Can God Create an Unliftable Object?

[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 argument 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 beginning 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 truly 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 possesses 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:



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.

https://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 I guess it makes sense that he'd(she/it/them) only want to talk to people that already believe in them,

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 truly 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.

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.

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 without 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 want to learn. I want to 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 really 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 universe 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 that's 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 that's 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

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 perceived observations, and others' as well. infact i wish to understand reality so that even totally new and profound observations can be built into 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 http://216.239.41.104/search?q=cach...binsky.pdf+"types+of+infinity"&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

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

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 perceived observations, and others' as well. infact i wish to understand reality so that even totally new and profound observations can be built into 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 http://216.239.41.104/search?q=cach...binsky.pdf+"types+of+infinity"&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

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 without 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 perceived 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 perceived 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.

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..

 

[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..

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 going to need a bit of faith. let's 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.