God's Omnipotence - The heavy rock paradox
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
22-02-2013, 03:49 PM
RE: God's Omnipotence - The heavy rock paradox
(22-02-2013 03:33 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  
Quote:Is that so? In that case, please name the titles of the books you have read. In this thread, you also claimed that one of these books you allegedly read was contradictory and biased and even though I have requested you to reveal the book's name to me, you have failed to do so up until now.
Sorry to imply there was just one. Every time I pick up anything by Dawkins, for one example, I feel like I'm reading The Book of Mormon. I could open his crap at random and find flaws.
Quote:I'm a critical thinker, so yes, I have questioned them. In fact, that is the very essence of the biology class I am currently attending. Each lesson we look at different aspects of the fossil record and examine whether or not the theory of evolution holds up to rational scrutiny. Just two days ago, we started testing the hypothesis that all living organisms share a common ancestor in one of our periods and we were able to approve of it.
How did you do so? I'm fascinated. Shouldn't you collect your Nobel now?
Quote:Which questions?
The same ones you have... Why have textbooks evolved from 200 human vestigal organs to a few? The appendix--which is uniquely struck by a malady and removed to end that malady without any other organ needing surgery, implying it has a unique if unknown function 2) the molar teeth, which are no longer removed proactively and change one's palate and voice 3) the tonnsils... oh, I give up. You're beating a dead horse, now, V. I agree that Evolution neither negates nor proves ID. What the Hell do your inquistions, I mean inquiries, have to do with rocks?
Quote:Do you care to elaborate on this?
Quote:Sure. Let these people argue it: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/r...endaB.html they seem smarter than both of us.
Done. God cannot make a God who cannot make a rock that is not too heavy to be not lifted towards the non-center of a singularity with infinite distance and no center of mass near a white hole at the non-center of the geocentric universe.


Please provide a reference listing '200 vestigial organs'.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-02-2013, 04:07 PM
RE: God's Omnipotence - The heavy rock paradox
(22-02-2013 03:33 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  Sorry to imply there was just one. Every time I pick up anything by Dawkins, for one example, I feel like I'm reading The Book of Mormon. I could open his crap at random and find flaws.
As it turns out, I was right about you being unable to name the title of a single book or offer a single citation to prove that one of those books is biased and contradictory. It very much seems like you were lying after all.

(22-02-2013 03:33 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  How did you do so? I'm fascinated. Shouldn't you collect your Nobel now?
I was under the impression that I already answered the first question: By looking at the fossil record, by analyzing and comparing the skeletal structures of different animals, by searching for major transitional fossils such as the Archaeopteryx. I don't understand why I should get a Nobel prize for that, by the way. The theory of evolution is one of the most tested and well-substantiated scientific theories in human history. All of this has been established before I was even born.

(22-02-2013 03:33 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  The same ones you have... Why have textbooks evolved from 200 human vestigal organs to a few? The appendix--which is uniquely struck by a malady and removed to end that malady without any other organ needing surgery, implying it has a unique if unknown function 2) the molar teeth, which are no longer removed proactively and change one's palate and voice 3) the tonnsils... oh, I give up. You're beating a dead horse, now, V. I agree that Evolution neither negates nor proves ID. What the Hell do your inquistions, I mean inquiries, have to do with rocks?
You tell me. I don't recall ever mentioning something about rocks.

(22-02-2013 03:33 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  Sure. Let these people argue it: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/r...endaB.html they seem smarter than both of us.
Done. God cannot make a God who cannot make a rock that is not too heavy to be not lifted towards the non-center of a singularity with infinite distance and no center of mass near a white hole at the non-center of the geocentric universe.
I asked you to elaborate on what you meant when you made your argument. If you want to play the link game, I'm willing to dance.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB010.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB010_2.html

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-02-2013, 01:36 AM
RE: God's Omnipotence - The heavy rock paradox
(22-02-2013 03:33 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  
Quote:Is that so? In that case, please name the titles of the books you have read. In this thread, you also claimed that one of these books you allegedly read was contradictory and biased and even though I have requested you to reveal the book's name to me, you have failed to do so up until now.
Sorry to imply there was just one. Every time I pick up anything by Dawkins, for one example, I feel like I'm reading The Book of Mormon. I could open his crap at random and find flaws.



You can't have a discussion or a critique of Dawkin's work, because you haven't read Dawkin's work. We could stand here all day and quote the Bible back and forth at each other, but you can't say shit from Dawkin's because all you know of his is what you've read other Creationist fucktards lie about him. I can 100% GUARANTEE that SleazyJesus WILL NOT be able to actually quote from a Dawkin's book and make a logical argument against it. Congratulations, you're an uneducated lying sack of shit. Now go away and die in a fire.

[Image: 35273524.jpg]

[Image: GrumpyCat_01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-02-2013, 09:46 AM
RE: God's Omnipotence - The heavy rock paradox
(22-02-2013 03:33 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  
Quote:Is that so? In that case, please name the titles of the books you have read. In this thread, you also claimed that one of these books you allegedly read was contradictory and biased and even though I have requested you to reveal the book's name to me, you have failed to do so up until now.
Sorry to imply there was just one. Every time I pick up anything by Dawkins, for one example, I feel like I'm reading The Book of Mormon. I could open his crap at random and find flaws.

Name one flaw in Dawkins work, accompanied by a direct quote from the book in question.

Go on.

Just one.

According to you it should take all of a minute or two if they are so common.
(22-02-2013 03:33 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  
Quote:Which questions?
The same ones you have... Why have textbooks evolved from 200 human vestigal organs to a few? The appendix--which is uniquely struck by a malady and removed to end that malady without any other organ needing surgery, implying it has a unique if unknown function 2) the molar teeth, which are no longer removed proactively and change one's palate and voice 3) the tonnsils... oh, I give up. You're beating a dead horse, now, V. I agree that Evolution neither negates nor proves ID. What the Hell do your inquistions, I mean inquiries, have to do with rocks?
Translation: I don't like where this conversation is going because I am unable to successfully defeat your arguments. Therefore I will list a random number of complaints that I just made up and try and deflect the issue by pointing out that we have strayed from the OP. Please do not realise what I am doing, because I am too dumb to continue this discussion.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like hedgehog648's post
23-02-2013, 11:13 PM
RE: God's Omnipotence - The heavy rock paradox
In response to the original question, it's really quite simple. God, (in his God aspect), simply makes a rock that, "He", (in his Jesus aspect) can't lift.

It's all bullshit of course, but hey...if you can swallow the whole, "Holy Trinity" thing...you shouldn't have a problem.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-02-2013, 03:04 AM
RE: God's Omnipotence - The heavy rock paradox
Hi all, First time poster in this forum. I am a theist and I wish to comment on the the question, "Can God create a rock so heavy that he himself can't move it". Perhaps someone else made the point I am about to make and if they did I apologize for the duplication.

The question itself is non-sensical. It doesn't appear that way on its face but it is. Let me explain by answering it. Suppose God did create a stone so heavy He could not move it. Could God then move the stone? Sure because motion is the change in position relative to everything else. So while God might not move the heavy stone He just created, He could simply move everything else that He created which isn't too heavy for Him to move....and thus for all intents and purposes, the immovable heavy stone would be moved.

You see if you think about it, in order to create an unmovable stone, you must create a reality in which motion does not exist. So really the question is equivalent to, "Can God create a reality in which motion is possible but it is impossible for anything to be moved". You should be able to see quite clearly that such a question is a contradiction.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-02-2013, 07:41 AM
RE: God's Omnipotence - The heavy rock paradox
(24-02-2013 03:04 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  Hi all, First time poster in this forum. I am a theist and I wish to comment on the the question, "Can God create a rock so heavy that he himself can't move it". Perhaps someone else made the point I am about to make and if they did I apologize for the duplication.

The question itself is non-sensical. It doesn't appear that way on its face but it is. Let me explain by answering it. Suppose God did create a stone so heavy He could not move it. Could God then move the stone? Sure because motion is the change in position relative to everything else. So while God might not move the heavy stone He just created, He could simply move everything else that He created which isn't too heavy for Him to move....and thus for all intents and purposes, the immovable heavy stone would be moved.

You see if you think about it, in order to create an unmovable stone, you must create a reality in which motion does not exist. So really the question is equivalent to, "Can God create a reality in which motion is possible but it is impossible for anything to be moved". You should be able to see quite clearly that such a question is a contradiction.

That only gives the illusion of movement, the rock is still in the same position it is unmoved even if everything else moved.

Behold the power of the force!
[Image: fgYtjtY.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-02-2013, 08:57 AM
RE: God's Omnipotence - The heavy rock paradox
(24-02-2013 03:04 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  Hi all, First time poster in this forum. I am a theist and I wish to comment on the the question, "Can God create a rock so heavy that he himself can't move it". Perhaps someone else made the point I am about to make and if they did I apologize for the duplication.

The question itself is non-sensical. It doesn't appear that way on its face but it is. Let me explain by answering it. Suppose God did create a stone so heavy He could not move it. Could God then move the stone? Sure because motion is the change in position relative to everything else. So while God might not move the heavy stone He just created, He could simply move everything else that He created which isn't too heavy for Him to move....and thus for all intents and purposes, the immovable heavy stone would be moved.

You see if you think about it, in order to create an unmovable stone, you must create a reality in which motion does not exist. So really the question is equivalent to, "Can God create a reality in which motion is possible but it is impossible for anything to be moved". You should be able to see quite clearly that such a question is a contradiction.
But that's not really the point.

The point is that if we assume a being with omnipotence, we get logical contradictions, thus proving that there can be no being with the attribute of omnipotence. It is a reductio ad absurdum proof.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-02-2013, 02:28 PM (This post was last modified: 24-02-2013 02:39 PM by Heywood Jahblome.)
RE: God's Omnipotence - The heavy rock paradox
(24-02-2013 07:41 AM)FSM_scot Wrote:  But that's not really the point.

The point is that if we assume a being with omnipotence, we get logical contradictions, thus proving that there can be no being with the attribute of omnipotence. It is a reductio ad absurdum proof.
The logical contradiction isn't with God. It is with the question. Let me simplify the question further to drive home the point. Can God create an unmovable-movable stone? The question is nonsense. It doesn't have any intelligible meaning. Please realize that you can never ever prove there can be no being with the attribute of omnipotence by asking invalid questions.

There are ways and thought experiments to show that even omnipotence has limits. But showing omnipotence has limitations is not the same as showing a being cannot have omnipotence.
(24-02-2013 08:57 AM)Chas Wrote:  That only gives the illusion of movement, the rock is still in the same position it is unmoved even if everything else moved.
If the action fulfills the definition of motion, then the action is motion. I understand why the answer to question is unsatisfying to you . You wanted an answer to an unintelligible nonsensical question. Well the only way to answer an unintelligible nonsensical question is to change the question itself so that it makes sense. To do that I had to change the question from "Can God create an unmovable-movable stone?" to "Can God create a movable stone?" However, just like to original question was designed to disguise its nonsensicalness, I was able to disguise my answer so that it appeared I answered the original nonsensical question, when I really answered a different, intelligent question.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-02-2013, 02:37 PM
RE: God's Omnipotence - The heavy rock paradox
(24-02-2013 02:28 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  There are ways and thought experiments to show that even omnipotence has limits. But showing omnipotence has limitations is not the same as showing a being cannot have omnipotence.
It actually is. An omnipotent being is defined as a being whose power has no limits. By showing that the concept of unlimited power is logically incoherent, you can prove that no entity can ever be omnipotent.

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: