Question that proves god wrong?

This a question my friend asked me that I haven't been able to find out.

Is there a rock so big and heavy that not even god can lift it? If you say yes, then that would mean god wasn't all powerful, but if you say no, then it proves that god can't create anything.

Help me out on this one.

 

Not really, because the rock would have to exist outside of the universe/reality, thus God has no control over it.

 

The question itself is flawed.

It is born out of a traditional Judeo-Christian view that God is somehow apart from you. An all powerful father figure.

In my world, there is nothing but "God". All of creation is created and destroyed within this endless sea of energy.

Including rocks.



x

 

The question misunderstands the meaning of omnipotence. It doesn't mean the ability to do things that are logically contradictory.

 

Two things wrong with that:
1. If God is everything then that includes me. I do not believe in God, therefore God, in part, does not believe that he exists. This raises sanity questions for God.

2. If God is everything then that greatly lowers his significance. God then becomes synonymous with 'stuff'.

 

You've never doubted yourself before?

 

Heaviness is a concept relative of gravity. In a universal sense it does not exist.

Debating God within the bounds of the planet earth are as asinine as studying aminal behavior at the bronx zoo.

 

I have never doubted that I exist.

 

Weight isn't constant (as in weight has no bearing in space, outside of the gravitational pull of some object), so even in the lowest terms of understanding of god, this question doesn't pose nearly as large a contradiction as you think.

*Ah, floydianslip6 already pointed it out, still (Okiefreak hit a good point too)

If god is perfectly sane, what entity created the minds of the insane?
The idea, anyway, is that all our minds conjoined make up god; you should read up a little about Carl Jung

Then your reverence just depends on how much you appreciate 'stuff'. An appreciation of all things is fundamental in most God-worshiping philosophies, and for the sake of the arguement in the first post, we'll assume god exists. I'm not trying to step on your toes, I'm not particuarly on either side of the arguement, just trying to make you think a little harder on it

..and here I was wondering how the adults in our country let Bush win for a second term. I hope your next 17 years are spent without angst.

 

Sure I appreciate 'stuff'. Without it, life would be pretty boring, and actually not even possible. The beauty and complexity of the universe is awe inspriring. But why call it God, when we already have names for all that 'stuff'.

 

Mr Stiffy, you're a creation. And right now, you have the awareness of a creation.

Someday, you'll have the awareness of the creator, and the created.

I promise you.


x

 

Bah humbug

 

But does the existance of 'stuff' imply the existance of a creator of that 'stuff' - even if we see this creator as the 'stuff' itself?
One fundamental law of phyics is the Law of Conservation of Mass-energy: "Mass-Energy cannot be created or destroyed". I use mass-energy because it's technically possible to change mass into energy and vice versa; that's how nuclear power works.
So given this premise, if 'God' exists in the universe, he/she/it cannot create or destroy. Therefore either:
a) God does not exist, or
b) God exists outside the universe but cannot affect it, and so can functionally be said not to exist.

 

Of course not. The well known counter to that argument is where did the creator come from? Saying there must be a creator because the universe must have been created only changes the subject. Somehow, from nothing came something - whether that something is the creator, or the universe. That question still remains to be answered.

The answer to this 'first-cause' paradox will certainly require some unconventional thinking. But I suspect that it has something to do with time being an illusion and that the universe is a static unmoving 4+ dimensional structure. General Relativity is consistent with this notion, and there is no time in quantum mechanics equations. We percieve time as flowing because chemical reactions, such as those that record memories, are not time-symmetrical because of the 2nd law of thermodynamics, therefore memories only work in one direction in time. When you remove the concept of time flowing, then you must think of the origin of the universe in an entirely new way, and Alice is way down the rabbit hole now.

Actually mass doesn't turn into energy. Mass and energy are two sides of the same coin, so your term Mass-Energy is more correct.

Mass cannot be created, but there are 2 loopholes around this. Mass-energy is positive. Gravitational-energy is negative. General relativity shows that they cancel eachother out so that the net energy is zero. The other loophole is that you cannot have exactly zero energy because of Heizenburgs uncertainty principle.

So we Occams-Razor him outta here.

 

Because there was nothing, there came something.
Because there was the impossible, there is the possible.

The Universe has it's own rules it abides by, it doesn't have to fit under the laws of earth/man. Humans have a very limited understanding of reality.

The Universe is ever changing, ever expanding, creating, there is no death, even in consciousness.

By the Universe I mean "god".

 

if any being, not necessarily god (though it would be immensely helpful), could create something the size of the universe (or inversely, shrink the universe), then nothing would be able to 'lift' it.
y'see, you have nothing to lift into. it would probably cause a rotation, at least as far as something in the universe could detect.

so, god can create something so big he cannot 'lift' it. it's just semantics, anyways.

 

Whatever the rules are, redefining things does not change what they are. The universe is the universe. Calling the universe god only redefines the word god to mean what we consider the universe.

And despite the fact that the material that we are made of is recycled into other things/creatures does not change the fact that consciousness stops when the brain for one reason or another stops receiving oxygen or experiences severe trauma.

 

Consciousness exists outside the realm of phsyicalness. Death is just a transformation, nothing else.

 

Oh? Then why can we affect ones consciousness by removing parts of their brain? Why do you lose consciousness when you asphyxiate? Why can consciousness be restored when physical problems are repaired? How can we trace thoughts with an MRI?

Death is a transformation into worm food.

 

Because you are still attatched to the physical body whilst alive. Not everyone has the same amount of conscious awareness.

People have programmed themselves to tune out of their highest self since childhood, it's sad really.(blame governments, christianity, etc) Until you overcome that, you're trapt in a vicious cycle.