Philotic Web

Lets pretend for a second that Im an atheist.
I come up to you, and ask you, is God allpowerful, able to do anything, omnipotent. You say yes. I ask "if God can do anything, can God make a rock that he can't lift?????"
What would your answer be?????

Go on to a message board and ask for the solution in a way that made it seemed I hadn't just been stumped by a completely juvenile logic problem?

In answer to your question: yes of course. God isn't bound by the rules of logic, he created them, duh. God can make a stone so heavy he can't lift it, and he can also lift that very same stone. God can make two equal three. God can finish a tootsie roll pop without biting into it.

Go on to a message board and ask for the solution in a way that made it seemed I hadn't just been stumped by a completely juvenile logic problem?

In answer to your question: yes of course. God isn't bound by the rules of logic, he created them, duh. God can make a stone so heavy he can't lift it, and he can also lift that very same stone. God can make two equal three. God can finish a tootsie roll pop without biting into it.

I wasnt stumped by it though.
How can God make that stone he cant lift, he can lift anything????
Says so in the bible. Despite the fact God is above logic, it says God can do anything in the bible. Therefore, according to the true word of God, there cant be a rock he cant lift.
God seems to follow the rules of logic. I mean, its eithor you go to heaven or hell after you die. Thats eithor or. Not, sinners can go to both hell and heaven at the same time. Because that wouldnt make sense.That type of ultimatum is the same with lifting the rock. Eithor he can lift it or he cant. Which also means eithor hes not omnipotent(able to make that rock) or not omnipotent (able to lift that rock).

Wow that is brilliant reasoning. One religious belief that has God acting in a way that doesn't conflict with the logical rules that he himself would have created therefore he must be always bound by them!

F*ck off if you're gonna say stupid sh*t like that.

Wow that is brilliant reasoning. One religious belief that has God acting in a way that doesn't conflict with the logical rules that he himself would have created therefore he must be always bound by them!

F*ck off if you're gonna say stupid sh*t like that.

So if god isn't bound by the rules of logic can we say we know him or understand any of his actions? If his actions are beyond logic I can't claim that they are righteous, even if I define righteous as the way god wants things done.


In regards to the OP, one thing paradoxes often imply is that our current understanding of the things involved with the paradox is wrong (or not so much wrong as not broad enough to explain the paradox). So either our understanding of god is not sufficient, and/or our understanding of reality (i.e. the stone) is not sufficient. There is no good reason to assume the it goes beyond that, to the idea that the idea of god is inherently nonsensical.

I do notice that what I just wrote is no answer at all and just a statement of "no one knows" but I think that's the point of the question. It makes one realize that there knowledge is not perfect and not complete and thus everything should be approached with an open mind.

Wow that is brilliant reasoning. One religious belief that has God acting in a way that doesn't conflict with the logical rules that he himself would have created therefore he must be always bound by them!

F*ck off if you're gonna say stupid sh*t like that.

Must be that time again .

Wow that is brilliant reasoning. One religious belief that has God acting in a way that doesn't conflict with the logical rules that he himself would have created therefore he must be always bound by them!

F*ck off if you're gonna say stupid sh*t like that.

Must be that time again .

Must be that time again .

Hah, is that empasis on the period in your sentence suppsed to be a not-so subtle reference to menstruation? Aren't you the clever boy, already having learned about vaginas and all that business, maybe somebody you'll actually get to see one for real! ...I mean, I'm not betting on it, but it could happen.

Look at what's become of religion today. Silly, not taken seriously, etc. Shame, shame, shame

Wow that is brilliant reasoning. One religious belief that has God acting in a way that doesn't conflict with the logical rules that he himself would have created therefore he must be always bound by them!

F*ck off if you're gonna say stupid sh*t like that.

Must be that time again .

Must be that time again .

Hah, is that empasis on the period in your sentence suppsed to be a not-so subtle reference to menstruation? Aren't you the clever boy, already having learned about vaginas and all that business, maybe somebody you'll actually get to see one for real! ...I mean, I'm not betting on it, but it could happen.

LOL. I take it you meant someday. Do we have beef that I dont know about??? Or are you a girl and its really actually that time?? Cuz you sound like your at Deathcon 2

Cuz you sound like your at Deathcon 2

Were you trying to say DefCon 2?

CezeN, it's possible they've simply been overwhelmed by the sheer number of question marks.

Getting slightly back on topic. Jebus,

Jebus wrote:
Wow that is brilliant reasoning. One religious belief that has God acting in a way that doesn't conflict with the logical rules that he himself would have created therefore he must be always bound by them!

F*ck off if you're gonna say stupid sh*t like that.

Everything God has done so far have been within the boundarys of logic and reason. So to me an honest hypothesis is that God does stuff within the boundarys of logic.

And Luet your right. I was refering to an episode of My Wife and Kids. A tv show. I didnt know how it was spelled though.

CezeN, it's possible they've simply been overwhelmed by the sheer number of question marks.

If there's anything that Matthew Lesko has taught us, it's that too many question marks can be a wonderful thing.

There could be things that God has done against all logic that we might not even know about. He could have done it right in front of us and we'd not know because it wasn't logical and our minds rejected it.

Just a though.

You really have a thing for that guy, eh Zero?

Just the jacket (I know, I'm so shallow!).

I've been arguing with someone who gets their insults from My Wfe and Kids... That's pretty much a new low.

And misspells those insults, at that.

You really consider that an arguement.
The "insult" was a question, since you were acting annoying for no apparent reason, I assumed and still assume that you are on your period.
But if thats your level of "arguing", theres no point of me arguing with you. LOL. Because its so high

Anyway back on topic.
I looked up logical in the dictionary. One definition was "Showing consistency of reasoning". So to be within the boundaries of logic, an idea or action most be consistent throughout. Therefore, all the things you see God do in the bible are within the boundarys of logic. Turning water to wine, Jesus walking on water, the plagues, and bringing people back from the dead. Because theirs nothing inconsistent in those actions. BUT, the idea of an omnipotent being making a rock he cant lift and lifting a rock he cant lift is outside the boundaries of logic because of the inconsistancies.

But yeah he could have done something outside of logic and our minds didnt accept it like that other person said. Or by omnipotent, it could mean he can do anything within the boundarys of logic.

Wow. Is this kid eriador's little brother or something?

I get away for a while and...

Now that Jayelle's not eating for two, newbie bezoars are surrounding us.

If Caspian was waiting for an excuse to make more babies, he's got one.

I know the answer. God could build a rock that He couldn't lift. Then, as soon as he wanted to, He could make Himself be able to lift it. He wouldn't be able to lift it until He wanted to!

Where did you get the idea that God is logical (as humans define it) all the time? You can't be talking about the Christian God, because paradox, or mystery, has been part of the conception of God since the Incarnation. How can a god be fully human and fully divine at once? How can there be three persons but one God? Paradox is nothing shocking to most Christians.

Lyons24000- That was one of my answers when I was asked it. I could provide a counterarguement but Im not atheist. So I wouldnt want to help them out.


Eaquae Legit- I never said he was logical all the time, but that he seems to do stuff in the boundaries of logic. But to address what you said:
I said its possible God could do anything in the boundaries of logic in our logical world. Meaning his omnipotent power consists of him being able to do anything within the boundarys of logic. BUT, I was talking about his powers, not his nature. Gods nature is beyond logic since he isn't human. That three in one thing, and fully human and fully divine thing concerns his nature.

Basically Im saying, God himself, his nature, is above logic, but his power and what he is able to do, might only be within the boundaries of logic. This possiblity would mean, he can be three beings and one God,(his nature) but he cant use his omnipotent power to make a rock that he cant lift, because his omnipotent power consists of being able to do all things within the boundaries of logic/reason. And paradoxes like that are outside the those boundaries according to the definition I found before.

Its a possibility

How can a god be fully human and fully divine at once? How can there be three persons but one God? Paradox is nothing shocking to most Christians.

Unless, of course, there is no such thing as a Trinity, which many millions of Christians (JW or not) believe. The God that I know from the Bible would not become a human because He would never give up His glory. He would send His "only begotten Son" after giving Him the command of what to do or say.-John 3:16; 5:19; 8:42; 12:49-50

I am not looking to start a fight but to me (and any other non-trinitarian) that is not a good argument because it is based off of false pretenses.

I do agree that God does not always have to work logically and that we do not have to know everything that God has ever done.

I said "most" for a reason, Lyons. I'm quite well aware that certain Christian sects have a differing Christology. It's out of respect for those groups that I said "most."

I'm also aware, however, of just how central the mysteries I mentioned are to mainstream Christianity. They are, in fact, at the very root of why many Christians refuse to call Jehovah's Witnesses or Mormons Christians at all. Orthodox Christianity doesn't generally see "believing in Christ" as what makes a Christian, and the divergences the disagreement results in do make it difficult to determine the taxonomy. In discussions like these, I tend to err on the side of inclusivity.

***

One of the things Catholicism (and likely other denominations) reveres most in God is the magnificent love displayed in a god who would humble himself to become human, and humiliate himself by letting humans torture and kill him. The God you know from the Bible would never give up his glory, but the God I know - from that very same Bible - did just that. Funny how we could quote Bible verses back and forth and still never come to an agreement. Also funny how the word "begotten" (genitus, in Latin) is used in John specifically to express the homoousios mystery/paradox.

One of the things Catholicism (and likely other denominations) reveres most in God is the magnificent love displayed in a god who would humble himself to become human, and humiliate himself by letting humans torture and kill him. The God you know from the Bible would never give up his glory, but the God I know - from that very same Bible - did just that. Funny how we could quote Bible verses back and forth and still never come to an agreement. Also funny how the word "begotten" (genitus, in Latin) is used in John specifically to express the homoousios mystery/paradox.

Ignore the John 3:16 quotation, if you'd like. Whether or not "only-begotten Son" is a valid defense against the Trinity is not a maker-or-breaker of that idea. There are many (hundreds) of other verses that destroy the idea of a Trinity. Yes, I know that there are many (dozens) of verses that uphold the idea of a Trinity but many of them are ambiguous at best. i.e.-Matthew 28:19 and 2 Corinthians 13:14.

In the earlier post, you said something to the effect of 'there are three persons but they are one God." I am not going to use the "how can they be three and one" argument because we are talking about whether or not God can act in an illogical way. To me, that is not a good argument because a Christian can just say that we cannot understand it and then that will open up a whole new argument.

However, I do say to you this: The very fact that the Father, Son, and holy spirit were all seen (or heard) at the same time is a major blow to the whole Trinitarian theology. (Matthew 3:16-17) At another time, Stephen was filled with holy spirit and saw Jesus standing next to God. (Acts 7:55-56) Both of these events present problems to someone trying desperately to uphold that they are "all one".

You, I am sure, are aware of the pagan beginnings of the entire idea of the Trinity. Trinities were common in Greek philosophy, Hinduism, the Egyptian religion, and other places throughout history. Christianity was fused with these pagan teachings to allow transition for pagans into that religion to be a little easier. It wasn't even until the Second Nicaean Council that the idea of a Trinity was even adopted (The holy spirit was not considered God until the Nicene Creed of 381).

About the humble God coming to earth idea, that is close to the idea presented by Philippians 2:5-8 except that it is oft mistranslated due to bias. A very good translation of that verse is in the New American Standard Bible which has it:

"Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross [Gr. stauros, Lit. Stake]."

That Scripture expressly states that he did not consider equality with God to be something to take for himself. The original Greek word used for "grasped" is "harpagmos" which carries the idea of grasping at something one does not have and, literally translated, would best be read as "grasped", not "used" or some other synonym of "used" like many other translations have it. In fact, the passage was written to show how humble Christ was. He was not arrogant enough to want something that was not his but humble enough to give up what he already had. It has much more of a humbling effect on our Savior when looked at in that manner.

The Bible teaches that we are separated from God, we cannot go near to Him because of our sin. How can that fit with a God who would come to earth and become one of us and reside among us and yet turn around and not allow us to be around Him? It wouldn't.

Now, back to your "begotten" statement, in Latin, the word translated from "monogenes" ("Begotten" in English) may be genitus in Latin, but that does not make that the meaning in Greek or take away from that statement as I used it in my previous post.

The fact of the matter is, either of us could be right. The traditional argument about the problem is that if "monogenes" is derived from a root of the verb "ginomai" (to become), then the word means "only existing" but that if "monogenes" is derived from a root of the verb "gennao" (to beget), then the word means "only begotten".

At this point, it is necessary for a trinitarian to turn to the Nicene Creed which says that the Son was begotten, not made. However, the Nicene Creed was formed by imperfect men who took a vote, a close vote at that, to determine truth. In the end, the Nicene Creed is an interpretation, albeit one that has endured a little less then two millennia. This Creed, though, is not a valid answer to which root word "monogenes is derived from. Until we are perfected, we will not know for sure. You can lean towards "ginomai" if you prefer and I can lean towards "gennao" if I prefer.

I do want to say, though, (and please, I am not trying to be rude) but I would like if you would stop arguing with what the Latin says because that is a translation. The Bible was originally written in Greek and so we should consider the Greek words and their meanings and not the Latin words and their meanings. Also, when you said that it is funny that the word "is used in John specifically to express the homoousios mystery/paradox." That is not verifiable and should not be presented as fact.

Arguing over words is condemned in the Bible: "If any man teaches other doctrine and does not assent to healthful words, those of our Lord Jesus Christ, nor to the teaching that accords with godly devotion, he is puffed up with pride, not understanding anything, but being mentally diseased over questionings and debates about words." "Keep reminding them of these things, charging them before God as witness, not to fight about words, a thing of no usefulness at all because it overturns those listening." (1 Timothy 6:3-4; 2 Timothy 2:14)

Yes, I am guilty of it, too. In fact, more so than you just now. It is so hard not to fight over the meanings of words in the original languages like we have done more then once in the past, huh?

(This went on longer then I wanted but I've been looking for a good challenge and, E_L, you present the best!)

I'll address the bulk of your post later (it's well past bedtime for me now), but I do want to make a couple quick statements.

The first is over my use of Latin in the above post. I did use it deliberately, even knowing that it was all written in Greek. I used it for a few reasons, being that I know that word and its connotations quite intimately in Latin, in ways I can't even translate. I've spent a lot of time with it in the past. So it has resonances for me that I can't ignore, and when you brought it up, I felt the need to comment. Also, it is the Latin translation that has influenced Christian theology for millennia: right or wrong, it's with us. It's in our translations of the Bible, inevitably. If you're using the word "begotten," genitus is fair game. When it's used in John, as "begotten," that's what it refers to. Jerome was all up on his cutting-edge theology, and it's his work that's influenced pretty much all existing translations since. If you're using ginomai or gennao, it's a different picture, and I won't get into that debate, because I don't do Greek. Monogenes is not the same as begotten, and if you disagree with the implications of "begotten," then you really ought to use a different word, or base the argument elsewhere.

Your guess about my preference is wrong, actually, as I'd be going for gennao. Part of the Trinitarian mystery is that the Son is a distinct Person. The Father didn't just become human, he begat the Son - who is still the same God. That's the whole mystery of it. It's a paradox.

There are many (hundreds) of other verses that destroy the idea of a Trinity.

The second is in regards to this. They destroy the idea of a Trinity to you. It's not objective truth, and there are billions of people who would disagree with you. You do this a lot, and it makes it very hard to take what you say seriously. Things that are self-evident to you are simply not. We have an absurd number of denominations of Christianity in the world today, and all of them disagree on what the Bible means. These splinters are not all the result of lazy reading or careless scholarship. People who know that book better than you or I could ever dream of have read it and come to opposing conclusions. The Bible is not simple. I, and a lot of people here, would really appreciate it if you could acknowledge that when you post.

In the earlier post, you said something to the effect of 'there are three persons but they are one God." I am not going to use the "how can they be three and one" argument because we are talking about whether or not God can act in an illogical way. To me, that is not a good argument because a Christian can just say that we cannot understand it and then that will open up a whole new argument.

It is illogical. That's why I used it as an example. I'm not really sure what you're getting at here.

However, I do say to you this: The very fact that the Father, Son, and holy spirit were all seen (or heard) at the same time is a major blow to the whole Trinitarian theology. (Matthew 3:16-17) At another time, Stephen was filled with holy spirit and saw Jesus standing next to God. (Acts 7:55-56) Both of these events present problems to someone trying desperately to uphold that they are "all one".

There's no problem in it to me, and I'm far from desperate. That's what the Trinity is. Yeah, they're all one, but they're three. Paradox again. You're arguing against something you don't seem to have fully understood (as much as a human mind can understand a paradox).

Alright, that's it for me for now.

Oh, wait, one more thing. How does the infinitive "to become" result in the participle "existing"? Those are kinda two different words, in any language I've ever come across. "Existing" generally comes from "to be." I'm genuinely curious here.

Oh, and to the OP, my answer to the question is: Yes, God can make a rock so big he can't lift it. And he can lift it.

There are many (hundreds) of other verses that destroy the idea of a Trinity.

The second is in regards to this. They destroy the idea of a Trinity to you. It's not objective truth, and there are billions of people who would disagree with you. You do this a lot, and it makes it very hard to take what you say seriously. Things that are self-evident to you are simply not.

I just want to second EL on this point. I've said it before and I'll say it again. You would get a lot further, Lyons, if you would temper your delivery by not belittling the beliefs of others.

First, I apologize if I make it sound that I am so close-minded that I cannot even look at something from the viewpoint of others. I know that my viewpoint is a minority among Christianity and I do not try to belittle the beliefs of others but I do come off kinda strong. I am trying to stop doing that and I am also trying to say that these are my beliefs. I felt that I did that at some point in my post but I guess I didn't make it clear enough. I make these statements and when I write them I feel like they are not being rude or assertive. When I made that statement about verses destroying the idea of the Trinity, I should have put that I felt they destroyed the idea of the Trinity. I want to say that if I continue to do that please put an "I believe" because that is the point I am trying to put across. What I write is what I believe and I am not demanding that others believe them because I do. We are talking about what we believe and so these statements being what we believe is self-evident. I present them as facts because to me they are facts. You do not have to take them as facts and I am not trying to say that you have to or belittle your person beliefs.

There are many (hundreds) of other verses that destroy the idea of a Trinity.

The second is in regards to this. They destroy the idea of a Trinity to you. It's not objective truth, and there are billions of people who would disagree with you. You do this a lot, and it makes it very hard to take what you say seriously. Things that are self-evident to you are simply not. We have an absurd number of denominations of Christianity in the world today, and all of them disagree on what the Bible means. These splinters are not all the result of lazy reading or careless scholarship. People who know that book better than you or I could ever dream of have read it and come to opposing conclusions. The Bible is not simple. I, and a lot of people here, would really appreciate it if you could acknowledge that when you post.

I try as best as I can to acknowledge that on here and I have been trying to put that these are my beliefs as a Christian Jehovah's Witness. To me they do destroy the idea of a Trinity. However, I can confidentially say that the Trinity is not real. It is an idea propagated by the early apostate church from pagan religions. I am aware that you are correct when you say "it's not objective truth, and there are billions of people who would disagree with you." You do the same thing, E_L, say things as if they were definitely true when it is an opinion, even one held by a vast majority. But I know that you, like me, have done your research on the matter and are someone that can be taken seriously. It is nearly impossible to present our beliefs in any other manner then as if they were completely and utterly true.

In the earlier post, you said something to the effect of 'there are three persons but they are one God." I am not going to use the "how can they be three and one" argument because we are talking about whether or not God can act in an illogical way. To me, that is not a good argument because a Christian can just say that we cannot understand it and then that will open up a whole new argument.

It is illogical. That's why I used it as an example. I'm not really sure what you're getting at here.

What I was saying is that that is the response that you'd get from most people: "How can they be three and one?" I was telling you that a question like that even annoys me because if we are talking about an all-powerful God then the Trinity certainly is possible. Using a logic question like that is not doing justice to God.

However, I do say to you this: The very fact that the Father, Son, and holy spirit were all seen (or heard) at the same time is a major blow to the whole Trinitarian theology. (Matthew 3:16-17) At another time, Stephen was filled with holy spirit and saw Jesus standing next to God. (Acts 7:55-56) Both of these events present problems to someone trying desperately to uphold that they are "all one".

There's no problem in it to me, and I'm far from desperate. That's what the Trinity is. Yeah, they're all one, but they're three. Paradox again. You're arguing against something you don't seem to have fully understood (as much as a human mind can understand a paradox).

I knew you were going to say something about my usage of "desperately". I stand by Bible verses that tell me Christ is not and never will be equal to God and also I stand by the history of how the Trinity came about. Read Clement of Rome's writings and the idea of a Trinity is never to be found, along with many other church fathers. From the research that I have done before Christianity apostasized, the Trinity was a pagan concept to the Christians.

I'd like to point out that, regarding to logic systems, the standard answer to this paradox is that in a universe where there is a all powerful god (or an irresistible force, for this matter), the existance of a "rock that cannot be lifted" (or unmovable mass) cannot be defined.

Hence the paradox makes no sense because one of the terms is not defined. It's like asking someone "say how many coins i have hidden in my pocket using a natural number" when you have no coins in your pocket. (Note: zero is not a natural number, hence the question asked has no answer because the answer is not defined)

I found this verse that may serve as a key to the whole paradox mystery: Can God do things beyond logic?

Yes

Job 37:5-"God thunders with his voice in a wonderful way, doing great things that we cannot know."

Two answers:

A: Define God in such a way that the question is not a paradox.

or

B: Dismiss the question since it does not make sense.

Yes, I believe that there are many things about God we don't understand with our imperfect, mortal minds. Both may be true, but I vote for B, since it doesn't depend on solving problems by a (possible) change in definition.