Can your god make a boulder so big that he can't move it?

That was directed at this thread in general, btw.

God vs Rock the answer
Yes, God is able to do anything God so desires to do.
Therefore God is capable of creating a stone so large that God could not roll it. This "paradox" along with all other paradoxes are the inherent condition of reality itself.

A paradox is an assertion that is essentially self-contradictory, though based on a valid deduction from acceptable premises. One exhibiting inexplicable or contradictory aspects opposed to common sense; that which in appearance or terms is absurd, but yet may be true in fact.

The stone vs. God paradox essentially questions whether or not God is capable of establishing a circumstance or condition whereby God is irreversibly subject to despite the fact that God is the founding structure and very power by which the irreversible condition or circumstance is substantiated.

On one hand since God is limitless in regards to power it can be said that no condition could limit God. However on the other hand if God is truly limitless then it must be so that God could in fact establish a condition whereby limitation is absolutely limiting even to God. These conditions are both correct.

The answer to this paradox is will. The will of God is not splintered or divided unto itself, thus eliminating any contradiction. Therefore should God decide that a condition must be established whereby God is absolutely subject unto, then this can be done if God so wills it to be. Because the task at hand is God being fully subject unto the will of God.

Human beings view this as a problem and thus label this as paradoxical, due to their duplicitous natures. The problem from the human perspective is that there now exists a condition that limits God. The thought of there being a limitation to God denotes therefore that God is not limitless on some level therefore minimizing or dispelling God.

However this deduction is flawed since the force supporting the irreversible condition is that of God. However from a human perspective should the desire or need to reverse the un-reversible arise then a dichotomy is introduced. The dichotomy at its source is really submission to ones own will, not the ability to will into existence but the ability to adhere to what has been willed absolutely and absolutely willing that which is perfect so as to circumvent all desire or necessity to oppose that will.

Since God is perfect, Gods will is perfect and since Gods will is perfect there is no condition pertaining to Gods' will that is flawed. Therefore in the event that God created a rock that God could not roll, then God could not roll it because God decided to refrain from doing so and ultimately can not do so because God willed it and since God has no duplicitousness within Gods own will; God will absolutely adhere to this condition. This establishes an irreversible absolute whereby God is subject unto God.

Therefore there then would never be a condition whereby the desire to do otherwise could exist thereby demonstrating that God is capable of establishing a circumstance or condition whereby God is irreversibly subject to despite the fact that God is the founding structure and very power by which the irreversible condition or circumstance is substantiated.

The true paradoxical question being asked is whether or not God can absolutely oppose God.

NRAEVIS

NRAEVIS, in his post No. 606692, has unabashedly supplied the correct answer to the originally asked question in, this, CDK created thread.

I know that any "God" of mine would certainly have no problem creating anything, despite any human perceptions of paradox. After all, if need be, the stone in question could always be moved by such an all powerful "God" at a later time. Perhaps the stone's geographical re-location could be achieved under the cover of "darkness" so as to spare both God and believer embarrassment. But why subject his believers to such earthly torments at all when such a power can just make said stone disappear?

If we humans are troubled by these circumstances we apparently need not be. For we find it is "The will of God" that eliminates the perceived contradiction. So we are informed the paradox has its foundations in humans' "duplicitous natures" and God is therefore absolved of and elevated above such mundane matters. In addition, NRAEVIS' discussion comfortably assures us that:

"Since God is perfect, Gods will is perfect and since Gods will is perfect there is no condition pertaining to Gods' will that is flawed."

Oh? But if so, it would appear God's will, being perfect, is limited in its powers. After all, the main concept coming from the believer's camp is that God had more than a little to do with the creation of humans. Since NRAEVIS' explanation places responsibility for this controversy entirely upon such imperfect creatures as us humans, how does this reflect upon a God with such demonstrated imperfections manifest in our alleged creation? Is God's creative process flawed? If not, this would imply the intentional creation of flawed beings...why?


JM

truth
If God is omnipotent, omnipresent, and omnicompetent, he cannot be affected by contradictions. He would be both able and not able to make a rock so big he could not lift it. And he would be neither able nor not able to do so.

IF.

http://www.philosophers.co.uk/games/whatisgod.htm

truth
Notice that TPM Online's test excluded "transcendental" (being beyond distinctions). They have God as an entity within a World dualistically conceived.

Wouldn't that be the same as being everywhere, though? My point was that you check the omnipotent box and read the response.

truth
Since I do not buy their parameters, I can't enjoy their game.

No paradox at all. I read most of the replies to this thread as this 'paradox' has been all over the place including reaching the tv show 'The Simpsons' where it is asked: "Can God make a burrito so hot that he couldn't eat it?" no thought circles need be played. Simple analysis can look and see if you are believing in the God I believe in the Christian God who created everything than, at least how i view things and how I saw one person reply as well, God must be considered as a being which is on the dimension which is 'outside' the 'last' dimension and therefore would view our 'burrito paradox' or 'boulder paradox' much how we would look to two dimensional beings paradox of 'could a 3rd dimensional being stand up?' which is as impossible and unthinkable to them as it is for us to imagine God being able to create something so "big" he couldn't move it.

is the glass half full or half empty - it depends on the perspective of what was its state prior to the analysis - was it an empty cup filled to its half way point? or a full cup emptied to said point.

In other words, as JM touched on, just blindly believe and all is well. Ignore inconsistency and use circular arguments.

"The concept of omnipotence is a paradox, and is self defeating."

"Nope, my God is omnipotent so that must not be true."



It's tantamount to saying: "I am not wrong because I am right."

Look, to use a nonsensical dimention for the diety is to simply use a curcular argument and wax abstract to avoid reason.

Here's an example:

"I'm right"

"I disagree, I think you are wrong."

"Hold on there partner, I am never wrong. So that means I must be right here."

Note: We've introduced the first circular argument. Person A is right because, as he says, he's always right.

"But, yesterday you messed up on the weekly report. You reported 50 sales when there were 41. You were wrong."

"No, I was not. That's impossible. See, I am always right, so yesterday I must not have been wrong. Everyone else must have been wrong."

"Go and count the sales yourself. There were 41, not 50."

"Maybe that's how it looks in your dimention puny human. In my dimention there is a greater understanding and your puny numbers are laughably wrong. Remember, I am always right."

Now if you are willing to pile on the circular arguments and indulge in both an absence of logic and scientific method this works for you.

"Science is made by man. It's no comparison to my inherent and infalliable rightness."

And if you are willing to contruct any abstract absurdity such as special dimensions you can, indeed, make up anything.

"See, in my overarching dimension the sales were 50. In your weak puny dimension you believe the sales were 41. That's understandable given the limted dimension from which your puny wrongness must work. But do understand that from my positively manly dimension I can see your numbers for the gobbletygook that they are!"

Well, if you want to debate on this level you migth as well start using things like "to the infinity power" and claim no challenges.

Watch:

"Sure, your god may well reside in that nonsensical dimension of yours, but I happen to have friends in high places. I know some Atookaians who reside in Dimension number 1. This is teh dimension that contains all dimensions and it can't be contained. They know all and tell me that your god is omnipotent only in that puny nonsensical dimension of his and is completely unaware that in all these other dimensions he's the laughing stock of the universe."

It's damn easy to make nonsense up, and even easier to obdurately rely on it in circular logic.

Such is anyone's prerogative but they'd do well to continue to assert that logic and reason are incompatible with their beliefs. Because they are.

"Yeah, your puny 'logic' and 'reason' is no match for the sheer manliness of my god! The wisdom of men is foolishness to god! No matter how nonsensical my belief, it's right because my god is too powerful to be constrained by reason and logic! Don't eat mustard. Send me a tithe and a shoutout to all my homeys in Dimention Project 50 where all sales tolal 50!"

hah cute reply but something blazzingly obvious that your simple cynical mind missed is that i never said God is omnipotent nor omniscient

good job at dismissing and ignoring.. *claps* is your little world comfortable?

i am being a wee bitter in this reply because I'm sick of people ignorantly stereotyping me into what they view as the 'everyone who believes in God' or at least 'all christians' and your post was a perfect example of that ignorance.

I am not defending my views of God in my above post if you want to talk about my view of God thats a whole other article.. I was simply answering the question "can God make a rock so big he cant move it" nothing theological in there at all.. so stick to the question at hand and don't be immature..

my answer had more to do with physics than faith as does the question. I am not making anything up to answer to that rather 'interesting' post about making stuff up. I am looking at what I have read from hawkings right through to robert penrose on to some theological physics (cant remember author) and remember.. LOOK AT WHAT IS written i said nothing about God being omnipotent nor all knowing nor do i believe God is either. God is obviously not in our dimension agree? or do you not believe in God what so ever? im not sure where you are starting your side of this.

oh and just to note something I didn't

I read a post wherein someone wrote that God wouldn't waste his time with doing this and I viewed that just as disgustingly ignorant as you probably did..

don't jump to conclusions sometimes the conclusions move out from under you and you fall into the abyss..

Yes, I find my puny cute dimension comfortable, despite my 'blazzingly' cynical mindset.



I did nothing of the sort. I referenced the absence of logic in your argument and assumed notthing about you.



LOL Immature? You jest. I can see why you'd want to think that pointing out the glaring logical deficiencies in your argument is "immature" but I am afraid I will have to reject this characterization that you fancy.




Actually, your argument had precious little to do with physics and a lot to do with nonsensical dimension creation.



Incorrect.



You've established that you can drop names, what you have not established as of yet is the ability to form an argument that does not rest entirely on fallacy.

I happen to think you can and anticipate its arrival.



No.

One might take the same advice when jumping to conclusions about which conclusions were leapt to my friend. ;-)

Look, it might be easier for you to remove gods from this question altogether and simply examine the inherent paradox that is the concept of omnipotence.

It doesn't have to conflict with religious belief, many believe in gods without the childish absolutism that is "omnipotence".

lol well.. i'd like to say interesting but your umm how to put this.. your saying alot with out saying anything.. thats good.. ya

see you say things like 'incorrect' but offer nothing to well say HOW im incorrect your like the bully in high school and i find it boorish.. just saying im 'dropping names' is so very immature... you have not responded with anything what so ever yet so I find no reason to try to counter anything youv'e said.. because as I said there has been no substance to what you have said.. and before you reply with something like "well you did good in being ignorant again blah blah noun verb" I am going to ask something directly to what you failed to include in your last post. Since you evidently feel that God is in our dimension.. give me theoretical arguments to say that God is... until you have done that.. dont reply with your 'bully tactics' anymore your wasting space on this forum.


I did want to give you an idea of what I think you did right though (you probably dont care but oh well) but your spiel about circular logic was good (although you assumed that I felt God was omnipotent and all knowing) it was good until you said I made stuff up with out replying about a view or school of thought or what not that said I was wrong - that there is only 1 dimension or whatever the counter argument to my stance of God being outside our dimension.. that is what I am talking about.. so well continue on

oh and if you find your 'cynical mindset' comfortable i suggest you take your own advice and rise above your current ignorance.. cynicism is not good.. according to the common philosophical view.

Since all our perceptions of right and wrong are man-made concepts, there probably is no such thing as bad or good. They're just all part of nature. Man created god's laws to help with survival of the species, and to hopefully reduce conflicts.

That's an easy way to dismiss careful and precise carping of your logic. <shrugs>



You seem to like characterizations about me a lot. "Bully" and "immature" and such. I hope you do not mind if i fail to reciprocate.

If you would like me to expound on how you were incorrect to assert not having made things up I would be more than happy to do so for you.



Here we go with the characterizations again. Well, let's just say I prefer to characterize it as "accurate". You dropped a few names, and did not do anything to strengthen your argument.

"I read so and so and so and so."

"So? This does not make the argument any less absurd."



Actually I have adroitly pointed out the deficiencies in your logic. But I understand your reluctance to attempt to counter it.



You repeat this a lot. I think you protest a wee bit much. Mayhap this is being posited as a substitute for countering my arguments? I can understand your reluctance to do so, but mist say that the "you said nothing" tactics are very transparent.



Happy to oblige. Here's just one theoretical argument:

Your god exists within your head, which despite appearances does in fact exist within this dimension.



I'm not the one trying to bully anyone into cessation. That seems to be your role visavis. ;-)

It seems you are using "bully" as an operative term for constructing arguments that irritate you and that you are unable to refute, reducing you to claims that no argument has been made.

"See, I don't have to have the intellectual capacity to refute anything you said. Why? Um... because you have said nothing! Yes, that's the ticket! "



visavis, I fear you are demonstrating inadequate reading comprehension skills. I said nothing of being comfortable with cynicism. i said I was comfortable with the dimension in which I live, and joked about your penchant for using such appellations.

I can't be faulted for lapses in your reading visavis.

FINALLY you countered something heh ok.. so God exists within my head - I have had my own doubts and this is where I went with it.. then how was the universe created? and that well 2 year venture brought me to believe in the God I do now.

But anyways.. my dismissal of your 'stances' has been in response to your dismissal of mine - with no substance.. my reading skills are fine and I am not being irritated in the slightest.. I am dissapointed in a person with a rather large vocabulary (you) that your origional reply to mine failed to supply anything along the lines of a counter arguement where as you just assumed I believed in an omnipotant God and attempted to bully me into as you said 'cessation'

and no i am not dismissing you with the 'you said nothing tactic' look closly.. if I had.. I would have just done the "Hmph.. im better than you" and not replied.. I am trying to draw you out - and I think i did.. because you did actually reply I am happy now we can move on with the debate. (DO NOT TAKE THAT STATEMENT AS ME TRYING TO PULL PRIDE OR ANYTHING ELSE) just putting that out there.. 'carping' as you admitted to doing is what I consider as VERY immature.. joking is fine.. but done in a serious manner ruins debates.