-revolution:

What happens when an unstoppable force hits an immovable object?

Punches a hole. Duh.

quote:Originally posted by redhotchiliman123:

Punches a hole. Duh.

That would require part of the immovable object to be moved, that is, to break off from the immovable object. But it is immovable, so, this is theoretically impossible.

Free will + time travel != possible

Extrapolate.

The whole question is bullshit to start with. Let's just say god created this infinitely big rock. Not bein able to lift it has nothing to do with omnipotence or not for the simple fact that to lift something, it has to be close to an even bigger object. Otherwise it will just sorta.......hang around.

quote:Originally posted by DaedalusOwnsYou:

Technically you only proved that God cannot be omnipotent, not that he doesn't exist. After all you aren't omnipotent but I'm reasonably certain you exist.

actually, he didn't even prove that. He only proved it not possible "in his limited experience of how things work"

We do not even comprehend half of the things in the universe, so how can you even come to think we can prove the existence or non existence of an possibly omnipotent bein with just some flawed reasonin



ohw and Twisted_Ferret, assumin it's just bout the idea of a paradox. I know people who are insecure and arrogant at the exact same time. So assumin you'd have to be omnipotent to be 2 opposites at the same time, i guess, i know gods (just awake, i realise i make little sence)

[This message has been edited by dark-easterbunny (edited 01-11-2007).]

Thread starter.

STFO & GTFO Dumbfuck

quote:Originally posted by Siash:

If not everyhting I tell him be a lie, how can everything I tell him be a lie?



it isn't you asscastle. put simply, you are a lier.

God is something that requires faith rather than science, because otherwise He's not God, just an animal.

You can't disprove that God exists, because in doing so, you're using science instead of faith. Therefore you aren't disproving that God exists, because God and scientific method cannot co-exist, but simply proving that there is a scientific being. The presence of such a scientific being does not prove that God isn't there.

quote:Originally posted by affliction17:

To the original poster: What you're doing is taking a human concept and applying it to divine standards. That doesn't make sense at all because how can you compare something that is manmade with that which is infinite.

P.S. I'm not Christian, it just makes logical sense to me. Just my 2 cents.



He brings up a valid point, the THEORY applies only to christian belief, which is full of contradictions in the first place.

You either prove nothing or something that has been proved a thousand times.

EDIT: you could easily point out that god could just blow this 'heaviest' stone to bits with force - imagine pulling, or pushing molecules apart.

Of course just as easily you could point out that seeing as God has no physical appearance he wouldn't actually be able to manipulate the material plane in order to make a giant rock in the first place, thereby defying the common ideal that God is more than merely our creator.

It is possible that God has used all of his creation points (lol.) and has to spend his destruction points in order to make more.

Needless to say, the people who made the bible didn't know fuck all about what they were getting into, and probably made us become further apart from our 'divine being', at least, that's my point of view, after all, we have a lot more atheists now.

Does anyone actually know where the first bible came from...

[This message has been edited by One_way_mirror (edited 01-11-2007).]

This is like comparing infinity with infinity. Which infinity is greater? Then the other must not be infinity?

Good try though.

quote:Originally posted by Twisted_Ferret:



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

Originally posted by anonymous-coward:

This isn't a paradox.

It comes down to the question of wether an omnipotent being can supress their own powers. And yes, I believe by definition they can.

So I don't see why it wouldn't be possible for a god to create a rock that is too heavy for them to lift. But by creating the rock they will destroy their omnipotent powers.

It would be the same if the god decided to give up their omnipotent powers completly, it would be possible, but they would no longer be omnipotent.

/thread.

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

The problem with both of these is that they're not addressing the paradox, but just playing with the question. It's easy to create a question that bypasses these "answers": Can God create a rock so big he can't lift it, without suppressing his powers or changing gravity?

Of course, I'm sure you could come up with an answer that avoids the point in this question, as well. You just have to realize that the question isn't just meant for that specific instance - the essential point, the thing it's diving at, is "can God do something logically contradictory." THAT'S why it's a paradox - it's really got nothing to do with rocks, when you get down to it.





"Can God create a rock so big he can't lift it, without suppressing his powers or changing gravity?"

First off, that wasn't the original question.

This all boils down how you define omnipotent and the semantics of it. Which is why it isn't really a "paradox".

The term omnipotent literally means "all power", that is power without limits. Since the power is without limit, then by definition, you could limit your own power. Would you be omnipotent after you limited your own power? No, but you would have been omnipotent up until that point.

Furthermore even if this was a real "paradox" and you somehow found some way to prove so (rather than bending word definitions to your own need), it still does nothing to disprove the possible existance of a god.

Plus, by definition an omnipotent being isn't bound to anything, especially basic logic we follow.

I know this thread is old, but this subject is even older anyways.

quote:Originally posted by DaedalusOwnsYou:

Technically you only proved that God cannot be omnipotent, not that he doesn't exist. After all you aren't omnipotent but I'm reasonably certain you exist.

i'm omnipotent

Nothing is too heavy to lift, and there is not limits to the supernatural force of the one true god (and it's not me fuckheads).

Here's a question that is mostly coming out of me not reading all of this very long thread. Consider the situation: a bus of small children goes off a cliff, drowning everyone on board save one of the children who survives with only minor bruises. Three possible scenarios:

1.) God could have saved all of the children, but chose not to because he has a plan (god is willing to sacrifice children for his plan and is not all-loving, if we can agree that killing children is bad).

2.) God did not intend for all the children to die but could only save one (miracle explanation, god is not all powerful).

3.) God expressly intended each of the children that died to die because they were offending him (god is not all loving yet all powerful and very vindictive).

Thoughts?

quote:Originally posted by Siash:

DXM, Everything I tell you is a lie.

Does that make me a liar or someone who tells the truth?

OH NOES! I MUST NOT EXIST BECAUSE OF A SIMPLE PARADOX!!! http://www.totse.com/bbs/eek.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/eek.gif)

Nooooooooo, you must just be a human who understands a paradox.

1) The bible is always true.

2) God is infallible.

3) God is omnipotent.

He must fail at either not being able to lift the rock or make the rock.

Yes?

So the concept of an omnipotent being is fallible, at least by our human definition.

But the bible is true!!

Is god spewing paradoxes?

I don't get it, but somewhere someone is running in circles.

Now comes the part where someone argues it is to test our belief that religion doesn't make sense.

ZOMG IT DOESN'T HAVE TO MAKE SENSE BECAUSE HE'S OMNIPOTENT!!



[This message has been edited by Lacedwithdelight (edited 01-25-2007).]

quote:Originally posted by Lacedwithdelight:

Nooooooooo, you must just be a human who understands a paradox.

1) The bible is always true.

2) God is infallible.

3) God is omnipotent.

He must fail at either not being able to lift the rock or make the rock.

Yes?

So the concept of an omnipotent being is fallible, at least by our human definition.

But the bible is true!!

Is god spewing paradoxes?

I don't get it, but somewhere someone is running in circles.

Now comes the part where someone argues it is to test our belief that religion doesn't make sense.

ZOMG IT DOESN'T HAVE TO MAKE SENSE BECAUSE HE'S OMNIPOTENT!!





Typically religion should be illogical. It's the whole "putting faith in something to prove you truly are dedicated to it, even if it makes no fucking sense." If it was easy, everyone would do it. If God is real, he made it this way for a reason.

Also, God shouldn't be constrained to human logic, he is a God... which would sort of defeat the whole human logic of the rock and God. And I know, you're gonna bitch that you knew someone was gonna say this, but its quite true. If God were to exist, why the hell would he be bound to our human logic, time, and constraints? He's a fucking God.

quote:Originally posted by Prometheum:

Here's a question that is mostly coming out of me not reading all of this very long thread. Consider the situation: a bus of small children goes off a cliff, drowning everyone on board save one of the children who survives with only minor bruises. Three possible scenarios:

1.) God could have saved all of the children, but chose not to because he has a plan (god is willing to sacrifice children for his plan and is not all-loving, if we can agree that killing children is bad).

2.) God did not intend for all the children to die but could only save one (miracle explanation, god is not all powerful).

3.) God expressly intended each of the children that died to die because they were offending him (god is not all loving yet all powerful and very vindictive).

Thoughts?

My thoughts? While interesting, it doesn't belong here and is offtopic to the discussion.

Clearly for all paradoxes related to god, this just proves that he is so powerful that he can warp reality to make the impossible happen. Technically, he should be the one who controls what is a paradox and what is not. So, we can argue that god can change reality to make that statement true despite it's being clearly impossible.

There are far more reasons for not believing in god, however, trying to get god on some power that is not even given to him clearly in the texts is not gonna prove anything. We can show several times in the texts he has given us that he clearly is not the all-kind and loving being we suppose him to be, and there are several contradictions in the texts which simply go overlooked, yet we continue to waste time on useless topics like this.

Your trying be philosophical, come up with your an original idea.

1)How can you say 'God', and yet put him under the boundaries of your own understanding of nature!?

Your forgetting that God does not only control nature, God is Nature.

And to Take your Small understanding of Nature and try to contextualize it with him is not only ignorant but foolish.

ex: That is why in the book of Exodus, Moses asked "so who should i say has sent me" then God replied "tell them that I am that I am..." because human understanding will never be able to grasp the true nature of God.

2)We are humans (or so i hope) and yet we don't even know whats going on in each other's minds, we can have an idea. but that idea is totally built on our understanding of each other. Now how so will we be able to know or understand God's nature. when our understanding of him is only built on what we *think* - we develop thought on what we understand (which is nothing compared to what God understands or is)



or to put it more simply: quote:Originally posted by Hexadecimal:

....God is the Rock. http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif)



[This message has been edited by Romeo (edited 01-29-2007).]

" The DAO that can be expressed

is not the eternal DAO " - TAO TE CHING

Aka. Omnipotence cannot be comprehended.

Next time try understanding the True Meaning of (omnipotence).



ps. Hope your still alive to receive the Truth Dxm User. On of my best friends died 2 days ago from an overdose of Dxm.