# God's limitations

I don’t know if this has been posted before, and if it is, i’m sorry.

Can God create a boulder so heavy that he can’t pick it up?

If he could, then he wouldn’t be all powerful, because he couldn’t pick it up.

If he couldn’t, then he wouldn’t be all powerful, because he couldn’t make the boulder.

Then again, there might be an answer that i haven’t thought of. Any thoughts?

I found some other variations:

Can God make a vehicle which moves so fast that he cannot catch it?
Can God draw a picture so small that he cannot see it?
Can God bake a cake so large that he cannot eat it?
Can God make a star so bright that he cannot look at it?

These are much more extreme
Can God make a circular triangle?
Can God formulate a proof of his own non-existence?
Can God outrun himself?
Can God create a being equal to himself?

Another way of looking at it:

1. Can God do the impossible?
Yes (if you are referring to things that are simply impossible for non- omnipotent beings like us, like holding a picnic inside the sun).
2.Can God do the possible?
Of course (although beings like us may not be able to).
3.Can God do the logically impossible?
No, because they are not “there” to be done. Circular triangles and so
on. The question itself is unlikely to make much sense.

[/u]

When you use logic at the level of the infinite it becomes very problematic. In maths Zero is nothing, and Infinity is everything. There are special logical rules that must be followed for these two cases in equations that donâ€™t apply to other numbers.

About the Boulder and Strength logical conundrum: Infinity is something that is never-ending, while the weight of a boulder is finite, or you could say fixed at a certain weight. The same is true regarding the Strength. Finite and Infinite cannot be mixed like this, if you want to have an answer that logically makes sense. The actual question is logically flawed.

God is infinite, but heâ€™s asked to make a boulder, which is something that can only exist if it has a finite (fixed) weight, as you canâ€™t have an infinitely heavy boulder. Now you say He is infinitely strong, so of course he can lift any thing that is fixed by its nature. This also has to do with the nature of our universe. Are universe is fixed in its nature as well, meaning it has rules which it must follow if it wants to remain as our universe, otherwise it would just become a different universe.

But for the sake of argument lets say we can have an infinitely heavy boulder. What we are dealing with would be like to forces acting against each other, one pushing left the other right. You would end up with Zero movement. Like I said at the start Zero and Infinite are the things of nightmares to mathematicians.

I hope I made some sense,
Pax Vitae

God canâ€™t exist inside anything that is finite; the universe is a finite creation. It has limits, as things must follow the laws of cause and effect. Imagine that the universe is just an empty glass; now try to fill that glass with an infinite amount of water. Itâ€™s impossible. Itâ€™s the same for God, God canâ€™t enter into a limited universe. So God must always be external to this universe, and is also limited by how He can be represented in said universe. (This is assuming that God exists). Only if the glassâ€™s capacity were infinite, would you be able to pour water in for eternity.

As for morality, as Iâ€™ve said in another post. If morality isnâ€™t to be found in nature then it is only a human construct. If God created the universe, then morality should be evident in all things. It we look at how animals treat each other, it would seem immoral. Normally to choose the immoral path is the easiest way. Why???

No. It would only be possible in a universe where there was no logic, and if there was no logic we would be unable to experience it in a meaningful way, or a cogent way. While everything might exist, it would exist without being related to other things, so we would be unable to experience other objects.

Pax Vitae

Hrm…
Can god sin?
NO!
such is it said all over in the bible. He can not even be near sin.
Can he do anything the bible says: no.
If God did something that contradicted himself it is said that the world and the universe would collapse.
In creating something such as a bolder he could not lift he would be contradicting himself thus BOOM!!!

PS
Stari you have always been a fundie.

I think you’ve watched ‘Dogma’ one to many times

Or I was mormon for too damn long. Possably both. Cheers

None have you have refuted the argument, but all of you have dismissed it.
God can either create a rock to big to life, or he can’t.
Eitherway he isn’t all powerful, thus a inherent flaw in the concept of god

An omnipotent deity has infinite strength and an infinite capacity to create. There is no highest number in math, likewise, there is no object beyond this deity’s ability to move or to create. It’s not that the god cannot create the rock, there is no rock god cannot create. There is also no rock god cannot lift, god can lift any rock.

However, the flaw of omnipotence is in that one who is all-powerful cannot be limited. God cannot limit himself. He is, by definition, limitless. But his ability is strangely limited by his inability to be limited.

I throw away the idea of “god” and attack the ideal of perfection.

For instance, what would be the perfect imperfection? This is a rational question. Diamonds are valued based on their imperfections (proof of authenticity). What would be the perfect imperfection in a diamond? That’s a contradiction in that it shows judgment.

If somethng were perfect, that leads to my next question, what if I choose to disagree? Can I place flaw in perfection, or is it an ideal unto itself. Since perfection is clearly a human judgment call, and I have the power to place imperfection in perfection (like, if I were to see the perfect diamond, I could say, “It would be more perfect if it were mine”).

Perfection is self defeating, and therefore, god probably does not exist. However, this is not airtight.

Can an imperfect god exist?

good lord, yes an imperfect god exists and if anyone would take the initative to read up on theories of god then they would realize that there are preconditions invovled god’s existence. these preconditions are necessary truths, all the rationalists use them (they’re the latest craze) and the fact these laws exist are actualy further proof that god can exist (in the arguements). people let’s get it together!

If YOUR god is imperfect, then why worship and accept it?

The very Idea of god is a big contradiction, everything else is an attempt to advert this contradiction through the rationalization of the unrational. It is a DISEASE!!!

I think people are too hard on God. It’s not fair to him.

God makes mistakes too; he’s only human.

laughs

Ok ok, all kidding aside. The formal definition of god is “That of which none greater can be concieved”. The reason? If god were all powerful, there wouldn’t be anything that could possibly be more powerful than himself (because, there’s many arguments and proofs that all possibilities will eventually happen throughout the universe…one of those thanks to einstien). So, if God can be overthrown, why worship him? It’s rediculous.

God is, by definition, the perfect perfection. He is that of which none greater can be concieved. Therefore, to say that god is imperfect is funny.

Now that I’ve explained the punchline to my joke…snickers

define imperfect, define god. the ingenious thing about the rationalists is that they did; you two dickwads didn’t. sorry, i shouldn’t have called you dickwads. from the rationalistic standpoint, they laid down clear definitions and made arguements. these arguements clearly demonstrate that no, god cannot make something heavier than what he can lift, because that means it will possess something that he doesn’t. god is infinite. this means that he must obey this law. obedience is not a flaw, or a mark of imperfection, descartes actually has a fantastic arguement about how such obedience to necessary truths makes one MORE perfect. but all leave you to read it.

do not dismiss a concept because you intuitively think it is wrong. tip: intuitions aren’t always right.

How can one obey laws that dont obey themselves, Trix?

How’s this question:

If you cannot define god, then why worship him?

EDIT: Oh yeah, and guess what. I got my formal definition of god from Descartes’ (or should I say, St. Anselm’s) Ontological Proof of God.

If you want to use Descartes, you may want to address how he would be contradicting himself by stating that god does not need to be defined by virtue of being god, but he does in order to be proved to exist.

descartes presents a causal justification for the existence of god in med 3 that defines god as infinite perfect being. he also builds on this concept of infinity for med 5, the ontological arguement. st anselm was up to something else, you should not mix the arguements.

the rationalists do define god. are you asking ME why i haven’t defined god? i don’t think we’ve established that i worship him…

there is no contradiction. med 1&2 clearly establish that one can only know for sure what one knows, he then takes it from there. the causaul arguement is that god must exist for descartes to have an idea of him, the ontological arguement (note: this is made AFTER both the physical world and objects are determined to exist) prooves that god’s existence can be proven independent of thought. both are important

Raf - There is only room for one of us…HA…You always get to the really “good” argruments before me god damn you, and your abiliity to stay on top of this forum.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but doesn’t the very nature of god make a definition of him untenable?
If god obeys something, then you are worshipping the wrong thing, and Your god is a sheep.
YOU ARE THE SHEEP OF A SHEEP

maybe. but if i were to make this statement, then i would be resting on certain assumptions that i would have liked to see you elaborate on.

yes, i get it. guess what, i would have gotten it if you didn’t bold, italicize and underline it. this sheep doesn’t go to uni and haul ass in a way too tough program so that little subtleties like that gem can go unnoticed. this sheep can read her friggin ass off, thanks.

Explain

??? not sure this makes sence, but it was used for emphasis, and appearantly it worked