Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Could God make a burrito so hot that even he couldn't eat it?

Could he?

Poll closed May 13, 2003.
  1. Yes

    1 vote(s)
    11.1%
  2. No

    8 vote(s)
    88.9%
  1. Apr 13, 2003 #1
    It's a question that boggles the mind. If you answer yes, than God could not eat that burrito, meaning he is not all powerfull. If you give a negative response, you are limiting God's power by saying that he can't make that burrito. Either way you end up with counterevidence to God's existence. Am I right?
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Apr 13, 2003 #2
    Well, when you get right down to it, you're asking whether God has likes and dislikes which, I think He does (I guess?), in which case it is possible for Him to make it a burrito which is too hot. Or, maybe He just allows us to believe this in order to suit our tastes?
     
  4. Apr 13, 2003 #3

    Les Sleeth

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    I've been chuckling for the last 20 minutes. VERY funny C0mmie.

    If I believed God were all powerful, then I'd say that God could make a burrito so hot he couldn't eat it, and then he'd eat it anyway (sort of like wave-particle duality). In any case, I KNOW for a fact that the Mexican shop down the road can make a burrito which would fry every one of God's neurons.
     
    Last edited: Apr 13, 2003
  5. Apr 13, 2003 #4

    FZ+

    User Avatar

    An obvious get out clause is that God doesn't follow your laws of logic, in which case my objections in God vs Logic fall on you like a ton of divine bricks.
     
  6. Apr 13, 2003 #5
    Oh, you must have a very vivid imagination!
     
  7. Apr 15, 2003 #6
    Another response to this is it is beyond our 'human' comprehension.

    I don't believe any question we can ask, or imagine, is outside of our comprehension, given time. Although, this doesn't require time to see the obvious contradiction. If this is outside of our comprehension, then wouldn't that also mean GOD is outside of our comprehension?
     
  8. Apr 15, 2003 #7
    was this on the old pf ? i seem to rember it
     
  9. Apr 15, 2003 #8

    FZ+

    User Avatar

    You are mistaken.

    It was taco last time.
     
  10. Apr 16, 2003 #9
    Taco is much more accurate, what GOD would like burritos
     
  11. Apr 16, 2003 #10
    Thought for the day;

    If it weren't meant to be eaten then why would God have shaped it like a taco?

    I like the LW Sleeth responce. It seems to me that a god has been constructed that can not only make something so hot he can't eat it, then eat it anyway, but this god could eat it and yet not eat it all at the same instant.
     
  12. Apr 16, 2003 #11
    Did he eat it or not? You say he ate it and did not eat it, so he satisfies both of the contradictions of eating it and being unable to eat it, but he also fails to meet the requirement of both without violating the other. So basically we have an impossible/possible God at the same time:smile:
     
  13. Apr 16, 2003 #12
    Yes it is an impossible/possible situation we have here. All very confusing and I for one avoid thinking about any of it, preferring to trust the interpretations of the priests for what I should and should not believe…for they truly know what is best for me.
     
  14. Apr 16, 2003 #13
    That's quite possibly impossible!
     
  15. Apr 16, 2003 #14
    The only way for a theist to get around this problem, as it seems to me, is to apply the logic of quantum mechanics. The question assumes that god follows the laws of boolean logic (everything is divided into true and false), but according to quantum mechanics a photon can be both a particle and a wave, thought the two are radically different. Similarly, god, should he exist, could both make that burrito that he would not be able to eat and then go ahead and eat it.
     
  16. Apr 17, 2003 #15
    Oh my god(no pun intended)

    That's actually a really interesting question.

    You could simplify it.

    Could god make a problem so hard, that he couldn't solve it.
     
  17. Apr 17, 2003 #16
    maybe he eats it but has heart burn and indigestion... and of course exsplosive diarrea
     
  18. May 12, 2003 #17
    What we have here is not a problem of what God can or can't do; but a clever and funny, problem of semantics and Sophilism. In short a retorical paradox. Personally I much prefer tacos to burritos. If we were addressing the subject of tacos I might dive more enthseastically into the problem. But since the question involves burritos I think that it is insoluble. The problen then reduces itself simply to the philisophical merits of the burrito versus those of the taco. I as I have all ready admitted am hoplessly biased in favor of the taco, so I must therefore disqualify myself from any ensueing discussion of this topic.
     
  19. May 12, 2003 #18
    Nice one, Royce.
     
  20. May 12, 2003 #19

    Les Sleeth

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    The big bang, you mean.
     
  21. May 17, 2003 #20

    Hurkyl

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Ah, the famous boulder fallacy! :smile:

    Stripping away all the flavor of the paradox, its simplest form is:

    "Can God do something He cannot do?"


    The atheist is fond of jumping the gun and saying this disproves the possibility of any omnipotent being.

    However, more carefully looking at the sentence, one realizes there are actually two independant logical statements here:

    "Let A be something God cannot do."
    "Can God do A?"

    The resolution to the paradox is to realize that the question as a whole is nonsensical if there does not exist something God cannot do. You cannot ask "Can God do something He cannot do?" unless there is actually something He cannot do.
     
  22. May 17, 2003 #21
    Hurkyl:
    I never looked at it that way. That's a very interesting explanation.
     
  23. May 17, 2003 #22
    Very nicely explained, Hurkyl,

    This one had been bothering me for some time. I have been guilty of 'jumping the gun' myself, though my stance had steadily been softening. I found this;

    Theology - The argument against God's omnipotence

    "God is omnipotent, i.e. God can do anything which is logically possible. Making a stone which is so heavy that it cannot be moved is logically possible. Therefore God, being omnipotent, can make a stone so heavy that it cannot be moved. But if God makes a stone so heavy that it cannot be moved, then God cannot move it. But if God cannot move that stone, then there is something God cannot do, and hence God is not omnipotent. Thus if God is omnipotent, then God is not omnipotent. But any property which implies its contradictory is self-contradictory. Thus the very notion of God's (or anyone's) being omnipotent is logically impossible (self-contradictory)."
    The argument, as presented just above, is an unholy amalgam of two different arguments, one valid, the other invalid. The valid argument is this (where "G" = "God is omnipotent" and "M" = "God makes an immovable stone"):

    [edit by BH]...The notation below didn't copy correctly-best see the link below for accuracy.

    G M
    M ~G
    --------------
    G ~G
    ~G

    Although the immediately preceding argument is valid, its second premise is false. The true premise is used in this next argument, but this next argument is invalid:


    G M
    M ~G
    --------------
    ~G
    To derive ~G from the latter pair of premises, one would have to add the further premise, M. But so long as M is false, the conclusion ~G remains underivable. God, thus, remains omnipotent provided that God does nothing, e.g. making an immovable stone, which destroys His/Her omnipotence.

    (Question: What if God is omnipotent - as some have argued - of logical necessity and exists necessarily, i.e. in every possible world? The answer, I'm pretty sure, is that, under these conditions, God's making a stone so heavy that God cannot move it is a logical impossibility.)

    Taken with consent from;
    http://www.sfu.ca/philosophy/swartz/modal_fallacy.htm
    Copyright © Norman Swartz 1993, 1999
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 17, 2003
  24. May 19, 2003 #23
    This is another one , a variation on the theme.

    Can God create itself?

    If God exists, then it is not necessary to create God.
    If God does not exist, then there is no God that can create anything.

    Practicle solution: God exists for all eternity. No 'creation' of God needed.

    Why was God needed, or thought/believed of to exist? To explain the existence of the world, to 'create' the world. The thought or concept is here that in order for the world to exist, it needed to be created, cause the world is thought of, not to be able to have existed for all of eternity.

    But: why can't the world exist in all eternity, if we have no problem in thinking that God existed for all eternity?
    If we attribute the same power to the world, as we attribute to God, then for sure the world can exist also, independend of and outside of our mind, without being dependend on any mind or construct of mind.

    And another thing:

    Can I (or anyone) proof that God does not exist?

    No I can't, and nobody can. Better said I state that God exists in the form of thoughts/concept that belong to the category of existence of the mind, that is an existence category that depends on the existence of the mind.

    Outside of that, I acknowledge only the existence of matter in eternal motion, requiring space and time for it's mode of existence, and which exists independend and outside of my mind, hence has existence of it's own, and does not need a God to contribute or attribute it's existence, if we just are willing to attribute the same power to the material world, as we were attributing to God.

    Conclusion:

    There is no proof, neither a disproof for the existence of God as something independend and outside of the mind.

    Further: all reasonable human beings (with some education) will agree that the concept of God, as something that exists within and dependend of the mind, does exist. If something 'outside' and 'independend' of that thought construct or concept of mind, is realy there, is - from this perspective - more or less an assumption.
    And lastly: The 'thing' that we can denote with this, that has existence outside of our mind, and which is not in any way dependend of it, we can simply denote as matter, in eternal motion, and requiring time and space as modes of existence of matter.
    Apart from that, we realy do not need any artificial construct of mind in the form of God, we just need to explore and learn how the material world in fact works through science.
     
    Last edited: May 19, 2003
  25. May 19, 2003 #24
    To answer this, there is no real problem in this. Even I can make a burrito that hot, that God cannot eat it, and for that I only have to assume or state, that apart from my thoughts and mind, God does not exist.

    In the more simpler form, it is for everybody possible, to make a burrito that is so hot, that one can not eat it! But be carefull though! Don't eat it!
     
  26. May 19, 2003 #25

    Well your logic here is very flawed. You state that there is not something that God can not do.

    But then please show me something that God CAN do! That is a bit of more interest, I would think, cause I firmly state that there is not something that God CAN do. At all!
     
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook