By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General - Can God create a rock so big that he can't lift it?

Well to simply end this before it ever takes off (damn too late but oh well) got is usually defined as omnipotent which is defined as being able to do anything that is logically possible. In other words it would be contradictory for even a deity to be able to do something that contradicts itself (such as this case) which is why most consider him to be omnipotent instead. Same argument with all-knowing. Like the common conception of all-powerful, the instead consider him to be omniscience where he is able to know everything that is possible to know without the mistake of logical contradiction.


In other words the argument against this has always been that god can contradict himself when in reality that would suggest that god is above those rules. Problem with the dissenters arguments it that if he were above this then he would indeed not follow worldly rules to begin with (which isn't a great argument against but a nice rebuttal). Second what they are staying is simply focusing on a single case of the instance. Such as this one provided, they can rebuttal that for a simple scenario but once the distinction is made they have no argument against what is stated. Basically that argument doesn't deny the existence of god yet simply shows that it needs clarification (while still working with the original argument) as mine has proven so easily.

So do tell your friend this and I'm sure he'll shut up quite quickly. That or he'll simply go back to the original scenario despite being defeated which is of course illogical.



Around the Network
Zucas said:
Well to simply end this before it ever takes off (damn too late but oh well) got is usually defined as omnipotent which is defined as being able to do anything that is logically possible. In other words it would be contradictory for even a deity to be able to do something that contradicts itself (such as this case) which is why most consider him to be omnipotent instead. Same argument with all-knowing. Like the common conception of all-powerful, the instead consider him to be omniscience where he is able to know everything that is possible to know without the mistake of logical contradiction.


In other words the argument against this has always been that god can contradict himself when in reality that would suggest that god is above those rules. Problem with the dissenters arguments it that if he were above this then he would indeed not follow worldly rules to begin with (which isn't a great argument against but a nice rebuttal). Second what they are staying is simply focusing on a single case of the instance. Such as this one provided, they can rebuttal that for a simple scenario but once the distinction is made they have no argument against what is stated. Basically that argument doesn't deny the existence of god yet simply shows that it needs clarification (while still working with the original argument) as mine has proven so easily.

So do tell your friend this and I'm sure he'll shut up quite quickly. That or he'll simply go back to the original scenario despite being defeated which is of course illogical.

lol. i enjoyed reading that post.

i think you pretty much nailed it on the head why it is such a stupid fucking question. its like he thinks he is being deep, but it is just a display of his own stupidety for asking it.

 



Total Championships: Nintendo - 4, Sony - 2, Atari - 1, Microsoft - 0, Sega - 0

angrypoolman said:
Zucas said:
Well to simply end this before it ever takes off (damn too late but oh well) got is usually defined as omnipotent which is defined as being able to do anything that is logically possible. In other words it would be contradictory for even a deity to be able to do something that contradicts itself (such as this case) which is why most consider him to be omnipotent instead. Same argument with all-knowing. Like the common conception of all-powerful, the instead consider him to be omniscience where he is able to know everything that is possible to know without the mistake of logical contradiction.


In other words the argument against this has always been that god can contradict himself when in reality that would suggest that god is above those rules. Problem with the dissenters arguments it that if he were above this then he would indeed not follow worldly rules to begin with (which isn't a great argument against but a nice rebuttal). Second what they are staying is simply focusing on a single case of the instance. Such as this one provided, they can rebuttal that for a simple scenario but once the distinction is made they have no argument against what is stated. Basically that argument doesn't deny the existence of god yet simply shows that it needs clarification (while still working with the original argument) as mine has proven so easily.

So do tell your friend this and I'm sure he'll shut up quite quickly. That or he'll simply go back to the original scenario despite being defeated which is of course illogical.

lol. i enjoyed reading that post.

i think you pretty much nailed it on the head why it is such a stupid fucking question. its like he thinks he is being deep, but it is just a display of his own stupidety for asking it.

 

O_O



SimonSaysFYou said:
Soriku said:


Wow...this is a great post. Actually makes sense. I'm Christian so I think God is omnipotent but since you actually used some good examples from the Bible I'll be inclined to believe you.

@Words

But how do you make a rock? :P

From nothing, obviously. the Big Bang makes sO0ooo0 much sense.

Oh my word, please tell me that you accept the Big Bang theory?

Have you ever watched TV? It wouldn't be possible if it wasn't for the Big Bang. 

I mean the measurements of cosmic background radiation proves it alone. The Planck probe has pretty much gathered enough evidence over the past month or so to more or less make it a law.

The big bang theory is fact.

I could give you facts and statistics proving it all day, but I don't want to seem more like a jerk than I already do after the DUI thread.

 



Presuming God does exist then I could think he could create a rock so big he couldn't lift it. The real question is why on earth would he. No, screw that. The real question is: Does your friend have so much time on his hands he spends it thinking up retarded questions?



 

 

Around the Network

I don't get why everyone is attacking this question as somehow being 'retarded'.

It's a classic paradox! It has been pondered by various theologians and philosophers for hundreds of years. It isn't a stupid question (but it isn't at all an original question either) to ask.



Zucas said:
Well to simply end this before it ever takes off (damn too late but oh well) got is usually defined as omnipotent which is defined as being able to do anything that is logically possible. In other words it would be contradictory for even a deity to be able to do something that contradicts itself (such as this case) which is why most consider him to be omnipotent instead. Same argument with all-knowing. Like the common conception of all-powerful, the instead consider him to be omniscience where he is able to know everything that is possible to know without the mistake of logical contradiction.


In other words the argument against this has always been that god can contradict himself when in reality that would suggest that god is above those rules. Problem with the dissenters arguments it that if he were above this then he would indeed not follow worldly rules to begin with (which isn't a great argument against but a nice rebuttal). Second what they are staying is simply focusing on a single case of the instance. Such as this one provided, they can rebuttal that for a simple scenario but once the distinction is made they have no argument against what is stated. Basically that argument doesn't deny the existence of god yet simply shows that it needs clarification (while still working with the original argument) as mine has proven so easily.

So do tell your friend this and I'm sure he'll shut up quite quickly. That or he'll simply go back to the original scenario despite being defeated which is of course illogical.

But why would God be above our laws of logic? Do you have evidence that a God would not have to follow our logic? Logic is logic, and if you twist it by saying Gods logic isn't our logic, then you have forced a change in the situation to one that no human could logically answer the question correctly, be they creationist or atheist. As you said it is a rebuttal, but not a good argument.

...

I argued that in a finite realm God can create a rock so large, of finite size, that God can't lift it. But in an infinite realm God could create a rock of infinite size and lift it.

(I also argued that an infinite God couldn't create a finite realm, thus not making the infinite God the creator of our finite Universe, but that's another thing altogether, let's not worry about that right now)

This neither proves nor disproves God as it gives two distinct answers.

I would say that my argument isn't effected by yours because I have used dual scenarios to attempt to counteract Gods infinite logic scenario.



wouldn't it be easier to answer these questions if we all just got high



 

 

DSLover said:
wouldn't it be easier to answer these questions if we all just got high

Thats what started the problem in the first place.  Hebrews and Native Americans used halucinating drugs, and many of their ideas about religion come from their experiences.

Chief Kokowuia saw spirits after he smoked marijuana, and Moses talked to God when he was burning bush on a mountain :)

The Bible has a talking donkey in it, don't try and tell me that somebody wasn't high when that story was started.



DSLover said:
wouldn't it be easier to answer these questions if we all just got high

Finally, someone is making sense in this thread at last lol.