God and the Stone
- Thread starter Present
- Start date
Q
Qorl
Guest
Present
Here is the answer.
-He created his son Jesus Christ who was not able to lift anything heavy, but the ego of humans.
Here is the answer.
-He created his son Jesus Christ who was not able to lift anything heavy, but the ego of humans.
Those who have faith do not believe in logic if it leads to a conclusion contrary to theit faith. It is as simple as that.
To the faithful god can make a rock too heavy for him to lift, but he is still all powerful becasue he could lift it if he really wanted to.
It is a variation on the question of what happens when an irresistable force meets an immovable object. To those with no faith, there can either be a universe which includes an irrestiable forec or a universe which includes an immovable object, but there cannot be a universe which contains both.
For those with faith, god can create a universe containing both an irresistable force and an immovable object. If they never meet there is no problem. If they do meet, god witll decide whihc one wins, but we mere mortals will never know the answer. There are many turths that we cannot know. It provides an easy explanation for all those difficult questions: "Only god knows the answer" is an explanation to any unanswerable question.
To the faithful god can make a rock too heavy for him to lift, but he is still all powerful becasue he could lift it if he really wanted to.
It is a variation on the question of what happens when an irresistable force meets an immovable object. To those with no faith, there can either be a universe which includes an irrestiable forec or a universe which includes an immovable object, but there cannot be a universe which contains both.
For those with faith, god can create a universe containing both an irresistable force and an immovable object. If they never meet there is no problem. If they do meet, god witll decide whihc one wins, but we mere mortals will never know the answer. There are many turths that we cannot know. It provides an easy explanation for all those difficult questions: "Only god knows the answer" is an explanation to any unanswerable question.
C7,
Or more simply he could have introduced himself clearly and plainly. Free will or the lack of it is irrelevant to satisfy his desire.
Then as soon as he appears then we can choose to believe, right?
Nonsense. Simply introducing himself unambiguously wouldn’t remove our free will.
No direct witnesses then? Any video of God talking with Moses? Who witnessed that conversation? No one, right? Why should we believe Moses?
The judeao-christian god's omnipotence does have its limits.
The notion of "Can a god make a rock so big it cannot move it." is not illogical coz the notion is based on how limited humans are. Humans can make something so big they cannot move it, such as a 3 bedroom house.
Check out how really weak the god Jehovah was in Judges 1:19, "And the Lord was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but COULD NOT drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron."
Of course the real limit of the god's omnipotence is shown in the inability of said god to present absolutely convincing evidence as to its existance for everyone.
The notion of "Can a god make a rock so big it cannot move it." is not illogical coz the notion is based on how limited humans are. Humans can make something so big they cannot move it, such as a 3 bedroom house.
Check out how really weak the god Jehovah was in Judges 1:19, "And the Lord was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but COULD NOT drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron."
Of course the real limit of the god's omnipotence is shown in the inability of said god to present absolutely convincing evidence as to its existance for everyone.
I read somewhere on that site, that he said our Bible says we have to prove all things. It doesn't, it says we have to test all things, which we have. Well me anyway.
That site makes no point, it just brings as back to the start of this argument, remember that God doesnt have our physical laws, and he is not in this universe.
For people who say God can't be real because he cant do all things, well think of it like this. God can't sin, as the Bible stats, because sinning is actually turning away from God/not following his rules. Why would God turn away from himself? And more importantly, this stone question is rubbish, he doesnt have our physical laws. Even if he did, you don't know what hes capable of.
That site makes no point, it just brings as back to the start of this argument, remember that God doesnt have our physical laws, and he is not in this universe.
For people who say God can't be real because he cant do all things, well think of it like this. God can't sin, as the Bible stats, because sinning is actually turning away from God/not following his rules. Why would God turn away from himself? And more importantly, this stone question is rubbish, he doesnt have our physical laws. Even if he did, you don't know what hes capable of.
If God was omnipotent, he could give us free will AND make everyone believe in Him.
Or, if he can't do this, he must not be omnipotent.
spidergoat,
omnipotency doesn't mean that you can create illogical things like "triangular squares". but indeed, god gave us free will, and he will also make us believe in him again, but not instantly! he constantly pulls us to himself and we can by our free will reject him, who is our true self.
omnipotency doesn't mean that you can create illogical things like "triangular squares". but indeed, god gave us free will, and he will also make us believe in him again, but not instantly! he constantly pulls us to himself and we can by our free will reject him, who is our true self.
Oh! man you must of been bored!
Here is a good link on that argument and why is not a good idea for atheist to use it;
http://www.geocities.com/inquisitive79/heavyrock.html
Here is a good link on that argument and why is not a good idea for atheist to use it;
http://www.geocities.com/inquisitive79/heavyrock.html
WHEN exactly ,did God appointed you as its spokeperson???
It is silly and a waste of time to apply logic to theological issues, which is what the rock paradox attempts to do. Furthermore, the rock paradox is not even based on proper formal logic.
Faith is essentially a mind set that believes in the absence of supporting evidence and in spite of evidence (if any) to the contrary. This is a view that the theist is proud of.
A theist's axioms are such that belief in god is mandatory, probably due to its being one of the axioms of their system. They only apply the principles of logic when they think it supports their view.
I happen to be an atheist, but would not consider trying to use logic to convince a theist of my point of view.
Just as I consider it to be silly and a waste of my time to use logic to support my view, I consider it even sillier (actually irrational) for a theist to use logic to support his point of view.
BTW: The rock argument is basically fallacious. It is a variant of the theme expressed by the question: “What happens when an irresistible force meets an immovable object?” The obvious answer to this question is: “You can either have a universe with an irresistible force or a universe with an immovable object. You cannot have a universe with both.” The paradox requires some improper definitions and/or assumptions hidden by natural language semantics, which are not designed to be the language of logic.
Similarly, the Rock paradox is a matter of improper definitions and assumptions. Assuming that god exists, he could create a rock that he could lift if he wanted to, and could not lift if he had other issues on his mind. Perhaps he could create a rock which he could not lift on Mondays, Wednesdays & Fridays but could lift on other days.
Faith is essentially a mind set that believes in the absence of supporting evidence and in spite of evidence (if any) to the contrary. This is a view that the theist is proud of.
A theist's axioms are such that belief in god is mandatory, probably due to its being one of the axioms of their system. They only apply the principles of logic when they think it supports their view.
I happen to be an atheist, but would not consider trying to use logic to convince a theist of my point of view.
Just as I consider it to be silly and a waste of my time to use logic to support my view, I consider it even sillier (actually irrational) for a theist to use logic to support his point of view.
- Most theists seem to be ignorant of the basic concepts of logic & embarrass themselves when they attempt to use it.
- Logic is based on axioms accepted as self evident truths. The theist and the atheist have fundamentally different axioms on which they base their point of view. With different axioms, they arrive at different conclusions consistent with their axioms, assuming that either has a logical basis for his belief system.
Actually very few (if any) theists and a minority of atheists have any idea of the basic concepts of logic and do not have a logical basis for their view. Those in either camp with a knowledge of logic seldom (if ever) try to use logic to support their view.
BTW: The rock argument is basically fallacious. It is a variant of the theme expressed by the question: “What happens when an irresistible force meets an immovable object?” The obvious answer to this question is: “You can either have a universe with an irresistible force or a universe with an immovable object. You cannot have a universe with both.” The paradox requires some improper definitions and/or assumptions hidden by natural language semantics, which are not designed to be the language of logic.
Similarly, the Rock paradox is a matter of improper definitions and assumptions. Assuming that god exists, he could create a rock that he could lift if he wanted to, and could not lift if he had other issues on his mind. Perhaps he could create a rock which he could not lift on Mondays, Wednesdays & Fridays but could lift on other days.