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

[Hieronymus]

You don't speak for all possible gods, so my statement stands as is. Not like you're actually discussing the statement anyway...

You use the wrong word.
Whoever the Creator is, He is God.
Not "a god" or "my / his / her God or god, God is what you mean.
You don't have to believe to use the right terms.
What's your problem?

 

[ToddNotTodd]

You use the wrong word.
Whoever the Creator is, He is God.
Not "a god" or "my / his / her God or god, God is what you mean.
You don't have to believe to use the right terms.
What's your problem?

I don't have a problem. The proper use of the word god when not specifying which god is to lowercase it. And this doesn't seem to have anything to do with your previous objection of my statement.

Are you ever going to actually address the statement, or are you content with mistakenly objecting to the grammar?

 

[Hieronymus]

There's a distinct difference between a god and God.
You mean God, so you should use the proper term.
Because God is the title of the Most High, the Creator, the Original Cause.
A god is an angelic being, created by God.
It's just the meaning of the words, Todd (or not Todd).

 

[HitchSlap]

Are you sure, as an atheist...?

Am I sure of what?

 

[Hieronymus]

Am I sure of what?

Previous page, the message you just quoted had your quote in it....

 

[HitchSlap]

Previous page, the message you just quoted had your quote in it....

Then yes, I'm sure.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

There's a distinct difference between a god and God.
You mean God, so you should use the proper term.
Because God is the title of the Most High, the Creator, the Original Cause.
A god is an angelic being, created by God.
It's just the meaning of the words, Todd (or not Todd).

That's not even remotely close (pay particular attention to #2):

God
ɡäd/
noun

1. 1.
   (in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.
   synonyms: the Lord, the Almighty, the Creator, the Maker, the Godhead; More
   
   
2. 2.
   (in certain other religions) a superhuman being or spirit worshiped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity.
   "a moon god"
   synonyms: deity, goddess, divine being, celestial being, divinity, immortal, avatar
   "sacrifices to appease the gods"

So, now that we've established that you're mistaken about the topic, can we get back to the actual subject of my statement, or are you going to embarrass yourself further?

 

[Hieronymus]

That's not even remotely close (pay particular attention to #2):

God

1. 1.
   (in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.
   synonyms: the Lord, the Almighty, the Creator, the Maker, the Godhead; More

1. That's God

   [*]2.
   (in certain other religions) a superhuman being or spirit worshiped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity.
   "a moon god"
   synonyms: deity, goddess, divine being, celestial being, divinity, immortal, avatar
   "sacrifices to appease the gods"

   those are gods, a god + a god is 2 gods

So, now that we've established that you're mistaken about the topic, can we get back to the actual subject of my statement, or are you going to embarrass yourself further?

It confirms what i just explained to you, Todd.
You can see the destinction between 1 and 2, can't you?

 

[ToddNotTodd]

1. That's God those are gods, a god + a god is 2 gods

It confirms what i just explained to you, Todd.
You can see the destinction between 1 and 2, can't you?

You're apparently not clear on how dictionaries work. Let me help.

The word "god" can have either of the two meanings above. Since I'm not talking about a particular religion, definition 2 is the accurate one - not the first definition. The definition that refers to one out of any number of non specific deities. So my original statement is correct.

You know, there might be a remedial English forum that could help you in these matters.

 

[Hieronymus]

You refuse to acknowledge the destinction your source makes between 1 and 2, just like i explained to you.

It's just your personal opinion and conviction 2 is accurate and 1 is not.
Your source apparently disagrees with you, otherwise it would be the other way around.
Rather ironic...

 

[Ratjaws]

What convinced you, that GOD exists?

Hitchslap,
No I did not know that about Katerinah but are you suprised in a culture where anything goes sexually?

I can't speak for Hieronymus, but I believe God exists because as I look around at our world I see that everything comes from something else. Now if you trace backwards from effect to cause, you end with two possibilities. Either this cause and effect goes on forever or there has to be a start... a First Cause if you will. The idea of causation ad-infinitum is absurd since whatever we see in this world is finite. One might chime in to say well I see infinity in numbers. True, but numbers are not real beings that exist. They are what's called beings of reason or ideas in our mind of real things that exist. We use numbers to quantify, to count or to measure. As such numbers represent things that exist rather than are existent themselves. Someone else might say how about the universe? It's infinite or might be so. Well I'd have to disagree pointing out that to speak of the universe is to refer to specific existing things. The universe is the totality of all existing being. So we don't see an infinite number of things in our universe nor can we say matter is infinite in any of its quantifiable characteristics. If no individual thing in this world manifests infinity... and we can't find an existing quantity of any being that is infinite, well then cause and effect cannot go on indefinitely. Therefore we are left with only one other choice and this is that there must be a First Cause which is the definition of God. Note here that dismissing infinity also leaves out the idea that the universe always existed because of its changing character, which implies cause and effect, it cannot go back to a point and stop. This would be to say in the beginniing something existed that did not change but then suddenly, without a cause it started to change. So again this leaves us with an uncaused Cause that is the definition of God.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

You refuse to acknowledge the destinction your source makes between 1 and 2, just like i explained to you.

It's just your personal opinion and conviction 2 is accurate and 1 is not.
Your source apparently disagrees with you, otherwise it would be the other way around.
Rather ironic...

You're clearly confused about how language works, but I really don't have time keep going over what definitions mean. Do you have a comment on the actual statement, or should we just drop it?

 

[Hieronymus]

You're clearly confused about how language works,

Ya right...
So you can't see the destinction your own source makes between 1 and 2.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Ya right...
So you can't see the destinction your own source makes between 1 and 2.

Ok, so you can't see why you're mistaken and don't have an actual comment on the actual subject.

Gotcha.

I looked for you, and while I didn't see a forum dedicated to learning English, I did find this thread from October that may help:

http://www.christianforums.com/threads/english-for-foreigners.7912070/

 

[Ratjaws]

Arguments from incredulity are not very persuasive for most people.

Hitchslap,
I'm curious as to what you mean by this statement. If credulity is belief then incredulity is disbelief. How can one make an argument from what they don't believe? Where it comes to arguments from belief, I don't see any problem with this as we participate in them all time. I had never been to Florida but a friend of mine went there, came back and described the taste of salt water at the beach. Well if I cannot accept something from credulity then I could not accept what he told me about that water. Yet if I trust this person, knowing his character is to be truthful, then I see no reason not to trust what he says is true about the water in Florida. So I can trust and believe based upon his belief. My knowledge of that water is indirect while his is directly experienced.

Likewise within the Christian faith. We trust those who taught us about many aspect of what we believe. They received their knowledge also from a similar faith in those who taught them. This chain goes on down to those who actually were there to directly experience what is being passed on via faith or trust in the word of another.... or as has been called by credulity. That this Christian knowledge deals with a man named Jesus who claimed he was God, in no way makes credulity an unreliable means to know something. I think the stakes are higher in that we deal with ultimate matters in relation to faith and morals (God). Whereas the indirect knowledge of salty beach water in Florida has less consequence but nevertheless is just as true. So think about all the things you've been taught in schools... have you directly experienced them? For instance have you been to the moon? Yet do you have any reason not to believe what astronauts have said about it?

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Hitchslap,
I'm curious as to what you mean by this statement. If credulity is belief then incredulity is disbelief. How can one make an argument from what they don't believe? Where it comes to arguments from belief, I don't see any problem with this as we participate in them all time. I had never been to Florida but a friend of mine went there, came back and described the taste of salt water at the beach. Well if I cannot accept something from credulity then I could not accept what he told me about that water. Yet if I trust this person, knowing his character is to be truthful, then I see no reason not to trust what he says is true about the water in Florida. So I can trust and believe based upon his belief. My knowledge of that water is indirect while his is directly experienced.

Likewise within the Christian faith. We trust those who taught us about many aspect of what we believe. They received their knowledge also from a similar faith in those who taught them. This chain goes on down to those who actually were there to directly experience what is being passed on via faith or trust in the word of another.... or as has been called by credulity. That this Christian knowledge deals with a man named Jesus who claimed he was God, in no way makes credulity an unreliable means to know something. I think the stakes are higher in that we deal with ultimate matters in relation to faith and morals (God). Whereas the indirect knowledge of salty beach water in Florida has less consequence but nevertheless is just as true. So think about all the things you've been taught in schools... have you directly experienced them? For instance have you been to the moon? Yet do you have any reason not to believe what astronauts have said about it?

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.

 

[Hieronymus]

Dude, you give me a citation of a dictionary which gives us 2 meanings of the word God.

# 1 with a capital G, synonymous to Creator etcetera, just like i explained to you, your source confirms this.
# 2 with a small g, meaning something like angelic being, just like i explained to you, your source confirms this.

I ask you if you can see the difference between the 2 meanings, you don't answer.
So i take it you do not see the difference between meaning #1 and #2.
But if there was no difference according to your source, they wouldn't have split it into 2 meanings.

So i really don't know what's the matter with you, but this doesn't make sense at all.
You can not even point out where i'm wrong or where i misunderstand you or your source.

I fully agree with your source, but you apparently disagree with your source.

 

[HitchSlap]

Hitchslap,
I'm curious as to what you mean by this statement. If credulity is belief then incredulity is disbelief. How can one make an argument from what they don't believe? Where it comes to arguments from belief, I don't see any problem with this as we participate in them all time. I had never been to Florida but a friend of mine went there, came back and described the taste of salt water at the beach. Well if I cannot accept something from credulity then I could not accept what he told me about that water. Yet if I trust this person, knowing his character is to be truthful, then I see no reason not to trust what he says is true about the water in Florida. So I can trust and believe based upon his belief. My knowledge of that water is indirect while his is directly experienced.

Likewise within the Christian faith. We trust those who taught us about many aspect of what we believe. They received their knowledge also from a similar faith in those who taught them. This chain goes on down to those who actually were there to directly experience what is being passed on via faith or trust in the word of another.... or as has been called by credulity. That this Christian knowledge deals with a man named Jesus who claimed he was God, in no way makes credulity an unreliable means to know something. I think the stakes are higher in that we deal with ultimate matters in relation to faith and morals (God). Whereas the indirect knowledge of salty beach water in Florida has less consequence but nevertheless is just as true. So think about all the things you've been taught in schools... have you directly experienced them? For instance have you been to the moon? Yet do you have any reason not to believe what astronauts have said about it?

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."

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Dude, you give me a citation of a dictionary which gives us 2 meanings of the word God.

# 1 with a capital G, synonymous to Creator etcetera, just like i explained to you, your source confirms this.
# 2 with a small g, meaning something like angelic being, just like i explained to you, your source confirms this.

I ask you if you can see the difference between the 2 meanings, you don't answer.
So i take it you do not see the difference between meaning #1 and #2.
But if there was no difference according to your source, they wouldn't have split it into 2 meanings.

So i really don't know what's the matter with you, but this doesn't make sense at all.
You can not even point out where i'm wrong or where i misunderstand you or your source.

I fully agree with your source, but you apparently disagree with your source.

Sigh... I'll try again...

Definition 2 does not pertain to monotheistic religions and includes the word "deity" (remember from the definition "synonyms: deity"). A deity is a god, not an "angelic being". Angelic beings are not deities. Creator gods like Coyote, or Pangu, or Mbombo as a collection are deities (as in definition 2) and are not referred to with an uppercase "G". The god of the Bible is called God among other names. In this case the "G" is capitalized.

Now that I've taken up way too much time explaining the simplest things, can we get back on track?

 

[Ratjaws]

Katerinah,
Allow me to take a stab at some of the other questions you pose. First, God is a pure spirit. He therefore has no gender, and although we use the term 'He' to refer to God, it is because scripture has revealed God using masculine language. So God is a spiritual being and as revealed by scripture, that is three Persons in one Being. We can know via reason alone that God exists but this latter point about the Trinity we can know only by God revealing it about Himself. One could say then, that God is a community of persons, and from all eternity each person loved the other, and therefore God has no needs. We can also say God is love. God is self-sufficient and when he created He did so out of love, not necessity.

Now you need to realize God is not human. Nor is God a corporeal being. God has no physical body since He is a pure spirit. This leaves us with the question of how, if there are corporeal beings like us, and they must in some way come from God, then how can this be so if God is simply a spiritual being? The answer lies in realizing God has knowledge of everything that can possibly exist apart from Himself. In God's mind is the possibility of everything that can exist. This is what we mean when we say God is all-knowing. Yet none of these ideas in God's mind exist until He wills them to come into being. The key here is that God must make an act of His will before something He knows, apart from Himself, can begin to exist. So while there are an infinite number of ideas in God's mind that can exist only a finite number actually exist because He has willed them to come into existence.

You and others here have speculated as to whether God is composed of matter or energy, or light, or some other substance we know of from our own experience of the world we live in. The idea of matter and energy, because they exist, must be in God's mind, but they are not essential to Him. In other words God is not composed of matter or energy or any other substance we know of from our world, albeit, He created these substances, yet He is not these substances precisely because God is a spirit. So spirit is God's substance and as such what is spiritual is not composed, it has no parts, and therefore is not matter nor energy nor light, etc... These things exist because God is their cause but it does not mean they are somehow part of God's substance. On the contrary these substances we are so familar with are in God's mind and He has willed them into existence. So matter, energy, light and all other such substances we encounter in our study of this world are effects caused by God, who is the uncaused Cause of Aristotle... or as St. Thomas Aquinas called him, the First Cause. The effect must be in the cause or we violate reason by saying something can exist that has no cause (other than God that is, who is His own cause by definition).

Now again, in God's case, He can start with nothing and give something. In theological circles this is known as ex-nihilo... that is God created the universe of all existent things, ex-nihilo, or out of nothing. These things, more properly these beings, are ideas in God's mind initially and come into existence only after God wills their existence. Also they remain in existence only by a sheer act of God's will. As scripture hints at all of creation must be constantly in God's mind and He must make an act of His will in order for creation to stay in existence. Recall not even a sparrow can fall from the sky without God knowing it.