A few questions, I would like to discuss with the Christian people here.

2. The true fruit:
All right. Imagine a man, living all by himself in a fruit garden. This garden has all kinds of fruits, like apples, bananas, oranges, etc. However, this man doesn’t eat the different sorts of fruit. In fact, he only eats one sort of fruits, the bananas. That’s the only fruit he eats, every day, for his entire life. And every time after eating a banana, he says: ”This banana is delicious. I made the right choice, because bananas are the most delicious fruit on the planet. It is the true fruit!”

Now, this man has the full right to say what he says about bananas. But does he know it, when he says that bananas are the true fruit?

2b. Now, let us transfer this analogy to religion. Imagine a religious man, a Christian, who has been a Christian all his life, saying that Christianity is the true religion and should be preferred over all other religions. Now, this man has the full right to say and to believe that. But does he know it?

He would say that the other types of fruit don't exist since they are'nt real fruit.

Mysterious said:

Hello there, thank you for honouring my thread with your presence!

I have a few questions, which I would like to discuss with the Christian people on this board. And since this is one of the biggest and most active Christian forums in the world, this seems like the perfect place. The questions concern God, His characteristics and existence, Christianity, Ethics, etc.

In the past, some Christians who I presented these questions to have felt offended. I sincerely hope that this is not the case here, and apologise in advance if it is. It is not my intention to insult anyone or attack your religion, I merely search for an in-depth discussion concerning your religion.

Three more things, before we get started. First, I apologise for any spelling- or grammatical errors made in my posts. English is not my first language, since I’m from Holland, and even though I always use the spelling checker some mistakes slip through. Second, I’m not sure whether this thread really belongs in this section. It seems more appropriate for the debate section, but I can’t post it there because I need to post a hundred times elsewhere before that, and I don’t feel like wasting your and my time writing a hundred posts just to make this thread. And third, for your own sake, don’t try to answer all these questions at once. It took me days to think of them and weeks to formulate them properly, so don’t stay up late trying to answer every question. I wouldn’t want to endanger your health.

Ready? Okay then, here we go:

A number of questions, directed towards the Christian people here.


1. The heaviest stone:
Here’s a classic one, to get things going. Some of you have probably heard this one before. God is said to be omnipotent, or all-powerful. Which means that He can do everything He wants. So, can God create a stone that is so heavy that God Himself cannot lift it?

2. The true fruit:
All right. Imagine a man, living all by himself in a fruit garden. This garden has all kinds of fruits, like apples, bananas, oranges, etc. However, this man doesn’t eat the different sorts of fruit. In fact, he only eats one sort of fruits, the bananas. That’s the only fruit he eats, every day, for his entire life. And every time after eating a banana, he says: ”This banana is delicious. I made the right choice, because bananas are the most delicious fruit on the planet. It is the true fruit!”

Now, this man has the full right to say what he says about bananas. But does he know it, when he says that bananas are the true fruit?

2b. Now, let us transfer this analogy to religion. Imagine a religious man, a Christian, who has been a Christian all his life, saying that Christianity is the true religion and should be preferred over all other religions. Now, this man has the full right to say and to believe that. But does he know it?

3. Job’s Problem:
As you all know, there is a lot of suffering in this world. War, hunger, diseases, you name it. Now, when I sometimes ask Christian people why there is suffering in the world, and why the all-loving God doesn’t stop this (since He is omnipotent), some of them say that God is testing us. He is making us suffer to see whether we will stay loyal to Him. They sometimes refer to the story of Job, in which God takes everything from Job (his wife, his children, his land, his health) because Satan challenged Him and wondered whether Job would stay true to Him.
Now, being God, He has a certain right to accept this challenge and let Satan have his wicked way with Job for the sake of His challenge. According to the Christians, He gave us everything, so it isn’t too illogical that He can take it away (although not all Christians will agree with this).
There’s just one little thing that bothers me. God, according to Christians, is
All-knowing. He knows everything about past, present and future. This means that He didn’t have to accept Satan’s challenge, since He already knew Job would choose Him. In fact, there’s no use in testing any of us by suffering at all, because God already knows who will come out of the test, and thus who are the true Christians. So why does He do it anyway?


3b. Some of you might answer that God might already have known that Job would remain faithful to Him, but that Satan didn’t. But then, does that really matter? I mean, destroying an innocent men’s life just to prove that He’s right doesn’t seem like something a benevolent God would do, right?

4. The Dictator:
Once, in a country far, far away, there was a cruel dictator. He had ruled over his little country for decades and made the inhabitants suffer a great deal. One day however, there was uproar in the country, and an angry crowd gathered before the house of the dictator, only to be stopped by his own private army. The people were furious, and they demanded elections. They said that they wanted to have a choice, to express their free will. “Okay”, said the dictator, “As you wish. I will organize elections, and you can freely choose between me and an impartial other candidate. However, if any of you dare not to vote for me, I will put you in the deepest dungeon and torture you horribly!”

Now the dictator gave his people a choice. But is it a free choice? Do the people really have an opportunity to express their free will?

4b. Later that day, the dictator’s ten-year-old son walks up to him, and asks him whether he can have some candy. The dictator nods, opens a drawer, takes out two pieces of chocolate and puts one of them in each hand. The reaches out his hands towards his son and opens them, displaying a piece of white chocolate in the right hand and a piece of brown chocolate in the left hand. The dictator tells his son that he can pick whichever he wants. So the boy picks out the right hand, containing the white piece of chocolate.
However, upon doing this, the dictator becomes furious and gives his son a mighty blow to the side of his head. Crying, the boy asks him why he did that. The dictator answers that he didn’t want him to pick the white piece of chocolate, and that he has the right to punish him because of that. The son disagrees. After all, what’s the use of having a choice when ultimately the decision is forced upon you anyway? According to him, it is not a fair choice.

So who’s right? The dictator, or his son?

4c. Now, if your answer to the last two questions was ‘no’, which seems quite possible, please answer me this;
The Bible says that God gave us free will. He gave us a choice. (In fact, this free choice seems to be the root of all our errors. Homosexuality = free choice. Catching HIV while trying to support your family by selling your body = free choice. Drown in the Tsunami = free choice.) However, if we don’t choose the side of God, we will burn in hell, which probably hurts a lot. And we don’t just go to hell for a short time, but we stay there for all eternity. Now, I agree with you that choosing between heaven and hell is a choice. But is it a free choice? Is it really a free choice anymore than the dictator gave his people or his son a free choice? Or does free choice include the acceptance of whatever choice you make, without adding any negative consequences to it?


4d. Back to the dictator. During the night after the original riots, a small group of angry people is still determined to take care of the dictator. They manage to enter his house, but they can’t make their way past the guards in front of the dictator’s bedroom. So in the end, they decide to kidnap the son of the dictator instead. They take the young boy to their secret headquarters, and once there, they send a message to the dictator, telling him that if he doesn’t end his reign over their people, they will kill the boy. They feel that this if fair, since after all, the boy is the son of the dictator. The boy himself disagrees, arguing that his father’s choices aren’t to blame on him. It wasn’t his will for the people to be suppressed by the dictator.

Suppose that the people kill the boy if the dictator doesn’t stop his reign. Would this be a morally acceptable thing to do?

4e. If your answer to this last question was no, consider what is written in Exodus 12: 29-30. Can God, a being that is supposedly perfect, do something that is morally unacceptable? And if He can’t, doesn’t that raise some questions about His omnipotence, since omnipotence is the ability to do anything?

5 God’s gender:
[sarcasm] Wow, thank you very much for insulting my religion [/sarcasm]. A statement that a Christian girl once made to me for referring to God as a ‘She’. Unfortunately, instead of making me feel sorry, it made me feel curious by raising a couple of questions.


For example, last time I checked God wasn’t made out of matter. No matter means no genitals. No genitals, means that technically one cannot refer to God as a ‘He’. Or at least not forbid anyone else to refer to God as a ‘She’. Right? (If your answer to this question is yes, you can skip questions 5b, 5c and 5d.)

5b. Of course, some of you will respond to this saying that the bible refers to God as a ‘He’. However, the bible was written in a time when men were considered superior to women and dominated them. Women were considered as ‘personal property’. So at the time, if anyone were to refer to a ‘supreme being’, which God was supposed to be, using ‘She’, he wouldn’t have been taken serious for an instant. So people referred to God as ‘He’. But does this really mean that God is a ‘He’? (If your answer to this question is yes, you can skip questions 5c and 5d.)

5c. Another thing. I (and note that I am a male) consider women to be the superior sex. Naturally, this means that I consider men the inferior sex. So far no harm done, at least not to the ladies here. However, here comes the tricky part. If I refer to God as ‘Him’ this means that I consider Him male, or belonging to the inferior sex. Which is downright insulting, considering God is supposed to be a superior being. You see the dilemma. I can’t call God a ‘She’ because Christian people won’t tolerate it, but I also can’t call Him a ‘He’ since that would be insulting Him too. What am I to do?

5d. One last thing. This one is even trickier than the ones before, but I’m asking anyway. I noticed that a lot of the Christians (not all, mind you) are against gay marriage. However, something most of them (at least the Catholic ones) agree on, is that Catholic priests should not be married, since they are ‘married to God’ as the expression goes in many countries. All fine so far. But. God is referred to as a ‘He’. Male. Catholic priests are also male. But if Catholic priests are married to or have a union with God, then this means that a male has married another male. Gay marriage. Right?

6. The good guy:
One day, a fisherman has a heart attack while fishing on the side of a lake, and falls into the water. A stranger on the side of the lake sees the man struggling not to drown, dives into the water and rescues the fisherman. The fisherman thanks the stranger, and asks him why he saved his life, since he was a total stranger to him. Since nobody else was watching him, he could have easily let him drown without having to endanger his life by diving in with him. The stranger answers that he saved the fisherman because he is a Christian, and he believes that good deeds like saving another persons life will get him to heaven.
A year later, the same fisherman has yet another heart attack on the side of the same lake, and hits the water again. Another stranger on the side of the lake sees this, and saves the fisherman like the first stranger did. After catching his breath, the fisherman asks this stranger the same question as he asked the other stranger a year ago, curious whether this is, like the other man, a Christian. This stranger, however, tells the fisherman that he is an atheist, and that he doesn't believe his good deeds will get him to heaven. To him, saving the life of the fisherman and seeing his happiness is enough reward.

Now, out of the two strangers, who had the better motive? The Christian, who saved the fisherman because he wanted to get the reward of going to heaven, or the atheist, who apparently didn’t need a reward that big for saving the fisherman?

Click to expand...

3. Job’s Problem

God certainly knew the outcome before it even began....If He did'nt let it proceed, we would'nt know about it...It was for us.

It's been a long time since I've seen a thread as well-written as this.
And without further ado, my answers!

1. The heaviest stone:
(for future refrence, I'm just going to post my answers here, not the entire question.)
Personally, I think God is higher than every creature that has, is, or will ever exsist. There is nothing greater than Him and there never will be. Therefore, there is no "stone" to create that's bigger than Him. By the human perspective, this seems impossible- there is always somthing "bigger" in our society. Take fast food for example- we have hamburgers, cheeseburgers, double cheeseburgers, etc. We always have somthing newly invented that is "bigger" and "better". First there were records, then CD's, now ipods. We as humans are constantly trying to come up with somthing better, bigger, faster, etc., than it's predecessor for society. So, obviously, some of us put God on this "bigger" system. But (in my opinion), God has exsisted before time, and will exsist after time- but He was just as great before time as He will be after time. His power doesn't increase, because it is already without limit.

Obviously alot of people (even Christians) dissagree with me, but it's what I think based on scripture.


2. The true fruit:
Short answer: no.
Better answer: No, I don't think someone can go to one religion, and decide it's true without at least learning about many others. Notice I say "many", and "learning about". I am NOT saying that one must practice every religion known to mankind before settling with one. I choose Christianity, but before that I was involved with what was basically atheism. I enjoy my life better as a Christian than as an atherist. To keep with the fruit analagy, lets say my life started with me eating an orange everyday. One day I was introduced to bananas, and decided I liked them more than oranges. But I also learn about other religions even now, while I'm committed to Christianity. I have decided I dissagree with their basic principles of faith (and mind you I look at every religion I can as unbiased as possible.) So after all that searching, I continually keep to banannas. But if in all that "tasting" of different "fruits" I find somthing I like better, I will probably leave banannas. Yet in all my searching I haven't found one yet, and I honestly don't think I ever will.

More answers tomorrow (and yes I intend to answer all the questions here... eventually).

3. Job’s Problem:
I honestly don't see how this question makes much sense. You're saying God doesn't need to make us do anything, because He already knows what will happen after He makes us do it.
Lets say a boy in a high school class hears theres a test on Monday, and it is Friday. Instead of studying, he gets his teachers answerbook and memorizes the answers to the test. On Monday morning, he immeditley folds his test into a paper airplane and throws it outside the window. While doing this, He keeps in mind that he doesn't have anything to do, because he momorized all the answers.

Of course, the student in question gets a failing grade for not taking the test. The lesson is that God knows He must let Satan tempt us to get the results which He already knows.



3b. N/A

4. The Dictator:
I believe the people in Christianity have a free choice. See the question isn't really "believe me or go to hell", it's more like "believe me or not." If you don't follow Jesus, you are believed by Christians that you will go to hell. However, you don't believe that. That's what I think matters.

4b.
See above.

4c. See above

4d. See below

4e. Ah, a debators rare treat; someone who quotes Scripture. Again, rare, but do-able.

I think it would be beneficial for you to read the rest of the story, Mysterious. Because before God caused that plauge of the firstborn son dying, Pharoh cursed God. (Exodus 5:2). Before God caused that plauge, he sent nine others which wern't nearly as horrible. (Exodus 7:20, 8:12, 8:17, 8:24, 9:6, 9:10, 9:23, 10:13 and 10:22)
And for the death of the firstborn in all of Egypt, Moses gave people a way out of the plauge- spreading lambs blood on your doorway (Exodus 12:23).


5 God’s gender:
Personally, I think God has no gender. How is this possible? Dunno. I could waste my entire life on that one question and never realize the true answer.

5b. N/A

5c. We are all equal in Christ- period. I don't consider any sex inferior or superior. However, can't you realize that calling God an "it" is insulting as well?
The way I see it, yes the Jewish called God "He". When God was sent down to earth, He was in the form of a male. So we have become accustomed to calling God a "He". We could call God a "She", but it doesn't really matter, because we're all equal.

5d. As I said above, I think all believers in Christ are equal, and should be thought of as such. Galatians 3:28 "There is no longer Jew nor Gentile, slave nor free, male and female. For you are all one in Christ Jesus."(NLT). This leads some Christians to believe that we are "genderless" to a certain degree. So this really has very little to do with gay marriage.

Personally, I'm not Catholic. And (not to hurt any Catholic readers here), I dissagree with some of the "smaller" things they believe. For instance, I don't like the way they say someone can be "married" to God, for the simple reason that in todays culture, it causes others to question their beliefs, as well as other peoples.
I think they mean that we are supposed to be as close to God as a man is to his wife (or vice versa).


6. The good guy:

The atheist.

Suprised? I'm not. A true Christian doesn't do good deeds to "get into" heaven- he/she does them out of love for God. Some Christian "sects" ( by which I mean "cults")(specifically Jehova's Whitnesses (not to offend any JW's out there) )
believe just what you said; good deeds= a free ticket to heaven, no matter what you believe in your heart. I don't, and I think God doesn't appreciate works without faith, and vice versa.

7. For richer,for poorer

Again, I don't see the point in the question. You ask who's life is going to be "worth" more. According to the atheist, once you die, your life is forever gone. As in, nothing left. Poof. Meaning after you die, you don't go to a cash register and see what you can buy from the good/bad deeds you've done in life; you are done. In Christianity, we still have no "cash register". So I believe the that the Christian gets to go to Heaven because he/she accepted Christ and had a relationship with Him in his/her life (not because of good deeds alone), and the atheist believes nothing will happen. I believe he/ she would go to hell.

More to come- I promise.

I'm really trying to get more questions in one post, okay? Be patient.

8. Yin-Yang, or the point of Heraclitus:

I don't see why the people wouldn't have a word for war

8b. I don't see why the people wouldn't have a word for peace

8c. I don't think so. Like before I became a Christian, I lived what I now consider was a horrible life, but then I thought my life was reasonably normal.

8d. Yes, even though one may not realize that they were in "peace" more than "normal life".

8e. Yes

8f. Of the Christian perspective, we all do "bad (sin)" everyday, as well as good. But I see where you're getting, my answer is yes.

8g. Yes

8h.
I think you've missused some grammar here or somthing (or it could be I'm an idiot and can't read right today). Nevertheless, I don't understand your question. Sorry.


8i. If the person isn't a Christian, I'd say yes.

9. Heaven and hell:
It is stated in the Bible that love for other human beings is for this world, not heaven or hell. If a Christian dies and goes to Heaven, he/she will only care for God, in my opinion. The man could be upset, I suppose, but he and the woman would both be powerless. The woman,however, would live in Heaven as if she never met the man.


10. A point made by Aristotle:

There is no such thing as a perfect thing on this world. But if such a thing were to exsist, no, He wouldn't be able to keep improving his skill. (I'm keeping Jesus in mind here).

10c. Okay, I can't come up with an action with no goal...

10d.

I agree: God is perfect.

• God doesn't "save" us from Satan; He willingly lets him tempt us. But for the rest of your statment I agree.
• God's "goal" in using us is to win His creation back to Him- but God doesn't need us at all.
• He has not yet achieved SOME of His created humans back to worshiping Him, as they should be.
• My definition of "perfect" is more like "Without sin and having everything one needs." (which is impossible for a human.) Well, God is without sin, and God doesn't need us, as I've already said. Therefore, He is perfect in every way. You said to come up with your own definition of perfect, which I did.

11. Of all places!:

Look at Revelation 14:9-10. It basically says those who go to hell will be there in the presence of God. I think of it to the equivalent of being a toddler in time out with your mother standing by you the entire time...ridiculing you for your actions. I think if someone is sent to hell, God will still be there- but in anger.

12. About pork and homosexuality:

I consider homosexuality a sin, but certainly not unforgivable. All sins are forgivable- even the "big" ones.
To your second question, it depends on if that person asks for forgivness for his/her sins. If he/she has and after many trials hasn't reformed from homosexuality once dead, he/she would still go to heaven, having been forgiven and having tried to not be a homosexual.

12.b

Eating pork is not seen as a sin according to Christianity. The Jewish law is "retracted" for those practicing Christianity.

I don't consider this a double standard, because although both "sins" are mentioned in Leviticus, Mark 7:19 says that all kinds of food are allowed to Christians. However, homosexuality is further mentioned as a sin in the new testament.

13. (forgot the name)

First of all, non-Christians can experience God, and I am living proof of this.

In many cases God can apply to logic, in many cases, He cannot. But as a Christian, I believe since He created me, He must surely know me and the world more than any human, and I trust Him with faith.

The difference I see with the little boy and the Christian is that with further hands-on testing, he could see that the trees aren't moving by themselves eventually. However, I have still not found anything I cannot believe about God. If I ever do, then I very well may change my faith, but as of now, that hasn't happened.

14. Headshot or starvation:
I really think his choice was his own. In that situation, I don't see much wrong with it.

14b. See above

14c. N/A

14d. Before I get to my answer, let me again say that you said the Christian nurse said murder was a "great" sin. I believe all sins are equally evil and that God considers them as such. I don't think it is a sin for the man to ask the doctor to give him the lethal injection. I don't think that anything can make a human act a certain way; ultimatley the choice is yours alone.

I honestly can't answer you why the man couldn't be cured instantly. I can't see why both my grandfathers were struck ill and eventually led to death. I can't see why my grandmother had to lose her leg and go through lifelong torture in a bad nursing home. I don't see why my close friends grandmother had to die of cancer. My friends mom died when she was 2- why would that happen? Why does anything bad happen on earth, either to yourself or the people you love- I don't know. All I know is that God does know, and I trust Him.


14e. I think by this point you realize why I don't see this question applicable.

15. Death penalty:

No, I don't support the death penalty, and I wouldn't even if I wasn't a Christian- I don't believe in the death penalty because I personally think it's wrong.

16. The chemistry test:

Besides the fact I consider this question very biased, I consider Joel's (don't know how to make the special "e" thing) answer correct, although terribly undetailed. Yes, Patrick "tried his best" to explain his answer throughly, he didn't explain it all and it affected his final answer. If I was a teacher, I would not give a passing grade to either answer, so it's a tough question.


16b. Okay, now I'm mad.

Yes, I am a creationist. And yes, I may not have scientific proof or anything, but I have seen many creationists with very good cases. Not all creationists simply argue "Creationism is true because God made it that way." And the Evolutionists miss "little" parts, yes, but they are vital parts. True, creationism misses vital parts also; I don't think there is any one explanation on how the world began that we will be able to "prove" with the scientific meathod, logic, ect. But please, remember that although you may consider creationists inferior, remember that we do make a strong case.

16c. N/A

17. Paley’s living watch:

0m6!!11!one!!11! lyke, w47cH35 s0 70t4l1y d0N7 d0 d47!!!11!!
(TRANSLATION: [wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth]! Like, watches so totally don't do that!!)

hahaha. Yeah.

The watches still could have had an intelligent creator. God could have created two watches and they could "breed" just as you describe, with simple changes being made from generation to generation. For example, lets say God created two sundials and they "reproduced". This goes on and on untill one sundial is born with numbers we see today on it instead of roman numerals, as seen on some sundials. That watch would keep in the reproduction cycle, but his trait would continue. Then eventually another watch would be born with gears or hands or some other watch thing, and the process we just saw with the numbers happens all over again. Eventually, a watch is born which looks alot like the one on your wrist. That is what I believed might have happened with God- He may have created us in a simpler form with the intention of us evolving.

18. Again, stupid Megan forgot the name of the question. Deal with it.

Saving the hardest 'till the end, eh?

Okay, yes, God doesn't have to apply to human logic. However, in all the scenarios you gave me, I know they aren't true because of scripture. Look at Titus 1:2, Mark 10:18, and John 3:33. They clearly state that God is not a liar, God is truly good (and therefore not evil), and He is true (and therefore real). The Bible also states that God is not going to change- ever.(Malachi 3:6). Therefore the statments made then in the Bible are still true of God today. Therefore, that is what is wrong in your reasoning.

In closing, I want to say that I did not have direct these answers in front of me; I had to research my Bible , the internet, my past experiences, etc. I did not write this to try to convert anyone. What I believe is that Christianity is true. I also believe that one cannot simply hear of a religion from one perspective and simply dismiss it. I have found major holes in other religions I have studied over the years. I have talked to many people of that religion about my doubts and often the result was the people I was talking to were questioning their own beliefs- they had been doubting the question to. I have talked to buddist priests for example, and they sometimes don't have an answer for me.

But when I talk to other Christians about my doubts, I have never recived anything less than a detailed explanation which doesn't contradict anything else I've heard of God so far. I now find no holes in Christianity. What I am trying to say is I posted this with the intention of informing, not trying to convert someone to my religion. I would be pleased if I did, but it isn't my goal. I want to inform others about the truth about Christianity before they (like many others), simply dissmiss it entirley. If I have done that I am satisfied. I hope you all can understand that.

I personally think that anyone that feels comfortable about there religions would be open to reading and replying to this thread. I want to first take the time to speak about the true fruit, which is a very fair question, and for those that have not taken the time to at least answer that for your own comfort, then it is only right that you would be offended when asked by someone else.
I personally made it a point to taste the other fruit because just as you said, how can I say that I have eaten the one true fruit, when I had no idea what the other fruit tasted like. So, i spent years....searching, researching trying to find my way, and it was only when I accepted Christianity as a stepping stone that helped me to understand that thoughout all the religions and friends of various religions, there was one thing that was across the board. The fact that Jesus lived, (not more) The fact that outside of whether he was devine or not, he was known and accepted as a real living person. The fact that he performed miracles, and most important the fact (FACT)from personal experience that miracles are still being performed in his name to this day. So after I tasted the banana with it's unique and unexplainable taste.. it was good, I tasted some other fruit and they had nice similar taste, I decided that even though I enjoyed the taste of the banana, more then that...I enjoy the benefits of what I received from the banana.

On omnipotence:

Actually, that doesn't answer my question at all, I'm afraid. In fact, when you think about it the other questions, like "Does total ability include disability", aren't answered either. If total ability excludes the ability of disability, it is not total ability, since the ability is not total. If it does include the ability of disability, it might be total ability, but the disability makes it that one can question the total ability at some point. The same goes for omnipotence. If omnipotence excludes the ability of non-omnipotence, it is simply not omnipotence, for omnipotence is the ability to do everything one wishes.

The contradiction does not ly within the question, it lies within the very concept of omnipotence itself. It is the ability to do everything, but since the ability to do something you can't do is a subset of everything, this means that it becomes logically impossible.

Quote:
If you don't like that, search wiki for "omnipotence paradox". I like 2, 3, and 4 under "types of omnipotence".
Thank you, I'll have a look at it later.

Click to expand...

Unfortunately, if your problem is with the word Omnipotence itself, then I really can't help you very much.
Maybe there should be a new word, logicpotence, meaning "Able to do anything not logically self-contradicting" or something that we could use to describe God.

On the banana question:

But then, when you think about it, the stories of what God has done over time are solely told by the Christians themselves, or the people that 'only eat the bananas'. So how can we determine what is and what isn't a credible source? And why did you put quotes around the word know, if I may ask?

Click to expand...

Some things, like Fatima, were only told by Christians and seen by Christians. Some other things (like most European things in the Middle Ages) were only by Christians because only Christians were around. And for some churches hire scientists to try and prove them non-miraculous, like the Roman Catholic Church's hiring of scientists at the springs in Lourdes. Those last aren't very big in number, but I think provide among the best benefit to non-Christians.

I put the word know in parens because some people know by faith, some people can know by observation, and some people know through other means. People can also know but not understand. If you take French, it's basically the difference between savoir and connaitre. Most Christians would connaitre, while most others would savoir. If you don't take French, I really can't explain it myself, but most good French teachers could.

On the dictator's choices:

Quote:
Yes. Yes it is, and yes they do. They also have the opportunity to freely endure the consequences, for good or for ill.
Quote:
The son is right, it isn't a fair choice if the decision is forced upon you.
Aren't these two answers at odds? I mean, how it what happens to the people (and what happens to atheists, upon whom Christianity is forced by the threat of hell) different from what happens to the son?

Click to expand...

In the first case, the people are given all the available options and what will happen if they do what. The decision is theirs. While one outcome may be more desirable than the other, the person is free to choose between the two. In the second, the son was not informed on the consequences, and after his choice he was punished and not given what he had chosen. The choice was forced. He could not make one, and if he did, he was forced to repeat until he chose the other. At least that is how I read it. If I misunderstood, please correct me and I will revisit the question.

Quote:
God is not only Omnipotent, we believe He is Omnibenevolent. He could, theoretically, but He wouldn't.
I'm afraid I don't understand this answer. God killed all firstborn sons of Egypt to enforce the Exodus. It says so in the Bible. So how can you say that He wouldn't do such a thing?

Click to expand...

A couple premises generally accepted by Christians that my answer is based upon. God is the ultimate law. Justice is generally considered good, because without it, anarchy and accompanying evil acts usually take place. So, what God asks is good in the grand scheme of things, especially when He asks for better treatment of oppressed peoples (usually seen as good anyways).
So, God asked the Egyptians to do something (free the Jews). They didn't. So God told them to free the Jews. The Egyptians still didn't. God warned them they would be punished. The Egyptians still refused. So God gave them plagues, gradually getting worse, while still warning them and giving them opportunity to do what He asked. They didn't. Finally comes the last plague that you wonder about, the killing of the first-born. God warned the Egyptians and gave theme very chance before He did that.
A parallel can be drawn here. God is like the legal system, and the Egyptians are like repeat offenders. God has codified rewards and punishments for various actions, warns and gives increasing punishments, while still giving the opportunity to stop breaking the law. But being kind and pampering all the time isn't always good, as sometimes one must be harsh to teach a lesson. Sometimes people confuse the two. However, God's law is always good, while sometimes man's law is not, as seems to be the case with this harsh dictator.


On the children with only 5 bucks

Quote:
It'll be worth more to the one who only has 5 dollars, with no more left over.
Quote:
I would say to the Christian. I would say that because how the Christian spends his life can determine whether or not he gets the rewards, while the atheist can have a great time and be totally hedonistic now because, well, why not? The atheist might enjoy it more while he is here, but not necessarily.
Again, these answers seem to be at odds. Ahteists think this life is all there is, while some Christians make it seem to me that this life is just a test of good behavior. How can this life have more value for Christians, while it's everything there is for atheists?

Click to expand...

This may be me as a Christian projecting my suppositions onto atheists, but it would seem to me that atheists would always have it hanging over their heads that this IS all there is, and no matter how much fun you have, it will end and be done. This thought would taint everything, and ruin it. Meanwhile, the Christian would be freer to figure out the best way to enjoy life within his/her moral bounds, while being assured that it won't end, and be able to truly enjoy everything they do.
This would be different from the orphan and the rich kid because the rich kid is used to having everything and wouldn't appreciate what he does have, while the orphan would love to have anything for even a brief period.
Had your question been "If two orphans and found and given 5$, with one being told he had more coming and the other being told that was all he had, which would enjoy it more?" I would have answered the one who had more because he wouldn't have the "This is all I've got" bug hanging over his head.
However, I'm sure not all people think like this, and I may only be assuming atheists think like that because I have never been one. But at least now you can see my line of reasoning.

Quote:
Your life can have value to you, certainly. Heck, your life even has value to God, even though you don't believe in Him, because you prompted these questions.
Thank you. And on a side note, just because I've asked you these questions doesn't mean that I don't believe anything. I might not believe in the God you believe in, but perhaps my defenition of God is just different.

Click to expand...

That is very true. And I am sorry if I made it sound like asking these questions is the only reason your life has worth, as I'm sure it isn't.

Quote:
God created everything. This includes time. Which means God must exist apart from time. Which means He is both "before time" and "after time".
Actually, I'm afraid that this is a conctradiction. If God exists apart from time, He isn't 'before' or 'after' anything, since those two words signify a point in time. Which means that your conclusion that He exists at a point of time where His goal is realised must be false. And even if He does, then He also exists on a point where His goals aren't achieved yet, which means that we're back where we started.

Click to expand...

For this one, I blame the English language combined with human experience. We don't really have words to describe a world without time or anything like that. But if there is one God, existing at all points in time simultaneously, then He does exist at a point where all His goals are achieved. Not being a temporal philosopher, I am afraid this is all that I can give you on this topic. I'm sorry.

On God being in Hell;

Quote:
God is omnipresent. Omnipresence needs space and time. If time and the world end, and Hell still exists then, that implies Hell is outside space and time. Which means omnipresence does not apply.
But hell contains things. The souls of condemned people. Satan. How can something that is outside space contain anything? For something to contain anything it would need space, right?

Click to expand...

If souls occupied space, sure. But, as far as I know, souls do not occupy space. While a person probably does shrink at death somewhat from not breathing and gases leaving the body and so on, none of it is from the loss of the soul. Something that occupies no space needs no space to contain, and so can exist without space.

Self-explanatory:

Quote:
Committing homosexual acts is a sin because it is sex outside of marriage, which is fornication, which is a sin. I do not think being homosexual in and of itself is a sin.
Does this mean that if people were to allow gay marriage, it wouldn't be a sin anymore? Or are you going by the biblical definition of marriage?

Click to expand...

I would probably be going by the Biblical definition or at least what is widely accepted as Biblical definition. I do this since if I recall correctly if the rules of man and God come into conflict, God's win for determining true "right".

Earthly miracles:

Quote:
Because it seems that God has come and done miracles on Earth (Lourdes, for one), while as far as A know, trees haven't attack people yet.
The thing is, those miracles are only seen by the 'believers' like the trees are only seen by children.

Click to expand...

Some of them are examined by scientists, like Lourdes and the Shroud of Turin and stuff. While some are disproven and some are unexaminable (like the Shroud), some can be shown to be unexplainable.

On euthanasia:

Quote:
Death isn't inevitable in b. There is hope of finding a cure before you die in b. Not so in a.
Sorry to say this, and I don't mean to offend you, but this is an example of how some Christians simply 'cheat' my questions by altering the situation. I clearly stated that the chance of him getting better is nonexistent, and you just say that there is a chance of him getting better.

Okay, so given the fact that he can't get better, would your answer still be the same?

Click to expand...

No offense taken.
Given the assumption he cannot ever possibly get better, my answer would be the same as in the terrorist situation. However, with today's medical technology, I do not believe such a situation would arise, and so I would reject euthanasia as a possibility.

On ToE:

Quote:
I'm a Theistic evolutionist. As to why, more of the observable evidence supports evolution as opposed to a young created earth. While ToE isn't perfect, it fits what we know far better.
I see. Now I understand what you mean by talking to people in the crevo-forums while you know you won't achieve your goal.

One question. A while ago, I was discussing the ToE with one of my Christian friends. At some point, he told me that it was impossible for a Christian to support the ToE. Naturally, you would disagree. But might I ask how you would explain to him why it isn't?

Click to expand...

I would say his assumptions are faulty. I would guess that he assumes one cannot be a Christian without taking the Bible literally. I say this is a false assumption. Among my reasons supporting this are histories of various Jewish tribes and where/when the first recorded instances of some of the stories in the Bible are, and the fact that while on Earth Jesus didn't always tell the people He was preaching to that He was telling a parable. He only told His apostles. Since God didn't have any Earthly apostles during the various Genesis and other stories, we wouldn't know whether or not it was true or a tale giving a moral.
It is also possible he misunderstands the ToE. It does not claim that there is no God any more than math does. It merely says and attempts to explain what has been found. It does not state that there is no God, or deny any possible metaphysical/supernatural cause for what has been found. It merely says what has been found. Many people who I have encountered who say one cannot be a Christian and believe evolution is true do not understand that fact.

I'm glad my last post set helped, and I hope this one does too!
And of course feel free to ask questions of any of my responses if you disagree or don't understand.

Metherion

1. The Heaviest stone- Yes, god could create a stone so heavy that he couldn't lift it. The rule is that God could do anything. However this is BEFORE God created the stone. Now That God created the stone, the rule is that he can do anything accept Lift the stone.

2. The true friut- I see what you're saying, but man has the ability to research other religions to see which one he likes the most. I'm sure every christian has gotten curious.

3. Job's problem- I'm not a christian, but I used to be. I'll tell you what the christian me would have come up with.

God wasn't doing it for himself, but he was doing it for JOB. Job came out of this ordeal stronger and with more possesions than he had before.

6.- The fishermen- I believe that they both had equal motiive, since they both did it in the persuit(sp?) of happiness.

13. The mother's an idiot if she cant convince her son that trees aren't trying to kill him. All she has to say is that there is no record of trees ever attacking children (contrary to religion since there are so many so called religious books like the bible)
and if that doesn't work, the mother should whip out the belt and say "trust me. you'll be a lot happier with what the trees do to you than you'll be with what I'll do to you if you dont go to bed!)
Yes the boy is wrong for the simple fact that trees have been researched and observed and cannot walk into your room and kill you. God, however cannot be observed as easily, which is why this is a bad comparison.



I'm DONE!!!!!

Mysterious said:

1. The heaviest stone:
Here’s a classic one, to get things going. Some of you have probably heard this one before. God is said to be omnipotent, or all-powerful. Which means that He can do everything He wants. So, can God create a stone that is so heavy that God Himself cannot lift it?

Click to expand...

The 'ol "big rock" paradox.

God is supposed to be omnipotent. If He is omnipotent, then He can create a rock so big that He can't pick it up. If He cannot make a rock like this, then He is not omnipotent. If He can make a rock so big He can't pick it up, then He isn't omnipotent either. Either way demonstrates that God cannot do something. Therefore God is not omnipotent. Therefore God does not exist.

Is this logical? A little. However, the problem is that this bit of logic omits some crucial information, therefore, it's conclusion is inaccurate.

What the above "paradox" lacks is vital information concerning God's nature. His omnipotence is not something independent of His nature. It is part of His nature. God has a nature and His attributes operate within that nature, as does anything and everything else.

For example, I have human nature. I can run. But, I cannot outrun a lion. My nature simply does not permit it. My ability to run is connected to my nature and I cannot violate it. So too with God. His omnipotence is connected to His nature since being omnipotent is part of what He is. Omnipotence, then, must be consistent with what He is and not with what He is not since His omnipotence is not an entity to itself. Therefore, God can only do those things that are consistent with His nature. He cannot lie because it is against His nature to do so. Not being able to lie does not mean He is not God or that He is not all powerful. Also, He cannot cease to be God. Since He is in all places at all times, if He stopped existing then He wouldn't be in all places at all time. Therefore, He cannot cease to exist without violating His own nature.

The point is that God cannot do something that is a violation of His own existence and nature. Therefore, He cannot make a rock so big he can't pick up, or make something bigger than Himself, etc. But, not being able to do this does not mean He is not God nor that He is not omnipotent. Omnipotence is not the ability to do anything conceivable, but the ability to do anything consistent with His nature and consistent with His desire within the realm of His unlimited and universal power which we do not possess. This does not mean He can violate His own nature. If He did something inconsistent with His nature, then He would be self contradictory. If God were self contradictory, He would not be true. Likewise, if He did something that violated his nature, like make a rock so big He can't pick it up, He would also not be true since that would be a self contradiction. Since truth is not self contradictory, as neither is God, if He were not true, then He would not be God. But God is true and not self contradictory, therefore, God cannot do something that violates His own nature.

Another way to look at it is realize that in order for God to make something so big He couldn't pick it up, He would have to make a rock bigger than Himself. Since He is infinite in size, He would have to make something that would be bigger than Himself. Since it is His nature to be the biggest thing in existence because He created all things, He cannot violate His own nature by making a rock that is larger than He.

Also, since a rock, by definition, is not infinitely big, then it isn't logically possible to make a rock, something that is finite in size, be infinite in size (no longer a rock) since only God is infinite in size. At dictionary.com, a rock is defined as a "Relatively hard, naturally formed mineral or petrified matter; stone. a) A relatively small piece or fragment of such material. b) A relatively large body of such material, as a cliff or peak. c) A naturally formed aggregate of mineral matter constituting a significant part of the earth's crust." A rock, by definition is not infinitely large. So, to say that the rock must be so big that God cannot pick it up is to say that the rock is no longer a rock.

The "big rock" paradox is illogical from the start and is an attempt to make God out to be illogical, in order to prove that He doesn't exist. It doesn't work and the "paradox" is self-refuting and invalid.

if omnipotence is defined as:

Omnipotence is not the ability to do anything conceivable, but the ability to do anything consistent with His nature

Click to expand...

and (for example) outrunning a lion is not possible for you because it is not consistant with your nature, then it would appear that (by your definition) you are also omnipotent.

AvgJoe said:

It was not my intention to suggest, in any way, that us mere humans are omnipotent.

Click to expand...

I realise that - I'm pointing out that the definition of omnipotence you used in your above post needs refining because it would include humans (or just about anything else).

Mysterious said:

I'd like you to answer questions 2 and 13. Maybe after that, we can talk some more about this.

Click to expand...

You really want me to answer questions 2 and 13. Well lets have a look at what you have placed down.

Question 2: The true fruit:

All right. Imagine a man, living all by himself in a fruit garden. This garden has all kinds of fruits, like apples, bananas, oranges, etc. However, this man doesn’t eat the different sorts of fruit. In fact, he only eats one sort of fruits, the bananas. That’s the only fruit he eats, every day, for his entire life. And every time after eating a banana, he says: ”This banana is delicious. I made the right choice, because bananas are the most delicious fruit on the planet. It is the true fruit!”

Click to expand...

Ok, I give, what do you mean “The True Fruit”, that like saying an Lemon is not a Fruit, how silly is that. Fruit is fruit. It’s all fruit. There is no such thing as a “False” fruit. There are man made imitations of fruit, and chemicals that may taste like fruit, but that is not what we have here, we have bunches of fruit.

Now, this man has the full right to say what he says about bananas. But does he know it, when he says that bananas are the true fruit?

Click to expand...

Umm well, it is “A” true fruit, as opposed to say a Jelly Bean that tastes like fruit. So he’s is correct in that it is “True Fruit” but, the issue is that it is not “The” true fruit. As it seems, he is surrounded by all types of other “True Fruits”.

2b. Now, let us transfer this analogy to religion. Imagine a religious man, a Christian, who has been a Christian all his life, saying that Christianity is the true religion and should be preferred over all other religions. Now, this man has the full right to say and to believe that. But does he know it?

Click to expand...

This was a very poor analogy. You see, if the analogy is to be correct, on one of the fruits could be real, all the others needed to be “Man Made” or “Fake”, your analogy, placed the man in a garden of many “True Fruits” but, when it comes to religion, truly, only one of them really can be correct.

If all religion, believed that they were not the “One Way” then you might have an “Ok” analogy, but since, many religions believe that they are the “Only Way” then, the man would have to be in a situation, where, only one fruit was life sustaining, or real.

Also, just how many different “Fruit” would someone have to try to say “This is the best fruit”? I mean, would the man have to sink his teeth into a lemon, and have the heavy bite and bitterness wash over his mouth, maybe even having a great deal of discomfort from the ordeal, how many fruits must the man eat to validate his first stance, the banana is the best, and then, the man, could not judge what fruit another man may like.

This analogy was way off base. I know you tried, but, I believe you came up short on this one.

However, lets twist it, lets say “The man says Bananas are the Healthiest Fruit” (Where Health equals best) the man, can test each fruit, with out ever needing to have eaten a single one, to see which fruit offers the best nutrition for the body. If the man then says “Of all the fruit I have tested, the Banana is the Healthiest”, or could say “A diet of just Banana and water, will provide exactly what is required to live a healthy life, and I do not believe any other fruit can make this claim” that would be more along the correct lines. In this case, many people have studied and done a great deal of research into the many religions that are around, and have deemed that Christianity is the best one.

Question: 13 The puppets of Popper:

One night, an eight-year old son awakens his mother. He’s crying, and tells his mother that he is afraid of the trees just outside his bedroom window. According to him, the trees have the ability to come alive, and they’re planning to attack him while he’s asleep. The following conversation ensues: (Deleted)

So in the end, the mother is not able to disprove her son’s idea that the trees in their garden can come to life and that they’re planning to attack him.

Does this mean that what the son believes is true? And if your answer to this question is no, why isn’t it?

Click to expand...

Now wouldn’t that mother feel really stupid, if that night there was a wind gust, and it sent one of the tree branches though that child’s window.

The Child has a fear, the fear itself is real, if not the source of the fear.

Does it make it true? What makes anything true or false? A Simple logic argument does not make anything true or false.

What do the trees offer the Child just that they will attack or kill him, or what ever. Have they left a message, a warning, anything that the child can even validate they are coming to kill him in the first place.

If this is some sad analogy to relate the “Trees” to “God” it’s really poor. God had provided countless prophets, and rules, a history, and a moral set that are yet today unequaled.

Now that child might have something, if every child (Requirement of 3 or more) in the house felt that the “Trees” were coming to kill them. Then the mother should look into it. It may not be “Trees” but it may be something else, something real, something to be fared, and respected, then again, it might be the trees are hitting the house, and scaring he child, but it is something that can be dealt with, and looked into, and considered.

God Bless

Key

Mysterious said:

Hello there, thank you for honouring my thread with your presence!

I have a few questions, which I would like to discuss with the Christian people on this board. And since this is one of the biggest and most active Christian forums in the world, this seems like the perfect place. The questions concern God, His characteristics and existence, Christianity, Ethics, etc.

In the past, some Christians who I presented these questions to have felt offended. I sincerely hope that this is not the case here, and apologise in advance if it is. It is not my intention to insult anyone or attack your religion, I merely search for an in-depth discussion concerning your religion.

Three more things, before we get started. First, I apologise for any spelling- or grammatical errors made in my posts. English is not my first language, since I’m from Holland, and even though I always use the spelling checker some mistakes slip through. Second, I’m not sure whether this thread really belongs in this section. It seems more appropriate for the debate section, but I can’t post it there because I need to post a hundred times elsewhere before that, and I don’t feel like wasting your and my time writing a hundred posts just to make this thread. And third, for your own sake, don’t try to answer all these questions at once. It took me days to think of them and weeks to formulate them properly, so don’t stay up late trying to answer every question. I wouldn’t want to endanger your health.

Ready? Okay then, here we go:

A number of questions, directed towards the Christian people here.


1. The heaviest stone:

2. The true fruit:

3. Job’s Problem:
He already knew Job would choose Him. In fact, there’s no use in testing any of us by suffering at all, because God already knows who will come out of the test, and thus who are the true Christians. So why does He do it anyway? So that we might know what's in us, as God knows!

4.The Dictator:
Free choice is free choice. It has consequences regardless whether one chooses right or wrong, good or evil. Free choice also means bearing the possibility of being misunderstood; i.e., "Why did God do this."

5 God’s gender:
Why not be bold and serious enough to ask God what gender is the correct one for God. And oh yeah, be man enough to accept God's answer, especially if it differs from that which you want to hear!

6. The good guy:

Click to expand...

Our entry into the Kingdom of God is not going to be based upon how many trick questions we can answer, but on whether or not we've accepted God's offer of redemption through Jesus Christ. It will not be how many pews did we jump, or how often we raised our hands in praise, or how inclusive we were in our faith and life. When He looks at us it will be whether or not He sees the shed blood of Jesus Christ, for "...without the shedding of blood, there is no forgiveness of sins."

They're not necessarily trick questions. Some people do need some things cleared up before they can accept Christ, or are just curious. We're not trying to prove our faith or get into heaven by answering questions, we're just trying to think.

Metherion

Hi there.

I'm a little sick right now to have the attention span to be able to read/reply to all of that But I can respond to one thing though that I read,

You said that "hell" is eternal and your burn forever in there. This is not biblical, so do not think that it is;


First of all-

What is the result of sin?

The result of sin is death, as shown by the verse below-

[bible]Romans 6:23[/bible]

Those who die as sinners have the wages of sin on their shoulders- and that is death. Not torture.

[bible]John 3:16[/bible]

Perish. They shall not perish but have everlasting life.

These two verses also show, therefore, that those who aren’t saved can’t be alive. They must die, for only those who are saved have eternal life! Yet, the idea of hell being eternal means the people must be tortured forever and ever and never die. And what is death?

[bible]Ecclesiastes 9:5-6[/bible]

Death is a state where you know nothing. You just basically cease to exist. Though that is another subject entirely.

So, moving along. Lets revise whats been shown so far:

1) The consequence of sin is death not eternal torture.
2) Only saved people live forever.
3) Death is a state in which you know nothing- you just cease to exist.

Okay. Now, onto the next subject.

What is hell then?

Hell is quite simply this. Yes- it is the seperation of Man from God- remember, Jesus experienced it on the cross for us W

hile they’re being separated from God, they will also be thrown into fire. Well, fire shall come down and devour them, which, is basically throwing them into fire- like when you “throw someone into a situation” when all you merely do is place them in it, that’s what Gods doing here with the fire,

[bible]Revelation 20:9[/bible]

See? Fire shall come down and devour them. Also, this means therefore its happening on earth, as shown by the verse before it-

[bible]Revelation 20:8[/bible]

So this fire shall take place on earth.

[bible]Matthew 13:40-42[/bible]

So, at the end of the world, this shall take place.

[bible]John 12:48[/bible]

The end of the world is the judgement day.

[bible]2 Peter 3:10[/bible]

This verse shows us that fire will be all over the earth… and its going to be pretty hot, too.

So as God is destroying these people, he will be basically forsaking them right?

answers.com said:

forsaken
adj

Definition: abandoned

Click to expand...

And- well, that’s extremely painful, as that’s pretty much what killed Jesus so the seperation of man from God can’t be fun, though neither can really really hot flames O____O

So, lets recap what we’ve learnt so far.

1) The consequences of sin is death and is most certainly not torture.
2) Those who are saved are the ones who shall have eternal life
3) Death is when you cease to exist
4) Hell is when you’re seperated from God- Jesus went through it on the cross.
5) The people will be seperated from God- for they shall be abandoned to die.
6) Sinners will be destroyed by fire
7) The fire will be on earth
8) They will be destroyed on the judgement day- after the 1000 years in heaven.

So there ya have it. That’s what hell is

Mysterious I have copied the 2 questions that I feel I can answer.
1. The heaviest stone:
Here’s a classic one, to get things going. Some of you have probably heard this one before. God is said to be omnipotent, or all-powerful. Which means that He can do everything He wants. So, can God create a stone that is so heavy that God Himself cannot lift it? my answer: YES, but why would God want to do that?


As you all know, there is a lot of suffering in this world. War, hunger, diseases, you name it. Now, when I sometimes ask Christian people why there is suffering in the world, and why the all-loving God doesn’t stop this (since He is omnipotent)
my answer: because He is calling his creation (humans) to do this for him.

The question about the stone is absurd for one reason only...

God is not bound by gravity.

Since gravity is what causes a stone to have weight, no stone could ever be too heavy for God to lift. Even if he were to create a stone of infinite mass, with the gravitational pull of a dwarf star, said pull would have no effect upon God.

In order for God to be able to create a stone so large that he could not move it, He would first need to submit to the laws of gravity that He, Himself, created.

So really, the answer depends upon whether God chooses to submit to the laws of gravity.

TheMatmanReturns said:

The question about the stone is absurd for one reason only...

God is not bound by gravity.

Since gravity is what causes a stone to have weight, no stone could ever be too heavy for God to lift. Even if he were to create a stone of infinite mass, with the gravitational pull of a dwarf star, said pull would have no effect upon God.

In order for God to be able to create a stone so large that he could not move it, He would first need to submit to the laws of gravity that He, Himself, created.

So really, the answer depends upon whether God chooses to submit to the laws of gravity.

Click to expand...

I like your answer.