It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

"Can God create a rock..."

page: 12
18
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 16 2014 @ 09:45 PM
link   
a reply to: jimmyx

"a mythical being can create any imaginable thing you think it can, even a rock."

You have hit the nail on the head!

When truth is a mirage, then we perish

for want of sustenance.




posted on Sep, 16 2014 @ 10:54 PM
link   
a reply to: Diderot

It does...lol

I totally forgot I commented on this thread!




posted on Sep, 16 2014 @ 11:39 PM
link   
I went to a pretty fundamentalist church when I was a child and asked my Sunday school teacher that question.

It's not a new question. One of my Sunday school teachers got upset. One of them explained that this type of question is formulated so there is no correct answer. His belief was that God could do anything but wouldn't be caught in a paradox because it isn't worth spending time on.

So this peeked my interest when I was 12 but it doesn't merit discussion on ATS in my opinion



posted on Sep, 17 2014 @ 09:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: Wildbob77
I went to a pretty fundamentalist church when I was a child and asked my Sunday school teacher that question.

It's not a new question. One of my Sunday school teachers got upset. One of them explained that this type of question is formulated so there is no correct answer. His belief was that God could do anything but wouldn't be caught in a paradox because it isn't worth spending time on.

So this peeked my interest when I was 12 but it doesn't merit discussion on ATS in my opinion


i think that the idea of omnipotence being vulnerable to paradoxes is very much worth discussion on ATS. at the very least, it is an exercise in critical thinking. good practice.



posted on Sep, 17 2014 @ 09:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: Diderot
a reply to: spy66

"According to religion we cant have free will, Not if the Bible is the true Word of God."

God has granted us free will, which is preordained and inviolable.

We are free because God has allowed us to submit to his will.



god is sounding more and more like hitler...wouldnt be the first time.



posted on Sep, 17 2014 @ 09:40 AM
link   
a reply to: TzarChasm

The problem With bringing this up on ATS is that science havent discovered it yet.

So you would get nowhere. Its best that you figure it out on Your own, you will never get suppoert for it on this forum.



posted on Sep, 17 2014 @ 09:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: spy66
a reply to: TzarChasm

The problem With bringing this up on ATS is that science havent discovered it yet.

So you would get nowhere. Its best that you figure it out on Your own, you will never get suppoert for it on this forum.



this thread is as good a place as any to critically examine the nature of omnipotence and how it reflects on our idols. after all, it is kind of the topic here.



posted on Sep, 18 2014 @ 03:45 PM
link   
I was just trying to point out that this is not a new paradox

I first encountered it in early 1960s

It may very well be worthy of discussion but I don't think it will change minds or beliefs.

a reply to: TzarChasm



posted on Sep, 18 2014 @ 04:02 PM
link   
My answer to the Ops question is "Yes".
Here is why.
The Bible clearly states that God cannot lie.

Titus 1:2 " and is based on a hope of the everlasting life that God, who cannot lie, promised long ago; "


So if he creates a rock and declares that it is forever unmovable, then HE is bound by his own decree, not even HE is capable of moving it. It is not unmovable due to a lack of power or energy on HIS part, but by due to the finality of HIS word.

God of course has no reason to create such a hypothetical rock so we have no reason to worry that his power is limited.

edit on 9/18/2014 by Sparky63 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 18 2014 @ 04:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sparky63
My answer to the Ops question is "Yes".
Here is why.
The Bible clearly states that God cannot lie.

Titus 1:2 " and is based on a hope of the everlasting life that God, who cannot lie, promised long ago; "


So if he creates a rock and declares that it is forever unmovable, then HE is bound by his own decree, not even HE is capable of moving it. It is not unmovable due to a lack of power or energy on HIS part, but by due to the finality of HIS word.

God of course has no reason to create such a hypothetical rock so we have no reason to worry that his power is limited.


oh, of course, he says hes not a liar so of COURSE he has to be telling the truth. how can someone lie about lying? that would be ridiculous.

/tzarchasm



posted on Sep, 21 2014 @ 03:57 PM
link   
a reply to: TzarChasm

"god is sounding more and more like hitler...wouldnt be the first time."

That's a bit harsh, but...

The trick is to create a God that is transcendent in wisdom, in mercy, in justice, in love, in compassion...

A perfect God inspires us to perfection.

In this case, perfection, in my humble opinion, means

happiness for all of God's children.

We have a long road before us.



posted on Sep, 21 2014 @ 08:50 PM
link   
a reply to: Diderot

That's a pretty vague definition. And I'm of the (humble) opinion that perfection is a destructive standard to set for yourself. You never know when to quit, you are incapable of admitting you did a good job, and you will forever look around and see how something isn't quite good enough. Perfection is a bottomless pit. Imperfection is beautiful in that you are capable of being happy with less and that ultimately brings you peace. Imperfection goes hand in hand with humility. The instant you become convinced that you are perfect, the rest of existence falls beneath you. Impure, unrefined. That's us. Why do you think hell exists? The arrogance of a giant who believes himself superior to us. No, perfection is a fool's errand...in my humble opinion.

edit on 21-9-2014 by TzarChasm because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 21 2014 @ 09:05 PM
link   
If 'God' is real then it is an infinite energy of infinite power, OMNIPOTENT, and I mean real 'God' as in absolute energy.



posted on Sep, 21 2014 @ 09:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: Diderot

That's a pretty vague definition. And I'm of the (humble) opinion that perfection is a destructive standard to set for yourself. You never know when to quit, you are incapable of admitting you did a good job, and you will forever look around and see how something isn't quite good enough. Perfection is a bottomless pit. Imperfection is beautiful in that you are capable of being happy with less and that ultimately brings you peace. Imperfection goes hand in hand with humility. The instant you become convinced that you are perfect, the rest of existence falls beneath you. Impure, unrefined. That's us. Why do you think hell exists? The arrogance of a giant who believes himself superior to us. No, perfection is a fool's errand...in my humble opinion.


I see perfection from a differnt point of view. If you are absolute Perfect, You are absolute neutral and have everybody above you. Becasue non of the others are like you. When you are absolute neutral you will know the moral code, and will not act as if you were a God. Because that would be immoral. And in that case you would not be absolute Perfect.

If a person is Perfect, that person will see the knowledge of good and evil in everyone who is not like him.

A person who is not Perfect only knows the knowledge of good and evil. What would a person be if he didnt know good or evil?

Would he be absolute evil or absolute good? Or would he be absolute Perfect?

If a person who is Perfect said or did something in the presence of a person who only knows good and evil. How do you think the person who only knows good and evil will interpret the actions of the one who is Perfect?

The person who only knows good and evil will only interpret what the Perfect person said or did as either good or evil.
edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 21 2014 @ 10:26 PM
link   
I’m surprised how many responses missed your original point. You used the paradox as an example of our primal thinking. I don’t know if I would use the word primal, but I agree that we certainly have a lot to learn. Consider the following analogy:

The age of the universe is to all knowledge, as mankind’s time on planet earth is to the subset of all knowledge possessed by humans.

It’s not a stretch of the imagination to compare the two. If we took this literally then our knowledge would equate to 1.25s in a day.

Estimated age of universe = 4.354e17 seconds
Estimated age of mankind = 6.311e12 seconds (= 200,000 years)

mankind/universe = 1.449e-5
seconds in day = 86400
86400s * 1.449e-5 = 1.25s

We have experienced 1s of 1 day, but that doesn’t mean our thinking is primal. Hopefully we will continue to evolve, but primitive behavior is acting on your desires and appetites without rational thought. There is nothing wrong with ignorance. It is our intent that we must guard closely.

I would like to a point out a problem with logic in general which is apparent from the paradox. It is tangentially related to your post about human knowledge. The nature of any paradox is that you are left with a contradiction whether the statement is true or false. Please bear with me as I start with contradictions. Let’s start with something basic:

if A then 1 = 2

A cannot be true because this would be a contradiction If A is false then this would be a consistent system. Otherwise, we would violate the property of a well ordered set which is the set of integers in this case. I don’t think anybody would argue of the meaning of 1 & 2. Even though I haven’t specified them we know by convention that they are elements within a well defined set. We haven’t defined A and it appears to be inconsequential. This was all very straight forward with an easy explanation.

Now attempt to reduce the statements in your paradox down to equations. You could spend a lifetime trying to prove that your symbolic mapping matches the fuzzy logic inherent within our mode of communication. Or it could happen in a snap if you make a statement that resonates with opinions of authority. As a side note, that isn’t too different than proof by intimidation.

In this particular case we must map the logical symbols which define the criteria necessary for possessing the quality of omnipotence expressed in natural language. Unfortunately, there is no such symbolic mapping other than our apparent standard mode of communication. Of course, you could attempt to create a set and define all things within in that set to somehow encompass all things necessary for defining omnipotence. But what would the cardinality be?

The only thing that can clearly be drawn from this paradox is that you are attempting to apply recursion on the machine which defines the system (physical + metaphysical). If we can truly define the machine capable of representing such a system then you have found the answer to your paradox.

Another point to consider is that we can’t prove any “obvious” value to a mathematical system which is consistent over one which is not consistent. For example, going back to “if A then 1 = 2”, we can devise an inconsistent system where 1 = 1 and 1 = 2. This would violate our existing axioms but the axioms are just assumptions.


originally posted by: Diderot
Finally, the main point of my thread is that we all are far more ignorant than gnostic. A true scientist will eagerly admit that we have just scratched the surface of understanding, and a religious believer sees the ultimate Truth as being locked away in a box called God.


Or maybe the axioms are just ultimate truths locked away in a mystical mathematical box that we choose to believe.

In summary, I believe that breaking the universe down into rational and logical quanta may be a one sided approach that subverts the very progress you hope to find. The question of omnipotence reduces our system into a logical abyss. Therefore we will likely have to move past our existing system of logic to understand omnipotence and perhaps religion has something to offer as well.

After all if the concept of omnipotence can exist within our minds then why wouldn't omnipotence exist? In fact it must exist or you have created a contradiction which proves that the formulation of the paradox is invalid. Otherwise, the definition of omnipotence would be different from your system to my system and thus the question itself would be unintelligible.



posted on Sep, 22 2014 @ 05:07 AM
link   
a reply to: compressedFusion




if A then 1 = 2




1 can never = 2 without a explanation?

A can only Equal A or represent 1. But 1 can never be 2. In a Equation where 1 = 2.


A = A or 1 = 1 is a absolute standard. It is a absolute constant.

But there is a way to have change where you can mathematically track the changes. but you would have to be able to observe all the Properties of A to be able to oberve the changes where....... If A then 1 = 2.

There is only one Power that can physically make changes where A = 2. And that is within the property of A.

But A is a absolute constant, it is absolute neutral, So by observing A you would not be able to observ changes because there are non. A is a absolute constant. A = A.

For A to be able to make a change, it would have to be aware/intelligent. So it is not only enough to be able to observe the Properties of A. You would have to be able to communicate With A.

- You can not physically determine by observation if there is awarness or intelligence present where there are no physical changes. A = A.

If A then 1 = 2.

A would create 2 instantaneously. Because A is absolute infinite and takes up all Space there is. It is all that exists before A create something New "if A then 1 = 2".

God said: Let there be light. To understand how A did it you would have to ask. Unless you are A, then you would be bale to mathematically track the creation of 2. Where.....If A then 1 = 2.




edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)

edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 22 2014 @ 05:34 AM
link   
a reply to: Diderot




The truth that awaits us is far, far greater than the truth that we now perceive.


Yet do you even believe in Truth? In all your post I hear you talk about Love being a higher path, but as an atheist how do you justify calling one action unloving? Calling an action unloving relies on the existence of an objective moral law, yet as an atheist there is no way to justify moral law. Better yet as an atheist how do you even justify your ability to reason? You say we should all accept we are ignorant, but why should I even accept that you can think or reason?

As atheist you must believe that we are all just meat and chemicals preforming actions as they see fit. So I must ask why should I take any point you make as valid? You are just typing what you type because chemicals make you. There is no thought going on. If an atheist is to hold true to the world view they claim that is how they must think about all conversation.



posted on Sep, 22 2014 @ 05:38 AM
link   
a reply to: Diderot

Ahh yes.

What is the difference between a duck ?



posted on Sep, 22 2014 @ 05:39 AM
link   
One of its legs is both the same !




posted on Sep, 22 2014 @ 08:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: spy66

1 can never = 2 without a explanation?

A can only Equal A or represent 1. But 1 can never be 2. In a Equation where 1 = 2.


This is true given the standard set of axioms that we all use for math.


originally posted by: spy66
A = A or 1 = 1 is a absolute standard.


This however is not true. There is no absolute standard. No such concept exists. The axioms used are a convention or a best guess. They are certainly not an absolute standard. Here is a requirement we have set forth when defining that convention

Wikipedia: Axioms

A set of axioms should be consistent; it should be impossible to derive a contradiction from the axiom.


However, we can't prove that axioms should be consistent. There is no mathematical reason for this. We use our reasoning to make this argument which is codified by natural language not math. The obvious response is that if an axiom is inconsistent then it is useless. This cannot be proven either.

Mathematicians have already played with the concept of redefining axioms and trying to determine what we can know if we expand that set.
Wikipedia: Goedel's Incompleteness Theorem


originally posted by: spy66

But there is a way to have change where you can mathematically track the changes. but you would have to be able to observe all the Properties of A to be able to oberve the changes where....... If A then 1 = 2.

There is only one Power that can physically make changes where A = 2. And that is within the property of A.


The intent of my simple contradiction was to create a statement that was constructed purely from symbols within set theory. In fact it could have been a statement as silly as "if 1 = 2 then 1 = 2". Trying to insert God into 1 = 2 seems like you are digging the hole of logic deeper.

You have defined "A" through natural language and it represents the concept of God. You have then attempted draw a relationship back to the set of natural numbers. There is no reason to stay within the framework of the natural numbers. There is no relationship between A and the numbers other than the one provided by the equation.

A mathematical equation that is composed partially of statements of English and other parts from the alphabet of set theory is not a pure mathematical statement. Any conclusion you derive would likely be meaningless. How can you represent the concept of God with mathematical symbols? I assert you would have to do this to meaningfully apply your example.

To be specific the equality operator does not translate as we think it should. You can't merely define, A = God, and then proceed to use A throughout your system as if it were God. It has no meaning within the axioms of the system. At best you have assigned a string literal to a variable.

It only requires the word, God, in our language to communicate with and understand each other. You might argue that you could take the state of our brains, convert that to equations, and then feed that input into your mathematical system. However, it's not even clear that our thoughts are deterministic. If they are not then that endeavor would be fruitless.

My point was that you can redefine the set you operate on (or potentially even the axioms which build the set) such that it is no longer a perceived contradiction. There is no reason to try and shoe horn the concept of "A" being God into a well defined mathematical set (in this case the natural numbers).

I believe that attempting to define the world through reason and logic alone is a mistake. Our existing mathematical system may not be entirely compatible with human language as evidenced by our inability to express simple concepts like omnipotence without producing a contradiction. Also, consider all the proofs that ultimately fall back on language as opposed to relying completely on the alphabet of symbols within mathematics.



new topics

top topics



 
18
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join