Can God...

Borommakot · Post by **Borommakot** » Thu Feb 22, 2007 1:57 pm

Can god create a rock he can't pick up?

Elizabeth Isabelle · Post by **Elizabeth Isabelle** » Thu Feb 22, 2007 2:02 pm

If He decides to.

Shahrazad · Post by **Shahrazad** » Thu Feb 22, 2007 2:14 pm

Define God.

Dionysius the Undying · Thu Feb 22, 2007 2:16 pm

Please tell me you're simplying trolling and--in order to gather a few oh so precious shreds of attention which you will then proceed to hug to your pathetic Woo-minly bosom while wimpering softly in ecstasy at the fact that somebody, anybody, is actually paying attention to you--you've posted the oldest, most anemic pseudo-philosophical argument you could scrounge out of the dilapadated gutter that is academic philosophy?

I tell you what. Let's entertain, just for fun, the mind-numbling simplistic definition of "God" that you seem to have dredged up before us. According to the classic definition of "God", "God" is a Supreme Being who is omnipotent. Now, very likely, because omnipotent is a word that contains several syllables, you were probably told at some point that "God" is big man who can do anything. More accurately, God is omnipotent, which means "every potency" which means God is capable of every potency---everything that it is possible to do, God can do.

The question: "Can God create a rock he can't pick up?" is a logical impossibility since it violates the logical definition of God's nature---omnipotence. You might as well ask: "Is A not A in the same way, at the same time?"

A logical impossibility is exactly that---an impossibility. Assuming God exists according to the classical definition, the fact that he cannot perform logical impossibilities in no way diminishes his power or makes him anything less than omnipotent.

For that matter, the archaic formulation of "God" you are operating under implies God is infinite. To make a rock he can't lift, he'd have to make a rock that is larger than infinity itself. By definition, rocks are finite, not infinite. Your question contradicts itself even in its formulation of "rock"!

Of course, the one dimensional Judeo-Christian fable your question implies is itself completely ridiculous.

Elizabeth Isabelle · Post by **Elizabeth Isabelle** » Thu Feb 22, 2007 2:56 pm

Let's hit this from 2 angles. If God can do literally anything, He could create a rock that he could not lift, but if in fact he could not lift it, then there would be something He could not do - so to side-step this, He both could and could not lift the rock, depending on what He decided He could or could not do at that time. In that way, He could both lift and could not lift the rock - thus able to do both.

If we are referring to the Totality, then what lifting could possibly be involved? The Totality has omnipresence, so all rocks are currently simultaniously being lifted by the Totality and not able to be lifted by the Totality (as there is no direction in omnipresence to lift to). It is all a matter of how one decides, or many decide, to look at it.

HUNTEDvsINVIS · Post by **HUNTEDvsINVIS** » Fri Feb 23, 2007 2:29 am

I remember solving the "which came first, the chicken or the egg" thing once. But now I can't remember how I solved it. I also made a range of jokes about "why did the chicken cross the road", which no one laughed at or liked : (

Why did the chicken cross the road?
To make a yoke.

Why did the road cross the road?
To make a fork.

Why did the scitzofrenic cross the road?
To get to his other side.

Why did the cow cross the road?
To get to the other hide.

I'm scarred for life...But I refuse to make jokes about naked people.

Elizabeth Isabelle · Post by **Elizabeth Isabelle** » Fri Feb 23, 2007 3:22 am

HUNTEDvsINVIS wrote:I remember solving the "which came first, the chicken or the egg" thing once. But now I can't remember how I solved it.

The egg came first because the thing that laid the egg of the first chicken would be something in the evolutionary pattern that was not yet quite a chicken. The first chicken was a mutant of its predecesor species.

Heheh, "tastes just like mutant."
.

Diebert van Rhijn · Post by **Diebert van Rhijn** » Fri Feb 23, 2007 6:36 am

HUNTEDvsINVIS wrote:I remember solving the "which came first, the chicken or the egg" thing once. But now I can't remember how I solved it.

There's only one meaningful answer possible: the rooster.

Or at least the one creating the dilemma in the first place.

Borommakot · Post by **Borommakot** » Fri Feb 23, 2007 4:06 pm

OK.

Can a man who can do anything he wants to do, create a rock he can't pick up?

Let's not get all cosmic with the "finite" definition of rocks and other "stuff". I think it is much simpler than that

I think it is based solely upon his will. The man would create a rock that he would never pick up, because he would know exactly what he would and would not want to do in the future, and create the rock accordingly, or dub some other object that he would never want to pick up "Rock".

I think this is a perfect example of simple human logic in simple human words, without fancy terms that humans can define but never understand.

Diebert van Rhijn · Post by **Diebert van Rhijn** » Fri Feb 23, 2007 11:42 pm

Borommakot wrote: Can a man who can do anything he wants to do, create a rock he can't pick up?

I think it is based solely upon his will. The man would create a rock that he would never pick up, because he would know exactly what he would and would not want to do in the future, and create the rock accordingly, or dub some other object that he would never want to pick up "Rock".

I see some errors in your logic. You just introduce omni-science to make omni-potency work. And you change the meaning of "can not" into "don't want to".

You have now translated the question into "can some entity fashion his own will in such manner that he can prevent him changing his mind in the future".

Like: "can a computer reprogram itself to prevent future reprogramming by himself".

The answer will be in both cases: yes! But with the twist that the entity radically changed its own predefined nature. You let the entity become self-limiting and that will turn it into a limited entity, a different one from the one you started with, that is: an entity with some unlimited possibility.

One could say: God can create a limited creature who creates a stone that is beyond this creatures capacity to lift. The logical error made in many other versions is that a omnipotent God cannot be said to do 'this' or 'that' without contradicting omnipotence in itself. Every action, every will, every potential is a self-limiting act by definition and as such cannot imply an omnipotent 'actor' of some kind that remains unchanged by it.

Unless you want to get 'all cosmic'.

Matt Gregory · Post by **Matt Gregory** » Fri Feb 23, 2007 11:50 pm

Yeah, God can't do anything without denying himself the ability to do the opposite at that time, so the omnipotence of doing stuff is totally incoherent.

Borommakot · Post by **Borommakot** » Sat Feb 24, 2007 12:32 pm

I see some errors in your logic. You just introduce omni-science to make omni-potency work. And you change the meaning of "can not" into "don't want to".

What I said was, that God would simply look into the future, realize the one or more things that he will never do, and dub that "picking up a rock."

Trevor Salyzyn · Post by **Trevor Salyzyn** » Sat Feb 24, 2007 12:52 pm

Can god create a rock he can't pick up?

No, due to contradictory premises.

For instance:

Premise 1: God can perform all conceivable actions upon any given object.
Premise 2: There is an object which cannot have all conceivable actions performed upon it.
Conclusion: An object which cannot have all conceivable actions performed upon it can have all conceivable actions performed upon it.

I think the problem comes in when you introduce the word "create". When something is created, it is never created from nothing. It would have to, at the very least, be created from God. Creation is a process of change, not magic.

Diebert van Rhijn · Post by **Diebert van Rhijn** » Sat Feb 24, 2007 8:52 pm

Borommakot wrote: What I said was, that God would simply look into the future, realize the one or more things that he will never do, and dub that "picking up a rock."

But you're introducing new unmovable and unquestioned 'facts', don't you see?

a. that God can look into the future without any restriction
b. that God when looking into his own future cannot change his mind, that he is victim of his own fate.
c. that there are things he will 'never do' at all, ever?
d. that God is making definitions like "picking up a rock" but cannot touch definitions 'God', 'never doing' or 'future'.

So effectively all that you are doing is creating your own personal contradicting image of God which only suits your beliefs.

Katy · Post by **Katy** » Sat Feb 24, 2007 9:19 pm

HUNTEDvsINVIS wrote: Why did the scitzofrenic cross the road?
To get to his other side.

schizophrenic. And I think perhaps you are thinking of a dissociative disorder. Many people confuse them, but they are quite distinct in reality.

HUNTEDvsINVIS · Post by **HUNTEDvsINVIS** » Mon Feb 26, 2007 3:55 pm

What is the most difficult question in the world and what is the answer? [question from Mensa puzzle book ][ too easy to be in a Mensa puzzle book, but hey.]

Faust · Post by **Faust** » Mon Feb 26, 2007 4:56 pm

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:
HUNTEDvsINVIS wrote:I remember solving the "which came first, the chicken or the egg" thing once. But now I can't remember how I solved it.
The egg came first because the thing that laid the egg of the first chicken would be something in the evolutionary pattern that was not yet quite a chicken. The first chicken was a mutant of its predecesor species.

Heheh, "tastes just like mutant."
.

Wrong. I actually solved this problem yesterday. The chicken came first for the same evolutionary reason that the human adult came first and not the totally vulnerable baby. Well has it been solved?

HUNTEDvsINVIS · Post by **HUNTEDvsINVIS** » Mon Feb 26, 2007 5:54 pm

Yes, Faust13, that would be the obvious answer. However, if The Original Egg was made first, and by An Unknown Force such as God, it would simply mean that God would have kept The Egg warm in a special incubation system for a period. Then, when The Egg became a Total Original Chicken, it could do the incubation and chick protection against Mean Evil Bogus yet Beautiful Unoriginal or Original Eagles or Other Foe. Now you might say "Darn, Sally, why all the hassle when he coulda just made The Original Chicken first to do all the Original Dirty Work itself?" Well, because it is not certain wether or not it would be more ENERGY and RESOURCES to create The Original Chicken or Incubate and Protect the Original Chicken Egg. There is a vast difference, and the circumstances may not be known. darn, I got class now, gotta run. Doing Postmodernism. What a money sham that concept was. I'll put it on its head.

PS: No one gonna try my MENSA shmensa puzzle? That one was probably the easiest in the whole book. So I guess the others make up for it.

HUNTEDvsINVIS · Post by **HUNTEDvsINVIS** » Mon Feb 26, 2007 11:39 pm

The most difficult question in the world is "what is the most difficult question in the world and what is the answer?" And the answer is "what is the most difficult question in the world and what is the answer?"

DHodges · Post by **DHodges** » Tue Feb 27, 2007 12:05 am

Borommakot wrote:Can god create a rock he can't pick up?

God can't do shit, on account of his nonexistence.

Elizabeth Isabelle · Post by **Elizabeth Isabelle** » Tue Feb 27, 2007 2:02 am

Faust13 wrote:
Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:
HUNTEDvsINVIS wrote:I remember solving the "which came first, the chicken or the egg" thing once. But now I can't remember how I solved it.
The egg came first because the thing that laid the egg of the first chicken would be something in the evolutionary pattern that was not yet quite a chicken. The first chicken was a mutant of its predecesor species.

Heheh, "tastes just like mutant."
.
Wrong. I actually solved this problem yesterday. The chicken came first for the same evolutionary reason that the human adult came first and not the totally vulnerable baby. Well has it been solved?

And how that came to be was that God said "Let there be chicken" and there was?
.

GENIUS FORUMS

Can God...

Can God...

Forget god

Re: Forget god

Re: Can God...