Could God make a burrito so hot that even he couldn't eat it?

[C0mmie]

It's a question that boggles the mind. If you answer yes, than God could not eat that burrito, meaning he is not all powerfull. If you give a negative response, you are limiting God's power by saying that he can't make that burrito. Either way you end up with counterevidence to God's existence. Am I right?

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by C0mmie
It's a question that boggles the mind. If you answer yes, than God could not eat that burrito, meaning he is not all powerfull. If you give a negative response, you are limiting God's power by saying that he can't make that burrito. Either way you end up with counterevidence to God's existence. Am I right?

Well, when you get right down to it, you're asking whether God has likes and dislikes which, I think He does (I guess?), in which case it is possible for Him to make it a burrito which is too hot. Or, maybe He just allows us to believe this in order to suit our tastes?

 

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by C0mmie
It's a question that boggles the mind. If you answer yes, than God could not eat that burrito, meaning he is not all powerfull. If you give a negative response, you are limiting God's power by saying that he can't make that burrito. Either way you end up with counterevidence to God's existence. Am I right?

I've been chuckling for the last 20 minutes. VERY funny C0mmie.

If I believed God were all powerful, then I'd say that God could make a burrito so hot he couldn't eat it, and then he'd eat it anyway (sort of like wave-particle duality). In any case, I KNOW for a fact that the Mexican shop down the road can make a burrito which would fry every one of God's neurons.

 

[FZ+]

An obvious get out clause is that God doesn't follow your laws of logic, in which case my objections in God vs Logic fall on you like a ton of divine bricks.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by FZ+
... like a ton of divine bricks.

Oh, you must have a very vivid imagination!

 

[kyle_soule]

Another response to this is it is beyond our 'human' comprehension.

I don't believe any question we can ask, or imagine, is outside of our comprehension, given time. Although, this doesn't require time to see the obvious contradiction. If this is outside of our comprehension, then wouldn't that also mean GOD is outside of our comprehension?

 

[The Grimmus]

was this on the old pf ? i seem to rember it

 

[FZ+]

You are mistaken.

It was taco last time.

 

[kyle_soule]

Taco is much more accurate, what GOD would like burritos

 

[BoulderHead]

Thought for the day;

If it weren't meant to be eaten then why would God have shaped it like a taco?

I like the LW Sleeth responce. It seems to me that a god has been constructed that can not only make something so hot he can't eat it, then eat it anyway, but this god could eat it and yet not eat it all at the same instant.

 

[kyle_soule]

Did he eat it or not? You say he ate it and did not eat it, so he satisfies both of the contradictions of eating it and being unable to eat it, but he also fails to meet the requirement of both without violating the other. So basically we have an impossible/possible God at the same time

 

[BoulderHead]

Yes it is an impossible/possible situation we have here. All very confusing and I for one avoid thinking about any of it, preferring to trust the interpretations of the priests for what I should and should not believe…for they truly know what is best for me.

 

[Iacchus32]

That's quite possibly impossible!

 

[C0mmie]

The only way for a theist to get around this problem, as it seems to me, is to apply the logic of quantum mechanics. The question assumes that god follows the laws of boolean logic (everything is divided into true and false), but according to quantum mechanics a photon can be both a particle and a wave, thought the two are radically different. Similarly, god, should he exist, could both make that burrito that he would not be able to eat and then go ahead and eat it.

 

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

Oh my god(no pun intended)

That's actually a really interesting question.

You could simplify it.

Could god make a problem so hard, that he couldn't solve it.

 

[The Grimmus]

maybe he eats it but has heart burn and indigestion... and of course exsplosive diarrea

 

[Royce]

What we have here is not a problem of what God can or can't do; but a clever and funny, problem of semantics and Sophilism. In short a retorical paradox. Personally I much prefer tacos to burritos. If we were addressing the subject of tacos I might dive more enthseastically into the problem. But since the question involves burritos I think that it is insoluble. The problen then reduces itself simply to the philisophical merits of the burrito versus those of the taco. I as I have all ready admitted am hoplessly biased in favor of the taco, so I must therefore disqualify myself from any ensueing discussion of this topic.

 

[BoulderHead]

Nice one, Royce.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by The Grimmus
maybe he eats it but has heart burn and indigestion... and of course exsplosive diarrea

The big bang, you mean.

 

[Hurkyl]

Ah, the famous boulder fallacy!

Stripping away all the flavor of the paradox, its simplest form is:

"Can God do something He cannot do?"


The atheist is fond of jumping the gun and saying this disproves the possibility of any omnipotent being.

However, more carefully looking at the sentence, one realizes there are actually two independant logical statements here:

"Let A be something God cannot do."
"Can God do A?"

The resolution to the paradox is to realize that the question as a whole is nonsensical if there does not exist something God cannot do. You cannot ask "Can God do something He cannot do?" unless there is actually something He cannot do.

 

[C0mmie]

Hurkyl:
I never looked at it that way. That's a very interesting explanation.

 

[BoulderHead]

Very nicely explained, Hurkyl,

This one had been bothering me for some time. I have been guilty of 'jumping the gun' myself, though my stance had steadily been softening. I found this;

Theology - The argument against God's omnipotence

"God is omnipotent, i.e. God can do anything which is logically possible. Making a stone which is so heavy that it cannot be moved is logically possible. Therefore God, being omnipotent, can make a stone so heavy that it cannot be moved. But if God makes a stone so heavy that it cannot be moved, then God cannot move it. But if God cannot move that stone, then there is something God cannot do, and hence God is not omnipotent. Thus if God is omnipotent, then God is not omnipotent. But any property which implies its contradictory is self-contradictory. Thus the very notion of God's (or anyone's) being omnipotent is logically impossible (self-contradictory)."
The argument, as presented just above, is an unholy amalgam of two different arguments, one valid, the other invalid. The valid argument is this (where "G" = "God is omnipotent" and "M" = "God makes an immovable stone"):

[edit by BH]...The notation below didn't copy correctly-best see the link below for accuracy.

G M
M ~G
--------------
G ~G
~G

Although the immediately preceding argument is valid, its second premise is false. The true premise is used in this next argument, but this next argument is invalid:


G M
M ~G
--------------
~G
To derive ~G from the latter pair of premises, one would have to add the further premise, M. But so long as M is false, the conclusion ~G remains underivable. God, thus, remains omnipotent provided that God does nothing, e.g. making an immovable stone, which destroys His/Her omnipotence.

(Question: What if God is omnipotent - as some have argued - of logical necessity and exists necessarily, i.e. in every possible world? The answer, I'm pretty sure, is that, under these conditions, God's making a stone so heavy that God cannot move it is a logical impossibility.)

Taken with consent from;
http://www.sfu.ca/philosophy/swartz/modal_fallacy.htm
Copyright © Norman Swartz 1993, 1999

 

[heusdens]

This is another one , a variation on the theme.

Can God create itself?

If God exists, then it is not necessary to create God.
If God does not exist, then there is no God that can create anything.

Practicle solution: God exists for all eternity. No 'creation' of God needed.

Why was God needed, or thought/believed of to exist? To explain the existence of the world, to 'create' the world. The thought or concept is here that in order for the world to exist, it needed to be created, cause the world is thought of, not to be able to have existed for all of eternity.

But: why can't the world exist in all eternity, if we have no problem in thinking that God existed for all eternity?
If we attribute the same power to the world, as we attribute to God, then for sure the world can exist also, independend of and outside of our mind, without being dependend on any mind or construct of mind.

And another thing:

Can I (or anyone) proof that God does not exist?

No I can't, and nobody can. Better said I state that God exists in the form of thoughts/concept that belong to the category of existence of the mind, that is an existence category that depends on the existence of the mind.

Outside of that, I acknowledge only the existence of matter in eternal motion, requiring space and time for it's mode of existence, and which exists independend and outside of my mind, hence has existence of it's own, and does not need a God to contribute or attribute it's existence, if we just are willing to attribute the same power to the material world, as we were attributing to God.

Conclusion:

There is no proof, neither a disproof for the existence of God as something independend and outside of the mind.

Further: all reasonable human beings (with some education) will agree that the concept of God, as something that exists within and dependend of the mind, does exist. If something 'outside' and 'independend' of that thought construct or concept of mind, is really there, is - from this perspective - more or less an assumption.
And lastly: The 'thing' that we can denote with this, that has existence outside of our mind, and which is not in any way dependend of it, we can simply denote as matter, in eternal motion, and requiring time and space as modes of existence of matter.
Apart from that, we really do not need any artificial construct of mind in the form of God, we just need to explore and learn how the material world in fact works through science.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by C0mmie
Could God make a burrito so hot that even he couldn't eat it?

To answer this, there is no real problem in this. Even I can make a burrito that hot, that God cannot eat it, and for that I only have to assume or state, that apart from my thoughts and mind, God does not exist.

In the more simpler form, it is for everybody possible, to make a burrito that is so hot, that one can not eat it! But be carefull though! Don't eat it!

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Hurkyl
Ah, the famous boulder fallacy!

Stripping away all the flavor of the paradox, its simplest form is:

"Can God do something He cannot do?"


The atheist is fond of jumping the gun and saying this disproves the possibility of any omnipotent being.

However, more carefully looking at the sentence, one realizes there are actually two independant logical statements here:

"Let A be something God cannot do."
"Can God do A?"

The resolution to the paradox is to realize that the question as a whole is nonsensical if there does not exist something God cannot do. You cannot ask "Can God do something He cannot do?" unless there is actually something He cannot do.

Well your logic here is very flawed. You state that there is not something that God can not do.

But then please show me something that God CAN do! That is a bit of more interest, I would think, cause I firmly state that there is not something that God CAN do. At all!

 

[Hurkyl]

Even I can make a burrito that hot, that God cannot eat it, and for that I only have to assume or state, that apart from my thoughts and mind, God does not exist.

Your logic is flawed. If God does not exist, then "God cannot eat it" is a nonsensical statement.

Well your logic here is very flawed.

Not in the context the original question is typically asked. However, to avoid belabouring the point, I will state a more general claim

The following question is nonsensical:

"Can an omnipotent being do something it cannot do?"

 

[FZ+]

Not in the context the original question is typically asked. However, to avoid belabouring the point, I will state a more general claim
The following question is nonsensical:
"Can an omnipotent being do something it cannot do?"

Can God prove that question is not nonsensical?

Ok... very confused...

 

[AutisticSavant]

the question

makes perfect sense

let's say god can do anything. that should be the first criteria for his being god. so,


can God create another God who's more powerful than he is?

can he create a universe where He doesn't exist?

can he create a planet with a billion Gods living on it?

can he kill our immortal souls?

can he permanently turn over ALL of his powers to someone else?


if he did any of these things, would he be god any more? if he doesn't have the power to do any of these things, then was he ever god in the first place?

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Hurkyl
Your logic is flawed. If God does not exist, then "God cannot eat it" is a nonsensical statement.

Very True indeed. But the nonsensical in it is just is just the fact that such an entity does not exist in any real or material form (so how could it eat anything?)

But what if I said: Donald Duck, instead of God?

Donald Duck, is as we all know a comic figure. But can this talking Duck eat burrito's? We know that in reality no duck exists, that can talk. Does this mean Donald Duck does not exist?

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by AutisticSavant
makes perfect sense

let's say god can do anything. that should be the first criteria for his being god. so,


can God create another God who's more powerful than he is?

can he create a universe where He doesn't exist?

can he create a planet with a billion Gods living on it?

can he kill our immortal souls?

can he permanently turn over ALL of his powers to someone else?


if he did any of these things, would he be god any more? if he doesn't have the power to do any of these things, then was he ever god in the first place?

And therefore "God" is a flawed concept within itself, and for that, can not exist outside of the fixations of our thoughts.

 

[C0mmie]

Originally posted by heusdens
And therefore "God" is a flawed concept within itself, and for that, can not exist outside of the fixations of our thoughts.

And that was my original intent for posting this question.

 

[Adam]

God and I love spicy foods. The truth of the matter is, She's a terrible cook, so the can-god-cook-blah matter has never come up. I do most of the cooking, and in return she whips my arse until... um, never mind...

 

[wimms]

We can't find god because somebody asked him to Proove that he can commit a Suicide...
yeah, sad story..

 

[Hurkyl]

And therefore "God" is a flawed concept within itself, and for that, can not exist outside of the fixations of our thoughts.

How did you arrive at that conclusion?

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Hurkyl
How did you arrive at that conclusion?

Most definitions or descriptions of God will tell you that the world was created by God. The flaw in the reasoning is to think that
a. The world itself can not exist on it's own in all time, i.e. needed to have a 'begin' or 'first cause'
b. Then the need was made for a 'creator' of some sorts, who created the world.
c. To overcome any more questions, as "who created God", to the concept of God is attributed, that God can exist in all eternity.
d. The flaw is that, the property we attribtued to God, we could have already attributed to the world (existence in all eternity) without problem, without the need to introduce a creator.
e. Hence the question on wether God exists or not, is just a rare question, without any meaning realy. God was said to exist in the first place, cause God was needed for the world to be (without God, no world, etc), but when it turns out, no God is needed, what existence can then still be attributed to God? We did not disproof the existence of God, we merely prooved that we don't need a God for the world to exist. This reduces the issue to something of really no importance, and therefore the question should be dropped altogether.

 

[BoulderHead]

We did not disproof the existence of God, we merely prooved that we don't need a God for the world to exist.

I would add that even if the world was convinced that there was a need for god that we still wouldn’t be much better off than we are right now. We would very likely just have the non-believers incorporated into the myriad of religious divisions existing today (plus maybe a few dozen more). Without the overt direction of a god, IMHO, humanity might just as well put the notion on a back-burner and get on with studying the universe and using their abilities to improve the plight of man.

On the matter of the burrito, I am starting to lean towards the view that if we wish to understand ‘god’ in a logical manner then we ought to consider whether our questions are truly logical or not. So, is this question logical or not??

I’d like to see the members post their definitions of ‘omnipotence’, and let us see if we can come to anything approaching consensus. For example, should omnipotence be held to all logical possibilities, or is it just a free-for-all. If omnipotence means that a god can do all that is logically possible to do, then that is one thing. If omnipotence means god can do ‘anything at all’, logical or not, then I think people need to stop claiming god is omnipotent because in this case omnipotence is an impossible absurdity. I’m thinking I’d like to see the word ‘omnipotence’ scratched from the dictionary.

What thinkest thou?

 

[Hurkyl]

Most definitions or descriptions of God will tell you that the world was created by God. The flaw in the reasoning is to think that ...

Just checking. The juxtoposition between your claim and the statements you quoted made it appear you were using the quoted text as the reasoning leading to your claim.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Hurkyl
Just checking. The juxtoposition between your claim and the statements you quoted made it appear you were using the quoted text as the reasoning leading to your claim.

I think I do not understand what you mean here...

 

[Hurkyl]

It sounded like you were using AutisticSavant's post as a justification of your claim.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by BoulderHead
On the matter of the burrito, I am starting to lean towards the view that if we wish to understand ‘god’ in a logical manner then we ought to consider whether our questions are truly logical or not. So, is this question logical or not??

I’d like to see the members post their definitions of ‘omnipotence’, and let us see if we can come to anything approaching consensus. For example, should omnipotence be held to all logical possibilities, or is it just a free-for-all. If omnipotence means that a god can do all that is logically possible to do, then that is one thing. If omnipotence means god can do ‘anything at all’, logical or not, then I think people need to stop claiming god is omnipotent because in this case omnipotence is an impossible absurdity. I’m thinking I’d like to see the word ‘omnipotence’ scratched from the dictionary.

What thinkest thou?

I think the fallacy is in the myth, not God. Let's say the term "God" is what certain highly sensitive individuals applied to some underlying unity/force they felt. And let's assume what they felt is real.

Feeling something is one thing, interpreting it is another. Based on what they felt, it was more powerful than anything they knew, and so they concluded it was omnipotent. But in fact, if it is real, it could just as well be only powerful enough to have originated our universe. That is still pretty powerful, but not all-powerful.

Similarly, what other qualities of this "God" do we need for it to be able to create the universe? Well, everything is composed of energy, so maybe it is energetic. Everything vibrates, so maybe it has an oscillatory nature. Is it conscious? Let's skip that (although clearly whatever force(s) is behind creation has spawned consciousness). Can it behave supernaturally? If it can, no one can find evidence of it.

So, the point is, maybe there is something behind it all that moves things a certain way towards organizational integrity (even if only temporarily), but it doesn't appear to possesses the qualities theologians and tribal wisemen philosophizing around the campfire millenia ago exactly imagined.

 

[C0mmie]

(In responce to the previous post by LW Sleeth)

LW Sleeth, you are playing around with the definition of 'god.' God is defined to be all powerful, and thus any force that is not all powerful would not be god. Also, in your post it sounded like you are giving a scientific definition of a hypothetical god, and that too violates the original definition, for god cannot be explained using science. Thus what you decribe wasn't god.

Thats not to say that I don't agree with what you said. I believe that anything and everything in the universe can be explained using science, and your description of god certainly fits that criteria. But then again, its not god.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by C0mmie
(In responce to the previous post by LW Sleeth)

LW Sleeth, you are playing around with the definition of 'god.' God is defined to be all powerful, and thus any force that is not all powerful would not be god. Also, in your post it sounded like you are giving a scientific definition of a hypothetical god, and that too violates the original definition, for god cannot be explained using science. Thus what you decribe wasn't god.

Thats not to say that I don't agree with what you said. I believe that anything and everything in the universe can be explained using science, and your description of god certainly fits that criteria. But then again, its not god.

C0mmie, I did not intend to play around with the definition of god. My aim was to respond to BH's idea, and to attempt a realistic solution to the paradox you presented. As formulated, your riddle has no chance of being resolved which means we can go around in circles for decades and never get anywhere with it.

If your point is to play mind games with theological dogmatists, then I am sorry for interfering. But if you have any interest in figuring out if there is the slightest reason to consider certain people's claims of some underlying power which causes creative development (at least here on Earth), then I made a suggestion.

While I believe everything physical can be explained scientifically, I don't necessarily agree everything is physical, and therefore provable through science. You say it can't be god if it isn't all powerful, or able to act supernaturally, but why not? Most of the people so intent on assigning traits to god (theologians) were not equally intent on acquiring enough experience with god (whatever that is) to speak authoritatively. So why must we accept their definitions?

Someone like Jesus, who does claim "oneness with the Father" clearly says he is within the experience. But then, he himself said very little about this god in terms of absolute power, knowledge, size, and so on. So the definition you and others use isn't one that's derived from expertise. Nobody knows what people actually experiencing this thing they called god is really like. Maybe there is something to what they experienced -- just not all the hyped up characteristics the speculators want to assign to it. Of course, it could all be nonsense too.

 

[BoulderHead]

C0mmie,
Don’t you think the definition of god can be more (or less) than what you are saying? From dictionary.com;
1. God
a. A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions.
b. The force, effect, or a manifestation or aspect of this being.
2. A being of supernatural powers or attributes, believed in and worshiped by a people, especially a male deity thought to control some part of nature or reality.
3. An image of a supernatural being; an idol.
4. One that is worshiped, idealized, or followed: Money was their god.
5. A very handsome man.
6. A powerful ruler or despot.

Why couldn’t god simply be option number 2 above?
If god cannot be explained scientifically, and any number of people have their own foggy notions of what god might actually be, then how can anyone truly provide a definition that is suitable?

I thought LW Sleeth did a very good job of trying to make some sense out of god. If the ‘standard’ way of looking at god is illogical and absurd, then perhaps god needs to be looked at in another manner.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by C0mmie
The only way for a theist to get around this problem, as it seems to me, is to apply the logic of quantum mechanics. The question assumes that god follows the laws of boolean logic (everything is divided into true and false), but according to quantum mechanics a photon can be both a particle and a wave, thought the two are radically different. Similarly, god, should he exist, could both make that burrito that he would not be able to eat and then go ahead and eat it.

Yes I think that QM solves this problem. I am willing to accept a God that exists in a superduperposition of eigenstates - Divine Eigenstates [DE]. The coordinate system required is infinitely complex!

Actually, the jokes on us!. Theologians haves struggled with the problem of superposition ever since the evolution of trinity arguments.

A final comment: the hottest taco I have ever eaten was found in Provo Utah. This thing was unbelievable! "Mormon tacos" [no disrespect intended] are now legendary in our family. I have always assumed that some high school kid was having fun with the Mexican take out, but now I can't help but wonder; perhaps the Mormons have been up to something...[?][?][?]

 

[BoulderHead]

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
Actually, the jokes on us!. Theologians haves struggled with the problem of superposition ever since the evolution of trinity arguments.

Tehehe

 

[C0mmie]

Originally posted by BoulderHead
C0mmie,
Don’t you think the definition of god can be more (or less) than what you are saying? From dictionary.com;
1. God
a. A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions.
b. The force, effect, or a manifestation or aspect of this being.
2. A being of supernatural powers or attributes, believed in and worshiped by a people, especially a male deity thought to control some part of nature or reality.
3. An image of a supernatural being; an idol.
4. One that is worshiped, idealized, or followed: Money was their god.
5. A very handsome man.
6. A powerful ruler or despot.

Why couldn’t god simply be option number 2 above?
If god cannot be explained scientifically, and any number of people have their own foggy notions of what god might actually be, then how can anyone truly provide a definition that is suitable?

I thought LW Sleeth did a very good job of trying to make some sense out of god. If the ‘standard’ way of looking at god is illogical and absurd, then perhaps god needs to be looked at in another manner.

Boulderhead, should a definition of god state that it is anything less than option #1, the question I posted would simply not be applicable to that definition. If god is not all powerful, then he may not even know how to make a burrito.

 

[BoulderHead]

Originally posted by C0mmie
Boulderhead, should a definition of god state that it is anything less than option #1, the question I posted would simply not be applicable to that definition. If god is not all powerful, then he may not even know how to make a burrito.

Yes, in the context of your question I would agree. If I were to believe in a god, this god would not be omnipotent but, constrained.
If a god actually exists as option #1 then I have to confess that it is beyond my limited capability to reason.

"I don't know whether this world has a meaning which transcends it. But I do know that I do not know that meaning and that it is impossible for me just now to know it. What can a meaning outside my condition mean to me? I can understand only in human terms. What I touch - what resists me - that is what I understand. And these two certainties - my appetite for the absolute and for unity, and the impossibility of reducing this world to a rational and reasonable principle - I also know that I cannot reconcile them. What other truth can I admit without lying, without bringing in a hope I lack and which means nothing within the limits of my condition?" -Albert Camus