A limit to God's power?

[lvlastermind]

If there is a god I'm positive that everyone out there would agree that his power is infinite. BUT. If God truely has infinite power is it possible for God to purposely make an object so heavy that he himself cannot lift it?

[olde drunk]

only IF s/he/it wanted to see what it felt like to be powerless!

love&peace,
olde drunk

[omin]

If there is a god I'm positive that everyone out there would agree that his power is infinite. BUT. If God truely has infinite power is it possible for God to purposely make an object so heavy that he himself cannot lift it?

I tried singing "99 Bottles of Beer on the Wall". I got bored and quit, because the song took to long to finish, so I never experienced the song in it's entirety. When I tried to think of infinity and endless space, I never got there, the same thing happened.

Infinity is finite. I'll prove it. Take for instance mass. Mass may be imaginatively split infinitely. The parts may be imaginatively split but physically they do not increase or decrease in mass, so parts are always finite. Is the universe infinite? Every finite piece can make up a finite whole. How could finite peices make an infinity? An infinite amount of peices. But try to imagine that. Infinity must be finite. Afterall, that's all I've experienced of it.

[Prometheus]

If there is a god I'm positive that everyone out there would agree that his power is infinite.

If there is a god, most people would not accept it, so your point is not valid. How could you be positive about this, anyway?

BUT. If God truely has infinite power is it possible for God to purposely make an object so heavy that he himself cannot lift it?

Infinite power is a meaningless catch phrase. What do you mean by it?

If you mean that he has sufficient power to make an object blah blah, then yes. If you don't, then no.

[Scott Sieger]

I woudl think this God could de-create anything he creates simply because he knows how to.......

[olde drunk]

I tried singing "99 Bottles of Beer on the Wall". I got bored and quit, because the song took to long to finish, so I never experienced the song in it's entirety. When I tried to think of infinity and endless space, I never got there, the same thing happened.

Infinity is finite. I'll prove it. Take for instance mass. Mass may be imaginatively split infinitely. The parts may be imaginatively split but physically they do not increase or decrease in mass, so parts are always finite. Is the universe infinite? Every finite piece can make up a finite whole. How could finite peices make an infinity? An infinite amount of peices. But try to imagine that. Infinity must be finite. Afterall, that's all I've experienced of it.
that only deals with physical parts. what if these parts are made of an unlimited form of energy that can be reduced, not divided??

by the same token, what if the energy can join with other units of energy, an infinite number, and make infinite combinations and amounts??

love&peace,
olde drunk

[cronxeh]

this whole debate is so stupid and every question has a self-stupifying answer like 'only if he wanted to see what its liek to be powerless'

god doesnt exist. neither does hell/heaven/demons or any of that crap you were fed as a child. get a grip and see whats wrong with this world - religion.

[THANOS]

I think that there is finite matter in this universe but the matter itself is infinite in age.

[omin]

[QUOTE=olde drunk]what if these parts are made of an unlimited form of energy that can be reduced, not divided?

All things of the world are physical. All things that can be sensed are sensed directly by the human senses or through human instrumentation that brings effects of physical things to human senses. All things physical, representing everything sensable, are known only because they become thought. Thought represents only human sense (five of them). We may only disuss what we think. All things that we think are physically derived. Energy is percieved by humans. So, energy is physical.

All things known are physical. What is known is limited by temporality of our consciousness. Everyones 'unlimited' or 'infinity' concept has a different value based upon their cognitive experience.

All things sensed have scope. 'Unilimited' energy is percieved only as finite, because it has a value according to ther person's mind and instrumentation bringing it to mind. All things that have a scope can be divided to the limits of perception and mechanical ability. Energy can be divided.

Infinity seems to be just a finite property, the property of addition, which needs the assuption that one can comprehend having added matter forever or pulled two peices of matter away from each other forever and use it in the same sentence.

Infinity means 'a finite thought' + nothing.

[omin]

god doesnt exist. neither does hell/heaven/demons or any of that crap you were fed as a child. get a grip and see whats wrong with this world - religion.

This sounds like an appeal to ignorance. Am I correct?

God cannot be proven to exist. God cannot be proven to not exist. Therefore, God doesn't exist.

I can use the same premises to conclude the converse.

God cannot be proven to exist. God cannot be proven to not exist. Therefore, God does exist.

I think it's understood for convience to say God doesn't exist, but in terms of logic it appears to be an appeal to ignorance. Is there an argument that proves otherwise?

Proof means representation of 'what exists'. Can I prove the word nothing represents 'empty' in the phrase 'the glass is half empty'?

Think of all the space occuring around the objects in your immediate environment. Now imagine all things sensed dissapear. Something positive always comes to mind when this is attempted. Thoughts only represent positive things.

I can prove the glass is half full, because I can compare it with a glass that is full.

Can I prove the glass is half empty with a glass that has no water in it? If you say yes, what have you proven? I think only positive things are infered here. Here is a glass. And here is a glass that is half full.

God doesn't exist means [negation]God. There must first be a sensed God to negate. And negation is based upon the property of displacement, since energy is neither created or destroyed.

get a grip and see whats wrong with this world - religion.

I agree that religious theories do create mental disorder and are harmful to society. The most popular religious theories today are political and mainstream television. Most of us traded a bible for prime time and politics.

[Scott Sieger]

God cannot be proven to exist. God cannot be proven to not exist. Therefore, God doesn't exist.
wouldn't a better conclusion be God's existence or non existence remains the subject of debate? ha ........I couldn't resist :wink:

[Tom McCurdy]

Infinity is finite. I'll prove it. Take for instance mass. Mass may be imaginatively split infinitely. The parts may be imaginatively split but physically they do not increase or decrease in mass, so parts are always finite. Is the universe infinite? Every finite piece can make up a finite whole. How could finite peices make an infinity? An infinite amount of peices. But try to imagine that. Infinity must be finite. Afterall, that's all I've experienced of it.

Infinity is not finite
Infinity is limitless... things can be larger or smaller infinities in the way they grow, however they are not finite. Your proof is flawed in many ways an obvious way being that mass CANNOT be split forever. You could only "split" it to its basic constitutients aka strings for ur stringest or some other fundamental particle.

[Tom McCurdy]

Also on god being proven or disproved. I believe both are possible however plausable is a very different story. We may one day be able to develop a way to understand the universe to a point that the current state of our feeble minds would not be able to comprehend. And for the religous folks out there the proving of God is a lot easier story... say the rapture occurs well... that should be a clue or for whatever reason if you believe in God what would prevent him from comming down and enlightening us all of his existance.

[Yggdrasil]

Why would God waste his time making a rock so heavy that he can't lift it? Anyway, I can tell you a lot about God, just ask sometime.

[Scott Sieger]

tell me about God Yggdrasil.....I would like to know

[Mentat]

If there is a god I'm positive that everyone out there would agree that his power is infinite.

This is where the problem arises. Your paradox is with regard to omnipotence, but the use of the term "god" conjures up the concept of the creator of the Universe, or the gods of holy writings, &c.

Yes, omnipotence is paradoxical, this has been known since the time of the ancient Greeks (possibly longer). However, not all gods were said to be omnipotent. For example, the God of the Bible stated His own limitations quite clearly in the Bible. The gods of Greek and Roman myth were inferior to the greatest god (Zeus and Jupiter, respectively) and yet even those great gods had limitations, which were born out throughout the legends. Actually, one of my favorite examples is the Egyptian god, Ra. Ra was the greatest of the gods, but "Ra" wasn't his real name. According to Egyptian tradition, knowing something's name gives you power over that thing. So, Ra kept his real name secret, so as not to allow anything to have power over him (though, of course, there was a legend wherein one of the goddesses learned of his real name, and caused all kinds of havoc :smile:).

Anyway, the paradox is one of omnipotence, not of godship. Just thought I'd point that out to keep this from turning into a religious discussion.

[loseyourname]

Why would God waste his time making a rock so heavy that he can't lift it? Anyway, I can tell you a lot about God, just ask sometime.

It's funny that no one ever answers this question. The potential omnipotence of an intelligent creator is always defended by saying he would never do it. That wasn't the question. It was not asked whether or not he would do it. It was asked whether or not he could do it. Since you are apparently personally acquainted with this being, perhaps you can ask him for us.

By the way, are you Dr. Courtney Brown or a devotee of his?

[THANOS]

I am sure God doesn't exist. But I also believe that God will exist.

[lvlastermind]

Why would God waste his time making a rock so heavy that he can't lift it? Anyway, I can tell you a lot about God, just ask sometime.

It's just one of those questions that will probably never be answered.

If a tree falls....

[loseyourname]

What? We're four dimensional beings living in a four dimensional world, and we can build four-dimensional objects. What are these other beings (aside from God) that you're referring to?

By the way, if God can create a rock that he couldn't lift, then it is conceivable that there could exist a task that he could not perform. This means he is not omnipotent, which I'm pretty sure was the point of this thread.

[Deltron]

The one big problem with religion, or for God at least, is simplicity. In the Bible it says he simply creates humans and the world, and whatever he can create and just set it into existence. A good reason for why people do not exist is how could whatever it is just do that? Well since we have proven physics and math, why does it say it took him 6 days to make earth?

I can tell you right now I could make earth in its earliest stages, plain, in a lot less time. If God truly exists, I for one believe that it is nearly not this simple. The main reason is that are mind would not, and still hard to fathom, if in the bible it said how he REALLY, made earth and humans. If you look at DNA structures, and photons, and neurons and ect, God probably had to create this, this perfect structure of earth and how every things connected. I for one do not think he just droped us out of the mere sky and said bam, you are created. If anything, It was a long proccess, and certainly trying to explain something like that to people that used to live in Christs time.. is improbable.

Another degrading part of Religion to society, is people now go to Churc to wear their new cloths. Especially, I for one, can not stand those Televised Religous talk shows. A good one for instance, is where the the preacher, slaps a injured in the head and says Jesus has cured you. Well for one, only Jesus could do that him self. What they need is an update on the bible, since now we have found out soo many things, we can comprehend more. The bible is a childs version of how things work/were created.

Thats just my thought about how religion sounds so bogus, and why people really need to actually be religous and believe in more logical concepts, if they do believe in God. :D!!!

<3 All!!!

[Scott Sieger]

Remember our super hero "Superman" and how the script writers put limitations on his abilities. Why did they limit supermans abilities?
Because if he was truelly omnipotent it would mean he would not have to do anything. Thus one boring show....so we place limitations just to make God worth talking about. The limitations being the nature of the discussions. True omnipotency of God means there is nothing to discuss.

[cronxeh]

This sounds like an appeal to ignorance. Am I correct?

God cannot be proven to exist. God cannot be proven to not exist. Therefore, God doesn't exist.


Religion started as a result of ignorance and lack of knowledge. It is continuing to exist today because of that tradition of ignorance, and you never stop to think about 'what if there was never god?' you only think in a really closed-loop frame where if you cant prove or disprove it - then it probably exists/or doesnt exist - this 'superposition' from stupidity is in fact an artificial attempt to make one's life less meaningless, by introducing new empty variables like god, heaven, hell, or demon to invigorate the sense of existance.


God doesn't exist means [negation]God. There must first be a sensed God to negate. And negation is based upon the property of displacement, since energy is neither created or destroyed.


Your attempt to sound intelligent made you sound like a liberal arts philosopher with no scientific background, let alone mathematical one. I wont insult my own intelligence by continuing to reply to you.

[Deltron]

With all this science and how things work, would make you think, "How wouldn't there be a God?" I think a lot has developed off of ignorance. One thing I hate most, is religous people who aren't open to thoughts of evolution, thoughts of space and how the universe began, and how it will end or what not. Considering I am religous, I really do think that every thing has to do with science at physics, besides math is the universal laungage right? :D

<3 All

[JD]

With all this science and how things work, would make you think, "How wouldn't there be a God?" I think a lot has developed off of ignorance. One thing I hate most, is religous people who aren't open to thoughts of evolution, thoughts of space and how the universe began, and how it will end or what not. Considering I am religous, I really do think that every thing has to do with science at physics, besides math is the universal laungage right? :D

<3 All

As far as I am concerned (not in a worried sense) God exists but not in a way that we can visualise. That's a fair point about religion closing minds and it seems to me that this is exactly the reverse of what should actually happen. Acquisition of knowledge (in whichever form it might take) enhances self as much as contemplation of God. As we cannot "see" God, however, we have to rely on studying the Universe. That is endless in much the same way as God is (to my mind).

[techwonder]

I have this magical "blackboard" where the equations I write becomes true. There are several layers of equations, i.e. some are more important than others, but it is a piece of cake to add a new equation ... or delete an existing equation. There are equations for many things, also for the relation between energy and space-time. I'll delete it now and then we will ...........

[JD]

this whole debate is so stupid and every question has a self-stupifying answer like 'only if he wanted to see what its liek to be powerless'

god doesnt exist. neither does hell/heaven/demons or any of that crap you were fed as a child. get a grip and see whats wrong with this world - religion.

I think that tolerance could be greater regardless of how you view the Universe. Obviously my tolerance would be tested if you were to burn my house down :surprise: . However, if you did it for my benefit then I might be very grateful.

[Mentat]

You know what? It turns out that "omnipotence" has no meaning whatsoever. It's not just that it's problematic, or impossible in principle. It actually has no noticeable distinction between itself and "normal" beings that live forever.

A being that exists forever has an infinite number of things that it could do, and an infinite number of things that it will never do (not really that it can't do, but that it won't do). An omnipotent being is a being that has no limitations, except the limitation of having no limitations (it is not capable of being limited, and is thus limited). Thus there are an infinite number of things that it can't do, and an infinite number of things that it can. This means that the only way to tell the difference between an omnipotent being and a normal being is that which would be noticed at the end of infinity (by then, normal beings will have done everything an infinite number of times, but the omnipotent being would still have an infinite number of things it has never done, because it can't), and there is no end to infinity, so an omnipotent being is not distinguishable from a normal being that lives forever.

Oh, btw, if there's an issue with the fact that the normal being has to live forever to be equated with the omnipotent one, just think of the fact that the omnipotent being should be able to self-destruct or be destroyed by something else (since it can do or allow whatever it wants) and so it may also be bound by the finiteness of its life.

[Deltron]

JD is correct, in the sense that you can not visualize God. You can not comprehend God. One way we deal with this is that we think its a person, or mabey a soul like us, and call it He or She some times. And since also when we put stereo types on God, it seems less and less likely God could exist, since it sounds so obsured, but only because the way we try and percieve him.

Mentat I think what your trying trying to say is they may, do an infinite number of things, but only if he/she CAN. Now if God is omnipotent, then he can, and may, do an infinite number of things, besides just doing many things to a restriction, based on how long you live.

<3 All

[loseyourname]

Is there any particular reason why religious apologists need an omnipotent God? Can't it be enough that he is able to violate or even rewrite the laws of nature?

I think that tolerance could be greater regardless of how you view the Universe. Obviously my tolerance would be tested if you were to burn my house down :surprise: . However, if you did it for my benefit then I might be very grateful.

Burn your house down for your own good? Did you just watch Fight Club?

[TENYEARS]

God has never made anything, but everything is made out of God. Do you understand?

[lvlastermind]

God has never made anything, but everything is made out of God. Do you understand?

inaccurate

So when in the bible it sais "God created the heavens and the earth..."

Should it have read "God is the heavens and the earth?"

[Scott Sieger]

Should it have read "God is the heavens and the earth?"

Now this is a good point.....the bible is full of typo's :wink:

[lvlastermind]

Now this is a good point.....the bible is full of typo's :wink:

indeed it is

[Nexus[Free-DC]]

Let's look at this logically. We have postulated one thing; that God can do anything. Thus he can lift all rocks. It follows that the uber-heavy rock in question is not in the set of all rocks. So for God to create this rock would require the breaking of the laws of logic.

Now we've got two choices. Do we allow the definition of omnipotence to include violating the laws of logic or not? If not, God's in the clear.

Otherwise things get interesting. Once we've allowed omnipotence to do the impossible once, it can happen again. So God could certainly lift a rock that he is not lifting.

[Scott Sieger]

Otherwise things get interesting. Once we've allowed omnipotence to do the impossible once, it can happen again. So God could certainly lift a rock that he is not lifting.
Now if we allow God a small amount of cleverness he would simply get people like you and your mates to lift the rock for him any way...... :rofl:
Thus lifting a rock without lifting it.....ha

[Prometheus]

']Let's look at this logically. We have postulated one thing; that God can do anything. Thus he can lift all rocks. It follows that the uber-heavy rock in question is not in the set of all rocks. So for God to create this rock would require the breaking of the laws of logic.

Let's look at this logically. We have postulated one thing; that God can do anything. Thus he can create rocks with any degree of difficulty in lifting. It follows that the uber-heavy rock in question is in the set of all objects that god can create. So for God to create this rock would not require the breaking of the laws of logic.

1. What does your argument have to do with logic, other than your claim that it is logic?

2. What do the "laws of logic" have to do with anything outside the bounds of logic?

As your example shows, even if we pretend that you have presented a logical argument, it has no relevance to the question at hand, other than a theoretical relationship.

By the way, you speak of the rock in question as not being in the set of all rocks. How about applying your "logic" to the set of all things that god can create, which is the topic of the original question.

[Scott Sieger]

If you ask yourself the question:

"Am I bound by the laws of logic in what I do?"

The answer would I expect normally be No.

Thus why would we project a limitation of "action with logic" to God?

[THANOS]

Can god just lower the gravity to like zero?

[Scott Sieger]

more like increase gravity to zero...Increasing the vacuum to nothing

[Learning Curve]

this is in reply to omen's statement.

You said that how could finite pieces add up to infinite. well, .333333 repeating is infinite right? you can take out .000003 and it be finite. you can also take out .3 and it is also finite. there just isn't a stopping to the finite infinities.

[Scott Sieger]

so there is am infinite number of finities....( chuckles)

[TENYEARS]

There will be two things you will witness with my words, your realization of their truth now or your realization of their truth later. You have only two choices.

[selfAdjoint]

I'll settle for later. Let me know when it happens.

[JD]

There will be two things you will witness with my words, your realization of their truth now or your realization of their truth later. You have only two choices.

Tenyears, can you expand on the implications of this realization now or in the future?

[TENYEARS]

When I speak in terms of realization I speak of direct knowing which has occured. This knowing is out there for all to see, to witness. It is the destiny of all humanity. It will happen. I have seen the day of a proving. It will occur in our life times. To what degree, I do not know. I was disappointed though in the vision, for I knew that it did not matter that science/people or whatever proved anything, for it is only the realization of humanity which will make any difference in the future of our actions which will affect the planet upon which we live.

When I speak things which I say are, they come out of my realization of what is. Sometimes outside forces can make changes in our relative lives. There was a day when I watched a certain thing on television, after 1 year of trying and suddenly realized that night that it was indeed real. The experiences then followed.

[balkan]

When I speak in terms of realization I speak of direct knowing which has occured. This knowing is out there for all to see, to witness. It is the destiny of all humanity. It will happen. I have seen the day of a proving. It will occur in our life times. To what degree, I do not know. I was disappointed though in the vision, for I knew that it did not matter that science/people or whatever proved anything, for it is only the realization of humanity which will make any difference in the future of our actions which will affect the planet upon which we live.

When I speak things which I say are, they come out of my realization of what is. Sometimes outside forces can make changes in our relative lives. There was a day when I watched a certain thing on television, after 1 year of trying and suddenly realized that night that it was indeed real. The experiences then followed.

perhaps if you could be more specific and sound less like a madman, somebody could understand what you were talking about...

[vanesch]

God cannot be proven to exist. God cannot be proven to not exist. Therefore, God doesn't exist.

I can use the same premises to conclude the converse.


I think the main problem with attempting to prove or not, that a god exists, is with the lack of precise definition of what exactly is meant with that word. For example, the litteral interpretation of the god that occurs in the hebrew bible certainly does not exist, for the simple reason that a lot of scientifically wrong statements are made, from the age of the earth to virgins conceiving children.
The problem is that - except for a few mentally disturbed who, against all proof, maintain that this nevertheless true - most people who declare believing in that god tell you that of course the bible is a piece of ancient litterature written by man, but _inspired_ by a god. So the fact that they wrote down things which, over time, have proved wrong, is just due to that human hand in the business. But in that case, what exactly IS god becomes a moving target! It is very difficult to prove the existance or the non existance of something that remains largely undefined and of which the definition can even change in the course of the discussion.
There is indeed a kind of contradiction into a) praying to god that something will or will not happen, which presupposes that this god has communication skills and has the ability to momentarily intervene in the laws of nature and b) maintain that it is an abstract concept such as "love" or "conciousness".
a) is used as a utilitarian part of religion while b) is used to avoid a proof of it non-existance. But a) and b) are not compatible.
a) could be easily checked in the lab: lets have many people pray that the outcome of throwing some dice will always give 7. Do this 10000 times and make up the statistics. Ok, I know this is an exaggerated and ridiculous example, but the advantage of exaggeration is that it illustrates the point.
(although similar experiments HAVE been conducted in the medical sphere!)

I took as an example the bible, but any great religion works along the same lines. So I nevertheless think that it is more or less established that god doesn't exist, not because we have proof of its non existance, but because the definition is lacking. It is only in the (almost ridiculous) cases when a precise definition is given (usually the people doing this are called fundamentalists) that non-existance proofs are possible.

cheers,
Patrick.

[marcus]

The world was created by the great Blaghor to Whom we sacrifice turkeys.

We pray to Blaghor daily that he should give us love and consciousness and that he should constantly maintain the Laws of Physics.
Since we find that the Laws of Physics continue to apply by the gracious will of Blaghor, we sacrifice, every year at the Feast of Blaghor called the Thanksgiving, millions of turkeys as a sign of gratitude.

Then we consume together the Bird of Blaghor, as a way to become one with the Godhead.

Our name for the Bible is "The Lies of Blaghor" because He in His merriment made up the various lies in these books and persuaded scribes to write them down. Blaghor is pleased with some of the stories in the Bible, which he considers uncommonly entertaining.

May Blaghor bless you and guide you and help you lose 5 pounds,

marcus

[JD]

When I speak in terms of realization I speak of direct knowing which has occured. This knowing is out there for all to see, to witness. It is the destiny of all humanity. It will happen. I have seen the day of a proving. It will occur in our life times. To what degree, I do not know. I was disappointed though in the vision, for I knew that it did not matter that science/people or whatever proved anything, for it is only the realization of humanity which will make any difference in the future of our actions which will affect the planet upon which we live.

When I speak things which I say are, they come out of my realization of what is. Sometimes outside forces can make changes in our relative lives. There was a day when I watched a certain thing on television, after 1 year of trying and suddenly realized that night that it was indeed real. The experiences then followed.

I follow you in the first paragraph but can you expand on the experiences?

[vanesch]

The world was created by the great Blaghor to Whom we sacrifice turkeys.


Ha, over here in France, we worship the Great Blagueur :-)
(although it is a minority, with at least one member).

patrick.

[TENYEARS]

Visions, is one aspect of experience. Sometimes there is no vision at all, just pure knowing. There are other kinds of experience also, 3 kinds which have also happended to me which I will not mention on the forum. Yet ultimately, they are all formed out of a single experience which we tend to place in boxes of our own definition. Maybe I'm just full of carp, then again maybe not. Would you know the difference? Maybe I am a liar looking for attention, forums a good place for that right, no one knows you. Can you tell what truth is by someones word or by their expression or acts? Does an act or word have to be in inorder for there to be truth?

[Scott Sieger]

TenYears,

How valid is a personal experience to others besides yourself?

If the experience is unable to be shared by others how much value has it?

If you could share your vision and experience with others and not just in the form of words and rhetoric.

Is it a valid presumption that others will share your enthuisiasm if we can not fully share your personal experience?

So alas you are left with a personal insight that others will and quite justifiably denounce as inconsequestial.

Say I stand here and say that I am God, say I wrap it up in all sorts of arguement and verbal persuasion. What does this achieve except nothing but complaints relating to my sanity.

Even miracles require verification and proof of happening, beyond that which is personal experience.

For your own experience is subject to you and your thoughts and not that of others, thus always subject to the limitations of your own understanding.

And the limkitations that apply to the sharing of that expereince.

I am not saying for a moment that your experience is invalid as it is surely valid to you but I am saying there are limitations on how you can share this experience with others and because it is subject to no other scrutiny that your own judgement it leaves it berift of proveability.

Do you expect aothers to submit that your word is all that is needed for what you are about to say being the truth?

[TENYEARS]

Nice post, I expect nothing. My experiences have been shared by many. Just not so much on this forum. They would stand against scientific inquiry. What I speak is truth, but it is not because I own truth, but because I am part of it and a witness to it. If you look at the words I have spoken and their manner and you are searching for the truth, they will hit you in full, if you are not interested, they might as well be dust in the wind. I try never to speak of what I do not know and separate what I know from what I was taught or what I believe. Credibility is not in proving, it is in realizing. That will always and only be the way. The other way is a trail of bread crumbs in a forest full hungry birds. You will never "know" where you are. If you understand these words, than you are on the begining of an unmarked trail covered with brush and trees. If one believes me they are lost, if one does not believe me they are lost, if one does not understand and they refuse to submit to belief and stand there in the midst of unknowing and refuse to submit, then I see the spirit of a warrior born.

[Scott Sieger]

so what premises do you wish us to agree upon?

[yesicanread]

If there is a god I'm positive that everyone out there would agree that his power is infinite. BUT. If God truely has infinite power is it possible for God to purposely make an object so heavy that he himself cannot lift it?

Could God be Omni/Present,Powerful, Omnesent? Sure. Because he is in fact present. The presence of a grasshopper is different presence than God.

God cannot be what he says, and as present as a beatle. The bee is present, and powerful as a bee, God is present, and as powerful as God. See where I'm taking this ?

God didn't say. He was just omnipowerful. Which is what is asked by you. How can God have all power, when we drain it. He can't be all power.

But he said allpower, or him, is allpresent. Present where ? n the kitchen ? In the miami ? Or French restaurant ?

So power exists outside of God. But God/Power, is present where he is, Thinking about taters and such I suppose.

So God the person lacks no power. In Legend or mystery of the Christ's trinity. I won't talk about them too, much. This is a physics forum afterall.

[misogynisticfeminist]

I've tried to explain this question.......

Does God possess limits? In my opinion, No, (i don't intend to substantiate this assumption just as yet, but its just something.......). When people compare God to something limitless, boundless, they usually think that God is like so Good, so smart, so powerful, that really, he is limitless. But i beg to differ, i mean, how good is good, how smart is smart etc. etc.

If you were asked ,"Why do christians say God is good and God is not the best?" It is really that Best is a limit of Good, when we say best, it cannot get any better. No matter how fantastic and how far out this limit is, a limit is still a limit.

The human mind expands, from the discovery of fire to Fibre-optics, this shows the flexibility and stretchability of the human mind. And I believe that God has a mind which functions the same way as us, the human mind is prehaps the greatest masterpiece (no matter how great your girlfriend may look). God has no fixed limit. Because if he did, our human intelligence would be able to reach it.

So, regarding that question.

Weight of stone=Ifinity
Strength used to lift the stone=Infinity.

So strength used to lift stone=weight of stone. So yea, God can create a stone he can lift.

[Dorje]

"The concept of god is irrational to the point of absurdity."

--George H. Smith, Atheism: The Case Against God

I suggest you read Smith's book. It will clarify the fact that god does not exist. And since god does not exist, any argument about god is absurd. You can find it here:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/087975124X/qid=1090779918/sr=8-1/ref=pd_ka_1/102-7289328-6500936?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

Enjoy!

[Prometheus]

And since god does not exist, any argument about god is absurd.

I disagree. Whether or not god exists, whatever that means, people who argue about god react with feelings, beliefs, actions, stress, etc. Such reactions can be life altering. Arguments about god can have significant effect on people, whether or not the subject of their argument actually exists. I do not think the non-existence of god alone is sufficient to label such arguments absurd.

[Scott Sieger]

I have posted a thread that may be relevant to this discussion.
Titled
a lesson in reasoning?

How the inconclusivity of that which is defined God is a lesson in reasoning.

http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=36732

[olde drunk]

god and it's definition will always be a matter of belief; not faith.

if you believe, you will have one particular life experience. If you don't, it will be another type of experience. Further, within each major group, the experience will differ as to how you do or don't believe.

bottom line? your world will reflect how and what you believe. somehow, as with QT, the cosmos will allow(or support) the experience to be influenced by the expectations and/or bias of the individual having the experience.

was or is god so inconcievable that s/he/it loosed us on the physical world as an aspect of itself? with all the rights and priveleges of a god? (again, playing within the rules of physical existence).

if we can sense, feel and understand that eternity and infinity exist, it must exist. are we an idea construct of 'god'?

love&peace,
olde drunk

[vanesch]

How the inconclusivity of that which is defined God is a lesson in reasoning.


I do not agree. It doesn't testify of the strongness of a reasoning that its author is not convinced by it :-) This doesn't mean that there cannot be elements of reasoning which only tend to point out certain relatioinships between propositions without taking a position on the premises. But this shouldn't be the only form of reasoning allowed. Indeed, if it were the case, reasoning doesn't serve any purpose, because it could never be used to reach a conclusion (take a position).



cheers,
Patrick.

[Deeviant]

Nice post, I expect nothing. My experiences have been shared by many. Just not so much on this forum. They would stand against scientific inquiry. What I speak is truth, but it is not because I own truth, but because I am part of it and a witness to it. If you look at the words I have spoken and their manner and you are searching for the truth, they will hit you in full, if you are not interested, they might as well be dust in the wind.

Now we have hit the real arena in which God(gods) should be discussed: psychology. You, and many others have a urgent need to find truth. Unfortunely, the truth is not readily available in our world, so some people are forced to make up their own truth(tm) in order to cope with their inability find the real truth(if there even is a real truth). Some people are very imaginative and are great story tellers and their made up truth(tm) catches other people's fancy, thus religions are born. These truths(tm) evolved and grew like many other ideas and have become very entrenched into a great portion of our worlds population.

There are a great number of different truths, and normally a great subdivision within each "single truth(tm)," which makes a great portion of our worlds population wrong by default. It also supports the idea that god(gods) is(are) made up. And if there is a god(gods), you'd think he'd be able to keep his story straight to his many thousands(millions?) of prophets throughout humanity's history.

Oh wait, I guess this is just all part of the somebody's god's plan, a god who lives in another dimention, outside of our reality and known laws of physics...
Whats that, he talks to you? Oh, **** why does everybody get to talk to god but me :cry: I guess it makes sense that he'd(she/it/them) only want to talk to people that already believe in them, :confused:

Heres one question for you TENYEARS, who would you be, what would you be without your beliefs?

[Philocrat]

If there is a god I'm positive that everyone out there would agree that his power is infinite. BUT. If God truely has infinite power is it possible for God to purposely make an object so heavy that he himself cannot lift it?

Omin is right.... infinity cannot wander off the confine of finiteness. In a computer program, you can place what seems like an infinite loop inside a finite loop, does that make all the things that can be done in that program infinite? If you run the program, all the things and events outside the so-called infinite loop won't just get done even though the loop itself is placed inside a finite loop that has an entry and exit logical pathways. Even a piece of chalk in your hand may contain what seems like genuine infinite quantities or dimensions.

We have this problem in philosophy where the truth of a given statement appears to be regressing into infinity and there are disputes about it. I personally steer clear of such disputes. I always attempt to ovoid infinite regress by building what I recently labled 'TRUTH BOUNDARIES' around all my declaratory, existential and quantitative statementes or claims. And only very recently some philosophers are beginning to recognise and appreciate ordinary conversation as a complete boundary of truth. The Conversational Theory of Truth says that the truth of a conversation cannot be sought outside it since the conversation itself is an exclusive and complete boundary of truth. That to seek the truth of a conversation outside it is utter folly.

On the issue of God's existence, I have gone down on record in claiming that God is analytically indestructible because of the evidence that I obtained from my own detailed examination of the subject! That God can create anything beyond His/Her powers is a non-starter!

[Namloh2000]

I came to this forum to post the same question:

"could god make a stone so heavy that he can't lift it?"

I find that someone has already posted this extremely coincidental.

We assume, of course, that God's abilities are without boundary. Quite a paradox, eh? If God could create such a stone, it would contradict the fact that his powers are limitless, hence negating the concept of the nature of his existence. Of course, the same would apply if he could not create such a stone.

We have to remember this, though:

Our minds operate in an environment structured by God, who created time.

Our logic is causal in nature; the algorithms by which our minds operate presuppose time, leading us to rest upon this question as paradoxical. I feel that we are imposing a structure upon the theory of logic, giving it an "infallible nature", one that we need to think abstractly to look past.

We operate through a series of if-then scenarios, a cause leading to an effect. Cause and effect cannot exist without time as a medium. Our logic is based on deductive reasoning, which is based on causation, which is based on time and our biological arrow of time.

So, without time, both causation and our inherent sense of logic break down, and become irrelevant.

It is silly to assume that God, who created time, even operates in a causal environment where such if-then questions are even askable.

It is also silly to assume our logic and comprehension are adequate enough to understand the nature of God.

[magus niche]

i do not 'believe' god can be proven to exist. but i 'believe' that s/he/it probably does. if one believes in infinity, i believe one is believing in god. to say the finite is infinite is true and false at the same time, no? ie. an infinite set is actually a symbol of a process: ever increasing/decreasing. infinity is not a static number, but as a process it is a 'whole', so to speak.

our minds differ to an nth degree, and so does the universe('s). we all have different ways of conceptualising data, and generalising about our observations (logic is just one method). imagination seems infinite. it is a natural part of humans, no? if our minds are infinite, does this mean space/time is also infinite?

i think here lies clues to the questions posted here. if we 'created' our own language, then all of which we are speaking is OUR own creations. not to diminish the existence of god('s). to me this very much reinforces the notion of a power within/without. each one of us has a slightly different version of 'reality' crystallised/memorised within our own brain structure. when these realities 'overlap', 'objective' reality exists?: science and its 'physical reality' is an example of a common reality, one that can be studied by different individuals using methods combined with technology.

but one still makes the choice to 'believe' that the methods and conclusions of logical science are leading to some sort of 'truth' about existence. similar in value is religion, philosophy, etc. from around the world, that come to conclusions about life and the way to live it.:wink:

peace

"the journey is as important as the destination,
and the destination is needed to begin,
but to find the destination is not essential,"
said the wise man to himself and to his kin. (Me 10:12 (gmt-6) 17.9.04)

[Lacy33]

i do not 'believe' god can be proven to exist. but i 'believe' that s/he/it probably does. if one believes in infinity, i believe one is believing in god. to say the finite is infinite is true and false at the same time, no? ie. an infinite set is actually a symbol of a process: ever increasing/decreasing. infinity is not a static number, but as a process it is a 'whole', so to speak.

our minds differ to an nth degree, and so does the universe('s). we all have different ways of conceptualising data, and generalising about our observations (logic is just one method). imagination seems infinite. it is a natural part of humans, no? if our minds are infinite, does this mean space/time is also infinite?

i think here lies clues to the questions posted here. if we 'created' our own language, then all of which we are speaking is OUR own creations. not to diminish the existence of god('s). to me this very much reinforces the notion of a power within/without. each one of us has a slightly different version of 'reality' crystallised/memorised within our own brain structure. when these realities 'overlap', 'objective' reality exists?: science and its 'physical reality' is an example of a common reality, one that can be studied by different individuals using methods combined with technology.

but one still makes the choice to 'believe' that the methods and conclusions of logical science are leading to some sort of 'truth' about existence. similar in value is religion, philosophy, etc. from around the world, that come to conclusions about life and the way to live it.:wink:

peace

"the journey is as important as the destination,
and the destination is needed to begin,
but to find the destination is not essential,"
said the wise man to himself and to his kin. (Me 10:12 (gmt-6) 17.9.04)
How would you suggest we build a foundation of global thought, including all of the varied wisdoms, and build a unifying model of the universe including a spiritual dimension?

[TENYEARS]

Scott Sieger, agreement is not required in life. Common ground comes naturally over time. One of my visions of two years ago will come to pass in your lifetime. It will be a proving of the nature of reality "beyond our skin and our connectedness to it".

Deeviant, who would I be with out belief? I would be me, for that is what I am now, without belief. Jesus was once challanged about gods law or weather it applies to him. This gist of the comment was he came in accordance with the law, one with it. Jesus understood the very nature of reality less he could not have spoken those words from himself. You see truth is not about belief. You may not believe it exists, but isn't that the paradox for you. "believe that it exists". Belief sometimes takes you to a path to the left and sometimes to the right but what is encompasses all things. To a true searcher the path will disappear into the is.

Are you really interested in truth?

[Lacy33]

Are you really interested in truth?
Perhaps it is not so much TRUTH that I am hoping for, but a soulful, humble surrender to the understandings of our human family. An unconditional acceptance that will unify the collective heart without prejudice.
No I am not personally capable of this but I wanna learn. I wanna work on it with others. If I work on it alone I will only reach the limits of my own understanding...Shameful thought!
I believe in the natural evolution to our spiritual/intellectual/emotional growth, but I see a lot of splintering still going on and it might be a thought to get the vectors all pointing towards a unified goal instead of so many people out there still thinking about winning the Nobel Prize for themselves. I proposes a Nobel Prize awarded to the entire human family in the category of PEACE. Of course the stage would have to be somewhat extended.
And if you think I sound a little grandiose, I should tell you I am also in the physics department doing the math too.
Warm Fuzzies!
S

[TENYEARS]

Shoshana, student? Young faculty? 23? 24? Nice post. We all have grand ideas no matter who we are it is just that some are relative to the system and not by what the world would seem as grandosie. Me I do know what the world is made of. No math required and if you follow anything I have written it the past you would see I have said much more. I do not lie. I do not kid myself or you. I have had a vision two years ago towards the goal of proving something scientifically. It will be accepted by all and it will happen. My visions never lie. I had three during a vacation 2 years ago, I have them infrequently, but when they happen like this it is inevietable history. I know it is difficult for the young and old to read what seems to madness and believe it, and yet that is the paradox isn't without proof. And yet if proven would that not also be belief for the many what would change? This was also part of my vision of which I felt great disappointment, they would come they would see but they would not understand. To be alone in ones understanding is the worst thing in the world. Not to be able to communicate, to know you are alone. Human kind has taken billions of years of evoulution and thought they could change the function of the human being, alter it's purpose and way of life in a short timespan, not by understanding by driven by choices upon choices. It is destroying human kind. To change it there is only one hope and one hope alone. They must know there is more. Maybe the time is now.

[Lacy33]

I have had a vision two years ago towards the goal of proving something scientifically. It will be accepted by all and it will happen. To change it there is only one hope and one hope alone. They must know there is more. Maybe the time is now.

One tends not to believe a person who says they have a vision if they are mean or otherwise full of themselves.
But for the benefit of those of us who have not heard, would YOU in particular be willing to share your vision again. I for one am VERY interested in what you have to say.
Shoshana

[Burnsys]

If god realy exists (Which i Don't believe), then if he wanted to make a universe with inteligent life on it... then even him has to submit to some fundamental constants... What if god creted the univers with another Gravitational Constant, may bee. planets would never form.. or may be the universe would be fill of black holes.. no live... or another speed of ligth. What i am trying to say is that god (if there is one) is not fundamental. he is not in the top of the piramid....

(Sorry my english.. i am from argentina)

[A_I_]

what is it in the top of the pyramid?

(no te peocupes)

[Enos]

Pick a spot on a sphere and thats where god is. the rest is the universe. No pyramid.

[Lacy33]

what is it in the top of the pyramid?

(no te peocupes)
Are you referring to the possibility of concentrated energy within the upper sections of a pyramid?

[Lacy33]

Pick a spot on a sphere and thats where god is. the rest is the universe. No pyramid.
Hi Enos,
What you lead into here is interesting, but could you continue with this thought?
Why do you pick a sphere, why only one point of that sphere, would a higher energy source or (as some refer to that as G-d) be feeding into or animating the universe (the rest of the sphere), at all points.
Cheers
S

[Burnsys]

No, i mean the top most rules.. the most fundamental rules... the rules even god have to follow..

[magus niche]

sorry in advance for my speil that is occurring :smile:

maybe there are no rules in the infiniverse. by this i mean infinitely beyond and infinitely within our universe there are many things that are chaotic and non-ruled. things that seem to rely on chance, or things that rely on free will, both exist in the world right now.

if our universe (the one presumably created by big bang) was constructed or developed according to rules, then as far as i can tell, mutations occur within the system. mutations which can have a positive or negative (or both) outcome for the individual units that inhabit the system. mutations and changes to the very rules and constants that may have once been in harmony.

but maybe there was never absolute harmony, but rather a constant interplay between energies etc. this is the system that seems evident at the moment.

any imaginative constructions we place upon the system we call the universe, we need to accept as our own.

theories can be invented (in fact i have a good one of my own using binary code combined with the concept of infinity), but i accept that this is a personal, (subjective,) theory that i have made up using information i have gathered throughout my own life combined with any genetic information that has been passed on to me from past generations.

ie. it is 'A' truth but not 'THE' truth. read 'The Prophet' by Kahlil Gibran

hopefully i can set an example by accepting my own limitations, while keeping an integrity by constructing a theory that includes both my own percieved observations, and others' as well. infact i wish to understand reality so that even totally new and profound observations can be built in to my theory that would be current at the time.

i am in constant change. there are some things that in general stay the same, but i accept that there are many influences that act upon me that are out of my control. i aim to be able to understand more throughout my life, but never be ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN about anything.

as for universality, maths comes close. have a read about infinity (http://216.239.41.104/search?q=cache:lVoJLONNj1MJ:www.ams.org/notices/200407/fea-dubinsky.pdf+%22types+of+infinity%22&hl=en&ie=UTF-8) , chaos, etc. as these incorperate concepts that are seemingly incomprehensible.

at the moment i am attempting to synthesise mathematical theories on matter, with philosophical/belief-based theories on the mind/self. if anyone is interested or wants to question me, keep posting :wink:

some other sources in no order: j. dunne, gurdjieff, buddha, jesus, jung, wittgenstien, derrida, a. versluis, ...

[arildno]

If there is a god I'm positive that everyone out there would agree that his power is infinite.
Do you think this attribute of "infinite power" makes the concept of God an intellectually acceptable notion?
It does not; in fact, it makes the concept even more silly and worthless.

[Lacy33]

sorry in advance for my speil that is occurring :smile:

maybe there are no rules in the infiniverse. by this i mean infinitely beyond and infinitely within our universe there are many things that are chaotic and non-ruled. things that seem to rely on chance, or things that rely on free will, both exist in the world right now.

if our universe (the one presumably created by big bang) was constructed or developed according to rules, then as far as i can tell, mutations occur within the system. mutations which can have a positive or negative (or both) outcome for the individual units that inhabit the system. mutations and changes to the very rules and constants that may have once been in harmony.

but maybe there was never absolute harmony, but rather a constant interplay between energies etc. this is the system that seems evident at the moment.

any imaginative constructions we place upon the system we call the universe, we need to accept as our own.

theories can be invented (in fact i have a good one of my own using binary code combined with the concept of infinity), but i accept that this is a personal, (subjective,) theory that i have made up using information i have gathered throughout my own life combined with any genetic information that has been passed on to me from past generations.

ie. it is 'A' truth but not 'THE' truth. read 'The Prophet' by Kahlil Gibran

hopefully i can set an example by accepting my own limitations, while keeping an integrity by constructing a theory that includes both my own percieved observations, and others' as well. infact i wish to understand reality so that even totally new and profound observations can be built in to my theory that would be current at the time.

i am in constant change. there are some things that in general stay the same, but i accept that there are many influences that act upon me that are out of my control. i aim to be able to understand more throughout my life, but never be ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN about anything.

as for universality, maths comes close. have a read about infinity (http://216.239.41.104/search?q=cache:lVoJLONNj1MJ:www.ams.org/notices/200407/fea-dubinsky.pdf+%22types+of+infinity%22&hl=en&ie=UTF-8) , chaos, etc. as these incorperate concepts that are seemingly incomprehensible.

at the moment i am attempting to synthesise mathematical theories on matter, with philosophical/belief-based theories on the mind/self. if anyone is interested or wants to question me, keep posting :wink:

some other sources in no order: j. dunne, gurdjieff, buddha, jesus, jung, wittgenstien, derrida, a. versluis, ...

Thank you for this post as it give me an opportunity to state the it is this kind patching together and lack of focusing that makes attempts to begin to define such difficult, if not impossible concepts of nothingness or higher definitions of vacuum all the more challenging to get scientists to take those willing to give the subject a scholarly treatment seriously.
You wanted to set an example. Thank you I feel you have made an impressive point.
Suzanne

[olde drunk]

Do you think this attribute of "infinite power" makes the concept of God an intellectually acceptable notion?
It does not; in fact, it makes the concept even more silly and worthless.
What if god is nothing more than "everything", but, greater than the sum of all it's parts???

1+1=3 [you can do x amount of work, i can do x BUT together we can do 3x]

please do not confuse religious use of the word -god- with the philosophical. god may be the collective unconscious energy that creates all worlds which in turn mature and spawn new gods and worlds. it is an infinite idea that can never end.

love&peace,
olde drunk

[arildno]

Well, you have of course the freedom to redefine concepts into any particular shape you want..

[Lacy33]

Well, you have of course the freedom to redefine concepts into any particular shape you want..


However if we want to progress towards uniting the different schools of understanding ie. physics, mathematics, philosophy, religion, we do need a common vocabulary. That's what I think OD was trying to point out in short.
Suzanne

[arildno]

"collective unconscious energy that creates all worlds"
All terms in this phrase except "that" and "all" are terribly ill-defined.

[Lacy33]

"collective unconscious energy that creates all worlds"
All terms in this phrase except "that" and "all" are terribly ill-defined.

So working together, how would you gently redefine what you think he meant so that we might genuinely work towards building a common language?
Suzanne

[Deeviant]

Deeviant, who would I be with out belief? I would be me, for that is what I am now, without belief. Jesus was once challanged about gods law or weather it applies to him. This gist of the comment was he came in accordance with the law, one with it. Jesus understood the very nature of reality less he could not have spoken those words from himself. You see truth is not about belief. You may not believe it exists, but isn't that the paradox for you. "believe that it exists". Belief sometimes takes you to a path to the left and sometimes to the right but what is encompasses all things. To a true searcher the path will disappear into the is.

Are you really interested in truth?

Your quite wrong in this matter. Perception is our direct analog to reality and belief is the willing modification of perception. But the hard thing is, believing in something does not make it real. If reality were not subjective as well as objective, then it would be an easier concept to understand. You are defined by your belief as it guides your perception and thus your reality.

I do seek truth, but it is certainly not the "truth" that you seek. I do not need to know the will of god, or of his plans, in fact I don't even need a god to make my existence meaningful. I seek a physical truth, based on the universe around me, as far away from the subjective as my human nature allows. What I seek, in fact, is truth, as in actual real truth, as in what is, not what I believe.

[magus niche]

arildno: "collective unconscious energy that creates all worlds"
All terms in this phrase except "that" and "all" are terribly ill-defined

i do not think 'that' and 'all' are terribly well 'defined' either... and this conceptual entity called a universal 'definition' is an extremely hard one to speak of. shoshana is right, we need to start speaking in terms which account for ALL people/things/concepts. as hard as it seems, all these posts on these forums are helping to form common grounds, even if these common grounds are only percieved by those who are engaged in them. ie. those who read and/or write them.

maybe: collective UC = human objectivity
maybe: creates = constructs/synthesises
maybe: worlds = infiniverse (universe + anything else that could possibly exist)

Deeviant good response to tenyears. but do you think 'universal truths' may be our own constructions? yes, the physical world is percieved by all living beings, and therefore common, but how or why we percieve what we percieve, seems to me to be humanly subjective (objective???). this does not diminish the power of the intellect, but it does put us into perspective.

ie. we as a human race think we are 'discovering truths'. any other living entity also has equal right to its own truths though, surely. for example, survival is an animal truth that seems to be universal, but as humans it is a choice(?) to survive: suicide, martydom, kamikazee etc...

we may have a grand intellect, able to find patterns/commonalities in nature and project meaning upon them, but when it comes down to it, they simply exist anyway (according to Einstein an observer is needed for reality to exist, on our planet alone we can find many many observers...). so we must not believe we are the end in its self, but rather, we are an infinite part of an infinite means/way/process constantly in flux.

do not get me wrong, i am always searching for truths, but i also acknowledge that somebody/thing may not see these truths the way i see them. which is what i think you were hitting upon nicely with your last message about subjectivity/objectivity. you are right, they both exist. :wink:

quest:ION---> is objectivity more a unification of many subjectivities?

[arildno]

I said the other terms were terribly ill-defined, I didn't say the other two were impeccably well-defined..:wink:

[BoulderHead]

God has never made anything, but everything is made out of God. Do you understand?
I believe so, but don't necessarily agree. Do you understand?

[Lacy33]

I said the other terms were terribly ill-defined, I didn't say the other two were impeccably well-defined..:wink:

How would you "well define" ANY OF IT...That hasn't been said before?

[Les Sleeth]

If there is a god I'm positive that everyone out there would agree that his power is infinite.

You are wrong to say everyone would agree that God’s power is infinite.

The only clues we have access to that might guide us about what the creator force(s) can do are here in our universe. There is not one factor known about creation from which we can inductively project infinity into a God model. Whatever God is, whether it is some consciousness that evolved as part of the cosmos or if it is just the name we give to physical processes needed to produce creation, logically “God” only needs to be power enough to have created this universe. Same with omniscience. God only needs to be knowing enough to have created this universe.

Also, getting back to your orignial question, as with most so-called paradoxes, a bit of fuzziness (i.e., insufficient facts or sloppy definitions, both of which are present into the God-rock question) is usually built into the puzzle, and that is why it leads to a logic conundrum. After adding facts and/or sorting out the issues involved more carefully, usually the answer flushes out. I originally posted the following over in the Logic Forum. I hope no one minds if I repost it here:

To be omnipotent means to be in possession of all the power there is. However, it doesn't tell us if there is a finite or an infinite amount of power to be in possession of; also, all-powerful doesn't mean “omni-capable,” i.e., that the omnipotent being can do anything it wants (analogously, a powerful weightlifter isn't necessarily intelligent).

We know a lot of "power" is packed into matter, so it follows that the omnipotent being uses power to create the rock. If the pool of power being drawn from is finite, then the rock could get so big at some point that the power used up creating the rock doesn't leave enough for lifting, and so an omnipotent being in a finite power pool could create a rock that was not liftable. If, on the other hand, the pool of power being drawn from is infinite, then the rock could never get so big that there wasn't enough power left to lift the rock, and in that case the omnipotent being could not create a rock that was not liftable.

[Tom McCurdy]

Could God destroy himself?

[Les Sleeth]

Could God destroy himself?

Here's the thing. Is this question to be based on fact or is it going to be a logic exercise? When it is a logic exercise, we outfit God with whatever qualities we can dream up, and then see how it makes sense or is contraditory. Believers speak from faith, unbelievers take potshots, and nobody decides anything worthwhile.

You might say we have no facts. I would answer that the nature of creation gives us facts about its creator. If we can say the creator is whatever it is that created creation--whether that is physical processes alone, some type of consciousness that developed over eons of time, a combination of both, or something we've not yet imagined--then we have a basis for discussion.

If creation is the result of a greater creationary environment, then all the traits found here in creation must have been derived from the creator's potential (i.e., nothing can exist in time which the potential for it to exist didn't preceed its existence). Thus we can inductively project a creator model from what creation is like. For example, everything in creation, without exception, oscillates. Is part of the creator some type of oscillatory dynamic which our universe's relentless vibrations reflect?

Back to your question of if God can destroy himself (is it a "him"?). If we don't even understand what God is, then how can anyone know if that potential out of which creation arose could be damaged or destroyed? That's the realistic answer. But if we want to guess just for the sake debating, and embue God with omnipotence or supernatural abilities or whatever, then the question becomes another unproductive discussion.

[Lacy33]

Could God destroy himself?

Assuming I don't understand what we mean by G-d, I wonder to what degree of destruction you might be refereing to if G-d extends way into unimaginalbe concepts of greater and greater nothingness. Where would you define a line where G-d begins and ends to destroy Itself?

[selfAdjoint]

If I am not mistaken, the original Kabbalists saw the Creation as an act of great pain to the Creator. Previously the Creator had been in a state of fullness and completion, everything together and harmonious in the Creator's own self. To produce the Other, the Universe, this being had to "perform surgery" on himself, shrink away to provide a place for the Other and deny harmony to embody the Other.

[Lacy33]

If I am not mistaken, the original Kabbalists saw the Creation as an act of great pain to the Creator. Previously the Creator had been in a state of fullness and completion, everything together and harmonious in the Creator's own self. To produce the Other, the Universe, this being had to "perform surgery" on himself, shrink away to provide a place for the Other and deny harmony to embody the Other.

"Go on..What interests me most is that there was aproxamatly 18 hours of it...So do we give her a medal?...I say at least a healthy grant!" in other words Doctor Arroway, in the movie CONTACT, came back with proof that was kept a secret. She ended up giving tours to Children at the VLA.

I don't know many people who can fully appreaceate what you have written. Like Doctor Arroway, people with that kind of understanding unfortunately might need to go back to the children and ask them to ask the questions themselves.
Doctor Arroway herself struggled with the experience.
Based on the lessons learned from CONTACT, what questions would we ask WE the children?
"Baby steps Ellie, baby steps"
Thank you for this powerful post.
OH! How I wish I wasn't me right now!
"So beautiful, they should have sent a poet", or in this case a Kabbalist to respond to your explosive post!
"Know before WHAT you stand"
Hatzlacha Rabba!
S

[olde drunk]

Could God destroy himself?
How? within my definition, god is the total collective consciousness; it is not a single unit, anymore than the U.S. of A. is capable of destroying itself.

If arildno doesn't like my choice of words, perhaps he could provide us with a usable glossary of terms and definitions for us to use. I know, that sentence is redundant.

in short, seeing that the universe or omniverse as being our source doesn't violate any accepted definitions. it simply expands what has been understood.

the kabbala idea ain't bad. god musta got bored, so here we are. now when this Other reaches fulfillment will there be anOther birth?

love&peace,
olde drunk

[Lacy33]

How? within my definition, god is the total collective consciousness; it is not a single unit, anymore than the U.S. of A. is capable of destroying itself.

If arildno doesn't like my choice of words, perhaps he could provide us with a usable glossary of terms and definitions for us to use. I know, that sentence is redundant.

in short, seeing that the universe or omniverse as being our source doesn't violate any accepted definitions. it simply expands what has been understood.

the kabbala idea ain't bad. god musta got bored, so here we are. now when this Other reaches fulfillment will there be anOther birth?

love&peace,
olde drunk

This is beautiful!
G-d ain't bored NOW with all this Shenanagins going on!

[magus niche]

all i can say, is get ready for changes. BIG changes. creation is an energy construction/synthesis.... i can think of so many parallels it is not funny.

in fact, ethically, i think in this time we live, we have some rather large decisions to make regarding our future, and the future of our planet.

i honestly am coming to the conclusion that we are all gonna need a bit of faith. lets actually CARE about ourselves and one another (and life in general) for a change, it'll make things a hell of a lot easier!

also: find out about yourselves, everyone! who are you? where do you come from? and importantly, where do you you want to go?

i speak from the heart,
instead of the head,
without the heart and its ticking,
the head would be dead.

[TENYEARS]

I believe so, but don't necessarily agree. Do you understand?

I understand that you are asleep with the rest of the cattle. My purpose is only the truth, I have no hope of changing the world for it cannot be changed. The course is set and the future is inevietable as the rain.

[magus niche]

can anyone here define truth? can anyone here define knowledge? no, because it comes from within/without and it is not an intellectuality. but the representation of it is, and the representaion is physical at the same time: all language is subjective to the users.

tenyears, you say you 'know' you do not believe, what exactly do you mean?

all i can say is i 'know' i don't 'know'.
i accept i do not 'know' anything.
but by saying this paradoxically i do 'know' something.

stop searching for certainty. make it clear that belief and knowledge are interchangeable.

truth is not the representation but what it represents.

[Lacy33]

can anyone here define truth? can anyone here define knowledge? no, because it comes from within/without and it is not an intellectuality. but the representation of it is, and the representaion is physical at the same time: all language is subjective to the users.

tenyears, you say you 'know' you do not believe, what exactly do you mean?

all i can say is i 'know' i don't 'know'.
i accept i do not 'know' anything.
but by saying this paradoxically i do 'know' something.

stop searching for certainty. make it clear that belief and knowledge are interchangeable.

truth is not the representation but what it represents.

I am not really awake enough to think this through in a more dignified way, but then perhaps this is more appropriate anyway.
What would be if we, in our intellectual development once looked at a tree and said I know, I believe, I don't know, I accept I will never know....What of the sun, lumber, wheat, lightening, an atomic particle?
We can map out this universe AND its still unknown underpinnings. We just have to all go to some kind of class to learn the basic rule of progressing in this direction .
Why can't we humble ourselves enough to use the basic rules of investigainon that have led us this far and only slightly adjust or techniques as needed instead of tossing out the baby with the bath water?
Why do we think that in regard to investigations of abstract, seemingly non-physical phenomenology we need to come into it sideways with no regard to established rules of investigation. It is still the same universe GREAT minds have been asking questions about since our beginning.

[arildno]

"Why do we think that in regard to investigations of abstract, seemingly non-physical phenomenology we need to come into it sideways with no regard to established rules of investigation. It is still the same universe GREAT minds have been asking questions about since our beginning."

This is an excellent comment, Shoshana!
In my opinion, the main reason why the natural sciences have been so successful, is that the appropriate tools we need to conduct proper research in these areas have, as yet, shown themselves to be within our intellectual&physical capacity to produce
(the tools, that is: close observation&mathematical theories).

One might ask, for example:
1)What would be the proper tools to investigate into the phenomenon of consciousness in a fruitful, scientific manner?
a)What sort of experiments?
b)What sort of predictive theories?
2) Are humans at all capable to devise the proper tools to conduct a research into consciousness along the lines in 1)?

Personally, I would say that, as yet, we are certainly not in possession of such tools, and I am rather doubtful if 2) may ever be answered in the affirmative.

Should that stop us from trying?
I don't think so; perhaps philosophy as a discipline has its own value in leaving no stones unturned, seeking to devise new ways of thinking that one day might be developed into science.
While the "scientist"-mentalities will shy away from areas where there is not yet science, it is perhaps crucial to have a segment of "philosopher"-mentalities who have the patience&perseverance to do their best to open up new areas for scientific research.

That such minds ought to familiarize themselves with (and understand) already established scientific techniques is, IMO, vital; otherwise, they leave themselves bare-handed with nothing they can build upon, or tweak into an effective tool for some new science.

To discard out of hand established techniques of investigation simply because one has the OPINION that they are surely worthless in one's own area of interest, is, IMO, a rather arrogant attitude.

[Lacy33]

"Why do we think that in regard to investigations of abstract, seemingly non-physical phenomenology we need to come into it sideways with no regard to established rules of investigation. It is still the same universe GREAT minds have been asking questions about since our beginning."

This is an excellent comment, Shoshana!
In my opinion, the main reason why the natural sciences have been so successful, is that the appropriate tools we need to conduct proper research in these areas have, as yet, shown themselves to be within our intellectual&physical capacity to produce
(the tools, that is: close observation&mathematical theories).

One might ask, for example:
1)What would be the proper tools to investigate into the phenomenon of consciousness in a fruitful, scientific manner?
a)What sort of experiments?
b)What sort of predictive theories?
2) Are humans at all capable to devise the proper tools to conduct a research into consciousness along the lines in 1)?

Personally, I would say that, as yet, we are certainly not in possession of such tools, and I am rather doubtful if 2) may ever be answered in the affirmative.

Should that stop us from trying?
I don't think so; perhaps philosophy as a discipline has its own value in leaving no stones unturned, seeking to devise new ways of thinking that one day might be developed into science.
While the "scientist"-mentalities will shy away from areas where there is not yet science, it is perhaps crucial to have a segment of "philosopher"-mentalities who have the patience&perseverance to do their best to open up new areas for scientific research.

That such minds ought to familiarize themselves with (and understand) already established scientific techniques is, IMO, vital; otherwise, they leave themselves bare-handed with nothing they can build upon, or tweak into an effective tool for some new science.

To discard out of hand established techniques of investigation simply because one has the OPINION that they are surely worthless in one's own area of interest, is, IMO, a rather arrogant attitude.

Personal opinion: "THANK YOU" would be one of the first commonly used terms that would benefit from a serious mathematical application in expansion!
S

[arildno]

Eeh..I was inspired from your comment to jot down a few thoughts of my own along the line of thinking you so effectively summarized.
Perhaps I should have limited myself to say "thank you"..:confused:

[Lacy33]

Eeh..I was inspired from your comment to jot down a few thoughts of my own along the line of thinking you so effectively summarized.
Perhaps I should have limited myself to say "thank you"..:confused:

WOW!
That was a quick mathematical reduction of not only Grace but Humility as well..
Go on....Can you do that for some of the other things that we on these philosophy forums are SUFFERING from?
Please don't make me beg!
S

[arildno]

I'll try to be less acidic and more to the point in the future..:redface:

[Lacy33]

I'll try to be less acidic and more to the point in the future..:redface:

Please..It is the fire that burns off the dross.,
I'm not here to play.
I feel guilty enough taking the time of others who use this forum to develop serious and valuable advances.
Thank you most sincerely,
S

[Rainer]

"Why do we think that in regard to investigations of abstract, seemingly non-physical phenomenology we need to come into it sideways with no regard to established rules of investigation. It is still the same universe GREAT minds have been asking questions about since our beginning."

This is an excellent comment, Shoshana!
In my opinion, the main reason why the natural sciences have been so successful, is that the appropriate tools we need to conduct proper research in these areas have, as yet, shown themselves to be within our intellectual&physical capacity to produce
(the tools, that is: close observation&mathematical theories).

One might ask, for example:
1)What would be the proper tools to investigate into the phenomenon of consciousness in a fruitful, scientific manner?
a)What sort of experiments?
b)What sort of predictive theories?
2) Are humans at all capable to devise the proper tools to conduct a research into consciousness along the lines in 1)?

Personally, I would say that, as yet, we are certainly not in possession of such tools, and I am rather doubtful if 2) may ever be answered in the affirmative.

Should that stop us from trying?
I don't think so; perhaps philosophy as a discipline has its own value in leaving no stones unturned, seeking to devise new ways of thinking that one day might be developed into science.
While the "scientist"-mentalities will shy away from areas where there is not yet science, it is perhaps crucial to have a segment of "philosopher"-mentalities who have the patience&perseverance to do their best to open up new areas for scientific research.

That such minds ought to familiarize themselves with (and understand) already established scientific techniques is, IMO, vital; otherwise, they leave themselves bare-handed with nothing they can build upon, or tweak into an effective tool for some new science.

To discard out of hand established techniques of investigation simply because one has the OPINION that they are surely worthless in one's own area of interest, is, IMO, a rather arrogant attitude.

Induction is what you seek. And yes, it is very badly needed. From this respect, let it be known to physicists that philosophy is the hardest science; as it is most fundamental of the sciences.

Without a damn good process of induction...Physics and all the other natural sciences have nothing.

[arildno]

I would rather say that physics is the EASIEST science; some fields of experience might be just too difficult to make into an area of SCIENTIFIC research..

[Lacy33]

I would rather say that physics is the EASIEST science; some fields of experience might be just too difficult to make into an area of SCIENTIFIC research..

Perhaps we should ask the children. Or the less educated in the sciences who have vision, a charm, and manners that appeal to science professionals who in turn can apply science to a more difficult subjects made easy.

[Rainer]

I would rather say that physics is the EASIEST science; some fields of experience might be just too difficult to make into an area of SCIENTIFIC research..
All things can be treated scientifically. Philosophy as one.

[TENYEARS]

can anyone here define truth? can anyone here define knowledge? no, because it comes from within/without and it is not an intellectuality. but the representation of it is, and the representaion is physical at the same time: all language is subjective to the users.

tenyears, you say you 'know' you do not believe, what exactly do you mean?

all i can say is i 'know' i don't 'know'.
i accept i do not 'know' anything.
but by saying this paradoxically i do 'know' something.

stop searching for certainty. make it clear that belief and knowledge are interchangeable.

truth is not the representation but what it represents.


I do not need to search for certainty. I have experienced it. Belief and knowing are not the same for knowing is an absolute and is also an experience. Belief is only what you want it to be until you see if for what it is. Knowlege is a recall of learning things. Knowlege and knowing are not interchangable. Knowing is an experience you have yet to have.

Some knowlege precludes others when you get there you will let you know.

lol

[puf_the_majic_dragon]

There's a lot of back and forth going on in this thread, but I'm gonna make a small effort to stay on subject in this post.
Assumption 1: God is omnipotent
Question 1: Can God make an object he can not lift?
Breakdown: If God is omnipotent, we must clarify if we mean mentally omnipotent (capable of infinite simultaneous thought processes); emotionally omnipotent (capable of an infinite range and strength of infinte emotions); or physically omnipotent (having infinite physical strength).
I believe it's reasonable to expect that all of God's powers would stem from one or more of these three basic areas.
Assumption 2: God is omnipotent in all 3 ways.
My argument is based mainly upon physical omnipotence. In order for a God to have any physical strength, he/she/it must have a physical body. Any physical body would by definition require form. To define the form of God's body, we would have to define the limits of that form (ie, i define the form of my house by defining the limits of the walls, where they begin and end). If God's body has limits that we can define, those limits must also apply to the performance of that body, thus his body could only have finite strength. If God's body does not have limits, then it lacks form, and then is incapable of interacting with a physical world. God therefore can not be physically omnipotent, so YES he could create an object he could not lift.
Next up, the same question, taking into account more than 3 dimensions. Same bat-channel, same bat-time.

also: find out about yourselves, everyone! who are you? where do you come from? and importantly, where do you you want to go?

Who am I?
I am.
IF I am.
Who is God?

[olde drunk]

I suspect that we got off track looking for a workable definition of god. If god is a s/he/it then we have one set of circumstances. This seems improbable because all of the wisdom handed down thru history, plus our own intuitive understanding, leads us to a god of 'unknown' nature.

If we exclude the olde man on a throne, where do we go? Between QT and M-theory we are beginning to see that everything is inter-connected on many levels. Do we go back to 'we are all one'; we are god. Meaning that all our individual energies and consciousness' join to make a god or are we aspects of the larger gestalts???

this thread is good mind candy, but it does expose our need to understand what we mean when we use the term 'god'.

i vote for god being an energy gestalt or universal consciousness; maybe both.

love&peace,
olde drunk

[Lacy33]

I suspect that we got off track looking for a workable definition of god. If god is a s/he/it then we have one set of circumstances. This seems improbable because all of the wisdom handed down thru history, plus our own intuitive understanding, leads us to a god of 'unknown' nature.

If we exclude the olde man on a throne, where do we go? Between QT and M-theory we are beginning to see that everything is inter-connected on many levels. Do we go back to 'we are all one'; we are god. Meaning that all our individual energies and consciousness' join to make a god or are we aspects of the larger gestalts???

this thread is good mind candy, but it does expose our need to understand what we mean when we use the term 'god'.

i vote for god being an energy gestalt or universal consciousness; maybe both.

love&peace,
olde drunk

In the interest of bridging some to the communication gaps found not only in philosophical discussions dealing with philosophy alone but in philosophy sharing a common ground with advances in science, I agree that the use of the word God should be replaced with another term that includes the definitions of our most universally understood concepts of a higher power as is resembles the most recent questions being asked in the physical sciences today.
There are no shortages of examples.
A vacuum, nothingness, infinity.
These are only a small example the commonalities of topics being explored in the physics departments and what is stated in the holy books.

G-d is referred to as Infinite One, nothingness the lowest level of communication of G-d with man in this physical world, G-d withdrew a part of G-d creating a vacuum...these are found in the Talmud, or Kabbalah and all of of these can be found in the physics conference rooms being explored without the word God.
Thanks,
S

[puf_the_majic_dragon]

I agree that the use of the word God should be replaced with another term that includes the definitions of our most universally understood concepts of a higher power...

ok? what term would you suggest? pick one word that carries the same subliminal undertones without the religious overtones. as soon as you find that word, perhaps we can bring peace to the middle east next? :)

i'm not trying to be rude or flammatory, i only wish to stress the point of the fallibility of language. try to take it in good heart. after all, they're only words. ;)

[Lacy33]

ok? what term would you suggest? pick one word that carries the same subliminal undertones without the religious overtones. as soon as you find that word, perhaps we can bring peace to the middle east next? :)

i'm not trying to be rude or flammatory, i only wish to stress the point of the fallibility of language. try to take it in good heart. after all, they're only words. ;)

Well to begin with I think PEACE was just brought to the middle east as efforts are being made to get Yasser Arafat to a hospital where he can get the medical attention he needs to heal. I see that as a very good start.
I don't mind what you call a higher power. I only mean to succeed by not offending peoples sensitivities.
Look at some of the words Justin Khoury is using in naming his cutting edge work in astroparticle physics. Ekpyrotic universe, Chameleon dark energy...You can find his work by going to ISCAP, Columbia University.
You can dress G-d up in a pink fuzzy bunny outfit and that might work. The powers that be have already tried everything else on. Trees, homelessness, time, the elevator. And just like Justin's interesting titles, these outer expressions are only indications as to what we will find beneath.
S

[puf_the_majic_dragon]

unfortunately, wherever people have opinions, someone will always be offended. there's no way around it. if you replace the word "god" with a more "universal" word, someone is going to be offended that you left God out of it.

on that note, i have never met a single person who was actually offended by the use of religious terms in scientific, educational, or philosophical discussions. i've only met people who were afraid someone else might be offended, whether or not anybody really is. so imho i think we should get over ourselves, use the words we have and not worry so much about offending people who really couldn't care less. it's real hard to contemplate the mysteries of the universe if you're too busy trying to rewrite the dictionary.

if my opinion offends somebody, i'm sorry for that offense, now get over it and let's talk philosophy and leave politicing out of it.

[BranMan]

Isn't it a bit redundant to discuss god?

[DJmaux]

Yes gods power is infinite.
What it means is this. God can see and use the infinite possibilites (everything)
to create any reality it wants. The good thing is that in case you didnt know we are all god so in fact we are all infinitly powerful. Once you die you become god again and can use these infinite possibiles to do whatever you want.
Create your own universes, have sex 24 hours a day, drink beer 24 hours a day with no hang overs etc
That is what is called heaven :)

[puf_the_majic_dragon]

Yes gods power is infinite.
What it means is this. God can see and use the infinite possibilites (everything)
to create any reality it wants. The good thing is that in case you didnt know we are all god so in fact we are all infinitly powerful. Once you die you become god again and can use these infinite possibiles to do whatever you want.
Create your own universes, have sex 24 hours a day, drink beer 24 hours a day with no hang overs etc
That is what is called heaven :)

whoa there! not exactly MY idea of heaven...
and also.. what precludes us from using these infinite possibilities right now?
what's more.. there are limits to infinite sets. the set of all even numbers is limited because it has no odd numbers. the set of all rational numbers has no irrational numbers. these are basic examples to illustrate another question. which set of infinite possibilities can god use? ALL of them?

[DJmaux]

Yes god can use the infinite possibilites to creat anything.
Again sorry to mention my drug experience but on my lsd trip I saw these infinite possibilites. The infinite possibilites form an infinite circle.
This circle (the alpha and the omega) contains ever single possibile thing that could ever happen. God can see these infinite possibilites and use them to its/our will. This is also know as "The all seeing eye". You might have even seen the picture where there is a pyramid with an eye at the top,seen on certain dollar bills. This is the eye of god seeing every single possibility.
God can see the infinite possibilites and therfore has infinite power.
I know this because like I said I saw the infinite possibilities on my lsd trip.
Just incase you want to know what happened was I ran inside myself in a spiral direction inwards and as I traveled inside myself I saw more and more possibilites and eventually when I reached the center I saw ap erfect circle which is every single possibility that could ever happen. That is the true universe.
Sorry that this sounds a little way out but well it was !!!!

[Qyamat]

Oh, comeone u people u have already wasted enough time on this thread.It is simple that someone must be allpowerfull becausethings from nothingness is impossible.No matter how heavy the rock may bee

[DJmaux]

Thank you qyamat :)

[puf_the_majic_dragon]

Oh, comeone u people u have already wasted enough time on this thread.

wasted time? by that definition ALL science is a waste of time. for all time religions and soothsayers have covered the earth, controlling the people and creating rules - and always that one almighty rule "THOU SHALT NOT QUESTION!" science questions. we as scientists dare to ask "what if?" and then we seek the answers. for a true scientist there is nothing set in stone.

now if you think this thread is a waste of time, why did you bother posting to it? the rest of us who are not afraid to break the mold, well we'll keep questioning, and we'll keep seeking the answers.

[Francis M]

The question first posed in this thread goes on the idea that someone has definitivly proven Gods existence. Which means that God has been defined and understood. Question then, defined and understood how? Completly? As far as we know? Limits and limitlessness are defined by our knowledge and experiances we have had up to now (collectivly). If we understand/know God (supposing infinite complexities of this being) then by proxy we know/understand all that God does and is and therefore have become God, thereby knowing the answer to the question first asked and making it and this discussion moot!
LEts go on the supposition that GOd exists for the sake of this next question. How do you prove that God created a rock to big for he/she/it self to lift? Did God just choose not to lift the rock? These questions can go round and round untill arguments and flame posts ensue because we're trying at this point with our current understanding and knowledge to define what is currently undefinable to us. If God exists and the Bible tells us how GOd did things then it tells us this through the workings of mans mind more than 2000 years ago. Man has expanded his knowledge a considerable amount compared to that benchmark.

[puf_the_majic_dragon]

If God exists and the Bible tells us how GOd did things then it tells us this through the workings of mans mind more than 2000 years ago. Man has expanded his knowledge a considerable amount compared to that benchmark.

well first, the judeo-christian god isn't the only god believed to exist.. but "he" is one of the newer ones. that's right boys and girls, christianity is the new kid on the block ;)
anyways, i agree that as far as all these religious suppositions are concerned we're dealing with, in most cases, records that are thousands of years old. and we're working with the minds of men/women thousands of years old.

suppose that "god" is NOT the all-powerful being aluded to in ancient texts. suppose he's an extra terrestrial from a 2nd generation yellow star. suppose we are in some manner of speaking, his offspring through his hand in organizing life on this planet. so far we're following the main idea of most western religions, with a slight scientific twist.
now suppose god comes down and decides to create religion, whether as an experiment, or because he one day hopes to share his technological marvels with us and wants a source of morals/ethics for us to learn. he sits on his hill talking to moses.. how is moses gonna explain to the people of isreal that the ALMIGHTY GOD, THE GREAT I AM, is an alien from another planet? fill in the blanks with your own religious icons and followers, the idea is still the same.. how would people back then react to that?
how would any modern day religion react if god showed up tomorrow in a flying saucer?

[DJmaux]

Just to answer the question about could god make a rock so big he couldnt lift it, I would have to say no. I know it wounds contradictory but even though gods powers are limitless they still have some limits.
Gods power is limitless in that god can make things upto infinite value but god cannot make something bigger than infinite value so in that way I guess this means that gods power is limited.
I belive god couldnt make a rock so big he couldnt lift it because the maximum size rock god can make is of infinite size. Gods maximum lift power is equal and of infinite lifting power. Since infinite size is the most value, god will always be able to lift the rock as to not be able to lift it, the rock size would have to be bigger than the lift value which cannot happen as there is only one maximum value. Hope this helps.
Besides even if god could make things bigger than infinity and 100% had no limits
whatsoever then god would still have the limit of not having any limits!!!

[magus niche]

god... yes im sure we all think we know the dude and what he/she/it thinks but seriously, if anyone here has experienced god, i'm sure they wouldn't be able to tell us about him/her/it with the vulgar digital text right here. in fact most religious people would probably argue that god cannot even be concieved with our petty little intelligences let alone stated in plain english language, a language that has only come into being in the last few hundred years. still, nuthn wrong with trying, and besides it was these petty little intelligences that invented the Word to describe the phenomena!

objective reality = body of god
subjective reality = mind?

[RoboSapien]

http://physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=489483&posted=1#post489483thanks Mr jcsd for the link
as for Mr Robosapien, thanks for calling me mr optimistic while i am not at all
but in thoe matters i really am.
first of all i would like to say i am just a beginner in this field (astronomy, metaphysics.. ) but i believe somehow: "there are too many ways to arrive to my aim, it just needs too many ways of thinking and reasonning"
while about your way, i would like to listen to a specialist to see wether it can be made or not. i'm not talking about how long it will take; i'm talking about its "possibility"

Science is our future :)

Does that possibility include one of god too ?

No wonder some people still pray god.

[Telos]

Saying God has limits because he can or cannot create a rock that he cannot lift is inconsistent with the definition of God.

It's like me saying I cannot jump by pushing my legs off of the ground. That's what jumping is and that's what I do if I am a jumper. Or, it's like saying I cannot breathe air by bringing it into my body. That's what breathing is and that's what I do if I am a breather.

God, if he existed, would do God things and God things are consistent.

[RoboSapien]

...
Anything done by gods grace is simply not repeatable and hence ...

[Telos]

Don't keep us in suspense!

[wikkidwife]

God's power transcends the laws of physics, so weight probably isn't as much of an issue for Him.

[dark_angel]

this whole debate is so stupid and every question has a self-stupifying answer like 'only if he wanted to see what its liek to be powerless'

god doesnt exist. neither does hell/heaven/demons or any of that crap you were fed as a child. get a grip and see whats wrong with this world - religion.


wrong, it is us who are at fault, not religion.

it is the gradient of the human phsyce or however u spell it :rofl:

[BigStelly]

The answer to this question no.... but it is because such a thing cannot exist... nothing is too massive for god to move even an infinite rock. Nothing is impossible with god and this is a nothing. People who ask this question act all smug because they believe they have found something an infinite being cannot do, this question begs a follow up is the rock infinite or finite?

[BigStelly]

But keep in mind even if the rock is infinite god could still lift it because nothing made can be greater than god because he is by defintion all powerful.

[Ivan Seeking]

You linear thinkers you. Could both be true...considering that it's God and all that omnipotent stuff? :biggrin:

[RoboSapien]

Don't keep us in suspense! ... Hence its better to stick with something reliable as science. Where once proven results are garunteed every time.

[magus niche]

we cannot prove god (can we?), so just experience it. experience states of consciousness other than the ego based reality, and one will gain understanding that transcends energy phenomena (the physical world).

out on a limb:
a dream can contradict scientific laws. eg. when i dreamt i was flying, and then i became slightly conscious of the fact that i was flying and tried to control the flight. unfortunately, somewhat like Peter, i lost faith due to my logical mind, and started to fall. then when i let go of thoughts, i flew again...

anyway the point is, that there has been times in dreams where i am somewhat conscious, and the experience is real (subjectively). dreams can embed memories (ie physical records) so what is not real about them. therefore in dream reality (astral?) omnipotence is a knowable phenomena, no?

[Rasine]

there is no answer to the original question becuase if God had infinite power He SHOULD be able to creat a rock so heavy that He could not lift it. on the contrary, He has infinte power, thus he SHOULD be able to lift the rock.

[Loren Booda]

Any apparent limit to God is what He allows us to misperceive through our own free will, including Internet posts.

[mruncleramos]

Inserting conditions like "rock so heavy he cannot lift it" is logically invalid. One cannot insert clauses like that and expect to get an answer. Can he make so much water so that he could not drink all of it? Can he create a maze so complicated that he cannot find his way out? A more appopriate question would be, can he make a rock that is infinitely heavy? Can he make an infinite volume of water? Can he make an infinitly intricate maze?

[Telos]

... Hence its better to stick with something reliable as science. Where once proven results are garunteed every time.

Science has guarantees? This is news to me.

[RoboSapien]

Science has guarantees? This is news to me.

seems like U have been Teleported from DarkAges.

In Science guarantees=99% surerity.

[RoboSapien]

Inserting conditions like "rock so heavy he cannot lift it" is logically invalid. One cannot insert clauses like that and expect to get an answer. Can he make so much water so that he could not drink all of it? Can he create a maze so complicated that he cannot find his way out? A more appopriate question would be, can he make a rock that is infinitely heavy? Can he make an infinite volume of water? Can he make an infinitly intricate maze?


GOD that mother ****AR He could not help my parent who died in agony. They prayed god every minute of their life. U expect him to do all that, NAA?

That SON of a ***** is good for nothing , I am better than him Period.

Do U realize that GOD is a Bastard.

[magus niche]

seems like U have been Teleported from DarkAges.

In Science guarantees=99% surerity.

seems like you've been teleported from the Land Of The Robots. :tongue: In the Land Of The Robots certainty is a fixed number, but no-one is conscious of it. All the 'Bots think they know the truth but none of them agree on what it is.

[lawtonfogle]

Ohhhhhhh :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

I had just typed an entire essay almost, but the forums logged me out and did not let me post it, and now i do not have time to rewrite it. Ill try to do it again later.

This is a problem that i have encounted many time, is their a reason why.

RoboSapien, it sounds as if you are still in grief of your parents. You need to go see someone for counsilling. please erase what u posted.

[lawtonfogle]

I belive that God has the power to vibrate the strings (the ones that cause energy and matter). He spoke and it was done. Speaking as we know it causes the vibration of something, usaly air. Also, who ever wrote Genisis did not know about strings and alot of other things, so it would seem a good analogy that God spoke matter into existence, in place of Him causing the strings to vibrate. Also, do the strings have a name, I sometimes like to call them 'The Strings of Eternity' for a mystic ring.

In concern to my first post, this was part one, and I have shortened it. The rest of it was not relevant to this thread.

[hypnagogue]

It seems like this thread has run its course.