God Paradox

[Castle]

Quote by: Amuse The physical realm is in constant flux so no-thing is permanent (as in a rock that can't be moved) staying in it's original form

That's what the question is all about; whether an omnipotent being could do such a thing. I don't think it unreasonable that an omnipotent being could override the laws of the universe that He created (like constant change).

Quote by: Amuse I think it does.

Law of bivalency: X=/=~X. You can, I suppose, say "perfect imperfection", but then you're using 'perfect' differently than if you merely said "perfection", and you're talking about a different idea altogether.

Quote by: Amuse If God can't sin, to me then, sin is the perverbial "rock" that God can't move.

Perhaps, but the question is literal, not metaphorical or figurative.

[Lullaby Chainer]

May someone answer this? God Paradox

[Kuroko]

You guys stumbled onto some thing.. then lost it again..
Such is the way.

First.

This stands in direct contradiction to the claimed 'immovable' property of the rock. You can't get around this with fancy semantics. You're simply not defining 'moved' the same way in both of your examples. You're equivocating

The rock did NOT move, it's location remained the same the entire time, however, and this is picking hairs but in all honesty it's as precise as it needs to be, in relation to the ground the rock stood on it was moved, or is now where 'one' wanted the rock to be.

The statement that the rock moved and thus was moved being contradictory is wrong, no force or action to the rock was taken, gods powers had no effect on the rock, the rock indeed in relation and in measurement to lets say a universal size field retained it's precise possition.

Now, onto logic. Logic is a man made term, with a man made meaning. Logic is our interpretation of some thing and that interpretation was simply one part of how we think.

Yes God therefore created logic, but only along with every thing else. To say god acts THROUGH logic is also idiocy, logic is simply the form we have achieved the most through in a most precise way, in other words, to us, logic is the closest form of thinking we get to which is perfect.

Beyond that, Logic is still binding. Remember that when applying it to God or atleast your impressions of God.

Now the sin.. that is an interesting one isn't it, yes indeed.
God cannot sin, or is without sin. Or even, the opposite of sin (if you will).
And yet, god created it in a way. And created with it a means to do within it (perhaps?), without ever performing sin, we have been tested against it.. God has not "moved" the immovable rock, yet the rock has still moved... Stop thinking so enclosed when talking about a being who technically surpasses every form of intelligence by a true infinite number.

[Castle]

Quote by: Lullaby Chainer May someone answer this?

post #37

Quote by: Kuroko The rock did NOT move

Very well, then. The rock did not move. God did not move the rock. And God could not move the rock, despite all His omnipotence.

Quote by: Kuroko Logic is a man made term, with a man made meaning.

The word? Certainly. The very concept itself? Perhaps not (and certainly not if God exists)

Quote by: Kuroko And yet, god created it in a way.

The response I've always heard is that sin is simply the absence of God. God created free will, but it's not quite the same thing.

Quote by: Kuroko God has not "moved" the immovable rock, yet the rock has still moved...

Not in any real sense. Perhaps relative to the surface it was standing on, it has moved. But that was not the defined property of the rock. The rock was defined as unable to move in an absolute sense. And that has not occured. Omnipotence, for all its might, cannot bend the laws of logic. No power, no intelligence is sufficient to cause what cannot be to occur.

[Amuse]

Creation does not happen by chance nor is it without purpose. Everything created, seen and unseen, known and unknown is connected. No-thing is seperate, arbitrary or otherwise without meaning and significance. If an immovable rock has purpose then it would be so.

"IF" is the the arbitrary operative that helps to expand mans "logic". Logic is the sum of accumulated knowledge, "if" is the life force, if you will, that keeps logic expanding. Logic pertains to that which is known and the yet to be known will is what makes logic expand.

[Jagged]

Quote by: Castle Those aren't opposing forces. They both make the rock heavier.

No, last time i checked the question "How fat are you?" is technically the same question as "How skinny are you?", save for some tact in conversations and "alot" as an answer in one while it is "not at all" in the other.

[Kuroko]

Hell, Castle, if I were god, I'd just turn myself into a rock, my answer to you would be then. "when I move it is because I wish to for I am the rock both unmovable and movable, for my word is each a rock and each rock moves other rocks before it."

and I have no idea where that came from.

[pikatore]

Quote by: Kuroko Beyond that, Logic is still binding. Remember that when applying it to God or atleast your impressions of God.

lol, you could use that same counter to any argument placed against what a god would do.

[Castle]

Quote by: Jagged No, last time i checked the question "How fat are you?" is technically the same question as "How skinny are you?", save for some tact in conversations and "alot" as an answer in one while it is "not at all" in the other.

Er...that's nice. And if it relates to the topic, I missed it.

Quote by: Kuroko "when I move it is because I wish to for I am the rock both unmovable and movable, for my word is each a rock and each rock moves other rocks before it."

That's nice. Still doesn't work. Has to be the same rock being unmovable and moved. And rocks can't both be unmovable and movable at the same time, by very fundamental logic (law of non-contradiction).

[Kuroko]

That's nice. Still doesn't work. Has to be the same rock being unmovable and moved. And rocks can't both be unmovable and movable at the same time, by very fundamental logic (law of non-contradiction).

Stating some thing to be fact and implying that I am breaking a law of logic does not imply or state that I actually am wrong.

The logic, the rules and the laws you are applying this test to are in this universes, set to this universes. This is god, this test therefore implies that there is a god to which there is a test to be performed on.

In that case, the implication of there being a god and of god existing is done by the questioner, now god we know for having created the Earth and the heavens. Heaven is where he presides over all else. So there are TWO places with seperate rules, therefore there can be any number of places creatable by god where both our logic and our ideals of our laws would be flawed in such a universe, or even dimension.

And there DOES exist ways for some thing to be unmovable by some thing and yet movable by something.

For instance. I can open my door, yet my willpower alone cannot.
God is expressed as having a devine will over all, god could create a rock unmovable by perhaps his "physical" form but perhaps movable by his simple free will.. unable to move it one way and yet the other.

just like me and my door.

[Castle]

Quote by: Kuroko The logic, the rules and the laws you are applying this test to are in this universes, set to this universes.

Logic is not "in this universe". It is universal. It directly follows from definitions of terms.

Quote by: Kuroko So there are TWO places with seperate rules, therefore there can be any number of places creatable by god where both our logic and our ideals of our laws would be flawed in such a universe, or even dimension.

If it's that simple, perhaps you could give me a hypothetical situation in which logic has been broken?

Quote by: Kuroko And there DOES exist ways for some thing to be unmovable by some thing and yet movable by something.

But that's not what the words immovable and movable mean. They mean, respectively, immovable by anything and movable by something.

Quote by: Kuroko God is expressed as having a devine will over all, god could create a rock unmovable by perhaps his "physical" form but perhaps movable by his simple free will.. unable to move it one way and yet the other.

Then it's movable. That which can be moved is movable. That which cannot be moved is immovable. The rock can be moved. Ergo, it is movable.

[pikatore]

Quote by: Kuroko In that case, the implication of there being a god and of god existing is done by the questioner, now god we know for having created the Earth and the heavens. Heaven is where he presides over all else. So there are TWO places with seperate rules, therefore there can be any number of places creatable by god where both our logic and our ideals of our laws would be flawed in such a universe, or even dimension.

No i believe that if there was a heaven, logic and ideals of laws would exists... or it wouldnt be too heavenly would it?

And there DOES exist ways for some thing to be unmovable by some thing and yet movable by something.

Quote by: Kuroko For instance. I can open my door, yet my willpower alone cannot. God is expressed as having a devine will over all, god could create a rock unmovable by perhaps his "physical" form but perhaps movable by his simple free will.. unable to move it one way and yet the other. just like me and my door.

well your definition of 'something' seems to encompass psychic powers. ill try to leave it at that.

however, as powerful as gods free will would be, it would still need to exert a force on that rock, and hence will still be unable to move it.

[samsara15]

Could God create a more powerful God, who could move the rock, but who would then immediately disappear? Borrow some energy from space-time. Or change the relative position of the rock to everything else, so that the rock remained where it was, but the universe surrounding it moved?

[Nitrogenetic]

We've all heard it. I know the variant: "Could Jesus heat up a burrito so hot that he himself could not eat it?" and whilst it may sound stupid, it does, in a sense, prove that he cannot do anything. But does this falsify God? No. The thing with the Bible is that you can interpret it in many ways, and as such, Christians are always inventing new ways to weasel their way out of problems such as this one.

[pikatore]

Quote by: samsara15 Could God create a more powerful God, who could move the rock, but who would then immediately disappear? Borrow some energy from space-time. Or change the relative position of the rock to everything else, so that the rock remained where it was, but the universe surrounding it moved?

if god created a more powerful god, it would immediately say that god was a false god, since there is only one god, and kick his ass into non-existence. this more powerful god will then proceed to move the rock for a bit of excercise.

[Fonceai]

Can God create another God?

If a characteristic of God is omnipotence, and creates another omnipotent being, then he's no longer omnipotent anymore. So the answer is no.

If God does not have to be omnipotent to be a God, then the easy answer is yes. I'm human, and with the right technology I can create another human from nothing but myself. That human could equal or even exceed me. Thus the same has to be true for God.

Then it would stand to reason that if God created humans, then hasn't God created other Gods already?

[Kuroko]

If it's that simple, perhaps you could give me a hypothetical situation in which logic has been broken?

I will give you a million reasons all of them steming from the same question, where my friend does logic say nature (if there were no god that is) would see emotions as a necessity to our particullar piece of survival hmm?

Why on earth, would nature see us have the ability to feel any thing other then self serving, and self preserving. Nature does fine with many other species being so very selfish, Snakes are such a species.

Why even still the ability to choose to ignore these emotions, following logic is simply following the most likely if not most probable of sollutions, to be logical or to follow the train of thought closest to a logical one would simply be to follow the most likely driven or most probable course of action or train or line of reasoning.

Logic, is not universal, logic is an employed (by man or another with choice to do so) state. With an (in this case) exhagerated meaning.

The universe follows no such law, as no such law explains the universe, simply logic eventually encompases that which we will eventually learn, that is not to say that logic knew the outcome or actions of an occurance which may happen in the universe, simply to say instead that logic will it seem (eventually) the occurance is following.

Bassically, it isn't logical until we know it to be so.

No i believe that if there was a heaven, logic and ideals of laws would exists... or it wouldnt be too heavenly would it?

The laws I spoke of weren't social laws, they were ones governing the very fabric of that plane, or universe/dimension, much like there are many "laws" in science regarding our own universe, the laws of gravity, the laws of thermodynamics indeed there are laws for almost every field and every specific out there.

Dont' be so misguided into thinking there is a law to logic.
Also don't allow others to be so misguided into thinking logic should be a law.

But that's not what the words immovable and movable mean. They mean, respectively, immovable by anything and movable by something.

Your grasp of conception is amazingly blunt and annoyingly, almost painfully abtruse. Your imagination either has god in a physical sense trying to move the rock, or as an act of will trying to move the rock.. or.. even.. both.. PICK ANY OF THOSE OPTIONS.

If you pick physical.. then I will say god can willfully move the rock, yet managed to make a rock that he could not physically move.. therefore the rock is both movable (by gods will) and unmovable (by gods physical form) why assume god has a physical form? I don't.. but I don't assume others have an imagination capable of imagining some thing existing without being physical.. yes you guys are really starting to make me wonder.. if you say he cannot willfully move the rock, then god not limited by his own rules in a universe he created, would physically move it.. simply doing the same as the above in reverse order.

And if you say he makes one he cannot move in either form or fact.. I will say this, in anticipation of your request.. god would have made the rock on an equally impressive see saw, similar to but not limited to one which you would find in a play ground.. and, then god would make an equally impressive rock on the other end of that seesaw (he did it once, what says he cannot again) and then he would sit on that rock.. and the rock which he could not previously move would move.. now serriously stop thinking so linear and realise when talking about a being which exists before time and after it, which can fill infinity and still exist in zero.. you need to realise.. no task you can possibly imagine would even test such a thing if such a thing even existed.

This question is not an attempt to prove, but instead an attempt to disprove.. either:
a) God CAN move the rock, therefore he isn't omnipotant because he cannot create an almighty rock
b) God CAN'T move the rock then he isn't omnipotant because his powers have limits.

But the test does so in a lame way, the end outcome assumes that a person who answers would be blinded by faith as to say yes or no so easily without thinking.

That is after all what religions do to people I take it most people are under the impression of...

@fonceai
The bible describes that angels and even satan are gods in unto thier own.

[Fonceai]

Quote by: Kuroko @fonceai The bible describes that angels and even satan are gods in unto thier own.

As are we all, I believe.

Creation itself is a Godlike ability. That alone is enough.

That's why Angels and Devils and Satan can't actually create.

[Kuroko]

I've always said it.

"created in his image didn't mean physical sense.. simply the mental sense"

[samsara15]

Foncaei: If a God created a more powerful God, would that be a different level of infinity? Or assuming a finite God, who created a superior finite God, could that be 'approaching infinity'?