Can God Create An Object Too Heavy For Him To Lift?

[Ratjaws]

Argument from incredulity: The universe is so vast and had to have a beginning, and there's so much we don't know, therefore, god.

ETA: In response to your last paragraph, there are better ways to know things, than playing the "telephone game."

Hitchslap,
Whether the universe is vast or not has no bearing on the subject at hand. More importantly the argument does not come from lack of knowledge as you cite above, rather from the universe of being we know about. So making a caricature of what is being proposed in no way subtracts from the validity of the argument.

Whether there are better ways to knowledge than the "telephone game," it is a valid means and even you have to admit this. Otherwise you must dismiss most of what you know since you (and I) have not directly experienced it. You seem to gloss over this point as if it could be invalidated by ignoring it. Most of what you know scientifically has been taught to you, passed on by others who, like you, have for the most part not actually made the tests that qualify them as knowledge. Yet you accept these concepts as valid. Why else would you (and others here) pull quotations from scientific web sites if not for the fact you trust their knowledge (what they believe)? If credulity or belief in passed on knowledge is valid in scientific research (and teaching) then it certainly holds true for other kinds of knowledge like that which comes through philosophical insight or theological (revealed) knowledge.

 

[Ratjaws]

An argument from incredulity (a common logical fallacy) is one that follows the pattern of:

I can't believe (A) could happen, so (B) must have happened instead.

ex. I can't believe a natural process could produce lightning, therefore lightning is caused by Zeus.

Todd,
Thanks for the definition! I suspect this is not the crux of the problem since Christian teaching does not revolve around not knowing how the world came to be. No, we start with revealed knowledge and work out from there. Also my point to Hitchslap is that we are not opposed to scientific or metaphysical knowledge. It would seem he is, as are most who subscribe to atheism, but their stance or disbelief cannot invalidate any type of knowledge any more than a Christian's disbelief can. Either something IS (exists), or it does not. No one in their right mind would make their case on the existence of say, a leprechaun, based upon it's non-existence. Certainly not I as a Christian. Nor should a Christian be opposed to right reason... despite the fact that some Christians have not been taught to reason properly or have but do so poorly.

How about this: "I can't believe God exists who created the universe, therefore the universe is caused by material evolution"? You see the accusation can go both ways but it gets us nowhere. This is why I concentrate on what is in front of us, and I don't appeal to just divine revelation. Even Christ and St. Paul used natural revelation to describe and make their case for "heavenly" things.

 

[HitchSlap]

Hitchslap,
Whether the universe is vast or not has no bearing on the subject at hand. More importantly the argument does not come from lack of knowledge as you cite above, rather from the universe of being we know about. So making a caricature of what is being proposed in no way subtracts from the validity of the argument.

Whether there are better ways to knowledge than the "telephone game," it is a valid means and even you have to admit this. Otherwise you must dismiss most of what you know since you (and I) have not directly experienced it. You seem to gloss over this point as if it could be invalidated by ignoring it. Most of what you know scientifically has been taught to you, passed on by others who, like you, have for the most part not actually made the tests that qualify them as knowledge. Yet you accept these concepts as valid. Why else would you (and others here) pull quotations from scientific web sites if not for the fact you trust their knowledge (what they believe)? If credulity or belief in passed on knowledge is valid in scientific research (and teaching) then it certainly holds true for other kinds of knowledge like that which comes through philosophical insight or theological (revealed) knowledge.

As I said, your faith in god/s is based on an argument from incredulity. You have convinced yourself that there is a god, and have accepted what others say about this god and how to have a relationship with it, because you think you're privy to special information revealed to you directly by a ghost. The problem is, you're not able to reproduce any of this in any real way. You're simply asking me to take your word for it.

 

[Ratjaws]

As I said, your faith in god/s is based on an argument from incredulity. You have convinced yourself that there is a god, and have accepted what others say about this god and how to have a relationship with it, because you think you're privy to special information revealed to you directly by a ghost. The problem is, you're not able to reproduce any of this in any real way. You're simply asking me to take your word for it.

Hitchslap,
It seems you've not read what I actually said so there is no point going further in this conversation. I argue from belief, yes, but not from incredulity as you put it. I assume you agree with the definition of this term put forth by Todd in this thread? That is what I reject in your accusation. Furthermore what you say is not coherent. Yes I am convinced God exists for the reasons I've laid out at length in the reply to you and others here. And yes I do accept what others pass on to me for the reasons I've laid out about trust and faith. But I never said I was "privy to special information revealed to you directly by a ghost." These are your words and are inaccurate. I accept public revelation, which was revealed to the apostles of Christ and passed on by them to other men, and on and on down to today; and if anything were to be revealed to me privately, I would accept or reject it based on how well it conformed to the public revelation I already have. Of course I cannot produce Jesus Christ any more than you can produce Einstein or any other person you have trusted in your life to inform you of what you would not know otherwise. Finally, I am asking you to take my word. Sure you have no reason to trust me, yet at the same time I have never lied to you either. So if you were honest, or at least open, you could give me the benefit of the doubt and allow time to tell you if what I propose about God or the Christian faith is true. That's the least respect I deserve from you and not to be told I've said something I did not. But unfortunately it seems your apriori belief against God's existence won't allow you to be this honest with yourself or me. I'm sad to realize this but alas the world goes on....
TCB 012015

 

[HitchSlap]

Hitchslap,
It seems you've not read what I actually said so there is no point going further in this conversation. I argue from belief, yes, but not from incredulity as you put it. I assume you agree with the definition of this term put forth by Todd in this thread? That is what I reject in your accusation. Furthermore what you say is not coherent. Yes I am convinced God exists for the reasons I've laid out at length in the reply to you and others here. And yes I do accept what others pass on to me for the reasons I've laid out about trust and faith. But I never said I was "privy to special information revealed to you directly by a ghost." These are you words and are inaccurate. I accept public revelation, which was revealed to the apostles of Christ and passed on by them to other men, and on on on down to today; and if anything were to be revealed to me privately, I would accept or reject it based on how well it conformed to the public revelation I already have. Of course I cannot produce Jesus Christ any more than you can produce Einstein or any other person you have trusted in your life to inform you of what you would not know otherwise. Finally, I am asking you to take my word. Sure you have no reason to trust me, yet at the same time I have never lied to you either. So if you were honest, or at least open, you could give me the benefit of the doubt and allow time to tell you if what I propose about God or the Christian faith is true. That's the least respect I deserve from you and not to be told I've said something I did not. But unfortunately it seems your apriori belief against God's existence won't allow you to be this honest with yourself or me. I'm sad to realize this but alas the world goes on....
TCB 012015

There you go now, doing that thing people do when their beliefs are challenged.

Take care.

 

[durangodawood]

Can God create an object thats too blue for him to lift?

 

[Tree of Life]

From a Christian standpoint, for me personally, I haven't been much experienced with controversy in a huge debate and this definitely stumped me. But as a Christian, if you were asked this, how would you respond in a manner that doesn't refute God in any way?

Can God create an object too heavy for Him to lift?

There are two legitimate answers to this question:

1. Yes. God can also lift the object that is too heavy for him to lift.
2. No. God cannot create logically incoherent things.

I'll take either one.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

How exactly is God meant to "lift" something?

 

[Breckmin]

nonsense is still nonsense.... even when you apply it to God.

option 2. God doesn't do logically incoherent things because they are nothing more than attempting to pivot one attribute of God against another one of God's own attributes. Can God create a rock too small for Him to see?

same nonsense.

 

[Breckmin]

How exactly is God meant to "lift" something?

It should have been "move."

Either way, if three dimensional Euclidean space is infinite...then creating an infinite rock is incoherent...and it would take forever... making it logically absurd. BTW, since God is infinite it would take forever to create God's so called "complexity" so it is also logically absurd to require God to have a "designer."

 

[GrowingSmaller]

should have been "move."

Isnt movement relative, so that if anything moves, everything moves in relation to it?

 

[Breckmin]

Isnt movement relative, so that if anything moves, everything moves in relation to it?

not if you define a set area of space mathematically