Can God Create an Unliftable Object?

[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?

 

[DJmaux]

Yes gods power is infinite.
What it means is this. God can see and use the infinite possibilites (everything)
to create any reality it wants. The good thing is that in case you didnt know we are all god so in fact we are all infinitly powerful. Once you die you become god again and can use these infinite possibiles to do whatever you want.
Create your own universes, have sex 24 hours a day, drink beer 24 hours a day with no hang overs etc
That is what is called heaven :)

 

[puf_the_majic_dragon]

Yes gods power is infinite.
What it means is this. God can see and use the infinite possibilites (everything)
to create any reality it wants. The good thing is that in case you didnt know we are all god so in fact we are all infinitly powerful. Once you die you become god again and can use these infinite possibiles to do whatever you want.
Create your own universes, have sex 24 hours a day, drink beer 24 hours a day with no hang overs etc
That is what is called heaven :)

whoa there! not exactly MY idea of heaven...
and also.. what precludes us from using these infinite possibilities right now?
what's more.. there are limits to infinite sets. the set of all even numbers is limited because it has no odd numbers. the set of all rational numbers has no irrational numbers. these are basic examples to illustrate another question. which set of infinite possibilities can god use? ALL of them?

 

[DJmaux]

Yes god can use the infinite possibilites to creat anything.
Again sorry to mention my drug experience but on my lsd trip I saw these infinite possibilites. The infinite possibilites form an infinite circle.
This circle (the alpha and the omega) contains ever single possibile thing that could ever happen. God can see these infinite possibilites and use them to its/our will. This is also know as "The all seeing eye". You might have even seen the picture where there is a pyramid with an eye at the top,seen on certain dollar bills. This is the eye of god seeing every single possibility.
God can see the infinite possibilites and therefore has infinite power.
I know this because like I said I saw the infinite possibilities on my lsd trip.
Just incase you want to know what happened was I ran inside myself in a spiral direction inwards and as I traveled inside myself I saw more and more possibilites and eventually when I reached the center I saw ap erfect circle which is every single possibility that could ever happen. That is the true universe.
Sorry that this sounds a little way out but well it was !

 

[Qyamat]

Oh, comeone u people u have already wasted enough time on this thread.It is simple that someone must be allpowerfull becausethings from nothingness is impossible.No matter how heavy the rock may bee

 

[DJmaux]

Thank you qyamat :)

 

[puf_the_majic_dragon]

Oh, comeone u people u have already wasted enough time on this thread.

wasted time? by that definition ALL science is a waste of time. for all time religions and soothsayers have covered the earth, controlling the people and creating rules - and always that one almighty rule "THOU SHALT NOT QUESTION!" science questions. we as scientists dare to ask "what if?" and then we seek the answers. for a true scientist there is nothing set in stone.

now if you think this thread is a waste of time, why did you bother posting to it? the rest of us who are not afraid to break the mold, well we'll keep questioning, and we'll keep seeking the answers.

 

[Francis M]

The question first posed in this thread goes on the idea that someone has definitivly proven Gods existence. Which means that God has been defined and understood. Question then, defined and understood how? Completly? As far as we know? Limits and limitlessness are defined by our knowledge and experiances we have had up to now (collectivly). If we understand/know God (supposing infinite complexities of this being) then by proxy we know/understand all that God does and is and therefore have become God, thereby knowing the answer to the question first asked and making it and this discussion moot!
LEts go on the supposition that GOd exists for the sake of this next question. How do you prove that God created a rock to big for he/she/it self to lift? Did God just choose not to lift the rock? These questions can go round and round until arguments and flame posts ensue because we're trying at this point with our current understanding and knowledge to define what is currently undefinable to us. If God exists and the Bible tells us how GOd did things then it tells us this through the workings of mans mind more than 2000 years ago. Man has expanded his knowledge a considerable amount compared to that benchmark.

 

[puf_the_majic_dragon]

If God exists and the Bible tells us how GOd did things then it tells us this through the workings of mans mind more than 2000 years ago. Man has expanded his knowledge a considerable amount compared to that benchmark.

well first, the judeo-christian god isn't the only god believed to exist.. but "he" is one of the newer ones. that's right boys and girls, christianity is the new kid on the block ;)
anyways, i agree that as far as all these religious suppositions are concerned we're dealing with, in most cases, records that are thousands of years old. and we're working with the minds of men/women thousands of years old.

suppose that "god" is NOT the all-powerful being aluded to in ancient texts. suppose he's an extra terrestrial from a 2nd generation yellow star. suppose we are in some manner of speaking, his offspring through his hand in organizing life on this planet. so far we're following the main idea of most western religions, with a slight scientific twist.
now suppose god comes down and decides to create religion, whether as an experiment, or because he one day hopes to share his technological marvels with us and wants a source of morals/ethics for us to learn. he sits on his hill talking to moses.. how is moses going to explain to the people of isreal that the ALMIGHTY GOD, THE GREAT I AM, is an alien from another planet? fill in the blanks with your own religious icons and followers, the idea is still the same.. how would people back then react to that?
how would any modern day religion react if god showed up tomorrow in a flying saucer?

 

[DJmaux]

Just to answer the question about could god make a rock so big he couldn't lift it, I would have to say no. I know it wounds contradictory but even though gods powers are limitless they still have some limits.
Gods power is limitless in that god can make things upto infinite value but god cannot make something bigger than infinite value so in that way I guess this means that gods power is limited.
I believe god couldn't make a rock so big he couldn't lift it because the maximum size rock god can make is of infinite size. Gods maximum lift power is equal and of infinite lifting power. Since infinite size is the most value, god will always be able to lift the rock as to not be able to lift it, the rock size would have to be bigger than the lift value which cannot happen as there is only one maximum value. Hope this helps.
Besides even if god could make things bigger than infinity and 100% had no limits
whatsoever then god would still have the limit of not having any limits!

 

[magus niche]

god... yes I am sure we all think we know the dude and what he/she/it thinks but seriously, if anyone here has experienced god, I'm sure they wouldn't be able to tell us about him/her/it with the vulgar digital text right here. in fact most religious people would probably argue that god cannot even be concieved with our petty little intelligences let alone stated in plain english language, a language that has only come into being in the last few hundred years. still, nuthn wrong with trying, and besides it was these petty little intelligences that invented the Word to describe the phenomena!

objective reality = body of god
subjective reality = mind?

 

[RoboSapien]

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=489483&posted=1#post489483

thanks Mr jcsd for the link
as for Mr Robosapien, thanks for calling me mr optimistic while i am not at all
but in thoe matters i really am.
first of all i would like to say i am just a beginner in this field (astronomy, metaphysics.. ) but i believe somehow: "there are too many ways to arrive to my aim, it just needs too many ways of thinking and reasonning"
while about your way, i would like to listen to a specialist to see wether it can be made or not. I'm not talking about how long it will take; I'm talking about its "possibility"

Science is our future :)

Does that possibility include one of god too ?

No wonder some people still pray god.

 

[Telos]

Saying God has limits because he can or cannot create a rock that he cannot lift is inconsistent with the definition of God.

It's like me saying I cannot jump by pushing my legs off of the ground. That's what jumping is and that's what I do if I am a jumper. Or, it's like saying I cannot breathe air by bringing it into my body. That's what breathing is and that's what I do if I am a breather.

God, if he existed, would do God things and God things are consistent.

 

[RoboSapien]

a deasease called Divinity

...

Anything done by gods grace is simply not repeatable and hence ...

 

[Telos]

Don't keep us in suspense!

 

[wikkidwife]

God's power transcends the laws of physics, so weight probably isn't as much of an issue for Him.

 

[dark_angel]

this whole debate is so stupid and every question has a self-stupifying answer like 'only if he wanted to see what its liek to be powerless'

god doesn't exist. neither does hell/heaven/demons or any of that crap you were fed as a child. get a grip and see what's wrong with this world - religion.

wrong, it is us who are at fault, not religion.

it is the gradient of the human phsyce or however u spell it

 

[BigStelly]

The answer to this question no... but it is because such a thing cannot exist... nothing is too massive for god to move even an infinite rock. Nothing is impossible with god and this is a nothing. People who ask this question act all smug because they believe they have found something an infinite being cannot do, this question begs a follow up is the rock infinite or finite?

 

[BigStelly]

But keep in mind even if the rock is infinite god could still lift it because nothing made can be greater than god because he is by defintion all powerful.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

You linear thinkers you. Could both be true...considering that it's God and all that omnipotent stuff?

 

[RoboSapien]

Don't keep us in suspense!

... Hence its better to stick with something reliable as science. Where once proven results are garunteed every time.

 

[magus niche]

we cannot prove god (can we?), so just experience it. experience states of consciousness other than the ego based reality, and one will gain understanding that transcends energy phenomena (the physical world).

out on a limb:
a dream can contradict scientific laws. eg. when i dreamt i was flying, and then i became slightly conscious of the fact that i was flying and tried to control the flight. unfortunately, somewhat like Peter, i lost faith due to my logical mind, and started to fall. then when i let go of thoughts, i flew again...

anyway the point is, that there has been times in dreams where i am somewhat conscious, and the experience is real (subjectively). dreams can embed memories (ie physical records) so what is not real about them. therefore in dream reality (astral?) omnipotence is a knowable phenomena, no?

 

[Rasine]

there is no answer to the original question becuase if God had infinite power He SHOULD be able to creat a rock so heavy that He could not lift it. on the contrary, He has infinite power, thus he SHOULD be able to lift the rock.

 

[Loren Booda]

Any apparent limit to God is what He allows us to misperceive through our own free will, including Internet posts.

 

[mruncleramos]

Inserting conditions like "rock so heavy he cannot lift it" is logically invalid. One cannot insert clauses like that and expect to get an answer. Can he make so much water so that he could not drink all of it? Can he create a maze so complicated that he cannot find his way out? A more appopriate question would be, can he make a rock that is infinitely heavy? Can he make an infinite volume of water? Can he make an infinitly intricate maze?

 

[Telos]

... Hence its better to stick with something reliable as science. Where once proven results are garunteed every time.

Science has guarantees? This is news to me.

 

[RoboSapien]

Science has guarantees? This is news to me.

seems like U have been Teleported from DarkAges.

In Science guarantees=99% surerity.

 

[RoboSapien]

Inserting conditions like "rock so heavy he cannot lift it" is logically invalid. One cannot insert clauses like that and expect to get an answer. Can he make so much water so that he could not drink all of it? Can he create a maze so complicated that he cannot find his way out? A more appopriate question would be, can he make a rock that is infinitely heavy? Can he make an infinite volume of water? Can he make an infinitly intricate maze?

GOD that mother ****AR He could not help my parent who died in agony. They prayed god every minute of their life. U expect him to do all that, NAA?

That SON of a ***** is good for nothing , I am better than him Period.

Do U realize that GOD is a Bastard.

 

[magus niche]

seems like U have been Teleported from DarkAges.

In Science guarantees=99% surerity.

seems like you've been teleported from the Land Of The Robots. In the Land Of The Robots certainty is a fixed number, but no-one is conscious of it. All the 'Bots think they know the truth but none of them agree on what it is.

 

[lawtonfogle]

Ohhhhhhh

I had just typed an entire essay almost, but the forums logged me out and did not let me post it, and now i do not have time to rewrite it. Ill try to do it again later.

This is a problem that i have encounted many time, is their a reason why.

RoboSapien, it sounds as if you are still in grief of your parents. You need to go see someone for counsilling. please erase what u posted.

 

[lawtonfogle]

I believe that God has the power to vibrate the strings (the ones that cause energy and matter). He spoke and it was done. Speaking as we know it causes the vibration of something, usaly air. Also, who ever wrote Genisis did not know about strings and a lot of other things, so it would seem a good analogy that God spoke matter into existence, in place of Him causing the strings to vibrate. Also, do the strings have a name, I sometimes like to call them 'The Strings of Eternity' for a mystic ring.

In concern to my first post, this was part one, and I have shortened it. The rest of it was not relevant to this thread.