Can God Create an Unliftable Object?

[Scott Sieger]

Otherwise things get interesting. Once we've allowed omnipotence to do the impossible once, it can happen again. So God could certainly lift a rock that he is not lifting.

Now if we allow God a small amount of cleverness he would simply get people like you and your mates to lift the rock for him any way...
Thus lifting a rock without lifting it...ha

 

[Prometheus]

Let's look at this logically. We have postulated one thing; that God can do anything. Thus he can lift all rocks. It follows that the uber-heavy rock in question is not in the set of all rocks. So for God to create this rock would require the breaking of the laws of logic.

Let's look at this logically. We have postulated one thing; that God can do anything. Thus he can create rocks with any degree of difficulty in lifting. It follows that the uber-heavy rock in question is in the set of all objects that god can create. So for God to create this rock would not require the breaking of the laws of logic.

1. What does your argument have to do with logic, other than your claim that it is logic?

2. What do the "laws of logic" have to do with anything outside the bounds of logic?

As your example shows, even if we pretend that you have presented a logical argument, it has no relevance to the question at hand, other than a theoretical relationship.

By the way, you speak of the rock in question as not being in the set of all rocks. How about applying your "logic" to the set of all things that god can create, which is the topic of the original question.

 

[Scott Sieger]

If you ask yourself the question:

"Am I bound by the laws of logic in what I do?"

The answer would I expect normally be No.

Thus why would we project a limitation of "action with logic" to God?

 

[THANOS]

Can god just lower the gravity to like zero?

 

[Scott Sieger]

more like increase gravity to zero...Increasing the vacuum to nothing

 

[Learning Curve]

this is in reply to omen's statement.

You said that how could finite pieces add up to infinite. well, .333333 repeating is infinite right? you can take out .000003 and it be finite. you can also take out .3 and it is also finite. there just isn't a stopping to the finite infinities.

 

[Scott Sieger]

so there is am infinite number of finities...( chuckles)

 

[TENYEARS]

There will be two things you will witness with my words, your realization of their truth now or your realization of their truth later. You have only two choices.

 

[selfAdjoint]

I'll settle for later. Let me know when it happens.

 

[JD]

There will be two things you will witness with my words, your realization of their truth now or your realization of their truth later. You have only two choices.

Tenyears, can you expand on the implications of this realization now or in the future?

 

[TENYEARS]

When I speak in terms of realization I speak of direct knowing which has occured. This knowing is out there for all to see, to witness. It is the destiny of all humanity. It will happen. I have seen the day of a proving. It will occur in our life times. To what degree, I do not know. I was disappointed though in the vision, for I knew that it did not matter that science/people or whatever proved anything, for it is only the realization of humanity which will make any difference in the future of our actions which will affect the planet upon which we live.

When I speak things which I say are, they come out of my realization of what is. Sometimes outside forces can make changes in our relative lives. There was a day when I watched a certain thing on television, after 1 year of trying and suddenly realized that night that it was indeed real. The experiences then followed.

 

[balkan]

When I speak in terms of realization I speak of direct knowing which has occured. This knowing is out there for all to see, to witness. It is the destiny of all humanity. It will happen. I have seen the day of a proving. It will occur in our life times. To what degree, I do not know. I was disappointed though in the vision, for I knew that it did not matter that science/people or whatever proved anything, for it is only the realization of humanity which will make any difference in the future of our actions which will affect the planet upon which we live.

When I speak things which I say are, they come out of my realization of what is. Sometimes outside forces can make changes in our relative lives. There was a day when I watched a certain thing on television, after 1 year of trying and suddenly realized that night that it was indeed real. The experiences then followed.

perhaps if you could be more specific and sound less like a madman, somebody could understand what you were talking about...

 

[vanesch]

God cannot be proven to exist. God cannot be proven to not exist. Therefore, God doesn't exist.

I can use the same premises to conclude the converse.

I think the main problem with attempting to prove or not, that a god exists, is with the lack of precise definition of what exactly is meant with that word. For example, the litteral interpretation of the god that occurs in the hebrew bible certainly does not exist, for the simple reason that a lot of scientifically wrong statements are made, from the age of the Earth to virgins conceiving children.
The problem is that - except for a few mentally disturbed who, against all proof, maintain that this nevertheless true - most people who declare believing in that god tell you that of course the bible is a piece of ancient litterature written by man, but _inspired_ by a god. So the fact that they wrote down things which, over time, have proved wrong, is just due to that human hand in the business. But in that case, what exactly IS god becomes a moving target! It is very difficult to prove the existence or the non existence of something that remains largely undefined and of which the definition can even change in the course of the discussion.
There is indeed a kind of contradiction into a) praying to god that something will or will not happen, which presupposes that this god has communication skills and has the ability to momentarily intervene in the laws of nature and b) maintain that it is an abstract concept such as "love" or "conciousness".
a) is used as a utilitarian part of religion while b) is used to avoid a proof of it non-existance. But a) and b) are not compatible.
a) could be easily checked in the lab: let's have many people pray that the outcome of throwing some dice will always give 7. Do this 10000 times and make up the statistics. Ok, I know this is an exaggerated and ridiculous example, but the advantage of exaggeration is that it illustrates the point.
(although similar experiments HAVE been conducted in the medical sphere!)

I took as an example the bible, but any great religion works along the same lines. So I nevertheless think that it is more or less established that god doesn't exist, not because we have proof of its non existence, but because the definition is lacking. It is only in the (almost ridiculous) cases when a precise definition is given (usually the people doing this are called fundamentalists) that non-existance proofs are possible.

cheers,
Patrick.

 

[marcus]

The world was created by the great Blaghor to Whom we sacrifice turkeys.

We pray to Blaghor daily that he should give us love and consciousness and that he should constantly maintain the Laws of Physics.
Since we find that the Laws of Physics continue to apply by the gracious will of Blaghor, we sacrifice, every year at the Feast of Blaghor called the Thanksgiving, millions of turkeys as a sign of gratitude.

Then we consume together the Bird of Blaghor, as a way to become one with the Godhead.

Our name for the Bible is "The Lies of Blaghor" because He in His merriment made up the various lies in these books and persuaded scribes to write them down. Blaghor is pleased with some of the stories in the Bible, which he considers uncommonly entertaining.

May Blaghor bless you and guide you and help you lose 5 pounds,

marcus

 

[JD]

When I speak in terms of realization I speak of direct knowing which has occured. This knowing is out there for all to see, to witness. It is the destiny of all humanity. It will happen. I have seen the day of a proving. It will occur in our life times. To what degree, I do not know. I was disappointed though in the vision, for I knew that it did not matter that science/people or whatever proved anything, for it is only the realization of humanity which will make any difference in the future of our actions which will affect the planet upon which we live.

When I speak things which I say are, they come out of my realization of what is. Sometimes outside forces can make changes in our relative lives. There was a day when I watched a certain thing on television, after 1 year of trying and suddenly realized that night that it was indeed real. The experiences then followed.

I follow you in the first paragraph but can you expand on the experiences?

 

[vanesch]

The world was created by the great Blaghor to Whom we sacrifice turkeys.

Ha, over here in France, we worship the Great Blagueur :-)
(although it is a minority, with at least one member).

patrick.

 

[TENYEARS]

Visions, is one aspect of experience. Sometimes there is no vision at all, just pure knowing. There are other kinds of experience also, 3 kinds which have also happended to me which I will not mention on the forum. Yet ultimately, they are all formed out of a single experience which we tend to place in boxes of our own definition. Maybe I'm just full of carp, then again maybe not. Would you know the difference? Maybe I am a liar looking for attention, forums a good place for that right, no one knows you. Can you tell what truth is by someones word or by their expression or acts? Does an act or word have to be in inorder for there to be truth?

 

[Scott Sieger]

TenYears,

How valid is a personal experience to others besides yourself?

If the experience is unable to be shared by others how much value has it?

If you could share your vision and experience with others and not just in the form of words and rhetoric.

Is it a valid presumption that others will share your enthuisiasm if we can not fully share your personal experience?

So alas you are left with a personal insight that others will and quite justifiably denounce as inconsequestial.

Say I stand here and say that I am God, say I wrap it up in all sorts of argument and verbal persuasion. What does this achieve except nothing but complaints relating to my sanity.

Even miracles require verification and proof of happening, beyond that which is personal experience.

For your own experience is subject to you and your thoughts and not that of others, thus always subject to the limitations of your own understanding.

And the limkitations that apply to the sharing of that expereince.

I am not saying for a moment that your experience is invalid as it is surely valid to you but I am saying there are limitations on how you can share this experience with others and because it is subject to no other scrutiny that your own judgement it leaves it berift of proveability.

Do you expect aothers to submit that your word is all that is needed for what you are about to say being the truth?

 

[TENYEARS]

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. I try never to speak of what I do not know and separate what I know from what I was taught or what I believe. Credibility is not in proving, it is in realizing. That will always and only be the way. The other way is a trail of bread crumbs in a forest full hungry birds. You will never "know" where you are. If you understand these words, than you are on the beginning of an unmarked trail covered with brush and trees. If one believes me they are lost, if one does not believe me they are lost, if one does not understand and they refuse to submit to belief and stand there in the midst of unknowing and refuse to submit, then I see the spirit of a warrior born.

 

[Scott Sieger]

so what premises do you wish us to agree upon?

 

[yesicanread]

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?

Could God be Omni/Present,Powerful, Omnesent? Sure. Because he is in fact present. The presence of a grasshopper is different presence than God.

God cannot be what he says, and as present as a beatle. The bee is present, and powerful as a bee, God is present, and as powerful as God. See where I'm taking this ?

God didn't say. He was just omnipowerful. Which is what is asked by you. How can God have all power, when we drain it. He can't be all power.

But he said allpower, or him, is allpresent. Present where ? n the kitchen ? In the miami ? Or French restaurant ?

So power exists outside of God. But God/Power, is present where he is, Thinking about taters and such I suppose.

So God the person lacks no power. In Legend or mystery of the Christ's trinity. I won't talk about them too, much. This is a physics forum afterall.

 

[misogynisticfeminist]

I've tried to explain this question...

Does God possesses limits? In my opinion, No, (i don't intend to substantiate this assumption just as yet, but its just something...). When people compare God to something limitless, boundless, they usually think that God is like so Good, so smart, so powerful, that really, he is limitless. But i beg to differ, i mean, how good is good, how smart is smart etc. etc.

If you were asked ,"Why do christians say God is good and God is not the best?" It is really that Best is a limit of Good, when we say best, it cannot get any better. No matter how fantastic and how far out this limit is, a limit is still a limit.

The human mind expands, from the discovery of fire to Fibre-optics, this shows the flexibility and stretchability of the human mind. And I believe that God has a mind which functions the same way as us, the human mind is prehaps the greatest masterpiece (no matter how great your girlfriend may look). God has no fixed limit. Because if he did, our human intelligence would be able to reach it.

So, regarding that question.

Weight of stone=Ifinity
Strength used to lift the stone=Infinity.

So strength used to lift stone=weight of stone. So yea, God can create a stone he can lift.

 

[Dorje]

"The concept of god is irrational to the point of absurdity."

--George H. Smith, Atheism: The Case Against God

I suggest you read Smith's book. It will clarify the fact that god does not exist. And since god does not exist, any argument about god is absurd. You can find it here:



Enjoy!

 

[Prometheus]

And since god does not exist, any argument about god is absurd.

I disagree. Whether or not god exists, whatever that means, people who argue about god react with feelings, beliefs, actions, stress, etc. Such reactions can be life altering. Arguments about god can have significant effect on people, whether or not the subject of their argument actually exists. I do not think the non-existence of god alone is sufficient to label such arguments absurd.

 

[Scott Sieger]

I have posted a thread that may be relevant to this discussion.
Titled
a lesson in reasoning?

How the inconclusivity of that which is defined God is a lesson in reasoning.

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=36732

 

[olde drunk]

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

 

[vanesch]

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.

 

[Deeviant]

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 I guess it makes sense that he'd(she/it/them) only want to talk to people that already believe in them,

Heres one question for you TENYEARS, who would you be, what would you be without your beliefs?

 

[Philocrat]

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!

 

[Namloh2000]

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.

 

[magus niche]

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.

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)

 

[Lacy33]

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.

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?

 

[TENYEARS]

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?

 

[Lacy33]

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

 

[TENYEARS]

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.