![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 25 of 46. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by alexandra_k on September 11, 2005, at 16:52:10
if he can...
then he isn't all powerful because god can't move the rock.
if he can't...
then he isn't all powerful because god can't make the rock.
Is the concept of an all powerful being contradictory?
If we say that god cannot perform anything that is logically contradictory then is this a limitation on gods power?
Any thoughts???
Posted by alexandra_k on September 11, 2005, at 17:06:39
In reply to can god make a rock so big that god can't move it?, posted by alexandra_k on September 11, 2005, at 16:52:10
1) I have a concept (idea) of god as the greatest possible being.
2) If god existed only as a concept then we could imagine a being even greater...
3) Namedly, a being who existed not only as an concept, but a being who also existed in reality.
4) But by definition god is the greatest possible being.
_________________________________________________
C) Therefore, god (as the greatest possible being) must exist in reality and not just as an concept.
Posted by linkadge on September 11, 2005, at 17:12:27
In reply to Re: can god make a rock so big that god can't move it?, posted by alexandra_k on September 11, 2005, at 17:06:39
Or maybe the whole concept of god is that he is greater than everything else.
Linkadge
Posted by alexandra_k on September 11, 2005, at 17:17:11
In reply to Re: can god make a rock so big that god can't move it?, posted by linkadge on September 11, 2005, at 17:12:27
> Or maybe the whole concept of god is that he is greater than everything else.
How do you mean?
Do you mean with respect to the second argument (so because god is the greatest possible being he must exist)...
Or do you mean that him not being able to make / lift the rock should not be seen as a limitation on his power because we shouldn't expect any being (not even the greatest possible being) to be able to do something that literally is impossible?
If you mean the latter then I agree 100%
Why on earth should we expect the greatest possible being to be able to perform logical impossibilities?????
A sort of related question...
So god can't do anything contrary to the laws of logic (but thats okay we shouldn't be expect him to be able to)...Can god do something contrary to the laws of nature?????
Posted by alexandra_k on September 11, 2005, at 17:19:10
In reply to Re: can god make a rock so big that god can't move it? » linkadge, posted by alexandra_k on September 11, 2005, at 17:17:11
and....
what is the realationship between logical laws and natural laws (ie are the later reducible to the former)?
Posted by spriggy on September 11, 2005, at 18:07:45
In reply to Re: can god make a rock so big that god can't move it?, posted by alexandra_k on September 11, 2005, at 17:19:10
My brain hurts right now from reading the questions but my theory is God is God. He is all powerful and can do anything, anytime, anywhere, any place. However, God has allowed us to have a free will and doesn't negate our free will to chose.
God can move any rock. He has moved many a rock and a mountain in my life.
God has stepped in and done things against "natural" law before. Have you ever read the story of the burning bush? Or the parting of the Red Sea? Or even the resurrection of the dead?
I think of it more in terms of the "spiritual" ((the unseen) versus for the "natural" (the seen).
The spiritual can override the natural because God is spirit.
Does that make any sense or is that just more confusing?
ROFL
Man, my brain hurts...
Posted by alexandra_k on September 11, 2005, at 18:52:56
In reply to Re: can god make a rock so big that god can't move it?, posted by spriggy on September 11, 2005, at 18:07:45
> My brain hurts right now from reading the questions
I think thats the idea :-)
>but my theory is God is God. He is all powerful and can do anything, anytime, anywhere, any place.
But can he make a rock so heavy that he can't move it?
- If he can't make the rock then there is something he can't do...
- If he can make the rock then it seems that moving the rock is something that he can't do...So it seems it is logically contradictory to imagine that god can do EVERYTHING.
> God has stepped in and done things against "natural" law before. Have you ever read the story of the burning bush? Or the parting of the Red Sea? Or even the resurrection of the dead?
It is controversial whether these events actually go contrary to the laws of nature... If there was a lightning strike (for example) then god could have made the bush burn without having to go contrary to the laws of nature...
Posted by crazy teresa on September 12, 2005, at 0:18:10
In reply to Re: can god make a rock so big that god can't move it? » spriggy, posted by alexandra_k on September 11, 2005, at 18:52:56
Posted by alexandra_k on September 12, 2005, at 0:35:39
In reply to But why would logic have to apply to God? (nm) » alexandra_k, posted by crazy teresa on September 12, 2005, at 0:18:10
and if he is...
then what sense could we make of this?
Posted by 10derHeart on September 12, 2005, at 0:52:44
In reply to Re: How could God be beyond logic? » crazy teresa, posted by alexandra_k on September 12, 2005, at 0:35:39
It's funny, but I can't help but think when I read that...
how could God NOT be beyond logic?(But it's very possible I don't understand the true definition of logic, as I'll bet you do, alex :-) )
Because since I think God is...God, well, He doesn't have to conform, or fit into any system
of rules.It's like when Moses asked God to tell him what name he should tell his people to call God.
The answer was basically, "I Am who I am," at least I think that's a common translation, but if I remember some of my studying, the real answer actually *is* just: "I Am"
I can't articulate this any where near what
anyone would want, and I know we just disagree
Which is perfectly okay :-)But I feel...I sometimes experience the presense of God's spirit....and there's no way logic could, would, ever have a thing to do with that
And I have no need, not even a desire to *make sense* out of it
It's just complete trust in God, I suppose.
For me, that's enough.
Maybe this is an area where some people like me, because of my deeply held faith, just can't keep a discussion going.
You know, like the evolution thread where you mentioned the idea of, "God willing it so?"
I think it's kind of the same here, for me.
I won't say.....does that make sense? Because I know it doesn't objectively make any.
It just does for me.
Posted by alexandra_k on September 12, 2005, at 1:55:11
In reply to Re: How could God be beyond logic? » alexandra_k, posted by 10derHeart on September 12, 2005, at 0:52:44
'logos'
word...
logic...in the beginning was the logic and the logic was god and the logic was with god...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logos
its about pushing ones understanding that little bit deeper...
but of course that is only appealing for those who desire to understand...
Posted by alexandra_k on September 12, 2005, at 2:16:06
In reply to Re: How could God be beyond logic? » 10derHeart, posted by alexandra_k on September 12, 2005, at 1:55:11
i mean...
there are limits to science.
science is limited to the natural explanation of natural phenomenon.once we understand that then we are better placed to understand possible roles for supernatural explanation and / or supernatural phenomenon.
there are limits to logic.
logic is limited to the laws of what follows from what without contradiction.if p is true
if p exists
then logic can tell us what else must be the case...and if those other things just aren't the case
then we have to conclude
not p
or we would be contradicting ourselves.once we reach the limits of logic...
then we are better placed to understand something of the role of faith.
i know some people say you shouldn't try and understand god via reason...
one response to that is that god must have given us this tool of reason for some purpose...
maybe to try and understand him.
to apply reason to try and understand god is as much a tribute to him as using musical ability to compose a song.
some of the arguments for the existence of god are beautiful, many theists and atheists alike have found beauty in them. they are not perfect arguments... they are controversial. but even if they don't ultimately persuade the atheist - i think most people do appreciate their intuitive beauty.even Bertrand Russel (a very hard headed atheist philosopher) wrote that one day it just occured to him that the ontological argument for the existence of god was valid. he was talking about a version of the argument that i provided above. generally... he found fault with it. but for one moment - he just saw that it was so.
i have had a similar experience in a tutorial.
where the whole class just seemed to accept it
and after a while...
i could see it too.
though i'll admit it doesn't strike me today ;-)but arguments for the existence of god are a complete waste of time if god can defy logical laws. we cannot make sense of god if he is beyond logic. some people might take comfort from this (especially if logic makes them nervous) but to me a god that is incomprehensible to us as a matter of principle... well that sounds even worse than my mother truth be told...
the point of logic...
well. nobodies really sure what it is exactly...
maybe its the laws of rational human thought...
maybe its the laws of the universe...
maybe logic is god after all...
Posted by crazy teresa on September 12, 2005, at 6:50:42
In reply to Re: How could God be beyond logic? » alexandra_k, posted by alexandra_k on September 12, 2005, at 2:16:06
out to be not such a good thing for us!
Posted by Gabbix2 on September 12, 2005, at 21:24:39
In reply to Adam Eve gained knowledge, but it turned » alexandra_k, posted by crazy teresa on September 12, 2005, at 6:50:42
> out to be not such a good thing for us!
Yeah, a naked body is shameful, and women are responsible for tempting men and bringing evil into the world and therefore should be punished.
Not so good I'd say.
Posted by alexandra_k on September 12, 2005, at 22:26:39
In reply to Re: Adam Eve gained knowledge, but it turned, posted by Gabbix2 on September 12, 2005, at 21:24:39
the messages one can take from the bible...
especially if one insists on a literalist interpretation...
but then the trouble is that it obscures the spiritual truths...the trouble with knowledge is that it has to be true...
adam and eve...
are those referring expressions?
and the trouble with knowledge is that...
if one knows that p (where p is any proposition you like such as 'knowledge of good and evil')
then it is a prerequisite for someone knowing that p that it is true that p.
did adam and eve really gain knowledge of good and evil?are their naked bodies evil?
is that really true???
Posted by alexandra_k on September 13, 2005, at 20:00:13
In reply to Re: Adam Eve gained knowledge, but it turned, posted by alexandra_k on September 12, 2005, at 22:26:39
i hope it didn't sound too blasphemous to say logic = god. identity claims are transitive to it is one and the same thing as saying god = logic. it implies nothing more, though perhaps the connotations are a little different.
i was thinking last night. that one conception of god is that god is the greatest possible being. there is no being that could possibly exist that would be greater than god. if god is the greatest possible being then learning about the limits of what is and is not possible helps us to understand the nature of god.
god can't have infinite power. because the very notion of that is contradictory (it is not possible that a being could have infinite power). but thats okay there is no problem god is just the greatest possible being and so god must have as much power as it is possible for one being to have.
and gabbi sent me a babblemail which got me thinking too. there is a another problem that goes a little something like this:
is torturing an innocent child for fun morally wrong because god says it is, or does god say it is morally wrong because it is morally wrong?
another way of putting the point is to ask 'is it possible that god could have decided that torturing an innocent child for fun be a morally acceptable thing to do?'
if the answer is 'sure he can do that' then ethics is at the arbitrary whim of god. god is good because god says he is good.
if the answer is that no, he couldn't do that then it seems that ethical truths may transcend god the way that logical truths may transcend god.
but perhaps...
these aren't so much things that limit gods power...
instead we can view these things as showing us something about the nature of god.because...
the conception of god as having INFINITE powers is deeply incoherant.
but god is the greatest possible being.
and so what are the limits of possibility / impossibility?
what is the nature of god?maybe god gave us this tool
so we could better contemplate him...
Posted by crazy teresa on September 14, 2005, at 9:17:09
In reply to Re: Adam Eve gained knowledge, but it turned, posted by Gabbix2 on September 12, 2005, at 21:24:39
That's not exactly what I meant.
What Adam chose to do was his decision; he could have said, "No thanks, babe, I'm not hungry."
Posted by Gabbix2 on September 14, 2005, at 17:17:09
In reply to Re: Adam Eve gained knowledge, but it turned » Gabbix2, posted by crazy teresa on September 14, 2005, at 9:17:09
> That's not exactly what I meant.
>
> What Adam chose to do was his decision; he could have said, "No thanks, babe, I'm not hungry."According to the Christian interpretation though, eve was punished for tempting Adam, and women were not to be trusted. That's what I was going by According to Martin Luther, ( I think) it was because Eve was made from the rib that turned away from god, it was natural for women to stray from the path of righteousness.
There are many creation stories very similar to that of Adam and Eve, in the ones from the Neolithic/Paleolithic period, when women were considered the equal of men, the snake was considered a symbol of renewal, because a snake sheds it's skin and is "reborn. In these stories "eve" was revered for the birth of knowledge from ignorance.
When patriarchy took hold, these stories and symbols were changed (over hundreds of years) in order to give reason for the subjegation of women. For instance, in the story of Pandora from greek mythology, pandora was given a box and told by the gods she was not to open it, however she gave into temptation and opened the box therefore, bringing evil into the world.
I understand that much of this is a matter of faith and literal interpretation of the story of Genesis, and I do respect that. Mine is a different historical perspective.
Posted by Nickengland on September 14, 2005, at 17:49:59
In reply to Re: Adam Eve gained knowledge, but it turned » Gabbix2, posted by crazy teresa on September 14, 2005, at 9:17:09
When I read that particular part of Genesis I thought about the meaning too, although when I was young I thought it was bad to eat apples or something lol
The Serpent (Devil/Evil) tempted Eve into eating the forbidden fruit, which God instructed both Adam and Eve should not eat...
But, the *temptation* was too much and Eve gave in to the Serpent, or she gave in to the Devil, or she gave into evil, and ate the forbidden fruit.
It was the serpent/devil who tricked Eve ~ she then gave some of the forbidden fruit to Adam....I bet if Adam had a buddy, he would of shared some too just as Eve did!
They were then both punished by God, women would have to endure painful child birth if I remember correctly and man would have to work and sweat and because he was made from the soil he would become soil again.
Thats very brief, but when I look at the individual aspects of the story I draw a simple conclusion...
If you are tricked, or you give into temptation that you now have the knowledge to know it is the wrong kind of temptation ~ the moral is in some way or another don't do it or you will be punished, basically.
Its like if you play with fire, (in the story it uses the devil/serpent), its basically saying you will get burnt.
You can relate that to modern day life, if you get invovled with bad things, when you've been warned they're bad or you know they are bad ~ the outcome was usually not so good ~ but wisdom you gained was at least not to do it again or something along those lines..
I'm not a Christian though so to speak, so my conclusion of the story is just my way of looking at it. Although I do hold beliefs/principles from Christianity - all the best ones I hope!
Posted by Nickengland on September 14, 2005, at 18:23:32
In reply to Re: Adam Eve gained knowledge, but it turned » crazy teresa, posted by Gabbix2 on September 14, 2005, at 17:17:09
Hi Gabbi,
>According to the Christian interpretation though, eve was punished for tempting Adam, and women were not to be trusted. That's what I was going by According to Martin Luther, ( I think) it was because Eve was made from the rib that turned away from god, it was natural for women to stray from the path of righteousness
Thats interesting, the Snake, Adam and Eve were all punished.
According to the bible, Adam in Hebrew means "mankind" Eve sounds similar to the word "living" which is rendered in the context as "human beings"
So Martin Luther said Eve (Humans beings) were punished for tempting Adam (mankind) and Adam (mankind) was punished because he gave into Eves (Humans Beings) temptations.
Kind regards
Nick
Posted by Gabbix2 on September 14, 2005, at 18:30:30
In reply to Re: Adam Eve gained knowledge, but it turned, posted by Nickengland on September 14, 2005, at 17:49:59
>
> They were then both punished by God, women would have to endure painful child birth if I remember correctly and man would have to work and sweat and because he was made from the soil he would become soil again.
>Yes that's true, but theme of woman being the temptress is throughout the Bible, the story of Lot
the story, of Samson and Delilah. It is the reasoning behind the dictate that women be subservient to their husband.
> Thats very brief, but when I look at the individual aspects of the story I draw a simple conclusion...
>
> If you are tricked, or you give into temptation that you now have the knowledge to know it is the wrong kind of temptation ~ the moral is in some way or another don't do it or you will be punished, basically.
>
> Its like if you play with fire, (in the story it uses the devil/serpent), its basically saying you will get burnt.
>
> You can relate that to modern day life, if you get invovled with bad things, when you've been warned they're bad or you know they are bad ~ the outcome was usually not so good ~ but wisdom you gained was at least not to do it again or something along those lines..
>Exactly that is also part of the symbolism of the snake. Joseph Cambell calls it the Hero's
Journey, again the theme is universal, from fairy tales, to Sumerian writings, mythology and the Bible, to Star wars (to name only a few)The hero generally enters an arduous journey..
or an underworld, and when they return they have lost an innocence, but found strength and knowledge.. Example - Jason and the Golden Fleece, Odysseus, Jonah and the Whale, Little Red Riding hood (I kid you not) She entered the forest as an innocent girl, slays the wolf, and exits as a heroine..I think that's why these stories are so important, and have been repeated throughout history and in different cultures.
We do learn from them, and they contain universal human truths no matter what your personal belief system is.
> I'm not a Christian though so to speak, so my conclusion of the story is just my way of looking at it. Although I do hold beliefs/principles from Christianity - all the best ones I hope!
>
>
Neither am I, and I too value many principles of Christianity, and think that we'd probably do well to follow what Jesus taught, and the 10 commandments. I just don't think these principles are less worthy when they are espoused from a different religion, as they often are.
(And no, I didn't think that's what you were saying Nick, that was just my own little comment on the end) : )
>
>
>
Posted by alexandra_k on September 14, 2005, at 18:34:13
In reply to Re: Adam Eve gained knowledge, but it turned » Nickengland, posted by Gabbix2 on September 14, 2005, at 18:30:30
If god has foreknowledge of everything that is going to happen (which is supposed to be implied by his omniscience - knowing everything)...
Then how could Eve (or Adam for that matter) NOT eat from the tree when god knew that was going to happen already???
(AKA if god knows everything that we are going to do before we have done it then how could we 'choose' to do differently from what he already knows we are going to do?)
Posted by Tamar on September 14, 2005, at 19:33:46
In reply to Re: Adam Eve gained knowledge, but it turned, posted by alexandra_k on September 14, 2005, at 18:34:13
> If god has foreknowledge of everything that is going to happen (which is supposed to be implied by his omniscience - knowing everything)...
>
> Then how could Eve (or Adam for that matter) NOT eat from the tree when god knew that was going to happen already???
>
> (AKA if god knows everything that we are going to do before we have done it then how could we 'choose' to do differently from what he already knows we are going to do?)Well, I think some feminists have put precisely that spin on the story in Genesis 3. God anticipated that the man and the woman would eat the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. And the woman’s decision to eat the fruit was a decision for self-determination and adulthood. She made the decision to leave the garden paradise and live in a world of grey areas. Or something like that. Oh, and there’s also the issue that the woman hadn’t even been created when God told the man they weren’t to eat the fruit of that tree. So the woman only had the man’s word for it… It’s one of my favourite stories.
But back to your question: even if God is omniscient, I don’t think it diminishes the idea of human free will. Even if God knows what choices people will make, they’re still free to make those choices.
I tend to wonder what this story says about God… if he’s omniscient and knows that the humans will eat the fruit of the prohibited tree, why bother telling them not to eat it? Why put it there in the first place? Why tell them it’s the tree of knowledge of good and evil, when he could tell them it’s the tree of suffering and death? But my questions are more theological than philosophical I think…
Posted by alexandra_k on September 14, 2005, at 19:49:20
In reply to Re: Adam Eve gained knowledge, but it turned » alexandra_k, posted by Tamar on September 14, 2005, at 19:33:46
Interesting...
:-)> even if God is omniscient, I don’t think it diminishes the idea of human free will. Even if God knows what choices people will make, they’re still free to make those choices.
Not sure that you quite get the problem...If god knows what choices people will make, then they aren't free to act differently. If god knew that eve would eat from the tree then eve was not free to refrain from eating from the tree. given that god knows she will do this she HAS to do it and there is no way around this.
If god knows everything that will happen...
Then things just have to run that way.
There is absolutely nothing you or i or anybody else can do to change that...and god already knows who will get to heaven and who won't
and god already knows who will win the next election
and god already knows what the weather will be like tomorrow
and god already knows how many people will die in new orleansand there isn't anything any of us can do about it...
except that we must experience, we must endure this eerie feeling that we are making choices when really... the very choices we will make are fixed by facts outside our control (ie by god, or in the secular version by a determinate or even an indeterminate physics)
Posted by Nickengland on September 14, 2005, at 19:49:43
In reply to Re: Adam Eve gained knowledge, but it turned » Nickengland, posted by Gabbix2 on September 14, 2005, at 18:30:30
>I just don't think these principles are less worthy when they are espoused from a different religion, as they often are.
(And no, I didn't think that's what you were saying Nick, that was just my own little comment on the end) : )I knew what you meant ~ I've read the archives ;-)
Kind regards
Nick
Go forward in thread:
Psycho-Babble Social | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.