[ home ] [ pony / rp / canterlot / rules ] [ arch ]

/pony/ - Pony

Ponies and General Posting
Password (For file deletion.)

[Return][Go to bottom]


File: 1547181474786.jpg (106.35 KB, 554x554, 1:1, IU.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

If God exists and is all-powerful, can he build a wall so high that he can't jump over it?

Just in case people don't see where I'm going with this, I'll spell it out:

1. If God doesn't have the power to build a wall so high that he can't jump over it, then he isn't all-powerful.

2. If God does have the power to build such a wall, then he isn't all-powerful, because he doesn't have the power to jump over it (and neither do the Mexicans, presumably).

Conclusion: God is not all-powerful.


File: 1547182162425.jpg (25.31 KB, 640x987, 640:987, mdeO30E_d.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

When I make this argument with people, I personally prefer to phrase it as...

If God exists and is all-powerful, can he microwave a burrito so hot even he can't eat it?



File: 1547182536010.jpg (859.82 KB, 2183x2290, 2183:2290, 20190110_205404-1.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

That's silly, only Trump can build walls and chipmunks can gnaw right through them.

Thats a dangerous question, ima ask my minister.

Anypony else see the new sparkly Celestia?  I just got her!


I like that version.  

For a while I was buying frozen burritos, but I could never get them to heat up evenly in the microwave.  Some parts were 160°F but other parts were only 90°F (as measured by a quick-read high-precision food thermometer).  And I was too lazy to heat them up in the oven.



File: 1547184607957.jpg (141.15 KB, 757x882, 757:882, ew.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

i have a very devout christian friend that i discuss this sort of stuff with all the time, and this very topic came up with us (albeit about a stone so heavy he can't lift it); and he said something along these lines

"while god is all powerful, he still abides by the rules of logic. So yes, he can make make a stone that not even he can lift. But he wouldn't do that, because it would be a waste of his power and serve no purpose."

apparently even god can make stuff he himself can't overcome, but it would be dumb and pointless.


File: 1547184870491.jpg (68.41 KB, 300x450, 2:3, 1547167583023.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

Im not sure it works that way.

Christian god is noncorporeal, there is no physical limit to what he can make or lift.  The question itself has limits built into it that make it nonsensical.

Many "thought experiments" and arguments of logic are structured similarly to achieve an absurd result.  Watch out for those.


File: 1547185056733.png (208.9 KB, 540x521, 540:521, tumblr_pgrrjgSNK71xievyno1….png) ImgOps Google

while god has no physical limits, there is still logical limits that he needs to abide by. so the logic of the question is somewhat sound, albeit dumb and misses the point of trying to disprove god

to reach the limits of size and weight that stone like that would have to be would be enough to annihilate all versions of reality


Never understood the argument. Even if he isn't 100% powerful, he could be 99% powerful, and it'd change nothing. Likewise, could be he doesn't exist in our sense of the terms, and so doesn't "jump" to begin with. Oh, and of course, there's the possibility that he could, and then he could also jump over it, later. That is to say, he makes something he couldn't jump over, but, now can.

I guess it's just a bit of a meme, but, as a "lol this disproves god" thing occasionally I spot, I just don't get it.


File: 1547185415509.png (17.92 KB, 439x460, 439:460, 280162__safe_solo_oc_artis….png) ImgOps Google

God is not all-powerful and I see no reason that he should be so.  People use hyperbole to describe things of a magnitude they can't otherwise put into words.  We could measure God's power by the things he's done, realize that he could probably do much more than that, and just call it good.  His power is so great that we can't fathom its limits.  The concept of "infinite" doesn't need to be brought into things.

>Trump can build walls

Sure doesn't seem like it at the moment.


Being there is no physical limit, the size of the rock seeming to conflict with logical limits is more a demonstration of our own conceptual limits than anything else.

That rock can be infinite orders of magnitude bigger and more massive than our entire universe as easily as a speck of dust.  Anyone who claims to believe in the christian god and sees this as a problem hasn't been grokking what its all about.

A rational skeptic should also see that the solution to the question isn't boolean.  It's null set.


See now if he just called it a fence like "steel slats" actually would be then he could have slipped it right past the democrats unnoticed.


>"lol this disproves god" thing occasionally I spot, I just don't get it.
Oh, it doesn't disprove the existence of God.  It just disproves all-powerfulness.  

>Even if he isn't 100% powerful, he could be 99% powerful, and it'd change nothing.
Well some people hard-headedly insist that God really is literally all-powerful.  It's that exact assertion that the OP argument addresses.


File: 1547185878748.jpg (108.82 KB, 535x884, 535:884, say what.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

it's a simple logical statement that can be assessed even at our limited understanding and knowledge. So to say "god can make a rock that even he can't lift" is still something that can be tested with logic, and proven as such. I'm not saying that OP is right, but i'm saying the logic can be considered sound as far as testing the "all-powerful" aspect

if anything, it proves that he is all-powerful until he makes a situation that he cannot overcome, in which case he stops being all-powerful.

i agree that no thoughtful christian should be upset with any of this, cause it doesn't disprove him at all. but the set exists, the logic is sound, and put to a boolean, it comes out clean

it's dumb, but it works


But it doesn't work

Nor does it disprove anything

It's a flawed question and therefore is capable of neither testing nor proving anything.

Like the childhood example "does your mom know you're gay" all it does is create a linguistic loop that might be a silly and fun toy but lacks any ability to reach any result.


>Many "thought experiments" and arguments of logic are structured similarly to achieve an absurd result
Reductio ad absurdum is a very popular way of disproving something (in this case, the notion of being "all-powerful").  


File: 1547186401180.jpg (91.72 KB, 667x793, 667:793, woah.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

but it does!

it's simple, pure logic


"can god make a rock that he himself cannot lift?"

two options

A. he can

B. he cannot

there is no other alternative answer, either he can or can't, and as such there in lies and answer where he does have the power to create a rock he cannot life, or does not have the power to create something he cannot lift

i'm not saying that it is a useful logical question, but there is logic inherit in it.

it's an appeal to an extreme that doesn't necessarily need to be asked


Proving that a clever meaningless question without an answer can be posed disproves nothing.

If i want to arrive at a destination, i first must get halfway there.  To get to halfway i must get halfway to halfway first, and so on.

Therefore i've just disproved that going anywhere is possible.

Including your proof "question".

Neither proof is sound, nothing is disproven and this is actually kinda lame.


I disagree.  Either God has power to always be able to do X or he has the power to prevent himself from ever doing X, but logically can't have the power to do both.


File: 1547186522033.png (123.02 KB, 218x289, 218:289, 2018-05-30 18_16_29-#14886….png) ImgOps Google

if a poster exists and is not stupid, can they make a thread so bad that everyone questions their intelligence?


>Neither proof is sound
Well which step of the proof do you disagree with?


I told you, the answer is null set, just like dividing by zero.

The problem is in the question.  Yes its fun but i hope you dont really believe its meaningful.


File: 1547186593983.jpg (28.82 KB, 320x320, 1:1, 44509946_346271475922229_6….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

that's called Zeno's paradox!

that is when we call in the supertasks!!!


File: 1547186695213.png (128.48 KB, 520x358, 260:179, live-in-anonymous-proxy.png) ImgOps Google

>if a poster exists and is not stupid, can they make a thread so bad that everyone questions their intelligence?
Of coursh!  Some of the best funposters only pretend to be retarded!


File: 1547186801929.jpg (40.19 KB, 356x382, 178:191, you full of shit.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

dividing by zero is a null set because it cannot be done without creating an infinite set, it's inherently broken because it's assigning an impossible equation to a real number

the question OP asked is one that has sound logic, it can be answered with no extraneous tasks involved

it's an absurd question, but there is no problem with it either


File: 1547186807013.jpg (7.63 KB, 250x155, 50:31, 250px-Möbius_strip.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

I dont see any proof just linguistic masturbation

I'm out


that's a great image


>I dont see any proof
Well there are two numbered statements in the OP.  Which do you disagree with (or both)?


File: 1547187713337.png (73.12 KB, 205x190, 41:38, 2018-05-30 18_25_30-#13265….png) ImgOps Google

god is real but he's a weak ass mofo i beat him up in high school


I guess I've just always run in to people misusing it.
Though, I do feel like it's still a tad of a worthless concept, honestly.


I never read anything into it besides that a priori proofs like the ontological argument are total gibberish.


They're all basically tautologies.

And arguments like OP don't prove much either.


File: 1547210446676.jpg (105.35 KB, 664x662, 332:331, 1522102767049.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google


[Return] [Go to top]
[ home ] [ pony / rp / canterlot / rules ] [ arch ]