Can god create a rock so heavy even he cant lift it?

[beavis]

Can god microwave a burrito so hot that even he cant eat it?

I am not arrogant for knowing we are all gods equals, just the opposite, most people are arrogant for knowing it cant be done. We are just confused how to use those parts of ourselves.

Did we arrive at this confusion or inability to change the world around us, somehow similar to creating a problem so big we cant solve it even while we are gods?

Or are we a random growth in the infinite space unknown to other parts of ourselves? Or both?

[AAAAAAAA]

One is arrogant for thinking that God exists.

[beavis]

If we are all gods equals then who is god is trivial, like denying the existence of water while lost in an ocean.

[Stillwater]

Aquinas suggested to that problem that God could do anything that didn't imply a contradiction. Making such a rock would be a contradiction argued Aquinas, therefore impossible for God. Aquinas goes on further to explain this doesn't threaten the idea of God's omnipotence because he defines omnipotence as the ability to do all things that are possible.

I am not an Aquinas fan, but if you believe in the deity he did, it seems like a good enough answer to me.

[beavis]

Its not a contradiction to get yourself into a problem thats hard to get out of, like being unable to use power of the mind to physically leave Earth and explore other places and dimensions.

[no_leaf_clover]

Aquinas suggested to that problem that God could do anything that didn't imply a contradiction. Making such a rock would be a contradiction argued Aquinas, therefore impossible for God. Aquinas goes on further to explain this doesn't threaten the idea of God's omnipotence because he defines omnipotence as the ability to do all things that are possible.

The basic problem I think is that people think that if two things are contradictory, one of them must be "right" and the other must be "wrong," and then to take even further, the thing that is "wrong" therefore cannot exist or be experienced in any way.

I think this entire paradigm is wrong, because Taoist philosophy has shown me a more encompassing way of looking at things.  Hot and cold oppose each other, but that doesn't mean they don't both exist, they just don't exist at the same place at the same time.  Rather they both need each other to even form a conception of "this or that," otherwise if everything were of equal temperature then we wouldn't need words for different extremes of temperatures.

The act of creating a rock with weight is something that happens in a 3D world where time elapses.  This is space-time, and space-time is NOT the realm within which everything exists!  Space-time is just a special subset of a greater reality, and even the physical sciences are beginning to realize this as they study things like entanglement.  There can be one space-time where God creates a rock which is perceived as too heavy to lift.  Then he can set that reality aside and create another space-time right beside of it where he creates the same rock.... and lifts it!


In other words, here is my answer:

Can God create a rock so heavy that he can't lift it?  Yes.

Can he then lift it?  Yes!


Is it a contradiction?  Apparently, yes, if you try to force them to mean the same thing, when they are really just two different experiences that are equally possible.  The problem is that contradictions themselves are only limitations within a small range of things, specific points in space-time.  They do not limit the possibilities of larger spectrums of existence, where multiple realities and infinite experiences are possible.  Anyway this not only makes sense to me, but the logical part of my brain also has problems with an answer of "God can do everything EXCEPT _____."  I think everything that is possible, that can be experienced, WILL be experienced, or else consciousness would never be complete.  Anything that can be imagined by any conscious being, is possible to experience with consciousness in general, to any degree of "realness."  I don't think consciousness can envisage something that it cannot then experience in a very real way.  So I think the consciousness that makes up everything in existence can do everything AND apparent contradictions, not everything EXCEPT apparent contradictions.

[Szaxx]

Good post NLC.
Can a 3D object exist in a 4D environment.
As we don't exist in a 4D world we can't answer this by verification.
We assume it can.
A physical object in an energetic environment, now there's an enigma. Lol

[Stillwater]

I think this entire paradigm is wrong, because Taoist philosophy has shown me a more encompassing way of looking at things.  Hot and cold oppose each other, but that doesn't mean they don't both exist, they just don't exist at the same place at the same time.  Rather they both need each other to even form a conception of "this or that," otherwise if everything were of equal temperature then we wouldn't need words for different extremes of temperatures.

I think it is important to point out that hot and cold are not contradictions though, or even opposites. They are just heat and less heat. Contradictions usually exist in logic space. A good contradiction would be:

"3 =\= 3"

How could that possibly ever be? How could something not be the same and identical with itself? It is a fundamental law of this universe. I cannot conceive it being true in this universe. It is possible in other universes perhaps, but those universes would be ruled by randomness. Why is that? Well, after you accept a single logical contradiction like that, all things simultaneously become true. Why would that be? Here is an example:

--------------------

-Lets assume the contradiction that "Apples exist", and also, "Apples do not exist".  (A ^ ~A)

-Here are some true statements about our world now:

"Apples exist or All horses are unicorns" ( A v AHAU) [for an or statement, only one of them needs to be true for it to be a true statement, but we know apples exist, so it is safe]

but then... we run into danger here, because also, apples don't exist. When one of the sides of an or statement is false, it forces the other to be true, if it is a true statement. Because we know from before it was a true statement, that means now "All horses are Unicorns" must be a true statement. [ (~A ^ ( A v AHAU))  --> AHAU ]

--------------------

This is a well known logical form. It is the path to proving all things are true once a single contradiction has been accepted. It seems like a kind of logic game, with no application to the universe, but then there isn't a single known contradiction in our universe, so that might tell you something.

The problem is that contradictions themselves are only limitations within a small range of things, specific points in space-time.  They do not limit the possibilities of larger spectrums of existence, where multiple realities and infinite experiences are possible.

There is no contradiction in saying that the contradictory terms are true but at different times and places, the contradiction arises when they are simultaenous.

I do not think the rock example where God changes worlds to lift the rock beats the original problem though. You see that if God had to create another space-time in order to lift the rock, which he could not do in the original space-time, that means he was not omnipotent, because he lacked the ability to lift the rock in the first space time. That he could lift it in another space-time doesn't absolve him of that, if he was truly omnipotent. Omnipotent doesn't mean he could do all things at some point in time or place, but it means he could do all things in all times and places without limits. If you told me omnipotence meant God could do all things, except move that certain rock over there until he was good and ready to do it by changing it to being in a different universe, I would have to eye that omnipotence with suspicion.

[Xanth]

*head explodes*

 

Ok you may continue.   

[desert-rat]

You are ruining a burrito by over cooking it .  Add some queso enchlads , a taco , rice , beens and then you have a meal . 
Why would God use a microwave oven ? 

[Stillwater]

That is the real question we all ignored.

[paul72]

If God, All that is or whatever omnipotent being is out there, I'm not sure 'hot' or 'heavy' would be any kind of issue. Aren't they physical qualities that could not cause any omnipotent beings any quandries at all?

[Stillwater]

The original medieval paradox that Beavis was basing his arguments on was essentially an argument against the existence of omnipotence, which is claimed to be a dilemma with two unaccomadating choices.

Think of it this way: if God was capable of making a stone he couldn't lift, then he wouldn't be omnipotent because he couldn't lift that particular stone. If good wasn't capable of making that stone, he wouldn't be omnipotent because he couldn't make the stone. The same argument applies to anything claimed to possess omnipotence.

Where you take this problem is up to you.

[paul72]

See this is from a physical psychological point of view. I dont think god has a need to create a rock he can't lift.

[Stillwater]

It is pretty hard to know what a deity would have a need to do. Applying that logic, why would a God need to make a physical world full of rocks and stars at all? For reasons we can't pin down for sure, something did make a physical world. But why? Not having a reason for why something happens doesn't prevent it from happening 

I bet if a deity could make a rock that deity couldn't lift, finding a good reason to do it is a much simpler task.

[AAAAAAAA]

Applying any logic at all, why would there even be a god?

[sunshaker]

Has we are all gods, I can only answer what I would do,

I would create a rock "I" could not lift, But then I would recreate myself and lift My former self and the rock.

Nothing is impossible for those who believe.

[paul72]

Well I guess it's not time for us as human beings to know the answers yet Stillwater. And I think that the Designer, deity god or whatever put the rocks there for us to ponder not for its own game. I have this comfort blanket of mine which is a belief that everything within our perception has been Created for us like a bit of a training ground. I obviously could be completely wrong but the designer of our reality doesn't lift rocks because it just has consciousness at a level incomprehensible to ours. Now I joined this forum because I want proof my true existence is independant from my body and astral projection would be that proof. And I think in these realms (non physical) is where omnipotence resides. The creation or idea of the rock is more real than wether or not it can be lifted. I'm just waffling now!! What a great topic!

[paul72]

Ha! Great response Sunshaker, dilemma over. Lets order Pizza!

[Stillwater]

Applying any logic at all, why would there even be a god?

Never said there was here; but the medieval problem Beavis referred to assumes as a premise that there is one, so in order to engage with it, you must assume there is one- otherwise, the question has no relevance   (which is fine too, but isn't really a conversation starter, lol).

As an analogy, suppose I were to say, "How does Santa deliver all the presents in time?" Now a valid response is that Santa doesn't exist, so the question is irrelevant. But that isn't engaging the question- answering it assumes you accept Santa's existence at least for the sake of argument.

[Stillwater]

Well I guess it's not time for us as human beings to know the answers yet Stillwater. And I think that the Designer, deity god or whatever put the rocks there for us to ponder not for its own game. I have this comfort blanket of mine which is a belief that everything within our perception has been Created for us like a bit of a training ground. I obviously could be completely wrong but the designer of our reality doesn't lift rocks because it just has consciousness at a level incomprehensible to ours. Now I joined this forum because I want proof my true existence is independant from my body and astral projection would be that proof. And I think in these realms (non physical) is where omnipotence resides. The creation or idea of the rock is more real than wether or not it can be lifted. I'm just waffling now!! What a great topic!

Yeah, as I have pointed out, it is really a question for medieval Scholastics, because they accept the premise by default. Not that relevant to folks like we, who have slightly different views on things. Cockroaches don't really debate sports strategies, and nor do police officers spend their time discussing chemistry in their break times. The people to whom questions like the above belong to mostly live in monasteries and such these days. It isn't really a question about rocks, or burritos, but rather about the conceptual possibility of omnipotence. But then like I said, you have to care about that concept to connect well to the discussion. I am more interested in what kind of music God likes.

[paul72]

Yeah Stillwater me too, allthough i'm secretly hoping it doesn't turn out to be easy listening!

[no_leaf_clover]

I think it is important to point out that hot and cold are not contradictions though, or even opposites. They are just heat and less heat.

Or you could say, they are just cold and less cold.

The idea is that there is a spectrum, one end being what we call "most hot" or "most not-cold" and the other being "most cold" or "most not-hot."  Then you can even have the scientific ideas of absolute zero, and whatever its equivalent is on the not-cold end of the spectrum.  The words given don't matter, it's the geometrical idea of a spectrum of variables between two perceived directions or poles.

So you still have a spectrum, and you compare and contrast one temperature from another with words such as "hot" and "cold" or even "heat" and "less heat."  So no, they are not contradictions, you are right, and they are not even opposites.  I agree completely.  BUT people often think they are!  So that was my point, that things which people often think of as opposites or contradictory and really part of a single system, and couldn't logically exist without the other, because either term implies a spectrum.

Contradictions usually exist in logic space. A good contradiction would be:

"3 =\= 3"

How could that possibly ever be?

You might be familiar with Godel's theorem.  It's not exactly the same as "3 doesn't equal 3," but it's close.  It basically produces a theorem by all the proper rules of calculus which states "this (well-formed) theorem is not a theorem."  It's the equivalent of when you read:

The statement immediately below is true.
The statement immediately above is false.

Which one is correct?  It's a real problem for logic as humans have come to understand the word, but calculus seems like a very intuitively correct system and even it produces the equivalent of this problem, that Godel discovered in the 1930's.

Personally I think the basic problem is that the human conception of logic itself is not complete.  The Greeks are famous for introducing logic as a tool to western culture, but they didn't always make the best use of it, and came to some incorrect conclusions.  Logic in the scientific era is also a fairly recent innovation and I think our ideas for how to define its rules will change over time, no matter how intuitive the rules seem to us now.  Intuition and logic have always created a kind of friction between themselves in this way.  

I do not think the rock example where God changes worlds to lift the rock beats the original problem though. You see that if God had to create another space-time in order to lift the rock, which he could not do in the original space-time, that means he was not omnipotent, because he lacked the ability to lift the rock in the first space time.

I was thinking more along the lines of, he simply chose not to.  The only difference between the universe where it was lifted, and the one where it wasn't lifted, was what God had chosen to do or not to do.  In this way two different scenarios could be explored, and no laws of physics had to be violated, only this ephemeral thing known as "free will."  


If we take God out of this discussion, in this case, we could just see this as a way for the universe or consciousness to explore all possible scenarios (if consciousness and its exploration is seen as the driving motor of all of creation, and I tend to think this way).  Then in this case not only would it be possible to create two universes where different conscious decisions are played out, but this would be the fundamental reason for having multiple universes in the first place.