Your god is Not Omnipotent

Why can nobody answer the question "Can God create an object so heavy that even God cannot lift it?" and postulate the answer for it?

I ask again why?

You know, it would be cool if some preacher out there somewhere actually had the brains to answer it but alas, nobody has. Really, the answer is easy--a breeze to anybody who can actually think for themselves. Okay I fibbed, it's not that easy... but all a religious person has to do is pray to their god for the answer. I mean there are numerous examples in the bible I can quote saying that all they had to do was pray. Indeed, the fact that this question has not been answered correctly by a theist yet proves that personal gods do not exist. Yes you read that right, the fact that it hasn't been answered correctly proves it, not the question!

Oh, of course many try to circumvent the problem... sidestep the issue as it were. And all these are because their faith is weak. If they had real faith, they'd pray and get their answer right away. Deep down, all theists know their prayers are meaningless--that prayers don't do a thing. After all, god's will will always prevail... Well, at least that's their favorite excuse--oops, we'll get to the obvious paradox of god having a will later...

That covers the favorite reason to ignore the question in that thinking the question is, well, unanswerable. God after all, will answer all those who ask and have faith. But then the next favorite is to try to say that the question is somehow illogical. This is also not the case. The question is completely logical - an omnipotent god however is not. Indeed the answer is quite logical, but we'll get to that later. An omnipotent god, has by definition, unlimited power. So he should be able to create an object so heavy that he cannot lift it. But then by not lifting it he has shown that he is not omnipotent. This is the obvious fallacy of omnipotence. OMNIPOTENCE DOES NOT EXIST. It cannot exist, it is contradictory by it's own bloody definition. People love to put the contradiction in the question... but that is wrong, again, the contradiction is having an omnipotent god.

Then there are the nutcases that just blindly say yes, cuz he's god! WHOOHOOOO! Well, you answered the question but can you explain why? Oh, he's omnipotent... ah, we're right back to the original problem. Did the person really answer the question? No. (Notice the use of he, because god is male of course... whew, tons of problems with a religion that uses a personal god eh?) This is generally followed by the ideal that it's a stupid question... this basically places them in the exact same category as those thinking the question is unanswerable for whatever reason.

I sit here thinking, how utterly ridiculous that billions of theists can't answer this question. That they do not have the deductive and reasoning skills to answer it, nor the sense to question what they currently know with new evidence, to think for themselves... that they ignore everything that may contradict their beliefs and views. I bet everybody sitting there without the answer is practically begging for the answer. I wish to add something here. To theists reading this, you should quit your religion since it was so weak that it couldn't come up with the answer to the question. And yes, before this solution, you fit one of the categories above.

It's easy really, granted by definition, an omnipotent god could create an infinitely dense and large rock. Of course, infinite density and size would equate to the rock being the universe, thus god could not lift it as there would be nowhere for god to lift it to or move it to.

Walla, that was easy. Of course, reasoning as such doesn't solve all the omnipotent problems. Precisely because omnipotence is a farce, and any religion claiming an omnipotent god is false--no matter how they try to squirm otherwise.

98 comments:

  1. Thanks for the article, GMNightmare. Very interesting! I hadn't thought of that paradox in a long time.
    You're right, religious folks do not have deductive reasoning or critical thinking skills to handle logic when it comes to their religion and their god.
    In my opinion, the nature of religion is like any kind of cult: Submit and obey, and let the leader/god do the thinking. Keep the masses like children, easy to control.
    So how would they ever develop the ability to reason? Would they know how to use it if confronted with the concept of critical thinking? I doubt it.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Another cop-out answer to this question that I’ve heard is “God is not limited by human reason.” Or, “God can do anything that isn’t logically impossible.”

    ReplyDelete
  3. I once asked if Jesus ever felt guilt (after hearing the "Jesus was a man, therefore he understands all human emotion), because supposedly, he was perfect. I was told to stop thinking and just read the bible.

    And, people wonder why I am now an atheist.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Ah, yes, the god is not limited by human reason call. I'm afraid that's easy to call out. Both are cop outs, but the "god can do anything that isn't logically impossible" follows the thinking that the question is illogical specifically.

    The "god is not limited by human reason" also becomes flawed. It flies in the face of all believers, it says we cannot understand him. If you cannot understand him, then why worship him? And quite frankly, I don't hear believers going around saying that you can't understand him...
    But then the fact that religion DOES limit god with human reason. The bible is full of it, god is this, god wants that, god wants us to do this...
    Not to mention that we are created in his image (or so religion wants to believe), he thus cannot be beyond human reason, saying otherwise claims that we aren't created in his image at all. Nor are we a perfect creation, as the bible also calls... on and on and on.

    But really, that's a person still thinking the question is illogical, when it is in fact, their omnipotent god that is.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Yeah, I was faced with the same command when I asked too many questions. That is exactly what they want. Blind obedience. No Thinking Allowed!
    Unfortunately it seems that millions and millions of people rather seem to LIKE not thinking for themselves, because they embrace religion and happily seem to hand over the thinking to priests, pastors and the like. Scary stuff indeed!

    ReplyDelete
  6. Archimedes once wrote, "Give me a lever and a place to stand and I can move the world." Have you ever used a simple system to assist you in lifting something heavier than yourself? i.e., a pully, a lever, etc. If a mere mortal can lift something as heavy as a 2000 pound vehicle in order to change a tire, why must we presume it is inconceivable that the creator of the universe could not lift a planet?

    ReplyDelete
  7. Did... you even read it? I mean honestly? Did you pass the first question? Can you comprehend past 1st grade level logic?

    Nobody said that, if god existed and was omnipotent, that he couldn't lift a planet. That isn't even in the question at all. That isn't even a logical conclusion... I don't even understand your argument here, can you give me more? Really?

    Oh, by the way, Archimedes wasn't exaggerating. He was completely serious, anybody could lift Earth... we'd just have to have a galactic sized lever and a... heh... place to stand. That wasn't some joke, but I hardly doubt you understand this.

    I have trouble comprehending how you can write fairly well (I mean really, no grammatical errors or spelling) yet near zero reading comprehension and logical analysis. But whatever you know, religion never needed any of that stuff anyway right?

    ReplyDelete
  8. I agree with GMNightmare. You write well with no grammatical or spelling errors, you seem thoughtful, but apparently you didn't read the question. You make no sense. So it's not thoughtful at all, in my opinion, to just rattle off something about Archimedes when it's totally out of context.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Hey GMN, you beat me to the punch. I personally like the irony of calling that comment "a thoughtful reply".

    ReplyDelete
  10. I have hope that just maybe-- the creator is so galactically massive, there is no lever too large for him to handle, nor any object too heavy for him to lift. I am not so arrogant that I presume to know where he stands; for I am humble enough to know I am but one person among so many other beings on this planet among other planets and stars and heavenly bodies. Think bigger than yourself.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Think bigger than one book written thousands of years ago. You're not being humble, you're being ignorant. There simply is no evidence of any kind for your invisible man in the sky. Hope is laziness, if you ask me. Instead of thinking and marveling at the wonder of the universe for what it IS, you feel the need to hope aimlessly about what goes against everything we know.

    ReplyDelete
  12. So maybe ignorance is bliss, but at least I am happy. Can you say the same? I wonder when you write with such negativity and bitterness. I truly hope you can find some peace and solace soon when you discover how the universe was created.
    Now this "book" written thousands of years ago that you speak of is simply a single piece of evidence that suggests the creator exists. It is filled with logic, history, and, plain good advice on how to live a peaceful existence within oneself. The fact that it has survived thousands of years doesn't amaze you? Why do you think it has lasted that long when so many dedicated people have tried so hard to submerge its existence. Just out of curiosity, your writing is above par. . . how long do you think it will last? Writing comes and writing goes, but there is something to this "book" that makes it evidentiary. Have you ever read this "book"?
    But as I note, there are so many other evidences of the creator's existence- if you choose to seek them. Have you ever climbed to the top of a Bavarian Alp and seen the view? The azure sky with the green pastures freshserve as an immediate backdrop to a neverending world. Look at a newborn child; it is a wonderment all in its own. There is an amazement in the fact that the human body is an organism that functions with such complexity in coordination with other ecosystems that it all seems to have been planned. This gives me hope and happieness when I believe this. And if this makes me an ignorant fool, than as I said before, ignorance is bliss. For I choose to believe hope is not lazieness; hope is a positive feeling of which I see very little in evidence in the musings I read in your posts. Perhaps if you had a little more hope, your musings would be more positive and so would all of your lives. Hope is faith in the evidence of things unseen. Have you ever had faith in yourself? Or for that matter confidence--a synonym? If not, that is such a crying shame. All people should have reason to have hope. If not, why live? Your life was given to you for a hopeful purpose. Why not live with hope and with purpose? You will be much a much happier person.

    ReplyDelete
  13. I agree 146% with you on everything you said, GMN. I would give you 150% approval, but I think you had a couple typos. I don't want it to go to your head that you are really good at disputing crazy illogical nonsense, or anything. :P

    ReplyDelete
  14. You say your comment is thoughtful and I have to call you on that. It is anything but. You pulled random nonsense out of the air. I won't go into detail with it because GMNightmare covered it all quite satisfactorily.
    I will say that evidence is a scientific term. Your touching ramblings have nothing to do with science. Just because you pull a word out of the dictionary doesn't mean that you use it properly and certainly does not mean that it is honest, real or true. There is no evidence of any kind of god. Never has been. So your lame old superstitious hate filled book from the Iron Age is complete and utter human-flawed fabrication, just like your argument. Just for once, THINK. USE YOUR MIND. Stop being lazy and realize that being ignorant just makes you a sheep. Weak and easily led. You deserve to get fleeced. You're a damned fool. There's no nice way to say it.

    ReplyDelete
  15. The answer is complete ignorance of the fact that 3 dimensional existence
    is infinite so no finite rock could be as big as infinite 3 dimensional spatial
    existence. (free space/absolute space - not talking about quantum space).

    What do you suppose would be beyond this finite universe you are "assuming."

    Some giant wall? No matter how infinitely dense or even absolute infinite density
    there would still be an infinite 3 dimensional spacial existence surrounding it.

    No matter how "big" you create it - it will still be surrounded by infinite 3
    dimensional spatial existence (notice I didn't use the word "space" because we don't
    know if quantum space is surrounded by infinite free space).

    You can't create a infinite rock so the answer is fallacious.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Nice try... can I guess Michael?

    Omnipotence is a claim of infinite power.
    Thus creating a rock of infinite size is not out of bounds of infinite power.
    Nothing is out of bounds for a creator with infinite power. You obviously don't understand the term, omnipotence. He can do whatever the hell he wants, he's god.

    The answer is not nonsense, the answer follows the conditions of omnipotence, omnipotence is what is nonsense.

    ReplyDelete
  17. I find it so arrogant to blast theists for answering the when you have not answered the question yourself. "Omnipotence is a farce" is a cop out and you know it. You don't have an answer for the question. In fact, you should know that there is no logical answer to this question. It is called a paradox for this very reason.

    Let us consider this. An object requires a force of x + ∞ N to lift while you can only lift at a force of ∞ N. Can you lift this object? Of course you can! Any mathematician would know that ∞ = x + ∞. Since we can hold this true, then it is logical to say that an omnipotent being can do things beyond his omnipotent abilities. That's very paradoxical isn't it?

    In mathematics, this can be seen as logical. However, it is clearly illogical too. If you claim omnipotence cannot exist, neither the concept of infinity either and thus breaks down the fundamental theorem of calculus etc. Are you sure you want to tango with that?

    My answer? If there was an omnipotent god, he can defy the reams of human logic too. Call my answer for being a cop out but it's what must be true if he were to exist. Like you said "He can do whatever the hell he wants, he’s god." Heck, if mathematics can explain the square root of a negative number using a whole new number system with imaginary numbers to find real answers, why can't God pull of something similar?

    ReplyDelete
  18. Here, get your head out of math and think about reality for a moment. Mathematics will not help you, simply because you are making incorrect assertions.

    First off, ∞ is not a number. A real mathematician would throw the question out the window, it's unknowable if an force of ∞ can lift a mass of ∞. You want to know why? Because the mass is a countable infinity and the force is not! They are not equal, and not all infinities have the same size anyways. You are just making random BS up. Not only that, but infinity doesn't exist, using things that don't exist to match things that supposedly exist doesn't really make sense... in reality you just showed they both don't really exist (infinity doesn't exist, what you are representing with it doesn't exist).

    How does claiming omnipotence cannot exist make the CONCEPT of infinity not exist? If you really know mathematics, you would know INFINITY in the context of a number system DOES NOT exist. Way to prove you know squat about what you are saying. Let me explain to you, omnipotence and infinity(number system) are both concepts, and both don't actually exist. A real mathematician would know this.

    .

    And I already gave the answer, did you even read the article? Or are you just illiterate? Did you only make it halfway down the page? Only read the comments? Perhaps your literacy isn't much greater than your mathematics. Hmmm...

    Let's give it basic step chart:
    a) god is omnipotent (omnipresent as well).
    b) god exists everywhere that can exist.
    c) god can create matter.
    d) god can create matter anywhere.
    e) god creates a rock molecule everywhere he exists.
    f) there is nowhere left to lift the rock, thus...
    god can create a rock so big that he cannot lift it. It's a very logical progression given omnipotence.

    .

    If I read your answer correctly, you just said god COULDN'T create a rock big enough he couldn't lift it, because he can always lift everything. He's not very omnipotent then. That is to say, his omnipotent lifting power? Top notch. His omnipotent rock creating power? Lacking.

    If I were to split up his "omnipotent" powers, and face them against each other, which one would win? Let's put it this way, unstoppable force vs an unmovable object will never really happen, because neither really exist. Can you plop that into mathematics and tell me why? Oh, if you use infinity, you just said it doesn't exist.

    .

    Oh, imaginary numbers? Excellent, I've already dealt with mathematical illiterates that make this stupid claim. Do you even know what an imaginary number is? So say with have 5i, that is 5 times the square root of negative one. There is no magic to it. 5i = square root of -25. A real problem cannot end with an imaginary number. Imaginary numbers are only transitional states, that help to simplify the problem and solve it. In reality, their is nothing funny about i. i is like any other variable. It works exactly the same.

    Imaginary is a misnomer. It works just like any other math. If you want to look up why it's called an imaginary number, go ahead, it has nothing to do with it being imaginary.

    So god do what? Put a bloody variable in a math equation to represent another number?

    .

    Now I'm going to assume your theist for a moment since you're defending them with utter BS...

    For that matter, did you pray to god for that answer? Or did you not? Did you just not trust him to give you the answer or did he not give it to you?

    ReplyDelete
  19. A thoughtful replyJuly 22, 2009 at 12:28 PM

    I can give you an answer that most Christians will give you instead of putting you off like your are a nuisance for even asking such a question. That kind of attitude is absurd from any Christian and is immoral even for an atheist.
    The best answer a Christian can give you is that Christ did not feel guilt because he was blameless of any sin. There is evidence of the fact that he did feel remorse for the misdoings of humanity, however. That is why he accepted his fate to hang on a cross and die-- that "whosoever believes in Him may have eternal life." The "Him" is not Jesus...the reference is to God the Father.
    One can ask why did the fire that came down and lit upon those near to Jesus touch all those but Jesus? Why did a dove instead land on Jesus? It is because he was pure of sin. Those around him were refined by the fire of the pentecost. Jesus needed no such refinement because he alone was perfect the Son of the one true God. The disciples were imperfect and needed refinement.
    Finally, if Jesus had not wanted to endure the pain of the cross, he could have simply performed a miracle and chosen not to sacrifice himself for the sins of the world. He healed the lame, cured the sick, even brought back to life a man who was once dead. His very birth was a miracle. You cannot deny that this man existed. May religions and countires across the world testified to his life. The miracles that were performed during his lifetime were mentioned in not only the Holy Bible, but are also verified in Muhammedian writings and even some Jewish writings. The only question is whether you choose to accept him or reject him.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Let me fix your comment:
    That kind of attitude is the norm from most Christians.

    Furthermore, an atheist would never say to shut up and read the Bible... I don't know how you think we would. Blind obedience is a tenant of religion.

    "immoral even for an atheist"
    is a completely baseless insult. I'll come out and say it instead of masking it like you are, you're a douche. You can be good without a god.

    .

    Your best answer sucks. First off, of course he felt guilt. If your saying god is beyond petty emotions such as anger, guilt and jealousy, I think you should read the old testament again. The whole notion of sacrificing himself says guilt all over it, "sorry I put you in such a f%@%#% up mess humans, I'll make it up to you."

    Emotions are not sin. That is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. Well, actually, I guess it's one of the most ridiculous things I've heard... Anyways, a common theme of Christianity is to say god is love, and if god is one petty human emotion, then he is all of them.

    All those miracles? Staged. They happened all the time during those ages. Who doesn't like a magic trick? He did no real miracles, all could easily be manipulated. Also, if you can't see the bloody BS symbolism of a dove to see how truly fake that was... Miracles were not verified either (how do you think BS writing verifies other BS writing?). Oh, somebody else read the Bible and put it in their book? WOW! Amazing. Now, if you don't regard Muhammedian writing as true (hence why your still Christian) then how do you expect us to believe you? For that matter, JEWISH writings would not verify the son of god... I mean, it's JEWISH for pete's sake.

    ReplyDelete
  21. A thoughtful replyJuly 22, 2009 at 2:08 PM

    "I’ll come out and say it instead of masking it like you are, you’re a douche. You can be good without a god."

    How would you know?

    For that fact, how would I know? I see no evidence of it IN YOUR writings. You are about the only atheist I have encountered. From what I know, you have trouble stringing sentences together without name-calling.

    Here is a little lesson for you. One can disagree without being disagreeable, young man.

    ReplyDelete
  22. ??? Really, do I?

    One name call, in reaction to your completely blatant insult.

    How would you know? Hmmm, I don't know, maybe by using your brain. You haven't encountered me either, not in person. In likely hood, you have met a lot of atheists, we just don't go around trumpeting this fact all over.

    By the way, from ALL of your replies, you haven't even given the faintest notion that you've actually read the article in the first place.

    Wait, I see you put another down, maybe then? I doubt it.

    ReplyDelete
  23. An answer to the paradox is that having a weakness, such as a stone he cannot lift, does not fall under omnipotence, since the definition of omnipotence implies having no weaknesses.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Asking God to create a stone which he cannot lift requires two things—an ability, and also a weakness: The ability to create the stone and the inability or weakness of not being able to lift it. The paradox essentially implies that God is not omnipotent because he does not have a weakness, when the definition of omnipotence is not having a weakness.

    If a being is essentially omnipotent, then it can also resolve the paradox (as long as we take omnipotence not to require absolute omnipotence). The omnipotent being is essentially omnipotent, and therefore it is impossible for it to be non-omnipotent. Further, the omnipotent being cannot do what is logically impossible. The creation of a stone which the omnipotent being cannot lift would be an impossibility, and therefore the omnipotent being is not required to do such a thing. The omnipotent being cannot create such a stone, but nevertheless retains its omnipotence. This solution works even with definition 2, as long as we also know the being is essentially omnipotent rather than accidentally so.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Does anybody read anything? Did you actually read the whole article or did you just read the first paragraph and quit?

    I'm going to say you read the first paragraph and quit.

    The article gives the answer, the problem has an answer that does not imply weakness. You would know this, huh, if you read the article.

    I gave a rock that god couldn't exist. You lose. You didn't read my article, so you lose even before you started your spew of BS.

    .

    No, you know what? Which is stronger? god's rock creating ability or his lifting? This isn't some trick question.

    Omnipotence cannot exist. Why? Simply because which omnipotent ability is better? If I were to split up his “omnipotent” powers, and face them against each other, which one would win? Let’s put it this way, unstoppable force vs an unmovable object.

    It can never happen though, there is no such thing as an unstoppable force, or an unmovable object. Just like their is no such thing as omnipotence.

    ReplyDelete
  26. The paradox is omnipotence itself, not the question.

    ReplyDelete
  27. well the fact is is that God can't create the rock; it is logically impossible no matter what you try and do. and I did read past the first paragraph; don't assume things like that. it's also not very helpful to show your point if you insult people. P

    Please clarify the statement "I gave a rock that god couldn’t exist, " because I have no idea what that means. I'm sorry if I seem so stupid to you.

    ReplyDelete
  28. One more thing--the reason your argument works is only because your definition is so strict in principle. I'm fairly sure that many other people would not agree to your definition. It is defined as "having virtually unlimited authority or influence" according to the m-w dictionary. "So he should be able to create an object so heavy that he cannot lift it." Unfortunately, that is not possibly logical, as it interferes with the original definition..."unlimited power." He can make an infinitely large object, and He can certainly carry it. I don't care about what you say about how stupid I am by not reading your post carefully, I read it...and I know that this is not a sound argument. There are many other ways to try and disprove our God, but this logic is certainly not one of them.

    I'm just wondering... is asking "Can God create a rock so heavy that even he cannot lift it?" the same as asking "Can God draw a square circle?" Or do you think that one question is better than the other?

    ReplyDelete
  29. Let us first simplify the problem, can god create a rock that he cannot lift.

    "Let’s give it basic step chart:
    a) god is omnipotent (omnipresent as well).
    b) god exists everywhere that can exist.
    c) god can create matter.
    d) god can create matter anywhere.
    e) god creates a rock molecule everywhere he exists.
    f) there is nowhere left to lift the rock, thus…
    god can create a rock so big that he cannot lift it. It’s a very logical progression given omnipotence."

    So it's impossible eh? I'm glad you agree omnipotence is a complete farce. No, the argument is completely logical. The base to the problem, however, isn't.

    Sorry, I meant I gave a rock that god could create that he couldn't lift. Or something along those lines.

    You keep saying it's impossible, how is it impossible? And no, quit thinking the problem is impossible, what is wrong with my answer? The reason why you have to focus on the problem, is because the moment you consider it a valid question, is the moment you lose your notion of omnipotence existing.

    .

    Now then, what is a necessity of lifting things? You have to have extra space to lift it to. If there is no space, you cannot lift it. The rock given, cannot be lifted.

    By the way, it interferes with the unlimited power, because UNLIMITED POWER DOESN'T EXIST. Unlimited power, is a paradox.

    You have this notion that omnipotence cannot be questioned. That god cannot be questioned. And this just isn't true.

    Your arguing an argument I already called a cop out IN THE ARTICLE. Saying the problem is invalid ignores the issue. Furthermore, I gave the answer to the problem THAT DOESN'T discredit omnipotence, so the question IS VALID.

    It's not the same as asking can god draw a square circle. A square circle doesn't exist. In the question, can god create a rock that he cannot lift, god has omnipotent rock making capabilities and omnipotent lifting abilities are both posed as true parts of the question. I can pose the question like this: can god lift every rock he can create? And the answer is no.

    Quick setup:
    a) You argue the question must give an answer that highlights a weakness.
    b) I answered the question with an answer that DOESN'T highlight a weakness.
    c) Your argument does NOT stand.

    Any questions?

    ReplyDelete
  30. A thoughtful replyJuly 22, 2009 at 7:54 PM

    And if the universe is not all there is out there for God to work with spacewise? It used to be that people believed only in heaven and earth. Then they figured out solar systems. Then they figured out the idea of blackholes, etc. Maybe--just maybe, there is more to be discovered yet, that even you cannot pretend to comprehend.

    --and yes, Child, I read your silly article.

    It was well-written. Although the pomposity of the writer's voice tends to distract from the ideas presented. While I give you kudos for trying so hard to convince people that there is no God, I give you sympathy as well. Your efforts would be better spent trying to save those children in Ghana than toiling at breaking down others' belief systems. One actually profits someone in the end, the other just makes you look sad and pitiful. Why don't you try being productive with your talents instead? It would be a much better use of your intellect.

    ReplyDelete
  31. first, i don't believe it's a complete farce.

    second, i'm fairly sure if you lift the universe, you're lifting the rock. scientific theories have gone to explain that it IS possible, but that's not even the my main argument.

    finally, i don't think that your model of a rock that is impossible to lift is what the original philosophers believed in. for the fact is, God is not matter, so he can really do what he wants. (you won't like that reply, but it's a feasible but unfair stop-all).

    please stop trying to reply with same answers as you've given to previous people. it shows little insight, and unlike you, i am offering new information.

    a infinitely large rock does not exist, if i'm mistaken, because there is limited space in the universe, then. that makes your previous arguments false and the fact that you are hopping on two stones to beat one topic.

    ReplyDelete
  32. i don't pretend to comprehend. I leave it up to God to explain it all.

    ReplyDelete
  33. A thoughtful replyJuly 22, 2009 at 8:00 PM

    I like it!

    ReplyDelete
  34. A thoughtful replyJuly 22, 2009 at 8:07 PM

    How can you use my brain?

    ReplyDelete
  35. Typically I only like to debate with grown adults, but I'll make it EXTRA easy for you to understand okay?

    Is god not omnipresent? It doesn't matter if there is more than the universe to work with space-wise, god exists there and can create a rock molecule there no? I do appreciate you arguing against god's omnipresence, but you need to keep in mind everything omnipotence means. Here, I might as well give the step chart here again:
    “Let’s give it basic step chart:
    a) god is omnipotent (omnipresent as well).
    b) god exists everywhere that can exist.
    c) god can create matter.
    d) god can create matter anywhere.
    e) god creates a rock molecule everywhere he exists.
    f) there is nowhere left to lift the rock, thus…
    god can create a rock so big that he cannot lift it. It’s a very logical progression given omnipotence.”

    You did read my article? Well finally. I'm going to say you haven't before now. Because I've asked that for months. The only actual response you've given at all has been your first paragraph.

    .

    My talents are being put to use. It would be amazing to find that I can do more things than one. I can reverse the question: your time could be better spent than... I don't even know why your commenting actually in the first place.

    The benefits of doing this is greater than your first assumption. Pursuing further knowledge by debating and presenting my ideas and thoughts actually have benefits.

    ReplyDelete
  36. So there is space that god doesn't exist or space that god can't create rock molecules in? Lift the universe to where? You made the same argument as AThoughtfulReply just did, which is kind of funny.

    No, your reply is not valid. He can do what he wants eh? So he can create a rock he cannot lift?

    You aren't offering new information, and in fact, I gave you a response not given to others, which you have not refuted.

    If an infinitely large rock cannot exist, than an omnipresent god that can create rocks cannot exist. Second, there is not limited space in the universe. There is limited known space in the universe. Space is considered to be infinite.

    What's wrong with the step this:
    “Let’s give it basic step chart:
    a) god is omnipotent (omnipresent as well).
    b) god exists everywhere that can exist.
    c) god can create matter.
    d) god can create matter anywhere.
    e) god creates a rock molecule everywhere he exists.
    f) there is nowhere left to lift the rock, thus…
    god can create a rock so big that he cannot lift it. It’s a very logical progression given omnipotence.”
    If you cannot give something wrong with it, then you should quit replying. Your dodging the question.

    ReplyDelete
  37. A thoughtful replyJuly 22, 2009 at 8:14 PM

    Why don't you trumpet the fact that you're an atheist? ohhhhh! I get it! You are not out of the closet yet. You are either afraid to tell the ones you love that you are an atheist because you do not want to dissappoint them. ORRRRR You yourself are not proud of of your belief in atheism.

    I am proud of the fact that I am a practicing Christian. In fact, I love to talk with people about my religion and theirs, too. Just like I am proud to be an American, I am proud of my religious beliefs.

    You should be too. Or do you know something way down deep inside you would like to share with the world. I bet I know! I bet you really want to be a Christian. No problem! Just start reading The Bible, go to a church, and start talking to God! There are your first baby steps.

    ReplyDelete
  38. ???

    Have you grown retarded in the last half hour?

    It means I don't go around making a big deal of religious beliefs, because in the grand scheme it doesn't matter. Like I don't have atheist tattoos(do those exist?), where atheist necklaces(again, do those exist?), and so forth. It's not a conversation starter, it doesn't need to be.

    Because it doesn't need to be. Your proud to be an American? And what exactly does that mean for that matter? How and what makes you proud?

    Going around, talking about your religious beliefs by the way is the sign of a prick.

    For that matter, your BS religion failed.
    http://www.heavingdeadcats.com/testimonial/gmnightmare/

    ReplyDelete
  39. A thoughtful replyJuly 22, 2009 at 8:27 PM

    OH He will, on Judgement Day! When GMNightmare is trying to argue in front of God about mass and space and the time coninuum and all that malarky . . .even Jesus won't be able to defend him then. It will be out of paradise with him. Poor guy. All the guy's gotta do is have faith, do good works, and just be nice. But he wants to argue the point of God's exisitence. Sad, really.

    ReplyDelete
  40. He certainly has explained anything now has he?

    A thoughtful reply, you have become a troll. You have nothing more productive to say, then you should go.

    Correcting your argument, all anybody has to do is believe for your religion. It doesn't require anything else. Which is why many Christians like yourself are not nice and don't do good works. I already told you hiding insults is worse then coming out with them.

    As I already said to you:
    "And I don’t take a risk with my eternity. There are THOUSANDS of religions, not just yours. Furthermore, I make a bet that actions are louder than just a stupid belief. If their is a god, he will judge by how well we live our life, not because I believe in him just in case so that I can get out of hell. What a ridiculous reason to belief, and how shallow for that matter too."
    I am willing to bet, you severely got it wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  41. A thoughtful replyJuly 22, 2009 at 9:19 PM

    You don't believe in God to keep from going to hell. Believing in God is also about having a relationship with the being that gives you purpose in life. Truly, you judge me not by my works, but because you do not like what I have to say. What do you know of my works?

    As for these thousands of religions, they worhsip false idols.

    "If their is a god, he will judge by how well we live our life"--- Besides needing to correct the grammar and spelling in this sentence, there is not much else wrong with it except the word IF.

    You know, you would be so much easier to like if you weren't so snarly in all of your responses. I mean really, do you have to call people names in your comments to get your point across? It really is not a good work befitting a proper atheist. It won't help you on judgement day .

    ReplyDelete
  42. Now you don't believe in god to keep you from going to hell, yet you constantly bring it up as a consequence?

    Hypocritical? Yes. You seem to focus a lot on that.

    And since you can't seem to quit bringing it up, yes, you do believe because otherwise you'll go to hell. This is obvious. Your words mean nothing, your actions have it written all over it. You yourself may not notice it now, but when you try to get out... That's when you'll face your terrible fear.

    .

    I also don't judge you. I don't know you. It may surprise you, but I'm incredibly different in person than online. It works that way, for everybody.

    .

    What's wrong with if? If there is a god, he will judge by how we live, not some stupid weak belief. What about multiple gods hm? You seem to deny EVERY OTHER GOD/S... Yet can't make the same conclusion about your own. You make the same statement, except it's like this: "If no other gods but mine exists..." or along those lines.

    You are trolling. If you didn't know, posting irrelevant or off-topic is your basic definition of a troll. In all your posts, you have made ONE paragraph that really covered the article, that's it.

    And don't kid yourself, you are making insulting remarks. I'm not stupid, I can tell an insult. Insults don't have to be direct, in the situation today, you are actually the first to do so. So... you should look in a mirror.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Please don't criticize my intelligence. That's Ad Hominem (yes, I can read and I have read this section of the site. Very useful in making arguments). I have read your article fully and acknowledge your arguments. They're quite valid actually and surely shined some light on some misunderstandings on mathematics I had. It was wrong of me to imply that you displayed arrogance.

    Perhaps my thoughts may not nearly be as smart as yours and you may feel obliged to trample down on uneducated heathens that you group me with. However, this does not give you the right to call me illiterate.

    Let's talk about your logic progression. I agree with it right until letter f.

    Using the theoretical concept of infinity (since it can't be real), God will always be able to find a space to lift the rock to. Consider the Paradox of Hilbert's Hotel. A hotel is full and has an infinite number of guests and an infinite number of rooms. However, the hotel is always able to fit more guests even though it is full (see http://www.suitcaseofdreams.net/Paradox_Hotel.htm ).

    Now let's think about our God thing. The whole universe is full with rock; an infinite number of spaces has been filled with an infinite amount of rock. Yet, using the arithmetic property of infinity, we can always add more rock to this universe. Therefore, is it not fair to say that there must also be an infinite amount of vacant spaces for rock too?

    However, that all probably means nothing I bet. My main problem with your argument is that it implies an omnipotent God can be all-powerful and not at the same time. Please deconstruct this for me: http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/rock.html

    ReplyDelete
  44. For a Christian god, omnipotence is very much claimed:
    "Luke 1:37: For with God nothing shall be impossible."
    This is of course much more as well:
    http://www.rationalresponders.com/the_omnis_the_bible_assertions_of_the_christian_gods_omnipotence_omniscience
    You're actually the first I've heard say that, you took me by surprise. Omnipotence is absolute. You're either omnipotent, or your not. There is nothing greater than omnipotence, and there is no halfway there or partly omnipotence.

    Mathematical concepts, again, won't help when dealing with this. As I am using omnipresence in the claims:
    b) god exists everywhere that can exist.
    e) god creates a rock molecule everywhere he exists.
    If you say there is somewhere where rock does not exist to be lifted to, then god does not exist there and thus he's not omnipresent.

    The flaw here, is arithmetic property to represent this information. Infinity plus infinity is still represented as infinity to us. The problem posed has a flaw as well, it states the hotel is full. If the hotel is full, it can fit no more guests, it therefore cannot be full. I can also argue instead, that when the hotel is full and extra guests come in, the number in the hotel doesn't change. As in, say one guest comes, their will always be one guest not in a room at any given time(transitioning). Therefore, the infinite hotel never accommodates more than that first infinity with the extra amount always transitioning.

    Thus, we come back to the problem. There is no ability to transition, nowhere to transition to. Rock cannot be added in this scenario.

    Omnis don't really agree with each other.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Fair enough. I see your point.

    I'm fairly liberal in my beliefs in Christianity and questioning is always good to build faith.

    God could still retain his omnipotent qualities if we consider his omniscience property. Since God knows all there is to know and what there is to come, then he cannot possibly contradict himself into non-existence. It is not by inability that he doesn't create the rock or lift it, it is by will.

    I suppose that my final answer to all this would be: Yes, God could create that rock he couldn't lift but at the price of his omnipotence.

    Anything more I add will only be a Red Herring (if not, what I am saying already is) so... yeah, that's about it!

    ReplyDelete
  46. Consider again, that my answer doesn't call into question omnipotence. It answers it, with omnipotence still logically existent(in regards to the problem)...

    There is no trap. There are no gotchas. There is NO contradiction here. But the outcry from religious still remains the same... One of the questions, is why is that? When faced with an answer that they want, what holds them back?

    The reason is, what that means for any of the other omnipotence problems. By admitting that the question is valid, it figuratively means death by the others.

    This also isn't a question of what if, it's a question of possibility. So saying god wouldn't do that, is irrelevant. Again, the answer I gave, doesn't remove his omnipotence or contradicts it.

    .

    On consideration of omniscience, he wouldn't have a will. He does everything, because he knows everything should be done. And everything is done, because he knew he would do it. god doesn't have choice, everything is already written. He will do what he knows he will do, and he already knows what he will do.

    For other considerations on that though...
    http://www.heavingdeadcats.com/2009/07/23/how-you-can-know-there-is-no-god/

    ReplyDelete
  47. I'm going to post one last time, just because I know this is useless to continue arguing; everyone wants the last say.

    Contrary to your belief, I DO try and do good works; not because God forces me to, but because I to show His grace and the fact that I know I am not worthy of God's forgiveness.

    Our arguments here are so useless for the main reason that there are much smarter people than me to explain this fallacious reasoning to you. Putting it simply. if this "logical" reasoning was perfect in denying God, then the most qualified people would have used it, such as Richard Dawkins. The reason why he doesn't use this? It has so many weak areas that I can't explain to you simply because I guess I don't have the communication skills. This makes you the winner against me, but not the winner against all debate. And seriously, if this argument were perfect, pretty much every atheist logician or scientist would use it. Unfortunately, they don't, meaning they must all think that this is a useless argument or a weak one.

    I'm sorry if I seemed to have insult you in many ways. I really do apologize if I have seemed hostile. All I wanted to do was show that your logic was a bit flawed in your use of a syllogism (where you changed the conditions in order to fit the syllogism, not vice versa), and maybe I'm not worthy of speaking on that end. Again, I just hope that you understand where I'm coming from and don't think I'm deluded just for believing in it...after all, if men such as John Lennox belief in what I think is the truth, then I believe that it can't be that easy to be shut down.

    ReplyDelete
  48. Sorry if you concluded that I was replying to you, only the first sentence of that was targeted to you. The rest, was to AThoughtfulReply... which is a rather hard name to respond to without people thinking I just said probably a sarcastic remark.

    Trying and doing is different, I'm using your core belief that everybody sins all the time against you here... but again, that really wasn't to you.

    Nobody smarter than you will be able to explain this away. Although you may think you've just stumbled onto something old, you haven't. MANY have tried, and none succeed. They use the same arguments you are using. There is no development in theistic arguments, it's the same across the board, no ingenuity.

    First off, Richard Dawkins does use logical reasoning in denying god. Why do you think otherwise? I don't actually read his works, but I have found a few articles covering some of it. He uses logic, again, why do you think otherwise? Logic doesn't have any weak areas, you want to know why? It's based upon intelligence and reasoning, it is the strongest and most evident. The actual weakest of human thought, is faith. In actuality, you use logic for your faith even though your supposed to only have faith. Logic rules the human mind, it doesn't have to be correct logic.

    Oh, and some people have ingenuity. Like me. I made the argument. All arguments start somewhere, and I'm starting this one. It's not like they need to make it, or in fact, since most of you couldn't even understand the argument in the first place... But for logic being an argument? Every debater uses it. How do you think otherwise really? I don't even understand how you can say that and think it's true.

    Also, I didn't use a syllogism. Omnipotence implies omniscience, omnipotence is the king of all omniabilities. I didn't change conditions. Nothings changed. You tried to argue the question is invalid, when in reality, it is completely valid.

    And that's the problem really... thinking that you can't ask questions.

    ReplyDelete
  49. A thoughtful replyJuly 23, 2009 at 10:32 AM

    This comment you have made, smells with arrogance. It must be hard to be so humble when you are perfect in every way! Pride goeth before the fall. But when you fall, don't worry, we will be there to catch you and help you back up.

    ReplyDelete
  50. The comment I have made?!?

    Are you serious? I stated facts. Even if some arrogance was present, it does not match you, the king.

    Your 4 sentence paragraph reeks more of arrogance than all of mine put together.

    Humble? Humble about what? Who said I was perfect? Pride? Pride in what? Fall? And why would I go to you when I fall?

    No, see here you have a paragraph, stating that no matter logistics, no matter what happens or anybody says, or even with evidence that you are wrong staring you in the face; you are saying you are right. That, is arrogance. That is pride. And ugly pride at that. A very, very ugly selfish pride.

    And again, I'm not some baby that every time something goes wrong I have to go crying to some invisible being to make things right so I don't have to do it. I don't work that way. Just because you are, doesn't mean you get to inflect your nature onto others. I'm quite capable handling hardships by myself thank you. Do you just not understand that? Have you lost all capability to live your own life and have to think somebody else is controlling it for you?

    ReplyDelete
  51. to answer your question, NO. God cannot create something greater than himself, because he is almighty...logically speaking is your almighty, all powerful then nothing greater than you can exist....as far as the universe goes...God is the Universe, He is All things, cuz all things came forth out of him...he is existance itself...He is Life.... He is power....He is the force that animates moves the universe and time itself...the reason God uses human emotions in his word the Bible is to identify with us because we're human and we only understand things based on human logic and human understanding...we as humans dont even fully comprehend the things we can see, let alone things we can't...Logically explain the existance of the Pyramids...aparently with all our logic and advancements in science, we still dont understand how they were made....you see our reasoning and logic is incomplete....we have to admit that we are limited....that there exist someone who is not....

    ReplyDelete
  52. Another one who didn't read anything.

    Congratulations, you've proven the depth of your ignorance.

    Was the question can god create something greater than himself? No. The question was not. You lose. In both reading comprehension and actual argumentative skills.

    Come back when you can actually read well enough to comprehend what the bloody hell you're even saying.

    ReplyDelete
  53. Wow do you read what you write, or did you even read my answer?
    It was simple, I guess it wasn't explained deep enough for you. I'll try again, to shed light on your depth of ignorance.
    Question: Can God create something too heavy for him to lift?

    Answer: No he can't

    reason: He himself is the creation...unstoppable force, and an unmovable object are both at the same time God...which makes him Omnipotent.

    I'm sure with your limited reasoning abilities, and your incomplete logic you still want get it...

    the difference is you only have unanswered Questions, but fail to admit that you don't know, so you attempt to reason logically. the problem is your not that smart. You can't deny that there are things beyound your logic. If you had an answer for everything you would be the omnipotent God...lol have a good day bro....hope you find the truth....I hope we all find the truth...

    ReplyDelete
  54. Can god create a rock that he cannot lift?
    The answer is, YES!

    First off, learn to reply to the right comments and sections.
    Second, READ THE BLOODY ARTICLE FIRST.

    You didn't even pass the first paragraph did you? No. You didn't. You simply assumed what was said. Your original post is complete BS, it doesn't apply at all.

    I have the answer for this question. And I gave it. You gave no logical response, even though I posed the answer in the article. It is already done, the question is not beyond logic, and the answer is YES.

    “Let’s give it basic step chart:
    a) god is omnipotent (omnipresent as well).
    b) god exists everywhere that can exist.
    c) god can create matter.
    d) god can create matter anywhere.
    e) god creates a rock molecule everywhere he exists.
    f) there is nowhere left to lift the rock, thus…
    god can create a rock so big that he cannot lift it. It’s a very logical progression given omnipotence.”

    You AREN'T making an argument. You're just saying no, your reason doesn't even back it! It's just completely random BS that you think seems to defend your answer, it doesn't.

    ReplyDelete
  55. I did read the article and as you say its all random BS, and your answer is wrong.
    NO God cannot create a rock too heavy for him to lift.

    “Let’s give it basic step chart:
    a) God is omnipotent (omnipresent as well).
    b) God exists everywhere that can exist.
    c) God can create matter and space
    d) God can create matter and space anywhere
    e) God creates a rock molecule everywhere he exists.
    f) then God creates more space and lifts the rock …
    god can create a rock so big that he must create more space because his is God so he can lift it. It’s a very logical progression given omnipotence.”

    its simple u see...lol Ive filled in missing details to your chart in order for you to reach the proper conclusion...
    did you even read my so called BS....or did you stop after i disagreed with you....read it again....this time read it out loud so you can hear how more logical it is than your conclusion...

    God Bless...really though man study the bible first then make your assumptions....remember study the bible not religion....the words of God shall enlighten you with true knowledge, instead of your incomplete charts and limited reasoning....
    God is true and every man is a Liar

    ReplyDelete
  56. ...

    Wow, how absolutely ignorant. Space is nothing understand?

    But let's take what you are saying. Your saying god can create nothing. Incredible. How do you create nothing? You don't. He'd have to remove some rock to lift it. But before he "created" the space, is the rock unliftable? YES. You therefore did not change the answer, it is YES as the rock is unliftable before he "creates" nothing. For that matter, you argue against his omnipresence using that logic, how about you think of what you said?

    Your conclusion is not logical at all. You just spout religious BS. You don't even comprehend what you are saying. Just a bunch of illogical babble about how god is so great and so fabulous, which doesn't support your point at all. I did study the Bible, the conclusion is it's all BS, maybe you should do the same.
    http://www.heavingdeadcats.com/testimonial/gmnightmare/

    ReplyDelete
  57. There are a lot of rather good arguments for atheism. This does not happen to be one of them. It is really very old and has been discredited strongly and famously, in various forms, since the 12th Century or so.

    In short, your question is equivalent to asking "Can God make a square circle." Against the hypothesis of omnipotence (which if taken anthropomorphically would mean that God could move any rock no matter how heavy, meaning God could move an infinitely heavy object), you are now challenging whether God could make an object the weight of which is greater than infinity, which means you are asking for a number greater than infinity, which is as contradictory (by definition) as asking for a square circle to be made. There is nothing there to be done, just as in the senseless combination of words "square circle" there is nothing there to be made.

    For better atheistic arguments, maybe check out Jean-Paul Sartre, or Daniel Dennett.

    ReplyDelete
  58. My goodness. Did you even read it or did you stop at the first sentence? Do I have to deal with this again?

    No, my question isn't equivalent to asking if god can make a square circle. As I have shown, the problem is answerable. IE, a rock can exist that god cannot lift, if given that god is omnipotence and thus omnipresent... except, you didn't read it did you? Thus you don't know.

    Weight, actually has nothing to do with the answer. Sorry, maybe I should just call the question "Can god create a rock that he cannot lift?" so that people like you read past the first sentence maybe?

    I'll give you the same thing as everybody else, a nice, simple, easy little list so your head doesn't explode with all the words:

    “Let’s give it basic step chart:
    a) god is omnipotent (omnipresent as well).
    b) god exists everywhere that can exist.
    c) god can create matter.
    d) god can create matter anywhere.
    e) god creates a rock molecule everywhere he exists.
    f) there is nowhere left to lift the rock, thus…
    god can create a rock so big that he cannot lift it. It’s a very logical progression given omnipotence.”

    ReplyDelete
  59. Sir, you are not dealing with this "again".... you never dealt with it in the first place, rather you are making ad hominem attacks. I think you won't win converts to your cause that way.

    ReplyDelete
  60. No, I didn't make any ad hominem attacks, unfortunately, you've said absolutely nothing worthwhile. If you're going to argue against what I said, you need to do it proper, like, say why I'm wrong. You have clearly shown you did not read my article.

    Again, there is nothing wrong with the question. The question "Can god create a rock that he cannot lift" is answerable non paradoxically, it is not asking to make a square round.

    It therefore, was not actually discredited, because they did not realize it had an answer, and I gave it. I suggest, again, that you read things before you jump to conclusions.

    Furthermore, yes, I did have to deal with the argument already. But I'm sure you don't realize that, the 50 posts above yours already contains your argument, by a person who also didn't read the article. So yes, I'm dealing with it again.

    You have made no argument.
    The answer to "Can god create a rock he cannot lift" is yes.

    Oh, also, not trying to "win converts". +1 fail to you for assuming my intentions.

    ReplyDelete
  61. Alright - if anyone actually reads this, aside from all the arguments, I'll be surprised. But don't expect a reply - I don't really want to spend all my time coming back to this site.

    Here's my two cents. About God's Omnipotence - you have not proven it wrong in the slightest. Even though he logically can't create a burrito so hot he can't eat it. It's impossible - I know. I admit it.

    But here's why - He also can't create something he can't create. Just like you can't. Why? It's not because He is limited in what He can and cannot do. It's because the proposition itself denies any answer.

    I could take the same structure of sentence and make something else appear equally ridiculous.

    "Can a genius pass any test, even a test he cannot pass?"

    "Can a person read anything, even words he cannot read?"

    You might as well say "Can God do anything, even things He cannot do?"

    The answer of course, is no. Because it's mutually exclusive language. If you really can do anything, then there's nothing you cannot do. It's a language problem, not a problem with omnipotence.

    From http://skepticsplay.blogspot.com/2008/09/bad-argument-gods-burrito.html:

    ""
    In our language, "uneatable" is defined as the negation of "eatable", so they simply cannot be paired to describe any possible object. The flaw is not in God, but in our language (if you call it a flaw).

    Let us formulate the argument more formally.

    1. Definition: God is omnipotent.
    2. Definition: An omnipotent object can do anything.
    3. Conclusion: If God exists, he can create an uneatable burrito.
    4. Conclusion: If God exists, he can eat any burrito.
    5. Conclusion: If God exists, there can exist a burrito that is both eatable and uneatable.
    6. Definition: An object that is uneatable is not eatable.
    7. Conclusion: God does not exist.
    ""

    If omnipotence exists, to say it doesn't exist because it can't be constrained is not a proof of it's non existence - it's just saying that omnipotence really is omnipotent.

    Can God make a round square? Of course not - they're mutually exclusive.

    The argument does not prove God is not omnipotent. It rather proves that He is logical. And that is a pretty good thing to have in an omnipotent being, wouldn't you think so? I don't know how God could exist if he wasn't logical.

    There's a lot of good evidence for God out there. There are a lot of smart people who believe in Him. Many of them simply don't spend time reading blogs such as this. God love you guys - I realize you may ridicule that, but it's got to be said. It's true!

    I would really recommend that you look a little deeper into questions before ranting and raving and poking holes at Christians. Much of the internet atheists "victories" come from a lack of information and a lack of investigation into the opponents arguments. I guess it's a problem with our society, really - But anyway, hopefully that helped.

    To the author of this site - if you'd like to email me, feel free (assuming you can retrieve that from this comment?). But I probably won't be back for a discussion or argument.

    ReplyDelete
  62. My god, do people not even read the article? Did you understand that I answered the question, that the question was not illogical, that the question was completely answerable?

    No, my question isn’t equivalent to asking if god can make a square circle. As I have shown, the problem is answerable. IE, a rock can exist that god cannot lift, if given that god is omnipotence and thus omnipresent…

    “Let’s give it basic step chart:
    a) god is omnipotent (omnipresent as well).
    b) god exists everywhere that can exist.
    c) god can create matter.
    d) god can create matter anywhere.
    e) god creates a rock molecule everywhere he exists.
    f) there is nowhere left to lift the rock, thus…
    god can create a rock so big that he cannot lift it. It’s a very logical progression given omnipotence."

    The whole bloody point is that you guys cannot think for yourselves. The moment you face a problem like that, you immediately think there must be something wrong with that, simply because it might conflict with your view of god.

    You see, the problem is you did exactly what I said you would do in the article. Even though I posed it was already wrong, even though I then gave you the correct answer to the problem, and even though you should have supposedly known the answer if you followed instructions and prayed to god for the answer (since it did, indeed, have an answer).

    Did you even read the article, or stop at the first sentence like the other cases right above you that floundered with such weak arguments such as yours? There is zero evidence for god out there besides personal anecdotes (which isn't evidence), and if you think you have otherwise show it because nobody else has in the world.

    "I would really recommend that you look a little deeper into questions before ranting and raving and poking holes at" questions you assumed the answer to and were flat out wrong.

    Oh, and maybe think for your bloody self for once, if you have to quote from overused propaganda websites against completely unique arguments such as the one I posted, please, just refrain.

    ReplyDelete
  63. Dear GM Nightmare,

    Let me begin by stating that I have read carefully your entire article, and every comment and reply that followed, both from you and from everyone else. Next I would like to agree with certain users that you would be a much more effective debater if you did not personally attack those to whom you are writing. I believe your original question has been answered correctly many times in different ways. It seems that you are married to your own answer and to your own wit and will not accept any other answer. Now, to my own personal response:

    God, being Almighty, can move anything that God creates [avoiding any pronouns here]. Therefore, once God has created it, there is no object he cannot move. Thus, theoreretically [please excuse the spelling], God can create an an immovable object, but God can move it because God is God. "I am who I am." Exodus 3:14

    ReplyDelete
  64. First, I wouldn't be a "much more effective debater"... that's baseless, you have no authority to make such a claim. Furthermore, I haven't personally attacked anybody who didn't personally attack me first. Now my article is a little rough, but, if you already read all the comments you would know this, I want to revise it anyways. But back on track...

    Let me grasp your answer, so your saying that the answer to "can god create a rock so big that he cannot lift it." is NO. In other words, god CANNOT create a rock so big that he cannot lift it. Now we go on.

    Sorry, it is not immovable if god can move it.

    What is so hard about that to get? What part of the definition of immovable do you not get? Reread the fourth paragraph, you are that person.

    I have provided you a completely logical and easy answer. Yet you ignore it, to make up some BS answer like that?

    No, god couldn't move my theoretical rock, the infinite rock that fills the whole universe. Because it takes up all the space in the universe, and there would be nowhere for god to lift it to.

    No, backup your answer. How would god move my theoretical rock? Surely if you ignored my response, you have the answer to that yes? Something must be wrong with my answer for you to boldly claim that right?

    “Let’s give it basic step chart:
    a) god is omnipotent (omnipresent as well).
    b) god exists everywhere that can exist.
    c) god can create matter.
    d) god can create matter anywhere.
    e) god creates a rock molecule everywhere he exists.
    f) there is nowhere left to lift the rock, thus…
    god can create a rock so big that he cannot lift it. It’s a very logical progression given omnipotence.”

    There you go, there is the basic steps, change it to make your answer logically work.

    "Jonny can create an immovable object, but Jonny can move it because Jonny is Jonny." Good supporting argument there, you ever heard of circular reasoning?

    ReplyDelete
  65. Dear GM Nightmare,

    Thank you for correcting my spelling, and I acknowledge the point that it was lazy not to look up the correct spelling. Forgive me for not addressing your responses to my assessment - that was just my personal opinion.
    Now then, I suppose I made a mistake in not explaining that I believe my God exists outside of physical space - ie, because God is not corporeal, God does not occupy physical space. Therefore God can move the universe (and space) itself. What I meant by being able to move an immovable object is that God can do things outside of the realm of human understanding. Because your rock exists inside the universe, by moving the universe God has moved the rock. There are, by the way, other forms of movement besides translation. There is also rotational and vibrational motion. Just food for thought. Thank you for remaining respectful, D.J.

    ReplyDelete
  66. Ahem, I didn't correct your spelling.

    If god does not occupy physical space, then he is not omnipresent. Are you now saying he's not omnipresent?

    In any space he can thus be, he supposedly can create matter there. Are you saying that he cannot create rocks in this other space?

    Space is nothing. I mean it's nothing, really. It's absolutely nothing, the complete absence of matter... IE, he cannot move it, because there is nothing to move. You can't do anything, with nothing. It's nothing.

    Other forms of movement are not lifting, rotation is not lifting. Vibrational motion is translational movement under your terms.

    .

    If god can move it, it's not immovable, case closed. There are no exceptions. If you are saying god can move it, no matter the situation, no matter some other space that's not physical, it's not immovable.

    If god can move the rock there, he can create rock there. So anywhere you supposedly think god can move the universe to, he can create rock there. My answer stands, because I never tried to confine to this universe alone.

    Simply saying god can do things outside the realm of human understanding does nothing. It's completely self-defeating, if this action is outside the realm of human understanding how can you understand what you just said? You just said it was outside of understanding... Do you understand?

    ReplyDelete
  67. I must say, (in my opinion) this is the best response I have seen yet. You may not have dirrectly corrected my spelling, but you spelled it correctly in your response - I learned something, so thank you. I still argue that space itself can be moved. If you have a container with a vaccuum, and you move the container, have you not also moved the vacuum, i.e. empty space? Not everything that exists occupies physical space - only matter does that. Energy exists, but does not occupy physical space. Perhaps God is a sentient energy - that seems plausible. Vibrational movement would not be considered translational motion because the net change in position is zero. I agree that if God can move it, then it is not an immovable rock. I still disagree with your answer, because my answer is that God cannot create an object that God cannot move, because the two are mutually exclusive. Besides, God can create more space, and create a rock there, and move the rock there. And no, I do not claim to understand God. Thank you for continuing to discuss this with me in a respectful tone. I really appreciate that (or apprecilove it as the Rastas say).

    ReplyDelete
  68. If you have a container with a vacuum, and you move the container, you are only moving the vacuum through space. IE, you aren't moving space, your moving everything else. This is important to understand. Space is not air, you aren't moving the space, you are moving through space. A vacuum simply blocks out other matter from an area... everything you see is composed mostly of space with very little matter, even atoms. When you move that vacuum, you aren't moving the space, you are pushing the outside atoms aside so you can move the container there, and other atoms take up the space you just left behind.

    Space cannot be moved. It's just simply nothing. And nothing cannot be created, it's nothing. I mean, what was there before you created nothing there? Nothing!

    Energy, also takes up physical space. Nearly impossible to measure, but some theories have got it down to 10^-44m. Infinitesimally small, but only in relation to scale. You also fail to take into account that matter IS energy.

    Vibrational movement still must start with movement, it has to move somewhere first, the net change may be zero, but movement has still occurred, hence why I claimed it the same thing in this aspect. I assumed of course you mean the whole rock vibrated.

    Note that with all we know of energy, claiming god to be sentient energy is very flawed. There is no reason to think that energy can be sentient, how or why makes little since, nor would it have any claim as how it then acts in unison if it can at all. Energy is finite resource for all we know, often claimed as such as well. It would also be directly notable and measured already, which hasn't happened. Theoretically, it practically kills notions that god is omnipotent, omnipresent, or even differentiates between actions. It makes about as much sense as claiming god is sentient weight.

    .

    Ignoring that god cannot create space, because god does not create nothing as it is the default, before god created space the rock was immovable. My answer therefore still stands, as for that moment he created an immovable rock.

    .

    Now, you need to understand that you are giving an answer that says, god cannot create an immovable object. Your answer is limiting god, mine is not.

    In other words, you are saying that god cannot create a rock molecule everywhere that can they can possibly exist. This limits god. He has some weakness in ability.

    My answer does not. Your logic goes that it's impossible to create an immovable rock because then god couldn't move it.

    But who said god has to be able to move immovable rocks? Nobody. Such arguments are silly, it's an IMMOVABLE rock. Omnipotence doesn't declare though shalt be able to move immovable objects.

    But where is this, god cannot create an immovable rock stemming from?

    I do not see where your logic stems from, I am missing this step, this step you guys are doing to make a claim that god must be able to move everything, thus he shouldn't be able to do other things.

    .

    I want to ask... how does my answer limit god in any possible way, or even remotely flawed in the step chart I have given you?

    ReplyDelete
  69. I say that God can create space. "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." Genesis 1:1. God created the universe and the planet Earth, just by thinking about it. I interpret the verse to mean before God did that, there was not even space. If there is a rock you cannot move on your own, and then you get more people or heavy machinery or a lubricant or dynamite or wheels or whatever...You have figured out a way to move the rock. The rock is not immovable. Therefore if God creates a rock that occupies every bit of space, then creates more space, then God has moved the rock. The rock is not immobile. Anyway, with your definition of vibrational energy, by vibrating the entire rock God could 'lift' it.

    Also, energy can be converted to matter, but the two are not the same. There is never a perfectly efficient conversion between the two, or even between two forms of energy. I know that energy can be measured in terms of frequency, wavelength, intensity, etc., but I did not know it can be measured in terms of occupying space. Do you still mean it can occupy space only in one dimension? I doubt that God is merely sentient energy, it was just a suggestion. I believe God is much more than that.

    And furthermore, since when does omnipotence 'declare' anything? I find it disrespectful for anyone to refer to God as 'thou' or to give God a command, being the familiar second-person pronoun, rather than the formal 'you'. Your answer limits God by saying there could exist an object God cannot move. I say God can move any object created.

    ReplyDelete
  70. How's this, stop saying space. Every single time you say space, instead say nothing. Can god create nothing? I don't think you quite get the concept. What was there before god created the nothing there? Nothing DOESN'T exist. Did that statement sound weird to you? Then your still thinking about it the wrong way.

    Nothing doesn't play by the rules. It's nothing.

    The heavens are not nothing. They are actually something, and so is the earth.

    "I interpret the verse to mean before God did that, there was not even space"
    So there was something there before that? What something was there? SPACE = NOTHING. If you are telling me that nothing wasn't there before that, then something was there.

    He created something, where there used to be nothing (space).

    And no, my definition of vibrational energy still makes the rock immovable. There MUST be space to vibrate! Do you understand that bit? To vibrate you must first move.

    You believe god is much more than that, then what is he? Do you even have backing support to even say that god isn't sentient energy, or are you just now throwing that away after what I said? Why would you suggest it, if you don't even believe it?

    .

    A rock that you cannot move on your own doesn't mean it's immovable in this discussion. We are talking absolute, the rock you are talking about was never immovable simply because a person couldn't move it.

    Let’s give it basic step chart:
    a) God is omnipotent (omnipresent as well).
    b) God exists everywhere that can exist.
    c) God can create matter and space
    d) God can create matter and space anywhere
    e) God creates a rock molecule everywhere he exists.
    f) THE ROCK IS IMMOVABLE AT THIS POINT. GOD HAS CREATED AN IMMOVABLE ROCK.
    g) then God creates more nothing and lifts the rock

    You're tacking on g to the end of my discussion, but it just really doesn't matter. At the one instantaneous point of time at f, the rock is immovable. If I give you a jar full with water, it's full with water, you can't add more water to it. Not, oh, I can make the jar bigger so it's not really full of water!

    It doesn't even make sense though, given that nothing (space) is typically considered infinite. So here's the other question, do you understand infinity? Infinity + 1 is nonsensical, which is what your basically trying to say.


    But again, you cannot create nothing, because nothing doesn't exist.

    .

    What do you mean perfectly efficient conversion? I'll assure you no energy is lost. Also, it is a perfect efficiency between forms. There is no such thing as occupying space in only one dimension, so all dimensions.

    .

    You are saying what omnipotence "declare". And I quote: "I say God can move any object created". You see? You are declaring what omnipotence declares. Also, thinking it's disrespectful is ludicrous. You may not take disrespect over something that has nothing to deal with you, you are not god, you do not get to say what is disrespectful. Even though it was nothing but metaphorical nonsense, god is supposed to be everything, so in a way every object reference in language refers to him. I'm not a believer, I do not have to show respect to your ideals.

    Do you even understand why I'm saying god cannot move it? Because there is NOWHERE to move it to! This should be a really easy concept to understand, so lets go back to the jar full of water. Even god cannot fill the jar with more water once it's full.

    Again, you need to show WHY my answer was wrong. Your making a blanket claim, I'm wrong just because you say so. Why are you such an authority of what god can and cannot do? You have yet to give a flaw of my basic chart, yet against all evidence to the contrary, still go about making brash claims without a single bit of backing!

    ReplyDelete
  71. As a tack on, other believers think it's disrespectful for you to call god god instead of g-d. I don't really see the whole bloody point, again, at taking disrespect at something so trivial and pointless.

    Taking offense at something in defense of a god is rather unfaithful. What, you don't think he can take care of himself? Please.

    ReplyDelete
  72. I sense that perhaps you are wearying of discussing this with me? I can relate. It seems we have very different perspectives on what the universe is and by what rules it operates. I am different than the concept of omnipotence - I think and a concept does not. You may not have to show respect for my beliefs, but understand that I do show respect for yours, out of recognition of your right to believe them and common courtesy. And physically speaking, God could pressurise the water inside the jar (or the rock inside the universe), thereby reducing its volume, and add more water or move it about. Unless the rock is solid and exhibits uniform density, then you are still right. Energy is transferred to the surroundings (as heat) in conversions between forms and conversions to matter, and visa-versa.

    One last question for you: If space is infinite, how can a rock occupy all of space? That would require a finite quantity of both rock and space, would it not?

    I did something unusual to-day. I prayed for you, that you will come to understand what your purpose is here, and hopefully "come to Jesus." I am no authority on God - I recall telling you that I do not understand God. I do know from what I have read, what I have been told, from what I have witnessed and experienced, that God has the power to save. Do your own research. You might be surprised by what you find.

    Love from,
    D.J.

    ReplyDelete
  73. And yes, that is a good point, and something I am aware of. I believe the reasoning behind not spelling out the full name is to avoid erasing it, in some Jewish tenet systems. I simply do my best not to erase the name, but do not see the point in implying a name - even a holy one - rather than saying it. I know that if I do make a mistake (ie sin), that God has the power to forgive me.

    ReplyDelete
  74. god isn't god's name, at least from the Bible. god has a name, and "god" is not it!

    ReplyDelete
  75. That was a good answer to my question, so let me more. How do you expect me to take you seriously when you disrespect me in this way? You seem to have a real hatred for believers. You seem to think that God is not intellectually plausible, and that those who believe in him do not think, or somehow posess less intelligence because of it. This is not true. Some very intelligent people believe, and some very intelligent people do not believe. It did surprise me to find that your background with the church was very similar to mine (very loose attendance) and yet we came to entirely separate conclusions. You claim that prayer will not work, yet seem very adamant against anyone praying for you. If it does not work, then why are you so against it? Are you afraid that it could affect a major change in your life? Are you indeed acknowledging the existence and power of the living God? What I am saying is that your strong reaction does not seem to support your espoused disbelief. God works on God's own timeline, in God's own ways. I do not lack faith - that is why I am risking my credibility with you, by telling you in advance. I believe that God can and will change your life for the better.

    ReplyDelete
  76. If you do not like the name 'God', try any of the other names that have been ascribed to God. In English, you have: LORD, Lord, King, Shephard, Wonderful Counselor, Almighty, Alpha and Omega, Jehova, Jah, etc. In Hebrew there are: El, El Shaddai, Eloha, Elohim, Eli, Adonai, YHWH, etc. In Arabic: Allah, etc.

    ReplyDelete
  77. You think your not showing any disrespect? Who said I have "real hatred" for believers. I don't at all, that is your own faulty logic coming to a completely erroneous response. Because I don't agree I must hate? Nay.

    I did not say god was intellectually possible here. I did in my deconversion story, but that is an entirely different matter. The thing is, you sit there and say oh, if only I thought for myself and came to my own conclusions... the thing is, I would never, ever, come up with the completely malevolent god of the Bible, nor the whacked up story of Jesus that is completely unsound and inefficient. You don't think for yourself, wake up, you simply follow the book. You really think your thinking on your own by following some words of a book? No. Most believers haven't even read the bible, or even understand that it says to kill nonbelievers on site and other absolutely atrocious things like that.

    Pantheism, is the end result of a believer coming to their own conclusion. It always is, if you did think for yourself and still believed, you would be form of a pantheist.

    .

    And who said I was adamant against people praying for me? I didn't, I did however point out how absolutely insulting it was for you to do so without even asking me. Or, how you used it to basically ignore what I said. I don't follow a religion of hate anymore.

    You do lack faith, or you wouldn't have said anything. There wouldn't have been any need, and your credibility flew out the window with all the others who "pray" for us. There prayers didn't work, why do you think your will? In fact, atheism was a positive change in my life, as well as most others. I have no need to go back to the religion that promotes absolute ignorance from the first chapter in their book.

    ReplyDelete
  78. Who said "I" did not like it. There is only one name in the english language for the Christian god, it is YHWH, the fact you think all those other titles are his name is ignorance.

    You haven't used it once in context of talking about god, so I quote:
    "implying a name – even a holy one – rather than saying it"
    is what you've been doing this whole conversation. Way to miss the point.

    ReplyDelete
  79. My quote was cut from my discussion with somebody else, because it's not easy to say. But...

    I'll say it again, since it still stands, your prayer:

    “Well, it isn’t thoughtful. It’s arrogant, it’s deceptive, and it’s downright nasty. Your intentions are not pure, coming into here and stating you’ll pray for us is no act of kindness. So did you ever take our feelings or consideration into mind in this? The answer is no, you didn’t. Because quite honestly, you just didn’t care before making an action you thought would intrude and change our lives. And what if we just quite frankly didn’t want that change?

    How many people do you think have said that? “I’ll pray for you”… you avoid the argument. Furthermore, why the hell are you praying for us and not somebody who needs it, uh, let’s say the starving children all over the world. Why post that you are praying for someone? Doesn’t that ruin it? What, you don’t have faith in your god? Certainly if you had true faith, you wouldn’t have said anything at all, your prayer would do the talking.

    You know what? How about you put your faith and mouth on the line. Go pray, go pray for us. Come back, and if nothing has changed, drop your pathetic faith like the lie it is. You’re not standing by your beliefs. A person who stands by their beliefs, is one who will put them on the line. I already posed the problem. If your prayer does not work, why won’t you give up your belief of prayer? So your prayer didn’t work. Are you going to change your belief now that you have direct proof it didn’t work? No? Then what’s the point? Why pray for me if it won’t work? Did you think it would work? Well, it didn’t. So now stop thinking it will work. Simple.”

    ReplyDelete
  80. Why should I have to ask you for permission to pray to my God? Why should it be insulting to you if you do not think it would work?

    It is not for you to say whether I have come to my own conclusion. You do not know me or where I come from, but you judge me as unthinking. You claim that no one has a right to ascribe a destiny to you, but you are assuming all sorts of things about what I have or have not thought about. You are assuming that I accept things without true thought. I repeat, you do not know me.

    I ask you know when I have been disrespectful to you? I sincerely apologise for any instances thereof, though it would help me to know what specifically insulted you. I do not hate you, God does not hate you, and my faith includes no hate for anyone.

    The tetragammaton (YHWH) is the Romanisation of the Hebrew term for the Almighty God. It is not an English word at all, although it has an anglicisation, "Jehova." The respect is more important than the title, my friend, and the faith even more important than respect.

    As for Pantheism, that takes no faith. That is religious physics. It is not a logical conclusion for me.

    Since we have gotten so far off the topic and into slurs and insults, do you agree that it is better to end our discussion?

    ReplyDelete
  81. Wait, you think you came to your own conclusion? Really? Sir, you came to the conclusion of the Bible, not your own. That is not your own conclusion. I did not judge you as unthinking, I said you don't think FOR YOURSELF, you follow a book on what to think. You decided on the words of others, you did not come to it yourself. Do you not understand that? Have you even read the Quran? Even tried other religions?

    Who said you have to ask me? I told you it was inconsiderate. It's insulting, first off, because you ignored what I said to do it, and basically claimed that your way was right and you wanted some grand being to force it upon me.

    "Praying" for us, nay, actually the declaration of such is insulting and disrespectful.

    Your religion holds hate for everybody who doesn't believe. Maybe you should really reread the Bible on that. Also for nonvirgins, homosexuals, and pretty much women even. Ignoring that aspect of your faith doesn't make it any less true.

    No, YHWH is the name in English, I'm sorry, written in English. Not the pronunciation, which would sound something like Yahweh or whatever they want to argue. YHWH is the name! "god" is a definition for a deity, it is commonly referred to as such for two parts, so that god's name is not taken in vain, and to obfuscate the difference between gods in religion and make it easy to convert. "god" is in NO WAY the name. Really, it's absolutely ludicrous that religious believers don't even understand that! Claiming "god" is the name is like claiming "human" is your name.

    You don't even know what pantheism is, so don't act like you do. If you did, you wouldn't have made the claim that pantheism takes no faith. All beliefs in god takes faith. It is not religious physics, which is just simply a ludicrous claim.

    And for our discussion, you still haven't once come to the amazing realization or even said that:
    SPACE = NOTHING.
    Nor have you seemed to answer the ONE question I've asked you... which is:
    what was there before god created something there?

    ReplyDelete
  82. As a bit of clarity to my response for me to have respect for someone's beliefs... being:

    No.

    This does not mean that I do not respect believers. This is an important distinction. My lack of respect is only for those ideas called beliefs, not the people who hold them. Not exactly perfect at it, but nobody really is.

    Beliefs don't deserve any undeserved respect. There is no reason for it, it's insulting to suggest that I just acknowledge something just because somebody else believes it.

    They can believe whatever BS they want, but I'm not going to say that BS is reasonable just because they want to live in some illusion that their BS is not BS.

    ReplyDelete
  83. then you tell me how a living organism millions of years ago survived through artic winters, lava from creation of the earth and everything else. how did an animate object come from an inanimate source. chicken or the egg, water or ice... good one. now can god move an imovable object. tell me where the first organism came from since you obviously are pretty smart. show me your god. where did the first living organism come from?

    ReplyDelete
  84. Wait! Let me get my popcorn and giant soda before GMNightmare goes off on you! LOL! This is going to be awesome! :D Ok. I'm ready. :D

    ReplyDelete
  85. OK, here goes. I don't know how smart you actualy are nightmare but I've never ran into someone that imposes on my thoughts to how smart I am so congrats. That being said I don't like to think because I can give myself a headache trying to do hard math in my head so here goes my try at a response. You will without doubt just trash it but I want in on the discussion. I have my doubts on god but I like to have a sense that theres more to life than this. Some people believe in the trinity, I dont but in the trinity god uses his sub beings to do his creation. The man that invented the wheel invented the wheel. That goodyear puts out an aquatread takes nothing away from that. Without the original creator there is no wheel. So all credit for any tires can go directly to the wheels original creator. God uses holy spirit to do his creating so if the holy spirits limit was in a different presence than gods perhaps god could lift something that had been made at his preimposed limit he had placed on his holy spirit. He could make something so big in one plane that it couldn't be moved but in his plane of presence he could easily move it with one hand. Perhaps god is a man. Say gods up there getting some angel pussy. Say he made the bombest angel just for him to fuck. say this bitch was messing up gods schedule. He was addicted. getting laid caused ww1 and ww2 and he wanted more. Could god intentionally make something large enough that even he couldnt move it. This is all fairytail world so anything is possible so if god wanted to block himself away from something perhaps it would be possible to create something so large or heavey that even his impossible force couldn't move it. Now my next question. Omnipotence....................
    Is that word in the bible? The being you talk of could make the world in an istant of time..... It took god seven days. Booooom. The christian bible doesnt claim omnipotence. It says god made us and we owe him. Trying to follow the bible is just trying to be a good person. What prevents us from killing the weak, raping women, letting the elderly fend for themselves and overall heathenism if not the belief that god wants us to do good? Thats my best. Go ahead and destroy it

    ReplyDelete
  86. to neece. funny nightmare talks about blind following and you've had your hand in his pocket for so long. you got any original ideas or are you still trying to figure out the popcorn???

    ReplyDelete
  87. or perhaps god being omnipotent could creat a plane of existence and fill it with a rock so big that it filled that entire plane. thus god could move the plane of existence but could not move the rock inside the space without removing part of the rock...... Does that make any sense? god being able to do anything could,... lets make it easier. God in his home apart from the universe could have rooms. this room our universe, this room another universe and so on. he could take his room, lets say his closet which is a measurable space made by god. he could fill that space with a rock that could not move given his omnipotent and god given power to set the parameters. thus that rock could not be moved because god made it with that intent. but god being omnipotent could move the space made for the rock or the closet. Ok. Lets say god is like zues. lives on olympus and the world is below him. He could make a rock that couldnt be moved due to parameters he set. Say he couldnt move a rock because it was so big everything around it would be destroyed. God could move this object but he chooses not to because of the problems it creates. Now say the world is in gods mind. like the Matrix. God could put up a barrier or imovable rock in his mind that would be immovable. then when he wanted to move the rock he would move it. but until that point when god wants to move it it is unmovable. so yes. god could make a rock so big it was everywhere. then god being god with the most massive of rock taking up all space could actualy become the rock and move it. But my main answer would be that god could fill a predesignated space with a rock that was so big it filled the entire space so that god when in said space could not move it. god though, being god could take himself out of that plane to another place where it would be possible to move the rock. So when god was omnipresent in said space he could not move the rock because it was everywhere but when god removed himself from said space he could move it anywhere he pleased and even dispose of it. the word god means can do anything right? And my second is it took god 7 days to make earth. god is not to be tested. Im sure if god wanted to kill god he could. An unkillable person can be killed if he wants it so even god would be mortal if no rules applied. that is why it says not to test god. cuz then every idiot could make a tongue twister to trick god. Im not saying youre an idiot, your arguement has shown more logic in a couple hours than most people show all their life. But faith is a belief and allthough Im not very religious I do want god to be real but mostly because so many people dedicate their lives to him. I do find it hard to believe that cells by themselves over time will form better cells and evolve. where are our predecessors then. Your telling me the human race was able to survive but at some point evolved and all of our ancestors perished. I dont think so. If a neanderthal race were premodern day humans they would still be around. A human birth would heve been a deformity. that two humans found eachother and spawned amidst neanderthals would be amazing. Your telling me, for no reason the entire neanderthal race slowly became modern day humans? Even a small group would have cast out a deformity out of mistrust or fear, let alone reproduce with it. What, among the dinosaurs or tigers and shit these two humans found each other and spawned? Say it was a large race of neanderthalls and these humans were born and outcast and reproduced. OK thats plausible. but then where did the neanderthals go. Any thing that wiped them out would have wiped out humans as well. touche that also anything humans survived neanderthals could as well. so where are my neanderthal brothers?

    ReplyDelete
  88. ok.... smoked some weed. next comment. :) I hope you respond, not that I want to instegeate you but I am very interested. you seem very intent on the subject matter. Ok. God doesnt exist. Then make life. lets just say all this was here. big bang. chemicals, objects, earth stars. where'd the life come from. I challenge you then. you can have anything in existence. Oxygen, gas, rocks, water, a ferrari, a dvd, a motorcylce, any element in the element chart. all the heat you want. any temperature. tell me how to make life forms with that. with everything in the universe tell me how an inanimate object became animate. god doesnt exist right? where did the first living organism come from? any thoughts neece?

    ReplyDelete
  89. Chill, I deal with the rift-raft on my own articles. I have what, 3 articles on this site, if you failed to notice Neece makes nearly all of the articles.

    You have comments all over the place, so I'm just going to replay to all of them at the end.

    ReplyDelete
  90. OK. you can trash this too. Here is my take on god and the world. Yes god is omnipotent. In the bible it says a 1000 years is a day to god. He did not create the world instantly. It took him seven days in his plane. In his eyes 1000 years of our time is a day. It says he made the earth. 1 day. 1000 years. It took him 7 days to make the earth habitabal for man and the animals and the moon and stars. So yes. he made the universe too in only a few days. Then he made man. Man was perfect and god just put time into making this for him. All he asked was one thing. after that he let them govern themselves. within like 1000 years there was the flood. they fucked themselves up so bad in 1000 or so years that god wiped them out. without god to guide them they did not work right. think of that as a human. it doesnt work right get rid of it. A toaster, a toy, a car, whatever. Time and again they deviated from his way when if they had listened to it things would have went much better. the flood, sodm and gomorah, babylon. The people were described as drunken, homosexual, injurious to eachother. Like living in the castro in the city. they were not working properly. say you were omnipotent. say you made something and were tired of everyone just doing what you wanted. so u make humans to see what they do with free will. They malfunction. They start drinking and doing drugs to take them out of the stock or perfect condition they were put in. They turn homosexual, their reproductive organs dont work right. This breeds disease and further complications. He made them peaceful and they kill eachother. Time and again he intervenes. Finally he has to send his son down. He wants to know if this shit is as hard as we make it look. And it was hard even for jesus. but by the biblical timeline that took 14 days for god. 14 days to get to here. is it so hard to think god made us, test drove us, gave us an instruction manuel and will soon perfect us once again by destroying his malfunctioned creations? If you were god and could look down on humans like ants on an antpile and clearly see the malfunctioned from the good wouldnt you just destroy the ones not working properly? thats the whole concept of the bible. God is letting man see the errors of their ways and letting them decide through free will if they want to work properly. If they do he'll just give them the world and go do other stuff. Or some molecules got together and big bang and all.

    ReplyDelete
  91. ok preset paramater math solution. god could use this as a weight bench to sculpt his heavenly mscles. god could create a dimension that to its inhabitants was never ending. he could fill it with mass. that would be X. in his dimension it would be the size of a weight from a weight bench. he could make enough of these to work out using low reps high weight. Y would be reps. then god could do Y reps with 10X dimensional mass weights to gain both size and strength. and our dimension he's working on right now could be on his dresser under a light where he goes and checks on it. but thats all just make believe because there are no parameters due to the initial question

    ReplyDelete
  92. if it took god 1000 years in our time to make the earth god could make an immovabe rock. He could do this because he would never have time to lift the rock. All his time would be spent on ensuring the rock was large enough that he could not pick it up. Not knowing his own boundaries he would be forced to make the rock for all eternity.

    ReplyDelete
  93. to add to that he would not know his own boundaries because they are limitless. he has no boundaries so to make the hypothetical rock would take forever since once god got the rock to big to lift he would lift it and have to make it bigger :) the limits of both boundaries are dependant on each other. when one is established the other is lost. when god makes a rock to large to pick up god can make himself strong enough to mave anything and the cycle continues.... still no response

    ReplyDelete
  94. Okay, now for your responses to the actual article... which if you want to be taken seriously, please, start typing your BS into word and doing a spell and grammar check.

    “Let’s give it basic step chart:
    a) god is omnipotent (omnipresent as well).
    b) god exists everywhere that can exist.
    c) god can create matter.
    d) god can create matter anywhere.
    e) god creates a rock molecule everywhere he exists.
    f) there is nowhere left to move the rock, thus…
    god can create a rock so big that he cannot move it. It’s a very logical progression given omnipotence.”

    See that? That, is the step chart. Edit that, change it, to make what you think your argument is.

    Space is nothing, nothing is space, god doesn't create space because it is nothing! Nothing is the default, if something isn't there then space is. I'm tired of people acting like god created space, no he didn't. You can't create nothing, nothing doesn't exist.

    For that matter, all your little dimensional argument is already dealt with. I said create rock EVERYWHERE. Not just in one area.

    Furthermore, imposing a time limit on god imposes a weakness to omnipotence. Your argument defeats itself.

    My step chart in fact, pretty much negates every argument you've attempted to make. If you think otherwise, post the argument, I can hardly understand what the hell your trying to say in the first place, much less follow the random thoughts that went through your head to make up that BS. How about you think a little about the implications of what you are putting.

    ReplyDelete
  95. (Notice the use of he, because god is male of course… whew, tons of problems with a religion that uses a personal god eh?)

    Haha it is not a personal God, we say "He" for the same reason one would say "She is a beauty" when referring to a fish of which they have no idea of the gender. It is quite obviously a gender-neutral term, and an unprofessional argument.

    ReplyDelete
  96. "'Let’s give it basic step chart:
    a) god is omnipotent (omnipresent as well).
    b) god exists everywhere that can exist.
    c) god can create matter.
    d) god can create matter anywhere.
    e) god creates a rock molecule everywhere he exists.
    f) there is nowhere left to move the rock, thus…
    god can create a rock so big that he cannot move it. It’s a very logical progression given omnipotence.'

    See that? That, is the step chart. Edit that, change it, to make what you think your argument is."

    It's right above your head, you may not have read the hundred or so pages above you, but at least bloody read the last one before your ignorantly jump in. Remarkably, you talk down to the others but they all challenged me, I don't think a single one "gave in". They all got crushed, because they all used backwards logic like yourself, assuming the answer then trying to make reality fit the answer.

    The answer is yes.

    god is not defined as a being that can do anything and everything. That is a characteristic, a false one, but whatever. You've come to your conclusion because you are too stuck up thinking backwards, you first thought of the possibility of your god doing it instead of the possibility of the question.

    "It is quite obviously a gender-neutral term, and an unprofessional argument."
    ... No, it isn't gender neutral. And it was never meant to be. Have a little sense of history, your god refers to himself as he when he didn't have to, as a father instead of a parent, created Adam in his image, said so, and then created female as a companion, and for pete's sake, your savior, who is god, is male. With the rise of feminism suddenly god is genderless, but your religion's past says clearly otherwise. The bible was written by men, to take control of other men, women were already slaves back then. Go talk to some real apologists will you?

    The truth of the matter is, god is illogical, a square circle, or a invisible visible line.
    http://www.heavingdeadcats.com/2009/07/23/how-you-can-know-there-is-no-god/

    Also, I started the other way around, and your pathetic books are BS pleading arguments that don't hold an ounce of real argument.
    http://www.heavingdeadcats.com/testimonial/gmnightmare/

    And by default, your religion already lost. Since you think praying will directly allow you to communicate with god, and there exists hundreds of branches of Christianity each saying they prayed to god and their branch is the only true correct one, or even can't come to the same answers and conclusions about interpretations of the bible, reality has already clearly outed your religion.

    Thanks for playing, don't make a next time unless you can disprove this:
    a) god is omnipotent (omnipresent as well).
    b) god exists everywhere that can exist.
    c) god can create matter.
    d) god can create matter anywhere.
    e) god creates a rock molecule everywhere he exists.
    f) there is nowhere left to move the rock, thus…
    god can create a rock so big that he cannot move it. It’s a very logical progression given omnipotence.

    ReplyDelete
  97. Sorry for quite the lengthy delay...

    The unprofessional argument is yours, they call god the father, get it? The bible was written by men, for men, males were and still are by most religions considered the dominate gender in all ways, and that is why god is a male in the bible. In reality, such a being WOULD NOT HAVE A GENDER, or an it, but people such as yourself cannot even comprehend that.

    Furthermore, that is for the most part completely irrelevant to the whole article. What, you couldn't comment to that and thus had to resort to what little insults you could scrape together? Please.

    ReplyDelete