Can God Create an Unliftable Object?

[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

 

[lvlastermind]

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

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...
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 existence or the non existence 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: let's 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 existence, 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 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