God and the Immovable Rock

[Fonceai]

@pikatore

God could go ahead and create a rock of infinite mass if he wanted to instantly unmake existence.

It would just be God floating there with this infinite mass rock saying, "Well shit, I guess that defeats the purpose."

@Isherwood

Good question.

If the rock is low in mass, that means it would have to be infinitely large. We could be living inside the rock right now!!!

A gigantic soft rock!!

@Castle

I did more than 5 minutes of Google research.

Your problem is that you are trying to argue something that can't be argued.

Your facts are correct. Your logic is correct.

The problem is in numbers themselves; the symbols.

A number only equals itself. 1 = 1. It can't equal anything else.

So saying .9rep = 1 violates the whole concept of equality. It's as close as you can possibly get to 1 without actually equaling one.

Mathematicians accept the approximate nature of the value.

Where your argument on this is especially flawed is because I was smart enough to use approximations, thus accounting for the quirks of our flawed numbering system.

Your final problem is that you missed two important parts of my posts. The part where I said I understood, and the part where I showed you how the conflict can be easily resolved through the use of ~.

Either way, your little quirk of math really derails the rest of the thread.

[Kuroko]

There is no reason why god would limit the existance of an unmovable rock to this universe --_--.

It could be done outside this universe you know..
Therefore the rules of this universe need not apply.

[pikatore]

Quote by: Kuroko There is no reason why god would limit the existance of an unmovable rock to this universe --_--.

Well please give me substantial evidence of God bending the rules of physics, and ill take that statement seriously. And for gods sake, dont quote the bible.

Quote by: Kuroko It could be done outside this universe you know.. Therefore the rules of this universe need not apply.

If it were done in another universe, in what way would it be relevant to us?

[ByaKya]

I like the incredible hulk answer
God does indeed make an "immovable" rock at timeframe T+20 seconds.
Then when he goes to move the "immovable" rock at time frame T+25 seconds, his power increases and moves the rock.
So at certain points. (T+20 to T+25) god has indeed made a rock that he cannot move, but when he goes to move it, his power goes to infinity +1 and actually moves the rock that only a few seconds ago was immovable even by him.

[Kuroko]

Well please give me substantial evidence of God bending the rules of physics, and ill take that statement seriously. And for gods sake, dont quote the bible.

I'll give you the godamn best piece of evidence in my arsenal that I have used countless times before and as any scientist of any calibre would hate to hear (or answer) knows it's a good one.. thermodynamics has an interesting law for me (not entropy but that one is decent) that law states that matter can change from state to state however it can never be destroyed, not from either. Einstien proposed the same thing.

Things which exist, exist, and they remain existing as they cannot be destroyed. Now. Along the same line of destruction it also goes on to say that we can convert mass into energy but we cannot create either. You cannot create some thing from nothing in other words.

So. 1=1 and zero cannot equal one.. we have that?

now, my question is.. if it is impossible to create some thing from nothing.. where then came mass at all? or energy..

This universe does not allow for any form of random spontaneous creation of matter or energy.. there had to be a cause.. if not a cause a creation.

In other words.. how the hell did 0=1.. I can tell you from the universes point of view how it happened.. zero equals possitive one and negative one. or 0=+1,-1.

So uhh.. there you go.. god bending physics buddy..
I think making some thing from nothing is good enough don't you?

Oh uhh.. you COULD argue that mass and anergy existed previously.. but that one gives a clear path for my friend called "entropy" which uhh.. isn't too good for your arguement as "maximum entropy" would mean the universe would be pretty screwed right now.. and well.. thankfully you'd be wrong (for all our sakes) but.. more importantly.. you would give rise to another one of my arguements in the physics community.. which is one I don't think I have shared ot the volconvo community.

Let me share it any way.
My theory says that the true end of the universe won't be a collection of anti-matter/dark-matter pulling the universe back into itself for another big bang.. it's past the point any way not of pulling itself in again.. but of providing enough gravitational pull even if it did, to pull back all of the energy it has given out in the form of radiation and light.. in other words..

The universe is depleting itself through light and other radiates.

That is the true end of the universe.. and if you say mass and energy existed before hand, then that means the universe was depleting itself for longer then the big bang...that's not me saying the begining of the universe was even the big bang to begin with either.

[pikatore]

Quote by: Kuroko now, my question is.. if it is impossible to create some thing from nothing.. where then came mass at all? or energy.. This universe does not allow for any form of random spontaneous creation of matter or energy.. there had to be a cause.. if not a cause a creation. In other words.. how the hell did 0=1.. I can tell you from the universes point of view how it happened.. zero equals possitive one and negative one. or 0=+1,-1.

umm... lol? i thought you did maths. if 0=+1,-1, you would imply that there is an equal amount of antienergy as opposed to energy, and since you know that they must annihilate, therefore, the speedy self-annihilation of the universe (which we would have started to notice by now). but we all know that there is an asymmetry in the existence of antienergy and energy (which would also explain the big bang - the immesely powerful forces of anti-attraction between the abundant particles of positive energy). This is a question that cant just simply be answered 'it was created that way' without asking 'why the hell couldnt god keep it simple and just not have any antimatter exist in this universe to begin with?'.

A logical explanation would be that (albeit based on theoretical physics... yet showing more reasoning than the bible ever did) this universe was produced from the creation of a black hole in another (hence the big bang, which could have been this initial explosion from a point due to the creation of the singularity, which is also a point).

Quote by: Kuroko Oh uhh.. you COULD argue that mass and anergy existed previously.. but that one gives a clear path for my friend called "entropy" which uhh.. isn't too good for your arguement as "maximum entropy" would mean the universe would be pretty screwed right now.. and well.. thankfully you'd be wrong (for all our sakes) but.. more importantly.. you would give rise to another one of my arguements in the physics community.. which is one I don't think I have shared ot the volconvo community.

Entropy may work differently in other universes. you cant assume that all universes would be like this one. is has been shown that a universe with more than 3 dimensions can exist, and so can anti-universes, where everything repels another. so it wouldnt seem silly to try and apply the idea of entropy to them dont you think?

entropy doesnt hamper my argument in any way.

Quote by: Kuroko Let me share it any way. My theory says that the true end of the universe won't be a collection of anti-matter/dark-matter pulling the universe back into itself for another big bang.. it's past the point any way not of pulling itself in again.. but of providing enough gravitational pull even if it did, to pull back all of the energy it has given out in the form of radiation and light.. in other words.. The universe is depleting itself through light and other radiates. That is the true end of the universe.. and if you say mass and energy existed before hand, then that means the universe was depleting itself for longer then the big bang...that's not me saying the begining of the universe was even the big bang to begin with either.

what an origional theory. :confused:

i dont care about how the universe will end. besides, you christians should only worry about judgement day right? isnt it 6 years overdue? or is god still busy with paperwork?

i can say mass and energy existed before hand, because you youself said it can't be created or destroyed (unless the creator went abracadabra... something im not inclined to believe so easily). the universe wasnt depleting itself for longer than the big bang because it didnt exist before the big bang. but, the energy present in this universe could have quite easily stemmed from another.

[jamesbdunn]

Quote by: Fonceai Atlas mentioned this elsewhere, and I thought it was an entertaining enough of a topic to deserve its own thread. Can God create an immovable rock? This is meant to be fun. No pushing people's buttons. No being belligerent because you can get away with it. The point is to discuss if God can cancel out his own omnipotence.

If the Earth is not the center of the Universe, then that immovable rock is moving. If you dig out from under the rock, will it float? Why would God do something so petty?

[samsara15]

Kuroko: The universe is not losing either matter or energy. It is simply changing into more low energy forms, as it expands. I would submit that we need to learn a lot more about low energy, long-time period physics before we say the universse is dying. If the new and future universe plays itself out in reactions that take many tens of powers of years to complete, the relative values of the time scales might still be comparable to support life, albeit very long distance and very slow by own present viewpoint, and certainly not any form of life we could recognize.

[Fonceai]

Here's some food for thought to continue with the matter/energy idea:

Thus far, we have not seen natural conversion of energy back into matter.

What if God did create the rock?

All the mass in the universe in a single point, and the second God "let go" of it, the laws of physics caught up and BANG!!!

Now all the matter is slowly turning into energy. Eventually, all matter will be energy and the universe will be an empty equilibrium of energy... or... the matter that escapes conversion will not escape converging into one single mass that can even attract the free energy of the universe.

Thus, the largest form of mass in the universe again, God's uber-rock, and BANG again.

[jamesbdunn]

Remember, the "Theories" of an expanding Universe are not conclusive. They are based upon observable phenomena and deductive reasoning. There are a multitude of observable properties of the Universe that are neither observable nor approachable. Black Holes are at the centers of most, if not all, galaxies. Yet they are neither observable nor approachable. Dark matter in the Universe is neither observable, nor presently approachable. Dark energy is only rudimentally detectable. We can not even detect the huge amounts of subatomic particles emitted from Black Holes. The Universe may in fact be growing, but what we can presently observe shows the Universe as expanding without growth.

Any one discovered property of the Universe could completely change how we view the Universe. For instance: If a Black Hole was found to be substantially without mass and was a graviton flux density held together by some combination of subatomic particles, and the remainder of the subatomic particles were cast out and free floating in the Universe, then we can presently neither see nor otherwise detect those particles.

Should graviton have a resonant quality, graviton nodes could pop up all over the Universe without substantial mass, but with strong gravitational qualities. So the observable Universe might be oscillating outward and then inward over long periods of time as the graviton density distribution oscillates. Like a blob of mercury on a plate with a vertical vibration component.

That's one of the things I enjoy about looking at the history of science. Society is so surprised when a better model is found for something, we look at the changes in our perceptions as being so profound. Yet, history continues to repeat itself, reassuring us that we really don't know what is going on. But I am content to know that we keep on trying.

[Kuroko]

umm... lol? i thought you did maths. if 0=+1,-1, you would imply that there is an equal amount of antienergy as opposed to energy, and since you know that they must annihilate, therefore, the speedy self-annihilation of the universe (which we would have started to notice by now). but we all know that there is an asymmetry in the existence of antienergy and energy (which would also explain the big bang - the immesely powerful forces of anti-attraction between the abundant particles of positive energy). This is a question that cant just simply be answered 'it was created that way' without asking 'why the hell couldnt god keep it simple and just not have any antimatter exist in this universe to begin with?'.

So you are on record as saying that every force/action does NOT have an equal or opposite reaction. Tread some what carefully on this one, either 0=+1,-1 or my life until this point has been profoundly wrong; my point with that simple equation, is to show how some thing can exist from nothing, this is the first equation which would have occured in this universe for mass or energy. This is given what we know of our universe and therefore has the most merrit over (and with) any form of creation..

you cant assume that all universes would be like this one. is has been shown that a universe with more than 3 dimensions can exist,

With that statement you just lost a lot of merrit points with me
Time (I'll go on record as backing einstien up on this one) would be the fourth dimension in this universe.. I believe that DOES mean universes can exist with more then three doesn't it.. oh erm.. which I guess means this universe isn't like this universe (in accordance to your orriginal statement).

something im not inclined to believe so easily). the universe wasnt depleting itself for longer than the big bang because it didnt exist before the big bang.

So... the universe, didn't exist before the big bang.. see, all I was stating was where mass an energy came from, the universe still exists in my little theory. The rules and laws governing (through science, I seem to have to point this out, there are NOT courts in space, and there is no cosmic police.. well there may be.. but by laws I mean of the universe through our understanding) this universe are still existing prior to mass and energy in my theory.. apparantly they didn't not until AFTER the big bang in pikator's... I dunno.. sounds a little like hokus pokus to me..

I mean.. where did the mass in the OTHER universe come from... I like this game now.. less science more faceless debating.. your appealing to all sides of me now.. even the deist side.. oh erm.. deist could be mis-interpreted as an ever eagerly judgement day awaiting christian.. the comparison has been made before.. God is pretty incriminating to just one sole religion..

[samsara15]

Many scientists think the Big Bang may have been one of many Big Bangs or that two membranes rubbing together may have created this universe, so in either case it is not a one and only event. Speculation, of course, at this stage, but it's the best we've got.

[Apokalupsis]

Isn't this like asking "What happens when an immovable object and an unstoppable force meet?"

The existence of one, removes the possibility of existence of the other by mere definition.

[Fonceai]

That's the foundation of the earlier idea I presented... that two opposing infinites cannot exist at the same time.

Therefore, if God came first, the rock can never be.

Yet without a God, there can be no creation of infinite immovability.

[Nathan Struth]

God can create an immovable rock that he can't throw. It's easy. Sinse the rock would have infinite mass it would take up all area in the world. Therefore there being no room to throw it. SInce god created the laws of physics supposedly, he can't make matter move outside it's boundary of infinity.


@Karuko

0 doesn't = 1. But as you said I think, -1 + 1 = 0.

Take into account the mass of two planets. Their mass = energy correct? Well imagine these planets stuck together. By the conservation of energy laws, the energy needed to put them together must be the same to rip them apart. Therefore we have a total of -1 (the energy owned or negative energy represented of the energy to pull two planets apart.) and +1 (representing the energy of them colliding together to get in the impacted state).

As for the mass of the two planets, The energy to have a planet in space should be the same amount of energy to rip it out of spacetime? law of conservation of energy. Fact: Particles are continually popping in and out of "existence" every millionth of a second. The energy to make them pop out would represent a negative, and the energy to have them pop back in would be +1, so in this case +1 + -1 = 0 as well, tehrefore 0 = 0.

S0...I don't need a creator if there's no energy within the universe. 0 = 0.

A creator is not necessary, bye god.

[jamesbdunn]

Quote by: Nathan Struth God can create an immovable rock that he can't throw. It's easy. Sinse the rock would have infinite mass it would take up all area in the world. Therefore there being no room to throw it. SInce god created the laws of physics supposedly, he can't make matter move outside it's boundary of infinity.

Cute. But if a singularity exists with infinite mass and therefore infinite gravity, then no matter would exist outside of the singularity because all matter would be instantaneously pulled into it from all points in space without limit.

But then introduce subatomic particles. Not all subatomic particles necessarily must react to gravity. Therefore God could move it's reference to a group of subatomic particles and as the space of those particles flourished, the singularity rock which has no real reference to it will move in whatever relationship is normal for that group of subatomic particles. In essence, the subatomic particles could throw the singularity rock around like a baseball.

Way outside the box, but what the heck.

[Fonceai]

Actually, gravity doesn't really "pull" anything.

What gravity does is bend space towards the source.

Think of different weight objects on an elastic surface.

If a particle exists in real space, then when gravity bends space the object will flow with the bend.

Don't think of infinite mass/gravity as pulling all mass in space.

Think of it as pulling space itself. All space would exist in that single point.

Now here's the trippy spin on this whole thing...

Since you can only perceive the bending of space from outside the phenomenon... meaning that if you're in the bend you don't see any "shorter" distances...

Who says we aren't in that infinite point of mass right now?

[Kuldeep]

Somebody used the word infinite. This actually is the true story. This infinity includes the omnipotent God , immovable rock and the like. No duality please it is all singleton.

The other point is we are under the illusion of creator and creation as we understand in physical term here on our earth. Creator and its creation is not different in reality, so the question in OP is itself illusionary. What we percieve as universe, is eternally existing as one of the properities of many other infinite properties of unknowable infinity (You may call thast by any name GOD ior reverse of that DOG.) :(

Name does not matter, it is only what we humen have in mind.