Is there anything God can not do?

[PolyHedral]

Why? All life is sacred.

Define "life." It's actually quite difficult.

 

[Riverwolf]

Define "life." It's actually quite difficult.

Yeah, I know. ^_^

For now, I pretty much go by the scientific understanding of life, though I'm aware of its imperfections. I think I've heard somewhere that fire technically qualifies.

 

[Acim]

How I understand it? Is it not defined?

It may be defined by third party that may be bastardized version of understanding.

It's the freedom of independent choice; voluntary decision, and is not simply determined by physical or divine forces.

This is not how I understand Free Will. I understand what you are saying / getting at, but when talking about Will, freedom of choice is a misnomer in understanding omniscience. Choice is where the logical paradox gets introduced, and is based on a few fundamental errors in logic. Such as "independence."

My original statement included the omniscience of God as an immediate violation of the faculty of free will, in that whatever choice we make, it's been writ.

Hence the error is with (concept of) choice, not with Will. Choice at mental level already sets up pre-determined idea that there is finite ways to proceed. This is not reality, but when the limitation is accepted (at really a bunch of levels, but ultimately one level = Mind), it is pretty much tipping your hand. Free choice is an illusion of freedom. When looked at rigidly (with no allowance for Will), there is determinism at work. For that to be overcome, to a certain degree choice has to be undone. Not entirely, and not in way that restricts freedom, but you realize Will doesn't restrict outcome to pre-defined concept. It is flowing, eternal, and yet consistent.

Just because we don't know it, doesn't make it free will. Those who believe in God accept his omniscience, and therefore forfeit free will. It's a fairly simple connection.

Again, you are misunderstanding omniscience. Confusing it to be tied in with free choice, and then compounding error from there. Is why I said I'll be interested in how you understand Free Will. The way in which you are using the terms is a) old school to me, just doesn't carry much weight with me and b) is logic I understand. Therefore you are correct, such a God would not be omniscient, but neither would that God have a Will that is free, nor have Creations that share a Will that is free. They may have choices which seem unforeseeable (to that version of God), and therefore he can't be all knowing. Or if aware of all foreseeable choices, he can't be granting genuine free choice. I agree, it is a simple, albeit naive understanding of, connection to logic at work.

Did I NOT mention God existed outside of Time? Would that not imply he exists outside of "rock?" .... I'm at a loss as to what point you're trying to pass as proof for your argument.

The point in which mockery can be turned in on itself to, on the surface, establish what it was attempting to mock (that God is not all powerful, when in that example he can still be made to be) and on deeper level of understanding that the mock position doesn't render God impotent, no matter how much of a paradox we think we have tied God into.

Omnipotence cannot create everything. Illogical or not. Omnipotence is inherently flawed. It's like the creator fallacy. If God created us, who created God?

If your point is God (omnipotence) cannot 'create' anything illogical or unreal, I would tend to agree. If your point is (instead) omnipotence cannot create everything, and of that everything, some things that are 'very real,' but are also 'against God,' then this is where I will be willing to continue the debate for logical fallacy ignorance is bringing forth. I will do my best to not mince words, or play word games, though I would ask the same be done the other way. If I say something along lines of, "God is Supreme Creator" or "First Creator," then it would be word games to continue to ask, "but who created God." You can play that game, and I may play along. I may not resort to ad hom in downplaying the logic at work and instead will play along to show the fault at work in another way. But if needing me to not play word games with your logical paradoxes, I would suggest not using word games to invoke such paradoxes. Up to you.

It's proof enough for believers to say that God is the end-all, and all matter, energy, and essentially power begin and end with him. This is where the Faith argument ACTUALLY traps its weak-minded victims. There's no counter argument. It's designed to exist that way. It is because it is. Oh the arrogance. Oh the ignorance.

Does this upset you? If not, I'm up for discussing it, debating it, thinking very critically and genuinely about the propositions put forth.

God is unreal. He does not exist. You, and every single theist on this planet, have provided zero proof.

I've provided proof. I admit my proof is circular. On this forum, I have demonstrated umpteen times that physical reality is based on circular reasoning, and has no objective evidence to speak of. Detractors of this position cannot bring themselves to admit that they have zero proof of objective evidence for this claim. So round and round we go.

Proof of God's existence is found within (consciousness). I know you know God exists. God is existence. Nothing real (that exists) can be threatened. Nothing unreal can exist. My / our existence is proof positive. How I / you / we perceive that existence is not the proof, and is other argument, that is subsumed under existence (as baseline). That "now" exists, and has always existed is, I would argue, indication that there is eternity. We don't know how long (or really even if) past exists, nor do we know how long (or really even if) future exists. We do know now exists. How we perceive things now is not proof / disproof of what now is.

As for the first part of your statement...EVERYTHING can be created? Except a rock too heavy for an omnipotent being to lift. Unreal or not. Omnipotence can't be bothered with silly logical limitations like that.

And yet we attempt to bother it with silly logical limitations, as if it is allowable. Hence the reason I feel almost no problem entertaining the mockery and making it seem logical for as long as fundamental errors are being denied (as error). Like we want to say God is not bound by time, but in this silly logical limitation, God is bound by rock as creation, and therefore we have come up with something God cannot do. Yet, I demonstrated in logical fashion God can do both. He can create rock so big he cannot lift it up. And God can lift that same rock up.

"Something doesn't seem right there. He can't do both. I'm going to pick up my ball and go home, unless you agree that he can't do both."

Hell, God could probably make the unreal, real, no? He's omnipotent, after all. Just saying.

Do you believe a physical world is all around you? Do you think it is not of your making? If yes, then perhaps God's Creation (namely us) probably could make the unreal, real. Convinced some are that this is reality. Even if you understand the physical for the illusion it is, I can virtually guarantee there will be a few more witnesses who will be ultra convinced that they know what reality is, and the physical is the only thing real here. Even while we have no objective evidence to establish this reality.

 

[DinChild]

How I understand it? Is it not defined?

It may be defined by third party that may be bastardized version of understanding.

Without getting too sidetracked, one might hold Christianity and its many denominations by the standards you presented. In that case, everyone thinks they are right; hence interpretation. In my case, the definition was in the dictionary. And if we start holding a fire to the feet of the dictionary, then what solid ground is there to work from? I have a scientific mind, so when it comes to defining things, I will consult the dictionary. If you're asking for an opinion, in some cases that can be a different matter. But that will likely involve the abstract and surreal.

It's the freedom of independent choice; voluntary decision, and is not simply determined by physical or divine forces.

This is not how I understand Free Will. I understand what you are saying / getting at, but when talking about Will, freedom of choice is a misnomer in understanding omniscience. Choice is where the logical paradox gets introduced, and is based on a few fundamental errors in logic. Such as "independence."

Maybe we're at an impasse simply because my definition is found in the dictionary, and you're uncomfortable with third party contributions. I'll provide you with two definitions:

Will: (noun) the faculty of conscious and especially of deliberate action; the power of control the mind has over its own actions. Also: power of choosing one's own actions.

Choice: the right, power, or opportunity to choose.

In other definitions of "will," I found more use of the word "choice." Now, the only discernible difference, and it's substantial enough to an English major, is that will drives us toward a choice. This still remains completely irrelevant when discussing knowledge of the future. Irrespective of your will, the choice is essentially determined. I don't know if this is making any more sense. But again, maybe we're operating off completely different definitions.

My original statement included the omniscience of God as an immediate violation of the faculty of free will, in that whatever choice we make, it's been writ.

Choice at mental level already sets up pre-determined idea that there is finite ways to proceed.

I didn't want to come off redundant, so I decided to focus on this one part. Choice is quite the opposite; it implies infinity. It's the number of options that weigh it down.

Omnipotence cannot create everything. Illogical or not. Omnipotence is inherently flawed. It's like the creator fallacy. If God created us, who created God?

If your point is (instead) omnipotence cannot create everything, and of that everything, some things that are 'very real,' but are also 'against God,' then this is where I will be willing to continue the debate for logical fallacy ignorance is bringing forth.

I wasn't trying to word play. And the Creator Fallacy was merely a loose example to underscore the original statement. A more appropriate logical conundrum might be the so-called test of Adam and Eve. I'd would prefer expounding on that, if necessary, when I'm not replying to so many different quotes

It's proof enough for believers to say that God is the end-all, and all matter, energy, and essentially power begin and end with him. This is where the Faith argument ACTUALLY traps its weak-minded victims. There's no counter argument. It's designed to exist that way. It is because it is. Oh the arrogance. Oh the ignorance.

Does this upset you? If not, I'm up for discussing it, debating it, thinking very critically and genuinely about the propositions put forth.

You'll find that I'm usually on this forum late at night, after work...and after a few drinks. I might tend to be a bit more edgy. Sorry. But no; the only thing that upsets me is ignorance and arrogance. Nothing in our discussion has really made me upset.

Aside from that, I do believe faith plays the largest role in religion. And I'm not using the term "believe" in a religious context. I'll rephrase just in case (but note, for future reference, I'll use "believe" naturally. It's part of my internal lexicon): I understand faith to play the largest role in religion.

God is unreal. He does not exist. You, and every single theist on this planet, have provided zero proof.

I've provided proof. I admit my proof is circular. On this forum, I have demonstrated umpteen times that physical reality is based on circular reasoning, and has no objective evidence to speak of. Detractors of this position cannot bring themselves to admit that they have zero proof of objective evidence for this claim. So round and round we go.

Proof of God's existence is found within (consciousness). I know you know God exists. God is existence. Nothing real (that exists) can be threatened. Nothing unreal can exist. My / our existence is proof positive. How I / you / we perceive that existence is not the proof, and is other argument, that is subsumed under existence (as baseline). That "now" exists, and has always existed is, I would argue, indication that there is eternity. We don't know how long (or really even if) past exists, nor do we know how long (or really even if) future exists. We do know now exists. How we perceive things now is not proof / disproof of what now is.

I wanted to scale your response down to the essentials, but some information you put forth rubbed me strange. If you really want to get funky with objective reality, our presence; "I think, therefore I am," is also not entirely reliable. So I'll stick to the more concrete objective realities.

Math is a good start. Now, I don't claim to be a mathematician, but I do understand that our modern technology would and could only be possible with exact numerical values. Our space flights; the internet; your microwave; laser tagging (not the game); geometry. Each one of us can employ the basic subsets, framework, to not only develop, but continue our understanding of the universe. If there was no objective reality (a proof), then we'd have nothing to rely on. Our infrastructure would be forfeit. So, I tend to lean more toward objectivity not only to be reliable, but necessary.

Time is a discovery; or perhaps even an invention. Things change. True. But we ultimately defined at what rate things change. So while we can only live in the now, we can predict future outcomes. In this way, they're just as real and proof-positive as anything we observe in the present.

Any proof you provide for the existence of God is either Biblical or faith-based. He is because he is. I don't respond well to circular reasoning. It's not scientific, and isn't proof at all.

Hell, God could probably make the unreal, real, no? He's omnipotent, after all. Just saying.

Do you believe a physical world is all around you? Do you think it is not of your making? If yes, then perhaps God's Creation (namely us) probably could make the unreal, real. Convinced some are that this is reality. Even if you understand the physical for the illusion it is, I can virtually guarantee there will be a few more witnesses who will be ultra convinced that they know what reality is, and the physical is the only thing real here.

I do believe there's a physical world around me. This isn't The Matrix. All I said was, for an omnipotent God to be truly omnipotent, he would have the power to make the unreal, real. A rock too heavy for him to lift is unreal in our logic. But consider him in the attempt. Does he make it? If so, can he lift it? Or is it outside his power to create something greater (at least in one way) to him? I don't see how questioning reality is pertinent here. Maybe I'm just buzzed

 

[arcanum]

God can't win a game of poker with a has pair of deuces if the other people at the table have a full house and a royal flush.

 

[Madhuri]

Can God create a rock so heavy that he can not lift it?

Yes and no.
God is the biggest of the big, the smallest of the small. He is the strongest and the weakest.

 

[logician]

"Why? All life is sacred.
"

Actually, no life is sacred, but all life if important to maintaning the fragile balance of biodivesity.
We (homo sapiens) are bringing many species to extinction, destroying that balance.

 

[Meow Mix]

Can God create a rock so heavy that he can not lift it?

No; even omnipotent beings are subject to logic -- because "logical" is synonomous with "possible;" such that an illogical being is impossible to exist.

 

[K.Venugopal]

Define "life." It's actually quite difficult.

Life is "is-ness". Life is not "was" or "will be". Is-ness is best understood when we say "I am". Whatever we say I am only describes the quality or identity of "I". "Is-ness" is but a form "I". The forms of "I" can be described. "l" cannot be described. That is life.

 

[DinChild]

Life is "is-ness". Life is not "was" or "will be". Is-ness is best understood when we say "I am". Whatever we say I am only describes the quality or identity of "I". "Is-ness" is but a form "I". The forms of "I" can be described. "l" cannot be described. That is life.

Life isn't difficult to define. The reason it's not so difficult to define is because of how rare it is. You speak of consciousness when you speak for I-ness. Is-ness is what I-ness speaks for our less-than-self-conscious lifeforms and objects.

Life is possibility. Conscious or not, it learns/adapts from/to its environment. It is both chemically and consciously self-aware. Life evolves. And all too often, life thinks too much.

 

[K.Venugopal]

Life isn't difficult to define. The reason it's not so difficult to define is because of how rare it is. You speak of consciousness when you speak for I-ness. Is-ness is what I-ness speaks for our less-than-self-conscious lifeforms and objects.

Life is possibility. Conscious or not, it learns/adapts from/to its environment. It is both chemically and consciously self-aware. Life evolves. And all too often, life thinks too much.

Form (matter) is unabiding, not-conscious and indifferent, whereas life (formless and indivisible) is abiding, conscious and joyous - the I.

 

[snl2240]

I don't think he can do anything since he doesn't exist, but I'll humor you. Can he microwave a burrito so hot he cannot eat it?

 

[Meow Mix]

In terms of defining life, most scientists use simpler definitions than "is-ness" and "possibility" and other similar vague terms.

Typical definitions of life include the ability to reproduce, maintaining homeostasis, directed response to stimuli, and other things of that nature.

 

[K.Venugopal]

In terms of defining life, most scientists use simpler definitions than "is-ness" and "possibility" and other similar vague terms.

Typical definitions of life include the ability to reproduce, maintaining homeostasis, directed response to stimuli, and other things of that nature.

Science is about zeroing in on things. But you can't zero in on that which includes everything. It is an understanding that transcends science. Poetry would be more at home at that level.

 

[Meow Mix]

Science is about zeroing in on things. But you can't zero in on that which includes everything. It is an understanding that transcends science. Poetry would be more at home at that level.

I would disagree that life "includes everything" or is something that "transcends science."

In fact, it's difficult to make assertions about what life is until life is defined, which necessarily includes "zeroing in on things" to accomplish.

 

[Me Myself]

I would disagree that life "includes everything" or is something that "transcends science."

In fact, it's difficult to make assertions about what life is until life is defined, which necessarily includes "zeroing in on things" to accomplish.

Can you speak of anything that you would know even if you weren´t alive?

 

[Meow Mix]

Can you speak of anything that you would know even if you weren´t alive?

Maybe I'm misunderstanding the debate here...

Are we talking about the definition of life as in the definition of how to tell if something is alive in a biological sense; or are we talking about the definition of life as in "what is the meaning of life?"

 

[Acim]

I'll humor you. Can he microwave a burrito so hot he cannot eat it?

Yes. He has.

 

[Flat Earth Kyle]

Can you speak of anything that you would know even if you weren´t alive?

I believe all the knowledge we collect in this life will rise with us into the next.

 

[St Giordano Bruno]

Can he make a stone so heavy he cannot lift it?