Can God Create an Unliftable Object?

[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.

 

[magus niche]

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

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

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

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

truth is not the representation but what it represents.

 

[Lacy33]

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

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

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

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

truth is not the representation but what it represents.

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

 

[arildno]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Lacy33]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[arildno]

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

 

[Lacy33]

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

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

 

[arildno]

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

 

[Lacy33]

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

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

 

[Rainer]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[arildno]

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

 

[Lacy33]

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

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

 

[Rainer]

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

All things can be treated scientifically. Philosophy as one.

 

[TENYEARS]

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

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

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

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

truth is not the representation but what it represents.

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

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

lol

 

[puf_the_majic_dragon]

Meanwhile, back at the Bat-cave

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

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

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

 

[olde drunk]

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

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

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

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

love&peace,
olde drunk

 

[Lacy33]

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

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

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

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

love&peace,
olde drunk

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

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

 

[puf_the_majic_dragon]

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

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

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

 

[Lacy33]

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

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

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

 

[puf_the_majic_dragon]

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

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

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

 

[BranMan]

Isn't it a bit redundant to discuss god?