Comments on: Can a xlqp make a btzl?

Can a xlqp make a btzl?

brownpau — Fri, 13 Jan 2006 14:46:57 -0800

Can God make a rock so heavy that he could not lift it?

By: nevercalm

nevercalm — Fri, 13 Jan 2006 14:56:29 -0800

How could you ever prove it? More importantly, who cares?

By: chasing

chasing — Fri, 13 Jan 2006 14:58:36 -0800

No.

By: veedubya

veedubya — Fri, 13 Jan 2006 14:58:49 -0800

It's fun to take the piss out of Christians. We should do it more often.

By: Suparnova

Suparnova — Fri, 13 Jan 2006 14:59:24 -0800

Its really easy to prove Christians wrong. But you saying they are wrong doesn't matter to them.

By: fred_ashmore

fred_ashmore — Fri, 13 Jan 2006 15:00:11 -0800

Yes. If god is omnipotent, he can create whatever the hell he wants. However, were he to create such a rock, he would voluntarily cease to be omnipotent.

By: Decani

Decani — Fri, 13 Jan 2006 15:01:36 -0800

Yeah, this one's almost as silly as Anselm's ontological argument for the existence of god. How unsurprising to see some of those links just using it as a straw man of the, "atheists are so dumb because they think this disproves god", type. Fairly common religioid bullshit, that: beat a straw man because you can't deal with the serious atheist demolition tactics.

By: Suparnova

Suparnova — Fri, 13 Jan 2006 15:01:37 -0800

Also, it depends on who you ask but god can't lift because god is not a physical being. But perhaps Jesus, being god incarnate would be doing the lifting.

By: cyrusdogstar

cyrusdogstar — Fri, 13 Jan 2006 15:01:58 -0800

If God voluntarily ceased to be omnipotent, could he then return himself to omnipotence after not lifting the rock? /boggles

By: quonsar

quonsar — Fri, 13 Jan 2006 15:02:28 -0800

Its really easy to prove Christians wrong. but not zoroastrians. damn near impossible to prove them wrong. hindus, too.

By: GuyZero

GuyZero — Fri, 13 Jan 2006 15:02:39 -0800

It's fun to take the piss out of Christians. The last link is from what appears to be a Jewish Q&A site. Apparently we take the piss out of everyone these days. "Best of the Web"?

By: GuyZero

GuyZero — Fri, 13 Jan 2006 15:04:36 -0800

god can't lift because god is not a physical being I dunno, apparently he likes wrestling.

By: blue_beetle

blue_beetle — Fri, 13 Jan 2006 15:05:32 -0800

yeah, this will end well...

By: Decani

Decani — Fri, 13 Jan 2006 15:06:19 -0800

god can't lift because god is not a physical being Yeah, but he can get a woman pregnant. No wait... that was the Holy Spirit, wasn't it? Hey, do you reckon the Holy Spirit can lift rocks?

By: veedubya

veedubya — Fri, 13 Jan 2006 15:07:40 -0800

GuyZero, I'd averted my eyes by that point. Like when the weedy kid who wants to be in with the jocks pulls down the retarded kid's pants in the cafeteria. Anybody with any sense of decency is embarassed for the both of them.

By: Suparnova

Suparnova — Fri, 13 Jan 2006 15:07:45 -0800

I said, "it depends on who you ask". Jacob would say one thing and other authors of other books of the bible would say diffrent things.

By: Suparnova

Suparnova — Fri, 13 Jan 2006 15:09:12 -0800

Oh and Decani, you know that means mary lost her virginity to jesus.

By: JekPorkins

JekPorkins — Fri, 13 Jan 2006 15:12:51 -0800

the serious atheist demolition tactics You mean other than the straw men that they usually resort to, too?

By: Melinika

Melinika — Fri, 13 Jan 2006 15:13:23 -0800

Can God make a cat that is so lazy even He cannot lift it?

By: Dr-Baa

Dr-Baa — Fri, 13 Jan 2006 15:13:41 -0800

"We are moved to tears by the size of this thing."

By: Suparnova

Suparnova — Fri, 13 Jan 2006 15:14:46 -0800

Or at least according to Dan Savage (nsfw)

By: CynicalKnight

CynicalKnight — Fri, 13 Jan 2006 15:15:48 -0800

do you reckon the Holy Spirit can lift rocks? As long as you add enough water to the mix

By: killdevil

killdevil — Fri, 13 Jan 2006 15:15:50 -0800

I ran across this pithy Émile Zola quote today: "Civilization will not attain to its perfection until the last stone from the last church falls on the last priest." I just thought I'd share.

By: JekPorkins

JekPorkins — Fri, 13 Jan 2006 15:17:58 -0800

I'm guessing Zola didn't care much for the 1st amendment.

By: keswick

keswick — Fri, 13 Jan 2006 15:18:02 -0800

Can you make a FPP so sucky that you can't post it? SURVEY SAYS: nope.

By: soda pop

soda pop — Fri, 13 Jan 2006 15:18:14 -0800

Could Jesus microwave a burrito so hot that he himself could not eat it?

By: quonsar

quonsar — Fri, 13 Jan 2006 15:19:17 -0800

and he died like everyone else will.

By: Crackerbelly

Crackerbelly — Fri, 13 Jan 2006 15:20:08 -0800

Didn't any of these people ever take a logic course? This is a fallacy.

By: Joey Michaels

Joey Michaels — Fri, 13 Jan 2006 15:21:27 -0800

You know, I don't know any adult athiests who ask this question. It has always been, in my experience, a wise ass question you ask when you're 13 to piss off your religion teacher at Our Lady of the Perpetual Backache Junior High. That being said, the answer to the question is pretty obvious: No, God cannot. He can create rocks of any weight he wants and He is able to lift those muthas. God is that strong. On the other hand, Chuck Norris once passed a kidney stone that was so big that he almost couldn't lift it. He liked the feeling so much that he put it back in and passed it again. On top of a bunch of kittens.

By: TwelveTwo

TwelveTwo — Fri, 13 Jan 2006 15:23:11 -0800

Are we still on Chuck Norris jokes? It is 2006.

By: Suparnova

Suparnova — Fri, 13 Jan 2006 15:23:21 -0800

You know who else makes Cuck Norris jokes? 13 year olds who go to Our Lady of the Perpetual Backache.

By: nofundy

nofundy — Fri, 13 Jan 2006 15:27:05 -0800

Can you make a FPP so sucky that you can't post it? SURVEY SAYS: nope. posted by keswick Seventeen times even!

By: deusdiabolus

deusdiabolus — Fri, 13 Jan 2006 15:27:08 -0800

Motörhead could.

By: mr_crash_davis

mr_crash_davis — Fri, 13 Jan 2006 16:14:31 -0800

The more interesting question is whether or not the Holy Spirit could make a rock so large that God the Father and God the Son could not lift it together without the aid of artificial hand-holds or even a sling made of the skins of 40 oxen. That would make a great Pay-Per-View version of the 700 Club, by golly.

By: quonsar

quonsar — Fri, 13 Jan 2006 16:14:45 -0800

could john wayne gacy kidnap an asshole so tight he couldn't fuck it?

By: Decani

Decani — Fri, 13 Jan 2006 16:17:10 -0800

You mean other than the straw men that they usually resort to, too? Ooh, cool. Lazy, unsupported assertion. Another religioid favourite. Maybe we'll get the set.

By: It's Raining Florence Henderson

It's Raining Florence Henderson — Fri, 13 Jan 2006 16:21:38 -0800

The heart of man is the stone God could not lift on His own. Love must be freely offered. Taken without free will, it ceases to be that which was created. The universe exists as a proof to this question. /just sayin', says the Atheist

By: Smedleyman

Smedleyman — Fri, 13 Jan 2006 16:22:56 -0800

“Motörhead could.” Well, that’s really not fair. Lemmy is not only God, but Lemmy + God. So he’s got that goin’ for him.

By: Jimbob

Jimbob — Fri, 13 Jan 2006 16:23:14 -0800

By: kyrademon

kyrademon — Fri, 13 Jan 2006 16:24:15 -0800

It's a stupid argument. Of course the idea of an entirely omnipotent being results in all kinds of self-contradictions. But who cares? An omnipotent being could certainly make a stone so heavy that the being couldn't lift it, omnipotently. Then the being could lift that stone whenever it wanted, omnipotently. Then, omnipotently, it could make it so this wasn't even contradictory, if it wanted. And ... so what? The fact that there's no evidence whatsoever for an omnipotent being in the first place makes the whole thing a silly logic puzzle without point.

By: eriko

eriko — Fri, 13 Jan 2006 16:24:32 -0800

You have reached the phone of I, the Alpha and Omega, the one who brought the world from chaos, yadda yadda. I'm omnipresent and omniscient, but I'm not here right now, please leave your name and number clearly after the beep, thanks for your prayers, they mean a lot to me, buhbye. BEEP.

By: xmutex

xmutex — Fri, 13 Jan 2006 16:25:34 -0800

Did God take Philosophy 101?

By: eriko

eriko — Fri, 13 Jan 2006 16:26:50 -0800

Hi, God, Margaret again. I think the Holy Spook is peeking in on me when I'm showering again. It's really annoying, he keeps steaming up the mirror. Anyhow, thanks, and I hope that things are working out with your kid. My cousin's only got his dad, I know it can be tough. Oh, yeah, number, sorry, 1-666-555-1212. Bye!

By: fixedgear

fixedgear — Fri, 13 Jan 2006 16:27:26 -0800

The first time I ever heard this was on a George Carlin LP record. That's on a vinyl disc, folks. Played with a needle on this thing called a record player.

By: fenriq

fenriq — Fri, 13 Jan 2006 16:29:10 -0800

Could God destroy himself? Did he? Sadly (or not so sadly) we, mortal creatures without access to higher planes of existence or knowledge, will never know until we're dead which is such a sweet trick I'm almost envious. Heaven awaits but you've gotta die before you get there, sucker!

By: oddman

oddman — Fri, 13 Jan 2006 16:31:26 -0800

God could make a stone that was too heavy for him to lift, then lift, then turn it into a squared circle, then think about it while also having no thoughts in his (incorporeal yet spacially located) head. For an encore God would do all of the things that are against his nature, simultaneously. He is God, stop pretending you could understand him.

By: StickyCarpet

StickyCarpet — Fri, 13 Jan 2006 16:33:30 -0800

At age nine I asked the nun in catechism class: "If we are not allowed to eat for one hour before communion, is it still OK to eat a booger?" "Of course not," she says. "Well then how about if I sniff that same booger into my throat and swirl it around in my mouth? Is that OK, because I didn't eat it, since it never left my body?" "Do you want to see the principal again, young man?"

By: JekPorkins

JekPorkins — Fri, 13 Jan 2006 16:36:40 -0800

Says Decani: Lazy, unsupported assertion. Another religioid favourite. Maybe we'll get the set. Yes, only religious people make lazy unsupported assertions. That's why there are so few in this thread. So here's the support: It is my observation that most, if not all, atheist arguments refuting the existence of God begin with that atheist's characterization of the nature of God, and then proceed to explain why those hypothetical characteristics are unlikely/impossible according to logic/science/whatever. That's a straw man argument if ever there was one. I'm sure there are some atheists who not only reject a specific notion of God, but the very idea that there could possibly be anything in the universe or out of it that could in any way be considered divine or supreme. But I've never met those atheists, as far as I know. I've mostly met the ones who pretend I believe something I don't, and then tell me why they think it's wrong.

By: It's Raining Florence Henderson

It's Raining Florence Henderson — Fri, 13 Jan 2006 16:38:31 -0800

I "not only reject a specific notion of God, but the very idea that there could possibly be anything in the universe or out of it that could in any way be considered divine or supreme." Nice to meetcha.

By: Civil_Disobedient

Civil_Disobedient — Fri, 13 Jan 2006 16:41:33 -0800

That being said, the answer to the question is pretty obvious: No, God cannot. Um, the answer is pretty obvious, but I can tell you it's definately not no. The answer is Yes, of course he can. And he can then simultaneously lift and not lift the rock at the same time, because the rules of logic are as mutable as the laws of physics to a God.

By: kyrademon

kyrademon — Fri, 13 Jan 2006 16:43:29 -0800

Honestly, the whole line of argument seems backwards. No one has ever even remotely come close to giving me the slightest reason that I should believe a god exists. Until that happens, I really don't see why the burden is on anyone to disprove it, you know?

By: ParisParamus

ParisParamus — Fri, 13 Jan 2006 16:43:48 -0800

Guyzero, what is anti-Christian about the "last link" to which you refer?

By: Cranberry

Cranberry — Fri, 13 Jan 2006 16:45:35 -0800

If it exists, I must be able to understand it; if I cannot understand it, then it must not exist.

By: birdherder

birdherder — Fri, 13 Jan 2006 16:47:11 -0800

Are we talking about the Christian god or the Muslim god? Or another flavor altogether? Because I'm certain my main god Zeus could do it with one hand tied behind his back. I dare you to prove he can't.

By: palinode

palinode — Fri, 13 Jan 2006 16:47:59 -0800

Could God write a song so catchy that He couldn't stop humming it for fucking weeks?

By: JekPorkins

JekPorkins — Fri, 13 Jan 2006 16:48:20 -0800

I really don't see why the burden is on anyone to disprove it, you know? It's not. You're right. Nobody can prove to another person that God exists, and nobody can prove to another person that God doesn't exist. There is no point to the debate.

By: JekPorkins

JekPorkins — Fri, 13 Jan 2006 16:50:14 -0800

Zeus could do it with one hand tied behind his back Are you kidding? Zeus couldn't even keep the other gods in check.

By: killdevil

killdevil — Fri, 13 Jan 2006 16:53:22 -0800

Kyra, I've always thought that Pascal's Wager constitutes a pretty good reason to believe. Not that I do, personally.

By: 31d1

31d1 — Fri, 13 Jan 2006 16:53:28 -0800

Yes and no. Simultaneously. Such is the power of God.

By: malocchio

malocchio — Fri, 13 Jan 2006 16:56:40 -0800

Many atheists were raised in a theistic manner, and as such, attended many years of Sunday school, catechism, confirmation classes, etc. And though we didn't all go on to theology school to debate the finer points of religion, we were exposed to most of the common dogmatic theories which comprise modern Christianity. Certainly, omnipotence was one of the qualities attributed to God by my Lutheran teachers, and as noted above, is inherently contradictory. My point being simply, that Christianity requires a leap of faith that transcends rationality. Some are willing to make the leap, and others aren't. Debating such a common Christian tenet is certainly not a straw man tactic.

By: StickyCarpet

StickyCarpet — Fri, 13 Jan 2006 16:58:21 -0800

Yeah, killdevil, I think that Pascal's Wager combined with Wittgenstein's dictum that "what we cannot speak about we must pass over in silence" adds up to a pretty good theology.

By: ParisParamus

ParisParamus — Fri, 13 Jan 2006 17:02:53 -0800

Killdevil, that's interesting. For anyone interested, unlike Christianity, Judaism isn't a "specific intent" faith: believing in God is not critical, provided you live as you should.

By: mr_crash_davis

mr_crash_davis — Fri, 13 Jan 2006 17:06:16 -0800

"Could God write a song so catchy that He couldn't stop humming it for fucking weeks?" You betcha.

By: Joey Michaels

Joey Michaels — Fri, 13 Jan 2006 17:06:32 -0800

Suparnova: You know who else makes Cuck Norris jokes? 13 year olds who go to Our Lady of the Perpetual Backache. Damn right we do. That was sort of the point.

By: JekPorkins

JekPorkins — Fri, 13 Jan 2006 17:07:33 -0800

malocchio: I believe the straw man argument arises when one assigns concrete meaning to the term "omnipotent." I don't think Christians know what they mean when they use the term, frankly, so to tell them they're wrong when they don't even know what they mean requires a straw man.

By: boaz

boaz — Fri, 13 Jan 2006 17:09:00 -0800

when one assigns concrete meaning to the term "omnipotent." Holy moley, a word having a meaning. Can't have that now.

By: nickerbocker

nickerbocker — Fri, 13 Jan 2006 17:12:52 -0800

I've never heard an atheist say such a stupid thing. In fact, I've never seen an atheist try to convert a Christian. It is more like they (we) are trying to just defend ourselves and keep our own point of view.

By: parallax7d

parallax7d — Fri, 13 Jan 2006 17:13:23 -0800

He cannot make it rain, and not rain at the same time, this is a nonsense question.

By: konolia

konolia — Fri, 13 Jan 2006 17:14:22 -0800

God, being omnipotent, can do whatever the hell he wants to. Which means, tomorrow, he could decide the Scientologists have got a point, and adjust the universe accordingly to make them correct. Shit, He's changed his mind about things before. God does not change. I wrote a paper on that attribute of God ("The Immanence of God). (the times in the Bible where He is said to have changed His mind is only in the context of a human or humans changing their own behavior.) So once He decided that Scientologists were bat crap crazy, He left it that way.

By: parallax7d

parallax7d — Fri, 13 Jan 2006 17:15:25 -0800

Is there an easy way to flag every post as noise?

By: NGnerd

NGnerd — Fri, 13 Jan 2006 17:15:29 -0800

somehow i feel this should have been on the ask mefi page... now let's see what douglas adams has to say: 'I refuse to prove that I exist,' says God, `for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing.' `But,' says Man, `The Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED.' `Oh dear,' says God, `I hadn't thought of that,' and promptly disappears in a puff of logic." see, now all we have to do is prove the babelfish exists!

By: boaz

boaz — Fri, 13 Jan 2006 17:17:50 -0800

He cannot make it rain, and not rain at the same time But he can simultaneously be a unity and a trinity, and be fully human and fully divine simultaneously. If you're a Christian. It'd be a shame to waste real questions on a nonsense belief system.

By: bardic

bardic — Fri, 13 Jan 2006 17:20:30 -0800

This question is dumb. Does God have a belly-button? Now that's a fucking brain twister if you really think about it.

By: quonsar

quonsar — Fri, 13 Jan 2006 17:23:56 -0800

WALTER TROUT IS GOD

By: JekPorkins

JekPorkins — Fri, 13 Jan 2006 17:24:32 -0800

Holy moley, a word having a meaning. Can't have that now. I agree with what I think you're saying: That it's dumb for Christians to use a word when they don't really get the meaning of it. But that's just the way it is, as I've observed. And it's the reason that I consider myself Christian (since I believe in Christ), but I don't think God is truly omnipotent.

By: Megafly

Megafly — Fri, 13 Jan 2006 17:25:02 -0800

Should we assume that JHVH's or Allah's, or Zoroasters Ominipotence merely approaches infinity? If we use that logic, we could argue that he/she both could, and couldn't make and both could and couldn't lift the rock. Zeno's paradox at work. It is a stupid question. The better question could be, if supernatural penomenon of any kind exist, Why hasn't anybody won the James Randi Challenge?

By: boaz

boaz — Fri, 13 Jan 2006 17:25:41 -0800

that attribute of God ("The Immanence of God). I don't know where you're going to college, but, uh, good luck. That attribute is actually the Immutability of God. The Immanence of God refers to his/her quality of existing everywhere.

By: substrate

substrate — Fri, 13 Jan 2006 17:27:04 -0800

Chuck Norris could simultaneous create a rock so heavy he couldn't lift and lift it.

By: quonsar

quonsar — Fri, 13 Jan 2006 17:28:08 -0800

i have a supernatural penomenon.

By: Jikido

Jikido — Fri, 13 Jan 2006 17:31:37 -0800

and he died like everyone else will. and spin in his grave when he sees shit like this

By: movilla

movilla — Fri, 13 Jan 2006 17:32:41 -0800

The James Randi challenge ought to be beaten. He's just too cock sure.

By: quonsar

quonsar — Fri, 13 Jan 2006 17:33:36 -0800

By: darkstar

darkstar — Fri, 13 Jan 2006 17:44:15 -0800

boaz, you're ruthless.

By: Jimbob

Jimbob — Fri, 13 Jan 2006 17:56:02 -0800

Konolia: God is all powerful, right? How can someone have true power without the ability to (a) make choices and change things (b) change themselves. If God has never "changed" anything, how has he ever excercised his infinite power? According to doctrine, God "changed" the natural order by creating the world. God "changed" the natural order of things by casting Adam and Eve out of the Garden of Eden. That may have been the result of a human decision, but hey, so is Scientology. Why would you leave God powerless to change things again? (Oh, I know, you have a vested interest in the status quo)

By: quonsar

quonsar — Fri, 13 Jan 2006 17:58:45 -0800

wow, jimbob, you're as smart as God!

By: quonsar

quonsar — Fri, 13 Jan 2006 17:59:08 -0800

*falls down and worships*

By: SwingingJohnson1968

SwingingJohnson1968 — Fri, 13 Jan 2006 18:02:10 -0800

Only if he wanted to.

By: Jimbob

Jimbob — Fri, 13 Jan 2006 18:03:06 -0800

(throws quonsar some mana)

By: philscience

philscience — Fri, 13 Jan 2006 18:03:25 -0800

The action of lifting implies lifting against gravity of some sort. Ignoring situations where God is in freefall, let's assume that God is standing on Planet A of mass M. For all rocks from weight 0 to weight M, God is lifting the rock. For all rocks heavier than M, God is actually doing a handstand on the rock, and lifting up Planet A with his feet.

By: konolia

konolia — Fri, 13 Jan 2006 18:03:32 -0800

don't know where you're going to college, but, uh, good luck. That attribute is actually the Immutability of God. The Immanence of God refers to his/her quality of existing everywhere. posted by boaz at 8:25 PM EST on January 13 [!] You're right, it was immutability. And to think I got an A on the paper. After awhile all those "incommunicable attributes" start to look alike. ;-)

By: konolia

konolia — Fri, 13 Jan 2006 18:04:49 -0800

Jimbob, I never said God could not change things. I said He himself was unchangeable.

By: movilla

movilla — Fri, 13 Jan 2006 18:06:19 -0800

Jimbob, Why are you worried about Konolia? He might as well be quoting the Leprachaun Times for all the nonsense he's spouting. C'mon. God? I'll have what he's having. A tall glass please.

By: malocchio

malocchio — Fri, 13 Jan 2006 18:07:22 -0800

JekPorkins: I believe the straw man argument arises when one assigns concrete meaning to the term "omnipotent." I was taught (in confirmation class) that the word meant all-powerful. I'm not quite sure what possible meaning the word could have other than that. But once again, I find that meaning to be problematical within the context. As to whether all Christians ascribe that quality to God, I guess that could be a meaningful debate within Christianity. But there are certainly some (if not most) denominations that would accept that term as indisputable and most certainly applicable. Once they've accepted that point as rational, they have opened themselves to a debate which is (imho) beyond their realm. But if you are arguing that a word has a meaning which is not readily apparent, then we are reaching into the realm of semantics, which to me is usually a dizzying descent into the absurd.

By: JekPorkins

JekPorkins — Fri, 13 Jan 2006 18:09:01 -0800

malocchio: I find your analysis to be thorough and convincing. Thanks!

By: Jimbob

Jimbob — Fri, 13 Jan 2006 18:12:43 -0800

I said He himself was unchangeable. But what does this mean? What are the specifications within which God's nature exists? God Himself may be unchangable, but the universe He created can surely be changed by him, right? Once again, according to doctrine, this includes heaven and hell, for instance. Couldn't God "shut down" hell, should he feel it's a good idea at the time? He already mucked about with the system by casting Satan from heaven. Couldn't he "create" Nirvana for all those Buddhists, if he feels like it? And surely He gets to make the ultimate decision regarding who gets into heaven, on whatever criteria He decides to apply. This is all modifying the nature of the universe, not modifying the nature of God. Jimbob, Why are you worried about Konolia? Because it's so rare I get to have these kinds of debates on the nature of God :) I've decided I'm agnostic. There might be a god. If there is, by nature of being a god they must be omnipotent. Which by my logic means they can do whatever the hell they want to do with their universe, and there's no point in us trying to please them when they could change the rules any time they want to.

By: modernerd

modernerd — Fri, 13 Jan 2006 18:29:06 -0800

fred_ashmore, you offer a theological answer to a philosophical problem. there are only two philosophical answers to the question of the rock. either no, god cannot make the rock too heavy for him to lift, because such an ability runs counter to god's omnipotence, or yes, god can make the rock too heavy for him to lift, because the lack of such an ability runs counter to god's omnipotence. philosophically, it is a paradox, because omnipotence is self contradictory. philosophically, god cannot be omnipotent because omnipotence is impossible. theologically, of course, you were close. there is only one theological answer to the rock question: "yes", because god can do anything. If your reality excludes impossibility, you believe in magic. If, on the other hand, you have ever seen and understood for yourself that some things must be and some things cannot, then you recognize the utility of the concept "impossible", and thus must inwardly discard "magic" as untruth. because what is magic's real meaning if not the doing of the impossible? A worldview that accepts the idea of proof must ultimately lose trust in the logically impossible, even without disproof. the real question of the rock is, "can god do the impossible?" If I accept your idea that the question of the rock does not show up the impossibility of omnipotence, it begs the questions, 1) Can god create a rock so heavy that he cannot lift it while retaining omnipotence? 2) If god does cease to be omnipotent, is the no longer omnipotent entity still be god? 2a) If god ceases to be omnipotent, or ceases to exist entirely, what then would be the nature of the universe as described by the religion which posits god? 2b) If god ceases to be omnipotent, or ceases existing, then since god is everywhere, from the beginning of time to the end of time, was there ever a god at all? 3) what cyrusdogstar said: "could a non-omnipotent god become omnipotent again"? 3a) if yes, why can't people become omnipotent? remember, you have to show a distinguishing feature between people and god, since god's ability does not derive from omnipotence, he lost it. So you have to show either empirical or logical evidence that a non-omnipotent god could become omnipotent. You can't just wave your hands and say "because it's god!" otherwise, I can posit whatever I want "because it's X!" without proof. Now, a theological answer to a philosophical question is less than satisfactory. But then a philosophical question about a theological concept isn't perfect either. both sides must accept the other's right to rhetorical existence. but neither side, (i'm looking at you, radical religious people) neither side has the absolute high ground. statements concerning god cannot be proven one way or the other. So no action can ever be necessitated on the basis of the existence of god, or the nonexistence of god. People can do whatever they want based on their own ideas about whether or not god exists, or what god means or is, EXCEPT force others to act in accord with their own conceptions. A man's right to swing his fist ends at his neighbor's nose. It's Raining Florence Henderson: that thing about the heart of man is beautiful. is that from somewhere? Suparnova, xmutex: lol kyrademon an interesting perspective oddman takes half credit with a correct theological answer. (ie yes) philscience takes full credit with the rhetoric based answer. I see it so clearly now! Sorry for the long post, i didn't take my brain medicines today, and this topic is ... yummy. and rainbowy. Mord says that Omar says that we are all unicorns anyway.

By: dgaicun

dgaicun — Fri, 13 Jan 2006 18:29:06 -0800

God Man vs. Freshman Philosophy Major Man!

By: malocchio

malocchio — Fri, 13 Jan 2006 18:32:18 -0800

By: modernerd

modernerd — Fri, 13 Jan 2006 18:35:13 -0800

dgaicun, omfg, i laughed so hard i spit blood. i'm posting that to fark first chance i get. thank you. lol my grammar was the suck.. "2) If god does cease to be omnipotent, is the no longer omnipotent entity still be god?" that's what I get for writing a post so long i couldn't preview it. *ducks*

By: movilla

movilla — Fri, 13 Jan 2006 18:35:57 -0800

Well Jimbob. I'm Irish Catholic, my parents are lay people in our parish and I can say I've got enough experience of what drives the 'faithful'. God is a representation of a weak society that requires leadership and direction when it cannot decide its own fate. I'm not saying that religion is bad. A good social structure is a lasting legacy of most religions. It's just that it's all built on codswallop.

By: quonsar

quonsar — Fri, 13 Jan 2006 18:42:38 -0800

Why are you worried about Konolia? He might as well be quoting the Leprachaun Times for all the nonsense he's spouting. konolia has no penomenon. "he's" a girl.

By: dbiedny

dbiedny — Fri, 13 Jan 2006 18:48:09 -0800

Well, I don't know about God™, but J.R. "Bob" Dobbs only makes rocks He can't lift - not that He would ever try.

By: wakko

wakko — Fri, 13 Jan 2006 18:50:26 -0800

Could God take a dump so big that he himself could not flush it?

By: konolia

konolia — Fri, 13 Jan 2006 18:51:11 -0800

there's no point in us trying to please them when they could change the rules any time they want to. And THAT is why the doctrine of immutability is so important. Offtopic: Why on earth do so many people mistakenly think that"Konolia" could be a male username? Weird.

By: Frasermoo

Frasermoo — Fri, 13 Jan 2006 18:56:09 -0800

Konolia is that bloke from the new 360 launch.

By: movilla

movilla — Fri, 13 Jan 2006 18:57:41 -0800

Offtopic: Why on earth do so many people mistakenly think that"Konolia" could be a male username? Nothing personal but your name sounds like a sexual disease.

By: L. Fitzgerald Sjoberg

L. Fitzgerald Sjoberg — Fri, 13 Jan 2006 18:57:50 -0800

God can't lie? Man, I think that contradicts the omnipotence thing more than the whole rock conundrum. I don't think I can get behind an all-powerful being who can't even keep up with James Frey. Is this really canonical? God can't even say "Slim Jims are delicious"? I'd do a Bible search for the verses that support this, but I wouldn't know where to start. The Book of Impediments?

By: Smedleyman

Smedleyman — Fri, 13 Jan 2006 18:58:51 -0800

“It is my observation that most, if not all, atheist arguments refuting the existence of God begin with that atheist's characterization of the nature of God, and then proceed to explain why those hypothetical characteristics are unlikely/impossible according to logic/science/whatever.” - posted by JekPorkins I’d agree with that. Plus permutations. “I "not only reject a specific notion of God, but the very idea that there could possibly be anything in the universe or out of it that could in any way be considered divine or supreme."” -posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson It’s my observation that most, if not all, atheist arguments refuting the possibly be anything in the universe or out of it could in any way be considered divine or supreme begin with that atheist's characterization of the divine or supreme, and then proceed to explain why those hypothetical characteristics are unlikely/impossible according to logic/science/whatever. “Debating such a common Christian tenet is certainly not a straw man tactic.” -posted by malocchio Defining God by Christian tenets is. As it happens there are things I do, see, believe in, etc., I treat as sacred. My relationship with my wife is sacred. As such I don’t break my vows to her - f’instance fidelity. I don’t cheat on my wife. Not because there is any sort of tangible thing preventing me to, but because I love her and this to me is a sacred thing. I don’t consider it supernatural. But it is divine. It is transcendent. It gives my life meaning in a way that any biological, social or physical description cannot. From there I see other things that present such meaning, and my interaction with them is sacred. That this sacredness is falsified by folks looking to make a buck or whatever doesn’t mean that everything that uses those words “Divine” or “Sacred” is devoid of meaning or a sham. The division between science and that which is sacred is similar to a division between science and beauty. One can read, listen to, or view - whatever - whether natural or created and be enriched by it. I don’t need some asshole sitting behind me telling me that Mozart is bullshit because the percieved harmony is derived from breath and catgut and the vibration of air molecules. And in fact with atheists (and religious types as well) the only side of things they see is Mozart or no Mozart. Or Beethoven/no Beethoven. Or “music,” if you’re lucky. Start talking Monet or Rodin or (yikes) André Breton and you lose people. Science to my thinking delves into the workings of God/the universe. And in many ways can produce beautiful things from which we can derive meaning. There is no reason why “God” can’t be one with the physical laws. The physical laws as a property of ‘God’. For me, boiled down to that - it all depends on what one holds as sacred. The words are irrelevant. The definitions are irrelevant. There’s an old Zen Story about a monk who is reincarnated as a fox because when he was asked whether the enlightened man is subject to the law of causation he answered: “The enlightened man is not subject to the law of causation.” The fox found another monk and asked him the same question. The monk answered: “The enlightened man is one with the law of causation.” Same difference. The not clinging to the absolutes (of words, et.al) is similar to StickyCarpet’s post about Wittgenstein's dictum: "what we cannot speak about we must pass over in silence." Or a slap in the face. Whatever.

By: interrobang

interrobang — Fri, 13 Jan 2006 19:00:33 -0800

there's no point in us trying to please them when they could change the rules any time they want to. And THAT is why the doctrine of immutability is so important. So why bother paying any attention to him at all?

By: lodurr

lodurr — Fri, 13 Jan 2006 19:03:52 -0800

...Pascal's Wager... Bah. That's for pussies. Real men [sic] go with their gut and take their chances one way or another. Omnipotence was actually the thing that settled my thinkign on the quesiton of God. I reasoned that there's no reason to suppose that an omnipotent god would have any interest in humans, so it made the most sense to act as though there was no interested god. Things get easier, that way -- you don't have to worry so much about pleasing the sky-father. (Though that "reason for living" part can get a little tough when you're still single and childless....)

By: Smedleyman

Smedleyman — Fri, 13 Jan 2006 19:05:10 -0800

Same difference that is as it concerns God - is God beyond causation (the whole rock/lift wordplay crap). God is causation. But again - those are just words and poorly convey the experiential fact.

By: Optimus Chyme

Optimus Chyme — Fri, 13 Jan 2006 19:07:45 -0800

JekPorkins: off the topic, but I've read several of your posts in the past week, and though I may disagree in many aspects, I have found them to be worthy of the highest praise I can offer in these sad days: they were both thoughtful and civil! I certainly hope you continue to contribute. This is true. Jek and I disagreed in another thread where we took it to email and he is both polite and sharp. The Christian team needs a few more ringers.

By: brownpau

brownpau — Fri, 13 Jan 2006 19:17:41 -0800

Jek Porkins stays on target.

By: darkstar

darkstar — Fri, 13 Jan 2006 19:31:59 -0800

The answer to the question, I think, is to basically bitch-slap the questioner. In the Zen sense, that is, as an effort to make the questioner "awaken". Primarily because it poses a question derived from an incomplete understanding of the spiritual dimension in which God purportedly exists as a spiritual being. Which, of course, we all suffer from (an incomplete understanding of what "God" really means, that is).

By: darkstar

darkstar — Fri, 13 Jan 2006 19:32:36 -0800

Or, failing a bitch slap, one could simply reply "Mu!"

By: HiveMind

HiveMind — Fri, 13 Jan 2006 19:36:08 -0800

The Riddle of Epicurus Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

By: quonsar

quonsar — Fri, 13 Jan 2006 19:36:44 -0800

Nothing personal but your name sounds like a sexual disease. posted by movilla at 9:57 PM EST on January 13 nothing personal but your name sounds like open source livestock.

By: grobstein

grobstein — Fri, 13 Jan 2006 19:38:48 -0800

Is this question a case of Russell's Paradox?

By: George_Spiggott

George_Spiggott — Fri, 13 Jan 2006 19:38:54 -0800

I said He himself was unchangeable. I feel sorry for Mrs. God, then. I mean he's never going to stop leaving the seat up, for one thing.

By: malocchio

malocchio — Fri, 13 Jan 2006 19:39:31 -0800

Goddamn you Zen Buddhists with your "is, but isn't, and at the same time, both!" You make my head hurt, but in a good way, which inevitably leads to another round. This one's for you!

By: spazzm

spazzm — Fri, 13 Jan 2006 19:44:39 -0800

Yes. If god is omnipotent, he can create whatever the hell he wants. However, were he to create such a rock, he would voluntarily cease to be omnipotent. So He can't create the rock and remain omnipotent, thus there is something He cannot do, and He is not omnipotent Quick, perform the special ritual to appease the invisible man in the sky!

By: InnocentBystander

InnocentBystander — Fri, 13 Jan 2006 19:44:55 -0800

Am I alone in being an athiest (well, devout agnostic) who enjoys pondering these questions just because of the exercise in alternative logic? I believe I found an answer to this one. Three points, really. One, as has been pointed out, God is NOT described as absolutely all-powerful, as some have described. He has limits on Himself, such as being unable to sin. Also important, going along with that, is that God is a creature of Will. Whereas His power is limited in a few very key areas, his WILL is absolutely limitless. Anything He wants to happen, does. And this is non-contradictory. God cannot sin, because God does not want to sin. And the final thing to remember, as has also been stated, is that God is eternal and unchanging. So, one might say that God's inability to sin is evidence of lack of power, but it's actually not. God CANNOT sin, because God does not want to sin, and being eternal, will never want to sin. It is not a restriction, it is a choice. Based on this, logic dictates a simple and elegant solution. God COULD, in fact, make a rock that He cannot move. He must simply make a rock He does not WANT to move. (and for an extra exercise to the reader, ask yourself where such a rock must logically be located - there's only one possible place in the cosmos - and whether, should we find it, that would be evidence of God's existance.)

By: George_Spiggott

George_Spiggott — Fri, 13 Jan 2006 19:50:25 -0800

I said He himself was unchangeable. This, by the way, is provably false. God tested Abraham. This indicates that he didn't know the extent of Abraham's faith. Therefore God learned something. To learn is to change: to change from someone who does not know something to one who does.

By: swell

swell — Fri, 13 Jan 2006 20:03:49 -0800

When the Feds shut down the Psychic Friends Network, did anybody go to work that day?

By: loquacious

loquacious — Fri, 13 Jan 2006 20:13:22 -0800

MetaFilter: Open source livestock. Mu.

By: malocchio

malocchio — Fri, 13 Jan 2006 20:15:16 -0800

George, I believe the typical apologia would read like this: God knew the outcome (omniscient), but wanted to prove to Abraham the extent of Abraham's faith, which was beyond his (Abraham's) knowledge. Sometimes a teacher knows exactly where a student falters, although the student himself may not know. My bilblical knowledge is somewhat rusty; there may be more to the Abraham story than I can recall. It's off to the movies for me; cheers! to all.

By: interrobang

interrobang — Fri, 13 Jan 2006 20:21:53 -0800

George, I believe the typical apologia would read like this: God knew the outcome (omniscient), but wanted to prove to Abraham the extent of Abraham's faith, which was beyond his (Abraham's) knowledge. Sometimes a teacher knows exactly where a student falters, although the student himself may not know. But, as an omniscient being, he already knew what they outcome would be.

By: George_Spiggott

George_Spiggott — Fri, 13 Jan 2006 20:30:40 -0800

God knew the outcome (omniscient), If God is omniscient even to the extent of knowing the outcome of situations involving beings with (it says here) free will, then A) they don't have free will, and B) God is trapped in his own creation. If he is incapable of change then he is incapable of making a decision, for to decide to do one thing over another is to change. If he sees the future with exactitude and is cannot change his mind then he isn't omnipotent, he is impotent, for his past and his future are entirely fixed and there's nothing he or any of us can do about it.

By: pyramid termite

pyramid termite — Fri, 13 Jan 2006 20:47:34 -0800

i suspect the real question is "can people devise a language that can describe the actions and attributes of god accurately?" i suspect the answer is "no"

By: interrobang

interrobang — Fri, 13 Jan 2006 20:51:23 -0800

No, the question is this: "Is there any point in trying to change the will of an unchangeable diety who's also predetermined your own behavior?"

By: LooseFilter

LooseFilter — Fri, 13 Jan 2006 20:52:54 -0800

You know, there are good reasons we have the word 'ineffable'.

By: interrobang

interrobang — Fri, 13 Jan 2006 20:55:17 -0800

...sorry, "deity".

By: Peter H

Peter H — Fri, 13 Jan 2006 21:09:56 -0800

Didn't John Lennon or Bowie say Rock was bigger than God? Does size matter?

By: Espoo2

Espoo2 — Fri, 13 Jan 2006 21:12:51 -0800

It's called dialectal truth.

By: stirfry

stirfry — Fri, 13 Jan 2006 21:14:42 -0800

Why would God care what some freshman at a below average American institutution of average llearning think as regards to her muscular abilities??? The answer is MORE BEER.

By: It's Raining Florence Henderson

It's Raining Florence Henderson — Fri, 13 Jan 2006 21:37:58 -0800

modernerd: It's Raining Florence Henderson: that thing about the heart of man is beautiful. is that from somewhere? Thank you. It's from me to you.

By: quonsar

quonsar — Fri, 13 Jan 2006 21:46:46 -0800

this thread has the best page title evar.

By: LeLiLo

LeLiLo — Fri, 13 Jan 2006 21:48:42 -0800

Didn't John Lennon or Bowie say Rock was bigger than God? Lennon famously said in 1966 that the Beatles at the time were “more popular than Jesus.” They almost certainly have more gold records than Jesus, but that book of His, The New Testament, has sold a lot of copies over the years.

By: strangeleftydoublethink

strangeleftydoublethink — Fri, 13 Jan 2006 21:50:46 -0800

End of argument.

By: loquacious

loquacious — Fri, 13 Jan 2006 22:31:11 -0800

More beer == Mu? That explains everything. I mean, everything. Now there's philosophy and metaphysics I can drink to.

By: Eideteker

Eideteker — Fri, 13 Jan 2006 22:35:53 -0800

"Who is this 'God?' Come to me, God! I defy you! Come and kneel before Stalin!"

By: BlackLeotardFront

BlackLeotardFront — Fri, 13 Jan 2006 22:49:58 -0800

Pyramid termite got it. I was going to say something like that if he didn't. Anyway, usually the answer I end up with in my metaphysical debates is "hmm.. maybe."

By: BlackLeotardFront

BlackLeotardFront — Fri, 13 Jan 2006 22:51:00 -0800

/|| whats up with that freaking picture indenting my comment? what the hell kind of formatting is that? is anyone else seeing this?

By: TwelveTwo

TwelveTwo — Fri, 13 Jan 2006 23:04:31 -0800

Stalin is just trying to help!

By: dirigibleman

dirigibleman — Fri, 13 Jan 2006 23:08:33 -0800

God don't need no instructions to know how to ROCK!!! God's hot-blooded, go-ahead and check it and see... I didn't read past the first two comments in this thread. It's got >100 comments, therefore much past that is useless. You know, like my comment.

By: Eideteker

Eideteker — Fri, 13 Jan 2006 23:34:03 -0800

BlackLeotardFront: That's the new signed-at-the-top comment feature. What you don't realize is that I made your first comment. Then you made the next, and the next. TwelveTwo made dirigibleman's comment, and he's making this comment for me.

By: HTuttle

HTuttle — Sat, 14 Jan 2006 00:14:13 -0800

Can god make a species so stupidly self-absorbed they actually think about this crap?

By: Space Coyote

Space Coyote — Sat, 14 Jan 2006 07:16:50 -0800

Given a large enough lever, that rock is toast.

By: lodurr

lodurr — Sat, 14 Jan 2006 07:54:20 -0800

HiveMind: Now that's what I'm talking about. I think I should go have a bumper sticker made up that says "God is Irrelevant." Then other days I think I ought to go out and form a "Church of the Demiurge." I remember reading about Epicurus in high school and being really astonished and impressed at the hatchet job that the Stoics managed to do on Epicureanism.

By: scheptech

scheptech — Sat, 14 Jan 2006 10:53:50 -0800

I reasoned that there's no reason to suppose that an omnipotent god would have any interest in humans, I can't understand this either way: why or alternately, why not? Some disike the idea of the 'exceptionalism' of human beings because there exist human beings which they don't like?

By: elwoodwiles

elwoodwiles — Sat, 14 Jan 2006 12:12:07 -0800

When God sneezes, what do the angels say?

By: kyrademon

kyrademon — Sat, 14 Jan 2006 12:34:45 -0800

Referring to a response made to me waaaaaay earlier in this thread, I always thought Pascal's wager was such faulty logic as to be a little laughable. It starts with a false dichotomy (God/hell vs. NoGod/NoHell) and then comes to a conclusion based on that, while ignoring the literally infinite other possibilities that make the logic puzzle completely moot, for example: - There is a god or gods, but not the one you chose to believe in based on this thought experiment, who will send you to hell for guessing wrong (actually, a quite common belief, so it's remarkable that it was simply ignored.) - There is a god or gods who will send you to hell FOR BELIEVING IN GOD. Heck, it makes as much sense as going there for shellfish or homosexuality. - Conversely but not identically, there is a heaven which you can only get to by NOT BELIEVING IN IT, like that one Choose Your Own Adventure Book where there was no way to get to the good ending by following the rules. And so on and so on and so on.

By: boaz

boaz — Sat, 14 Jan 2006 12:38:20 -0800

"And what if we picked the wrong religion? Every week, we're just making God madder and madder!" -- Homer Simpson

By: Smedleyman

Smedleyman — Sat, 14 Jan 2006 13:28:19 -0800

Can omnipotence not be omnipotence? Then it's not omnipotence is it? Aha! *goes on to remove the set of all sets from the set of all sets - gets trapped in an infinite loop* I bet Capt. Kirk could make a computer asplode with this stuff.

By: lodurr

lodurr — Sat, 14 Jan 2006 14:13:20 -0800

kyrademon, I first had pascal's wager presented to me as being a bit of semi-serious snark. He was a man of, shall we say, prodigious appetites and (some would argue) a somewhat lazy moral character. If he could "deal" with that particular issue by making a logic-joke about it, maybe that was as good a way as any (for him) to do so. Rather than, you know, laying off teh booze and gambling.

By: imperium

imperium — Mon, 16 Jan 2006 13:18:14 -0800

Apropos of the Emile Zola quote earlier, you should all be aware of the Scottish equivalent. Tom Nairn once said "Scotland will only be free when the last Minister is strangled with the last copy of the Sunday Post". Quite.

By: NotWeButOne

NotWeButOne — Tue, 17 Jan 2006 08:19:23 -0800

The question -- Can God create a rock so heavy he can't lift it -- it formed by a finite mind and posed to finite minds. God does not have to conform to the limitations of the finite mind. Physical creation is a manifestation of Universal Mind and therefore mutable -- everything's in play. And the easiest way for God to accomplish the goal of lifting the mongo rock is for him to adjust your mind to think that it was done.

By: It's Raining Florence Henderson

It's Raining Florence Henderson — Tue, 17 Jan 2006 08:36:31 -0800

"And the easiest way for God to accomplish the goal of lifting the mongo rock is for him to adjust your mind to think that it was done." Your argument is that God the Universal Mind performs cheap parlor tricks masquerading as miracles? So... David Blaine is God?

By: lodurr

lodurr — Tue, 17 Jan 2006 08:50:06 -0800

Dear Blaine I hope not. It's been years since I read it, but I seem to recall Descartes dismissing the idea of a "trickster god" by arguing (essentially) that it didn't make sense for anything "godlike" to play tricks, and that therefore we must all agree that the idea was ludicrous. That was one of many points where I scribbled in the margins something like "um, no, I don't have to agree to that...." Any arguments that are based on the inscrutability of God, AFAICS, have to ultimately founder on that same inscrutability. It makes no more sense to suppose that an inscrutable god is interested in us than to suppose that it isn't, and it makes a lot more practical sense -- for one thing, it's less work -- to assume that it doesn't. I take solace in the idea that "primitive" peoples the world over take the same attitude: Most peoples pray not to the big over-god, but to lesser gods that live in territories closer to our own. That's why the Romans prayed to their ancestors; that's why Catholics pray to their saints. "Big Sky's too big to cry...."

By: lodurr

lodurr — Tue, 17 Jan 2006 08:51:40 -0800

"to assume that it doesn't" ==> "to assume that it isn't"

By: mdn

mdn — Tue, 17 Jan 2006 09:10:18 -0800

An omnipotent, omnipresent creator of the universe could not contradict his own universe, so would be subject to the laws of logic, in that he would essentially ground the laws of logic. Note that "contra-diction" is "talking against" - actual being cannot contradict itself. We can only make paradoxes in words. The question is, then, can there be a rock which logically cannot be lifted? The answer is, if you made a rock the size of the entire universe, there would be nowhere to 'lift' it to - but then you have to figure out finite vs. infinite universes, which is a problem with or without "god".

By: JekPorkins

JekPorkins — Tue, 17 Jan 2006 09:19:12 -0800

subject to the laws of logic Why would God be subject to something that man invented?