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

[C0mmie]

Originally posted by heusdens
And therefore "God" is a flawed concept within itself, and for that, can not exist outside of the fixations of our thoughts.

And that was my original intent for posting this question.

 

[Adam]

God and I love spicy foods. The truth of the matter is, She's a terrible cook, so the can-god-cook-blah matter has never come up. I do most of the cooking, and in return she whips my arse until... um, never mind...

 

[wimms]

We can't find god because somebody asked him to Proove that he can commit a Suicide...
yeah, sad story..

 

[Hurkyl]

And therefore "God" is a flawed concept within itself, and for that, can not exist outside of the fixations of our thoughts.

How did you arrive at that conclusion?

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Hurkyl
How did you arrive at that conclusion?

Most definitions or descriptions of God will tell you that the world was created by God. The flaw in the reasoning is to think that
a. The world itself can not exist on it's own in all time, i.e. needed to have a 'begin' or 'first cause'
b. Then the need was made for a 'creator' of some sorts, who created the world.
c. To overcome any more questions, as "who created God", to the concept of God is attributed, that God can exist in all eternity.
d. The flaw is that, the property we attribtued to God, we could have already attributed to the world (existence in all eternity) without problem, without the need to introduce a creator.
e. Hence the question on wether God exists or not, is just a rare question, without any meaning realy. God was said to exist in the first place, cause God was needed for the world to be (without God, no world, etc), but when it turns out, no God is needed, what existence can then still be attributed to God? We did not disproof the existence of God, we merely prooved that we don't need a God for the world to exist. This reduces the issue to something of really no importance, and therefore the question should be dropped altogether.

 

[BoulderHead]

We did not disproof the existence of God, we merely prooved that we don't need a God for the world to exist.

I would add that even if the world was convinced that there was a need for god that we still wouldn’t be much better off than we are right now. We would very likely just have the non-believers incorporated into the myriad of religious divisions existing today (plus maybe a few dozen more). Without the overt direction of a god, IMHO, humanity might just as well put the notion on a back-burner and get on with studying the universe and using their abilities to improve the plight of man.

On the matter of the burrito, I am starting to lean towards the view that if we wish to understand ‘god’ in a logical manner then we ought to consider whether our questions are truly logical or not. So, is this question logical or not??

I’d like to see the members post their definitions of ‘omnipotence’, and let us see if we can come to anything approaching consensus. For example, should omnipotence be held to all logical possibilities, or is it just a free-for-all. If omnipotence means that a god can do all that is logically possible to do, then that is one thing. If omnipotence means god can do ‘anything at all’, logical or not, then I think people need to stop claiming god is omnipotent because in this case omnipotence is an impossible absurdity. I’m thinking I’d like to see the word ‘omnipotence’ scratched from the dictionary.

What thinkest thou?

 

[Hurkyl]

Most definitions or descriptions of God will tell you that the world was created by God. The flaw in the reasoning is to think that ...

Just checking. The juxtoposition between your claim and the statements you quoted made it appear you were using the quoted text as the reasoning leading to your claim.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Hurkyl
Just checking. The juxtoposition between your claim and the statements you quoted made it appear you were using the quoted text as the reasoning leading to your claim.

I think I do not understand what you mean here...

 

[Hurkyl]

It sounded like you were using AutisticSavant's post as a justification of your claim.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by BoulderHead
On the matter of the burrito, I am starting to lean towards the view that if we wish to understand ‘god’ in a logical manner then we ought to consider whether our questions are truly logical or not. So, is this question logical or not??

I’d like to see the members post their definitions of ‘omnipotence’, and let us see if we can come to anything approaching consensus. For example, should omnipotence be held to all logical possibilities, or is it just a free-for-all. If omnipotence means that a god can do all that is logically possible to do, then that is one thing. If omnipotence means god can do ‘anything at all’, logical or not, then I think people need to stop claiming god is omnipotent because in this case omnipotence is an impossible absurdity. I’m thinking I’d like to see the word ‘omnipotence’ scratched from the dictionary.

What thinkest thou?

I think the fallacy is in the myth, not God. Let's say the term "God" is what certain highly sensitive individuals applied to some underlying unity/force they felt. And let's assume what they felt is real.

Feeling something is one thing, interpreting it is another. Based on what they felt, it was more powerful than anything they knew, and so they concluded it was omnipotent. But in fact, if it is real, it could just as well be only powerful enough to have originated our universe. That is still pretty powerful, but not all-powerful.

Similarly, what other qualities of this "God" do we need for it to be able to create the universe? Well, everything is composed of energy, so maybe it is energetic. Everything vibrates, so maybe it has an oscillatory nature. Is it conscious? Let's skip that (although clearly whatever force(s) is behind creation has spawned consciousness). Can it behave supernaturally? If it can, no one can find evidence of it.

So, the point is, maybe there is something behind it all that moves things a certain way towards organizational integrity (even if only temporarily), but it doesn't appear to possesses the qualities theologians and tribal wisemen philosophizing around the campfire millenia ago exactly imagined.

 

[C0mmie]

(In responce to the previous post by LW Sleeth)

LW Sleeth, you are playing around with the definition of 'god.' God is defined to be all powerful, and thus any force that is not all powerful would not be god. Also, in your post it sounded like you are giving a scientific definition of a hypothetical god, and that too violates the original definition, for god cannot be explained using science. Thus what you decribe wasn't god.

Thats not to say that I don't agree with what you said. I believe that anything and everything in the universe can be explained using science, and your description of god certainly fits that criteria. But then again, its not god.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by C0mmie
(In responce to the previous post by LW Sleeth)

LW Sleeth, you are playing around with the definition of 'god.' God is defined to be all powerful, and thus any force that is not all powerful would not be god. Also, in your post it sounded like you are giving a scientific definition of a hypothetical god, and that too violates the original definition, for god cannot be explained using science. Thus what you decribe wasn't god.

Thats not to say that I don't agree with what you said. I believe that anything and everything in the universe can be explained using science, and your description of god certainly fits that criteria. But then again, its not god.

C0mmie, I did not intend to play around with the definition of god. My aim was to respond to BH's idea, and to attempt a realistic solution to the paradox you presented. As formulated, your riddle has no chance of being resolved which means we can go around in circles for decades and never get anywhere with it.

If your point is to play mind games with theological dogmatists, then I am sorry for interfering. But if you have any interest in figuring out if there is the slightest reason to consider certain people's claims of some underlying power which causes creative development (at least here on Earth), then I made a suggestion.

While I believe everything physical can be explained scientifically, I don't necessarily agree everything is physical, and therefore provable through science. You say it can't be god if it isn't all powerful, or able to act supernaturally, but why not? Most of the people so intent on assigning traits to god (theologians) were not equally intent on acquiring enough experience with god (whatever that is) to speak authoritatively. So why must we accept their definitions?

Someone like Jesus, who does claim "oneness with the Father" clearly says he is within the experience. But then, he himself said very little about this god in terms of absolute power, knowledge, size, and so on. So the definition you and others use isn't one that's derived from expertise. Nobody knows what people actually experiencing this thing they called god is really like. Maybe there is something to what they experienced -- just not all the hyped up characteristics the speculators want to assign to it. Of course, it could all be nonsense too.

 

[BoulderHead]

C0mmie,
Don’t you think the definition of god can be more (or less) than what you are saying? From dictionary.com;
1. God
a. A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions.
b. The force, effect, or a manifestation or aspect of this being.
2. A being of supernatural powers or attributes, believed in and worshiped by a people, especially a male deity thought to control some part of nature or reality.
3. An image of a supernatural being; an idol.
4. One that is worshiped, idealized, or followed: Money was their god.
5. A very handsome man.
6. A powerful ruler or despot.

Why couldn’t god simply be option number 2 above?
If god cannot be explained scientifically, and any number of people have their own foggy notions of what god might actually be, then how can anyone truly provide a definition that is suitable?

I thought LW Sleeth did a very good job of trying to make some sense out of god. If the ‘standard’ way of looking at god is illogical and absurd, then perhaps god needs to be looked at in another manner.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by C0mmie
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.

Yes I think that QM solves this problem. I am willing to accept a God that exists in a superduperposition of eigenstates - Divine Eigenstates [DE]. The coordinate system required is infinitely complex!

Actually, the jokes on us!. Theologians haves struggled with the problem of superposition ever since the evolution of trinity arguments.

A final comment: the hottest taco I have ever eaten was found in Provo Utah. This thing was unbelievable! "Mormon tacos" [no disrespect intended] are now legendary in our family. I have always assumed that some high school kid was having fun with the Mexican take out, but now I can't help but wonder; perhaps the Mormons have been up to something...[?][?][?]

 

[BoulderHead]

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
Actually, the jokes on us!. Theologians haves struggled with the problem of superposition ever since the evolution of trinity arguments.

Tehehe

 

[C0mmie]

Originally posted by BoulderHead
C0mmie,
Don’t you think the definition of god can be more (or less) than what you are saying? From dictionary.com;
1. God
a. A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions.
b. The force, effect, or a manifestation or aspect of this being.
2. A being of supernatural powers or attributes, believed in and worshiped by a people, especially a male deity thought to control some part of nature or reality.
3. An image of a supernatural being; an idol.
4. One that is worshiped, idealized, or followed: Money was their god.
5. A very handsome man.
6. A powerful ruler or despot.

Why couldn’t god simply be option number 2 above?
If god cannot be explained scientifically, and any number of people have their own foggy notions of what god might actually be, then how can anyone truly provide a definition that is suitable?

I thought LW Sleeth did a very good job of trying to make some sense out of god. If the ‘standard’ way of looking at god is illogical and absurd, then perhaps god needs to be looked at in another manner.

Boulderhead, should a definition of god state that it is anything less than option #1, the question I posted would simply not be applicable to that definition. If god is not all powerful, then he may not even know how to make a burrito.

 

[BoulderHead]

Originally posted by C0mmie
Boulderhead, should a definition of god state that it is anything less than option #1, the question I posted would simply not be applicable to that definition. If god is not all powerful, then he may not even know how to make a burrito.

Yes, in the context of your question I would agree. If I were to believe in a god, this god would not be omnipotent but, constrained.
If a god actually exists as option #1 then I have to confess that it is beyond my limited capability to reason.

"I don't know whether this world has a meaning which transcends it. But I do know that I do not know that meaning and that it is impossible for me just now to know it. What can a meaning outside my condition mean to me? I can understand only in human terms. What I touch - what resists me - that is what I understand. And these two certainties - my appetite for the absolute and for unity, and the impossibility of reducing this world to a rational and reasonable principle - I also know that I cannot reconcile them. What other truth can I admit without lying, without bringing in a hope I lack and which means nothing within the limits of my condition?" -Albert Camus