The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
Views.
Page:
Thing is, if there's a God, and he can make rocks, then I reckon he could move any rock that he could make.
Even if he couldn't lift it, which I doubt, chances are that he could move a mountain beneath it, forcing it to move anyway.
Even if he couldn't lift it, which I doubt, chances are that he could move a mountain beneath it, forcing it to move anyway.
Blank wrote:
> yadda yadda yadda. Christianity falls down.
I'm no great exponent of Christianity but your argument is a little weak to put the point mildly. If it is taken as a fact that God is omnipotent then he can do anything, which includes making a boulder he cannot lift and lifting that boulder. Because that is the nature of omnipotence. This view may sound dumb to a lot of people, but we're also talking about a God that is omnipresent, to which your argument would go along the lines of "what he can be in China *and* America at the same time?! syeah right". Sure it makes no sense but then that's the point of religion assclown, if you could explain it then people wouldn't believe in it because religion's purpose is to provide a buffer against the things that we don't understand.
Some people argue that many of the theological problems about God arise from his personification by believers. If you believe in a good and merciful God then you might be pretty hacked off when bad things happen to you that you don't believe are warranted. You might wonder why this great God is so mean to you. If you view God as a person then you can ask stupid questions about creating rocks too heavy too lift. But some people regard God in a more intangible sense. A more Allah-type God. But also a God that is neither good nor evil and holds no favours nor bears any grudges.
Maybe it's all theological mumbo-jumbo but let's face it, if you want to be a hardcore atheist you're going to have to come up with better stuff than rock lifting. Did it ever occur to you that your criteria for omnipotence preclude anybody ever from being omnipotent, and do not actually approach the question of God's existence from any firm grounding, as your argument is based entirely in semantics. But if you want to talk about the meanings of words then hey, be my guest, it's just I don't think you're get anything out of it.
If you want some other stupid problems to consider try these out:
In order to reach a wall a man has to walk from A to B. In order to get from A to B he must first reach half way between A and B, point C, and in order to reach point C, he must first reach half way between C and A, point D. And so on and so forth. Things is, you can keep halfing ad infinitum. That means the man, in order to walk from A to B, must complete an infinite number of tasks in a finite amount of time, sure he's got his whole life, but how can he complete that infinite amount of tasks?
Or put it a different way. You have a light bulb that it is wired up so it stays on for 20 seconds and then off for 10, on for 5 then off for 2.5 seconds, and so on and so forth. You cut the electricity after exactly two minutes. Is the light on or off? Theoretically the light should be on and off, because you can halve things ad infinitum. Maybe this suggests that infinite sequences can have finite answers and maybe it's a load of conceptual crap. But in the end it's not much different from debating whether omnipotent people can lift rocks heavier than they can lift.
> yadda yadda yadda. Christianity falls down.
I'm no great exponent of Christianity but your argument is a little weak to put the point mildly. If it is taken as a fact that God is omnipotent then he can do anything, which includes making a boulder he cannot lift and lifting that boulder. Because that is the nature of omnipotence. This view may sound dumb to a lot of people, but we're also talking about a God that is omnipresent, to which your argument would go along the lines of "what he can be in China *and* America at the same time?! syeah right". Sure it makes no sense but then that's the point of religion assclown, if you could explain it then people wouldn't believe in it because religion's purpose is to provide a buffer against the things that we don't understand.
Some people argue that many of the theological problems about God arise from his personification by believers. If you believe in a good and merciful God then you might be pretty hacked off when bad things happen to you that you don't believe are warranted. You might wonder why this great God is so mean to you. If you view God as a person then you can ask stupid questions about creating rocks too heavy too lift. But some people regard God in a more intangible sense. A more Allah-type God. But also a God that is neither good nor evil and holds no favours nor bears any grudges.
Maybe it's all theological mumbo-jumbo but let's face it, if you want to be a hardcore atheist you're going to have to come up with better stuff than rock lifting. Did it ever occur to you that your criteria for omnipotence preclude anybody ever from being omnipotent, and do not actually approach the question of God's existence from any firm grounding, as your argument is based entirely in semantics. But if you want to talk about the meanings of words then hey, be my guest, it's just I don't think you're get anything out of it.
If you want some other stupid problems to consider try these out:
In order to reach a wall a man has to walk from A to B. In order to get from A to B he must first reach half way between A and B, point C, and in order to reach point C, he must first reach half way between C and A, point D. And so on and so forth. Things is, you can keep halfing ad infinitum. That means the man, in order to walk from A to B, must complete an infinite number of tasks in a finite amount of time, sure he's got his whole life, but how can he complete that infinite amount of tasks?
Or put it a different way. You have a light bulb that it is wired up so it stays on for 20 seconds and then off for 10, on for 5 then off for 2.5 seconds, and so on and so forth. You cut the electricity after exactly two minutes. Is the light on or off? Theoretically the light should be on and off, because you can halve things ad infinitum. Maybe this suggests that infinite sequences can have finite answers and maybe it's a load of conceptual crap. But in the end it's not much different from debating whether omnipotent people can lift rocks heavier than they can lift.
plus, the automatic doors at supermarkets wouldn't open for him, and he would have to wait for another, less non-physical entity to come for some more brasso.
Blank wrote:
> Anyway, God couldn't do it because if he wa omnipotent he would be
> able to push the boulder over, therefore he could never make a boulder
> that he couldn't push over, therefore he cannot be omnipotent.
> Christianity falls down.
That’s only the case if God is a physical entity, if he is a more abstract entity then physical laws and limitations would be irrelevant, equally if God exists outside the universe, as well as being everywhere and at all times in it, then the question is irrelevant, or maybe we are all a part of God, in which case the boulder would also be a part of God, and the question becomes irrelevant.
> Anyway, God couldn't do it because if he wa omnipotent he would be
> able to push the boulder over, therefore he could never make a boulder
> that he couldn't push over, therefore he cannot be omnipotent.
> Christianity falls down.
That’s only the case if God is a physical entity, if he is a more abstract entity then physical laws and limitations would be irrelevant, equally if God exists outside the universe, as well as being everywhere and at all times in it, then the question is irrelevant, or maybe we are all a part of God, in which case the boulder would also be a part of God, and the question becomes irrelevant.
oh dear. I'm sure the chemist will be able to provide some gentle laxitives for that nasty case of omnipotence this 'GOD' fellas caught.
Kyz22 wrote:
> Calling God a 'he' is a bit sexist isnt it? He is Asexual
Hahahahahaha!
Anyway, God couldn't do it because if he wa omnipotent he would be able to push the boulder over, therefore he could never make a boulder that he couldn't push over, therefore he cannot be omnipotent. Christianity falls down.
> Calling God a 'he' is a bit sexist isnt it? He is Asexual
Hahahahahaha!
Anyway, God couldn't do it because if he wa omnipotent he would be able to push the boulder over, therefore he could never make a boulder that he couldn't push over, therefore he cannot be omnipotent. Christianity falls down.
No God cannot because if there was a God who made boulders he would want them to all be controlled.
Calling God a 'he' is a bit sexist isnt it? He is Asexual like tapeworms and Anne Robinson.
Calling God a 'he' is a bit sexist isnt it? He is Asexual like tapeworms and Anne Robinson.
Oh, and yes, he could, only our fickle minds could not understand.
Your wording made that question sound really stupid.
My thoughts exactly.
Or there abouts.
Or there abouts.
Page: