if the god is all powerful?
Can he create a rock big enough that he can not lift?
can he create something that will destroy him? (satan doesnt count)
i am Christian and i always get those questions"
Anyone has answers

Well...Gr 7 is hard isn't it? Or dealing with people of any age who still are challenged to think deeper than that?

You don't have to try to answer every stupid question that an idiot asks... :)

Can he create a rock big enough that he can not lift?

No, God can't do things that are impossible.


can he create something that will destroy him? (satan doesnt count)

Satan can't destroy God. If you read the book of Revelation you will see that God is going to destroy satan.

As for God being able to create something that would destroy him, God can't be destroyed. God was never created, God will never be destroyed, there has never been a time where there was no God, and there never will be a time where there is no God. God simply is. God's existence transcends the limits of space & time.

God cannot be created nor destroyed.

God is the rock.


However, thats only one side of the coin.

If you read the book of Revolution you will see that God is going to destroy satan.


Book of Revolution, huh? Haven't read that one...

God can't do impossible things? Impossible, when speaking of supernatural things, is totally subjective in definition. For us, it is impossible to bring someone back from the dead, yet God supposedly succeeded in that. What I am trying to say is that you are just tailoring the word "impossible" to fit any meaning you want it to, when, in actuality, if there was an all-powerful god, that god could succeed in doing anything, even the "impossible" (which inevitably leads to the idea that there is no such thing as an all-powerful god in the first place). Why does God have to be all-powerful, anyway?

Obbe is on the right track, I think.

Obbe is on the right track, I think.

And it will never be more then a thought, an opinion, a consideration.

What makes one track 'right', and another 'wrong'?

Are there separate tracks?

What makes one track 'right', and another 'wrong'?


The one I believe in is the right one ;).

Kidding, though. Whatever you want to believe is right, as far as you are concerned. And what does anything outside of your mind mean to you, anyway? Reality is what you make of it.

Let's not get into semantics or what exactly right and wrong means. I meant it more as a figure of speech, meaning I agreed with you. There are only seperate tracks if you want there to be.

...Reality is...

I meant it more as a figure of speech, meaning I agreed with you.

Be assured I completely understood this, and be comforted that the questions were for everybody to think about and nothing meant to single you out in any way.

God is the rock.
can you elaborate on that?
i know that you can say that God is everywhere and god is everything.
But what about " and on the first day god created...."
Why "God can't do impossible."

I ask this questions not because i have to answer every question they ask me. i ask these questions because i don't believe strongly enough in God not to care what the answers are.
;)

can you elaborate on that?
i know that you can say that God is everywhere and god is everything.
But what about " and on the first day god created...."
Why "God can't do impossible."

I ask this questions not because i have to answer every question they ask me. i ask these questions because i don't believe strongly enough in God not to care what the answers are.
;)

You're mixing up what God really is with bullshit religious interpretation. Also, you're thinking of God as some huge, distant, sentient being. Don't be silly! Individuals are limited by definition. After all, you're an individual, and because you're you, and not me, you can't know what is going on inside me at this moment, can you? Even psychics don't know everything. Therefore, an individual is limited by definition, therefore God is not an individual. He must be infinity, everything. He IS the boulder!

Is god a particular entity, if so where is that nigga?

can you elaborate on that?

Yes and no.

what about " and on the first day god created...."
Why "God can't do impossible."

Why, thats just very old bullshit and Rolloffle-bullshit.

Though everything is, so you should be asking yourself why you perceive it as only bullshit.

I ask this questions not because i have to answer every question they ask me. i ask these questions because i don't believe strongly enough in God not to care what the answers are.
;)

Good, asking questions is by-far one of the best ways of learning everything you can about nothing at all.

Answer stupid questions like that with:

1) God create a rock?...He already created rock'n'roll...He's happy...So am I! Shut up.

2) Why the fuck would God create something that could destroy him?...If it were me, I'd keep that a damn secret...Stop asking stupid questions. Shut up.

Stupid questions...Stupid answers.

if the god is all powerful?
Can he create a rock big enough that he can not lift?
can he create something that will destroy him? (satan doesnt count)
i am Christian and i always get those questions"
Anyone has answers

Yes, he can create something that can destroy him.

Again what gives the appearance that 'god' is somewhere, or even a 'something'

Yes, he can create something that can destroy him.

Creation is Gods destruction.

Creation is Gods destruction.

indeed, destruction would have to created in order for it to destroy.

Satan can't destroy God. If you read the book of Revelation you will see that God is going to destroy satan.



It's all smack talk.

God:

"Yeah, yeah, I'm gonna smack Satan up PROPER - but I'll give it a few centuries first."

indeed, destruction would have to created in order for it to destroy.

Whaaaaaaa???

One thing I never understood is why would a God who is all powerful limit 'itself' to our monkey level of understanding.

Whaaaaaaa???

You cannot destroy something which does not exist.

Because there is nothing, destruction does not exist.

In the creation of existence, destruction was created at the same time.

Creation of destruction.

*snorts*

Whaaaaaaaa??? indeed.

:rolleyes:

You cannot destroy something which does not exist.

Because there is nothing, destruction does not exist.

In the creation of existence, destruction was created at the same time.

Creation of destruction.

*snorts*

Whaaaaaaaa??? indeed.

:rolleyes:

Sure, okay. A whole new pack of foma.

Although, I think I was talking about different foma.

I don't think I said anything about the creation of destruction, I said creation is Gods destruction. That the act of creating is equal to the destruction of God.

It's the same thing, it seems we've arrived at the same conclusion via different methods.

Although, granted - mine wasn't as coherent.

Sure, whatever...but I don't see similarities which would make them the same conclusions.

I thought I was presenting the idea that creation can be seen as the destruction of God, and that you were presenting the idea of the creation of destruction. I have no disagreement with what you are saying, but its not clear to me how you see them as the same.

It is the same thing, you both 'FEEL' the same way, it's just that you have confused words with 'feelings'. Words are translated into 'feeling', some people require certain words spoken in a certain cadence and tone in order for them to convey a certain feeling. Unfortunately when reading another's texts, you have to use your imagination to interpret the tone and cadence of another's speech, making interpretation a little difficult. Hence why it's so easy to misunderstand each other, than if you confront each other face to face.

You have more feedback about a person when you see their body language, their tone, their cadence, their rhythm, their facial expressions; than if you just go by what is typed. I guarantee that if you were to meet me in real life you would be shocked as hell, because my mannerisms online are but the tip of my mannerisms overall, and I can say that with confidence about anyone.

Sure, whatever...but I don't see similarities which would make them the same conclusions.

I thought I was presenting the idea that creation can be seen as the destruction of God, and that you were presenting the idea of the creation of destruction. I have no disagreement with what you are saying, but its not clear to me how you see them as the same.

In my method, i was referring to the creation of existence, as such - all that we now know and perceive is a result of that first instant of creation, therefore including destruction.

I felt that your method was more specific and relevant to the topic, which is why i approved of it.

EDIT: Most of it was infact just my own rhetoric in explaining why i approved.

It is the same thing, you both 'FEEL' the same way, it's just that you have confused words with 'feelings'. Words are translated into 'feeling', some people require certain words spoken in a certain cadence and tone in order for them to convey a certain feeling. Unfortunately when reading another's texts, you have to use your imagination to interpret the tone and cadence of another's speech, making interpretation a little difficult. Hence why it's so easy to misunderstand each other, than if you confront each other face to face.

Well I understand that. But even trying to picture his perspective on it, I think he's talking about the creation of material destruction. That there had to be material reality before there was destruction of it. Which I agree with too.

I was trying to say how creation is Gods destruction, the other end of the spectrum. God, the alpha and the omega. Aware of nothing, the truth taught by the lie of I am, the void...when any thing comes into being, God is no longer God.

'God', or now an observer of something, could be this thing being aware of itself, or perhaps another thing perceiving the existence of the first thing.

But God is still all, and all is still nothing, and when the thing is no longer perceived, God is still God.

All foma, but I still thought it was different foma.

I think i get what you're saying - that the creation of reality was god's final act.

In which case my method would still be true, because - as you said - he would be creating his own destruction.

I had tried to approach the issue without outside influence from such entities as 'god' or whatever, when in reality it's probably easier to do so.

EDIT: Perhaps a better explanation would be that it was a similar conclusion, but from a different angle, instead of method.

I am sure the bible has an answer to your question somewhere.

Do what the horoscopes and well....christains do.....read the overgeneralized text and MAKE it fit what you want it to. You will find your answer in the greatest story ever sold.

My opinion however is this.........God can do whatever you want him do. If you believe he can destroy himself...he can.

If you believe god can shit ice cream .........he does.

As with any imaginary friend God can do whatever your imagination can create......he is a wonderfully comical imaginary friend for grown ups.

enjoy.

I am sure the bible has an answer to your question somewhere.

Do what the horoscopes and well....christains do.....read the overgeneralized text and MAKE it fit what you want it to. You will find your answer in the greatest story ever sold.

My opinion however is this.........God can do whatever you want him do. If you believe he can destroy himself...he can.

If you believe god can shit ice cream .........he does.

As with any imaginary friend God can do whatever your imagination can create......he is a wonderfully comical imaginary friend for grown ups.

enjoy.

*uses psychic powers*

Yep, he's jacking off on his own ego.

I think i get what you're saying - that the creation of reality was god's final act.

What does time have to do with it?

Gods final act? I think not. Everything is an act of God, as God is all.

In which case my method would still be true, because - as you said - he would be creating his own destruction.

Sure, although I didn't think you were saying anything about Gods destruction. I thought you were simply stating the creation of destruction within a perception of a material reality.

I had tried to approach the issue without outside influence from such entities as 'god' or whatever, when in reality it's probably easier to do so..

God is all there is.

*uses psychic powers*

Yep, he's jacking off on his own ego.


As if that isnt the whole point of this thread.

To behave in a psuedo intellectual fashion about what an imaginary being can or cannot do using any type of REASON and or LOGIC is a fallacy that usually comes from ego stroking.

God is all there is.

Perhaps, but people like BrokeProphet aren't about to accept that.

I'm just trying to progress in a way that doesn't have restrictions.

Perhaps, but people like BrokeProphet aren't about to accept that.

Who cares?

I'm just trying to progress in a way that doesn't have restrictions.

Progression is your restriction.

Who cares?



Progression is your restriction.

Ahem, that would certainly be true, but i forgot a few words in that last post.

I want to help others reach a better understanding of the universe they're in - if they are not prepared to accept that there is a great and underlying force lying just beneath the reality we perceive, then i must think for both myself and those who refuse to believe.

I only realised the sheer folly of this about a year ago - which was after i came up with that earlier inspiration.

So; It would've been something like 'I'm trying to progress in a way that others can benefit from.'.

EDIT: This is the result of my attempt to learn and comprehend what i have without the guidance of others, and i wouldn't advise it to anyone who didn't want to understand the various pitfalls of such a way of life.

It would've been something like 'I'm trying to progress in a way that others can benefit from.'.

EDIT: This is the result of my attempt to learn and comprehend what i have without the guidance of others, and i wouldn't advise it to anyone who didn't want to understand the various pitfalls of such a way of life.

Whatever you say.

dude, if you don't have anything decent to contribute, keep your fucking mouth shut.

It'll keep the place clean.

dude, if you don't have anything decent to contribute, keep your fucking mouth shut.

It'll keep the place clean.

You only perceive my contributions as not decent.

You only perceive my contributions as not decent.

Well in that case you only perceive my contributions as worthless and beneath your all-encompassing wisdom.

Stone-wall tactics, as i like to call them.

Well in that case you only perceive my contributions as worthless and beneath your all-encompassing wisdom.

How so?

How so?

Explain 'Whatever you say' in relation to my post, and i'll be able to answer your question.

Explain 'Whatever you say' in relation to my post, and i'll be able to answer your question.

I thought it was nicer then saying 'I don't really care'.

Whatever your reasons are, this 'progression' is restricting you from reaching truth. Thinking about it restricts you.

How do you know you are actually interacting with others?

What does it matter if they positively gain from your 'progression' or not?

Anything you believe about it all, restricts you from the truth.

God cannot be created nor destroyed.

I'm sorry you have that confused with physics. The first law of thermodynamics says energy cannot be created nor destroyed. Quit trying to steal from science to justify your insane beliefs.

I'm sorry you have that confused with physics. The first law of thermodynamics says energy cannot be created nor destroyed. Quit trying to steal from science to justify your insane beliefs.

Well, I wasn't thinking about that when I stated that, rest assured. Besides that sentence which you assume I stole, what else have I 'stolen' from science?

Insanity is perspective.

Well, I wasn't thinking about that when I stated that, rest assured. Besides that sentence which you assume I stole, what else have I 'stolen' from science?

Insanity is perspective.

HA! Yea ok let me waste my time browsing forums to see what you say. Also if you say God cannot be created and destroyed then why not use Occam's razor and say the Universe cannot be created or destroyed, and save yourself a step.

HA! Yea ok let me waste my time browsing forums to see what you say.

Then don't try telling me what I should not use to justify any beliefs you think I have without even knowing if I regularly justify said beliefs with whatever you are telling me not to use.

Also if you say God cannot be created and destroyed then why not use Occam's razor and say the Universe cannot be created or destroyed, and save yourself a step.

Why not use Occam's razor and say {Reality/God} is?

Then don't try telling me what I should not use to justify any beliefs you think I have without even knowing if I regularly justify said beliefs with whatever you are telling me not to use.

So I assume you can justify God cannot be created or destroyed. I am sorry I am not smart enough to understand this. Can you please prove this to me? And before you tell me about how God works (I am assuming you believe in a judeo-chrisitan monotheistic God rather than Zeus or Posiedon or Thor, because those religions are old and foolish and yours is th correct one, right?) please prove to me that he exists.

To explain how something works without even proving its there is rather silly. What if I told you about Santa Claus and how his flying reindeer work, and many other intricate details of his life and you believe all this and want to ask him many questions. So you wait for him to come down the chimney to ask him and he never comes. Instead you see your parents walk into the room with presents and you say, "YOu guys have put presents here???!?!" You might be a little mad at me, and rightfully so, because I told you a fairy tale and never proved him to exist.



Why not use Occam's razor and say {Reality/God} is?

I don't understand this. Reality divided by God??? Or Reality over God? I think you are misusing Occam's razor.

So I assume you can justify God cannot be created or destroyed. I am sorry I am not smart enough to understand this. Can you please prove this to me? And before you tell me about how God works (I am assuming you believe in a judeo-chrisitan monotheistic God rather than Zeus or Posiedon or Thor, because those religions are old and foolish and yours is th correct one, right?) please prove to me that he exists.

The existence of God is not something which can be proven.

God cannot be created or destroyed, because at the 'level' of reality which is God, there is no time. There is no before or after, so there is no creation or destruction, there only is God.

I have no idea which religion this God 'fits' into. Maybe Hinduism (Brahman), and I'm sure I share many beliefs about how to live life with Buddhists. I think agnosticism, pantheism, solipsism, and a consistent or complete seeming interpretation of the reality (however you perceive it out of an infinite amount of possibilities) have helped me and probably others shape this concept. But don't think I am a religious man because I talk about God.

To explain how something works without even proving its there is rather silly.

To draw conclusions either way without evidence is foolish and unscientific.

But I am a fool, as is everyone, especially those who think they can see what God is doing or not.

What if I told you about Santa Claus and how his flying reindeer work, and many other intricate details of his life and you believe all this and want to ask him many questions. So you wait for him to come down the chimney to ask him and he never comes. Instead you see your parents walk into the room with presents and you say, "YOu guys have put presents here???!?!" You might be a little mad at me, and rightfully so, because I told you a fairy tale and never proved him to exist.

So...God = Santa?

Uh huh...

I don't understand this. Reality divided by God??? Or Reality over God? I think you are misusing Occam's razor.

'Reality' is interchangeable with 'God', and are both much better choices then the 'universe'. 'Is', is a much easier way of say the {reality/God} exists, without a specific 'time'.

The existence of God is not something which can be proven.

Hence the argument/hypothesis for God is worthless because un-testable things are worthless.


God cannot be created or destroyed, because at the 'level' of reality which is God, there is no time. There is no before or after, so there is no creation or destruction, there only is God.

Prove it. Prove God exists first, and then prove to me how it exists on its 'reality."


I have no idea which religion this God 'fits' into. Maybe Hinduism (Brahman), and I'm sure I share many beliefs about how to live life with Buddhists. I think agnosticism, pantheism, solipsism, and a consistent or complete seeming interpretation of the reality (however you perceive it out of an infinite amount of possibilities) have helped me and probably others shape this concept. But don't think I am a religious man because I talk about God.

Well it sounds that your belief may have helped you as a person, which is not a bad thing at all, and something totally different. However just because it helps you as a person doesn't make it true.



To draw conclusions either way without evidence is foolish and unscientific.

Well the God hypothesis has been around probably almost as long as humans. There has been no demonstrational proof for his existence since the conception of one of the many religions. It is pretty safe to say there is almost certainly no God.


But I am a fool, as is everyone, especially those who think they can see what God is doing or not.

I agree.


So...God = Santa?

Uh huh...


You entirely missed the point I was making, and I am pretty sure a a child would of understood me. I was using Santa Claus as an example why telling you about how he exists and lives his life was useless because he is not proven to exist. Therefore I was wasting your time telling you all about him.


'Reality' is interchangeable with 'God', and are both much better choices then the 'universe'. 'Is', is a much easier way of say the {reality/God} exists, without a specific 'time'.

No, no, no.....your reality is interchangeable with God. What reality is, is accepting things based on evidence and rational, not some belief because you are afraid to let go. Your reality is actually a delusion.

And to say your reality or God belief is easier than saying the universe is totally wrong. We know the universe exists because we can observe it. We cannot observe God.

Therefore reality=universe.

I thought it was nicer then saying 'I don't really care'.

Whatever your reasons are, this 'progression' is restricting you from reaching truth. Thinking about it restricts you.

How do you know you are actually interacting with others?

What does it matter if they positively gain from your 'progression' or not?

Anything you believe about it all, restricts you from the truth.

I can understand honesty far better than i can misdirection.

And you probably know it's quite difficult to present something that happened in the past in the present, when such theories have matured into something with relevant meaning.

Those ideas, those thoughts i had back then were the product of an idealistic and inspired mind, so naturally i wanted to help others reach a similar state of mental health.

I now 'know' that this has probably happened more times than one would reasonably count.

I can understand honesty far better than i can misdirection.

And you probably know it's quite difficult to present something that happened in the past in the present, when such theories have matured into something with relevant meaning.

Those ideas, those thoughts i had back then were the product of an idealistic and inspired mind, so naturally i wanted to help others reach a similar state of mental health.

I now 'know' that this has probably happened more times than one would reasonably count.

Yes, whatever you say.

Hence the argument/hypothesis for God is worthless because un-testable things are worthless.

Thats a matter of perspective.

Prove it.

Impossible.

...just because it helps you as a person doesn't make it true.

Everything is as true as nothing. And all religion is mostly foma.

Well the God hypothesis has been around probably almost as long as humans. There has been no demonstrational proof for his existence since the conception of one of the many religions. It is pretty safe to say there is almost certainly no God.

Saying so would be unscientific. And everything is, ahem, 'proof' of Gods existence, depending on the perspective.

I was wasting your time telling you all about him.

Only if you perceive it as so.

No, no, no.....your reality is interchangeable with God. What reality is, is accepting things based on evidence and rational, not some belief because you are afraid to let go. Your reality is actually a delusion.

All realities are illusions. I only explained myself there because you asked me.

And to say your reality or God belief is easier than saying the universe is totally wrong. We know the universe exists because we can observe it. We cannot observe God.

Therefore reality=universe.

Look into solipsism.

God is limited to the human imagination.

That is why the OP's original scenarios and argument can be debated until the end of time as we know it. God cannot be percieved outside that which created him. The human imagination. Everything that the human mind would trouble itself in relation to the all powerful becomes speculation with no right or wrong answers.

Those who would say.....we cannot percieve god beyond our simple mortal minds shows that he is truly divine. Then what does the divine offer us beyond our own imagination? Nothing.

I would say the reverse is true. B/C God is limited by our imagination he is therefore a product of it.

Thats a matter of perspective.


Yes, well there is perspective, and then there is something which is more useful to humans than perspective.....ready for this??? The Truth

Perspective is of no use to the human species. This is because although perspective can perhaps advance the human endeavor, it cannot do it at a rate at which the truth does. I'll cite the examples of Pythagoras, Plato and Aristotle. While they may have been mystics they did have a basic understanding of math and science, but instead of embracing its truth they used it to further their mystical beliefs, or what you may call a perspective.

If the scientific method of Aristarchus, Hypatia and Democritus and other ancient Ionian scientists was not lost due to the Catholic Church persecuting them for what they thought inside their own head and wrote down on paper, then perhaps we would be far more technologically advanced and not have had to suffer through 1000 years of darkness.

When the Ionian scientist's methods were used again, by people such as Copernicus and Kepler, then the truth advanced our species at a much faster rate then the mystics perspective.

Also things un-testable are totally worthless. I can say I can say there is a dragon in my garage and when you come over to see it i can make up a whole bunch of reasons why it is invisible. According to you you should believe the person, because, even though un-testable, its based on what that person has perceived to be true. Humans are poor observers. I suggest you invest yourself in some skeptical thinking.


Saying so would be unscientific. And everything is, ahem, 'proof' of Gods existence, depending on the perspective.


Proof doesn't care about perspective. A proof doesn't dance around. It either proves something or not, and it is not a perspective.


All realities are illusions. I only explained myself there because you asked me.


Reality is reality, and an illusion is an illusion. Reality is discovered by humans, while illusions are created by humans. Sorry, to burst your bubble on that.


Look into solipsism.

I know all about it, and look how far that has gotten us.

_______________________

I am through arguing with you. You offer no valid points or anything new. You keep re-stating useless "perspectives" over and over.

You lose, sorry.

EDIT: LOL!! I just looked into the disproven thread and saw carl sagans arguement with the dragon in the garage posted by brokenprophet.

Yes, well there is perspective, and then there is something which is more useful to humans than perspective.....ready for this??? The Truth

Truth, even those things which you believe to to be proven through scientific method, is actually only perspective.

Even thoughts representing any truths would be lies.

When the Ionian scientist's methods were used again, by people such as Copernicus and Kepler, then the truth advanced our species at a much faster rate then the mystics perspective.

Like this for instance. You don't know that, you don't know any of it happened. It could have happened, but theres also an infinite number of other paths that could have led to this 'moment.'

Also things un-testable are totally worthless. I can say I can say there is a dragon in my garage and when you come over to see it i can make up a whole bunch of reasons why it is invisible. According to you you should believe the person, because, even though un-testable, its based on what that person has perceived to be true. Humans are poor observers. I suggest you invest yourself in some skeptical thinking.

Where did I say you should believe its true because someone else says so? If anything, you are more likely to say this here.

Go back to the disproven thread, and look at my reply to it.

Proof doesn't care about perspective. A proof doesn't dance around. It either proves something or not, and it is not a perspective.

Sure it is.

God is all, and all is illusion. All is one, God is one, and you are God.

Reality is reality, and an illusion is an illusion. Reality is discovered by humans, while illusions are created by humans. Sorry, to burst your bubble on that.

How do you think you burst anything?

Sorry, but you only think you live in a 'consensual reality', you believe what can be 'backed up' by others and repeatable experiments. Both of which can be included as parts of the illusion you experience as 'reality'.

I know all about it, and look how far that has gotten us.

Us? Huh....

I am through arguing with you. You offer no valid points or anything new. You keep re-stating useless "perspectives" over and over.

Yep. Thats me.

You lose, sorry.

Lose what? Did someone win something?