Can God create a rock heavier then he can lift?
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
Posted by Papa Moose (Member # 1992) on :
That's not religious theory.
However, assuming an omnipotent god, sure. As long as it's substantially larger than the rest of the universe combined, it becomes the gravitational center, and so "lifting" can no longer apply.
Later, when he creates something even bigger, he can lift it, so he's still omnipotent and all.
--Pop
Posted by ludosti (Member # 1772) on :
I think the real question is, "Can God microwave a burrito that is so hot that he, himself, could not eat it?"
Posted by Papa Moose (Member # 1992) on :
No, he could still eat it -- but the cheese would burn the roof of his mouth, and he hates that.
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
Well, heavy is a term that is entirely mortal in nature. Like time, it is a relativistic term which doesn't exist outside of the realm of certain laws. A good question would be, "Would God ever NEED to lift a rock at all?"
*insomnia warning: Boris hasn't had more than a few hours of actual sleep in the past week. Of the time spent sleeping, the quallity of said sleep is the effective equal of 30 consecutive cat naps. Because of this, Boris's brain is not functioning correctly, and he is acting really wierd.*
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Here are the facts needed to untangle that connundrum:
1.) There is no rock size so large that God cannot make it.
2.) There is no rock size so large that God cannot lift it.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I was talking about this the other day.
My view of God's omnipitence is this:
"There is no thing which can be done save He can do it."
So the answer to your question is no.
Although I really like Papa's answer too.
Posted by johnsonweed (Member # 8114) on :
Did Adam and Eve have belly buttons?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I don't care.
Posted by Dragon (Member # 3670) on :
Yes, but only because God thought they looked cool.
Posted by romanylass (Member # 6306) on :
What would God eat on His burrito?
How big would it have to be?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
While we're on the subject, who did Cain marry?
Posted by UofUlawguy (Member # 5492) on :
His sister. And I don't care how many people that creeps out.
Posted by Sid Meier (Member # 6965) on :
lol, back then the culture + gene pool allowed it.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
His sister married the guy who killed her brother? Sounds kinda redneck-y.
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
Well, in a time when social prejudice didn't exist yet, it wasn't bad.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
I see a bumper sticker in the making--Cain was a Redneck.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Boris, you're not thinking. Never mind marrying her brother, she married someone who killed a close family member. Assuming you take this as literally true, of course.
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Boris, you're not thinking. Never mind marrying her brother, she married someone who killed a close family member. Assuming you take this as literally true, of course.
KoM, who said it was a close family member? Really. In 900 years, there's enough time for a single family to expand into several different completely distinct and seperate communities. No mention is ever made of when Eve stopped having kids, nor how many she had. It would be easy to assume that if the time required for childbirth has remained constant, Eve could easilly have had several hundred children in her lifetime. Yes, I'm also assuming that for beings who have life spans that are measured in centuries, childbirth was likely less of severe shock to the system. Now, in whatever record we have of it, there is no mention of how long it was before Cain married. That means he could have married a person who was several HUNDRED years younger. Which also means it is conceivable that he married his great great great neice. Now, KoM, I realize that you think I'm an idiot simply because I believe in God, but I'd apreciate it if you would stop busting my chops in all these threads, it's really starting to piss me off.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:His sister. And I don't care how many people that creeps out.
Not necessarily. He could have married his neice, or his great-neice, etc..
edit: Or what Boris said. Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Look. Cain was the brother of Abel. Any sister of Cain was therefore also a sister of Abel. If he married his sister, then said sister was marrying someone who had killed her brother. A brother most certainly qualifies as a close family member.
Now, if you want to start postulating he married a grandchild, or something, fine. But that's not the theory I was responding to.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Look, God was feeling a bit tired that day, so he could've lifted the rock, if he'd wanted to, okay, but what would be the point anyway? In fact, he was really just faking that he couldn't lift it because he doesn't like to show off, you know.
So lay off.
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Look. Cain was the brother of Abel. Any sister of Cain was therefore also a sister of Abel. If he married his sister, then said sister was marrying someone who had killed her brother. A brother most certainly qualifies as a close family member.
Now, if you want to start postulating he married a grandchild, or something, fine. But that's not the theory I was responding to.
And a particularly rebelious daughter of Adam and Eve who could have been born 300 years after the murder would see this as a problem because...?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Well, obviously she didn't, or presumably she wouldn't have married him. But I do. Redneck-y, as I said.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Dude. 300 years ago -- 1705. Not many people care much today about a murder that happened back then.
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
To address the serious side...
This is a variant on "What happens when an irresistible force meets an immoveable object?"
If there is an irresistible force, it can move anything, therefore there is no immoveable object. The question contains a contradiction.
(Isaac Asimov explained this to someone, and she said, I never dreamed there was a sensible answer to that question!)
Buried in "Can God make a rock so big He can't lift it" is this same contradiction: God being an irresistible force and making an immoveable rock. C S Lewis addressed this by saying, you can't change a nonsensical clause into a sensible one by putting the words "God can" at the front.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"Not many people care much today about a murder that happened back then."
True. On the other hand, were one of the people killed the founder of the entire human race, maybe it would seem more important. Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Tom -- are you suggesting that Cain killed either Adam or Eve? I've never heard of that before.
Also, how much could you believe stories about what happened 300 years ago. That's an awful lot of time to spin a story.
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
The other situation is that said murderer may have a certain level of celebrity for the act, which could conceivably attract said rebelious daughter who really really wanted to tick off mom and dad (hey, no one said she was mature).
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Grumble]](graemlins/grumble.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)