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.
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.
Reply to This Comment
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.”
Reply to This Comment
GMNightmare Reply:
December 5th, 2008 at 1:04 pm
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.
Reply to This Comment
Zach Reply:
August 20th, 2009 at 4:26 pm
I think I love you
Reply to This Comment
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.
Reply to This Comment
Neece Reply:
December 5th, 2008 at 5:28 pm
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!
Reply to This Comment
D.J. deSaxofón Reply:
December 28th, 2009 at 4:47 am
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
Reply to This Comment
GMNightmare Reply:
December 28th, 2009 at 2:26 pm
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?
Reply to This Comment
Johnny Reply:
December 28th, 2009 at 4:29 pm
In an age when most browsers have a built-in spell check, and a dictionary is a 10-second Google search away… How can people expect to be taken seriously when they not only misspell a word, but in the same line realize it and ask to be excused for the misspelling?
Reply to This Comment
A thoughtful reply Reply:
July 22nd, 2009 at 4:28 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.
Reply to This Comment
GMNightmare Reply:
July 22nd, 2009 at 4:54 pm
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.
Reply to This Comment
A thoughtful reply Reply:
July 22nd, 2009 at 6:08 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.
Reply to This Comment
GMNightmare Reply:
July 22nd, 2009 at 8:39 pm
??? 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.
Reply to This Comment
A thoughtful reply Reply:
July 22nd, 2009 at 11:54 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.
Reply to This Comment
GMNightmare Reply:
July 23rd, 2009 at 12:07 am
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.
A thoughtful reply Reply:
July 23rd, 2009 at 12:07 am
How can you use my brain?
Reply to This Comment
A thoughtful reply Reply:
July 23rd, 2009 at 12:14 am
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.
Reply to This Comment
GMNightmare Reply:
July 23rd, 2009 at 12:23 am
???
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/
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?
Reply to This Comment
GMNightmare Reply:
December 20th, 2008 at 2:12 am
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?
Reply to This Comment
Neece Reply:
December 20th, 2008 at 2:18 am
Hey GMN, you beat me to the punch. I personally like the irony of calling that comment “a thoughtful reply”.
Reply to This Comment
Neece Reply:
December 20th, 2008 at 2:16 am
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.
Reply to This Comment
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.
Reply to This Comment
Neece Reply:
December 30th, 2008 at 5:23 am
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.
Reply to This Comment
Prinze Reply:
July 27th, 2009 at 12:24 am
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….
Reply to This Comment
GMNightmare Reply:
July 27th, 2009 at 1:53 am
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.
Reply to This Comment
speedracer Reply:
February 20th, 2010 at 3:45 am
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?
Reply to This Comment
Neece Reply:
February 20th, 2010 at 10:42 am
Wait! Let me get my popcorn and giant soda before GMNightmare goes off on you! LOL! This is going to be awesome!
Ok. I’m ready. 
Reply to This Comment
speedracer Reply:
February 20th, 2010 at 2:56 pm
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???
Reply to This Comment
GMNightmare Reply:
February 20th, 2010 at 8:06 pm
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.
Reply to This Comment
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.
Reply to This Comment
GMNightmare Reply:
December 31st, 2008 at 1:20 am
Oooo, that’s wonderful. Really. No, not really, just joking hahaha.
Ahem, “simply a single piece of evidence that suggests the creator exists.” Now I know fellow religious people don’t agree with you on that one. In fact, I’m pretty sure you don’t mean that. You want to know why? Because you went on to further that statement. Couldn’t even follow your own words could you?
No, it has no logic. It barely has a piece of historic value even–there are far more valuable sources for our history. If foremost, it IS NOT good advice to live peacefully. How can you even say that? Are you reading the same book? Have you even read it? Do you see peaceful actions in murdering people who work on Sundays? To forsake family and friends because they don’t believe in the same imaginary friend? To outcast anybody who isn’t in your religion? The bible advocates murder, lies, rape, abduction, slavery… The bible, IS NOT good advice, and it never has been. Far more helpful stuff out there. Have you ever read that “book”? No, I think not. You know nothing of your religion, nothing. And the bible contains nothing “evidentiary”. If you didn’t know what word you were using, it means to have evidence, the bible doesn’t give any evidence. Duh, that’s part of the religion, no evidence because everything must be taken with complete faith. See? You really don’t know anything about your religion.
And no, why would a book surviving just a thousand years impress me? Huh? Really now. There are older books of different religions, different takes, why doesn’t that impress you? Ever read those and wonder why Christianity stole themes from those books to try and absolve older religions? Oh wait, that’s right, why are books so rare from those times? Oh yeah, almost forgot that Christianity burned most other books, losing our society countless millions of all kinds of books about all kinds of things.
“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.”
First, since you really probably didn’t know this (I can tell since you don’t seem to understand much about this world) our world isn’t really “neverending”. But why did you ask this question really? Do you think your experiences are supple evidence? No, they are not. Or perhaps you wanted to impress. No, really that’s unimpressive, you climbed a mountain, I’m on top of one as we speak. Yes, quite beautiful. But pretty things don’t support your god. Have you ever traveled to Ghana and seen the starving children and, basically a city of trash? Unimpressive really, not beautiful at all. Very ugly, very sad, and if you offer your view as evidence of your god then I offer mine as evidence that your god doesn’t exist. And trust me, mine is far more potent then yours.
By the way, perhaps I should teach you a little bit of biology. We don’t coexist with our environment. We don’t work well with the complexity of the ecosystems. We terraform land and ecosystems for our own use, make what would be inhabitable to us habitual. And we DESTROY ecosystems doing it. Oh, but don’t worry about it. Humans destroying the Earth… it’s better you don’t know about it, because ignorance is bliss right? And as long as your happy not knowing your destroying our planet everything’s good right?
Really, there is amazement in the fact that we exist. You know what? It would be amazing if you actually believed that. You don’t though. Want to know why? Because I know what amazement is. If I’m amazed at something, I look at it, I study it, I research, I learn about it. That, is being amazed. You don’t know what amazement is, as you just said, you would rather remain ignorant that to learn how everything really works. No, what really happened is you looked around for something to try and fit your illogical beliefs, and once you found something you thought fit you stopped–never looked again or thought about how it all works. Anyways, it doesn’t really support your argument in the first place.
Ooo, so you choose to believe that hoping is not laziness? Do you think that changes ANYTHING? NO. Hoping DOES NOTHING. Hoping is laziness, hoping is doing nothing when you should be doing something. Faith, is believing things unseen that have no evidence. Hope has nothing to do with faith. Hope, does not ever make a happy life. Hoping is a sign of an unhappy life, always hoping for more. Hope, does not make happiness, it creates sadness and longing. You’ve mistaken hope with faith. Faith brings a type of happiness, that is not true happiness. Hope, is an negative feeling. You’ve never faced real hope, since you do not understand this.
For the record, confidence is not faith either. Quite trying to make faith everything, faith is nothing. Faith is not hope. Faith is not confidence. Faith is not happiness. I have confidence in myself, not faith. Take a course in relativity if you have problems understanding that.
Why live? Listen to yourself! Why are you living if all you have is hope? Are you truly that pathetic? You do not know happiness, you do not understand happiness. I am happy, extremely happy all the time, in fact, I am happy right now. You can’t understand this, because you think hope and faith and ignorance is happiness. It is not. And I guess we’ll chalk this up, purpose is not equate to hope.
Let’s read your equates here…
Ignorance = happiness = hope = faith = confidence = purpose
BULL.
Hopeful purpose my ***. You ignore the countless millions whose only hope is to die quickly since they will starve to death, their bodies eating themselves since they have a lack of food. Oh, wonderful hopeful life there.
By the way, all these musings are hopeful, hopeful that you will get your head out of your *** and do something positive with your pathetic life that has only hope. You know, like instead of hoping everything will turn out alright do everything in your will to make it.
By the way, are you going to actually show some intelligence and actually reply to the article? I don’t even know if you’ve read it yet, you have not given even the slightest hint that you know what it’s even about.
Reply to This Comment
Neece Reply:
December 31st, 2008 at 6:19 am
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.
Reply to This Comment
A thoughtful reply Reply:
July 22nd, 2009 at 5:45 pm
Red herrings, everywhere I see.
To call people names and to blatantly tell them they are ignorant is never a good way to argue because it shows weakness. Sticks and stones you know. It is very immature way to argue logical points. If you wish to critisize, that is acceptable, but it seems unworthy of such an opponent as you to reduce your self to that kind of basement.
One thing you mention is that
First off, I am sorry you were “forsaken” because you do not choose to believe in Jesus. I think it makes you seem like an unhappy person who has trouble resolving your feelings about humanity. Of course, it is never too late to repent and turn to Christianity. I will welcome you, and so will He.
You should know that Christianity is not about excluding others, it is about including as many people as we can who wish to serve The Trinity: The Father, The Son, and The Holy Ghost. If supposed “Christians” exclude you, they are not true Christians because Christianity is about showing people who God is and revealing the person you can be through God. Christianity is hard work. It is a daily struggle for those of us who choose to serve Him. True Christians have no time to judge the lives of others, for they are busy judging their own lives to be in accordance with what is right. Why should I mention the splinter in your eye, when I have a log in my own?
I choose to live in peace. I choose not to pick up a weapon against my neighbor everyday. I choose to be happy. This is Christian living. I choose to treat others the way I want to be treated. Living in peace does not mean I have to roll over and agree with everything that everyone says.
People who ban/burn books in the name of Christianity are not true Christians because we know that Satan will interfere in the minds of those who do not have enough strength to stand up for what it right. No one has to burn a book in order to realize their are sins committed within it. Sins are recorded in The Holy Bible, but good Christians can learn from the mistakes of others and from themselves.
When you argue, “Do you see peaceful actions in murdering people who work on Sundays? To forsake family and friends because they don’t believe in the same imaginary friend? To outcast anybody who isn’t in your religion? The bible advocates murder, lies, rape, abduction, slavery… ”
You are pulling from the Old Testament in fact, you are pulling from The Torah. “killing people who work on Sundays blah blah blah” That was from the old covenant. Christians live under the new covenant. The New Testament. Where in the New Testament does it say that Christians should kill people who work on Sundays? The New Testament does not advocate: lies, murder, rape, or slavery. It merely tells of their historical occurance. It does predict some nasty stuff in end times which I do not even pretend to understand nor even need to understand completely as it is prophetic. Once again, The matter of The New Testament takes away any shadows of gray area to which you are referring as in Deuteronomy and Leviticus. And yes, I have read The Holy Bible.
As for stealing themes, if there is one true God, and He revealed himself to nations in different ways through prophets how do we know that their recordings simply do not confirm the ancient religion you choose to tear down. Can you say for a certainty, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that their is any religion older than Judeo/Chrisitianity? If you say so, I say that you take a mighty risk with your eternity.
Next, I am fuly aware the world is not literally “never-ending”, Silly. What I wrote was a memory in my mind’s monacle of some time I spent at the top of a mountain along The Great Divide in The Rocky Mountain Range. I have also been to The Bavarian Alps. This was not written as “a show” for your sake. It was meant to be a claim that once you get there, you understand the euphoric feeling one gets when one climbs for 2 weeks and makes it to the top. It certainly seems like the world goes on forever. Furthermore, one seems mighty insignificant up there and it is easy to see that someone truly does have the whole world in His hands. How can it not be that way? This world is too well ordered for it not to have been planned. It is the same feeling I get when I look under a microscope or into a telescope or at pictures from the Hubble Telescope. God is magnificent to have created all of this bounty. Isn’t it amazing? Do you not wonder at it all? It is no accident, of that I can assure you. I may not have all the names and dates and places down to a historical tee, but of one thing I am certain, GOD IS A CERTAINTY.
I have been to 3rd world nations. I have seen their squalor. Once this nation was a third world nation; it rose above all that because it was built on a foundation of Christian principals. Surely you cannot argue that as well? We prosper because God allows us to prosper and because many of us serve Him. It is my belief that in third world nations that do not prosper, evil reigns through the misdoings of sinful men. Those who live in trash make choices. They must rise above that. They must work to break the chains that bind. Like I said, Christianity is not an easy religion. When a person can offer kindness in the poorest and trashiest of conditions, then I say that religion does exist. That is where The Holy Spirit dwells. It helps the conscience choose right from wrong. When a flower can grow out of the ashes of pooverty this more proof He exists. And if there is ever to be a change on a massive scale in conditions such as those you mention in Ghana, then it starts with hope. Ideas are seeds. Hope is water that keeps ideas alive. When you suggest that their is no such thing as hope, what I see is that you want to quit before you want to begin changing the world for the better. Quitters never win and winners never quit.
Reply to This Comment
Johnny Reply:
July 22nd, 2009 at 6:58 pm
Ah yes, out comes the No True Scotsman Fallacy. Read about it, and stop using it.
The old testament is actually the Tanakh; the Torah is just the founding laws, or “Five Books of Moses.” If the old testament is to be completely disregarded, why then does it remain part of the Christian Bible? Why do Christians so vehemently stick to the ten commandments? Why do so many Christians quote the old testament when it comes to their anti-gay prejudices? And what of Matthew 5:17-19?
Lack of oxygen will make you see all kinds of things.
On the contrary, the world is far too poorly ordered and designed for someone to have planned it. If it was designed, then I believe the designer incompetent. If you were designing a sentient race, would you give them such a short lifespan? What about giving them birth defects? What about diseases? What about how poorly designed the eye is? How about designing a planet with a million things to kill your ‘chosen’ creature. Pffft, please. A 10 year old kid could design more intelligently. “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.” ~Theodosius Dobzhansky
There may have been Christians among the founding fathers, but they specifically founded this nation on the principle that everyone had the right to choose their religion (or choose none).
I love how Christians in America somehow see themselves as the modern Israelites, Yahweh’s chosen few. Where do they get these ideas?
Reply to This Comment
GMNightmare Reply:
July 22nd, 2009 at 9:16 pm
“By the way, are you going to actually show some intelligence and actually reply to the article? I don’t even know if you’ve read it yet, you have not given even the slightest hint that you know what it’s even about.”
I’m sorry, none of what I said was a red herring. Everything you have been saying has been a red herring. You have not commented one iota on the actual article. Your initial comments didn’t, you still haven’t, you still aren’t. Everything I said was to refute what you said, their was no distraction. Would you like to back that up? What part was a red herring?
I didn’t call you names, if you couldn’t read. Where? You gave the assumption that you were ignorant. I was saying it ISN’T good to remain ignorant. Your quote: “So maybe ignorance is bliss, but at least I am happy.” Get it? You called yourself ignorant. I told you to not be. But maybe it’s been too long for you to remember that, it was over 7 months ago, next time read your first comments before you just start spouting off BS.
No, I’m not forsaken. In fact, I have what I would argue better feelings for humanity, as I’m not hindered by a book telling me to hate everybody who doesn’t believe or who are gay and so forth. Christianity is COMPLETELY about excluding others… IE, people who don’t believe in Jesus go to hell. BAM, exclusion. I doubt you don’t judge others either, as in your comment that Jesus has forsaken me and I have a poor view of humanity and I’m not happy. You may not know this since you don’t actually know me in person, but I am most likely leagues happier than you. Also, Johnny covered the no true Christian argument.
You know what? I don’t think YOU are a true Christian. How’s that? Why do you think YOUR interpretation is the only TRUE interpretation? Yeah, BS. Oh, by the way:
“I choose to live in peace. I choose not to pick up a weapon against my neighbor everyday. I choose to be happy.”
is not Christian living, it’s living. Most people actually live like that. You aren’t special.
Also, a little history lesson. They burned books BECAUSE it didn’t agree with the Bible. In other words, if it went against the word of god it was burned (sound like a realistic true Christian action to me). Your whole argument about it is completely whack and not understandable. Try again.
“Matthew 5:17-18 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
~ Jesus says he approves of the old testament laws and the prophets. He has no objection to the cruelties of the old testament, and he says those laws are binding on everyone forever.”
The new testament does not invalidate anything about the old testament.
New testament murder even:
Luke 19:26 “He replied, ‘I tell you that to everyone who has, more will be given, but as for the one who has nothing, even what he has will be taken away. 27But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them—bring them here and kill them in front of me.”
It’s not isolated. The new testament has it’s fair share of hateful murderous BS.
And yes, I can for certainty beyond a doubt know their are religions older than CHRISTIANITY. Christianity is 2000 years old, bloody hell, think of what you are saying. Jewish even? Yes. Egyptian religion predates it, Mesopotamian predate, and, Chinese religion predates it. The old testament copies stuff from the Epic of Gilgamesh, not to mention that the new testament Jesus is pretty much a copy of Horus.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jcpa5b.htm
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.
The world is not ordered. It is not a very good job. Johnny already covered this area quite well.
Also, I didn’t say there was no such thing as hope. I said you do not understand, and you don’t. Your whole little monologue at the end there really says it. It didn’t actually refute anything I said.
This is not a Christian country. It is not built upon Christian principles (good thing too, we know how well the Dark Ages went). Most of the founding fathers were deists. Also, our nation isn’t doing to well… In relation, most secular societies are prospering greatly. Welcome to the real world.
.
I see you didn’t really even refute much of what I said. Wow, maybe next time you can stay on track longer.
Oh, don’t bother replying really. You STILL have not SHOWN ANY INTELLECT or signs thereof in reading my article. IE:
“By the way, are you going to actually show some intelligence and actually reply to the article? I don’t even know if you’ve read it yet, you have not given even the slightest hint that you know what it’s even about.”
Reply to This Comment
Neece Reply:
December 31st, 2008 at 6:25 am
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.
Reply to This Comment
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.
Reply to This Comment
GMNightmare Reply:
July 14th, 2009 at 5:54 am
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.
Reply to This Comment
Rigellian Reply:
July 22nd, 2009 at 4:33 am
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?
Reply to This Comment
GMNightmare Reply:
July 22nd, 2009 at 3:53 pm
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?
Reply to This Comment
Rigellian Reply:
July 23rd, 2009 at 3:17 am
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
Reply to This Comment
GMNightmare Reply:
July 23rd, 2009 at 3:39 am
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.
Reply to This Comment
Rigellian Reply:
July 23rd, 2009 at 4:38 am
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!
GMNightmare Reply:
July 23rd, 2009 at 4:52 am
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/
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.
Reply to This Comment
GMNightmare Reply:
July 22nd, 2009 at 9:24 pm
The paradox is omnipotence itself, not the question.
Reply to This Comment
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.
Reply to This Comment
GMNightmare Reply:
July 22nd, 2009 at 9:23 pm
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.
Reply to This Comment
kentuckyfan1001 Reply:
July 22nd, 2009 at 10:16 pm
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.
Reply to This Comment
kentuckyfan1001 Reply:
July 22nd, 2009 at 10:26 pm
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?
Reply to This Comment
kentuckyfan1001 Reply:
July 22nd, 2009 at 11:54 pm
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.
Reply to This Comment
A thoughtful reply Reply:
July 23rd, 2009 at 12:00 am
I like it!
Reply to This Comment
GMNightmare Reply:
July 23rd, 2009 at 12:13 am
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.
Reply to This Comment
GMNightmare Reply:
July 22nd, 2009 at 11:25 pm
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?
Reply to This Comment
i don’t pretend to comprehend. I leave it up to God to explain it all.
Reply to This Comment
A thoughtful reply Reply:
July 23rd, 2009 at 12:27 am
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.
Reply to This Comment
GMNightmare Reply:
July 23rd, 2009 at 12:33 am
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.
Reply to This Comment
A thoughtful reply Reply:
July 23rd, 2009 at 1:19 am
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 .
Reply to This Comment
GMNightmare Reply:
July 23rd, 2009 at 1:36 am
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.
Reply to This Comment
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.
Reply to This Comment
GMNightmare Reply:
July 23rd, 2009 at 1:39 pm
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.
Reply to This Comment
A thoughtful reply Reply:
July 23rd, 2009 at 2:32 pm
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.
Reply to This Comment
GMNightmare Reply:
July 23rd, 2009 at 3:51 pm
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?
Reply to This Comment
Prinze Reply:
July 27th, 2009 at 10:47 am
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…
Reply to This Comment
GMNightmare Reply:
July 27th, 2009 at 1:38 pm
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.
Reply to This Comment
speedracer Reply:
February 20th, 2010 at 2:35 pm
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
Reply to This Comment
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
Reply to This Comment
GMNightmare Reply:
July 28th, 2009 at 1:24 pm
…
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/
Reply to This Comment
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.
Reply to This Comment
GMNightmare Reply:
December 5th, 2009 at 2:22 pm
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.”
Reply to This Comment
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.
Reply to This Comment
GMNightmare Reply:
December 5th, 2009 at 4:40 pm
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.
Reply to This Comment
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.
Reply to This Comment
GMNightmare Reply:
December 18th, 2009 at 2:58 pm
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.
Reply to This Comment
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.
Reply to This Comment
GMNightmare Reply:
December 29th, 2009 at 12:40 am
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?
Reply to This Comment
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).
Reply to This Comment
GMNightmare Reply:
December 29th, 2009 at 5:08 am
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?
Reply to This Comment
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.
Reply to This Comment
GMNightmare Reply:
December 30th, 2009 at 4:26 pm
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!
Reply to This Comment
GMNightmare Reply:
December 30th, 2009 at 4:52 pm
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.
Reply to This Comment
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.
Reply to This Comment
GMNightmare Reply:
December 30th, 2009 at 5:52 pm
Pressurizing the water inside the jar would break the jar. This response is the same as making the jar bigger, your changing the bounds of the problem. All that changes, is once he has pressurized the water to maximum pressure, and filled it, can he then fill it with more water? You may change the bounds however you want, but the problem still exists once we take those bounds into consideration with the problem.
You still haven’t done it yet, you have not changed saying space with nothing. The thing is, the moment you start to understand that space is nothing, is the moment you understand some of the ludicrousy of what you are saying.
You didn’t answer any of the questions, what was there before god created something there? Answer this question, and you’ll see what I’m saying.
.
Heat, is energy, first off. There is no efficiency loss. If a process nets heat, it requires heat to go the other way. This is a basic law.
.
To answer your last question before I go on…
“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 [NOTHING], would it not?”
No, it would require an infinite quantity of rock. Isn’t that what you would first conclude to, why would you conclude otherwise? Because matter is supposedly finite? god breaks those rules, remember, he can create matter with no ingredients. For pete’s sake, did you even read the basic chart?
“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.”
.
.
.
You say you are different than the concept of omnipotence, yet you are making a claim based upon that! You are saying that since god is omnipotent, he can move everything created… yet that has no backing whatsoever!
You do not understand god, yet you are claiming god must be able to move everything. Do you not understand that you are making claims of god that you just stated you should not have any clue about?
You know, I have a deconversion story on this website, maybe you should look it up before you disrespectfully pray.
http://www.heavingdeadcats.com/testimonial/gmnightmare/
You might be very surprised at what you find, if instead of just reading about god you actually thought about it. Really thought about it, thought about what you are saying. Like the nonsense that god created nothing. These things are nonsensical, and you only believe them because you’ve never really thought about it. Nowhere does it say that god created nothing (or space like you like to call it), yet you hold that belief anyways! That did not come from the Bible!
.
Here is my take on you praying for me:
“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.”
.
And here is something else:
“Looking at those people who do claim ignorance of morality except via the teachings of long dead charismatic cult figures I see nothing to be jealous of. These people do not strike me as especially moral. Why would I want to be a smug religious git? I don’t need consolation in regards to death, I am quite comfortable with the idea that death is the permanent end of all subjective experience. I am not scared of being dead. I value my own life, but not infinitely. I don’t see how being part of somebody else’s big plan is of value to me. I don’t need anybody else to define a meaning or a purpose for my life. Meanings are for words. Purposes are for tools. I’m nobody’s tool. My life is my life, I live for whatever purposes or follies I choose for myself, and if I don’t get around to making any that’s my lookout. Nobody else has the right to determine what my life is for and nobody else has the right to define a meaning for my death either. I’m open to suggestions but if you have any holy orders you can stick them where the sun doesn’t shine.”
mwillett(dot)org/atheism/pray-for-me(dot)htm
Reply to This Comment
Johnny Reply:
December 30th, 2009 at 6:42 pm
It always makes me laugh when believers throw this at non-believers. They never seem to realize that most non-believers did not come to their non-belief lightly, or through lack of knowledge. Usually its the fact that we have researched that we are non-believers. And in my experience non-believers are far better at reading all sides of the material; while believers tend to stick to what supports their existing views.
Reply to This Comment
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.
Reply to This Comment
GMNightmare Reply:
December 30th, 2009 at 5:54 pm
god isn’t god’s name, at least from the Bible. god has a name, and “god” is not it!
Reply to This Comment
D.J. deSaxofón Reply:
December 30th, 2009 at 9:05 pm
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.
Reply to This Comment
GMNightmare Reply:
December 30th, 2009 at 9:20 pm
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.
Reply to This Comment
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.
Reply to This Comment
GMNightmare Reply:
December 30th, 2009 at 9:18 pm
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.
Reply to This Comment
GMNightmare Reply:
December 30th, 2009 at 9:23 pm
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.”
Reply to This Comment
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?
Reply to This Comment
GMNightmare Reply:
December 30th, 2009 at 10:51 pm
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?
Reply to This Comment
To GMNightmare, and everyone who has posted in this thread…
I have spent the last two and a half hours reading through all of these posts and have read every one of them up until the last 20% or so (I’m getting really tired), so I decided to skip to the last few posts.
I was brought up a Roman Catholic, but for the last few years I have had very many questions. I had always gone to church by choice, but haven’t gone for a while now (other than Christmas and Easter). The reason is because there are so many questions (such as the one you have proposed) that still boggle my mind, and I would rather question and find things out for myself, through my own free will, than continue to pretend to be a part of something I know very little about. This is precisely how I stumbled upon this page in fact. Therefore, I am offering up my fairly balanced point of view.
Although I’m afraid I cannot offer much of an opinion on the question in your article, I can say that I am definately seeing both sides of the arguement. It’s a question I will continue to ponder about for quite sometime and if I come up with any answer soon, I will be sure to share it, but that isn’t exactly what this post is about.
People have feverantly defended their positions with much thought and effort on both sides. Both the theists and the atheists claiming to have the “real” answer to the question, while attempting to discard, or disprove the other theory. Being a mutual party, I think I have benefited greatly from getting to read all the very intelligent responses. I am able to appreciate each one better than if I was on either side of the argument because I have that open mind to both theories.
What I have realised though, is that you have continuously discredited other people’s beliefs on the the topic because, in your view, they are all just “followers” who don’t have a mind of their own to “logically” think through your theory. Don’t get me wrong, this isn’t just a knock on you. There have definately been others who have thought the same about you. I just noticed it again in the last post, and it seemed to be more of an issue that came up in your posts so I decided to reply to it. So please, don’t take any of this too personal, but just to make this easier to explain I will refer to you specifically, but again, as I’ve said before, this applies to everyone in this discussion
My problem with people calling other people “blind followers” and believing that others “don’t have a mind of their own” is that people’s knowledge and reasoning can only be explained through the environment they exist in. People’s beliefs are bound by the complex intracacies of the societal boundaries in which they live. For example, Many who are born into the Christian faith continue to live through that faith their entire lives, but many also, as they get older and begin to make their own choices, may begin to change their beliefs due to a number of circumstances. And, of course, the opposite is true for those born without religion, or without a belief in God: (some will adopt a faith later on in life).
I see it as being very ignorant to tell someone that they do not have a mind of their own. Does anyone really have a mind of their own? The only way one can have a true mind of their own is if they grew up without any human interaction. You might not want to beleive it but your views have been influenced by your parents, teachers, friends, co-workers, acquaintances, etc. You too have founded your beliefs based on the information you have gathered through observing, analyzing, and questioning the environment around you. You did not invent the rules of logic, because there is no such thing as real “logic.” Who is to say that the only logical explanation for the creation of the universe is the scientific one? Who is to say that the only logical explanation for the creation of the universe is embedded in Christian teachings? I believe the word “logical” is misinterpreted and bent to accompany one’s own way of saying “this is the only right explanation.”
I firmly believe that you have actively engaged yourself in a lot of research, done a lot of readings, and gathered many opinions and came to a very fair and legitimate conclusion that, in your opinion, there is no God. I have great respect for you for taking on such a task and eventually sticking with one side of the coin. I also admire your persistence in sticking by what you believe in. But you aren’t the first one to believe that, so how does that not make yourself a “follower”? You are a follower of something too aren’t you? You only have that knowledge that you have because somebody presented it to you in terms you felt comfortable with, that made sense to you, and that you felt best explained your existence on this planet. One who follows the crowd to the soccer game is no more, or less, a “blind sheep” than one that follows the crowd to the football game. Yes, perhaps D.J. came to the conclusion of the Bible, but does that mean he didn’t explore any options before he came to that conclusion? How do you know that he didnt think things through, just like you did, but instead of landing on “heads” he landed on “tails”? Maybe there was a big difference the people who had the most influence on him in his life, compared to those who influenced you in your life? And maybe not, maybe you were both raised atheist, but in the end decided to take different paths?
The universe is a very big place. Without some sort of guidance (be it scientific or Devine), we would be lost, confused, and alone. There is a certain level of comfort that I beleive human beings receive from having an answer for our existence, whether one choses to beleive in a God or not. But there is definately a need for a general understanding of all the dynamic forces that pull and push us in the many directions life takes us. Hence people continue to search for answers, and some will find them quicker than others. We are curious beings. We MUST have an answer to everything. These differing views about how the world works are simply ways to help us explain why things happen the way they do, at the time they do, and where they do. Everyone is a follower of something.
It is getting quite late and I think I should close this up now. Again, GMNightmare, you were used as an example, but it’s a general notion to everyone. Basically just have respect for other people’s beliefs. Use them as tools to make your beliefs stronger. Do not be afraid to open up possibilities for it will only benefit you and your understanding of why you believe so strongly in one thing or another. Or, you may learn/realize viewpoints or perspectives that you have never been approached with before that might get you to change your mind, and there is absolutely NOTHING wrong with that. It really is a win-win situation. Stand up for what you believe in, but most importantly have respect for each other no matter how “right” you may think you are.
Thanks to everyone who read this. It’s 2:30 am and I am definately not goin back and checking everything I wrote so forgive me if there are grammar/spelling errors or run-on sentences. I am extremely tired
Cheers!
Reply to This Comment
GMNightmare Reply:
January 27th, 2010 at 1:45 pm
I’ll take the biggest crux to your whole argument here:
“is that you have continuously discredited other people’s beliefs on the the topic because, in your view, they are all just “followers” who don’t have a mind of their own to “logically” think through your theory”
That is incorrect. You’ll need to back up your conclusion here, who’s answer do you think I didn’t refute properly? I think you’ll find yourself strapped to find a proper example. To those I state blindly follow, are the ones who give answers without backing. It is for the numerous people who’ve given “no, just because”. It shows they have truly given zero thought to their beliefs or conclusion, in this regard, and I will call them out on it. It has nothing to do with accepting my theory, and it has everything to do with them believing something blindly.
.
Which brings us to: “You are a follower of something too aren’t you?”
The difference, which should be apparent now that I clarified, is that all my views are backed up. I don’t just repeat things because somebody else told me it; nor do I follow something no matter what. Should someone actually make a sound argument, I may change my mind. This is the different. A Christian, shall I say, follows the Bible, if it conflicts with the Bible they ignore it outright just because. That, is as I said blindly following.
But it’s funny you should say this here. The argument, which I’m making in this vast topic… IS MINE. It is nobody else’s, it is mine and mine alone, I am the first to make it. Have you ever seen it elsewhere? No, it was completely developed by me. Which is fun, actually, to have my complete own idea.
.
Let’s cover the: “there is no such thing as real “logic.””
Actually, there is. It’s the principles governing the validity of arguments. If A is true, and B is false, then A & B is false, while A or B is true. Those are of course the very basics, but yes, there is very much such a thing as logic. When using the above terms, somebody says A & B is true, they are not following logic.
So I’ll cover your irrelevant input on the origin of the universe, and give you an example. Theists like to make the claim that all things have a beginning (we’ll make that A), then they claim that because of that we had to be created by some god (the solution, C), and also claim that god did not have a beginning (that’s B). So A+B=C… sounds good? No, A and B cannot coexist, either all things didn’t have a beginning, or they do and thus so must god.
It’s not that every… “nonscientific” explanation of the creation of the universe is illogical, it’s just the one I gave for example is… which happens to be the most commonly used one.
.
“We MUST have an answer to everything”
No, we don’t. That’s religion talking, but in reality religion doesn’t really answer anything. “god did it just because”, what does that answer? Why did god do it, how did god do it, and so on. Religious don’t know those answers, and they don’t care to. I also give you agnostics, who claim that we’ll just never know, and that’s okay. In science you have to be okay with not having an answer to something, there are A LOT of unexplained mysteries. And just life in general. Do you know how to program? You know how to dance? You know rocket science? Do you know how to play a violin? Somewhere, you don’t know something, and you are fine with that, and so am I.
.
“a very fair and legitimate conclusion that, in your opinion, there is no god”
I’m sorry, you see, here is this quite apparent problem here. I am not making the claim that there is no god here! Maybe elsewhere, but I’m answering this question assuming the existence of such a god! At this point, nothing I’ve said here has refuted the existence of god, nor have I tried such. The amazing thing is, that you, like everyone else here, have jumped to this conclusion that just because my answer is logically and not religious based, that it must somehow be attacking the belief of god! In this case, it simply is not true. Accepting my answer, does not mean the denial of god. Just because I’m atheist doesn’t mean everything I say or do is a blasphemy against your god.
.
“just have respect for other people’s beliefs”
No.
“Don’t respect my beliefs.
Be courteous and patient towards me while you do your best to demolish them, and I’ll try to do the same.
Imagine that you’re carefully explaining to a member of the flat earth society why you’re convinced that the earth is roughly spherical. You wouldn’t be doing him any favours if you respected his belief; if you did, you wouldn’t be able to show him why he’s wrong.
Is it even meaningful to talk about respecting a belief that you are convinced is false? I don’t think it is. It seems to me that ‘respect for peoples beliefs’ is often nothing more than a virtuous sounding code phrase that really means “anything for a quiet life”.
Are there any beliefs deserving of respect? I don’t think so. Even beliefs which it’s widely agreed are true, or ones held by people who you trust, or ones you’re personally convinced about the truth of. If we expose all ideas to thorough analysis and criticism, the best ones will survive and we’ll be learning.
When we ‘respect’ each others beliefs we rob ourselves of the chance to learn, to test our reasoning and to get to know one another by talking frankly about the things that are most important to us.
So don’t respect my beliefs, and I promise I won’t respect yours.” ~Bitbutter
.
You’ve also failed to realize, probably due to the scattering of posts (where the posts are don’t necessarily mean time it was put down), but my argument as very much evolved since the start. And I present, the brain child of this 62 page monstrosity:
“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.”
Nobody has refuted that. If you can by all means give a stab… and by that just simply change the step chart to fit what argument you think you have. And here’s something I have to say, you can’t see both sides, because my answer is an absolute. What I mean by that is that there is no middle ground, you are just simply undecided. This isn’t politics, were both answers are suitable, it’s either one way or the other.
Reply to This Comment
GMNightmare Reply:
January 27th, 2010 at 2:11 pm
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.
Reply to This Comment
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?
Reply to This Comment
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?
Reply to This Comment
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.
Reply to This Comment
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
Reply to This Comment
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.
Reply to This Comment
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
Reply to This Comment
I said chill, geesh, these things take time and I have a social life… I don’t just ramble whatever the hell comes to mind, I actually think things through.
I think all your posts can be summed like this from your own words:
“That being said I don’t like to think because I can give myself a headache trying to do hard math in my head”
Congratulations.
First, nobody said that organisms were created at the creation of Earth (well, except theists in some aspects). Organisms came afterward. So for that matter, organisms didn’t have to live in the lava at Earth’s creation. But for your information, many bacteria live right on the boundary of lava sources and in volcanic bubbles… they actually like it hot. Just look up the Archaea bacteria. And yes, many other forms of life like to live even in ice. Did you even once even google that? It couldn’t have been that hard to look that up on your own instead of brandishing your ignorance.
For that matter, how about you just look up abiogenesis. In fact, type that in, and watch the first video fully from start to finish. Life has been created from nonlife in lab settings. Abiogenesis is a specific theory on how life came from nonlife, there are others as well. There you go, even though it has nothing to do with my post, I answered your question. Now tell me, where do you think life came from? It came magically from some superior being for absolutely no reason? And you have absolutely no evidence for it? And this magical being has always been alive, and you don’t know what he’s made of? Great, glad we got that covered.
“I like to have a sense that theres more to life than this”
Why? Why must this fact that you’re alive must mean you get to have some greater life? Is just living and nothing else too hard for you to accept? Do you know how useless you just made your own life? What’s the point of some next life if you spend this life trying to get into it? You make it sound like this life isn’t special at all, there must be more, must have more… ridiculous.
If you don’t believe in the trinity you aren’t Christian by the way. I hope you aren’t making that mistake. For that matter, learn your own religion for pete’s sake.
For your entire god created stuff, or he creates things because he creating things spiel, read this:
http://www.heavingdeadcats.com/2009/07/23/how-you-can-know-there-is-no-god/
“Perhaps god is a man.”
Congratulations, you think the same way as the people who made the bible and all the sexist people in the world. Such a thought is utterly pathetic; to have a gender there must be an opposite. So if god was a male, there would have to be a female god too. No, if such a thing as a god existed, it would be asexual. Your argument is incredibly silly anyways. So god getting laid is the reason why atrocities in the world occur? Do you even know the meaning of omnipresence and omnipotence?
“This is all fairytale world”
Exactly, that is precisely what religion is.
“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.”
Why the hell do I have to lecture you on what seems to be your own religion? Did you even for once again, try googling it? The actual word acclaimed to god is Revelation 19:6, although it is asserted all throughout the bible such as in Psalms 33:8. But congratulations though, you’ve noticed that the bible contains paradoxes that don’t make sense and argues against itself.
“I do want god to be real but mostly because so many people dedicate their lives to him”
That’s pathetic. Why the Christian god then? Why not the Muslim god? What, don’t agree with that one? Hindu gods? Pantheistic? The truth is you still believe, because it is convenient and your scared to not. Why does what other people dedicate their lives to have any effect on what you believe?
“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?”
Wow, actually, you probably shouldn’t turn away from your religion. It is sad that you are such a morally corrupt person, that you have to be put in line by being threatened with eternal punishment. No, people like myself, are good because we are good. In fact, there are far less atheists committing crime than theists… even when accounting for there are less atheists. Huh, maybe it’s due to the fact that rape and murder is completely rampant and backed by god throughout the bible, or that it’s said god forgives everything as long as you believe.
“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”
Gah, and you don’t even know a thing about evolution. What you said is so screwed up it’s not even funny. Evolution doesn’t take drastic steps. In other words, no dog is giving birth to a cat. Evolution works with very, VERY small increments. For that matter, most birth defects are in fact a part of evolution! Random changes are not always good, they can be bad. In fact, most of the time they are bad, and rarely are they good. But because when they are bad, they screw up that person, and generally they die (although with modern medicine that’s happening less). That, in part, is called natural selection. In fact, did you know there were different distinct branches of Neanderthals? Not all of them survived even. Where did they go? Slowly, over thousands of years, children born with beneficial evolutionary mutations lived longer, so they had more children. Children who had that benefit. Children who mated with others, and passed that benefit along. And then some of those children then got other beneficial mutations… and so forth and so forth. It still happens today!
Are you different from your parents? Yes? Evolution. The thing is, that all the different ethnic looks, skin color, eye color, hair color, penis size, breast size, all of it, is evolution in the works. Without modern day travel, humans from all over evolved differently. Get it? Now tell me, how does diversity come into reality when you think we all came from two human beings? Huh? Punishments? Just because, don’t question god right?
For that matter, people are told to “not question” because then they would figure out what a sham religion is. Don’t question, don’t think, obey, just follow, and give us money.
Reply to This Comment
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.
Reply to This Comment