So there is something God cannot create, ie., a stone so heavy that he cannot lift.

 

It's much more than that.............

Geezer

 

A simple question that has many very complex answers, none of which definitive. The Bible has supposedly been around for 3000 years, modern science only around 300 years, maybe science will have an answer given time.

 

So, you don't have an answer? This is a simple question.

The point is that "things" can exist, even though you will never be able to provide tangible proof. Tangible, like we meet up and you show me a tesseract.

As I understand, you want me to show you God. I cannot do this, anymore than you can show me a tesseract. Or even anything from the 4th physical dimension.

I draw no further parallels, only the simple conclusion that "proof" is not always available in 3 dimensions.


(A set of complex mathematical equations and theories are not tangible proof to a great many people on this planet.)

 

Looks like this was in response to my question. I personally don't understand how you made that conclusion.

It started off as a question around whether the God could exist at the same time as Universe that obeys physical laws (or exists in a spiritual place).

So you conclude that if physical laws are to exist then one could not create a stone too heavy to lift. And there is something God cannot do.

I think the point of the believers are that he (she?) does not obey physical laws, therefore he could lift any stone. So no paradox, because it's avoided.

 

Do I want you to show me God? Well, that would be ok, but I realise that even if possible, it wouldn't be easy. But, that's not the point, and you seem to have missed it altogether. The point is, there are things we cannot see, but we can describe, like a tesseract.

There are things which we cannot detect directly, but their influence on the space around them allows us to know they are there.

Now you say that we can never detect God, he did not create the Universe, he doesn't intefere in our lives. In that case, I propose that there is an alimghty luminous blancmange, that either created your God, is just hovers around like a mate with him, it doesn't really matter, as we are unable to detect him it, it has had nothing to do with anything ever, but it still exists. You should take this is as Gospel, you have no reason not to, it's just as likely and mysterious as your God. I suspect you think I'm being stupid, I also suspect you'll miss the irony, and I know you won't be able to apply the same logic to your god


Tangible proof? You have the gall to talk about tangible proof? Now I know you're just trolling! Oh you crack me up............

Geezer

 

No, if God creates a stone so heavy that he cannot lift, then he is bound by laws, he cannot lift that stone and therefore God is not omnipotent. He has created something that exceeds his abilities.

If exists outside the realms of physical laws and God can lift anything no matter how heavy, then he would not be able to create that stone and therefore God is not omnipotent. He is restricted to what he can create.

He can either create and not be able to lift, or he can lift all and therefore unable to create. That is the paradox. It's a philosophical conumdrum that brings into question God's omnipotance and existence.

 

add the fact "he" created philosophy and you have the Goddies in a paradox corner

 

Who says?

I guess this is crux of the matter. I would argue that a god is all powerful therefore can do anything (create, lift, destroy etc), because he does not obey any laws. A restriction (as per above) means he's following some law of something. Perhaps I missed an earlier post? But I'd say God's do not follow laws of anything or anywhere.

Hence the paradox is avoided as it needs a couple of laws that cannot be contradicted (and my theoretical gods don't obey that law).

So since no one can prove God exists (and hence what powers he does or does not have), it appears my god is more powerful than your god as he can lift a stone he creates, which yours can't (perhaps he's only an undergod). :-)

 

So, we DO agree.



The 4th physical dimension, is a theory. You cannot see or feel it here in 3D. We cannot detect it. You have to believe it exists. For some, that is easier than believing in a divine being/energy....but the method is the same.

Yes it is.

 

Yes Geezer, a change of state is a far more acceptable statement. Difficult to accept that the universe in its enormity could have started from a bang which occurred from nothing!

I can accept that our universe started like that, but then we still come back to the same old question, where did it all come from in the first place?

I think that is a question which won't be answered. Even if they do observe proof of the existence of a Higg's boson. As you say-it is still a problem!

Les

 

I really cannot see why we are discussing very heavy stones!

If there is a God who managed to create the universe from nothing, then I hardly think that a stone that he cannot lift can even be considered to exist.

Les

 

Exactly!

 

Les,

Regarding the trees and stones...

The universe was not created from nothing. The big bang singularity was infinitesimally small of infinite mass and density that contain all the matter and energy of the universe a fraction of second before the extremely rapid inflation of the universe.

 

A simple question, if he can do anything and does not obey any laws, is God able to create something beyond his abilities?

 

No, we don't!!!!! For the nth time, you cannot describe God. It's nothing like the other things we cannot directly experience

I don't believe a 4th dimension exists simply because I have faith, it can be proven mathematically. I'll never experience it, but that is not the point.

Geezer

 

All sorts of questions there. How small is that really, you say infinitely small, ie it was of no physical size at all, but it was there, infinite density and mass of course. Well all that mass would be the equivalent of a lot of energy of course. Hell of a heavy stone!

But how did that come into existence? One would have to imagine an infinite black hole to produce it, but how could a black hole exist before the bang anyway, and we still don't know where that mass originated either.

It is yet another theory, it that your own jonc, or where did you get it from?

Les

 

Les

We are constantly surrounded by a sea of particles just popping into and out of existence again. I don't know why this happens, but it does. They are referred to as 'virtual particles' because of their extremely short life-time, but are quite real and have measurable effects.

 

I'm not clever enough to come up with my own theory for the beginning of the universe! Books and interweb for me! But from what can gather this is what is generally accepted as the big bang singularity. We are unable to fathom what is beyond the point of zero size as that is where our laws of physics and our understanding ends.

A black hole singularity is formed from the matter of a dead star and any other matter that gets drawn, so there could be many black holes in the universe. There was only one big bang singularity and that contained all matter and energy in the universe. You might say that given time the black hole will eventually consume everything including other black holes until there is one black hole, one singularity. But at the moment, observations shows that everything is moving farther apart at an accelerating rate and not coming together. Either the universe continue to expand to infinity where all matter, energy and gravity will disperse into infinity until there is nothing left, or it will eventually reach a critical point in expansion where the universe will begin to collapse on itself.

Black holes will eventuall die since they emit energy as well as consume and will eventuall "evaparate". Though this process is calculated to take a billion, billion times the age of this universe, but then we do not know how long the universe will exist for.

 

Maybe someone can ask God - he should know

 

Feeling wound up?

 

We have to consider that our concept of "time", may not have existed before the Big Bang. Therefore, it may be a completely irrelevant, purely human question we are trying to answer with the "chicken and egg".

If we twist our minds a little, and consider that nothing was going on, no time was passing, no matter was floating anywhere.....and then BOOOM!

 

Who is that clever Jonc? Not even Stephen Hawking.

Well that singularity must have come from somewhere. But if it was formed by a black hole, there must have been a universe ahead of it anyway. How could a black hole come into existence unless there was a universe there in the first place?

Its a big problem to work it out I must say!

Les

 

Like what I has said before, there are potentially many more planets like ours. Question now is how many are supporting advanced life and are they watching us?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-11444022

 

And the alternative from the religious is: "God made it all". OK, who made God? "He has always existed." At least the scientists try to explain it all. And they're only a millisecond or so away.

 

Yes I agree with you Jonc. Its a fascinating thought. If they are, I wonder what they are thinking!

I thought they said that newly discovered planet was orbiting a red dwarf star. If it is that does not say too much for its future.

Les

 

Of course they are trying to find out, it is only natural that they should do so. No reason why they should not try as far as I am concerned.

I have only said that what they are saying now is largely conjecture because they are unable to prove their theories so far. In the same way that it is not possible to prove or disprove the existence of a being called God. But there could be!

I just prefer to keep an open mind about it.

I see no reason to insult either side of the equation for their beliefs either. Even if they differ from mine.

Les

 

You could try, but I bet he would not tell you!

Les

 

I bet everything I possess, plus the life of my first born son, that the non-existent ****** wouldn't even answer.

 

We agree then, except by all accounts he wasn't one of those!

Les