The God Paradox - Can you solve it?

Jump to Last Post 1-50 of 55 discussions (276 posts)

74
Rishy Richposted 13 years ago
The God Paradox - also known as the Omnipotence paradox which addresses the question whether the existence of an omnipotent entity is logically possible.

Paradox of the stone (one version):
"Could God create a stone so heavy that even HE could not lift it?" If so, then it seems that God could cease to be omnipotent; if not, it seems that God was not omnipotent to begin with.

Im writing a hub on it...would appreciate your valuable thoughts on this topic...Thanks
reply report
1. 0
  sandra rinckposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  If this god created a rock so heavy he couldn't lift it, then I would say it is proof that he is an ignorant god.
  reply report
  74
  Rishy Richposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Not bad ...Not sure abt this God but You r smart
  reply report
  0
  Home Girlposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  We all make mistakes.
  reply report
2. 60
  Dave Mathewsposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  
  God can do anything He chooses to do, but why would he choose to do as you suggest. your question is an oxymoron.
  reply report
  74
  Rishy Richposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Not as moron as u r my friend
  reply report
3. 59
  mohitmisraposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Which rock you talking about
  reply report
  69
  pylos26posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  'Rock of ages'.
  reply report
  59
  mohitmisraposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  reply report
4. 59
  kessposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Is it possible for one to write on a subject/thing he knows absolutely nothing about?
  
  Why then one/many are so willing to expose their ignorance?
  
  Then that is the first paradox that must be solved before anyone proceed further...
  
  If you do not know then it is wise to sit down and listen not the do the opposite..
  reply report
5. 78
  Shadesbreathposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  The answer to your question can be "Yes."
  
  This "paradox" is similar to the "If the universe is everything, and yet it is continually expanding, where is it expanding into?" question, so the answer can be roughly the same.
  
  It is only a paradox if you limit god to one action. If you allow that god is not a simpleton, then, yes, god can create a stone so heavy that he can't lift it, however, at the same time he creates the stone, he can also increase his own strength exactly to the degree required to lift the stone. If you like, he can then increase the stone in size to beyond what he can lift with his new strength, and again simultaneously increase his own strength to accommodate that new weight, etc. It doesn't even have to be simultaneous if you don't want it to be. He can do this for eternity if he wishes, and it appears he has time as he's not really doing much about plagues, poverty and war here on Earth.
  reply report
  74
  Rishy Richposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  How about "Can God create a God stronger than him?"
  reply report
  78
  Shadesbreathposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Yes.
  reply report
  74
  Rishy Richposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  explanation?
  reply report
  78
  Shadesbreathposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Explanation is simple: Yes, he can create a God more powerful than himself. He is an all powerful god. He can do whatever he wants, since he sets the limits of what is possible. He simply needs to augment himself to do it (like he did when he created a stone and then made himself stronger). Or, if you prefer, he could actually create another god with everything that he possesses and then something extra.
  
  Does this create a problem for him? Sure. If the new god decides to destroy the original, then, well, so be it. The universe will never know the difference because the new god is everything that the old god was and more.
  
  Frankly, this should not really be surprising for people who believe in god. The whole argument about the big bang vs. god is that "who created the big bang" always seems to make god people happy. But when you ask, "Who created God?" they never like that. But, it can be just as plausibly argued that another god created god. And that god was created by another, and so on creating an infinity that is just as hard to hold in your head as, well, infinity.
  reply report
  78
  lifegateposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  The mere definition of God implies He always existed. God is infinite and timeless, yet He transcended both time and space. We are not infinite or timeless so we have difficulty understanding that.
  reply report
  58
  Beelzedadposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  You could use that argument for unicorns and leprechauns, too.
  reply report
  61
  RNMSNposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  good answer!!
  reply report
  61
  RNMSNposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  shadesbreath has the best response..its a philosophical question and a straight forward answer...really cool one shadesbreath!
  reply report
6. 60
  britneydavidsonposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I dont know why you are comparing God power with stone, it is useless. Now you are creating new philosophy which everyone has done. NOt knowing God and creating there own stories. And then young generation read this new stories and confused about God and his identity like still we are confused about who is God and it's identity. I request God please come here on earth and explain us who u r? You power? etc? Thanks
  reply report
  74
  Rishy Richposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Pls Britney...I know ur God is light concept & explained how absurd it was! U remember that, do u? It was in ur weird "I KNOW WHO IS GOD BUT WANT TO HEAR YOU FIRST" thread If ur incapable of thinking, please just dont restrict others to do so...Thanks
  reply report
7. 60
  nightwork4posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  why is such a question a paradox? wouldn't one have to believe in god to even attempt on honest answer. if god exists and he is perfect then why is our planet so faulty?. earthquakes, volcanos, hurricanes etc. we can blame adam and eve for human failures but the planet?
  reply report
8. 73
  Mikel G Robertsposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Sometimes what seems "logically" impossible isn't...
  
  Zeno's Paradox: One cannot ever reach a destination, because in order to reach the destination one must first cover half the distance to the destination. Since there are infinite halves, one will always have another half to cover and therefore will never reach the destination.
  
  Zeno's paradox shows us an example of something that mathematically can be proven to be true, that in reality isn't.
  If it were true "touching" would be impossible...
  reply report
  59
  The Supreme Godposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Listen Micall...that Kid is right. I cant lift such heavy stone. Its not that Im weak. Its just Im too old to do such stuffs.
  reply report
9. 64
  PhoenixVposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  If God could create heavy rocks He could also create levers.
  reply report
  59
  The Supreme Godposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Dont u know I only rely on Faith not logic. Lever is beyond my skills
  reply report
  70
  Cagsilposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Oh please, give it up. You're not god and if you actually think you are "the" god, then you need to seriously have your head examined.
  reply report
  63
  luvpassionposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Prove it...LOL, Virtual reality is just that he can be that in his virtual world if he wants.
  reply report
  70
  Cagsilposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Chosen ignorance must be so wonderfully bliss for those who partake.
  reply report
  63
  luvpassionposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  If you live on the surface, then there is no way that you can experience the subtleties of life.
  
  When you are just acting and reacting on the surface, you tend to connect back to our own self-focus, your ego.
  reply report
  70
  Cagsilposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  You do not seem to be as smart as you think you are, but I guess we can chalk that up to being human.
  reply report
  63
  luvpassionposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  If you were as smart as you think you are, you wouldn't be bantering words with virtual The Supreme God...
  reply report
  70
  Cagsilposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Actually, smarts are not required for bantering an imaginary ideology. Common sense is all that is required to do that. Therefore again you provide a perfect example of chosen ignorance.
  reply report
  63
  luvpassionposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Imaginary ideology...why you got all that from this person's post...you are smart.
  reply report
  63
  ceciliabeltranposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Cagsil, common sense is relative to what is considered common.
  In MIT common sense is very different from the common sense of the small town of Weschestershireville. Do you disagree? Its but common sense. For what is "common" differs from one place to the next.
  
  Common sense is bigger than your idea of common sense you know
  (don't you just love how it comes around?)
  reply report
  59
  The Supreme Godposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  MY SPOILED BRAT CAGSIL...WHERE IS YOUR FAITH MY CHILD? YOU HAVE TO LISTEN TO YOUR HEART & SOUL...
  
  LUVPASSION MY LOVELY DEAR...YOU ROCK! SMOOCH.
  reply report
  70
  Cagsilposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Name calling, so much for being a supreme being.
  reply report
  59
  The Supreme Godposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Have faith my child...YES YOU ARE SPOILED & THERES NO NEED OF HIDING IT...BUT BE AWARE THAT ITS NOT TOTALLY YOUR FAULT...ONE OF THE ANGELS MISTAKENLY POURED EXTRA ARROGANCE WHILE I WAS CREATING YOU...BUT I HAVE FAITH IN YOU...YOU CAN SURELY OVERSOME YOUR LIMITATIONS ONE DAY...
  reply report
  70
  Cagsilposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  The ignorance of that post is a perfect example of the ineptitude of the ideology behind a supreme being.
  
  But, thank you for playing along.
  reply report
  57
  Dave Barnettposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I have no faith, only knowledge, and I still say that instead, he created atheists
  reply report
10. 60
  Davinagirl3posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I think that if there was a God, and He allowed all the unfairness in the world, it proves that He is not beneficent. I prefer to not believe in God, because I would hate Him if He did exist.
  reply report
  64
  PhoenixVposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  You can imagine a better world?
  reply report
  78
  lifegateposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  That's sad. God didn't cause the unfairness in the world. We did.
  reply report
  60
  Davinagirl3posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I am talking about cancer and alzheimers. What kind of God would allow a person's mind to be wiped clean, strip them of their dignity, or allow them to die in excruciating pain? Would it kill God to make himself known to us, step in and save one baby from being murdered? A woman is raped every 5 seconds in the U.S. Where is God? Too much has happened. I would love to have one instance that even resembled proof of the existence of a God.
  reply report
  0
  Twenty One Daysposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  G/god is a concept of ba`al mentality. The same mentality both sensationist and non have. Perhaps we should blame a non-god, because according to ex-theists, does not exist. It is better to blame a non-god than human being, yes?
  
  Yes, proof of a G/god. Well, you are going to be waiting a very long time. Why? It is not because Creator is not everywhere and evident, it is because humans prefer to indulge their own vanity of perspective of Creator and blame someone/something for their own self indulgent behavior (laziness).
  
  You demand Creator come down to you and reveal everything, yet you won't take even a single 24 hour span to consider or seek out Creator. A lazy, selfish, arrogant, irrational and irresponsible consciousness of necessity indeed.
  
  At least the sensationalists are trying to understand. What are the rest doing? Oh, yes, whining and pointing bony fingers at something they have no clue about. Making up fairy tales of fossilized creatures they will never understand.
  
  It's easy to blame something you don't engage wholeheartedly or regard wholeheartedly, because no one can dispute you, now can they?
  reply report
11. 58
  StupidQuestionsposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I was going to say--why bother?--BUT if you're getting a hub out of it then go for it! There is only so much you can say when it comes to fatih though, ya know?
  reply report
12. 67
  goldenpathposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  That paradox exists upon "our" own understanding of life, purpose, mortality and even physics. To attempt to understand deity is the acceptance of higher and more nobler understandings of all the before-mentioned factors. Life, in it's essence, is designed to be eternal, everlasting, expanding and multiplied. He is omnipotent as He is able to afford this to all He promises according to the covenants He makes with them. To crush Himself is to crush His power. To crush His power with His own power is a fruitless endeavor.
  
  Take the question from a different standpoint. Life is to be magnified and expanded. This is part of the purpose of God. His existence is inseparable with the purpose of life. His whole being is constantly in fulfillment of all the facets of magnifying life.
  reply report
  58
  Beelzedadposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  No need to be silly, this has nothing to do with physics. Anything that has to do with gods tosses the physical laws of the universe out the window.
  reply report
  59
  mohitmisraposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  S what made such intelligence ,such physical laws, intelligent laws will require an intelligent creator.
  
  Simple and not so simple ,juts look at the earths rotation and revolution .
  Physics and mathematics to such a degree ,man cannot even fathom the depth. Each days rotates with such precision ,its ridiculous.Rotating a gigantic ball the size of the earth along with so many other celestial bodies,such intelligence is far too supreme compared to human intelligence.
  
  By the way man didn't create these laws he has observed they exist.
  reply report
  63
  ceciliabeltranposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  it is chaos theory.
  
  all complexity stems from a basic fractal that repeats itself in varying scales.
  
  intelligent outcome, intelligent point of origin.
  
  math. very simple. 0-9 all the rest are repeating orbits of zero.
  reply report
  58
  Mark Knowlesposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Not chaos theory.
  False assumption.
  False conclusion.
  Not maths.
  
  Sorry, Woowoo.
  reply report
  63
  ceciliabeltranposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  why?
  
  explain your argument. Aren't numbers repetitions of the same set of numbers?
  
  Isn't chaos theory, the study of patterns of nature and the cosmos and these patterns can be predicted?
  
  Disprove
  intelligent outcome = intelligent origin.
  
  Based on the Fibonacci sequence, and Fractals, a twig is a fractal of the tree.
  
  galaxies, weather patterns, whorl on your head, whorl on your thumb.
  http://www.softsource.com/m_trieye.gif
  
  http://www.mathacademy.com/pr/prime/art … onac_9.gif
  reply report
  58
  Mark Knowlesposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I won't say I fully understand chaos theory Woowoo - but that is not it.
  
  Based on the Fibonacci sequence, and Fractals, a tree is not a fractal of the planet.
  
  Prove intelligent outcome = intelligent origin.
  
  Define "intelligent".
  
  Then we can talk.
  
  You are the one making the assertions Woowoo - but like all good religionists you feel comfortable not needing to acknowledge a burden of proof.
  reply report
  63
  ceciliabeltranposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  "I don't fully understand chaos theory but that is not it"?
  Seriously? You are usually better than this mark. If you do not fully understand it how do you know it is not it?
  
  I am not a religionist, I would be more a theosophist/mythologist.
  When people ask me what my religion is, I say I study it, when I'm talking to curious intelligent people and Roman Catholic when I'm talking to people who couldn't care less. Religion to me are ideologies not absolutes. They are myths that contain knowledge, practical applicable knowledge if you are able to decode them. That aside.
  
  Let's speak your language shall we.
  
  Intelligence according to TED SPEAKER Jeff Hawkins of the Redwood Neuroscience institute is the ability to predict outcome, it is predictive. You do not have to move or talk or express this intelligence in movement. You just have to be able to predict outcomes.
  
  http://www.ted.com/talks/jeff_hawkins_o … uting.html
  
  So in this definition, intelligence is stored information that can predict outcome. In this definition even light is intelligent.
  
  The study of chaos involves the nature of change. Although the name is CHAOS, it does not mean chaotic. It means, the patterns of nature. And unlike the Einstein Picture's statement it does not
  mean unpredictable.
  
  It operates in this paradigm, that the finite can contain the infinite if you make varying scales of copies of itself. This has application in today's cellphone antennaes computer graphics. Look up Helge von Koch or the Koch curve.
  
  This has given way to the mandelbroth set, which shows through the use of computers that proportions of repeating patterns and their subsequent visual representation are contained within structures of nature in varying scales and they are infinite.
  
  There are now many applications in medicine and nature that show that the theory holds from the microscopic aspect of nature to the macro. It holds true, so far.
  
  That said, the human cell also has been found to have an elementary consciousness that is locked in the membrane that enables it to store information via dna hence predict outcome (reflex).
  
  If you move that further back, the cell is a fractal of a larger intelligent system, that gets feedback, responds to the feedback and revises itself-- the universe.
  
  One of their champions Govert Schilling. He published a book in Cambridge about the Evolving Cosmos.
  
  The evolving cell=the evolving cosmos. the cell is a fractal of the cosmos and somewhere in between that is us. Intelligent life talking about the existence of G-d.
  reply report
  58
  Beelzedadposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  When you stand in the sun all day, does it make you more intelligent or just fries your brain? LOL!
  
  "By a chaotic solution to a deterministic equation we mean a solution whose outcome is very sensitive to initial conditions (i.e., small changes in initial conditions lead to great differences in outcome) and whose evolution through phase space appears to be quite random." Finally, Rasband (1990, p. 1) says, "The very use of the word 'chaos' implies some observation of a system, perhaps through measurement, and that these observations or measurements vary unpredictably. We often say observations are chaotic when there is no discernible regularity or order."
  
  http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Chaos.html
  
  The only thing cells have related to fractals is there movement related to molecules. That's it.
  reply report
  63
  ceciliabeltranposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  My dear. Maybe this is more level appropriate for you:
  
  Chaos Theory for beginners:
  
  "What is Chaos Theory?
  Chaos Theory is a mathematical sub-discipline that studies complex systems. Examples of these complex systems that Chaos Theory helped fathom are earth's weather system, the behavior of water boiling on a stove, migratory patterns of birds, or the spread of vegetation across a continent. Chaos is everywhere, from nature's most intimate considerations to art of any kind. Chaos-based graphics show up all the time, wherever flocks of little space ships sweep across the movie screen in highly complex ways, or awesome landscapes adorn the theater of some dramatic Oscar scene. Remember Ace Ventura dangling from a rope over that abyss, trying to save the little raccoon? All those beautiful mountains in the back ground? That wasn't a location shot. That was computer-generated Chaos art."
  
  http://www.abarim-publications.com/Chao … ction.html
  
  reply report
  58
  Beelzedadposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Oh yes, I'll stay clear of math sites and stick with YOUR links that talk about Ace Ventura. LOL.
  reply report
  58
  Beelzedadposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Not really. Had you looked it up yourself you would have found that chaos theory is quite unpredictable, hence the term "chaos". Small perturbations in measurements and calculations can result in widespread divergence making predictions very difficult if not almost impossible.
  reply report
  58
  Beelzedadposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Try Keppler, instead.
  
  Not every scientific concept is based on fractals. There is complexity all over the universe that has nothing to do with fractals.
  
  That looks very distinctive of word salad.
  reply report
  58
  Beelzedadposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Reading too many spiritual books.
  
  Yes, we can. I suspect you're just speaking for yourself here.
  
  Angular momentum and the conservation of energy are concepts that will take the "far too supreme" out of the equation.
  
  True. No one created those laws, they are a result of the universe's constant motion.
  reply report
  59
  mohitmisraposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  No one meaning no human for sure but there is to much intelligence in everything ,something man has not created.
  
  Where did such intelligent energy come from ?
  Energy has a function -meaning an intelligent designer.
  
  "they are a result of the universe's constant motion."
  Universal mind at work.
  reply report
  80
  earnestshubposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Bulldroppings!
  We all make worm food, no one has ever had a single prayer answered, the sky fairy is a psychopathic entity which does not now and never did exist.
  The whole story is a total nonsense, just like it appears to be.
  No omni anything. The biblical god could walk under the carpet in a high hat and not even leave a bump!
  
  Tiny little pathetic hate filled god that it is.
  reply report
  57
  Dave Barnettposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  God evolves, otherwise, he still be sittin' in the dark.
  reply report
13. 63
  ceciliabeltranposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  There are many beliefs about G-d and one of them is that G-d is the stone and the forces that created the stone. It's Pantheism.
  
  So what angle are you going to attack it? A G-d that is outside of nature or within it? In Buddhism, they bow to each other in prayer posture as a gesture that "the god within me recognizes the god within you".
  
  If you attack it from the Pantheist point of view, then it will be this:
  
  If G-d created a stone larger than G-d, then G-d will grow larger because G-d is the force that created the stone and G-d is the stone. G-d creates G-d in many ways. Since, all is G-d. IF all expands to a large stone, then so does G-d. Think of it as our equivalent of growing fat by feeding ourselves. Can we carry our own fatness after becoming fatter than we were? and the answer is yes.
  reply report
14. 57
  Dave Barnettposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Was asked that once. I said "Yes, he could, but being God, he's too smart to do that, so instead he invented ATHEISTS, A rock he cannot move. HA
  reply report
15. 52
  paarsurreyposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Hi friends
  
  There is no paradox in the Creator-God Allah YHWH. He is glorious without a blemish.
  
  The paradox might be in the understanding or the misunderstanding of a person, in my opinion.
  
  Thanks
  
  I am an Ahmadi peaceful Muslim
  reply report
16. 60
  tom hellertposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I answer your question with a question- Why would got want to create a stone to big to lift?
  reply report
17. 61
  www.lookseenowposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  God is not limited to a stone, and or stones here on earth, because he has already lifted the total number into orbit. Can you count the stones on the billions of planets in the known clusters of galaxies? How many stones, not just one, a few, but like the sands upon the seashores of a trillion oceans in the clusters of the 50 to 125 billion clusters of galaxies discovered?
  
  How many stones can he lift? That question is superfluous, because:
  
  “Raise YOUR eyes high up and see. Who has created these things? It is the One who is bringing forth the army of them even by number, all of whom he calls even by name. Due to the abundance of dynamic energy, he also being vigorous in power, not one [of them] is missing.
  (Isaiah 40:26)
  reply report
  64
  fatfistposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  
  Ummmmmm....."He" lifted all those planet-stones against the gravity of WHAT? His super-planet he calls Heaven?
  
  If I put a scale upside down on the ground to attempt to measure the weight of planet Earth,... all God allows me to measure is the weight of the scale!
  reply report
18. 82
  Don Wposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  There's the "choosing not to is not the same as being unable to" answer already mentioned. There's the "the question is meaningless" answer from C.S. Lewis already mentioned. There's also the logic answer which I don't think has been mentioned, which is in the same vein as the C.S. Lewis answer.
  
  Without the descriptive language the paradox boils down to the assertion: X ^ ¬X, or something is AND is not. In this case the assertion is that a being is omnipotent and is not omnipotent.
  
  This assertion can't be true. It's logically impossible. But this doesn't relate to a lack of power. Because no amount of power, even infinite power (omnipotence) can do what is impossible by definition, unless you change those definitions. So there's no logical inconsistency between not being able to do the logically impossible and being omnipotent. In other words, you can have infinite power (and therefore be omnipotent in that sense) but still be unable to do what is impossible by definition.
  
  There are other various answers but I think these are the main three.
  reply report
19. 60
  LPStarrposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I don't think it's a matter of physical strength, but of faith. If God created a rock that He couldn't lift with His might, then I think He could lift it with the power of faith. He might create a rock so big He couldn't lift so He could show how powerful His faith is. That may be way off, and you may not believe it, but it's just my opinion.
  reply report
20. 59
  Jeramiposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Will you ever be able to out think yourself ???
  
  In an ever expanding universe I would HOPE so.
  reply report
21. 60
  Daniel J. Neumannposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Omnipotent only applies to what's logically possible. God, for example, could not make a married bachelor. I don't think God could make a stone too heavy for Him (since no stone could be too heavy for Him)—but that doesn't disprove God in the least. Sorry for being a party pooper.
  reply report
22. 59
  A la carteposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Omnipotence means being able to do anything. If GOD made a rock he could lift..it would be for a reason that we would be unable to work out so the actual lifting of the rock becomes unimportant...the reason behind the rock becomes all important.
  reply report
23. 57
  Eugene Lebedevposted 7 years agoin reply to this
  Jesus Christ as a person can not lift up a stone more that 100 kg (220 lb). But Jesus Christ as Creator created every stone and can lift up any stone.
  Can God create a rock that He can’t lift?
  reply report
69
ilmdamailyposted 13 years ago
I've got a God paradox for you...

Why do people continue to argue about the existence of God, each being superemely convinced of the rightness of their argument, but neither being willing to concede the very real possibility they are wrong?

Solve that one;-)

As for the actual philosophical problem - not sure if anyone here will be able to solve a 1000+ year old problem.

But hey! I could be wrong...
reply report
1. 74
  Rishy Richposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Thanks for ur response, although it didnt help much. I would appreciate posts directed towards the paradox not diverted from it. I will provide my view in the hub Im writing now & I guess ur question will be answered there too. Thanks anyway.
  reply report
  69
  ilmdamailyposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Sorry - I was being a little smart there:-s
  
  I think Misha makes a great point though - it's a paradox only so long as you believe in the existence of God.
  
  Though I might refine his statement. More specifically - and I say this as someone who does believe in God (full disclosure) - I think its a paradox only so long as - if you're a believer - you feel the need to prove or verify the existence of God - to yourself, and others.
  
  If someone's belief in God is conditional on a rational, positivist, materialist appraisal of "the facts of the matter," then yes, they will be poorly placed to defend that belief - every single time. They will remain mired in the paradox.
  
  But the basis of all belief is scarcely rational, and more often emotionally based.
  
  Perhaps the paradox isn't in "hacking" the (il?)logic of omnipotence, as much as it is in understanding why as humans we vaccillate(sp?)so much between the rational and the emotional bases for belief?
  reply report
2. 57
  Dave Barnettposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  People also believe in ghosts, alien abductions, voodoo, witchcraft, flying saucers, The idea that something invisible could possibly be a sentient, conscious, power, isn't impossible. No more than apes walking about, wearing clothes, and inventing religion.
  reply report
  57
  Dave Barnettposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  reference lifeforms existing at a higher vibratory freq. not new, actual first heard it in original star trek. Heard it again recently as something being explored by reputable scientists.
  reply report
3. 60
  Kimberly Bunchposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Nothing is better than having paranormal or supernatural happenings occur to help you understand what is and what isn't. At least when it comes to the spirit world.
  
  Once the door opens everything can come tumbling out. That is the awesome nature of spirituality and psychic development.
  reply report
63
Mishaposted 13 years ago
Umm, nothing to solve really, IMO. Just another proof that "god" does not exist. It becomes a paradox only when you keep insisting he does. Stop it, and paradox is solved.
reply report
1. 74
  Rishy Richposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  hmm...I wish if this were so easy...Thanks anyway.
  reply report
  63
  Mishaposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  It is not easy if your whole life you've been taught that he exists. But it is simple.
  reply report
  74
  Rishy Richposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  lol...yeah ur right. Most of us are taught that way but still some of us manage to break through the chains of faith. Its nice to get some russian point of view. Diversity rules
  reply report
2. 57
  Dave Barnettposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  There is NO definitive proof that God doesn't exist. None that he does. Might as well be looking for sasquatch.
  reply report
3. 0
  brotheryochananposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  How does a question about god being able to make a stone big enough that he can't lift it prove god does not exist?
  
  Can you make a question you cannot answer? If you can then you must not exist.
  Stop wasting our time and our time will not be wasted.
  reply report
  74
  Rishy Richposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Im a human...humans are not omnipotent but GOD is. Dont waste ur time with Philosophy...Try religion
  reply report
  69
  IntimatEvolutionposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  If you already had the answer, then why ask the question? Seems to me you were just looking to pick an argument. So which is it? Do you want some help with your hub, or were you just wanting to fight with someone online?
  reply report
71
thisisoliposted 13 years ago
The paradox is unprovable, however.

Good arguments against it include things like the flying spaghetti monster - every argument that can be said to be a proof of God could just as easily be the proof of the flying spaghetti monster.

The complete lack of anything to prove the existence of God is a good start, of course teh omnipotent argument catches that one.

All in all it is just the same old schoolgirl argument of 'well I'll bet you infinity'
reply report
1. 75
  cheaptrickposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I'll go you one better!
  Theres more proof for T.F.S.M. than there is for[you know who].Ive actually eaten the Spaghetti monster...you can't eat God cause he's already in you!!So There!
  Of course...I could be wrong...maybe you Can eat[you know who]
  reply report
  63
  Daniel Carterposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  How dare you get philosophical!
  
  I like that idea. Can't eat what's already in you.
  
  So maybe this is true also: Christians, beware! You can't eat the Devil, either.
  
  (The power of paradox. At dusk and dawn, is it light or dark?...)
  reply report
  75
  cheaptrickposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  EQINOX my friend EQUINOX
  reply report
  63
  Daniel Carterposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Smartee pants....
  
  I only think in quarter notes, being a composer....
  reply report
62
prettydarkhorseposted 13 years ago
paradox
okidox
Never mind, I have my mind!
God is everywhere
God is the most powerful
If HE is with us who could be against us!
reply report
1. 74
  Rishy Richposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  "...If HE is with us who could be against us!"
  
  hmm...how abt logic? Thats clearly against you
  reply report
62
prettydarkhorseposted 13 years ago
what is LOGIC, play of words?
reply report
1. 74
  Rishy Richposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  lolol
  
  I was right. It is completely against you
  reply report
  62
  prettydarkhorseposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I am right logic is just a play of words, like you are doing!
  
  You yourself believe in it because you are using deductive logic!
  reply report
  74
  Rishy Richposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  OK you are right...
  reply report
2. 75
  the pink umbrellaposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  oh, up until this point i just thought you christians denied logic, i had no idea you didnt know what it was...
  
  "Logic is often divided into two parts, inductive reasoning and deductive reasoning. The first is drawing general conclusions from specific examples, the second drawing logical conclusions from definitions and axioms. A similar dichotomy, used by Aristotle, is analysis and synthesis. Here the first takes an object of study and examines its component parts. The second considers how parts can be combined to form a whole."- wikepedia
  
  Look, i dont mean to be an ass, but seriously, im sick of you christians implying that the rest of us are "lost" or "in denial" or "lying to ourselves" or "in the dark"
  
  Give it up, would ya?
  
  Some of us can actually think with our brain...thats that mushy muscle in your head...
  
  Some of us dont fall for the first fairy tale we are ever told.
  
  Some of us know that just because we are told something is true, does not mean that it is.
  
  I used to be very different until i joined hubpages, but you christians on here have pushed me further away from belief in god than ever before. You are all mean, condecending, and not very "bright lights shining for the Lord"
  
  I would never want to follow someone who you guys follow. Not if it turns you into a hateful narrow minded beast. "logic, is that twisting of words" or whatever you said. That sentance is both childish and an attack against someone whos belief differs from yours.
  
  Seriously, the christians on here that i have come across are pushy, mean, defensive, and belittle anyone who argues with them.
  So feel free to tell me you will pray for me. I know how you love to use that as your final attack.
  reply report
  0
  Deborah Sextonposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  ___________________________________________
  Not everyone who knows God is a Christian.
  reply report
  75
  the pink umbrellaposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  no one said they were, but it find it id the christians i run across that have the biggest chip
  reply report
68
Flightkeeperposted 13 years ago
NO.
reply report
0
sandra rinckposted 13 years ago
Okay, suppose this god makes a rock so heavy he cannot lift it and is like, darn it! So then he makes a stronger god that can...

Wait, wait, wait....

Still ignorant. lololololol
reply report
0
EnglishMposted 13 years ago
This question is being done to death on hubpages. The answer is vast and extremely complex. I have a reasonably good explanation that you should find interesting, but it requires reading six hubs, the first of which is called: Divine Inspiration. If you really want some answers, you should check them out.
Written with kindness, EnglishM.
reply report
73
mrpopoposted 13 years ago
I don't get the question.

God is an infinite concept, mass is a finite concept. Wouldn't any rock God makes have a finite mass?

Sure, technically he could make the rock with enough matter to become a black hole and that hole would be continuously gaining mass from nearby objects, but it would still have a finite mass (on the scale of Suns, but still a finite number). God, on the other hand, has infinite energy, so it seems he would have an easy time lifting it.

By definition of those situations, it can't be done. You can't have infinite mass. C.S. Lewis compared it to drawing a square circle.

Unless you want to change the situation so that the rock can somehow have infinite mass and then test the infinite mass vs God's infinite energy. Then it becomes like the "immovable object vs unstoppable object" scenario. You can't have both an immovable object and an unstoppable object, because by definition an immovable object is immovable by anything (thus no unstoppable objects can exist).

If you have a being with limitless energy, then everything has to be subordinate to it by definition. So no rock would be too heavy for God.
reply report
1. 0
  Home Girlposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Well, he obviously did not plan to lift it.
  reply report
  75
  the pink umbrellaposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  You guys can't be serious. lmao. This question is so not about a rock. This man is questioning the omnipotence of your god. Like, could god make a tunnele so long that even he could not reach the end. you guys have obviously not realized yet that your fairy tale has loop holes
  reply report
  73
  mrpopoposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Well, that's the entire point. The common definition of omnipotence is a paradox. I simply altered the generic definition into my own - i.e. that an omnipotent being cannot create anything superior to itself. Let alone a rock that can't be lifted.
  reply report
2. 74
  Rishy Richposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  @ mrpopo
  
  A special Thanks to you. You are the only person so far who at least tried to provide a rational response.
  reply report
  73
  mrpopoposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Anytime.
  
  I suppose the only limits to God would then be making things that are better than God itself, because God itself is the limit (of energy, but everything in this universe operates on energy anyway).
  reply report
61
Ron Montgomeryposted 13 years ago
God cannot make a rock so heavy that he cannot lift it. But pointing this out to him is a mortal sin.

PS - where's Brenda today?
reply report
1. 0
  Kathryn LJposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Probably having a rest after Sunday's efforts. Besides no one has mentioned gay sex yet. There's probably a red light on her monitor that goes off when the words 'gay sex' are posted. Doh!
  reply report
  61
  Ron Montgomeryposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  OK, let's test your theory...
  
  Could God make a man soooooooo gay...
  reply report
  0
  Kathryn LJposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Nope, crashed and burned. Maybe it only goes off if it's in the topic title.
  reply report
2. 75
  the pink umbrellaposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  what??? questioning this is a mortal sin? weather that was a joke or not, you guys never cease to push me further away from belief
  reply report
59
Jeramiposted 13 years ago
This is why the universe is expanding !! he makes something that he caint lift and then he gets bigger.... and then ....
reply report
71
AEvansposted 13 years ago
This has been argued so many times but here is my perspective.

Nobody can actually prove there is a God. It has to come from within you as a person. If God allows you to find it the paradox then it is through your faith, that it will be found. Having faith is a gift that has been given and either you will believe or you will not believe.

God's love for us is unconditional and those of us who believe through God's grace he has given us faith.

Here is a link that may also be able to explain more.

http://www.everystudent.com/features/isthere.html

I believe but that doesn't mean that others believe nor have to.
reply report
1. 60
  Don Simkovichposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  A reasoned, articulate answer AEvans.
  reply report
93
habeeposted 13 years ago
Rishy, I'll ask Him for you when I get to Heaven!
reply report
1. 80
  earnestshubposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Hi ya habee!
  reply report
2. 61
  Randy Godwinposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Let me quote the late, great, James Brown (did they ever bury him?) and just say HOK!
  reply report
93
habeeposted 13 years ago
Hi, Ernesto! How ya been? Still giving boomerang lessons?
reply report
1. 80
  earnestshubposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I've been good! A bit beaten around by the little tackers, but otherwise great!
  
  Yep! Still with the boomerang lessons. I have room in the yard for about 20 chickens, so the price has gone up.
  
  I have moved in with my daughter and 5 grandchildren. Easier this way for all of us.
  reply report
  93
  habeeposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Living with 5 grandchildren?? You're a brave man, my friend! What do they call you? I'm "Nana."
  reply report
  80
  earnestshubposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I'm Granpa. I can't get enough of this lot. They are such precious little people!
  I got showed off at Kinder today by Asha and Lauren (the twins)
  Look! That's my grandpa!
  I am home. My daughter and I are always in harmony. She speaks her mind, but without malice and we know each other well, so this works great for us.
  
  All the kids have their own rooms, except the twins who like to be together.
  reply report
93
habeeposted 13 years ago
That sounds wonderful! I know you're a terrific grandpa! On the rare occasions I have to dole out discipline, I'm the Nananator, and at Christmas, I'm Nanaclaus.
reply report
1. 61
  Randy Godwinposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  And to Johnny you are NanaPudding!
  reply report
81
quicksandposted 13 years ago
No signs of GOD still?
reply report
1. 80
  earnestshubposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  habee may be god. Have you seen her food recipes?
  To die for!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
  reply report
  81
  quicksandposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Fortunately you didn't go beyond the eyeballs! That's the point of no-return!
  reply report
  93
  habeeposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Ernesto, if you're ever in this area, I want to cook dinner for you! And Randy, you can join us. I'll even make you some Nana pudding! lol
  reply report
  80
  earnestshubposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Habee, one day I will pull a couple of grandchildren off my legs and head back to the states for another look.
  
  I would be honoured to meet you and Randy, and anyone else in your group of friends as I feel certain that they are all real as you are.
  Food and conversation in good company rates right up there for me.
  reply report
  61
  Randy Godwinposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Come on over, Earnest! I guarantee you some fun! We'll have a fungus among us! LOL!
  reply report
0
Kathryn LJposted 13 years ago
Maybe he or she has created a rock so heavy they can't lift, simply because they were creating a paradox so that hub postings like this can exist. If 'it''s not argued about in hubpages, does 'it' exist? It seems to me a lot of theological/philosophical debates are created just to keep academics with a religious bent, amused.
reply report
90
Pcunixposted 13 years ago
Disclosure: natural atheist here. Exposed to religion by parents, was astonished that anyone could believe such tall tales, never looked back.

Why does your creator need omnipotence or omniscience? Aside from everything else, that always seemed like an unreasonable and unnecessary assumption to me.
reply report
1. 74
  Rishy Richposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Why does your creator need omnipotence or omniscience?
  
  Good point
  reply report
63
Daniel Carterposted 13 years ago
The paradox itself is flawed, because it's the perception of a finite human being. The first principle about God (If there is one) is that he/she/it is an infinite being. Therefore, the rock idea, being finite, is an improper analogy to something infinite. Therefore, the paradox cannot truly exist.

It's more like can Fred Flintstone find a rock he can't lift himself.
(Um, I'll have to get back to you on that one....not.)
reply report
59
Jeramiposted 13 years ago
Davinagirl3 wrote:
I think that if there was a God, and He allowed all the unfairness in the world, it proves that He is not beneficent. I prefer to not believe in God, because I would hate Him if He did exist.
============================================================

In order to make your dog happy ... You kill millions of flees.

In order for one Great Balled Eagle to live, many rabbits and squirrels must become orphans.

Who gets the benefit of his being benevolent; the flee, the dog, the rabbit or the eagle? ?
reply report
1. 64
  PhoenixVposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  If you remove the darkness, do I still have a choice of the Light?
  
  I dont like being forced against the only freewill choice I have.
  
  http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/47912?p … ost1103696
  reply report
59
Dgerrimeaposted 13 years ago
Sorry if I'm repeating what anyone's already said, but I haven't read every post, so I'll just address the original post.

This isn't a paradox so much as deceptive language.

Either A) it is possible that a rock could be, in principle, unliftable, or B) it is possible for god to lift any object which could possibly exist.

Logically, these can't both be true.

If god is all powerful, can he create a rock so heavy that he couldn't lift it?

Well, either "a rock so heavy he couldn't lift it" is nonsensical, or "god is all powerful" is nonsensical.

There's no paradox, just a statement which is half nonsense. But which half? Probably both.
reply report
1. 73
  mrpopoposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Yep, you pretty much nailed it. Just like the unstoppable force vs the immovable object scenario.
  reply report
0
karthikrajgposted 13 years ago
Firstly, why should god follow the logic of the humans? Can't our logic be as trivial to him like a logic of a fly that cannot distinguish between a glass door and an open space is to us?

Secondly, Why try and plot everything using our limited brain power? Instead we need to learn to sync with the energy called god...

Cheers,
Karthik
reply report
1. 58
  Beelzedadposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I see that statement as "stop thinking and start believing."
  reply report
  59
  mohitmisraposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  With all your thinking do you know the source of this universe of yourself?
  reply report
0
wademcmasterposted 13 years ago
I try to be open minded and accept that I dont know that fact for sure, just accept and be thankful for what I have
reply report
62
prettydarkhorseposted 13 years ago
Hi Cecilia, kumusta day?
reply report
1. 63
  ceciliabeltranposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Eto ang kulit ng mga tao dito. Paulit ulit ko ng iniexplika yung mandelbroth set, pwede naman silang magbasa. ayan na lahat nakatiwangwang na yung sources, hindi pa rin ma-gets. Wala kasing magawa tong mga na to. Eh ako naman, gusto ko lang tatanan nila yung mga reliyoso at medjo wala namang kamalay malay yung mga ere.
  Gusto lang nilang matuwa sa Diyos. Utang naloob ok. Yung lang. Pasensiya na at dalawang oras na lang at mag lelecture na ko pinagaaksayan ko pa ng sagot itong mga puti na to. Ikaw day, kamusta na? Nanalo ka diba?
  reply report
  62
  prettydarkhorseposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Thanks Cecilia, oo nanalo ako day, SALAMAT, nagtuturo ka ba sa La Salle, nagturo ako Philisophy at Sociology, pero mga puti mahirap nga umintindi, ang talino mo kasi I read your answers,
  reply report
  63
  ceciliabeltranposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Dehins nasa New York Ako. Iba ang kukute nila. Parang bobo na hindi mo malaman pero nagmamagaling. Alam mo yon. Tingnan mo ha inexplica ko na. Hindi daw. E, ayun na nga. May link pa don sa speaker mismo. Ako daw ang nagredefine.
  
  Nagtuturo ka? Sociology. Okey yon ah. Ano palagay mo bakit sarado mga kukots ng mga to. Talagang, ewan ah. Siguro yung mga nandito lang. I need to get a new crowd, right?
  reply report
  62
  prettydarkhorseposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Oh New York, I hope you are doing alright there! Talk to you soon Cecilia, I will drink coffee, magkakape,
  
  Sorry everyone, we were carried away! carried and then away!
  reply report
  63
  ceciliabeltranposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  enjoy! I will have lunch and pack my bags.
  reply report
  75
  the pink umbrellaposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Wow, this is a forum. Email if you want to talk in secret....rude....
  reply report
  63
  ceciliabeltranposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  nge hindi ako matalino (I'm not intelligent) makulit lang (just pesky) . But thank you.
  reply report
58
Mark Knowlesposted 13 years ago
Well, there you go Woowoo - just redefine the words to mean what you want them to mean and away you go. Light is intelligent huh? How can you predict outcomes if you are not aware?

And yes - seriously - I do not fully understand chaos theory - but it ain't "the study of patterns of nature and the cosmos and these patterns can be predicted" - sorry Woowoo.

Why don't you try actually speaking my language instead?
reply report
1. 63
  ceciliabeltranposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Well, Mark. I did not redefined them as you know. They were redefined while you were in the forum two years ago.
  
  You want to speak my language, you can't even understand your own. I spoke to you in plain language.
  
  Light can store information and has a set path. That did not come to me, those are the trends in scientific thought. Life itself is being redefined. Not by me but by the busy people of the academia. Those who are too busy to educate people who are not interested in knowing something new but holding on to their old notions of science in order to continue to avoid the power of their past puppeteers.
  
  Chaos theory is mathematics...I already gave you the sources. You can check wiki and the dictionary if you like but it will take more than that to fully explain what it is. The key words of the sources are there. You can check them.
  
  Well I don't need to convince you but well, whatever you think it is, explain it here. That is why it is a forum. You cannot say, no it's not and that's it. You have to explain why.
  reply report
  58
  Mark Knowlesposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Dear me. I know what chaos theory is. I do not claim to fully understand it, and I don't think you do either judging from your original statement.
  
  Just because some one makes a TED presentation does not mean it is gospel and that narrow definition is well outside the accepted one.
  
  Sorry Woowoo.
  
  Oh - and it is rude and against the hubpages TOS to use a foreign language here.
  reply report
  63
  ceciliabeltranposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  If you do not fully understand it, then how can you judge if I do not or do? Do you see the flaw in that statement.
  
  The "just because" argument is also flawed. Because an inventor and founder of the redwood neuro-science institute said it and not to mention other people who share his definition. He will not be talking about it among peers if it is not a generally accepted proposition. In the same way, just because you disagree doesn't mean they're wrong. They know quite a bit more about the brain and the cosmos and math than you Mark. As for me, I'm just a nerd who likes to keep myself informed. So you can disagree with them, it doesn't shake the foundations of their work.
  
  You can call me woowoo and wrong, still the truth is already evolving as we speak. If you can't keep up. you stagnate. swim in new waters and you'll evolve.
  reply report
  58
  Mark Knowlesposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Because I understand it enough to know that your definition is incorrect. Also - on past performances - you do not fully understand either it although you claim to. That is the difference between you and I. I do not claim perfect total knowledge and understanding. I do not immediately jump on any bandwagon that comes along either. There is no truth, Woowoo.
  
  Love your condescension though. Fantastic. Almost as good as the religionists. Especially when most of what you think is "new" is actually donkeys years old.
  
  Enjoy your lecture.
  reply report
  63
  ceciliabeltranposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  They are as new as april 2010. SO you can claim to understand but it is just a claim until you prove it. I'm the one with all the sources Mark. You're just saying you know it and then saying I don't know it.
  
  Don't say it, show it. THEN I will believe you. (oh and wiki is not a good source. The dictionary is just a working knowledge, its incomplete...work harder)
  reply report
  58
  Beelzedadposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  The original flaw is the claim that you actually understand it.
  reply report
63
ceciliabeltranposted 13 years ago
Oh, sorry. I didn't know that. Sorry.

I was just trying to tell her I don't understand what is vague about what i said and i don't have time for this because I have to conduct a lecture in 2 hours. Ciao mark. till next time.
reply report
63
ceciliabeltranposted 13 years ago
Plus the difference between you and me is I share what I know.
What you do is say I don't know what I'm saying. So that misery will have company.

If you prove me wrong, I'll listen. I am not attached to my old comfort zones. I like to be surprised of what I don't know.

You however make me look intelligent. I can always predict your lines.
reply report
1. 58
  Beelzedadposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  No, you assert you know things when you don't, in essence, you wind up sharing false information.
  
  You've been shown to be wrong on many an occasion, but you never listened.
  
  Somebody has to.
  reply report
  63
  ceciliabeltranposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Well, how can you judge that when you use wiki and the dictionary as your source to debunk me?
  
  Yoohoo? TED speakers don't talk about it to their peers unless its foundations and institutes are already set up, meaning they are already funded theories that have useful applications.
  
  That light stores information is OLD. It's old. So you can say I spread FALSE information but that does not hold water. That is an accusation based on incomplete knowledge of the argument. It is as baseless as saying I'm wrong.
  
  The mathematics show that X=x, so if you understand what that means, you know if X=x then you can put any value of X and it will be equal to x.
  
  You really have trouble catching up to what having a foundation and institute mean. That means, people believe them. People who CAN understand them, but it requires a bit of background knowledge for comprehension to take place.
  reply report
  58
  Beelzedadposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Well, I don't recall debunking you with wiki, please show me where I did that? As far as a dictionary is concerned, you might want to get one some day... and start using it.
  
  That light is intelligent is what? Old? New? Or just plain nonsense?
  
  The obfuscation in your posts are oceans.
  
  Congratulations, you just showed us that 1=1. How that translates into supporting your assertions is beyond me.
  
  It's nice that you're a believer, but it might benefit you more to be a thinker when it comes to academia.
  reply report
  0
  Deborah Sextonposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  ___________
  I LOVE you man.
  reply report
  58
  Beelzedadposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Have I told you lately you look marvelous?
  reply report
  0
  Deborah Sextonposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Not lately. Thank you, so do you.
  reply report
63
ceciliabeltranposted 13 years ago
The operative statement: Finally, Rasband (1990, p. 1) says...

Two years later they found an application:

http://research.duke.edu/stories/coaxing-order

The title of the recently published article is Coaxing order from chaos.

Catch up!

Here too:
predictability in the midst of chaos. http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/a … 2/5389/728

reply report
1. 58
  Beelzedadposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Read up! From your link:
  
  "We've just been focused on small pieces of tissue," Gauthier says. "This is much harder than any of the other controlling-chaos problems that people have been doing."
  
  Just as it would be nearly impossible to try calming a pool full of turbulent water with a single oar, so the Duke group has found that applying shocks at only a handful of points does little to stabilize a runaway electrical signal in the heart. While small shocks might have transient effects locally, they do little to settle down the system as a whole.
  
  Gauthier says there is not so far any "killer app" for chaos, no indispensable application of the techniques he and so many others have been working to develop. Fifty years after Lorenz's discovery, the butterfly effect is still more marvel than technology."
  
  LOL!
  reply report
  63
  ceciliabeltranposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  You are too funny, but I must admit you're working harder this time and a lot less innane comments. Congratulations. However you still have to work on your comprehension.
  
  Question : If it has practical applications and there is mathematics that predict the patterns, then doesn't that mean there are patterns?
  
  Its hard to fathom those patterns but the theory is there. There is no such thing as chaos in a timescale. Stocks form a predictable pattern over long periods of time. So does weather. But it operates on probabilities. It is quantum in nature. Mandelbroth gave perspective to the nature of chaos structures such as fern and mountain ranges. These seemingly random shapes are actually organized.
  
  "Chaos theory helps us to understand patterns in nature. It has been used to model biological systems, which are some of the most chaotic systems imaginable. Chaotic patterns show up everywhere around the world, including cloud patterns, the currents of the ocean, the flow of blood through fractal blood vessels, the branches of trees, astronomy, epidemiology, and the effects of air turbulence.
  
  Chaos theory states that, under certain conditions, ordered, regular patterns can be seen to arise out of seemingly random, erratic and turbulent processes. Chaos theory does not emphasize the inherent disorder and unpredictability of a system. Instead, chaos theory emphasizes the order inherent in the system and the universal behavior of similar systems. "
  
  http://www.patternsinnature.org/Book/Chaos.html
  
  Continue to make yourself look dense.
  reply report
  58
  Beelzedadposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Ah yes, the insults, again.
  
  So far, you've not shown any aptitude for math, so I don't think you would know what you're talking about here. Could you show me this math?
  
  Word salad that does not support your claim.
  
  From your link:
  
  "science defines "chaos" as a form of order that lacks predictability. "
  
  Thanks for making my point. LOL!
  reply report
  63
  ceciliabeltranposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  once again, picking little lines that prove your point while ignoring the entire concept altogether. You are are certifiable anti-thesis of the picture you use to match one of the three abominable demon's name.
  
  But it is really not a demon's name. It's the healing god of Ekron.
  It only becomes a demon when you choose power over healing.
  
  ciao.
  reply report
  58
  Beelzedadposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  No, you made a claim and I disagreed, then I presented evidence to support my disagreement. You then offered a link that also agreed with me. Whatever the concept may be that you're talking about would not be supported without that important correction.
  
  More personal insults. It saddens me when some have to resort to using ad homs in light of an argument.
  
  *sniff*
  reply report
59
Teresa McGurkposted 13 years ago
I've been trying to skim through all this, but let me see if I've got it straight--y'all are arguing about whether God could pick up a big rock?

Why would God want to pick up a big rock?
reply report
1. 88
  Paragliderposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  To dash it down again. Dashing it down would be the fine manly thing to do. I'd expect nothing less from God.
  reply report
75
Kangaroo_Jaseposted 13 years ago
The Answer Is 42
reply report
61
Deaconessposted 13 years ago
Hmmm. Interesting paradox. If I may consider the stone metaphorically, then I would say that he already has created this stone... it's called "free will" and he gave it to humankind.
reply report
1. 60
  canadawest99posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  There is only one god paradox that matters - How can a perfect being create a flawed creation such as humans and claim they are after his own image? Must have been a lazy day in the universe.
  reply report
80
earnestshubposted 13 years ago
No god, no paradox.
reply report
1. 88
  Paragliderposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  no woman, no cry
  reply report
  59
  mohitmisraposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  
  reply report
61
cherilswordposted 13 years ago
What happens when an immovable object meets a irresistible force? The answer is nothing. They just pass each other. Perhaps the solution to the question you have posed can be found in this.
reply report
0
Deborah Sextonposted 13 years ago
God is without limit..so he can do both.

But this question is as useless and nonsensical as asking,
"Can a man, using no help and no apparatus lose so much weight, that he can lift himself".

paradox |ˈparəˌdäks|
noun
a statement or proposition that, despite sound (or apparently sound) reasoning from acceptable premises, leads to a conclusion that seems senseless, logically unacceptable, or self-contradictory
reply report
1. 74
  Rishy Richposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  lololol
  
  "Can a man, using no help and no apparatus lose so much weight, that he can lift himself".
  
  -Hope u know the difference between Man & God
  
  .".. leads to a conclusion that seems senseless, logically unacceptable, or self-contradictory"
  
  - God is the Paradox here...The Omnipotent - Omnipresent conclusion that seems senseless, logically unacceptable, or self-contradictory
  
  Thanks
  reply report
  0
  Deborah Sextonposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I said God can do both.He is without limit
  I was using the man thing to show how stupid such a question is.
  It's the same type of question.
  
  From what I gather you don't believe in God..so what do you know in the difference of man and God?
  
  LOLOLO back at you.
  reply report
  74
  Rishy Richposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Im getting tired of giving LOLOLOL at you...anyway what seems to be a stupid question to you is actually a famous philosophical question argued by many intellect minds like Avrroes, Descarte, Ludwig Wittgenstein & many more.
  
  I understand since you dont use your brain much it is very possible that you may not heard about these great personalities & neither about this Paradox Before.
  
  Btw, you dont need to believe in something to understand its difference from others. Even IF I Dont Believe...I Do Understand What You Believe!
  
  LOLOLO ....phew getting tired
  reply report
  0
  Deborah Sextonposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  ______________________________________
  Your Remark........
  Im getting tired of giving LOLOLOL at you...anyway what seems to be a stupid question to you is actually a famous philosophical question argued by many intellect minds like Avrroes, Descarte, Ludwig Wittgenstein & many more.
  _______________________________________________________________
  Mine.......
  Yes I know, it has been around for years and years. I don't live in a box. Regardless of who has debated, it is still a stupid question. The question is a paradox itself.
  _______________________________________________________
  
  Your Remark.........
  I understand since you dont use your brain much it is very possible that you may not heard about these great personalities & neither about this Paradox Before.
  ______________________________________________________________
  Mine..........
  My brain is at use 24 hours a day. Stop with the personal attacks.
  Anything you have heard of, so have I.
  ________________________________________________________________
  Your Remark........
  Btw, you dont need to believe in something to understand its difference from others. Even IF I Dont Believe...I Do Understand What You Believe!
  _____________________________________
  Mine......
  To know God you have to connect with him. We were created in his image.
  You do not know what I believe. Stop stereotyping me.
  reply report
  74
  Rishy Richposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  "...To know God you have to connect with him. We were created in his image. You do not know what I believe. Stop stereotyping me."
  
  - Thats ur believe not mine. So far I havent seen any difference between u & others, I havent found any proof in favor of ur claim or for others.
  
  As per I see you havent read much outside ur holybook...that is exactly like living in a box. Faith is often the boast of those ignorant minds who are too lazy to investigate. Its never late to start thinking...
  reply report
  0
  Deborah Sextonposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  It has nothing to do with faith. It is through experience.
  The only thing I have in common with others is that I know we were created (not the way they teach) and we are like God.
  reply report
  74
  Rishy Richposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Really? If it has nothing to do with faith then I guess its absolutely logical to accept your science (Although the SCIENTISTS will not accept it as such but dont worry, their logic must be wrong when it comes to your logic)
  
  Since u r personally connected with God & Since YOU are like God...Can you show me a miraculous sign? or Can you tell your God (with all your supernatural connection) to give me a miraculous sign? Will he listen to you? or will you be able to perform his miracles (Since you are like God)?
  
  ...I didnt ask for a billion dollars, I didnt ask for any supernatural powers either...You dont have to divide a river like moses or divide a moon like mohammad...I am asking for a simple demonstration of your claims...A miraculous sign & it doesnt have to be in public...It would be enough if only I see it Can your personal connection with God do that? I bet you can do something since you have long time personal EXPERIENCE with God, which is completely LOGICAL & has nothing to do with FAITH!!!
  reply report
0
Deborah Sextonposted 13 years ago
I have witnessed many "miracles" "improbable events" after "I" prayed for them and spoke them into reality. Many of them. That is why I wrote the hub, http://hubpages.com/hub/So-You-Think-Yo … ut-Are-You

God would not give you a sign unless you are sincere.

Do I or God have to prove anything to you? NO

And why do you think because people are known scientist that they know more about God than me?
reply report
1. 74
  Rishy Richposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Unless you prove or demonstrate your claims, YOU are just like the OTHER religionists & no different. Theres nothing that makes you or your claims different than them!
  
  "And why do you think because people are known scientist that they know more about God than me?"
  
  It is because of them you are using this computer, internet, electricity to communicate with me & others. Unlike Your supernatural communication with God, it is visible, effective & fact. Because of them millions of lives are saved with medicines, surgeries & therapies. Unlike your supernatural healing & blessing of God, this is rational, possible & fact. They are reliable because unlike you & your claims, they prove what they say & they demonstrate their claims!
  
  You dont have to prove...SIMPLY BECAUSE YOU CANT PROVE. Its an illusion that you are living into... Just like the others...& you have no choice because its really hard to break free...
  reply report
  75
  the pink umbrellaposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Well said.
  reply report
  74
  Rishy Richposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Thanks ...I was just going through ur profile & read ur Worst Nightmare...Nice hubs u got there.
  reply report
  75
  the pink umbrellaposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Suprised my latest didnt jump out at you, last night i was reading this forum and it made me mad, so i wrote a hub that i fear will make me the "evil" "athiest" hubber. I am not an atheist.... But thanx for taking a look!
  reply report
  74
  Rishy Richposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Usually I go for the BEST hubs...may be thats why I missd it. But surely I wont miss it the next time
  reply report
  57
  Dave Barnettposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  and many of them beleive in God.Atheist is not synonomous with Scientist.
  reply report
2. 75
  the pink umbrellaposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  God has everything to prove if in fact he does exist.
  reply report
  0
  Deborah Sextonposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  To you?
  What a joke
  reply report
  74
  Rishy Richposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  ...Then HOW do u knw which faith is ryt & which faith is wrong?
  
  HOW do u knw its not SATAN u r worshiping? After all, He Is the "MASTER OF DECEPTION" & theres no better way than deceiving through RELIGIONS!
  
  SORRY but without proof theres no guarantee that ur GOD is nothing but the SATAN!!
  reply report
0
AKA Winstonposted 13 years ago
Well, Rishy, one argument is the logic argument, that a God would have freedom of choice, thus, although capable, it would be illogical of him to create a rock he could not lift in order to prove to himself he could do it, therefore he elects not to do so.

If you define God as a spirit with whom you believe it is possible to have interaction in the physical world, and then you define exist to include concepts such as spirits, then you can surely prove logically the existence of God - by axiom. Unfortunately, you would then be able to substitute 2-inch tall invisible flying Godzillas for the word God and prove that 2-inch tall invisible flying Godzillas exist, too!

Of course, it's a whole lot easier just to say, I believe than to jump through all the ridiculous hoops to prove exactly the same thing, that you believe.
reply report
38
Rev Willposted 13 years ago
This is easy. Every time we put God in a box, we then look out of the box at God. The problem is that our simple concepts will never explain God, even though I suspect there are some here who will never stop trying that God does not exist. You may not believe in God, But remember that God still believes in your goodness and existence.
reply report
1. 58
  Beelzedadposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Funny how you say our simple concepts will never explain your god but yet you go on to explain your god.
  reply report
2. 58
  Mark Knowlesposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  But you feel you are fully qualified to explain what god thinks.
  
  Thus - another paradox comes into being. We cannot explain god - but - you know what he thinks.
  reply report
68
Thesourceposted 13 years ago
There are two things in play here.

1. God cannot "un-God" God. These two negatives make a positive.

2. Time is an illusion. Physicist are just finding this out.
For God is the master of time, there is no past or future but only NOW. What he does "NOW" applies to all "times". All our past and future prayers are already answered 'NOW". From where we stand, He can always change our past and our future. But for God the creation on the universe and it's end are all happening at the same time. Unlike us He is able to different every instant at the same time "NOW". Actually Now is all there is and the rest are illusions.

So you see for God there is no such thing as changing his mind from the past to now or even in the future. There is no such time when the stone is too heavy and another time when it is light enough to carry it. He has no regrets on any of his actions or even his creations. All depends on one ever-powerful moment of NOW and not the past or future. There is no contradiction or "Un-goding" within Himself.

This knowledge is a great tool in separating myths from facts about God.
reply report
59
paradigmsearchposted 13 years ago
If the definition of “God” is “a Higher Power”, then the “paradox” is easily solved. A higher power does not mean an absolute power; it just means a superior one.
reply report
1. 74
  Rishy Richposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  You r ryt. The paradox is abt Omnipotence of God. If you conclude he is not Omnipotent then there wont be any paradox. Well said.
  reply report
59
paradigmsearchposted 13 years ago
Personally, it is my current theory that we are all lab rats in a science experiment.
reply report
61
gloriajeanjonesposted 13 years ago
You can drawer close to Jehovah God by reading his word in the Bible. From this you can get a pretty good idea of what he thinks, IF you can understand what you are reading
reply report
61
7thangel@seventhposted 13 years ago
Good one....then again - if He said we could move a mountain by faith (ALOT!!) of it... then that would pretty much count your question of a stone to be answered with another question. would you make a stone you couldnt lift, or is that answer in human nature already....
reply report
1. 74
  Rishy Richposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Pretty much same response have been given by many here...Anyways this goes to all of them...God shouldnt be compared with humans because Humans are not Omnipotent & different in many aspects!
  
  Yes, we have made many things we are not capable of lifting but at the same time, we are not Omnipotent thus our existence is not at stake. The Paradox doesnt put the existence of God at stake, but it doubts the existence of an OMNIPOTENT BEING! It doubts whether the existence of an all powerful omnipotent being is logically possible or not. If everyone concludes that God exists but he is not omnipotent & has his own limitations...then the paradox will loose its ground instantly!
  
  Thanks
  reply report
81
SilentReedposted 13 years ago
Just a thought. "I always lie." if this statement is true then it must be false. In reply to the question the answer is yes and no. two side of the same coin. More an enigma than a paradox. :-))
reply report
81
SilentReedposted 13 years ago
Just a thought. "I always lie." if this statement is true then it must be false. In reply to the question the answer is yes and no. two side of the same coin. God is more of an enigma than a paradox. :-))
reply report
1. 74
  Rishy Richposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Thats Fallacy...
  reply report
66
aka-djposted 13 years ago
And the point of this exercise is........?????

PS. How can He make anything "heavy", without gravity in the first place. Moving a feather or a boulder would be the same task. Like dropping a lead ball and a feather within a vacuum, they fall @ the same rate.

2cents please
reply report
1. 88
  Paragliderposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Good morning aka-dj. Speaking as your unofficial physics tutor:
  
  The lead ball and feather do indeed fall at the same rate in vacuo, but this is because the force on the lead ball is very much greater than the force on the feather. (The force due to Gravity is proportional to the mass. F=GMm/r^2 where the Gravitational constant G, the mass of the Earth M, and the radius of the Earth r, are the same in both cases).
  
  In general, to accelerate a mass requires a force. F=ma From this, you can see that the greater the mass, the greater the force required to move it. This has nothing whatever to do with Gravity.
  
  next?
  reply report
  74
  Rishy Richposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  "...You can lead a boy to college, but you cannot make him THINK!!!"
  reply report
  66
  aka-djposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Hey Para.
  Thanx 4 the lesson.
  Doesn't change my answer tho.
  Why bother with the paradox, and why bother with the exercise?
  
  And I'm accused of not thinking (see above)! Thanx RR.
  reply report
  66
  aka-djposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  PS, He would also be the One to create the laws of physics in order to move the "immovable" object. Again I say "Why bother???" I doubt He needs an exercise like this to "prove " anything to Himself, (or us, for that matter!!)
  
  2 more cents please
  reply report
  74
  Rishy Richposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  "...Again I say "Why bother???"
  
  That proves my accusation to be quite right!
  
  Whether HE created the laws of Physics or the LAWS created Him is a matter of argument! He doesnt have to prove Simply bcoz He cant PROVE.
  
  Without prove, You can believe whatever you want to...Just like the African pygmies who believe in forest fairies & tree Gods!!
  reply report
  66
  aka-djposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Your point IS???
  
  You are the one with a small concept of God.
  
  It's a matter of revelation, NOT proof !
  Jesus Christ IS the proof!
  If that's not good enough,this paradox, answered, or not answered will NOT change anything. Not even your beliefs.
  
  You don't know who I am, nor what I'm like, UNLESS I choose to reveal myself to you. A picture does NOTHING to show you my TRUE self.
  
  I'n just trying to make a point, NOT a rebuttal.
  reply report
  74
  Rishy Richposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Jesus Christ is the proof??!! Says who? The Bible??
  
  Jesus Christ ...A person whose historicity is vague & doubted by so many? Who hardly exists outside bible? Who had less than 500 followers during his lifetime, among whom most were lower class uneducated pupil? VERY FUNNY!!!
  
  Jesus Christ is the proof?? Just like Muhammad? or Buddha? or Krishna? or may be like the FOREST FAIRIES & THE TREE GODS??
  
  Its not ur picture...its ur words which portrays who u r. Your words reflect ur thoughts...Just like the words of pygmies reflects their thoughts...& Im just trying to make a point, Not a rebuttal.
  reply report
  61
  7thangel@seventhposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Matthew 12:37 INDEED you have spoken correctly, for the little bit you know. Wish you well on your Hub....God Bless
  reply report
  74
  Rishy Richposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  "for from thy words thou shalt be declared intelligent, and from thy words thou shalt be declared stupid..."
  reply report
59
paradigmsearchposted 13 years ago
.
The answer to the Omnipotence paradox is “Yes”.

Any omnipotent entity can by definition render themselves non-omnipotent if they so choose.
.
I am somewhat pleased to say that this was an original thought of mine. Unfortunately, someone else beat me to it…

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnipotence_paradox
.
Rishy Rich, good luck writing a hub to compete with the above link. Maybe you know how to do that, but I sure don’t.

Edit: Hmmm, I just read one of your hubs. You probably CAN successfully compete!

Best regards.
reply report
1. 74
  Rishy Richposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Thanks for the support Paradigmsearch. I hope to complete this hub, but I guess it will take some time.
  reply report
38
Rev Willposted 13 years ago
Why in science do they never let us into the scientific constant? Oh thats right, they use the number they need to prove what they wanted to prove. They tell God's Righteous that we lie and cheat, yet all we do is deliver the message. The problem here is that I only need to deliver the message, Do with it what you want. My job as a clergy is to allow you the chance to hear God's message and my hands are now clean of your blood if you choose Hell! Have a blessed day!
reply report
1. 58
  Beelzedadposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I would agree that is the problem.
  
  We all have access to the bible and your gods message. In fact, we have access to many scriptures and many different gods messages.
  
  I would suspect that should put you out of a job.
  reply report
  38
  Rev Willposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  lol not likely. places like this make sure I will always have a calling, not Job.
  reply report
  58
  Beelzedadposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Anyone here can read the scriptures. I don't see the point of your calling? What is it that you actually do?
  reply report
  38
  Rev Willposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Yes most can but most do not and again most get bad translation and then get confused.. IE this site. Some one credited Jesus with writing the book of Revelation. Most want to credit John when clearly it is John the Evangelist which is clearly stated in the text! Hey some one of the haters tried to explain to me that NT was written in Hebrew. I am here to defend the truth from the haters who use half truths to discredit the faithful! I preach at one church and run a ministry on internet and out in streets of NYC.
  reply report
  58
  Beelzedadposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Sorry, but that only translates to the fact that you think you know the correct interpretation of scriptures and others are wrong, even though that's exactly what they may think of you. Seems you just want to pick fights.
  
  That's nice. But, what is that you actually do that others cannot do for themselves? Please leave out the "I know best" answer. Thanks.
  reply report
  38
  Rev Willposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  There is only one. Greek for NT and Hebrew text in Hebrew. what is there to not understand. but also you need to study what did the words mean to the writer, why this word and not that one. reading in English is like getting kindergarten book to read now. sorry but I really do not fight! just tell you what is correct and then you take it or leave it! Martin Luther had better translation into German than most English Bibles.
  reply report
  38
  Rev Willposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I do know best, But also know more about this idea than most and laugh at detractors for their silliness.
  reply report
  63
  Mishaposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Surely this has nothing to do with arrogance.
  reply report
  38
  Rev Willposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Arrogance in serving God YES YES, But To whom will you serve, God, Satin, money, Sexuality, OR what? You will serve something. I choose God and will not falter because some one calls me names. Laugh at the detractors silliness and love God. Remember i forgive your attacks, But so many will attack because I make their lifestyle uncomfortable.
  reply report
  80
  earnestshubposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Good one rev! Can you see any daylight from there?
  reply report
  58
  Mark Knowlesposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  No - you are attacking them. This makes you the aggressor.
  
  Stand up - be a man and accept responsibility for your actions instead of blaming it on some invisible super being. You are not qualified to judge me or anyone else. You speak only for yourself.
  
  Disgusting behavior. No wonder your religion causes so much hatred and ill will.
  reply report
  38
  Rev Willposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Why is it when the religious stand up for themselves we are the aggressor? Funny that we can be attacked and silence from the crowd! But if we stand for our beliefs we get attacked as aggressors. No We are growing in numbers. People want order, love and forgiveness. I never blame my God. I will not Judge you, you just judged yourself. To quote you "No wonder your religion causes so much hatred and ill will." Where? To whom? My religious cause gives life, I never made fun of your God. Why say mine is an "invisible super being". I will always stand for my God.
  reply report
  58
  Mark Knowlesposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I do not want your love. I do not believe you are capable of bringing order without oppression. I do not need forgiveness.
  
  You cause ill will and hatred when you force yourself upon me.
  
  Stand up - be a man and speak for yourself instead of lying. Disgusting behavior.
  report
  38
  Rev Willposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Stand up - be a man and speak for yourself instead of lying. Disgusting behavior.
  
  Great debate here, have a great life and Good luck.
  report
  58
  Mark Knowlesposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Thanks - you too. See - wasn't so hard to speak for yourself instead was it.
  report
  38
  Rev Willposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  LOL Whatever, Like in Hebrew Text, I have informed you of the choice.
  Blessings to all.
  report
  58
  Beelzedadposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Funny how you don't see that in making others uncomfortable, you are attacking them first.
  reply report
  58
  Beelzedadposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  You do? By whose authority do you know best? What makes you believe you are right and every else is wrong? You can't really claim that your interpretation of scriptures is any more valid than anyone else.
  
  There is only one who knows best, and that would your god, not you.
  reply report
  58
  Beelzedadposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Again, it is just your belief that what you say is correct, just as every other believer believes. No difference, whatsoever. Anyone can read the bible or the many different interpretations of it.
  
  So, what is it you do again?
  reply report
  38
  Rev Willposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Find good Greek NT and Hebrew text. "Anyone can read the bible or the many different interpretations of it". Look at what you wrote, You will allow some one to translate a sacred text and you accept. But have a Christian translate the text and we have invisible super beings! Why is your translation better than some one who is faithful to the text? This is not the God paradox but the Bible paradox!
  reply report
  58
  Beelzedadposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  The point is that any translation or interpretation is only going to be relevant to the person who believes it. They are just as faithful to the text as you. You believe they are wrong and they believe you are wrong, and no one but your god can say otherwise.
  reply report
  38
  Rev Willposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  A translation can be used to fix a point of view. A Bad translation is just that. BAD. There is a right and wrong and anyone who says that it is interpretation is just fooling themselves or is lieing to fool others!
  reply report
  58
  Beelzedadposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  The question still remains though, who is right and who is wrong and who is lying? Every believer will always state they are right and the other person is either wrong or lying, just as you have stated.
  
  I think it is a case of 'walking in another's shoes'.
  
  Or, better yet, if your god came down and just cleared up the whole mess.
  reply report
  59
  Jeramiposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I have always felt that some of the "Bad translation" was done intentionally from the GET-Go ... And then we were
  mis lead even further when we were taught that "EVERY BODY" gets to have their very own version!!!!
  
  And Who did that ?
  reply report
  38
  Rev Willposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Some where mistakes, some were probably on purpose, but we have a chance in this age to fix it, but that would mean some people would have to change. Are we as a society able to forget the one and think of the group!
  reply report
  58
  Beelzedadposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Christians of past have been accused of doctoring. If they had no problem exhibiting their zealotry with the Witch Burnings, the Inquisition and the Crusades, they certainly wouldn't think twice about stooping to changing documentation to suit their purposes.
  
  Of course, that is all mere speculation on my part.
  reply report
38
Rev Willposted 13 years ago
Remember that He is here to Lie, Cheat, and steal your life. He has many helpers here on the internet! Yes some of you will think that the He is God, But think again!
reply report
1. 58
  Beelzedadposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Are you talking about Jesus?
  reply report
38
Rev Willposted 13 years ago
Just a note the name Jesus is stated in 3 sources outside the bible. But why waste time with facts here!
reply report
1. 74
  Rishy Richposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Little correction... Only one source talks about 'Jesus', Two talks about a 'Christus' -the Latinized Greek translation of the Hebrew word "Messiah", it can be any messiah, not necessarily Jesus. The fourth source talks about a Chrestus.
  reply report
  38
  Rev Willposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Or 3 others talk about JESUS, not Christ. One is roman and 2 different Jewish text.
  reply report
  74
  Rishy Richposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Yes only one Roman...I doubt the others. It would be easier for us if you mention the name of the sources.
  reply report
  38
  Rev Willposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Yosef Ben Matityahu you would not know that name, that is his given name, you know his Latin name, Josephus. There are also Babylon commentary, and then Roman Documents at time of trial! But thats right Jesus is only fable! LOL
  reply report
  58
  Beelzedadposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  What Roman Documents? Can you point them out or provide a link? I've never heard or seen any such documentation.
  reply report
  38
  Rev Willposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Saw this document at Bible society in NYC. They are open to public. There are also many other Roman quotes that can be found in connection to The Christ.
  reply report
  58
  Beelzedadposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  But, they aren't readily available to anyone as they haven't been shown to exist. Why would a bible society in NYC have those documents when no one else does?
  
  So far, any quotes attributed from ancient Rome about Christ have been shown to be false or doctored by Christians later on.
  reply report
  38
  Rev Willposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  You would be surprised what the Bible society has. The best place would be the Vatican. They have a Bible that has all non canonical books in it! As for the doctored parts, they said the same thing about the Hebrew Text, then they found the scrolls in the dead sea and the text were word for word. Yes doctored text, I have heard that before!
  reply report
  58
  Beelzedadposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  The problem is that we are once again supposed to take that on faith as no such documentation has ever been acknowledged to be documentation that validates the Christ story of crucifixion, other than by the Bible society or the Vatican.
  reply report

Post a Reply

jump to first post

12 Next

Necessary
HubPages Device ID	This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
Login	This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google Recaptcha	This is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
Akismet	This is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google Analytics	This is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic Pixel	This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
Amazon Web Services	This is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
Cloudflare	This is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
Google Hosted Libraries	Javascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)

Features
Google Custom Search	This is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google Maps	Some articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google Charts	This is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host API	This service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Google YouTube	Some articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Vimeo	Some articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Paypal	This is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook Login	You can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Maven	This supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)

Marketing
Google AdSense	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClick	Google provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index Exchange	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Sovrn	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook Ads	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad Marketplace	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexus	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Openx	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon Project	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLift	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say Media	We partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing Pixels	We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
Conversion Tracking Pixels	We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.

Statistics
Author Google Analytics	This is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
Comscore	ComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Tracking Pixel	Some articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
Clicksco	This is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)

The God Paradox - Can you solve it?

Arts and Design

Autos

Books, Literature, and Writing

Business and Employment

Education and Science

Entertainment and Media

Family and Parenting

Fashion and Beauty

Food and Cooking

Games, Toys, and Hobbies

Gender and Relationships

Health

Holidays and Celebrations

Home and Garden

HubPages Tutorials and Community

Personal Finance

Pets and Animals

Politics and Social Issues

Religion and Philosophy

Sports and Recreation

Technology

Travel and Places

About Us

This website uses cookies

The God Paradox - Can you solve it?

Related Discussions

This website uses cookies