Az_ Posted October 18, 2004 Group: Junior Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 4 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 117 Content Per Day: 0.02 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 09/29/2004 Status: Offline Share Posted October 18, 2004 Again, read the article. I read the article and I do not find it inconsistant with my observations. You really don't need to worry about the giant rock argument. It has no hold over anything other than your definition of God. Do you really think God will allow himself to be defined by us? If God exists he is what he is. Proposing some logically self contradictory test is not going to dismiss it. The real roll that the giant rock observation serves in the skeptical community is it introduces doubt about the statements made about god. It is the first stage of awakening to the notion that the things being told about God may not be true. Of course its nonsense to have something that do anything do something that contradicts itself. But this is the core of this observation. That we may be in error about what we believe this being can do. The threat God faces in this world has little to do with the logic or reason behind his existance. It has far more to do with accepting the information we are given about God. Dismantle the base. Take away the absolute trust in the source of this flow and doubt begins to enter the mix. Take away the foundation and you create a crisis of faith. The rock argument is no threat to God. It is a threat to the varacity of those who proclaim God to be able to do anything. It is merely a path to doubt. Some people believe doubt is a horrible thing. Some think it is a wonderful thing. Suffice to say if you make open ended statements about a being that are absolute in nature you.... that bears repeating, YOU create the test with which to disprove your statement about that entity. Here is the thing. When debating an atheist they are merely waiting for you to define God. The moment you do that you have given them a tool with which to dismantle your claims. With no definition of God all an atheist has is a disagreement with you. There is no argument. There is no evidence. There is no debate. The moment you lay down even a hint of a quality of God the atheist will go after it. That is what we do. We examine the evidence presented and determine if it fits the claims. Your best bet with the rock argument is to simply let go of the word anything. It is a silly quality set by our language. It is no measure of what you believe God to be. Stick to the notion of God does what God does. Trust me on this one. That statement will drive the atheists batty. It gives us nothing to work with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AnotherTraveler Posted October 18, 2004 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 80 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 1,595 Content Per Day: 0.22 Reputation: 10 Days Won: 0 Joined: 09/12/2004 Status: Offline Share Posted October 18, 2004 The argument is as follows: god can either create a stone he cant lift, or he cant create the stone he cant lift. this confused me to begin with and i said it was flawed becuase the word "cant" is closing the outcome of the question. can anyone help solve this question to help me prove to this argument is flawed? help much appricated i pray for this guy daily This argument is flawed for a number of reasons, but here are a few of them. God is infinite, man is finite. The question only deals with the physical world, and God is a Spirit. The question does not allow for the fact that everything exists inside of the Lord. The question allows for only two choices, assuming that God must submit to the question and the limited choices, and He does not have to. There is no wisdom, understanding, nor council against the Lord. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WayneB Posted October 18, 2004 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 4 Topic Count: 232 Topics Per Day: 0.03 Content Count: 7,261 Content Per Day: 0.96 Reputation: 79 Days Won: 0 Joined: 08/30/2003 Status: Offline Birthday: 12/19/1959 Share Posted October 18, 2004 Az, well spoken. Thank you for the insight friend. May I ask a question though? Why do today's atheists choose to argue the question of God? When I was on the other side, I never did...I didn't care to be quite honest. I had better things to do. It just didn't matter to me. So why would someone who claims no belief want to associate with those who do? Don't get me wrong friend. I appreciate what you have to say. You openly provide some insight for consideration. Regardless, what do you want out of your fellowship here? Be Blessed, Wayne Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WayneB Posted October 18, 2004 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 4 Topic Count: 232 Topics Per Day: 0.03 Content Count: 7,261 Content Per Day: 0.96 Reputation: 79 Days Won: 0 Joined: 08/30/2003 Status: Offline Birthday: 12/19/1959 Share Posted October 18, 2004 The argument is as follows: god can either create a stone he cant lift, or he cant create the stone he cant lift. this confused me to begin with and i said it was flawed becuase the word "cant" is closing the outcome of the question. can anyone help solve this question to help me prove to this argument is flawed? help much appricated i pray for this guy daily This argument is flawed for a number of reasons, but here are a few of them. God is infinite, man is finite. The question only deals with the physical world, and God is a Spirit. The question does not allow for the fact that everything exists inside of the Lord. The question allows for only two choices, assuming that God must submit to the question and the limited choices, and He does not have to. There is no wisdom, understanding, nor council against the Lord. Exactly! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaniJ87 Posted October 18, 2004 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 15 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 265 Content Per Day: 0.04 Reputation: 1 Days Won: 0 Joined: 10/15/2004 Status: Offline Birthday: 12/30/1987 Share Posted October 18, 2004 As the others said: God being infinite and all powerful, cannot, while staying true to His nature as God, do anything against His nature- such as create something that is not within His power to lift. In the same way, we cannot be perfect, because it is not within our nature to do so, but to be sinful, and needing of God's mercy and grace. The rock argument is another proof of what the Bible says about God's thoughts being higher than our thoughts, and His ways above our ways. We can never fully understand Him, because He is above our understanding. All we can do, is accept His existence, because He IS, and ask Him to give us understanding for the things we need to know about Him, when we need them. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Thought provoker: The very word a-theism means without God. But is there really anyone who believes in NO God? Even those who claim that God does not exist worship something, thus making their label invalid. Psalms 139:? Where can I go from Your Spirit, or where can I flee from Your presence? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leonard Posted October 18, 2004 Group: Royal Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 115 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 8,281 Content Per Day: 1.12 Reputation: 249 Days Won: 3 Joined: 03/03/2004 Status: Offline Birthday: 10/30/1955 Share Posted October 18, 2004 First, God is not constrained by the limitations of our tiny human minds. Logical paradoxes do not 'stump' God as they do us. Of course God can make a stone so heavy He can't lift it....then He'll lift it, and it will still be too heavy for Him to lift. What's the problem???? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaniJ87 Posted October 18, 2004 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 15 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 265 Content Per Day: 0.04 Reputation: 1 Days Won: 0 Joined: 10/15/2004 Status: Offline Birthday: 12/30/1987 Share Posted October 18, 2004 Interesting comment, Leonard... You are right- God can do anything- even if from our standpoint, it is impossible... like I said already- His thoughts and ways are higher than our ways. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Az_ Posted October 18, 2004 Group: Junior Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 4 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 117 Content Per Day: 0.02 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 09/29/2004 Status: Offline Share Posted October 18, 2004 May I ask a question though? Why do today's atheists choose to argue the question of God? When I was on the other side, I never did...I didn't care to be quite honest. I had better things to do. It just didn't matter to me. So why would someone who claims no belief want to associate with those who do? Don't get me wrong friend. I appreciate what you have to say. You openly provide some insight for consideration. Regardless, what do you want out of your fellowship here? Anonymity. Atheists before the net spent most of their lives closeted. With the safety that the net provides to identity more atheists were able to come out and start expressing themselves. Atheism has no natural means of spreading or advocating itself. Typically the atheist rejects most of the organised structures they associate with religion (bordering on apostate). Thus atheists only tend to arise from family of atheists or individuals that simply do not accept the story. There is no active campaign to make more atheists. As things change conditions change. The atheists coming out of their closets on onto the net has begun creating networks of people. We all share a concern about the effect of dogmatic religions on this earth. This concern brings us together. As this happens we become more and more of an actual social group (rather than disassociated individuals connected by title only). These social groups are going to bump into theistic social groups more and more often. This leads to why I associate with theistic groups such as this one on occaision. This interaction between our various sides needs to be less antagonistic and more a part of simple social interaction. We need to learn to be ammicable to one another. The atheists having been isolated for so long that for the most part we have no social skills in dealing with believers. Likewise believers have had little interaction with open atheists. Simply put we don't know how to get along together. But get along together is what we must do. This is why I present myself here as an open atheist. I am not here to sway you from your beliefs. Instead I am here to learn about what makes you tick and in turn allow others to see how atheists tick (or at least one small sample of atheism). It is for this reason that I eschew debates here. I do not wish my stay here to be adversarial. I will offer my views from time to time so that you may come to know what an atheist might think about a position. But they are not offered as combative comments. In the end my stay here is about learning. Both for me and for any other that chooses. I of course expect you to hope that I find my way to Jesus, just as I hope that one day some may find their way free of such beliefs. We all hope the best for each other. The trick is figuring out what the best is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WayneB Posted October 18, 2004 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 4 Topic Count: 232 Topics Per Day: 0.03 Content Count: 7,261 Content Per Day: 0.96 Reputation: 79 Days Won: 0 Joined: 08/30/2003 Status: Offline Birthday: 12/19/1959 Share Posted October 18, 2004 That's interesting Az...and commendable. Thank you for the explanation. I wasn't like that. I was more apathetic than anything else. I simply didn't care. That's why I have a hard time understanding why someone firm in their non-belief even cares one way or the other. So your desire to interact is more social in pupose than to proselytize? May I be honest? I think that you are the rare exception friend. Regardless, you spoke well and acknowledged rightly my desire for you...that someday you will realize that true freedom is found in and through Jesus Christ. We should all hope for what is best for one another. Be Blessed friend, Wayne Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bread_of_Life Posted October 18, 2004 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 22 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 872 Content Per Day: 0.12 Reputation: 1 Days Won: 0 Joined: 04/17/2004 Status: Offline Birthday: 03/24/1981 Share Posted October 18, 2004 This paradoxical question is very important, not because it disproves God, but because it forces theists into putting metaphysical limits on God's power. The argument goes like this: If God were all powerful, he could create a rock so big that he couldn't lift it, but if he couldn't lift it, then how is he all powerful? So long as you define "all powerful" as "being able to do anything at all" the paradox is insoluble. Therefore we can conclude that, so long as "all powerful" is defined as "being able to do anything at all" that it is impossible to be all powerful. In other words, it isn't possible to be able to do anything one could imagine, because this very concept is self-contradictory. Therefore Super Jew is wrong, it is not that God *can* create a rock so big he cannot lift it *but chooses not to*. It is that the definition of "all powerful" is wrong - it's just not possible to be all powerful in the sense of being able to do anything imaginable. So we must search for a less contradictory definition of "all powerful". My personal favourite is: all powerful: The ability to do anything imaginable that is logically possible. In other words, God cannot create an object that is both all black and all white, for this is logically impossible. God cannot create an rock so big as he cannot lift it, for this is logically impossible also. But God, by my definition, is still all powerful. He is omnipotent, with a caveat that he can only do such things as are not self-contradictory, he cannot do things that would require a logical contradiction. This solves the paradox perfectly. However, it also forces theists to admit that God is bound by logic just as anyone else is. Many theists have no problem with this - since logic is such a basic construct that they could not imagine any possibility of it being broken, by God or anyone else. Some theists though, believe that it is sacriligious to say that God is unable to do something that we can imagine, or indeed that he is subject to any law, however basic and obvious. But anyway, good question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts