Ibn Taymiyyah wrote:Question: Can God hear colors?
Answer: Invalid question, colors are not meant to be heard.
Question: Can God create a rock which He cannot lift?
Answer: Invalid question, because it is impossible for there to exist a rock which God cannot lift, God's ability is limitless.
Ibn Taymiyyah wrote:Question: Can God smell noise?
Answer: Invalid question, noise is not meant to be smelled.
Ibn Taymiyyah wrote:Question: Can God create a rock which He cannot lift?
Answer: Invalid question, Impossibilities are not meant to be achieved.
Emma_85 wrote:if God creates a rock he can't lift, then he must be a pretty pathetic God.
Emma_85 wrote:if God creates a rock he can't lift, then he must be a pretty pathetic God.
Kasper wrote:As for the argument about God creating a rock he cannot lift: if His power is unlimited he can certainly make any rock. So if His power of creating rocks is unlimited, and he created one He cannot lift, that means his power of lifting rocks is limited. Or if His power of lifting rocks is unlimited, and He he cannot make one he cannot lift, his power of creating rocks is certainly limited. Therefore God's power cannot be unlimited.
Kasper wrote:if His power is unlimited he can certainly make any rock. So if His power of creating rocks is unlimited, and he created one He cannot lift, that means his power of lifting rocks is limited. Or if His power of lifting rocks is unlimited, and He he cannot make one he cannot lift, his power of creating rocks is certainly limited.
Kasper wrote:Emma_85 wrote:if God creates a rock he can't lift, then he must be a pretty pathetic God.
That's illogical. Suppose God had a secret he never wanted to come out, and place it under a rock not even He could lift. Pretty powerful God.
As for the argument about God creating a rock he cannot lift: if His power is unlimited he can certainly make any rock. So if His power of creating rocks is unlimited, and he created one He cannot lift, that means his power of lifting rocks is limited. Or if His power of lifting rocks is unlimited, and He he cannot make one he cannot lift, his power of creating rocks is certainly limited. Therefore God's power cannot be unlimited.
Cédric wrote:Well classical physics clearly showed that both colours and sounds are waves, they can be measured with the same scalle, Hertz. It's not that colours are not meant to be heard it's just that OUR perception system is not good, that ears can get certain frequencies which eyes cant and vice versa
Question: Can God create a rock which He cannot lift?
Answer: Invalid question, because it is impossible for there to exist a rock which God cannot lift, God's ability is limitless.
Impossibilities are not meant to be achieved ... just like colors are not meant to be heard.
edonnelly wrote:
primitive wrote:Question: Can God create a rock which He cannot lift?
Answer: Invalid question, because it is impossible for there to exist a rock which God cannot lift, God's ability is limitless.
Impossibilities are not meant to be achieved ... just like colors are not meant to be heard.
If you say God's ability is limitless, then of course He can create a rock he cannot lift.
Bert wrote:I wish that this thread would be allowed a well deserved death.
Emma_85 wrote:primitive wrote:Question: Can God create a rock which He cannot lift?
Answer: Invalid question, because it is impossible for there to exist a rock which God cannot lift, God's ability is limitless.
Impossibilities are not meant to be achieved ... just like colors are not meant to be heard.
If you say God's ability is limitless, then of course He can create a rock he cannot lift.
but if he then can't lift it - that would be something he couldn't do - ergo he would not be omnipotent.
calvinist wrote:I agree with Geoff. This is an old trick question used to make Christians feel like idiots for their belief in God,
calvinist wrote:but in reality the question is meaningless.
calvinist wrote:the blank remains empty and the question is unintelligible because the concept proposed is unreal and cannot be used in a question about reality.
calvinist wrote:And lastly since it popped in my head, this is why the idea of "tolerance" is illogical. Don't get me wrong i don't believe in harming people because they disagree with you, but the notion that you can agree with everybody is foolish,
I admitt that using human language has it's limitations when talking about God, but human language is all we have.Democritus wrote:calvinist wrote:I agree with Geoff. This is an old trick question used to make Christians feel like idiots for their belief in God,
No, that's not true -- it's meant to enlighten people that simplemind beliefs are often wrong.
There are plenty of Christians who are not offended by this at all, and you shoudn't be offended either. Just take the chip off of your shoulder.
..... God created reality, didn't He? Isn't He the one who decides what's real? Are you saying it is impossible for God? I'm sorry but there is no way out of this logical bind. You cannot escape it. It's right there in a nutshell.
Democritus wrote:The entire New Testament is all about tolerance. Didn't Jesus say "Love your enemy" and "turn the other cheek"? Tolerance doesn't even require you to love your enemy, it just requires you to refrain from killing him or burning his house down. Jesus asked for a lot more than just tolerance.
Bert wrote:I admitt that using human language has it's limitations when talking about God, but human language is all we have.
But if the statement "If God cannot create a round square, he is not omnipotent" can determine for you whether God is omnipotent or not, you have some serious problems with reasoning or reality.
Bert wrote:Was Jesus tolerant of Herod? He called him a fox.
Was he tolerant of the Pharasees. He called them whitewashed tombs, snakes and brood of vipers.
Democritus wrote:If Jesus was not a tolerant person, then I don't know who was.
Democritus wrote: Right-wing "Christians" are taking their sense of victimhood to an extreme. I don't see it ending well. Some of the worst crimes in history were committed by people who were thoroughly convinced of their own victimhood.
Paul wrote:I don't think Jesus is 'tolerant' in the modern sense of the word. He is forgiving. He does not condemn the woman taken in adultery, but does admonish her, "Go and sin no more."
Any attempt to make him an "anything goes" type of guy is just silly.
That does not prove that faith causes violence.
Democritus wrote:That does not prove that faith causes violence.
I do not claim that faith causes violence. Every person is capable of violence, faith or no faith.
Democritus wrote:Paul wrote:I don't think Jesus is 'tolerant' in the modern sense of the word. He is forgiving. He does not condemn the woman taken in adultery, but does admonish her, "Go and sin no more."
Any attempt to make him an "anything goes" type of guy is just silly.
This is where we disagree. "Tolerance" does not mean "anything goes." It's exactly what I am taking issue with. When someone complains about tolerance, they are complaining about peaceful coexistance, and a willingness to disagree reasonably. "Tolerance" does not mean, "Hey, let's just abandon all scruples." That is not the point. And like I said up front, tolerance has its limits. You cannot tolerate absolutely anything.
Paul wrote:Frankly, the most egregious examples of intolerance are found on the left side of the political spectrum. One need consider only the 'Talibanization' of the American university to see what I am getting at. Sadly, in the very place where speech should be at its most free, only certain politically correct ideas can even be aired.
Today's tyrants are on the 'humanist' left, not on the "Christian right".
Finally, how does it happen that in an age where all judgments have equal claim to truth, it remains OK to malign Christianity? Why are those who are so willing to bestow legitimacy on all manner of thought and belief so quick to attack religion?
GlottalGreekGeek wrote:This is the first I've heard of the "Talibanization" of American universities. Would you care to go into more detail on this phenomenon?
GlottalGreekGeek wrote:I know a few people who are very left-wing politically and devoutly Christian religiously. The two are not mutually exclusive.
Paul wrote:GlottalGreekGeek wrote:This is the first I've heard of the "Talibanization" of American universities. Would you care to go into more detail on this phenomenon?
Don't take the expression literally. It doesn't refer to religious conversion, but to a systemic intolerance routinely practiced at American universities against all ideas that don't conform to the tenets of political correctness.
annis wrote:I work at a university, and indeed this is the case.
Hardly does the week go by that some right-leaning person with an intemperate mouth isn't dragged from the classroom and mauled by a mob; that a young republican isn't killed by hanging and left to dangle in the wind as a warning to others; that an insufficiently uppity woman isn't stoned in the university commons.
Paul wrote:Sorry Will, but I don't think it's funny when what should be havens of intellectual freedom cannot tolerate even hearing an idea they disagree with.
annis wrote:Nor do I, and that wasn't the point I was making. I certainly don't support the speech-code idiocies that pass under the name 'leftism' at universities.
But as far as I'm concerned 'Taliban' is the new 'Nazi'. Everyone's using it to describe the other guy ('Texas Taliban' by the shriller left, etc.). This trivializes the real horrors perpretated by the Taliban. It exaggerates the evil (often, frankly, misguided foolishness) of the other guys. It brings heat, not light, to debate. There's plenty of heat already.
Paul wrote:But I do take exception to those who accuse the "Christian right" of intolerance but fail to see the plank in their own eyes.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests