Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
MolotovCocktail

Can God create a rock so heavy he can't lift it?

Recommended Posts

I deal with this question by assuming that the laws of logical construction would apply to a deity that exists beyond our universe anyway. So, the type of "yesno" answer that Sayo gave would make any sense to humans, but that doesn't mean it doesn't work for God.

 

BTW - our custom user titles are surprisingly similiar, sayo. :P but, hey, who doesn't love to eat?

 

PS. - this thread is on the religion watch... keep it civil and as clean as possible, because *technically* this type of thread isn't allowed in this forums.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So, what is your take on this question? It just popped into my head just now and I'm not sure what to think.

 

 

I think the general consensus is that the slaves went on strike, though that is very speculative. Maybe it is just art.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It sounds like a paradox. God would have to create a surface with gravity that was big enough to hold the rock and god; a planet I would think. The planet will be bigger so it now it need a bigger surface to lift the planet. It doesn't seem to have an end.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, but he choses not to. Also God doesn't exist.

 

Don't we have theologyforums.net for stuff like this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you have a heavy object, let's say it weighs 10 tonnes, on a table; could you lift it? If you were stood next to the table and attempted to lift the object you may provide 100Kg of upward force. This would be translated to the floor where you were stood. You would have moved 100Kg of downward force from the table to the floor. The total downward force on the floor wouldn't change because you and the table, with the weight on it, are on the floor.

 

My question now is, have you lifted the weight off the table a very small amount?

 

The weight doesn't touch the table because of the electron force. You have removed some of the pressure on the electron force between the weight and the table. Has the weight been lifted a very small amount? If it has then anyone can lift any weight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, stuff like friction means that forces have to be within a certain range, above a minimum amount, to move objects and it's not just a case of a tiny force always resulting in a teeny tiny acceleration.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is an example of the sort of question that proves that omnipotence is meaningless. Another classic example is Can God set himself a task he acnnot acomplish?"

There is the related matter "Does God know of question to which he doesn't know the answer?" which proves He's not omniscient too.

All this is great fun, but the theologists got there first and redefined omnipotence to exclude questions like this. Devout believers just ignore the fact that their omnipotent omniscient God is neither.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is an example of the sort of question that proves that omnipotence is meaningless.

 

Or at least, our ability to conceptualize the omnipotence of a diety is meaningless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Or at least, our ability to conceptualize the omnipotence of a diety is meaningless.

ecoli has stumbled, erm (I mean carefully found his way to) a good point perhaps these questions simply can't be answered by us mere mortals, on that note I think we should move on from this topic of discussion... :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

my favorite is could he microwave a burrito so hot, he himself could not eat it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OMG. All of a sudden, it was right there. All of sudden, it all worked out right. 2 plus 2 actually equals ... 4! It had to be the lightning bolt dude.

 

(Of course, I have a doctor's excuse. My computational ability has been running at about 70 or 80% lately. However, after 13 years, I am within 2 or 3 weeks of being almost completely painfree. Still not sure how the pain messes me up that way.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or in the words of Homer Simpson, "Could God microwave a burrito so hot that even he couldn't eat it?"

 

I'm going to agree that the question is meaningless. Each term precludes the other from signifying anything. If God is omnipotent, then the phrase "a rock so heavy he can't lift it" is empty of all meaning, so the question doesn't make sense. It's like asking, "Am I bigger than a flibbertysnot?" The word "flibbertysnot" has no meaning, and so the question is not a question except grammatically.

 

It is also similar to the often-asked question, "What happens when an irresistible force meets an immovable object?" If one exists, then by definition, the other can't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, if these aliens came storming out of the sky on their flying chariots, parting the red sea with a giant lifeboat, not to mention dying it red beforehand, and doing all kinds of genetic experiments on you and obliterating your cities with fire and brimstone. I bet if they did this, then they could probably make you say, "OK, OK, you can be God!" At which point, they say, "Upon this Rock, I shall build my church. All you have to do is move it for me because I don't really feel like it anymore."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Conclusion: It's impossible for a entity to have all positive properties

 

If IMM were still around, she'd probably bring up the example of "Is God simultaneously 4 and 6 feet tall?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Conclusion: It's impossible for a entity to have all positive properties

 

If IMM were still around, she'd probably bring up the example of "Is God simultaneously 4 and 6 feet tall?"

 

I see this thread going in circles...

 

I would answer that, we don't understand God, so he could be 4 and 6 ft, and 0 ft and a million feet, and anything else all simultaneously, and non-simultaneously and blah blah blah.

 

Trying to describe God using human language automatically makes Him impossible to understand. Existing in the unverise disqualifies us from being able to understand. This is, according to kabbalistic, Jewish tradition, anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm no theologist, but I think the Christian version of the explanation is pretty much the same (no suprises there). Of course it's equally possible that this explanation was put forward by a bunch of priests who didn't want the masses coming up with logic as a reason to disbelieve the priests and therefore remove their power.

Can anyone thing of a way to distinguish these 2 possible reasons for the statement that "God is beyond any human's understanding and beyond logic"?

It could be true or it could be a good cover story.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm no theologist, but I think the Christian version of the explanation is pretty much the same (no suprises there). Of course it's equally possible that this explanation was put forward by a bunch of priests who didn't want the masses coming up with logic as a reason to disbelieve the priests and therefore remove their power.

Can anyone thing of a way to distinguish these 2 possible reasons for the statement that "God is beyond any human's understanding and beyond logic"?

It could be true or it could be a good cover story.

 

I don't think there's a way to distinguish. Afterall, there's no historical record to prove the preists making it up and there's no physical record to prove that it's true.

 

It comes down to faith. If you can believe than you do. If you can't believe it, then you don't. And to be sure, there's plenty of people that stand in between... Who would like to believe, and sometimes do, but are held back from fanaticism by skepticism. I think this is a healthy medium.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems the only religions that remain in the world are the ones that we can't explain away so easily due to faith.

Example. No one still believes in any of the Greek Gods.

The Mayan's don't follow the nature Gods like they use too. http://www.religionfacts.com/mayan_religion/index.htm

Education. It has an effect on people. Seems almost every great mind was Atheist.

http://atheistempire.com/greatminds/index.php

"[The Bible is] a mass of fables and traditions, mere mythology." Mark Twain and the Bible

Ouch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Seems the only religions that remain in the world are the ones that we can't explain away so easily due to faith.

Example. No one still believes in any of the Greek Gods.

The Mayan's don't follow the nature Gods like they use too. http://www.religionfacts.com/mayan_religion/index.htm

Education. It has an effect on people. Seems almost every great mind was Atheist.

http://atheistempire.com/greatminds/index.php

"[The Bible is] a mass of fables and traditions, mere mythology." Mark Twain and the Bible

Ouch.

 

There's nothing wrong with faith, but going on simple probability, the chances of choosing the correct religion or believing the correct thing is close to zero. The logical mind would conclude that God(s), whatever the true one(s) is, doesn't care what religion you actually believe, as long as you are a moral person... or that God doesn't exist at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There's nothing wrong with faith, but going on simple probability, the chances of choosing the correct religion or believing the correct thing is close to zero. The logical mind would conclude that God(s), whatever the true one(s) is, doesn't care what religion you actually believe, as long as you are a moral person... or that God doesn't exist at all.

I agree. Nothing wrong with faith. In fact if we were all afraid of burning for sins the streets would be a little safer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think there is any thing wrong with faith, and in fact I think we do need faith in something (such as faith in the scientific method).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can pretty much go in circles forever. You can say, "God doesn't have to comply with logic we understand, He's incomprehensible." To which I can reply, "If you're positting an entity about which nothing can be said and which we can have zero comprehension of, then you're not thinking about anything at all, and the word 'God' doesn't signify anything," to which you can counter, "But that's part of the incomprehensibility!" to which I say, "But that's just tautological nonsense!" to which you say, "Such is the irreducibility of faith," at which point we have no choice but to just go drinking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You can pretty much go in circles forever. You can say, "God doesn't have to comply with logic we understand, He's incomprehensible." To which I can reply, "If you're positting an entity about which nothing can be said and which we can have zero comprehension of, then you're not thinking about anything at all, and the word 'God' doesn't signify anything," to which you can counter, "But that's part of the incomprehensibility!" to which I say, "But that's just tautological nonsense!" to which you say, "Such is the irreducibility of faith," at which point we have no choice but to just go drinking.

sounds good to me....

 

j/k, i'm under 21, and would never consume alcohol illegally ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.