God and his damn rock

I am betting there already was a God and rock thread, but to reiterate the hypocracy and general lack of basis religion (namely monotheistic all powerful god based ones') in anything. If a god is all powerful can it create a rock that it can not lift? Well let us approach this from a logical standpoint. If it is all powerful nothing can be more powerful than it, but if it is more powerful it should be able to create something more powerful then itself hense a paradox is born; therefor a farce. If you would kindly look at many polytheistic cultures that never have this problem. Their gods are not "all powerful" never inducing this kind of problem, therefor not destroying the credibiltiy of them existing. Look at the Greeks; they were a very logical people and their gods were created to explain things that they could not explain (namely with math and known science of the day). They were not there to represent hope and all that ****.

-Cheers-

PS: I know I have fragmented thought patterns that are more or less loosely related, but maybe hard to understand so feel free to have me clarify and re-relate. ^_^

A "philosopher" who declares that god doesn't exist is
claiming to be more powerful than god, by virtue of the
fact that he claims to be competent to create or destroy god
as he pleases. Then why can't this "philosopher"
program his own VCR?
:cool:

God and religion alike are concepts, created by a person or people long ago. To either bring hope or explain why things happened, that type of thing. But the act of being a god is hypocritical and illogical if it is all powerful.

-Cheers-

Let me quote Richard Swinburne here, because he says it better than I could:

" ....the omnipotence of a person at a certain time includes the ability to make himself no longer omnipotent, an ability which he may or may not choose to exercise. A person may remain omnipotent forever because he never exercises his power to create stones too heavy to lift...."

It makes sense to me. ;)

Lol... If you say so

-Cheers-

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by PM8228
[B]If it is all powerful nothing can be more powerful than it, but if it is more powerful it should be able to create something more powerful then itself hense a paradox is born; therefor a farce.

---

I am afraid that your decision is based on a false assumption. An all powerful being cannot create something more powerful than itself, because it is already all powerful. To put it another way, once the status of all powerful has been achieved any elevation to a higher status is not possible. However an all powerful being can create another all powerful being equal to itself. Now, for arguments sake I will assume that you are correct in your assumption, but that leads to a more interesting question of "Why would an all powerful being want to create something more powerful than itself or a rock that it cannot lift?" :)

This is an age-old "paradox", and here are some things to ponder.

God is not only omnipotent, he is also infinite (following from his omnipotence). If he'd have to make a rock bigger than himself (so big he can't lift it, would have to mean bigger than himself), then that rock wouldn't be a rock anymore (all rocks are finite, there are no infinite rocks). The person who made up the paradox, should have chosen something else than a rock.

God only acts within his nature, and making something bigger than himself is not in his nature. He could make an entity bigger than himself, but then he wouldn't be God anymore, and he would be contradictory. God isn't contradictory, therefore he would never make a rock bigger than himself.

The rock-"paradox" is the worst "proof" one can use to disprove God's existance. It's not a paradox, and it even sucks at not being a paradox. The paradox wants to prove that God is illogical, but the paradox itself is illogical. A paradox isn't used to disprove something (or shouldn't be), a paradox is used to seemingly disprove something.

Another nice example are Zeno's paradoxes.
Here's an exampe:
if you shoot an arrow at a target, the arrow will never reach the target because once it has been shot, it has to travel a distance of d. At one point during its flight, it will have to travel a distance of half the original distance (d/2). A little later, it will have to travel a distance of half d/2 ( = d/4). If you keep on going like this, the arrow will never reach the target, since it will have to keep on travelling distances of d/x where x is a power of 2.

This paradox can't be used to prove that an arrow will never reach its target, since it's obvious (and easy to prove) that the arrow will reach the target.

It's almost as ridiculous as Aquino's God-proof. Illogical arguments to prove that something is logical.
Or in the God & his rock case: illogical arguments to prove that something is illogical.

Humm..remember the "logical" greeks put men to death for not respceting the gods.

Quote:

---

Humm..remember the "logical" greeks put men to death for not respceting the gods.

---

**** happens but more people have died in the name of God than any other diety, I can assure you of that.

-Cheers-

bballad,
So did nearly every major religion at one time or another.

No argument there I was just questioning holding up the helenic greeks as a bastion of logic in compareison to modern western civilization. Then again I have allways had an inharent distrust of philosiphers, I lump them in the same catagory as politicions and televangilists.

Modern logic, as defined by Russell and Copi (the same logic still used today), is based on Greek logic. Aristotle was the one who defined syllogisms, premises, and all other terms still used today.

a -> b
b -> c

=> a -> c

are concepts by Aristotle. There is no discussion possible about syllogisms like this. They hold universal truth.

Ancient Greek logic was, and still is, a bastion of logic. It's pure math, and you can distrust it as much as you want, it'll still be valid ;)

This was the same guy who felt that there was a perfect chair somewhere in some magical cave.

If you are refering to the assumption that a cave can represent man's reality based on perception, it's brilliant.

That was Plato :p

But it shouldn't matter, bballad. The very basic things Aristotle defined back then, are still being used today.

Compare "If it rains, the streets get wet. It rains, so the streets are getting wet." to "If it rains, the streets get wet. The streets are wet, so it rains."

Both are syllogisms, and thanks to Aristotle we can proof that the first one is true and the second one is false. Logic isn't about the contents of the sentences being true (not all streets get wet when it rains), it's about the constructions being true. Pure math, very universal, and still in everyday use.

Ah, a memory jog. :)

I remember reading a paper recently of a conversation where Aristotle was demonstrating the cave, of course in this memeory jog, I remember thanks to Negative that he was Plato's student, I was wondering if bballads comment about magical caves was related since I have no clue what he's talking about. :)

yup it was related...although there is an some argument over which ideas where aristotals and which where plato who use the persona of aristotal to get his ideas out there...remember aristotal never wrote anything every idea of his we have is filtered through his students. I have no problem with the greek system of logic, my problem comes in whe nthe ygo past that point. HTe idea that somewhere there is a perfect chair and every chair we see is just a refelection of it.......the greek philosiphars where not prefect so lets try not to place them to highly on that pedistal

I still place them on a high pedestal. Heck Aristotle believed the universe was a series of crystalline layers and that objects rotated in these layers. VERY wrong, but not bad for objective and critical thinking some 2300 years ago. Some of his theories in science held for millennia, until corrected, mostly by Copernicus. (If my memory serves) One can definitely argue that he was wrong more than right. But give him some slack he lived in 300 BC. He's definitely on my pedestal. :)

I guess my main problem with the is his (or platos this one blures the line) beleif that phlosiphars should be the rulers of civilization wit hthe rest of us searving them.

Yes that was their general thinking back then, it was probably true for ancient man since education above kindergarten was extremely rare. At the same time Aristotle and others had a fair sense of justice for the time. They were the corruption of youth you know. A few were murdered (executed) for communicating thought.

Sence this is on the subject of big philosophical debates, What came first the chicken or the egg? lol Riddle me that. I took a logic couse last sumester based on Aristillian Logic (Aristotle's logic I think but can't spell therefore I'm still in school). It was really fun. with the whole square of opposition and stuff.

Sorry underclockdmind but that question is fairly easy to answer. The egg came first going by eveloutionary principles. I will try to make sense.
Each generation changes slightly. the change takes the form of mutation in their DNA and genes which take effect before the , in this case, chicken hatches. This means in an over simplified form that the egg from which our modern chick hatches is lay by what we may call a proto-chicken. Of course since chickens have been domesticated they no longer evolve as we weed out the undesired mutations.
Then again if you take the bible as your referance the chicken came first as it would have been created at the same time as all the other animals.

:)
LOL, I wonder how many others have sat in front of their screen pondering the notions of god and what to type. How much time has passed before one can string together the myriad of thoughts into something cohesive. And then to realize how silly or serious religion is.

The thought of trying to apply logic to questions of the ability of a deity to construct an existential framework that would constrain its 'power' is interesting, but more so as a reflection of how we as humans govern ourselves and within societies as well. I think that the seperation of church and state within 'republican' systems of governance is a good reflection of our standard of living. It has certainly put the pope in his place.

A god is a great concept for the individual, but for the collective masses of this planet in this day and age a source of 'global' conflict. There is nothing logical within two diametrically opposed societies to claim a god to be on their side. On the other hand, religion is often just the facade that obscures political and economic processes which now manifest themselves on a global scale.

It is about power, and the man that thinks himself as the chosen one, thinks with his dick,
just like nature intended, but with a trick up his sleave; he can manipulate the poor, for he can offer "hope" in the form of miracles.

A society that teaches how to read and write, encourages free thought, grants equal rights to its women, and empowers its members to share in powers of governance stands a far better chance to evolve and constrain poverty. But with no 'poor', the chosen one loses his dick.
An enlightened society is the greatest threat to a Theocrat...because he can no longer pull the wool over his constituencies eyes. Knowledge is power...and it allows for individuals to come to terms with their god.

"Each generation changes slightly. the change takes the form of mutation in their DNA and genes which take effect before the , in this case, chicken hatches."

Perhaps, but I must disagree with mutation at hand. I believe genes in the sense of mutation can't change. Let me explain, If one jumps from a high rise building and lands else were. Where he later dies. Now for hundreds of years this continues. Man cannot mutate into a bird like sense with the ability to fly.

Let me explain with a historic background.

For thousands of years man has ran to please his needs, either it be food or the need to travel a long distance. Mutation is false, man is still not a running being and always was.

I believe you can adapt which is done over time.

MURACU, "what has a being has a(n) end." But again, there is no end. Negative (including all involved) there is life because life is the beginning of life....
I hope you understand, this is hard to grasp.

This is not d00dz anymore as for my past is behind. I am DoTW, decipher me.
Greetings to all.

d00dz Attackin
The proper term is evolve, Which I should have used. Evolution is the mutation of patterns in the gene pool. Of course when you talk about natural evolution you talk about time spans of hundreds of thousands of years.
Another point to take in consideration is that evolution stops when socity evolves. That is a speices no longer evelves once it starts taking care of its weaker members as the weaker traites are not weeded out by natural selection. .

"To develop or achieve gradually: evolve a style of one's own."
Same as adapt..

Evolve: accommodate, adapt , adjust, alter, alternate, commute, convert, diminish, diverge, diversify.

Quote:

---

I believe you can adapt which is done over time.

---

Lets read what I wrote.

Quote:

---

could jesus microwave a bean burreto so hot he himself he could not eat it

---

-homer simpson

i just thought that i should point out that this issue was brought up on the simpsons

Interesting point about evolution halting based on the evolution of a society to a point where through science and compassion, they begin to alter or supress bad gene patterns. But they can make new patternes and direct adaptation to suit their needs, thus becoming creators on a small scale. Adaptation and Mutations do not necessarily lead to evolution in a natural sense. While I see the point that humans control a great deal of their own continued evolution, I do not agree that it has stopped. For instance I believe the mind is still evolving. Certainly biologically we will develop (evolve) resistances to disease etc, outside normal medical procedure.

Even if one supposed god created mankind and humans and animals did not evolve for billions of years. One cannot argue that evolution does not exist by examining what we know and what we have seen change through history by both natural and selective alterations. When those changes move forward to a point where the previous state is eliminated, that is evolution.

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by OverdueSpy
I am afraid that your decision is based on a false assumption. An all powerful being cannot create something more powerful than itself, because it is already all powerful. To put it another way, once the status of all powerful has been achieved any elevation to a higher status is not possible. However an all powerful being can create another all powerful being equal to itself. Now, for arguments sake I will assume that you are correct in your assumption, but that leads to a more interesting question of "Why would an all powerful being want to create something more powerful than itself or a rock that it cannot lift?" :)

---

An all powerful being on your nix box: root.
Can root create a more powerful being?
The answer is simple; no. Since root already has access everywhere and the ability to do nearly anything it is inconcievable that something could be more powerful than root, except of course my sledgehammer when root screws up and causes a coredump :)