Can God Create an Unliftable Object?

  • Thread starter Thread starter lvlastermind
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Limit Power
Click For Summary
The discussion centers around the paradox of God's omnipotence, specifically the question of whether an omnipotent being could create a rock so heavy that even they could not lift it. Participants explore the implications of infinite power, questioning the meaning of omnipotence and whether it can coexist with logical constraints. Some argue that the concept of infinity is inherently finite, citing examples from mass and energy, while others contend that true infinity cannot be limited. The conversation also touches on the existence of God, with some asserting that God cannot be proven to exist or not exist, leading to a debate about the nature of belief and the role of religion in society. The discussion highlights the tension between scientific understanding and religious beliefs, with calls for a more logical interpretation of the universe and a critique of traditional religious narratives. Overall, the thread grapples with deep philosophical questions about existence, power, and the nature of reality.
  • #61
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
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #62
Scott Sieger said:
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.
 
  • #63
TENYEARS said:
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?
 
  • #64
lvlastermind said:
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!
 
Last edited:
  • #65
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.
 
Last edited:
  • #66
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)
 
Last edited:
  • #67
magus niche said:
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?
 
  • #68
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?
 
  • #69
TENYEARS said:
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
 
  • #70
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.
 
  • #71
TENYEARS said:
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
 
  • #72
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)
 
  • #73
what is it in the top of the pyramid?

(no te peocupes)
 
  • #74
Pick a spot on a sphere and that's where god is. the rest is the universe. No pyramid.
 
  • #75
A_I_ said:
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?
 
  • #76
Enos said:
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
 
  • #77
No, i mean the top most rules.. the most fundamental rules... the rules even god have to follow..
 
  • #78
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 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 :wink:

some other sources in no order: j. dunne, gurdjieff, buddha, jesus, jung, wittgenstien, derrida, a. versluis, ...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #79
lvlastermind said:
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.
 
  • #80
magus niche said:
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 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 :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
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #81
arildno said:
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
 
  • #82
Well, you have of course the freedom to redefine concepts into any particular shape you want..
 
  • #83
arildno said:
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
 
  • #84
"collective unconscious energy that creates all worlds"
All terms in this phrase except "that" and "all" are terribly ill-defined.
 
  • #85
arildno said:
"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
 
  • #86
TENYEARS said:
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.
 
  • #87
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. :wink:

quest:ION---> is objectivity more a unification of many subjectivities?
 
  • #88
I said the other terms were terribly ill-defined, I didn't say the other two were impeccably well-defined..:wink:
 
  • #89
TENYEARS said:
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?
 
  • #90
arildno said:
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?
 

Similar threads

Are We God? Exploring the Hidden Truth of Our Existence
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
The Power of Curses: How Divine Intervention Can Keep Objects In Place
  • · Replies 34 ·
2
Replies
34
Views
6K
Is this device possible (hope not)?
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
259
A What are your insights on The Hardest Logic Puzzle Ever?
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
The Limitations of God's Power: Examining the Logic Paradox and Existence
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
Logic: How is this question different from the Omnipotence paradox?
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
5K
The idea of god, faith, and existance
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
Philosophy: Is God timeless? (NOT A RELIGION THREAD)
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
4K
Bach, Bach, and more Bach please
  • · Replies 119 ·
4
Replies
119
Views
11K
Need help from FUNNY people (creating a game for my students)
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K