An age-old question altered to religion

[Skat Bo]

I was having a theological debate with one of my friends, the same one who denied my Time Travel concepts. He is a firm believer in that there is no God, while I am Chrisitan.

Well, as we were debating, he asked me a few questions, that led up to his gloating when I couldn't answer them. However, it was impossible to answer it, as you will see.

He first asked me if God was all-powerful. I said yes.

Then he asked me if God could do anything he wished, to which I again replied yes.

Then he said, altering an age old question to fit his argument, then can he make a rock so big that he couldn't move it?

Clearly, I was at a loss, since any answer would deny the answer to the first question, is God all powerful.

This was the end of the debate, though neither of us shifted our views as far as our religion.

What I want to know is, can this question really be used to deny God? Or is it really just a cheap shot?

[Jet Grind]

Originally posted by Skat Bo
What I want to know is, can this question really be used to deny God? Or is it really just a cheap shot?

Neither. It's just meant to show the lack of logical coherence in the concept of an omnipotent deity.

[Nucular]

Exactly. If God has to conform to logical rules, then He is not omnipotent.

Or maybe it could be argued that, if God invented logic, then He has chosen to limit Himself to those conditions, and could alter that if He wanted. Doesn't really ring true though, does it?

[Skat Bo]

Or maybe only we have to conform to logic, and he does not. I suppose that's good an evasive as any other - personally, I just think the queston sucks dick.

[Stimpson J. Cat]

Skat Bo,

Or maybe only we have to conform to logic, and he does not. I suppose that's good an evasive as any other - personally, I just think the queston sucks dick.

It is just an evasion. And an incoherent one at that. If God does not conform to logic, then what does it mean to say that God exists, or does not exist? Such a statement, and indeed all statements, are constructed within the framework of logic.

As Jet Grind pointed out, the concept of omnipotence is incoherent. I won't say that the God you believe in does not exist, because such a statement about an incoherent concept would be meaningless. What I will say is that the God you believe in cannot be meaningfully said to exist.

The obvious question that arises at this point is, why do you believe that this God exists?

Note that I am not asking you to prove that he does. I am simply asking for your reasons for believing that he does.

Dr. Stupid

[Skat Bo]

I believe in God because I follow faith. I go to church, learn what they preach, and live well with God. I'm sure this sounds stupid to you, no offense, but I won't follow cold logic to the point of quitting my religion. I believe God exists because I have read of his miracles and believe what the Bible says.

There, I feel I avoided getting preachy semi-well, consiering the topic of discussion.

[SteveW]

Originally posted by Skat Bo
I believe in God because I follow faith. I go to church, learn what they preach, and live well with God. I'm sure this sounds stupid to you, no offense, but I won't follow cold logic to the point of quitting my religion. I believe God exists because I have read of his miracles and believe what the Bible says.

There, I feel I avoided getting preachy semi-well, consiering the topic of discussion.

I've read alot too. That's why I really, really believe in Capt. Nemo, Don Quixote, Sherlock Holmes and if I clap my hands, fairies too!

[Stimpson J. Cat]

Skat Bo,

believe in God because I follow faith. I go to church, learn what they preach, and live well with God. I'm sure this sounds stupid to you, no offense, but I won't follow cold logic to the point of quitting my religion.

No, I don't think it sounds stupid. Just irrational. You say that you won't follow logic to the point of quitting your religion. If not logic, then what? What would it take to convince you that your religion is not true? Could anything accomplish that? Don't you think that is a bit dogmatic? Do you really not see a problem with that?

I believe God exists because I have read of his miracles and believe what the Bible says.

Which raises the obvious question, why do you believe what the Bible says?

There, I feel I avoided getting preachy semi-well, considering the topic of discussion.

Get as preachy as you want. It doesn't bother me. I am just curious as to why an apparently intelligent and rational person would believe in something for which there is no reliable supporting evidence.

Dr. Stupid

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by Skat Bo
I was having a theological debate with one of my friends, the same one who denied my Time Travel concepts. He is a firm believer in that there is no God, while I am Chrisitan.

Well, as we were debating, he asked me a few questions, that led up to his gloating when I couldn't answer them. However, it was impossible to answer it, as you will see.

He first asked me if God was all-powerful. I said yes.

Then he asked me if God could do anything he wished, to which I again replied yes.

Then he said, altering an age old question to fit his argument, then can he make a rock so big that he couldn't move it?

Clearly, I was at a loss, since any answer would deny the answer to the first question, is God all powerful.

This was the end of the debate, though neither of us shifted our views as far as our religion.

What I want to know is, can this question really be used to deny God? Or is it really just a cheap shot?
It sounds to me like your friend was just showing off something he learned from the Simpsons. Homer (while high... dont do drugs kids) said "Tell me, if your god is so powerful, can he microwave a burrito so hot, he himself could not eat it?".

The question itself has about the same logical consistancy as the creationist question "If man came from monkeys, why are there still monkeys". Of course man did not come from monkeys, the general idea is the fact that the question is so common and cliche, it has almost lost all meaning. Of course, it is a completely valid arguement, isnt it?

[Dylab]

The paradox that bothers me the most on god (I don't believe in a god but I think about it a lot for some reason) is the conflict between the existance individual free-will and a omnipotent god. Although I must admit I don't really understand the concept of free-will.

I always thought theists believed that god could do anything following reason. He couldn't make a square circle because it is logicaly imposible. Just as he couldn't make a burrito to hot for him to eat because it is logicaly impossible. Could this extend to the laws of nature? Thus making him just like any physical being.

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by Dylab
The paradox that bothers me the most on god (I don't believe in a god but I think about it a lot for some reason) is the conflict between the existance individual free-will and a omnipotent god. Although I must admit I don't really understand the concept of free-will.
Free-will refers to the idea that humans are completely sentient, concious, and can make decisions based on logic. Understanding and doing to ones own accord are 2 primary definitions of free-will. A computer on the other hand is fed a question, and generates an answer based on programming, criteria, etc. Computers dont recognize themselves (because they are not alive), human do.

Not having free-will would suggest everything is planned out, god controls everything humans do, and consciousness is an illusion. But of course, if that were the case, there would be no way to logically prove it. The question itself would become ambiguous.

Using the bible as reference, it says all things created can acheive salvation. It would be absurd to believe god plans for one of his creations to go to hell, never being given a chance for redemption or salvation. On the other hand, using science as a reference, yes we do have free will, nothing to question about it.

I always thought theists believed that god could do anything following reason. He couldn't make a square circle because it is logicaly imposible. Just as he couldn't make a burrito to hot for him to eat because it is logicaly impossible. Could this extend to the laws of nature? Thus making him just like any physical being.
Usually the common answer is "God exists outside of logic". If that were true, then every question of the existance and the extent of gods power also becomes ambiguous and unfalsifyable. The reason being because all questions are constructed within logic.

Edit to add: Stimpy already said that.

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by Skat Bo
I believe in God because I follow faith. I go to church, learn what they preach, and live well with God. I'm sure this sounds stupid to you, no offense, but I won't follow cold logic to the point of quitting my religion.
Logic is one of the first tools used to answering complex questions. It usually takes a bit more than logic to make one question his own religion. The second tool to use is the laws of nature (science).

Still, most people will refuse all logic and science in favor of their own inner convictions. I hate inner convictions. They are completely irrational with the big questions (such as religion). If someones inner convictions are strong enough, they'll usually use blind faith as matter of overruling even the most logical arguements and science.

I believe God exists because I have read of his miracles and believe what the Bible says.
Remember that question about a rock too big for god. The other question atheists like to use is "What if you were born into another religion like hinduism, you would believe in hinduism just as much as you believe in Christianity. If you met the hindu you, he would call you wrong. You would call the hindu you wrong. Both of you cant be right. One or both is wrong". Its another one of those evasive questions of logic challenging the idea of self. It also challenges inner convictions itself.

I dont believe in the bible. I question its historical accuracy. A lot of the things written in the bible contradict each other (I'm sure you can find a whole website of contradictions on the internet), too many things exist outside of science (also called paranormal... I dont believe in the paranormal), etc.

You certainly wouldnt take Lord Of the Rings as a factual account, what makes it different from the bible. (Perhaps it would be different if it was taught to you as true early enough as vigorously as the bible... I illustarted another common atheist logic question that puts inner convictions in the hot seat.)

There, I feel I avoided getting preachy semi-well, consiering the topic of discussion.
Preachy is good. Its completely healthy (and intelligent) to question the world around you. It shows that you are climbing out of a closeminded box and beginning to mature intellectually.

[Dylab]

Originally posted by Yahweh

Free-will refers to the idea that humans are completely sentient, concious, and can make decisions based on logic. Understanding and doing to ones own accord are 2 primary definitions of free-will. A computer on the other hand is fed a question, and generates an answer based on programming, criteria, etc. Computers dont recognize themselves (because they are not alive), human do.



That is the definition of Free-will that I understand. What bothers me is that I can not see how that implies a conflict between determinism or the nondeterminite version, (libertarian free-will?)which many people seem to believe but I don't understand.

There are two aspects of free-will that I see. For any choice there is two parts.

1. Understanding and being aware of all the options.
2. Being able to make a decision based on ones desire or goal.

I do not see anyway on how two can give any more then one option. Any way on changing our dersires or our understanding would imply going back on making a decision thus going back to process ad-infinitum.

But that is just something that I think about while I'm bagging groceries. I believe this a pretty popular concept so where is my reasoning wrong?

P.S. Sorry for going off topic.

[Gregor]

Skat Bo

Thanks for the post. We used to have a healthy (?maybe?) debate in this forum with a few strong Xian posters (PotatoStew and Christian) about theological issues. I welcome said debates.

As to the question - I think it's a bad question. It's like the squared circle challenge. I don't think it gets you anywhere but a semantic argument.

We've had plenty of talk about other, meatier issues. For example,

1. The problem of theodicy - bad things happening to good people with an omnibenevolent God.

2. The 'original sin' conundrum - why did God lie to Adam about the tree of knowledge, and how could he punish Adam 'cause he didn't know he was behaving badly.

3. If the Bible is not 100% accurate, how can 1 % of it be accurate - so why believe.

I'd love to hear you speak on any of these issues.

[ntech]

Originally posted by Skat Bo
I was having a theological debate with one of my friends, the same one who denied my Time Travel concepts. He is a firm believer in that there is no God, while I am Chrisitan.

Well, as we were debating, he asked me a few questions, that led up to his gloating when I couldn't answer them. However, it was impossible to answer it, as you will see.

He first asked me if God was all-powerful. I said yes.

Then he asked me if God could do anything he wished, to which I again replied yes.

Then he said, altering an age old question to fit his argument, then can he make a rock so big that he couldn't move it?

Clearly, I was at a loss, since any answer would deny the answer to the first question, is God all powerful.

This was the end of the debate, though neither of us shifted our views as far as our religion.

What I want to know is, can this question really be used to deny God? Or is it really just a cheap shot?


It is a valid question just as there are thousands of other valid questions.

Skat Bo

Read Genesis again and tell me it is not the most ridiculous drivel you have ever read. There has never been a shred of real evidence ever shown that points to the existence of a magical being in the sky or his son. There is no reason to continue a lie without questioning it. Think about what makes you believe. You were most likely told there is a god by people you trust, you parents etc. They in turn heard it from their parents. Try to search out the real evidence and you will find none.

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by Dylab


That is the definition of Free-will that I understand. What bothers me is that I can not see how that implies a conflict between determinism or the nondeterminite version, (libertarian free-will?)which many people seem to believe but I don't understand.

There are two aspects of free-will that I see. For any choice there is two parts.

1. Understanding and being aware of all the options.
2. Being able to make a decision based on ones desire or goal.

I do not see anyway on how two can give any more then one option. Any way on changing our dersires or our understanding would imply going back on making a decision thus going back to process ad-infinitum.

But that is just something that I think about while I'm bagging groceries. I believe this a pretty popular concept so where is my reasoning wrong?

P.S. Sorry for going off topic.
No problem, going off topic is completely fine.

I'm going to make rather lengthy entry (compared to my normal 2 or 3 sentence post) on free-will (condensed version).

Generalized defintion: A philosophical term invented by humans to explain rationalization of an idea from alternatives (that is the very common philosophy defintion that you see written in nearly all free-will essays). Free will is the ability to perform actions and make decisions at ones own accord.

Free-will is largely based on ones ability to recognize ones self (being self-aware). It is also based on the idea of morality, knowing right from wrong, knowing the consequences of actions, etc.

The god notion. I dont believe in God but I'll explain god vs. free will quickly. Everyone is familiar with biblical story of Adam and Eve. God said "Dont eat my apples". Eve although influenced by a magical talking snake made the ultimate choice to eat an apple. She decided on her own. So I kicked her out of Eden. This biblical story is the first to define in the bible that humans have free will, god gave humans free will, humans can exercise their own action blah blah blah.

Desire versuses need is large part of free will. I desire a pretty house. Why should it matter that my house be pretty? Because I want it. There is no justifyable notion or criteria to judge what is pretty, so there is no logical way to describe it (another idea of free will is the ability to judge the impossible, such as what is pretty, what is funny, what is better). I need food. All animals need food. I want italian food as opposed to what I usually eat (ok, ok, I frequently eat at the Olive Garden, but ignore that for the purposes of what I'm writing). Most of the things I've written suggest that animals do not have free will, they do. The fact is, they do not make as many petty decisions and analyzations as humans do. One thing humans and animals have in common is the fact that we want a mate with desirable traits (also called "being hot"). Peacocks like big feathers, humans (males) tend to like long hair (most people dont realize that humans instinctually look at hair as sexual device, it serves many purposes including the same purpose as peacock feathers).

2. Being able to make a decision based on ones desire or goal.

I do not see anyway on how two can give any more then one option.
Humans often make decisions where there is more than one alternative. Some philosophers have a hard time dealing with this because obviously you cant go back in time and make one of the alternative decisions. You almost always have more than one option when making a decision.

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by Gregor
Skat Bo

Thanks for the post. We used to have a healthy (?maybe?) debate in this forum with a few strong Xian posters (PotatoStew and Christian) about theological issues. I welcome said debates.

As to the question - I think it's a bad question. It's like the squared circle challenge. I don't think it gets you anywhere but a semantic argument.

We've had plenty of talk about other, meatier issues. For example,
Just as a joke, I think I'll take a stab at these questions.

1. The problem of theodicy - bad things happening to good people with an omnibenevolent God.
Humans have free will. There is nothing in "Being Omnipotent for Dummies" handbook that says "to be a god, you need only to have good intentions for good people". The question is fundementally flawed.

2. The 'original sin' conundrum - why did God lie to Adam about the tree of knowledge, and how could he punish Adam 'cause he didn't know he was behaving badly.
God punished Adam because he tries to sneak Eve back into the Garden without my consent. So God cast him out. Lying to Adam about the Tree of Knowledge (I've always called it the Tree of Apples) was also a test of loyalty. Dont eat the apples means dont eat the apples.

3. If the Bible is not 100% accurate, how can 1 % of it be accurate - so why believe.
It takes a little more than that to deny everything in the bible. Logic, scientific scrutiny, and histrorical evidence have to agree with the material written in the bible. Otherwise the scrutinized passage is false. Then again, science agrees with so little of the bible, most of it would be considered false.

I'd love to hear you speak on any of these issues.
KITTIES!

[Dylab]

Originally posted by Yahweh

Humans often make decisions where there is more than one alternative. Some philosophers have a hard time dealing with this because obviously you cant go back in time and make one of the alternative decisions. You almost always have more than one option when making a decision.

My point is not that there are more then one decision to make. It is just that (I believe) the only way to make a decision is by using ones values or goals and knowledge (by definition of free-will) and that the decision is ultimately a direct cause of this. Would this leave any room for the Christian type of free-will?


I hope that makes sense...

[triadboy]

Originally posted by Skat Bo

What I want to know is, can this question really be used to deny God? Or is it really just a cheap shot?

Homer Simpson proposed this same question in a different manner:

"Tell me, if God is so powerful, can he microwave a burrito so hot that even he himself could not eat it?" - Homer Simpson

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by Dylab


My point is not that there are more then one decision to make. It is just that (I believe) the only way to make a decision is by using ones values or goals and knowledge (by definition of free-will) and that the decision is ultimately a direct cause of this. Would this leave any room for the Christian type of free-will?

Simple answer: Yes.