Can God create a rock big enough...

[Meatros]

The real question is this. We acknowledge man as being a creator. We know God is the creator.
So with proof outside of the Bible(a book written by man) who created who? Did man create God to keep the world rational? Or did God create man for some unknown reason?

I'd say the answer is pretty simple, especially seeing as God apparently can't decide which religion is the correct religion.

 

[charliebebout]

How about this for Evolution. Red hair is the most recessive hair gene. So knowing this information. Isn't it possible that in the future. There will be no more red hair gene's?

An example
Red/Red Black/Brown person breeds.
We know that the child can not have red hair no matter what.
Red/Brown is what the child eventually gets and he/she breeds with a blonde/black haired person.
It is impossible that the child will have red hair... but what's more is that their is a 50% chance the red gene will die out in this offspring.

 

[Zadok001]

Blix:

You need some clarification on the term "logical impossibility." A logical impossibility is, effectively, a contradiction.

There are three basic types of statements. A tautology is a statement that is true by definition (such as "All bachelors are men"). A contradiction is a statement that CANNOT be true ("All bachelors are women"). All statements that are neither tautologies nor contradictions MAY be true.

"A man is walking on water" is not a contradition. It's not impossible. We can concieve of a "man" without creating an inconcievable situation. We can concieve of this man walking. Still no contradiction. We can concieve of this man walking on water. We've never seen it, but it is plausible. (A statement like "A man is walking on a surface that cannot be walked on" is an impossibility and a contradiction.)

Get it? It's only "impossible" if it's a contradiction. God never does anything contradictory in the Bible. (Aside from, arguably, making pi equal three...)

 

[Lanakila]

*Mod Hat On* This topic belongs either in General Apologetics or Philosophy forum. It's not a scientific topic at all, but a philosophical one. I am therefore moving this thread over there. If you follow the thread over there, please leave the insults and flames, and don't bring them along. *Mod Hat Off*

 

[Simonline]

One of the questions widely use is If God is all-powerful, can He create a rock so big that He can't lift it?


Actually the answer is that the question is impertinent (by dint of fact that it pits God against himself) and therefore invalid.

Simonline

 

[tcampen]

How about this for Evolution. Red hair is the most recessive hair gene. So knowing this information. Isn't it possible that in the future. There will be no more red hair gene's?

An example
Red/Red Black/Brown person breeds.
We know that the child can not have red hair no matter what.
Red/Brown is what the child eventually gets and he/she breeds with a blonde/black haired person.
It is impossible that the child will have red hair... but what's more is that their is a 50% chance the red gene will die out in this offspring.

Yea, that's true - which is why you don't see neon-green hair anymore.

 

[Philosoft]

One of the questions widely use is If God is all-powerful, can He create a rock so big that He can't lift it?


Actually the answer is that the question is impertinent (by dint of fact that it pits God against himself) and therefore invalid.

It's not invalid because it's impertinent. It "pits God agains himself" because of a shoddy definition of "omnipotent." I can conceive of a being R (for Rock-man) who has the ability to create rocks but is not very physically strong. R is thus a being who can create a rock he cannot lift. Obviously, "create a rock so heavy that X (where X is self-referent) cannot lift it" is a do-able action for at least one logically possible being. However, when omnipotence is added, it becomes a non-do-able action. A workable definition of "omnipotence" needs to better account for situations like this.

 

[bishnu]

If god cant sin why did he order killings throughout the bible and kill millions of people in the "flood". The last time i checked killing was a sin. SO if god sinned then his existence would become a contridiction or he is not omnibevolent, which would then destroy the christian sense of a god.
Omnipotentence is one of the few words that means exactly what it says. There is no redefining omnipotence or an exceptions to omnipotence. You either are or you arent. If god cant do any task he wouldnt be omnipotent. So if god cant create a rock he cant lift, then there is one task that he can not complete and therefore he is not omnipotent.

 

[Philosoft]

Omnipotentence is one of the few words that means exactly what it says.

Oh, gosh. I think this is totally false. Modern philosophers of religion have thus far categorically failed to come up with a definition of "omnipotent" that accounts for all the weird 'rock-lifting' scenarios and so forth.

There is no redefining omnipotence or an exceptions to omnipotence. You either are or you arent. If god cant do any task he wouldnt be omnipotent. So if god cant create a rock he cant lift, then there is one task that he can not complete and therefore he is not omnipotent.

This might be true, if such a definition of "omnipotent" were universally accepted. Unfortunately, such is not the case. My guess is, for any sufficiently powerful definition of "omnipotent," the other 'omnis,' omniscience and/or omnibenevolence, are mutually exclusive. I cannot, however, deduce that, so the search for a coherent definition of "omnipotent" continues.

 

[bishnu]

i just think that omnipotence is impossible to acheive for anyone even god, but almost-omnipotence is.

 

[Philosoft]

i just think that omnipotence is impossible to acheive for anyone even god, but almost-omnipotence is.

But this still leaves wide open exactly what the attributes of omnipotence and its derivatives are.

 

[Philo]

God can lift any rock. All things, by definition, have the quality of "liftable by God." In order for God to create a rock He could not lift, He would either have to create not-a-thing (which He indeed could not lift, because not-a-thing cannot be lifted) or become not-God, in which case it would no longer be God creating a rock God cannot lift, but not-God creating a rock not-God cannot lift.

The rock God cannot lift is almost as ugly as the Ontological Argument. Ewww.

 

[Philosoft]

God can lift any rock. All things, by definition, have the quality of "liftable by God."

No, that's not a property of a material thing. My car is not unliftable by me, by definition. The ability to lift things is a power posessed by agents.

In order for God to create a rock He could not lift, He would either have to create not-a-thing (which He indeed could not lift, because not-a-thing cannot be lifted) or become not-God, in which case it would no longer be God creating a rock God cannot lift, but not-God creating a rock not-God cannot lift.

No, this doesn't follow per my objection above.

 

[Jet Black]

But this still leaves wide open exactly what the attributes of omnipotence and its derivatives are.

I would say that omnipotence is the ability to anything that is logically possible.

 

[Jet Black]

If god cant sin why did he order killings throughout the bible and kill millions of people in the "flood". The last time i checked killing was a sin.

from this we can say one of two things:

1) Good is defined by whatever God does. if he kills, that killing is defined as good.
2) God is limited by some absolute "goodness" in which case, if killing you is a good thing, then he is compelled to kill you.

 

[Philosoft]

I would say that omnipotence is the ability to anything that is logically possible.

Okay. For the sake of argument, does God have the ability to perform an evil act?

 

[Jet Black]

Okay. For the sake of argument, does God have the ability to perform an evil act?

look at the post immediately above yours; If we define Good as whatever God says/does, then no he cannot do evil because it is logically impossible however, a problem arises if he says:

"me killing that man is evil"

and then kills him anyway.

or more simply God cannot say "whatever I do is evil"

so either God is limited in the things he can say, or attributes he defines himself as, or he is controlled by a superior notion of "good" and is compelled to do whatever "good" tells him to do.

actually this is quite interesting, looking at the things God can and cannot do purely by his definition.

(this is just a slightly rambling thought)

 

[Philosoft]

look at the post immediately above yours; If we define Good as whatever God says/does, then no he cannot do evil because it is logically impossible however, a problem arises if he says:

"me killing that man is evil"

and then kills him anyway.

or more simply God cannot say "whatever I do is evil"

so either God is limited in the things he can say, or attributes he defines himself as, or he is controlled by a superior notion of "good" and is compelled to do whatever "good" tells him to do.

Right. If God can perform any act and thereafter define that act as ipso facto 'not evil,' then there are no "standards" of good and evil, by definition, and most of apologetics becomes irrelevant. Thus, for the purposes of discussion, we must consider these "standards" as things God cannot violate, whether he created them or not.

actually this is quite interesting, looking at the things God can and cannot do purely by his definition.

Oh yeah. I can entertain myself for hours just thinking about it.

I can go on, if you want to hear more.

 

[HadouKen24]

Y'know, there's another term we have to define, too:

"Logical."

What is logic? It appears to me that logic is nothing more than "the rules and nature of existence."

So the real question is "Is God confined by the rules of existence?"

I think not. Assuming that God exists, he must be the one who created those rules. So why would he be confined by them?

So the simple answer to the question "can God make a rock too big for even him to lift" is "Yes."

And then he'd probably go ahead and lift it, just to spite me.

 

[Philosoft]

What is logic? It appears to me that logic is nothing more than "the rules and nature of existence."

Actually, "logic" is systematic reasoning.

So the real question is "Is God confined by the rules of existence?"

He is if he exists.

I think not. Assuming that God exists, he must be the one who created those rules. So why would he be confined by them?

If God exists, presumably he cannot also create "rules" of existence that he is free to violate.