GetDotted Domains

Viewing Thread:
"If God's so powerful, can he create a bolder so big, he can't move it???"

The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.

Thu 03/04/03 at 18:14
Regular
Posts: 787
Views.
Fri 11/04/03 at 13:00
Regular
"Devotion 2The Ocean"
Posts: 6,658
Their currently creating some super computer which they hope will tell if the big bang ever happened.

grrr, can't remember the specs of the computer, but they were gonna be rather nice. With the computer being able to handle petrabytes. Sommin' like a million gigabytes or somthin'.

:)
Fri 11/04/03 at 10:26
Regular
"twothousandandtits"
Posts: 11,024
I thought the point was that there was no past before the big bang...
Thu 10/04/03 at 22:28
Moderator
"possibly impossible"
Posts: 24,985
We do not understand, nor have proof of, the past before the 'big bang'. Therefore, in your terms, this proves that this is impossible and therefore the universe does not exist.

It is true to say that if you cannot understand or explain something then it does not mean that thing does not exist or cannot be possible. What it means is that you cannot understand it.

Your question cannot be answered because you are unable to gather any evidence on either side of the argument to either prove or disprove the theory. This is the same with the question of what came before the 'big bang' and, at the moment, whether the 'big bang' was indeed a big bang/implosion or whatever. Scientists are still open to debate.

Technically you could answer the question you set. God, should he exist, would create a boulder he could not move as a physical being if in physical form, but then re-create himself as a being who could move the rock and therefore move it. The fact that God is not a physical being in our understanding would mean that he would not be constrained by these physical ties in the first place and would have to make himself a physical presence in order to lift the boulder.
Thu 10/04/03 at 19:03
Regular
"twothousandandtits"
Posts: 11,024
Flanders wrote:
> No it is not - the concept and or the literal interpretation of the
> concept that you have raised are both irrelevant

Irrelevant when that's what we're talking about? Anyway...


> - We are not
> omnipotent so we do not understand omnipotency - the very definition
> of omnipotence that we have given is that there are no limits - NO
> LIMITS - to what is possible - we try to use our understanding of this
> concept to come up with some hypothetical argument to disprove a term
> that we have created in the first place and you try to state that that
> is proof that it cannot be ?!?! The logic is totally flawed and I
> cannot understand why you are unable to see that ??

For a start, stop over punctuating. One of each is enough for any man. My point is that the very concept of "NO LIMITS" is unbelievable. Because, to go back to the original point, a god could create a boulder (or anything) so big that he could not move it, because the omnipotency allows him to move it. The very ability cancels itself out.

And I think you mean we would have to be omniscient to understand omnipotency, not omnipotent.



> Indeed - and who has the power to say that the crusades where real and
> who is to say that every historical event that we have learnt through
> reading books is real. All we have is comparisons of whatever books,
> parchments, scrolls and other manuscripts that have been discovered -
> these together with archaelogical evidence go to provide the
> information that we have. That is is historical stuff - the rest comes
> through faith and belief.

Yes, but for most historical events there is a lot more evidence than for a lot of the Biblical events. But to be honest I feel almost the same way about historical events - none of them will have happened in exactly the way we think they did, and historians over the ages will have altered it to suit themselves.



> That all comes down to modern day cynicism and yes - we would need to
> see the proof before our own eyes to belive it ( unless it was written
> in the Sun ! )

Even if I saw it with my own eyes? I still wouldn't believe it. David Blaine and other magicians can do seemingly unbelievable stunts, and people see with their own eyes. Do you believe that all the stuff David Blaine does is real magic? Do you have faith in David Blaine?

What's the difference between someone seeing Jesus's "miracles" and writing them down in a book, and someone saying "Damn, that Blaine just did maaagic, no other explanation for it"?

Is it not possible that the so-called miracles were a similar trick? Even if you don't believe they were merely tricks, you have to at least admit it is possible.


> But miracles do happen today - not the pathetic things that you see on
> these American evangalistic programmes tat are just trying to screw
> money out of everyone. I know a woman who was cripples with MS - she
> was slowly detiriorating over two years and was unable to walk without
> sticks. I saw her one Sunday when she came running to me - she has not
> used a stick since and the doctors are baffled by her recovery. She
> went to healing services and was prayed for and a miracle happened.
> One of many that I have seen.

I don't believe miracles do happen. The human body has the power to heal itself, and also we know that a will to recover can help in most cases. people who just give in to cancer usually don't last as long as those who fight it. This woman was obviously religious and believed that she might get some help, and it would have ben the will that got her through, nothing else.

How can you explain the fact that only this MS sufferer was on the receiving end of a miracle? There are thousands out there, as well as those suffering from millions of other diseases. Doesn't it seem to go against God's benevolence? And if it's only the "good" people who get it, this goes against the whole forgiveness principle...



> Not within our comprehension maybe - see above though. If it happened
> before your eyes you would belive - but it hasn't so you don't -
> that's up to you.

As I've said I wouldn't believe it - as far as I can recall it was at a party, and all the wine ran out. So Jesus goes through to the water barrels and turns them into wine, right? So how many people actually saw the liquid change right before them? Not many if any at all. More likely it was wine all along.

And don't get me started on the pointlessness of the whole event...




> I understand that but just like anybody else - it is easier for us to
> understand things if we can put them into our understanding of science
> and how things should work - not necessarily how they do work. One
> thing that alot of people seem to do is think that there has to be a
> seperation of Scince and Religion - there does not - the two are
> compatibale and more and more people are realising this nowadys.
> Science needs to be embraced by religious people and used as a tool to
> help move forward.
>
> Indeed certain sciences can actually the religious cause if you like -
> As I mentioned earlier - Archaeology is a science that helps to prove
> the accuracy of historical facts in the Bible - dating methods have
> been used to determine that the first writings of Matthew where penned
> during the all important "eye witness" period within 30
> years of Jesus's crucifixion.

Archaeology and science has proved certain things from the Bible. For example, we know there was a Jesus. However others can't, won't and will never be proved. You can't say "Yes, this skull shows that the man was blind and then miraculously not blind anymore". Without any of these events, isn't the whole thing a bit hollow? It was just a chap in sandals as far as science is concerned.


> To show the futility of the argument. Grrr....

Okay, one last try. If you say "futility" again I won't bother replying to that bit, because it's just boring hearing the same "argument" over and over again. So, this is what happened:

"If God is so powerful can he create a boulder so big he can't move it?"

"God has better things to do"

...and that shows the futility of the first one? I don't understand...
Thu 10/04/03 at 11:04
Regular
"Bounty housewife..."
Posts: 5,257
Blank wrote:

> No, the concept is relevant, teh literal interpretation is what is not
> relevant.

No it is not - the concept and or the literal interpretation of the concept that you have raised are both irrelevant - We are not omnipotent so we do not understand omnipotency - the very definition of omnipotence that we have given is that there are no limits - NO LIMITS - to what is possible - we try to use our understanding of this concept to come up with some hypothetical argument to disprove a term that we have created in the first place and you try to state that that is proof that it cannot be ?!?! The logic is totally flawed and I cannot understand why you are unable to see that ??

It is nothing to do with me being pompous but you are trying to use our understanding as humans to explain away something that is on a different level to our comprehension.


> And who accepted them? Who has the power to say what is fact and what
> isn't?

Indeed - and who has the power to say that the crusades where real and who is to say that every historical event that we have learnt through reading books is real. All we have is comparisons of whatever books, parchments, scrolls and other manuscripts that have been discovered - these together with archaelogical evidence go to provide the information that we have. That is is historical stuff - the rest comes through faith and belief.


If someone came up to you today and said "Hey, I met this
> bloke,, he can actually turn WATER into WINE and rise from the
> dead!", would you believe them? Of course not. So why believe it
> when written down over a thousand years ago?

That all comes down to modern day cynicism and yes - we would need to see the proof before our own eyes to belive it ( unless it was written in the Sun ! )

But miracles do happen today - not the pathetic things that you see on these American evangalistic programmes tat are just trying to screw money out of everyone. I know a woman who was cripples with MS - she was slowly detiriorating over two years and was unable to walk without sticks. I saw her one Sunday when she came running to me - she has not used a stick since and the doctors are baffled by her recovery. She went to healing services and was prayed for and a miracle happened. One of many that I have seen.


> Makes no difference whether it was intoxicating or not. Water doesn't
> turn into grape juice no matter what you are.

Not within our comprehension maybe - see above though. If it happened before your eyes you would belive - but it hasn't so you don't - that's up to you.



> I'd like to see it done. Or at least explained.

Who know's ? but we can't explain it and again - if you don't want to belive it it is up to you entirely - you have free will.


, which is why I've strenuously denied that this
> is about science.

I understand that but just like anybody else - it is easier for us to understand things if we can put them into our understanding of science and how things should work - not necessarily how they do work. One thing that alot of people seem to do is think that there has to be a seperation of Scince and Religion - there does not - the two are compatibale and more and more people are realising this nowadys. Science needs to be embraced by religious people and used as a tool to help move forward.

Indeed certain sciences can actually the religious cause if you like - As I mentioned earlier - Archaeology is a science that helps to prove the accuracy of historical facts in the Bible - dating methods have been used to determine that the first writings of Matthew where penned during the all important "eye witness" period within 30 years of Jesus's crucifixion.


> Yes, I understand it. You just repeated what you said last time. It
> wasn't a reasonable answer then, it isn't now.

Pah - it's totally reasonable....


> ...it isn't about literal interpretation! I'm not the one saying God
> has better things to do or talking about boulder mass - all these
> things were introduced by you.

To show the futility of the argument. Grrr....
Wed 09/04/03 at 17:41
Regular
"twothousandandtits"
Posts: 11,024
Azul wrote:
> Could one of you quickly fill me in as to what you're arguing about?
> I actually can't be bothered to skim through loads of posts.

Basically whether omnipotency is a viable concept. But there are many side-arguments.
Wed 09/04/03 at 17:40
Regular
"twothousandandtits"
Posts: 11,024
....I hate these long posts. Anyway...


Flanders wrote:
> Err - that's what I am saying... the concept is irrelevant...

No, the concept is relevant, teh literal interpretation is what is not relevant.


> Err - what is your argument about then ?

My argument was that omnipotency cannot exist.


> Err - Yes it is....it is accepted - together with other ancient
> writings as early historical fact. and that is err.... fact...

And who accepted them? Who has the power to say what is fact and what isn't? If someone came up to you today and said "Hey, I met this bloke,, he can actually turn WATER into WINE and rise from the dead!", would you believe them? Of course not. So why believe it when written down over a thousand years ago?


> Again - do some research - there are two differing definitions of wine
> in biblical terms - there is the alcoholic drink that we know nowadays
> and a differing grape drink that was widely drunk. It was not the
> intoxicating drink that we have today that he created.

Makes no difference whether it was intoxicating or not. Water doesn't turn into grape juice no matter what you are.



> Not by you and me perhaps - but how about by an omnipotent being ? ( I
> should have put a smiley there but I'm not sure if you would
> appreciate it !)

I'd like to see it done. Or at least explained.


> And before you try and
> combat this - you brought up science, not me.
>
> err - it was a response to :
>
> Blank wrote :
>
> It isn't about grounding anything in science, and if it was believe me
> Christianity wouldn't last a second

Heh! That quote of me was in response to your quote of "It has no scientific or theological grounding". I never brought science up until you mentioned it, which is why I've strenuously denied that this is about science.



> No - I did not use that as an argument - I used it as a statement to
> show
> the futility of the original post.
>
> Or do you understand that statement ?

Yes, I understand it. You just repeated what you said last time. It wasn't a reasonable answer then, it isn't now.



> I think the taking to literally is coming from your direction - up to
> now it has been your only argument ?
>
> Sheeshh.......


...it isn't about literal interpretation! I'm not the one saying God has better things to do or talking about boulder mass - all these things were introduced by you.

It hasn't been my argument at all, and as far as "only argument" goes, that's because it's the whole topic of conversation. If you want to move this on to a wider scale about the whole of Christianity, please do so - I'm not going anywhere.
Wed 09/04/03 at 12:18
Regular
"Which one's pink?"
Posts: 12,152
Could one of you quickly fill me in as to what you're arguing about?
I actually can't be bothered to skim through loads of posts.
Wed 09/04/03 at 12:09
Regular
"Bounty housewife..."
Posts: 5,257
Blank wrote:

> Okay, I'm really not bothered about the insults.

Nor am I - apolgies...


> Why can't you grasp that it isn't about the boulder? It isn't about
> objects and their relative mass.

Err - that's what I am saying... the concept is irrelevant...


> It isn't about science, and as I've said yours has no scientific
> grounding either.

Err - what is your argument about then ?


> No - but what the bible is accepted as by scholars - Religious
> scholars and Historians alike - is a true account of historical
> events
> that have occurred.
>
> No it hasn't. SOME of the events are true. A lot will never be proved
> because they couldn't possibly have happened.

Err - Yes it is....it is accepted - together with other ancient writings as early historical fact. and that is err.... fact...


> They may have had an understanding of science - that wasn't what I
> meant. I meant that, for example, water cannot be turned to wine,

Again - do some research - there are two differing definitions of wine in biblical terms - there is the alcoholic drink that we know nowadays and a differing grape drink that was widely drunk. It was not the intoxicating drink that we have today that he created.

a
> woman can't be created from a man's rib etc.

Not by you and me perhaps - but how about by an omnipotent being ? ( I should have put a smiley there but I'm not sure if you would appreciate it !)

And before you try and
> combat this - you brought up science, not me.

err - it was a response to :

Blank wrote :

It isn't about grounding anything in science, and if it was believe me Christianity wouldn't last a second



> I did not use that as an argument - I used it as a statement to show
> the futility of the original post.
>
> You DID use it as an argument. You said "Why would God want to
> mess about with boulders anyway?". It was part of your
> argument.

No - I did not use that as an argument - I used it as a statement to show
the futility of the original post.

Or do you understand that statement ?


> It's apparent that you can't grasp what the basic principle of this
> is, you're taking far too literally.

I think the taking to literally is coming from your direction - up to now it has been your only argument ?

Sheeshh.......
Wed 09/04/03 at 11:49
Regular
"twothousandandtits"
Posts: 11,024
Flanders wrote:
> Im glad I managed to bring some humour into your miserable self
> opinionated life.

Okay, I'm really not bothered about the insults.



> We created the term to describe something that is indescribable

...


> Because basically it has no credibility - what relevance is there to
> wether or not an omnipotent being could produce a boulder of that
> magnitude ? Lets assume that God is omnipotent - forget about the
> boulder - he could create a pebble that weighs more than the total
> mass of every planet in our known universe - but what would be the
> point behind that - just to prove that he could to us ? He could then
> flick it to the edge of the universe if he so wished - but again to
> what end ? Talk of boulder mass does not prove or disprove
> omnipotency - it is a hypothetical argument with no grounding within
> our comprehension.

Why can't you grasp that it isn't about the boulder? It isn't about objects and their relative mass.


> See above - no it does not have any scientific grounding.

It isn't about science, and as I've said yours has no scientific grounding either.


> No - but what the bible is accepted as by scholars - Religious
> scholars and Historians alike - is a true account of historical events
> that have occurred.

No it hasn't. SOME of the events are true. A lot will never be proved because they couldn't possibly have happened.



> Maybe you should start to do some research into the subject before you
> make these statements. There are plenty of writings in the bible that
> have a scienticfic foundation and show that people in biblical times
> had a scientific understanding. From simple things like hygiene and
> disease control to the fact that in Issiah it mentions that the earth
> is a sphere, something that is also supported by the understanding of
> the Ancient Greeks which flies in the face of our scientific
> understanding that only in recent times we believed the earth to be
> flat.

They may have had an understanding of science - that wasn't what I meant. I meant that, for example, water cannot be turned to wine, a woman can't be created from a man's rib etc. And before you try and combat this - you brought up science, not me.

> The classic argument of religious types when they have little left
> is
> to say "How could we possibly comprehend...?". Surely you
> can think of something better.
>
> You obvioulsy know little about me and have not followed recent
> discussions and debates in this forum.

So basically you're saying you can't come up with something better?


> I did not use that as an argument - I used it as a statement to show
> the futility of the original post.

You DID use it as an argument. You said "Why would God want to mess about with boulders anyway?". It was part of your argument.

It's apparent that you can't grasp what the basic principle of this is, you're taking far too literally.

Freeola & GetDotted are rated 5 Stars

Check out some of our customer reviews below:

I am delighted.
Brilliant! As usual the careful and intuitive production that Freeola puts into everything it sets out to do. I am delighted.
Very pleased
Very pleased with the help given by your staff. They explained technical details in an easy way and were patient when providing information to a non expert like me.

View More Reviews

Need some help? Give us a call on 01376 55 60 60

Go to Support Centre
Feedback Close Feedback

It appears you are using an old browser, as such, some parts of the Freeola and Getdotted site will not work as intended. Using the latest version of your browser, or another browser such as Google Chrome, Mozilla Firefox, or Opera will provide a better, safer browsing experience for you.