Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Tea Party Movement

2011-11-10T15:18:04Z

Barnes: /* Koch Brothers */

{{Articletalkheader}}

==TEA Party==
TEA Party - wouldn't this be a backronym? When it first started, it was just in reference to the Boston Tea Party, as far as I can tell - making it stand for something seems to have come later. --[[User:JTutone|JTutone]] 13:20, 9 December 2009 (EST)

:Since before the Tax Day Tea Parties took place, '''TEA''' was and always has stood for 'Taxed Enough Already'. There's a difference between an acronym and a theme. You should read the [[Tea Party Movement]] page, the intro will answer your question and the rest will clarify it for you. [[User:DerekE|DerekE]] 00:17, 11 December 2009 (EST)

== Please fix vandalism ==

"In early 2010 it remains an under-organized, underfunded amateurish movement with mediocre leadership. But several aspiring conservatives especially Marco Rubio of Florida and Gary Johnson of New Mexico, are unofficially competing to become its leader." [[User:Danq|danq]] 22:43, 14 January 2010 (EST)

== "An under-organized, underfunded amateurs' movement with obscure leadership." ==

Does this really need to go back in the article, RJJensen? [[User:AlexWD|AlexWD]] 23:58, 14 January 2010 (EST)

:I agree.It is a grassroots movement, amateurish is not accurate. The movement does not have any one leader or leaders- mediocre leadership??? Under-organized? possible two million people met in D.C. on 9/12. Underfunded? I did not realize that sponsors are hurting for cash. Marc Rubio is trying to be elected as a conservative candidate for Senate. I see nothing whereby he is vying for leadership position within the TEA party movement. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 00:02, 15 January 2010 (EST)
::Yeah, it's accurate. "amateur" -- yes this is a movement against professionals by people with no political experience. The national and state leadership cannot even be named because they do not exist. The funding does not exist. Who't the treasurer? where are the required financial reports? There's grass roots enthusiasm but much less organization than a high school pep rally. Now people may rejoice in this unled, underfunded, unorganized group but we're an encyclopedia and it's our job to describe it accurately and not ignore its most obvious characteristics. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 00:09, 15 January 2010 (EST)
While "amateurish" may be accurate, it's a general term. "Grassroots" is a somewhat more specific term which implies that it is not run by professional politicians (ie, amateur). I also feel the amount of funding isn't the point: the fact that it brought two million people together in one spot demonstrates that whatever funding it has is at least sufficient to accomplish the primary goals of the movement, that is, organizing protests. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 00:14, 15 January 2010 (EST)
::what is their primary goal??? without any visible leaders or any agreed on policy statement, that's very hard to say. I think the goal is to purify the GOP. That is they are really keen to throw out bad GOP leaders. This is an echo of the progressive antibossism movement of 1900 (see [[Recall Election]]. What's very different is that the progressives of 1900 were very well organized, and very well led. "amateurish" means they are inexperienced outsiders. There have been lots of movements like the Tea Partiers in American history and all of them have failed to achieve any of their goals. There were several in the 1930s, for example, such as "Share the Wealth", "Ham and Eggs" and the "Townsend Movement". In the 1880s the prohibitionists fit exactly the same mold. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 00:41, 15 January 2010 (EST)

I've written it to be more polite and accurate while keeping RJJensen's message. See edit "Compromise" -[[User:Danq|danq]]
::Nice job. I like it. [[User:AlexWD|AlexWD]] 14:25, 15 January 2010 (EST)
:::good solution--thanks! [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 15:38, 15 January 2010 (EST)
::::If anyone has a problem they need to take it to the talk page first. And name-calling a senior administrator a liberal is beyond the bounds of propriety here. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 19:22, 15 January 2010 (EST)

*I agree with Jpatt, and have reverted. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 21:55, 15 January 2010 (EST)

==Is it racist?==

Liberals delight in calling the Tea Party racist, but I don't think they have any evidence of this. Would anyone care to comment? (You'd think at least they would try to fake it.) What about Andrew Breitbart's $100,000 offer to anyone coming up with a video? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 20:53, 27 October 2010 (EDT)
:The only racists outed have been liberals disguised as Tea Party Members. But you don't have to hold a racist sign to be called racist. The lamestream media calls the crowd mostly white- implying racism.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 21:24, 27 October 2010 (EDT)

== Referencing? ==

I've done some slight rewording and added a sentence that I think is important to the history of the Tea Party movement. It refers to execution of a Tea Party 2007 on December 16th of that year by the supporters of Ron Paul. However, I can not figure out how to reference the YouTube video that is the best compilation of sources reporting on the phenomenon. The video is at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DKZmIzEMUN8

Another reference for the statement I've inserted can be found here: http://www.businesswire.com/portal/site/google/?ndmViewId=news_view&newsId=20090415005738&newsLang=en

I'm new at this and if anybody can help me out, I'd be very appreciative. I think it's important to defining the actual roots and positions of the original TEA party.

:Along with some other organizational edits, I added a reference to the ronpaulforums.com page where a news video covering the event was posted. I also updated the sentence, which was: ''"One earlier manifestation of both the movement and the name occurred in the fall of 2007 when supporters of Ron Paul called for a 'Tea Party 2007' to promote Paul's bid for the presidency and a return to limited federal government."'' I corrected this sentence because the statement "manifestation of both the movement and the name" seems to imply that the TEA Party Movement materialized or manifested itself from the "Tea Party 2007" event, which is not accurate, as I referenced in citations. The only relation between the two is in their theme. One of the primary differences between the movement and Ron Paul's Tea Party 2007 rally, although related in theme, is in the use of the backronym "TEA."
:I do not believe Ron Paul's rally used a backronym for the word "Tea"; he and his supporters used the name to describe how their event was a re-enactment of the Boston Tea Party, which was also held to promote Ron Paul's bid for presidency. The Tea Party Movement is by the American people, not just American people for Ron Paul; it is America's indictment against the ruling class. Moreover, if Ron Paul's "Tea Party 2007" rally were a real Tea Party Movement protest, then the $6 million in donations received from it would not have gone to only Ron Paul's presidency campaign, it would have gone to the Tea Party Movement. It would have gone to help support all candidates whose values are in-line with the American people taking part in the movement. Candidates don't choose the Tea Party, the Tea Party chooses the candidates based on their values. [[User:DerekE|DerekE]] 18:14, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

== Origin of "teabaggers" ==

In case anyone's interested, in using the term "teabaggers" Obama was being EXTREMELY offensive and making slanderous implications of homosexuality. The terms "teabagging" and "teabagger" are British military slang and extremely crude. As this is a family-friendly encyclopaedia I won't go into details, but the teabag in question is a small sac on the male body that appears to be made of elbow skin. It's not just a derogatory play on words; it's a serious and pretty despicable insult. If someone called ME a teabagger I would be extremely upset. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 18:49, 26 August 2011 (EDT)
:Unfortunately if you are not a crude person you do not know when you are being crude. The TEA party took that term as their own moniker initially, until those who knew what the slang meant began to explain our linguistic mistake. --[[User:DrDean|DrDean]] 19:04, 26 August 2011 (EDT)
::I don't think it's accurate to assume 'The TEA Party' took the name as 'their own' term. I knew it was a crude term from day one when MSNBC and CNN first started using it. [[User:DerekE|DerekE]] 03:18, 27 August 2011 (EDT)
::No way we would coin it for ourselves. We're too smart for that. Everyone knows what teabagging means. If not, look it up on Urban Dictionary. [[User:Danq|danq]] 22:49, 27 August 2011 (EDT)
:::Why wouldn't it be accurate? The vast majority of tea party members had no idea that it was a term that would even need to be looked up. It's not about being dumb or smart or clean or vulgar, it's just that a whole lot of people who were in the movement didn't know what it meant. I didn't either, I never used the term because I felt that it was pretty lame to be throwing tea bags in the trash and only used loose leaf tea at my first tea party, but that is beside the point... --18:37, 1 September 2011 (EDT)

== <big>Koch Brothers</big> ==

The article doesn't once mention them?- Barnes

Talk:Tea Party Movement

2011-11-10T15:17:13Z

Barnes:

Debate: Is it possible for God to be timeless?

2008-11-01T00:35:11Z

Barnes: /* Yes */

I have heard people in the other debate topics assert that God is the only logically possible cause of the universe, but is it possible for God to be entirely seperate to, yet completely responsible for the universe?

To me, it seems not. I see time as a continuum and the medium through which causality can exist. If you take away time, you take away all means of causality and thus in this way you cannot have a God who lacks time and yet still causes physical events.

== Yes ==
I used to think of time that way as well, but the theory of relativity (or some other related physics) appears to disagree: time is a dimension in which one can move, just like spatial ones. So if we believe that God can exist in all places, He could (must?) exist in all times as well.

I should point out that I have no evidence for this, but thinking of it that way helps me to organise my thoughts, such as they are.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 08:15, 23 October 2008 (EDT)

I thought relativity stated that time is relative to the speed of movement in the spatial dimensions. In this way I dont think relativity addresses so much the existence of a continuum but how the rate of this continuum is relative to movement. -Barnes

:I agree that time is a continuum, but the idea that one's position in time can be affected by movement in space suggests to me that it might be sensible to think of time in the same terms as the familiar spatial dimensions. If you follow my line of thought above, God can only be timeless if He is also omnipresent: do you believe it's possible for God to be omnipresent? If not, there's not much point pursuing this.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 09:57, 24 October 2008 (EDT)

::But mixing omnipresence with general relativity implies that God is a physical part of the universe. Anyway general relativity would require that something without movement cannot progress in time, which doesnt allow for timelessness so much as a lack of a continuum for God to cause within.

::I can understand how omnipresence might work, but it makes God a part of nature rather than the separate creator of the universe. -Barnes

:::I disagree that omnipresence makes God a physical part of the universe. If He was both omnipresent and physically present, there wouldn't be any room for anything else, would there?.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 12:56, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

::::I disagree that what you are proposing about God and time is possible in any way. General relativity applies to spacetime bound physical objects which leave an imprint on a proverbial sheet to explain the force of gravity as the curvature energy makes on this sheet. How you fit God into this picture is beyond me.

::::It is quite possible for God to be timeless. To try and explain, humans always feel the need to quantify everything, even things which cannot be quantified. Thus you end up with thought experiments such as "If God is forever, where did He come from?" (How many people here have asked themselves ''that'' question? I bet all atheists have at some point and used their lack of an answer as a basis for their non-belief) and "If I fly forever, will I run out of universe?". The concept of eternity (running forwards and backwards) is simply a condition that we cannot (yet) wrap our minds around. Even if the Big Bang theory is true and one proton became "everything" and time started from that point, where did that one proton come from? It's when we try and picture and already infinitely old God standing in an infinite nothingness, holding a metaphorical match under this lonely proton that the thought experiment starts to become mind-bending. (Another t.e. we did a while ago was "if God is eternal and the Earth is 6,000 years old, what was He doing for eternity-6000?")
::::That could be why many people reject the notion of God, "I cannot conceive the concept of God being forever, because I do not understand 'forever', thus God cannot exist." God's existence cannot be quantified, which is where "belief" and "faith" come it, as unsatisfactory as some people find those answers. --[[User:JessicaT|KotomiT]][[User talk:JessicaT|''Konnichiha!'']] 15:04, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

::::Im not rejecting the impossibility of timelessness out of incomprehensibility but logic, as I explained in the first post.
::::The big bang does not mention one proton becoming everything, since the big bang started with a point of energy. It is entirely possible that this energy came from nothing as things tend to do, hence why we have vacuum fluctuation models.
::::Im not disregarding the concept of infinity, I actually think that the most plausible timeline for God would be one which was infinitely long. I just think that there has to BE a timeline.- Barnes

== I don't know, and nor do you ==

Perhaps God is just so far outside of human comprehension, trying to work this out is impossible. God ''is'', and that's all that really matters. [[User:NewCrusader|NewCrusader]] 08:50, 23 October 2008 (EDT)

Would you say that God is outside of logic too? The fact that you can assert that God exists means that you are conforming God to logic, since affirming his very existence means obeying the logical law of non-contradiction. -Barnes

Debate: Is it possible for God to be timeless?

2008-10-25T02:46:16Z

Barnes: /* Yes */

Debate: Is it possible for God to be timeless?

2008-10-25T02:45:43Z

Barnes: /* Yes */

Debate: Is it possible for God to be timeless?

2008-10-24T13:30:10Z

Barnes: /* I don't know, and nor do you */

Debate: Is it possible for God to be timeless?

2008-10-24T13:27:31Z

Barnes: /* Yes */

Debate: Is it possible for God to be timeless?

2008-10-24T13:24:08Z

Barnes: /* I don't know, and nor do you */

Debate: Is it possible for God to be timeless?

2008-10-24T13:21:03Z

Barnes: /* Yes */

Debate: Is it possible for God to be timeless?

2008-10-24T13:18:34Z

Barnes: /* Yes */

Debate: Is it possible for God to be timeless?

2008-10-24T13:16:56Z

Barnes: /* I don't know, and nor do you */

Debate: Is it possible for God to be timeless?

2008-10-24T13:16:15Z

Barnes: /* I don't know, and nor do you */

Debate: Is it possible for God to be timeless?

2008-10-23T12:05:25Z

Barnes: New page: I have heard people in the other debate topics assert that God is the only logically possible cause of the universe, but is it possible for God to be entirely seperate to, yet completely r...

Conservapedia:Debate Topics

2008-10-23T12:00:31Z

Barnes: /* Philosophical debates */

'''Debate topic suggestions, organized so that it's not necessary to delete them.'''

(Note: If some topic is miscategorized, it can be cut and pasted without affecting the relevant links.)

==Philosophical debates==
# [[ Can conservapedia become the next wikipedia, is this good or bad]]
# [[Conservapedia:If there is no objective truth, then is the claim "there is no objective truth" also not an objective truth?|If there is no objective truth, then is the claim "there is no objective truth" also not an objective truth?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does History Matter?|Does History Matter?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is a first cause of a process necessary, always possible, or sometimes impossible?|Is a first cause of a process necessary, always possible, or sometimes impossible?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Can Objectivism develop beyond Ayn Rand's original formulation?|Can Objectivism develop beyond Ayn Rand's original formulation?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Can any man live without some code of morality?|Can any man live without some code of morality?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does the universe include everything, or does something outside the universe exist?|Does the known physical universe exhaust all that can exist, or does something exist beyond known physical boundaries?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Why is there something rather than nothing?|Why is there something rather than nothing?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Stem Cells| Embryonic Stem Cells: Why or why not?]]
# [[Debate:Why Reason?]]
# [[Debate:Why does the conservative media often an ugly undertone?]]
# [[Debate:Should pharmacists be forced to fill legal prescriptions they personally object to on moral grounds?]]
# [[Debate:What is the real love?]]
# [[Debate:who created God?]]
# [[Debate: Why have conservatives let themselves get a bad name?]]
# [[Debate: Resolved: It is morally permissible to kill one innocent person to save the lives of more innocent people.]]
# [[Debate: Is it possible for God to be timeless?]]

==Religious debates==
# [[Debate: Why do people believe the earth is less than 1000 years old given that there are recorded histories predating that?]]
# [[Debate: Should certain books be banned from libraries?]]
# [[Debate: Is communism founded on Christian doctrine?]]
# [[Should the first story of creation be read allegorically or literally?]]
# [[Debate:Is Scientology a false religion]]
# [[Why do Moses, Ezra, Jesus, and Paul all disagree on divorce? Moses allowed divorce, Jesus disallowed it and also allowed it, Paul allowed it, and Ezra actually commanded it to appease God (Ezra 10)??? im confused!! whats a christian to do??]]
#[[Did Jesus ever claim to be God?]]
# [[Conservapedia: Grave errors/inconsistencies in the Bible make literal translation worthless.]]
# [[Conservapedia:Was Jesus born in the right time and place?| Was Jesus born in the right time and place?]]
# [[Conservapedia : What does Christianity say about homosexuality?]]
# [[Conservapedia:If God does not exist, can anything be morally wrong?|If God does not exist, can anything be morally wrong?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is it wrong to have a Christmas tree?|Is it wrong to have a Christmas tree?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Did God create evil?|Did God create evil?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Which Christian denomination is the most true to the central teachings of Christianity?|Which Christian denomination is the most true to the central teachings of Christianity?]]
# [[Debate:If Jesus were alive to day, where on the political spectrum would he fall?|If Jesus were alive to day, where on the political spectrum would he fall?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should Religion Play a Large Role in Modern Societies?|Is religion relevant in todays society? / Should Religion Play a Large Role in Modern Societies?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does the Bible (Old and the New Testament) have the infallible words of God?|Bible (New and Old Testament) Words of God]]
# [[Conservapedia: AntiSemitism|AntiSemitism]]
# [[Does Intelligent Design deny the Existence of God?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Could God create a rock so heavy that he himself could not lift it?|Could God create a rock so heavy that he himself could not lift it?]]
# [[Conservapedia:If there were no religion, would we find another reason to kill each other?|If there were no religion, would we find another reason to kill each other?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Natural Disaster versus Act of God|Natural Disaster versus Act of God]]
# [[Conservapedia:What is the Sabbath day?|What is the Sabbath day?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is it possible to be a conservative and not a religious person or even an atheist?|Is it possible to be a conservative and not a religious person or even an atheist?]]
# [[Debate:Why do we still perform Baptisms?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does_the_Resurrection_negate_Gods_Sacrifice_of_his_only_son%3F|Does the Resurrection negate Gods Sacrifice of his only son?|Does the Resurrection negate God's Sacrifice of his only son?]]
# [[Conservapedia:If_most_Muslims_learned_their_religion_from_their_parents%2C_just_like_us_Christians%2C_they_will_probably_be_hard_to_convert._So_what_can_we_do_to_save_their_souls%3F|If most Muslims learned their religion from their parents, just like us Christians, they will probably be hard to convert. So what can we do to save their souls?]]
# [[Conservapedia:If_most_Christians_learned_their_religion_from_their_parents%2C_just_like_us_Muslims%2C_they_will_probably_be_hard_to_convert._So_what_can_we_do_to_save_their_souls%3F|If most Christians learned their religion from their parents, just like us Muslims, they will probably be hard to convert. So what can we do to save their souls?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does_mainstream_Islam_endorse_violence%3F|Does mainstream Islam endorse violence?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is religion morally wrong?|Is religion morally wrong?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does the Bible display poor ethics and morals?|Does the Bible display poor ethics and morals?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Why the Bible|What makes the Bible a reliable source of knowledge besides tradition?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Why should we be afraid of God?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Do conservative Christians have an unquestioning faith which is comparable to that of the Party in the book 1984?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Antisemitism]]
# [[Conservapedia:Are Christianity and the Bible superior to other religions and scriptures?]]
# [[Conservapedia: Is "Coercive Interrogation" consistent with Christian Values?]]
# [[Should all access to Conservapedia be banned on Sundays?]]
# [[Mary Magdalene - First Witness to the Resurrection - Significance?]]
# [[Debate:Was Christ a fundamentalist?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Atheism vs. Deism]]
# [[Atheism vs. Pastafarianism]]
# [[Why is homosexuality so bad?]]
# [[Debate:Are Young Earth Creationists detracting others from the Faith?]]
# [[If Noah only brought two of every animal on the ark, wouldn't subsequent generations of animals have become increasingly inbred?]]
# [[Debate:Is there 1 God or are there many gods?]]
# [[Debate: Can you be a true Christian and believe in evolution?]]
# [[Debate:Should gay marriage be allowed?]]
# [[Debate:Is atheism a religion]]
# [[Adoption and Abortion]]
# [[Debate: If not naturalism, how do we decide which supernatural explanation is correct?]]
# [[Debate: Are Catholics Christians?]]
# [[Debate: Do Atheist believe they have a soul?]]
# [[Debate:Were Judas' actions necessary and foreordained?]]
# [[Debate: Is it possible to voluntarily convert one's religion?]]
# [[Debate: Can Christianity exist without Apostles and Prophets?]]

==Historical debates==
# [[Conservapedia:Was Benjamin Franklin a deist?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Did racism play a role in the decision to drop atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?|Did racism play a role in the decision to drop atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Was the European colonization of the Americas good for the native people?]]
# [[Was President George H. W. Bush wrong to leave Saddam in power in 1991?]]
# [[Conservapedia: Which was worse? the Civil War and it's effects or slavery?]]
# [[Why are most actors turned politicians Republicans?]]
# [[Debate: Did the Founding Fathers intend to apply their personal faith to the nation "As an institution"?]]

==Political debates==
# [[Debate: Did the Founders have a religious motive?]]
# [[Debate: To what extent should we have obscenity laws]]
# [[Debate: Is communism founded on Christian doctrine?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Why do we still have an embargo on Cuba?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Has Britain Declined?| Quoting Conservapedia's front page; "The British government just affirmed its ban on mentioning Intelligent Design to students.[3] No one there seems to notice how Britain's decline coincided with its promotion of evolution frauds like the Piltdown Man." - Has Britain REALLY declined?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is illegal immigration control the answer to illegal immigration?|Is illegal immigration control the answer to illegal immigration?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Has Britain become the 51st State of the US?|Has Britain become the 51st State of the US?]]
# [[Conservapedia:You think these Phd's are nuts?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does the European Union pose a threat to the United States?| Does the European Union pose a threat to United States Security?]]
# [[Which is true; progressive Liberal or regressive liberal]]
# [[Define torture]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should the United States have entered World War I?|Should the United States have entered World War I?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should the United States have entered World War II?|Should the United States have entered World War II?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should the United States have eliminated communism in North Korea|Should the United States have eliminated communism in North Korea as General Douglas MacArthur wanted?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Was the United States right to drop atomic bombs so quickly on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?|Was the United States right to drop atomic bombs so quickly on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Was it wrong for him to allow the attack in order to wake up the American public and motivate Americans to fight and win the war?|If President Roosevelt had known about the Pearl Harbor attack in advance, would it have been wrong for him to allow the attack in order to wake up the American public and motivate Americans to fight and win the war?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is gun-control the answer to crimes involving guns?|Is gun-control the answer to crimes involving guns?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Was world war inevitable?|Was world war inevitable?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does "free trade" increase wealth rather than simply redistribute it?|Does "free trade" increase wealth or simply redistribute it?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is it even possible to install democracy in a Muslim country?|Is it even possible to install democracy in a Muslim country?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is democracy even possible in Iraq?|Is democracy even possible in Iraq?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should we have given the Panama Canal back to Panama?|Should we have given the Panama Canal back to Panama?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should the United States leave the United Nations?|Should the United States leave the United Nations?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Crusades... Good or Bad?|Crusades... Good or Bad?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Was American soldier Michael New right to refuse to fight wearing part of a United Nations uniform?|Was American soldier Michael New right to refuse to fight wearing part of a United Nations uniform?]] See [[Michael New]]
# [[Conservapedia:Which is a more powerful ideology, Islam or communism?|Which is a more powerful ideology, Islam or Communism?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should the United States intervene in small countries to defeat communism there?|Should the United States intervene in small countries to defeat communism there?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should public displays of the 10 Commandments be allowed under the constitution?|Should public displays of the 10 Commandments be allowed under the constitution?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Which has the best philosophy of education: the public school system, private schools, or the home school movement?|Which has the best philosophy of education: the public school system, private schools, or the home school movement?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should people genetically engineer a cure for homosexuality?|Should people genetically engineer a cure for homosexuality?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should Bush pardon Scooter Libby?|Should Bush pardon Scooter Libby?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should We Support Democrats For Life.org?|Should We Support Democrats For Life.org?]]
# [[conservapedia:Women in the Military?|Women in the Military?]]
# [[Conservapedia: Should students learn a foreign language?|Should students learn a foreign language?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Why does the right side of the political spectrum tend to be more religous?|Why does the right side of the political spectrum tend to be more religious?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should there be a consistent standard on human rights applied to left and right?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should American companies be allowed to send their own troops into a war which America is participating in?|Should American companies be allowed to send their own troops into a war which America is participating in?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Giuliani's lack of social conservative viewpoints should not stop you from voting for him.|Giuliani's lack of social conservative viewpoints should not stop you from voting for him.]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is_President_Bush_good_for_America?|Is President Bush good for America?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is_the_Iraq_War_a_success%3F|Is the Iraq War a success?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does_single_sex_schooling_promotes_homesexuality%3F|Does Single sex schooling promotes homosexuality?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is_the_murder_of_3%2C000_people_just_a_few_or_is_it_a_lot%3F_Does_it_make_a_difference_if_the_murdered_people_are_Americans%3F|Is the murder of 3,000 people just a few or is it a lot? Does it make a difference if the murdered people are Americans?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does the media really have a liberal bias?|Does the media really have a liberal bias?]]
# [[Who was the last Democrat to quit due to ethics and what year was it? Is it fair for Republicans to due the same?]]
# [[What kind of leader will Democrats make if they run from debates on Fox?]]
# [[Are the Democrats capable of fighting terrorism?]]
# [[Can a rogue nation be thought of as a sovereign nation?]]
# [[ Has Russia reinstalled stealth communism?]]
# [[Do we all know what Democrat Presidential candidates stand for yet?]]
# [[Define Civil War]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should gun sales to terror suspects be allowed?|Should gun sales to terror suspects be allowed?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Who would you support for President in 2008?|Who would you support for President in 2008?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is Darwinism liberal or is it conservative?|Is Darwinism liberal or is it conservative?]]
# [[Debate:Why did God place most of the world's oil in politically unstable places?|Why did God place most of the world's oil in politically unstable places?]]
# [[Restoring the USA image in the world, just a fancy phrase that means zilch?]]
# [[Placing the blame on how America got polarized]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is most government criticism really patriotic?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is environmentalism mostly about preserving natural resources?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is the conservative stance on illegal immigration going to loose the Hispanic vote for the GOP in the 08' election?]]
# [[Should President Bush Condemn Armenian Genocide? ]] ''New as of October 10, 2007''
# [[Third Party Debate]]
# [[Debate:Who kills more innocent people: religious believers or atheists?]]
# [[Was congress right to override president Bush's veto on the water projects bill?]]
# [[Debate:Preferred Democrat for the White House?]]
# [[Does Republican equal conservative? Does Democrat equal liberal?]]
# [[Obama's preacher.]]
# [[Is president Bush ignoring human rights violations in China?]]
# [[Debate:Should the United States begin Colonizing Space?]]
# [[Debate:Should the federal government have the power to define marriage?|Should the federal government have the power to define marriage?]]
# [[Debate:The Declaration of Independence or Interdependence?]]
# [[Debate:Should the U.S.A. abide by a withdrawal timetable if the Iraqi Parliament votes for one?]]
# [[Debate:Should U.S. troops be subject to Iraqi law if that allows our continued presence there?]]
# [[Debate:Should government restrictions on smoking be tightened or rolled back?]]
# [[Debate:If Obama trails McCain in polling before the Democratic convention, will they choose Hillary instead?]]
# [[Debate:Is Sarah Palin an asset or a liability to John McCain's candidacy?]]
# [[Debate:Is a candidate's military record relevant anymore?]]
# [[Should politicians be allowed to misspeak?]]
# [[What is sufficient proof that Obama is a Muslim?]]
# [[Debate:Was McCain's threat to pull out of the debates a political stunt?]]

==Scientific debates==
# [[Conservapedia:Why haven't intelligent designists published a single scientific article?|If intelligent design is just as valid as evolution, where are all their scientific findings and publishings?]]

# [[Conservapedia:Does Darwinian natural selection suggest that bigotry is a necessary self-defense mechanism?|Does Darwinian natural selection suggest that bigotry is a necessary self-defense mechanism?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does Darwinian natural selection suggest that homosexuality is bad for the survival of a species?|Does Darwinian natural selection suggest that homosexuality is bad for the survival of a species?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is Darwinian natural selection compatible with Marxism?|Is Darwinian natural selection compatible with Marxism?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is the theory of macroevolution true?|Is the theory of macroevolution true?]]
# [[Conservapedia: Is Giving Birth the Bible Way Better?| Is Giving Birth the Bible Way Better?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should Creationism/Intelligent design be taught as a scientific alternative to evolution in public schools?|Should Creationism/Intelligent design be taught as a scientific alternative to evolution in public schools?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is global warming evident, and if so, is this the fault of man, and how must man stop it?|Is global warming evident, and if so, is this the fault of man, and how must man stop it?]]
# [[Conservapedia:If the universe is young and it takes light millions of years to reach us from far off stars, how can we see them?|If the universe is young and it takes light millions of years to reach us from far off stars, how can we see them?]]
# [[Conservapedia:God, Earth and Global Warming|God, Earth and Global Warming]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is the evidence in favor of evolution convincing?|Is the evidence in favor of evolution convincing?]]
# [[Conservapedia:If the Bible didn't contain a creation story, would anyone even consider the idea of a young earth?|If the Bible didn't contain a creation story, would anyone even consider the idea of a young earth?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is Relativity in direct conflict with the Genesis account?|Is Relativity in direct conflict with the Genesis account?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Who feels that scientific related articles should only reference published research papers instead of websites when dealing with research instead of application?|Who feels that scientific related articles should only reference published research papers instead of websites when dealing with research instead of application?]]
# [[Conservapedia: If it could be unambiguously demonstrated that man is NOT the most evolved animal, then would this support or refute ther idea of Creation by God?| If it could be unambiguously demonstrated that man is NOT the most evolved animal]]
# [[Why are God's works always questioned?]]
#[[Conservapedia:Are there any elements of choice, when it comes to carrying out homosexual acts?|Are there any elements of choice]]
# [[Listing the Earth's most pressing needs in urgent order of fixing]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is homosexuality a mental illness?|Is homosexuality a mental illness?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Can the science of evolution be separated from the philosophy of it?|Can the science of evolution be separated from the philosophy of it?]]

==Debates about Conservapedia==
# [[Conservapedia:Is Conservapedia representing a conservative POV or a Young Earth Creationist POV?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is Conservapedia anti-British?|Is Conservapedia anti-British?]]
# [[The liberal quotient of Conservapedia; what is it? Does it matter?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does bias impair Wikipedia's reliability?|Does bias impair Wikipedia's reliability?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should the term list entries be included in Conservapedia's entry count?|Should the term list entries be included in Conservapedia's entry count?]]
# [[Conservapedia:How should Conservapedia work to avoid having a conservative bias?|How should Conservapedia work to avoid having a conservative bias?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Can Conservapedia Succeed?|Can Conservapedia Succeed?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is Conservapedia fair and balanced?|Is Conservapedia fair and balanced?]]
# [[Conservapedia:How can we protect Conservapedia by distinguishing real conservative encyclopedia articles from satires written by liberals?|How can we protect Conservapedia by distinguishing real conservative encyclopedia articles from satires written by liberals?]]
# [[Conservapedia:What exactly is Conservapedia?|What exactly is Conservapedia?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Was the media attention needed?|Was the media attention needed?]]
# [[Conservapedia Debate Topics full of far left liberal netroots]]
# [[Which is true; progressive Liberal or regressive liberal]]
# [[Conservapedia:Where do you personally look for facts and information on topics "When did Brahms live" or "Why did Monet paint grainstacks?"]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is it okay for Conservapedia to have biased articles?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Who deletes entire discussion items from here? And why?]]
# [[Why do users, who contribute substantially, choose to leave this community?]]
# [[Is the use of copyrighted photographs without permission stealing?]]
# [[Conservapedia: Are there too many debates on Conservapedia? | Are there too many debates on Conservapedia?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is it tasteless for Conservapedia to critique the Virginia Tech poem on the Main Page?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Has anyone ever been been banned for pointing out that many of the other entries on this site are in need of citation and evidence to back up statements?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does an encyclopedia define complex subjects, or insert more bias into them?]]
# [[Conservapedia: Do sysops block editing on pages when it seems their opponents are making strong points?]]
# [[Conservapedia: Is Conservapedia a 'Trustworthy Encyclopedia'?]]
# [[Conservapedia: Does altering the record of debate in a wiki 'Encyclopedia' render the entire thing a farce?]]
# [[Democrats next move, link more stories of heartache like those from Kansas to Gulf Coast.]]
# [[Do quotes used to support a theory just make an article look stupid?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is Conservapedia blinkered?|Is Conservapedia blinkered?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does Conservapedia censor opponents the way Expelled says ID advocates are censored?]]
# [[Debate:Is the Conservapedia Logo in violation of US Flag Code?]]
# [[Conservapedia:The 90/10 rule exists soley to squash debate, and should be eliminated]]
# [[Debate: should atheists be barred from Conservapedia?]]
# [[Conservapedia: Conservapedia as a snapshot of the election to come]]
# [[Conservapedia: What will Conservapedia be like if Barack Obama wins the election?]]

==Funny, maybe?==

# [[Conservapedia:Are cats just useless Dogs|Are cats just useless dogs?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is the Platypus evidence that God has a sense of humour?|Is the Platypus evidence that God has a sense of humour?]]
# [[Conservapedia: Was the shooting at Virginia Tech somehow President Bush's fault?|Was the shooting at Virginia Tech somehow President Bush's fault? (kind of like he caused hurricane Katrina)]]
# [[Are video games getting better or worse as graphics, sound, and gameplay complexity improve?]]
# [[Debate:Favorite old time radio show]]
# [[Does Harry Potter promote Satanic witchcraft?]]

==Other==
# [[Conservapedia:Are alcohol, marijuana, and nicotine gateway drugs?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is Rap music torture?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should marijuana be legalized?]]
# [[Debate:What are the lessons that we should take away from the Milgram Experiment]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does the Theory of Evolution promote atheism?]]
# [[Discussion:Colorado Mall Shootings]]
# [[Discussion:Creationist]]
# [[Debate:Is the Theory of Evolution a conspiricy?]]
# [[Debate:How should we view the fact leading scientists do not believe in god?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does modern music negatively influence children]]
# [[Discussion:Propaganda in childrens' television]]
[[Category:Conservapedia]]
#[[Debate:What Is Music?]]

Conservapedia:Debate Topics

2008-05-09T11:13:36Z

Barnes: /* Political debates */

'''Debate topic suggestions, organized so that it's not necessary to delete them.'''

(Note: If some topic is miscategorized, it can be cut and pasted without affecting the relevant links.)

==Philosophical debates==
# [[ Can conservapedia become the next wikipedia, is this good or bad]]
# [[Conservapedia:If there is no objective truth, then is the claim "there is no objective truth" also not an objective truth?|If there is no objective truth, then is the claim "there is no objective truth" also not an objective truth?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does History Matter?|Does History Matter?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is a first cause of a process necessary, always possible, or sometimes impossible?|Is a first cause of a process necessary, always possible, or sometimes impossible?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Can Objectivism develop beyond Ayn Rand's original formulation?|Can Objectivism develop beyond Ayn Rand's original formulation?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Can any man live without some code of morality?|Can any man live without some code of morality?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does the universe include everything, or does something outside the universe exist?|Does the known physical universe exhaust all that can exist, or does something exist beyond known physical boundaries?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Why is there something rather than nothing?|Why is there something rather than nothing?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Stem Cells| Embryonic Stem Cells: Why or why not?]]
# [[Debate:Why Reason?]]
# [[Debate:Why does the conservative media often an ugly undertone?]]

==Religious debates==
# [[Debate: Should certain books be banned from libraries?]]
# [[Debate: Is communism founded on Christian doctrine?]]
# [[Should the first story of creation be read allegorically or literally?]]
# [[Debate:Is Scientology a false religion]]
# [[Why do Moses, Ezra, Jesus, and Paul all disagree on divorce? Moses allowed divorce, Jesus disallowed it and also allowed it, Paul allowed it, and Ezra actually commanded it to appease God (Ezra 10)??? im confused!! whats a christian to do??]]
#[[Did Jesus ever claim to be God?]]
# [[Conservapedia: Grave errors/inconsistencies in the Bible make literal translation worthless.]]
# [[Conservapedia:Was Jesus born in the right time and place?| Was Jesus born in the right time and place?]]
# [[Conservapedia : What does Christianity say about homosexuality?]]
# [[Conservapedia:If God does not exist, can anything be morally wrong?|If God does not exist, can anything be morally wrong?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is it wrong to have a Christmas tree?|Is it wrong to have a Christmas tree?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Did God create evil?|Did God create evil?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Which Christian denomination is the most true to the central teachings of Christianity?|Which Christian denomination is the most true to the central teachings of Christianity?]]
# [[Debate:If Jesus were alive to day, where on the political spectrum would he fall?|If Jesus were alive to day, where on the political spectrum would he fall?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should Religion Play a Large Role in Modern Societies?|Is religion relevant in todays society? / Should Religion Play a Large Role in Modern Societies?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does the Bible (Old and the New Testament) have the infallible words of God?|Bible (New and Old Testament) Words of God]]
# [[Conservapedia: AntiSemitism|AntiSemitism]]
# [[Does Intelligent Design deny the Existence of God?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Could God create a rock so heavy that he himself could not lift it?|Could God create a rock so heavy that he himself could not lift it?]]
# [[Conservapedia:If there were no religion, would we find another reason to kill each other?|If there were no religion, would we find another reason to kill each other?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Natural Disaster versus Act of God|Natural Disaster versus Act of God]]
# [[Conservapedia:What is the Sabbath day?|What is the Sabbath day?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is it possible to be a conservative and not a religious person or even an atheist?|Is it possible to be a conservative and not a religious person or even an atheist?]]
# [[Debate:Why do we still perform Baptisms?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does_the_Resurrection_negate_Gods_Sacrifice_of_his_only_son%3F|Does the Resurrection negate Gods Sacrifice of his only son?|Does the Resurrection negate God's Sacrifice of his only son?]]
# [[Conservapedia:If_most_Muslims_learned_their_religion_from_their_parents%2C_just_like_us_Christians%2C_they_will_probably_be_hard_to_convert._So_what_can_we_do_to_save_their_souls%3F|If most Muslims learned their religion from their parents, just like us Christians, they will probably be hard to convert. So what can we do to save their souls?]]
# [[Conservapedia:If_most_Christians_learned_their_religion_from_their_parents%2C_just_like_us_Muslims%2C_they_will_probably_be_hard_to_convert._So_what_can_we_do_to_save_their_souls%3F|If most Christians learned their religion from their parents, just like us Muslims, they will probably be hard to convert. So what can we do to save their souls?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does_mainstream_Islam_endorse_violence%3F|Does mainstream Islam endorse violence?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is religion morally wrong?|Is religion morally wrong?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does the Bible display poor ethics and morals?|Does the Bible display poor ethics and morals?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Why the Bible|What makes the Bible a reliable source of knowledge besides tradition?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Why should we be afraid of God?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Do conservative Christians have an unquestioning faith which is comparable to that of the Party in the book 1984?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Antisemitism]]
# [[Conservapedia:Are Christianity and the Bible superior to other religions and scriptures?]]
# [[Conservapedia: Is "Coercive Interrogation" consistent with Christian Values?]]
# [[Should all access to Conservapedia be banned on Sundays?]]
# [[Either God is indecisive or the world's major religions have ALL got it wrong]]
# [[Mary Magdalene - First Witness to the Resurrection - Significance?]]
# [[Debate:Was Christ a fundamentalist?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Atheism vs. Deism]]
# [[Atheism vs. Pastafarianism]]
# [[Why is homosexuality so bad?]]
# [[Debate:Are Young Earth Creationists detracting others from the Faith?]]
# [[If Noah only brought two of every animal on the ark, wouldn't subsequent generations of animals have become increasingly inbred?]]
# [[Debate:Is there 1 God or are there many gods?]]
# [[Debate: Can you be a true Christian and believe in evolution?]]
# [[Debate:Should gay marriage be allowed?]]
# [[Debate:Is atheism a religion]]

==Historical debates==
# [[Conservapedia:Was Benjamin Franklin a deist?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Did racism play a role in the decision to drop atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?|Did racism play a role in the decision to drop atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Was the European colonization of the Americas good for the native people?]]
# [[Was President George H. W. Bush wrong to leave Saddam in power in 1991?]]
# [[Conservapedia: Which was worse? the Civil War and it's effects or slavery?]]

==Political debates==
# [[Debate: Is communism founded on Christian doctrine?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Why do we still have an embargo on Cuba?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Has Britain Declined?| Quoting Conservapedia's front page; "The British government just affirmed its ban on mentioning Intelligent Design to students.[3] No one there seems to notice how Britain's decline coincided with its promotion of evolution frauds like the Piltdown Man." - Has Britain REALLY declined?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is illegal immigration control the answer to illegal immigration?|Is illegal immigration control the answer to illegal immigration?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Has Britain become the 51st State of the US?|Has Britain become the 51st State of the US?]]
# [[Conservapedia:You think these Phd's are nuts?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does the European Union pose a threat to the United States?| Does the European Union pose a threat to United States Security?]]
# [[Which is true; progressive Liberal or regressive liberal]]
# [[Define torture]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should the United States have entered World War I?|Should the United States have entered World War I?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should the United States have entered World War II?|Should the United States have entered World War II?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should the United States have eliminated communism in North Korea|Should the United States have eliminated communism in North Korea as General Douglas MacArthur wanted?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Was the United States right to drop atomic bombs so quickly on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?|Was the United States right to drop atomic bombs so quickly on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Was it wrong for him to allow the attack in order to wake up the American public and motivate Americans to fight and win the war?|If President Roosevelt had known about the Pearl Harbor attack in advance, would it have been wrong for him to allow the attack in order to wake up the American public and motivate Americans to fight and win the war?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is gun-control the answer to crimes involving guns?|Is gun-control the answer to crimes involving guns?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Was world war inevitable?|Was world war inevitable?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does "free trade" increase wealth rather than simply redistribute it?|Does "free trade" increase wealth or simply redistribute it?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is it even possible to install democracy in a Muslim country?|Is it even possible to install democracy in a Muslim country?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is democracy even possible in Iraq?|Is democracy even possible in Iraq?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should we have given the Panama Canal back to Panama?|Should we have given the Panama Canal back to Panama?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should the United States leave the United Nations?|Should the United States leave the United Nations?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Crusades... Good or Bad?|Crusades... Good or Bad?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Was American soldier Michael New right to refuse to fight wearing part of a United Nations uniform?|Was American soldier Michael New right to refuse to fight wearing part of a United Nations uniform?]] See [[Michael New]]
# [[Conservapedia:Which is a more powerful ideology, Islam or communism?|Which is a more powerful ideology, Islam or Communism?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should the United States intervene in small countries to defeat communism there?|Should the United States intervene in small countries to defeat communism there?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should public displays of the 10 Commandments be allowed under the constitution?|Should public displays of the 10 Commandments be allowed under the constitution?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Which has the best philosophy of education: the public school system, private schools, or the home school movement?|Which has the best philosophy of education: the public school system, private schools, or the home school movement?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should people genetically engineer a cure for homosexuality?|Should people genetically engineer a cure for homosexuality?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should Bush pardon Scooter Libby?|Should Bush pardon Scooter Libby?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should We Support Democrats For Life.org?|Should We Support Democrats For Life.org?]]
# [[conservapedia:Women in the Military?|Women in the Military?]]
# [[Conservapedia: Should students learn a foreign language?|Should students learn a foreign language?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Why does the right side of the political spectrum tend to be more religous?|Why does the right side of the political spectrum tend to be more religious?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should there be a consistent standard on human rights applied to left and right?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should American companies be allowed to send their own troops into a war which America is participating in?|Should American companies be allowed to send their own troops into a war which America is participating in?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Giuliani's lack of social conservative viewpoints should not stop you from voting for him.|Giuliani's lack of social conservative viewpoints should not stop you from voting for him.]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is_President_Bush_good_for_America?|Is President Bush good for America?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is_the_Iraq_War_a_success%3F|Is the Iraq War a success?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does_single_sex_schooling_promotes_homesexuality%3F|Does Single sex schooling promotes homosexuality?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is_the_murder_of_3%2C000_people_just_a_few_or_is_it_a_lot%3F_Does_it_make_a_difference_if_the_murdered_people_are_Americans%3F|Is the murder of 3,000 people just a few or is it a lot? Does it make a difference if the murdered people are Americans?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does the media really have a liberal bias?|Does the media really have a liberal bias?]]
# [[Who was the last Democrat to quit due to ethics and what year was it? Is it fair for Republicans to due the same?]]
# [[What kind of leader will Democrats make if they run from debates on Fox?]]
# [[Are the Democrats capable of fighting terrorism?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Porn or guns?|Does porn actually cause (not merely correlate to) violence?]]
# [[Can a rogue nation be thought of as a sovereign nation?]]
# [[ Has Russia reinstalled stealth communism?]]
# [[Do we all know what Democrat Presidential candidates stand for yet?]]
# [[Define Civil War]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should gun sales to terror suspects be allowed?|Should gun sales to terror suspects be allowed?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Who would you support for President in 2008?|Who would you support for President in 2008?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is Darwinism liberal or is it conservative?|Is Darwinism liberal or is it conservative?]]
# [[Debate:Why did God place most of the world's oil in politically unstable places?|Why did God place most of the world's oil in politically unstable places?]]
# [[Restoring the USA image in the world, just a fancy phrase that means zilch?]]
# [[Placing the blame on how America got polarized]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is most government criticism really patriotic?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is environmentalism mostly about preserving natural resources?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is the conservative stance on illegal immigration going to loose the Hispanic vote for the GOP in the 08' election?]]
# [[Should President Bush Condemn Armenian Genocide? ]] ''New as of October 10, 2007''
# [[Third Party Debate]]
# [[Debate:Who kills more innocent people: religious believers or atheists?]]
# [[Was congress right to override president Bush's veto on the water projects bill?]]
# [[Is opening the borders the solution to the social security crisis?]]
# [[Debate:Preferred Democrat for the White House?]]
# [[Does Republican equal conservative? Does Democrat equal liberal?]]
# [[Obama's preacher.]]
# [[Is president Bush ignoring human rights violations in China?]]
# [[Debate:Should the United States begin Colonizing Space?]]
# [[Debate:Should the federal government have the power to define marriage?|Should the federal government have the power to define marriage?]]

==Scientific debates==
# [[Conservapedia:Why haven't intelligent designists published a single scientific article?|If intelligent design is just as valid as evolution, where are all their scientific findings and publishings?]]

# [[Conservapedia:Does Darwinian natural selection suggest that bigotry is a necessary self-defense mechanism?|Does Darwinian natural selection suggest that bigotry is a necessary self-defense mechanism?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does Darwinian natural selection suggest that homosexuality is bad for the survival of a species?|Does Darwinian natural selection suggest that homosexuality is bad for the survival of a species?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is Darwinian natural selection compatible with Marxism?|Is Darwinian natural selection compatible with Marxism?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is the theory of macroevolution true?|Is the theory of macroevolution true?]]
# [[Conservapedia: Is Giving Birth the Bible Way Better?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should Creationism/Intelligent design be taught as a scientific alternative to evolution in public schools?|Should Creationism/Intelligent design be taught as a scientific alternative to evolution in public schools?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is global warming evident, and if so, is this the fault of man, and how must man stop it?|Is global warming evident, and if so, is this the fault of man, and how must man stop it?]]
# [[Conservapedia:If the universe is young and it takes light millions of years to reach us from far off stars, how can we see them?|If the universe is young and it takes light millions of years to reach us from far off stars, how can we see them?]]
# [[Conservapedia:God, Earth and Global Warming|God, Earth and Global Warming]]
# [[Conservapedia:Why is the evidence in favor of evolution so darn convincing?]]
# [[Conservapedia:If the Bible didn't contain a creation story, would anyone even consider the idea of a young earth?|If the Bible didn't contain a creation story, would anyone even consider the idea of a young earth?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is Relativity in direct conflict with the Genesis account?|Is Relativity in direct conflict with the Genesis account?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Who feels that scientific related articles should only reference published research papers instead of websites when dealing with research instead of application?]]
# [[Conservapedia: If it could be unambiguously demonstrated that man is NOT the most evolved animal, then would this support or refute ther idea of Creation by God?]]
# [[Why are God's works always questioned?]]
#[[Conservapedia:Are there any elements of choice, when it comes to carrying out homosexual acts?]]
# [[Listing the Earth's most pressing needs in urgent order of fixing]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is homosexuality a mental illness?]]

==Debates about Conservapedia==
# [[Conservapedia:Is Conservapedia representing a conservative POV or a Young Earth Creationist POV?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is Conservapedia anti-British?|Is Conservapedia anti-British?]]
# [[The liberal quotient of Conservapedia; what is it? Does it matter?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does bias impair Wikipedia's reliability?|Does bias impair Wikipedia's reliability?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should the term list entries be included in Conservapedia's entry count?|Should the term list entries be included in Conservapedia's entry count?]]
# [[Conservapedia:How should Conservapedia work to avoid having a conservative bias?|How should Conservapedia work to avoid having a conservative bias?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Can Conservapedia Succeed?|Can Conservapedia Succeed?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is Conservapedia fair and balanced?|Is Conservapedia fair and balanced?]]
# [[Conservapedia:How can we protect Conservapedia by distinguishing real conservative encyclopedia articles from satires written by liberals?|How can we protect Conservapedia by distinguishing real conservative encyclopedia articles from satires written by liberals?]]
# [[Conservapedia:What exactly is Conservapedia?|What exactly is Conservapedia?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Was the media attention needed?|Was the media attention needed?]]
# [[Conservapedia Debate Topics full of far left liberal netroots]]
# [[Which is true; progressive Liberal or regressive liberal]]
# [[Conservapedia:Where do you personally look for facts and information on topics "When did Brahms live" or "Why did Monet paint grainstacks?"]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is it okay for Conservapedia to have biased articles?]]
# [[Conservapedia:On whether certain articles on human anatomy should be pre-emptively blanked and protected]]
# [[Conservapedia:Who deletes entire discussion items from here? And why?]]
# [[Why do users, who contribute substantially, choose to leave this community?]]
# [[Why do the creators of Conservapedia see Wikipedia as un-American?]]
# [[Is the use of copyrighted photographs without permission stealing?]]
# [[Conservapedia: Are there too many debates on Conservapedia? | Are there too many debates on Conservapedia?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is it tasteless for Conservapedia to critique the Virginia Tech poem on the Main Page?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Has anyone ever been been banned for pointing out that many of the other entries on this site are in need of citation and evidence to back up statements?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does an encyclopedia define complex subjects, or insert more bias into them?]]
# [[Conservapedia: Do sysops block editing on pages when it seems their opponents are making strong points?]]
# [[Conservapedia: Is Conservapedia a 'Trustworthy Encyclopedia'?]]
# [[Conservapedia: Does altering the record of debate in a wiki 'Encyclopedia' render the entire thing a farce?]]
# [[Democrats next move, link more stories of heartache like those from Kansas to Gulf Coast.]]
# [[Do quotes used to support a theory just make an article look stupid?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is Conservapedia blinkered?|Is Conservapedia blinkered?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does Conservapedia censor opponents the way Expelled says ID advocates are censored?]]
# [[Debate:Is the Conservapedia Logo in violation of US Flag Code?]]

==Funny, maybe?==

# [[Conservapedia:Are cats just useless Dogs|Are cats just useless dogs?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is the Platypus evidence that God has a sense of humour?|Is the Platypus evidence that God has a sense of humour?]]
# [[Conservapedia: Was the shooting at Virginia Tech somehow President Bush's fault?|Was the shooting at Virginia Tech somehow President Bush's fault? (kind of like he caused hurricane Katrina)]]
# [[Are video games getting better or worse as graphics, sound, and gameplay complexity improve?]]
# [[Debate:Favorite old time radio show]]

==Other==
# [[Conservapedia:Are alcohol, marijuana, and nicotine gateway drugs?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is Rap music torture?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should weed be legalized?]]
# [[Debate:What are the lessons that we should take away from the Milgram Experiment]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does the Theory of Evolution promote atheism?]]
# [[Discussion:Colorado Mall Shootings]]
# [[Discussion:Creationist]]
# [[Debate:Is the Theory of Evolution a conspiricy?]]
# [[Debate:How should we view the fact leading scientists do not believe in god?]]

[[Category:Conservapedia]]

Conservapedia:Debate Topics

2008-05-09T11:11:24Z

Barnes: /* Political debates */

'''Debate topic suggestions, organized so that it's not necessary to delete them.'''

(Note: If some topic is miscategorized, it can be cut and pasted without affecting the relevant links.)

==Philosophical debates==
# [[ Can conservapedia become the next wikipedia, is this good or bad]]
# [[Conservapedia:If there is no objective truth, then is the claim "there is no objective truth" also not an objective truth?|If there is no objective truth, then is the claim "there is no objective truth" also not an objective truth?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does History Matter?|Does History Matter?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is a first cause of a process necessary, always possible, or sometimes impossible?|Is a first cause of a process necessary, always possible, or sometimes impossible?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Can Objectivism develop beyond Ayn Rand's original formulation?|Can Objectivism develop beyond Ayn Rand's original formulation?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Can any man live without some code of morality?|Can any man live without some code of morality?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does the universe include everything, or does something outside the universe exist?|Does the known physical universe exhaust all that can exist, or does something exist beyond known physical boundaries?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Why is there something rather than nothing?|Why is there something rather than nothing?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Stem Cells| Embryonic Stem Cells: Why or why not?]]
# [[Debate:Why Reason?]]
# [[Debate:Why does the conservative media often an ugly undertone?]]

==Religious debates==
# [[Debate: Should certain books be banned from libraries?]]
# [[Debate: Is communism founded on Christian doctrine?]]
# [[Should the first story of creation be read allegorically or literally?]]
# [[Debate:Is Scientology a false religion]]
# [[Why do Moses, Ezra, Jesus, and Paul all disagree on divorce? Moses allowed divorce, Jesus disallowed it and also allowed it, Paul allowed it, and Ezra actually commanded it to appease God (Ezra 10)??? im confused!! whats a christian to do??]]
#[[Did Jesus ever claim to be God?]]
# [[Conservapedia: Grave errors/inconsistencies in the Bible make literal translation worthless.]]
# [[Conservapedia:Was Jesus born in the right time and place?| Was Jesus born in the right time and place?]]
# [[Conservapedia : What does Christianity say about homosexuality?]]
# [[Conservapedia:If God does not exist, can anything be morally wrong?|If God does not exist, can anything be morally wrong?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is it wrong to have a Christmas tree?|Is it wrong to have a Christmas tree?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Did God create evil?|Did God create evil?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Which Christian denomination is the most true to the central teachings of Christianity?|Which Christian denomination is the most true to the central teachings of Christianity?]]
# [[Debate:If Jesus were alive to day, where on the political spectrum would he fall?|If Jesus were alive to day, where on the political spectrum would he fall?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should Religion Play a Large Role in Modern Societies?|Is religion relevant in todays society? / Should Religion Play a Large Role in Modern Societies?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does the Bible (Old and the New Testament) have the infallible words of God?|Bible (New and Old Testament) Words of God]]
# [[Conservapedia: AntiSemitism|AntiSemitism]]
# [[Does Intelligent Design deny the Existence of God?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Could God create a rock so heavy that he himself could not lift it?|Could God create a rock so heavy that he himself could not lift it?]]
# [[Conservapedia:If there were no religion, would we find another reason to kill each other?|If there were no religion, would we find another reason to kill each other?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Natural Disaster versus Act of God|Natural Disaster versus Act of God]]
# [[Conservapedia:What is the Sabbath day?|What is the Sabbath day?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is it possible to be a conservative and not a religious person or even an atheist?|Is it possible to be a conservative and not a religious person or even an atheist?]]
# [[Debate:Why do we still perform Baptisms?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does_the_Resurrection_negate_Gods_Sacrifice_of_his_only_son%3F|Does the Resurrection negate Gods Sacrifice of his only son?|Does the Resurrection negate God's Sacrifice of his only son?]]
# [[Conservapedia:If_most_Muslims_learned_their_religion_from_their_parents%2C_just_like_us_Christians%2C_they_will_probably_be_hard_to_convert._So_what_can_we_do_to_save_their_souls%3F|If most Muslims learned their religion from their parents, just like us Christians, they will probably be hard to convert. So what can we do to save their souls?]]
# [[Conservapedia:If_most_Christians_learned_their_religion_from_their_parents%2C_just_like_us_Muslims%2C_they_will_probably_be_hard_to_convert._So_what_can_we_do_to_save_their_souls%3F|If most Christians learned their religion from their parents, just like us Muslims, they will probably be hard to convert. So what can we do to save their souls?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does_mainstream_Islam_endorse_violence%3F|Does mainstream Islam endorse violence?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is religion morally wrong?|Is religion morally wrong?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does the Bible display poor ethics and morals?|Does the Bible display poor ethics and morals?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Why the Bible|What makes the Bible a reliable source of knowledge besides tradition?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Why should we be afraid of God?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Do conservative Christians have an unquestioning faith which is comparable to that of the Party in the book 1984?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Antisemitism]]
# [[Conservapedia:Are Christianity and the Bible superior to other religions and scriptures?]]
# [[Conservapedia: Is "Coercive Interrogation" consistent with Christian Values?]]
# [[Should all access to Conservapedia be banned on Sundays?]]
# [[Either God is indecisive or the world's major religions have ALL got it wrong]]
# [[Mary Magdalene - First Witness to the Resurrection - Significance?]]
# [[Debate:Was Christ a fundamentalist?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Atheism vs. Deism]]
# [[Atheism vs. Pastafarianism]]
# [[Why is homosexuality so bad?]]
# [[Debate:Are Young Earth Creationists detracting others from the Faith?]]
# [[If Noah only brought two of every animal on the ark, wouldn't subsequent generations of animals have become increasingly inbred?]]
# [[Debate:Is there 1 God or are there many gods?]]
# [[Debate: Can you be a true Christian and believe in evolution?]]
# [[Debate:Should gay marriage be allowed?]]
# [[Debate:Is atheism a religion]]

==Historical debates==
# [[Conservapedia:Was Benjamin Franklin a deist?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Did racism play a role in the decision to drop atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?|Did racism play a role in the decision to drop atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Was the European colonization of the Americas good for the native people?]]
# [[Was President George H. W. Bush wrong to leave Saddam in power in 1991?]]
# [[Conservapedia: Which was worse? the Civil War and it's effects or slavery?]]

==Political debates==
# [[Debate: Is communism founded on Christian doctrine?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Why do we still have an embargo on Cuba?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Has Britain Declined?| Quoting Conservapedia's front page; "The British government just affirmed its ban on mentioning Intelligent Design to students.[3] No one there seems to notice how Britain's decline coincided with its promotion of evolution frauds like the Piltdown Man." - Has Britain REALLY declined?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is illegal immigration control the answer to illegal immigration?|Is illegal immigration control the answer to illegal immigration?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Has Britain become the 51st State of the US?|Has Britain become the 51st State of the US?]]
# [[Conservapedia:You think these Phd's are nuts?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does the European Union pose a threat to the United States?| Does the European Union pose a threat to United States Security?]]
# [[Which is true; progressive Liberal or regressive liberal]]
# [[Define torture]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should the United States have entered World War I?|Should the United States have entered World War I?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should the United States have entered World War II?|Should the United States have entered World War II?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should the United States have eliminated communism in North Korea|Should the United States have eliminated communism in North Korea as General Douglas MacArthur wanted?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Was the United States right to drop atomic bombs so quickly on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?|Was the United States right to drop atomic bombs so quickly on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Was it wrong for him to allow the attack in order to wake up the American public and motivate Americans to fight and win the war?|If President Roosevelt had known about the Pearl Harbor attack in advance, would it have been wrong for him to allow the attack in order to wake up the American public and motivate Americans to fight and win the war?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is gun-control the answer to crimes involving guns?|Is gun-control the answer to crimes involving guns?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Was world war inevitable?|Was world war inevitable?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does "free trade" increase wealth rather than simply redistribute it?|Does "free trade" increase wealth or simply redistribute it?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is it even possible to install democracy in a Muslim country?|Is it even possible to install democracy in a Muslim country?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is democracy even possible in Iraq?|Is democracy even possible in Iraq?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should we have given the Panama Canal back to Panama?|Should we have given the Panama Canal back to Panama?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should the United States leave the United Nations?|Should the United States leave the United Nations?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Crusades... Good or Bad?|Crusades... Good or Bad?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Was American soldier Michael New right to refuse to fight wearing part of a United Nations uniform?|Was American soldier Michael New right to refuse to fight wearing part of a United Nations uniform?]] See [[Michael New]]
# [[Conservapedia:Which is a more powerful ideology, Islam or communism?|Which is a more powerful ideology, Islam or Communism?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should the United States intervene in small countries to defeat communism there?|Should the United States intervene in small countries to defeat communism there?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should public displays of the 10 Commandments be allowed under the constitution?|Should public displays of the 10 Commandments be allowed under the constitution?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Which has the best philosophy of education: the public school system, private schools, or the home school movement?|Which has the best philosophy of education: the public school system, private schools, or the home school movement?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should people genetically engineer a cure for homosexuality?|Should people genetically engineer a cure for homosexuality?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should Bush pardon Scooter Libby?|Should Bush pardon Scooter Libby?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should We Support Democrats For Life.org?|Should We Support Democrats For Life.org?]]
# [[conservapedia:Women in the Military?|Women in the Military?]]
# [[Conservapedia: Should students learn a foreign language?|Should students learn a foreign language?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Why does the right side of the political spectrum tend to be more religous?|Why does the right side of the political spectrum tend to be more religious?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should there be a consistent standard on human rights applied to left and right?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should American companies be allowed to send their own troops into a war which America is participating in?|Should American companies be allowed to send their own troops into a war which America is participating in?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Giuliani's lack of social conservative viewpoints should not stop you from voting for him.|Giuliani's lack of social conservative viewpoints should not stop you from voting for him.]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is_President_Bush_good_for_America?|Is President Bush good for America?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is_the_Iraq_War_a_success%3F|Is the Iraq War a success?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does_single_sex_schooling_promotes_homesexuality%3F|Does Single sex schooling promotes homosexuality?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is_the_murder_of_3%2C000_people_just_a_few_or_is_it_a_lot%3F_Does_it_make_a_difference_if_the_murdered_people_are_Americans%3F|Is the murder of 3,000 people just a few or is it a lot? Does it make a difference if the murdered people are Americans?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does the media really have a liberal bias?|Does the media really have a liberal bias?]]
# [[Who was the last Democrat to quit due to ethics and what year was it? Is it fair for Republicans to due the same?]]
# [[What kind of leader will Democrats make if they run from debates on Fox?]]
# [[Are the Democrats capable of fighting terrorism?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Porn or guns?|Does porn actually cause (not merely correlate to) violence?]]
# [[Can a rogue nation be thought of as a sovereign nation?]]
# [[ Has Russia reinstalled stealth communism?]]
# [[Do we all know what Democrat Presidential candidates stand for yet?]]
# [[Define Civil War]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should gun sales to terror suspects be allowed?|Should gun sales to terror suspects be allowed?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Who would you support for President in 2008?|Who would you support for President in 2008?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is Darwinism liberal or is it conservative?|Is Darwinism liberal or is it conservative?]]
# [[Debate:Why did God place most of the world's oil in politically unstable places?|Why did God place most of the world's oil in politically unstable places?]]
# [[Restoring the USA image in the world, just a fancy phrase that means zilch?]]
# [[Placing the blame on how America got polarized]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is most government criticism really patriotic?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is environmentalism mostly about preserving natural resources?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is the conservative stance on illegal immigration going to loose the Hispanic vote for the GOP in the 08' election?]]
# [[Should President Bush Condemn Armenian Genocide? ]] ''New as of October 10, 2007''
# [[Third Party Debate]]
# [[Debate:Who kills more innocent people: religious believers or atheists?]]
# [[Was congress right to override president Bush's veto on the water projects bill?]]
# [[Is opening the borders the solution to the social security crisis?]]
# [[Debate:Preferred Democrat for the White House?]]
# [[Does Republican equal conservative? Does Democrat equal liberal?]]
# [[Obama's preacher.]]
# [[Is president Bush ignoring human rights violations in China?]]
# [[Debate:Should the United States begin Colonizing Space?]]
# [[Debate:Should the federal government have the power to define marriage?|Should the federal government have the power to define marriage?]]
# [[Debate: Should we legislate morality?]]

==Scientific debates==
# [[Conservapedia:Why haven't intelligent designists published a single scientific article?|If intelligent design is just as valid as evolution, where are all their scientific findings and publishings?]]

# [[Conservapedia:Does Darwinian natural selection suggest that bigotry is a necessary self-defense mechanism?|Does Darwinian natural selection suggest that bigotry is a necessary self-defense mechanism?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does Darwinian natural selection suggest that homosexuality is bad for the survival of a species?|Does Darwinian natural selection suggest that homosexuality is bad for the survival of a species?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is Darwinian natural selection compatible with Marxism?|Is Darwinian natural selection compatible with Marxism?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is the theory of macroevolution true?|Is the theory of macroevolution true?]]
# [[Conservapedia: Is Giving Birth the Bible Way Better?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should Creationism/Intelligent design be taught as a scientific alternative to evolution in public schools?|Should Creationism/Intelligent design be taught as a scientific alternative to evolution in public schools?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is global warming evident, and if so, is this the fault of man, and how must man stop it?|Is global warming evident, and if so, is this the fault of man, and how must man stop it?]]
# [[Conservapedia:If the universe is young and it takes light millions of years to reach us from far off stars, how can we see them?|If the universe is young and it takes light millions of years to reach us from far off stars, how can we see them?]]
# [[Conservapedia:God, Earth and Global Warming|God, Earth and Global Warming]]
# [[Conservapedia:Why is the evidence in favor of evolution so darn convincing?]]
# [[Conservapedia:If the Bible didn't contain a creation story, would anyone even consider the idea of a young earth?|If the Bible didn't contain a creation story, would anyone even consider the idea of a young earth?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is Relativity in direct conflict with the Genesis account?|Is Relativity in direct conflict with the Genesis account?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Who feels that scientific related articles should only reference published research papers instead of websites when dealing with research instead of application?]]
# [[Conservapedia: If it could be unambiguously demonstrated that man is NOT the most evolved animal, then would this support or refute ther idea of Creation by God?]]
# [[Why are God's works always questioned?]]
#[[Conservapedia:Are there any elements of choice, when it comes to carrying out homosexual acts?]]
# [[Listing the Earth's most pressing needs in urgent order of fixing]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is homosexuality a mental illness?]]

==Debates about Conservapedia==
# [[Conservapedia:Is Conservapedia representing a conservative POV or a Young Earth Creationist POV?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is Conservapedia anti-British?|Is Conservapedia anti-British?]]
# [[The liberal quotient of Conservapedia; what is it? Does it matter?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does bias impair Wikipedia's reliability?|Does bias impair Wikipedia's reliability?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should the term list entries be included in Conservapedia's entry count?|Should the term list entries be included in Conservapedia's entry count?]]
# [[Conservapedia:How should Conservapedia work to avoid having a conservative bias?|How should Conservapedia work to avoid having a conservative bias?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Can Conservapedia Succeed?|Can Conservapedia Succeed?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is Conservapedia fair and balanced?|Is Conservapedia fair and balanced?]]
# [[Conservapedia:How can we protect Conservapedia by distinguishing real conservative encyclopedia articles from satires written by liberals?|How can we protect Conservapedia by distinguishing real conservative encyclopedia articles from satires written by liberals?]]
# [[Conservapedia:What exactly is Conservapedia?|What exactly is Conservapedia?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Was the media attention needed?|Was the media attention needed?]]
# [[Conservapedia Debate Topics full of far left liberal netroots]]
# [[Which is true; progressive Liberal or regressive liberal]]
# [[Conservapedia:Where do you personally look for facts and information on topics "When did Brahms live" or "Why did Monet paint grainstacks?"]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is it okay for Conservapedia to have biased articles?]]
# [[Conservapedia:On whether certain articles on human anatomy should be pre-emptively blanked and protected]]
# [[Conservapedia:Who deletes entire discussion items from here? And why?]]
# [[Why do users, who contribute substantially, choose to leave this community?]]
# [[Why do the creators of Conservapedia see Wikipedia as un-American?]]
# [[Is the use of copyrighted photographs without permission stealing?]]
# [[Conservapedia: Are there too many debates on Conservapedia? | Are there too many debates on Conservapedia?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is it tasteless for Conservapedia to critique the Virginia Tech poem on the Main Page?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Has anyone ever been been banned for pointing out that many of the other entries on this site are in need of citation and evidence to back up statements?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does an encyclopedia define complex subjects, or insert more bias into them?]]
# [[Conservapedia: Do sysops block editing on pages when it seems their opponents are making strong points?]]
# [[Conservapedia: Is Conservapedia a 'Trustworthy Encyclopedia'?]]
# [[Conservapedia: Does altering the record of debate in a wiki 'Encyclopedia' render the entire thing a farce?]]
# [[Democrats next move, link more stories of heartache like those from Kansas to Gulf Coast.]]
# [[Do quotes used to support a theory just make an article look stupid?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is Conservapedia blinkered?|Is Conservapedia blinkered?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does Conservapedia censor opponents the way Expelled says ID advocates are censored?]]
# [[Debate:Is the Conservapedia Logo in violation of US Flag Code?]]

==Funny, maybe?==

# [[Conservapedia:Are cats just useless Dogs|Are cats just useless dogs?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is the Platypus evidence that God has a sense of humour?|Is the Platypus evidence that God has a sense of humour?]]
# [[Conservapedia: Was the shooting at Virginia Tech somehow President Bush's fault?|Was the shooting at Virginia Tech somehow President Bush's fault? (kind of like he caused hurricane Katrina)]]
# [[Are video games getting better or worse as graphics, sound, and gameplay complexity improve?]]
# [[Debate:Favorite old time radio show]]

==Other==
# [[Conservapedia:Are alcohol, marijuana, and nicotine gateway drugs?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is Rap music torture?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should weed be legalized?]]
# [[Debate:What are the lessons that we should take away from the Milgram Experiment]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does the Theory of Evolution promote atheism?]]
# [[Discussion:Colorado Mall Shootings]]
# [[Discussion:Creationist]]
# [[Debate:Is the Theory of Evolution a conspiricy?]]
# [[Debate:How should we view the fact leading scientists do not believe in god?]]

[[Category:Conservapedia]]

User talk:TheWarner

2008-05-09T11:08:40Z

Barnes: New page: Why am i about to get banned? -Barnes

Why am i about to get banned? -Barnes

User talk:Barnes

2008-05-09T11:07:38Z

Barnes: /* You're About to get Blocked */

==You're About to get Blocked==

You're about to get blocked for 90/10, haha!!! [[User:TheWarner|TheWarner]] 06:48, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

Why?

Debate:Is a first cause of a process necessary, always possible, or sometimes impossible?

2008-05-09T10:59:14Z

Barnes: /* Always necessary */

{{debate}}

== Always necessary ==
With One Exception: [[God]]. Any [[science|scientist]] is familiar with ''fundamental properties of nature'' that neither he nor any of his colleagues can possibly explain--except to say, "That's the way [[God]] made them."

But an ''action'', or a ''process'' (which is a series of actions), ''never'' occurs without cause. Sometimes the cause is another, similar action that eventually provoked it. Such a thing is similar to a term in a [[mathematics|mathematical]] [[sequence]]. To illustrate, the set of counting numbers is a sequence. Every number Ni after the number 1 is equal to N(i-1) + 1. But--''the set of counting numbers, as a sequence, had to have a definite first number.'' In this case, that number is 1. (The set of non-directed whole numbers behaves similarly, but its first number is 0, not 1.)

But, you ask, what about the set of [[integer]]s, which is directed? That has neither beginning nor end. True--but the set of integers is not a sequence. Sequences, by definition, have beginnings, though they do not necessarily have ends.

::::This is a flawed appeal to causality. On a quantum level, events need not have a cause.-Barnes

Number theory: Integers can be counted by re-ordering them (eg, 0, 1, -1, 2, -2...). Real (ie, rational + irrational) numbers cannot be counted & are a higher level of infinity. How would they have a beginning?[[User:Tom Stockton|Tom Stockton]] 21:46, 13 April 2007 (EDT)
:I already said that integers are not a sequence. By definition, a sequence has a first term.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 21:55, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

''Any process in nature must be a sequence.'' The beating of your heart is a sequence. And the descent of human beings from generation to generation is a sequence. But that, too, had to have a beginning. That beginning must have been the first couple--or, to an [[atheist]], it is simply the first species, and ultimately, the first cell.

And where did that first cell come from? Even [[Charles Darwin]] frankly admitted that, if that first cell could not have assembled itself from simpler raw materials, then the mechanism of the origin of life would become impossible to imagine.

::::Misquoting Darwin are we? -Barnes

''Something'' had to make that first cell. Even if you assume, like [[Francis Crick]], that the first cell on [[earth]] came from another [[planet]], you then have to ask whence came the first cell on that planet. Did that first cell come from yet another planet?

Even that sort of process would have to have a first planet--because once upon a time, no such things as planets existed. Anywhere. Unless you somehow want to assume that the universe is in a steady state. Does any [[astronomy|astronomer]] accept that proposition? I doubt it.

Those of you who maintain that the "first cause" creates problems of its own, should present those problems here.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 12:14, 8 March 2007 (EST)

:A few questions-
#WHY is a diety exempted from first causes?
#How does your reasoning square itself with many aspects of quantum theory, where Effects can occur spontaneously and without Cause. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 11:34, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
::In answer: [[God]] ''is'' the ultimate First Cause of everything. He is Eternal. If He were not, then He wouldn't be God.
::The creation of the universe is a quantum-level event.

#You have not explained why a diety is exempt from needing a cause, you have simply asserted that you believe it is.
#All physicists consider the creation of the universe a quantum level event
#Do you disagree that non-causality is present in quantum physics? [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 08:43, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

::Indeed, if the Universe had a creation at all, it would ''have'' to be a quantum event. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 08:48, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:::You have just suggested an explanation for [[God]]--that He ''is'' a Quantum Entity.

:::::Why is such a complex being a necessity in a field that we have already established is exempt from causality? -Barnes

:::I'm not sure that I accept that, however--because ours is a remarkably ''ordered'' universe. Can quantum processes produce order? And such order as we still see? I doubt it.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 10:05, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

::::"ours is a remarkably ''ordered'' universe"-- Compared to what? [[User:Dadsnagem2|Dadsnagem2]] 12:43, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

:::::Our universe is ordered by any reasonable standard whatsoever. The closest we can come to the "standard of comparison" you demand above is the reasonable expectation of order from the laws of probability, and in particular the Law of Averages. Specifically, value after value after value, among what physicists today call the "defined constants" of the universe, lies within a ''very'' narrow tolerance for life even to exist. An honest statistician could accept maybe one such value falling within such a narrow tolerance--but hundreds? The odds against that are nothing short of astronomical. That's what I mean by an ordered universe--ordered to allow life to exist and to thrive.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 13:48, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

:::::The standard for life is not a standard which is free from personal bias. Symmetrically, our universe is inferior to the complete high energy symmetries which existed within the first milliseconds of the big bang.[[User:Barnes|Barnes]]

::::''God'' is subject to the rules of quantum physics?

::::As to 'order' - leaving aside for now the question of precise definition - there's one example that leaps to mind; quantum fluctuations during inflation lead to density perturbations in the early Universe, which seed the formation of large-scale structure. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 10:10, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

How would quantum fluctuations cause an inflation? Surely the vacuum energy would be the same as it is now and thus cause infinitely more expansions than simply the one bang.

:::::And BTW: what you put in sounds like [[Your theory does not work under my theory, so your theory must be wrong]].--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 12:09, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

=== A creator? ===
<reduce indent>

I think we're talking at cross purposes. I never mentioned God. I think you were thrown by my use of the word 'creation.' I simply meant it as shorthand for the beginning of the Universe; it wasn't intended to imply the act of a creator. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 12:14, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:Well, maybe you weren't. But I was, and am.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 12:41, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

::Ah; so when you said "The creation of the universe is not a quantum-level event," you weren't referring to naturalistic models, but to divine creation? That sounds suspiciously like [[Your theory does not work under my theory, so your theory must be wrong]] to me. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 12:44, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
:::If you want to suggest that the First Moment in the universe--whatever you wish to call it--was a quantum-level event, and that your theory predicts that, that's fine. But then your theory has to account for the striking amount of order that we still see in the universe today.
:::And it has to account for a large number of findings that simply are not consistent with "spontaneous generation" of planets. Many of these findings are right here in our solar system--some on the earth itself, but others on the other planets.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 12:54, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

::::A quantum origin is one possibility; a past-eternal Universe is another. I already gave an example of one process which leads naturally to order. This is getting a bit off-topic, though. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 12:58, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Theological subarguments and TerryH's disagreements with inflation aside, two glaring questions haven't been answered-
#''Why'' would a diety be exempt from first causes? It is not sufficient to simply say that any diety would be exempt because they are a diety, that's circular logic. I want an explaination as to exactly why a diety would exist without a cause.
#Does TerryH accept that quantum mechanics contain non-causalities? He doesn't have to accept them as the cause of the universe, simply state whether or not he acepts their existance. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 06:15, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::Since the debate seems to have ended, I'd like to propose a close with the answers '''No''','''Indeterminable''' and '''Indeterminable'''. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 09:26, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

==Indeterminable==

We won't know until we understand all of physics completely, and we may never get there.

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

Seconded. [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 17:32, 12 November 2007 (EST)

==Causation itself is unnecessary==
Causation isn't even a part of modern physics. Physics, at least when it is being precise, speaks of the relations between physical objects, not of causes with effects. These attempts to prove the existence of God are ultimately just sophistry and they will convince no one. Read Matthew 13. --[[User:Andy|Andy]] 12:18, 17 November 2007 (EST)

Debate:Is a first cause of a process necessary, always possible, or sometimes impossible?

2008-05-09T10:53:38Z

Barnes: /* Always necessary */

{{debate}}

== Always necessary ==
With One Exception: [[God]]. Any [[science|scientist]] is familiar with ''fundamental properties of nature'' that neither he nor any of his colleagues can possibly explain--except to say, "That's the way [[God]] made them."

But an ''action'', or a ''process'' (which is a series of actions), ''never'' occurs without cause. Sometimes the cause is another, similar action that eventually provoked it. Such a thing is similar to a term in a [[mathematics|mathematical]] [[sequence]]. To illustrate, the set of counting numbers is a sequence. Every number Ni after the number 1 is equal to N(i-1) + 1. But--''the set of counting numbers, as a sequence, had to have a definite first number.'' In this case, that number is 1. (The set of non-directed whole numbers behaves similarly, but its first number is 0, not 1.)

But, you ask, what about the set of [[integer]]s, which is directed? That has neither beginning nor end. True--but the set of integers is not a sequence. Sequences, by definition, have beginnings, though they do not necessarily have ends.

::::This is a flawed appeal to causality. On a quantum level, events need not have a cause.-Barnes

Number theory: Integers can be counted by re-ordering them (eg, 0, 1, -1, 2, -2...). Real (ie, rational + irrational) numbers cannot be counted & are a higher level of infinity. How would they have a beginning?[[User:Tom Stockton|Tom Stockton]] 21:46, 13 April 2007 (EDT)
:I already said that integers are not a sequence. By definition, a sequence has a first term.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 21:55, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

''Any process in nature must be a sequence.'' The beating of your heart is a sequence. And the descent of human beings from generation to generation is a sequence. But that, too, had to have a beginning. That beginning must have been the first couple--or, to an [[atheist]], it is simply the first species, and ultimately, the first cell.

And where did that first cell come from? Even [[Charles Darwin]] frankly admitted that, if that first cell could not have assembled itself from simpler raw materials, then the mechanism of the origin of life would become impossible to imagine.

::::Misquoting Darwin are we? -Barnes

''Something'' had to make that first cell. Even if you assume, like [[Francis Crick]], that the first cell on [[earth]] came from another [[planet]], you then have to ask whence came the first cell on that planet. Did that first cell come from yet another planet?

Even that sort of process would have to have a first planet--because once upon a time, no such things as planets existed. Anywhere. Unless you somehow want to assume that the universe is in a steady state. Does any [[astronomy|astronomer]] accept that proposition? I doubt it.

Those of you who maintain that the "first cause" creates problems of its own, should present those problems here.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 12:14, 8 March 2007 (EST)

:A few questions-
#WHY is a diety exempted from first causes?
#How does your reasoning square itself with many aspects of quantum theory, where Effects can occur spontaneously and without Cause. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 11:34, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
::In answer: [[God]] ''is'' the ultimate First Cause of everything. He is Eternal. If He were not, then He wouldn't be God.
::The creation of the universe is a quantum-level event.

#You have not explained why a diety is exempt from needing a cause, you have simply asserted that you believe it is.
#All physicists consider the creation of the universe a quantum level event
#Do you disagree that non-causality is present in quantum physics? [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 08:43, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

::Indeed, if the Universe had a creation at all, it would ''have'' to be a quantum event. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 08:48, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:::You have just suggested an explanation for [[God]]--that He ''is'' a Quantum Entity.

:::I'm not sure that I accept that, however--because ours is a remarkably ''ordered'' universe. Can quantum processes produce order? And such order as we still see? I doubt it.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 10:05, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

::::"ours is a remarkably ''ordered'' universe"-- Compared to what? [[User:Dadsnagem2|Dadsnagem2]] 12:43, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

:::::Our universe is ordered by any reasonable standard whatsoever. The closest we can come to the "standard of comparison" you demand above is the reasonable expectation of order from the laws of probability, and in particular the Law of Averages. Specifically, value after value after value, among what physicists today call the "defined constants" of the universe, lies within a ''very'' narrow tolerance for life even to exist. An honest statistician could accept maybe one such value falling within such a narrow tolerance--but hundreds? The odds against that are nothing short of astronomical. That's what I mean by an ordered universe--ordered to allow life to exist and to thrive.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 13:48, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

:::::The standard for life is not a standard which is free from personal bias. Symmetrically, our universe is inferior to the complete high energy symmetries which existed within the first milliseconds of the big bang.[[User:Barnes|Barnes]]

::::''God'' is subject to the rules of quantum physics?

::::As to 'order' - leaving aside for now the question of precise definition - there's one example that leaps to mind; quantum fluctuations during inflation lead to density perturbations in the early Universe, which seed the formation of large-scale structure. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 10:10, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

How would quantum fluctuations cause an inflation? Surely the vacuum energy would be the same as it is now and thus cause infinitely more expansions than simply the one bang.

:::::And BTW: what you put in sounds like [[Your theory does not work under my theory, so your theory must be wrong]].--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 12:09, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

=== A creator? ===
<reduce indent>

I think we're talking at cross purposes. I never mentioned God. I think you were thrown by my use of the word 'creation.' I simply meant it as shorthand for the beginning of the Universe; it wasn't intended to imply the act of a creator. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 12:14, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:Well, maybe you weren't. But I was, and am.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 12:41, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

::Ah; so when you said "The creation of the universe is not a quantum-level event," you weren't referring to naturalistic models, but to divine creation? That sounds suspiciously like [[Your theory does not work under my theory, so your theory must be wrong]] to me. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 12:44, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
:::If you want to suggest that the First Moment in the universe--whatever you wish to call it--was a quantum-level event, and that your theory predicts that, that's fine. But then your theory has to account for the striking amount of order that we still see in the universe today.
:::And it has to account for a large number of findings that simply are not consistent with "spontaneous generation" of planets. Many of these findings are right here in our solar system--some on the earth itself, but others on the other planets.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 12:54, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

::::A quantum origin is one possibility; a past-eternal Universe is another. I already gave an example of one process which leads naturally to order. This is getting a bit off-topic, though. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 12:58, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Theological subarguments and TerryH's disagreements with inflation aside, two glaring questions haven't been answered-
#''Why'' would a diety be exempt from first causes? It is not sufficient to simply say that any diety would be exempt because they are a diety, that's circular logic. I want an explaination as to exactly why a diety would exist without a cause.
#Does TerryH accept that quantum mechanics contain non-causalities? He doesn't have to accept them as the cause of the universe, simply state whether or not he acepts their existance. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 06:15, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::Since the debate seems to have ended, I'd like to propose a close with the answers '''No''','''Indeterminable''' and '''Indeterminable'''. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 09:26, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

==Indeterminable==

We won't know until we understand all of physics completely, and we may never get there.

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

Seconded. [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 17:32, 12 November 2007 (EST)

==Causation itself is unnecessary==
Causation isn't even a part of modern physics. Physics, at least when it is being precise, speaks of the relations between physical objects, not of causes with effects. These attempts to prove the existence of God are ultimately just sophistry and they will convince no one. Read Matthew 13. --[[User:Andy|Andy]] 12:18, 17 November 2007 (EST)

Debate:Is a first cause of a process necessary, always possible, or sometimes impossible?

2008-05-09T10:53:12Z

Barnes: /* Always necessary */

{{debate}}

== Always necessary ==
With One Exception: [[God]]. Any [[science|scientist]] is familiar with ''fundamental properties of nature'' that neither he nor any of his colleagues can possibly explain--except to say, "That's the way [[God]] made them."

But an ''action'', or a ''process'' (which is a series of actions), ''never'' occurs without cause. Sometimes the cause is another, similar action that eventually provoked it. Such a thing is similar to a term in a [[mathematics|mathematical]] [[sequence]]. To illustrate, the set of counting numbers is a sequence. Every number Ni after the number 1 is equal to N(i-1) + 1. But--''the set of counting numbers, as a sequence, had to have a definite first number.'' In this case, that number is 1. (The set of non-directed whole numbers behaves similarly, but its first number is 0, not 1.)

But, you ask, what about the set of [[integer]]s, which is directed? That has neither beginning nor end. True--but the set of integers is not a sequence. Sequences, by definition, have beginnings, though they do not necessarily have ends.

::::This is a flawed appeal to causality. On a quantum level, events need not have a cause.

Number theory: Integers can be counted by re-ordering them (eg, 0, 1, -1, 2, -2...). Real (ie, rational + irrational) numbers cannot be counted & are a higher level of infinity. How would they have a beginning?[[User:Tom Stockton|Tom Stockton]] 21:46, 13 April 2007 (EDT)
:I already said that integers are not a sequence. By definition, a sequence has a first term.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 21:55, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

''Any process in nature must be a sequence.'' The beating of your heart is a sequence. And the descent of human beings from generation to generation is a sequence. But that, too, had to have a beginning. That beginning must have been the first couple--or, to an [[atheist]], it is simply the first species, and ultimately, the first cell.

And where did that first cell come from? Even [[Charles Darwin]] frankly admitted that, if that first cell could not have assembled itself from simpler raw materials, then the mechanism of the origin of life would become impossible to imagine.

::::Misquoting Darwin are we? -Barnes

''Something'' had to make that first cell. Even if you assume, like [[Francis Crick]], that the first cell on [[earth]] came from another [[planet]], you then have to ask whence came the first cell on that planet. Did that first cell come from yet another planet?

Even that sort of process would have to have a first planet--because once upon a time, no such things as planets existed. Anywhere. Unless you somehow want to assume that the universe is in a steady state. Does any [[astronomy|astronomer]] accept that proposition? I doubt it.

Those of you who maintain that the "first cause" creates problems of its own, should present those problems here.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 12:14, 8 March 2007 (EST)

:A few questions-
#WHY is a diety exempted from first causes?
#How does your reasoning square itself with many aspects of quantum theory, where Effects can occur spontaneously and without Cause. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 11:34, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
::In answer: [[God]] ''is'' the ultimate First Cause of everything. He is Eternal. If He were not, then He wouldn't be God.
::The creation of the universe is a quantum-level event.

#You have not explained why a diety is exempt from needing a cause, you have simply asserted that you believe it is.
#All physicists consider the creation of the universe a quantum level event
#Do you disagree that non-causality is present in quantum physics? [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 08:43, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

::Indeed, if the Universe had a creation at all, it would ''have'' to be a quantum event. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 08:48, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:::You have just suggested an explanation for [[God]]--that He ''is'' a Quantum Entity.

:::I'm not sure that I accept that, however--because ours is a remarkably ''ordered'' universe. Can quantum processes produce order? And such order as we still see? I doubt it.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 10:05, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

::::"ours is a remarkably ''ordered'' universe"-- Compared to what? [[User:Dadsnagem2|Dadsnagem2]] 12:43, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

:::::Our universe is ordered by any reasonable standard whatsoever. The closest we can come to the "standard of comparison" you demand above is the reasonable expectation of order from the laws of probability, and in particular the Law of Averages. Specifically, value after value after value, among what physicists today call the "defined constants" of the universe, lies within a ''very'' narrow tolerance for life even to exist. An honest statistician could accept maybe one such value falling within such a narrow tolerance--but hundreds? The odds against that are nothing short of astronomical. That's what I mean by an ordered universe--ordered to allow life to exist and to thrive.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 13:48, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

:::::The standard for life is not a standard which is free from personal bias. Symmetrically, our universe is inferior to the complete high energy symmetries which existed within the first milliseconds of the big bang.[[User:Barnes|Barnes]]

::::''God'' is subject to the rules of quantum physics?

::::As to 'order' - leaving aside for now the question of precise definition - there's one example that leaps to mind; quantum fluctuations during inflation lead to density perturbations in the early Universe, which seed the formation of large-scale structure. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 10:10, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

How would quantum fluctuations cause an inflation? Surely the vacuum energy would be the same as it is now and thus cause infinitely more expansions than simply the one bang.

:::::And BTW: what you put in sounds like [[Your theory does not work under my theory, so your theory must be wrong]].--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 12:09, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

=== A creator? ===
<reduce indent>

I think we're talking at cross purposes. I never mentioned God. I think you were thrown by my use of the word 'creation.' I simply meant it as shorthand for the beginning of the Universe; it wasn't intended to imply the act of a creator. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 12:14, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:Well, maybe you weren't. But I was, and am.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 12:41, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

::Ah; so when you said "The creation of the universe is not a quantum-level event," you weren't referring to naturalistic models, but to divine creation? That sounds suspiciously like [[Your theory does not work under my theory, so your theory must be wrong]] to me. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 12:44, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
:::If you want to suggest that the First Moment in the universe--whatever you wish to call it--was a quantum-level event, and that your theory predicts that, that's fine. But then your theory has to account for the striking amount of order that we still see in the universe today.
:::And it has to account for a large number of findings that simply are not consistent with "spontaneous generation" of planets. Many of these findings are right here in our solar system--some on the earth itself, but others on the other planets.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 12:54, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

::::A quantum origin is one possibility; a past-eternal Universe is another. I already gave an example of one process which leads naturally to order. This is getting a bit off-topic, though. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 12:58, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Theological subarguments and TerryH's disagreements with inflation aside, two glaring questions haven't been answered-
#''Why'' would a diety be exempt from first causes? It is not sufficient to simply say that any diety would be exempt because they are a diety, that's circular logic. I want an explaination as to exactly why a diety would exist without a cause.
#Does TerryH accept that quantum mechanics contain non-causalities? He doesn't have to accept them as the cause of the universe, simply state whether or not he acepts their existance. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 06:15, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::Since the debate seems to have ended, I'd like to propose a close with the answers '''No''','''Indeterminable''' and '''Indeterminable'''. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 09:26, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

==Indeterminable==

We won't know until we understand all of physics completely, and we may never get there.

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

Seconded. [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 17:32, 12 November 2007 (EST)

==Causation itself is unnecessary==
Causation isn't even a part of modern physics. Physics, at least when it is being precise, speaks of the relations between physical objects, not of causes with effects. These attempts to prove the existence of God are ultimately just sophistry and they will convince no one. Read Matthew 13. --[[User:Andy|Andy]] 12:18, 17 November 2007 (EST)

Debate:Is a first cause of a process necessary, always possible, or sometimes impossible?

2008-05-09T10:47:57Z

Barnes: /* Always necessary */

{{debate}}

== Always necessary ==
With One Exception: [[God]]. Any [[science|scientist]] is familiar with ''fundamental properties of nature'' that neither he nor any of his colleagues can possibly explain--except to say, "That's the way [[God]] made them."

But an ''action'', or a ''process'' (which is a series of actions), ''never'' occurs without cause. Sometimes the cause is another, similar action that eventually provoked it. Such a thing is similar to a term in a [[mathematics|mathematical]] [[sequence]]. To illustrate, the set of counting numbers is a sequence. Every number Ni after the number 1 is equal to N(i-1) + 1. But--''the set of counting numbers, as a sequence, had to have a definite first number.'' In this case, that number is 1. (The set of non-directed whole numbers behaves similarly, but its first number is 0, not 1.)

But, you ask, what about the set of [[integer]]s, which is directed? That has neither beginning nor end. True--but the set of integers is not a sequence. Sequences, by definition, have beginnings, though they do not necessarily have ends.

Number theory: Integers can be counted by re-ordering them (eg, 0, 1, -1, 2, -2...). Real (ie, rational + irrational) numbers cannot be counted & are a higher level of infinity. How would they have a beginning?[[User:Tom Stockton|Tom Stockton]] 21:46, 13 April 2007 (EDT)
:I already said that integers are not a sequence. By definition, a sequence has a first term.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 21:55, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

''Any process in nature must be a sequence.'' The beating of your heart is a sequence. And the descent of human beings from generation to generation is a sequence. But that, too, had to have a beginning. That beginning must have been the first couple--or, to an [[atheist]], it is simply the first species, and ultimately, the first cell.

And where did that first cell come from? Even [[Charles Darwin]] frankly admitted that, if that first cell could not have assembled itself from simpler raw materials, then the mechanism of the origin of life would become impossible to imagine.

''Something'' had to make that first cell. Even if you assume, like [[Francis Crick]], that the first cell on [[earth]] came from another [[planet]], you then have to ask whence came the first cell on that planet. Did that first cell come from yet another planet?

Even that sort of process would have to have a first planet--because once upon a time, no such things as planets existed. Anywhere. Unless you somehow want to assume that the universe is in a steady state. Does any [[astronomy|astronomer]] accept that proposition? I doubt it.

Those of you who maintain that the "first cause" creates problems of its own, should present those problems here.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 12:14, 8 March 2007 (EST)

:A few questions-
#WHY is a diety exempted from first causes?
#How does your reasoning square itself with many aspects of quantum theory, where Effects can occur spontaneously and without Cause. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 11:34, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
::In answer: [[God]] ''is'' the ultimate First Cause of everything. He is Eternal. If He were not, then He wouldn't be God.
::The creation of the universe is a quantum-level event.

#You have not explained why a diety is exempt from needing a cause, you have simply asserted that you believe it is.
#All physicists consider the creation of the universe a quantum level event
#Do you disagree that non-causality is present in quantum physics? [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 08:43, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

::Indeed, if the Universe had a creation at all, it would ''have'' to be a quantum event. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 08:48, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:::You have just suggested an explanation for [[God]]--that He ''is'' a Quantum Entity.

:::I'm not sure that I accept that, however--because ours is a remarkably ''ordered'' universe. Can quantum processes produce order? And such order as we still see? I doubt it.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 10:05, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

::::"ours is a remarkably ''ordered'' universe"-- Compared to what? [[User:Dadsnagem2|Dadsnagem2]] 12:43, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

:::::Our universe is ordered by any reasonable standard whatsoever. The closest we can come to the "standard of comparison" you demand above is the reasonable expectation of order from the laws of probability, and in particular the Law of Averages. Specifically, value after value after value, among what physicists today call the "defined constants" of the universe, lies within a ''very'' narrow tolerance for life even to exist. An honest statistician could accept maybe one such value falling within such a narrow tolerance--but hundreds? The odds against that are nothing short of astronomical. That's what I mean by an ordered universe--ordered to allow life to exist and to thrive.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 13:48, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

:::::The standard for life is not a standard which is free from personal bias. Symmetrically, our universe is inferior to the complete high energy symmetries which existed within the first milliseconds of the big bang.[[User:Barnes|Barnes]]

::::''God'' is subject to the rules of quantum physics?

::::As to 'order' - leaving aside for now the question of precise definition - there's one example that leaps to mind; quantum fluctuations during inflation lead to density perturbations in the early Universe, which seed the formation of large-scale structure. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 10:10, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

How would quantum fluctuations cause an inflation? Surely the vacuum energy would be the same as it is now and thus cause infinitely more expansions than simply the one bang.

:::::And BTW: what you put in sounds like [[Your theory does not work under my theory, so your theory must be wrong]].--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 12:09, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

=== A creator? ===
<reduce indent>

I think we're talking at cross purposes. I never mentioned God. I think you were thrown by my use of the word 'creation.' I simply meant it as shorthand for the beginning of the Universe; it wasn't intended to imply the act of a creator. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 12:14, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:Well, maybe you weren't. But I was, and am.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 12:41, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

::Ah; so when you said "The creation of the universe is not a quantum-level event," you weren't referring to naturalistic models, but to divine creation? That sounds suspiciously like [[Your theory does not work under my theory, so your theory must be wrong]] to me. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 12:44, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
:::If you want to suggest that the First Moment in the universe--whatever you wish to call it--was a quantum-level event, and that your theory predicts that, that's fine. But then your theory has to account for the striking amount of order that we still see in the universe today.
:::And it has to account for a large number of findings that simply are not consistent with "spontaneous generation" of planets. Many of these findings are right here in our solar system--some on the earth itself, but others on the other planets.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 12:54, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

::::A quantum origin is one possibility; a past-eternal Universe is another. I already gave an example of one process which leads naturally to order. This is getting a bit off-topic, though. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 12:58, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Theological subarguments and TerryH's disagreements with inflation aside, two glaring questions haven't been answered-
#''Why'' would a diety be exempt from first causes? It is not sufficient to simply say that any diety would be exempt because they are a diety, that's circular logic. I want an explaination as to exactly why a diety would exist without a cause.
#Does TerryH accept that quantum mechanics contain non-causalities? He doesn't have to accept them as the cause of the universe, simply state whether or not he acepts their existance. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 06:15, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::Since the debate seems to have ended, I'd like to propose a close with the answers '''No''','''Indeterminable''' and '''Indeterminable'''. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 09:26, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

==Indeterminable==

We won't know until we understand all of physics completely, and we may never get there.

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

Seconded. [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 17:32, 12 November 2007 (EST)

==Causation itself is unnecessary==
Causation isn't even a part of modern physics. Physics, at least when it is being precise, speaks of the relations between physical objects, not of causes with effects. These attempts to prove the existence of God are ultimately just sophistry and they will convince no one. Read Matthew 13. --[[User:Andy|Andy]] 12:18, 17 November 2007 (EST)

User:Philip J. Rayment/Creationism

2008-05-07T14:32:42Z

Barnes:

To avoid continually repeating the same answers to people over and over, I've put here some answers to common anti-creationist criticisms.

The answers I provide here are written from the point of view of Young Earth creationism and will not always apply to other forms of creationism.

Young Earth creationism covers more than just opposition to biological evolution. It also proposes that the Earth is only about 6,000 years old, and that about 4,500 years ago, it underwent a [[great Flood|global flood]].

== Is creationism falsifiable? ==

That depends on whether you are talking about the basic concept or particular propositions that it makes.

=== Basic concept ===

I'll agree that the basic concept of creationism is not falsifiable. That is, nobody can formulate any scientific test of whether God did actually create the world.

However, neither can anybody formulate any scientific test of whether the basic concept of goo-to-you evolution, or at least its underlying premise of naturalism, is falsifiable.
Evolutionists will sometimes propose ways in which evolution could be falsified, but whether their proposals actually would is another matter. I have responded to some such proposals [[Conservapedia talk:Falsifiability Challenge|here]]. That includes two quotes from three evolutionists acknowledging that evolution is not testable (i.e. not falsifiable). Here is another one:
{{QuoteBox|Biologists are simply naïve when they talk about experiments designed to test the theory of evolution. It is not testable. They may happen to stumble across facts which would seem to conflict with its predictions. These facts will invariably be ignored and their discoverers will undoubtedly be deprived of continuing research grants.}}
:—Dr Whitten, Professor of Genetics at the University of Melbourne, 1980. [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4978]

So creationism and evolution are both in the same situation in that regard.

=== Particular propositions ===

Creationism makes particular propositions that ''are'' falsifiable. Examples include:
* There must have been rapid speciation (within the created kind) in the approximately 4,500 years since the flood. Science has shown that speciation can occur rapidly (i.e. with a few generations).
* There should be evidence of widespread sedimentation from the global flood. Geology has shown us that something like three-quarters of the rock formations are sedimentary in origin.

== Do creationists have a closed mind on the issue? ==

No more so that evolutionists. Creationists clearly believe that creationism is the correct explanation, else they would not be creationists. Exactly the same applies to evolutionists.

But as far as specific propositions are concerned, the evidence shows that they are no more closed minded than evolutionists. This is clear from the fact that they have changed their minds on a number of creationists propositions. The following are a few examples:
* That there was a "vapour canopy" surrounding the Earth prior to the Flood.
* That the speed of light has drastically reduced.
* That there was no rain before the Flood.
* That a Japanese fishing trawler discovered the remains of a [[plesiosaur]].
* That there should be a much thicker layer of dust on the moon if it is as old as uniformitarians say.

== Is creationism inherently unscientific? ==

Creationism is often accused of being unscientific simply because it proposes a supernatural Creator. However, although such a Creator is not Himself scientifically testable, concluding from the available evidence that there must have been a Creator is not in itself unscientific.

The argument is essentially that one is able to propose that particular events could not have occurred (or at least are unlikely to have occurred) in any other way.
An analogy is an archaeologist discovering stone tools. The archaeologist is able, without knowing anything about the maker of the tools, to determine that the stones are the shape that they are through the actions of an intelligent being (man) because they do not occur that shape naturally.
Similarly, there is nothing unscientific in proposing that the origin of certain things, such as the genetic code, could not have occurred naturally so must have a supernatural origin.

Conversely, evolution is flawed in ruling the supernatural out ''a priori'', rather than being open to leading to where the evidence is most consistent.

== What evidence is there for creation? ==

Creationists and evolutionist have the same evidence. The question is not what evidence there is, but how that evidence is interpreted, and which interpretation is the most consistent.

For example, uniformitarians would postulate that the [[Grand Canyon]] is the result of a small amount of water (the Colorado River) eroding the rock layers over a long period of time. Creationists would postulate that the Grand Canyon is the result of a large amount of water (such as runoff of the Flood) eroding the rock layers over a short period of time.

In both cases the evidence is the same; it is the interpretation of the evidence that differs.

== Do scientists start with facts and no assumptions? ==

No, all scientists start with certain basic unprovable assumptions. Some of these are:
* That the universe is subject to consistent laws that we are able to study. If we instead assumed that water which boils at 100 degrees Celsius today used to boil at 150 degrees Celsius 1000 years ago (in exactly the same circumstances) because the laws of physics have changed, there would not be much point in doing science. An engineer who calculates the strength required for a bridge to carry a certain load could never be sure that his calculations had any merit if he thought that the laws of physics on which his calculations are based might change next week.
* That our senses are capable of observing the world around us. If instead we thought that what we think we see is a random illusion, we might not be seeing reality. We must assume that our senses are not deceiving us, but any attempt to prove this to be true would rely on our senses to correctly observing the results of the test, and how could we be sure that we are correctly observing those results? Thus this remains an unprovable assumption.
* Some scientists assume that there was no supernatural creator, and so attempt to find explanations of how things came to be within the laws of physics, but must also attempt to find explanations of how those laws of physics came to be.
* Some scientists assume that there was a supernatural creator, so attempt to find explanations of how things came to be without being constrained by the assumption of no creator.

1. That we have consistent laws of nature is not an assumption but an issue that has been overcome by gauge field theory. Although if you refuse to accept a past based upon quantum mechanics then it is a little inconsistent of you to deny long term radioactive decay.

2. The copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics is based upon the idea of an observer created reality. Reality may merely be a completed article of sensory percpeption, thus limiting us to the trust of our senses. That does not however mean we are in a state of epistemological democracy that makes a 6000 year old world as likely as a 15 billion year old one.

3. That laws need a creator is an assumption in itself.

== Do creationists start with their conclusion? ==

Creationists start with the assumption that there is a creator. But all scientists start with certain assumptions (see previous section), so starting with that assumption does not in and of itself mean that creationism is unscientific.

The claim that creationists start with their conclusions whilst science starts with the evidence ignores two points:
* many scientists have become creationists because that is where the evidence led them.
* Many scientists are evolutionists because they start with that conclusion.

It is not inherent to creationism that one must start with the conclusion. And it is nonsense to suggest that evolutionists don't look for facts to support evolution.

== Are evolution and the idea of God contradictory? ==

You can believe in both evolution and god.
What you ''can't'' logically do is believe in evolution and believe the Bible, nor can you believe in both evolution and the God of the Bible.
That is, if you believe in both evolution and god, your "god" cannot be the God of the Bible.

The Bible says that the entire creation until the appearance of man took six days.
That in itself is a clear contradiction of the evolutionary story.
The order of creation in the Bible is rather different than the order of appearance according to the evolutionary story.
For example, the Bible has the Earth being created before the sun and stars, fruit trees before fish, and birds before land animals.

The God of the Bible created the world without death, suffering, disease, or thorns (these came after the [[Fall of man|Fall]]).
Evolution has death and suffering as a necessary requirement for human life, as we could not have evolved without the deaths of billions of creatures that we out-competed on our evolutionary struggle to evolve.

Debate:Is a first cause of a process necessary, always possible, or sometimes impossible?

2008-04-11T15:47:34Z

Barnes: /* Always necessary */

{{debate}}

== Always necessary ==
With One Exception: [[God]]. Any [[science|scientist]] is familiar with ''fundamental properties of nature'' that neither he nor any of his colleagues can possibly explain--except to say, "That's the way [[God]] made them."

But an ''action'', or a ''process'' (which is a series of actions), ''never'' occurs without cause. Sometimes the cause is another, similar action that eventually provoked it. Such a thing is similar to a term in a [[mathematics|mathematical]] [[sequence]]. To illustrate, the set of counting numbers is a sequence. Every number Ni after the number 1 is equal to N(i-1) + 1. But--''the set of counting numbers, as a sequence, had to have a definite first number.'' In this case, that number is 1. (The set of non-directed whole numbers behaves similarly, but its first number is 0, not 1.)

But, you ask, what about the set of [[integer]]s, which is directed? That has neither beginning nor end. True--but the set of integers is not a sequence. Sequences, by definition, have beginnings, though they do not necessarily have ends.

Number theory: Integers can be counted by re-ordering them (eg, 0, 1, -1, 2, -2...). Real (ie, rational + irrational) numbers cannot be counted & are a higher level of infinity. How would they have a beginning?[[User:Tom Stockton|Tom Stockton]] 21:46, 13 April 2007 (EDT)
:I already said that integers are not a sequence. By definition, a sequence has a first term.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 21:55, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

''Any process in nature must be a sequence.'' The beating of your heart is a sequence. And the descent of human beings from generation to generation is a sequence. But that, too, had to have a beginning. That beginning must have been the first couple--or, to an [[atheist]], it is simply the first species, and ultimately, the first cell.

And where did that first cell come from? Even [[Charles Darwin]] frankly admitted that, if that first cell could not have assembled itself from simpler raw materials, then the mechanism of the origin of life would become impossible to imagine.

''Something'' had to make that first cell. Even if you assume, like [[Francis Crick]], that the first cell on [[earth]] came from another [[planet]], you then have to ask whence came the first cell on that planet. Did that first cell come from yet another planet?

Even that sort of process would have to have a first planet--because once upon a time, no such things as planets existed. Anywhere. Unless you somehow want to assume that the universe is in a steady state. Does any [[astronomy|astronomer]] accept that proposition? I doubt it.

Those of you who maintain that the "first cause" creates problems of its own, should present those problems here.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 12:14, 8 March 2007 (EST)

:A few questions-
#WHY is a diety exempted from first causes?
#How does your reasoning square itself with many aspects of quantum theory, where Effects can occur spontaneously and without Cause. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 11:34, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
::In answer: [[God]] ''is'' the ultimate First Cause of everything. He is Eternal. If He were not, then He wouldn't be God.
::The creation of the universe is a quantum-level event.

#You have not explained why a diety is exempt from needing a cause, you have simply asserted that you believe it is.
#All physicists consider the creation of the universe a quantum level event
#Do you disagree that non-causality is present in quantum physics? [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 08:43, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

::Indeed, if the Universe had a creation at all, it would ''have'' to be a quantum event. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 08:48, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:::You have just suggested an explanation for [[God]]--that He ''is'' a Quantum Entity.

:::I'm not sure that I accept that, however--because ours is a remarkably ''ordered'' universe. Can quantum processes produce order? And such order as we still see? I doubt it.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 10:05, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

::::"ours is a remarkably ''ordered'' universe"-- Compared to what? [[User:Dadsnagem2|Dadsnagem2]] 12:43, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

:::::Our universe is ordered by any reasonable standard whatsoever. The closest we can come to the "standard of comparison" you demand above is the reasonable expectation of order from the laws of probability, and in particular the Law of Averages. Specifically, value after value after value, among what physicists today call the "defined constants" of the universe, lies within a ''very'' narrow tolerance for life even to exist. An honest statistician could accept maybe one such value falling within such a narrow tolerance--but hundreds? The odds against that are nothing short of astronomical. That's what I mean by an ordered universe--ordered to allow life to exist and to thrive.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 13:48, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

::::''God'' is subject to the rules of quantum physics?

::::As to 'order' - leaving aside for now the question of precise definition - there's one example that leaps to mind; quantum fluctuations during inflation lead to density perturbations in the early Universe, which seed the formation of large-scale structure. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 10:10, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

How would quantum fluctuations cause an inflation? Surely the vacuum energy would be the same as it is now and thus cause infinitely more expansions than simply the one bang.

:::::And BTW: what you put in sounds like [[Your theory does not work under my theory, so your theory must be wrong]].--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 12:09, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

=== A creator? ===
<reduce indent>

I think we're talking at cross purposes. I never mentioned God. I think you were thrown by my use of the word 'creation.' I simply meant it as shorthand for the beginning of the Universe; it wasn't intended to imply the act of a creator. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 12:14, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:Well, maybe you weren't. But I was, and am.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 12:41, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

::Ah; so when you said "The creation of the universe is not a quantum-level event," you weren't referring to naturalistic models, but to divine creation? That sounds suspiciously like [[Your theory does not work under my theory, so your theory must be wrong]] to me. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 12:44, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
:::If you want to suggest that the First Moment in the universe--whatever you wish to call it--was a quantum-level event, and that your theory predicts that, that's fine. But then your theory has to account for the striking amount of order that we still see in the universe today.
:::And it has to account for a large number of findings that simply are not consistent with "spontaneous generation" of planets. Many of these findings are right here in our solar system--some on the earth itself, but others on the other planets.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 12:54, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

::::A quantum origin is one possibility; a past-eternal Universe is another. I already gave an example of one process which leads naturally to order. This is getting a bit off-topic, though. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 12:58, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Theological subarguments and TerryH's disagreements with inflation aside, two glaring questions haven't been answered-
#''Why'' would a diety be exempt from first causes? It is not sufficient to simply say that any diety would be exempt because they are a diety, that's circular logic. I want an explaination as to exactly why a diety would exist without a cause.
#Does TerryH accept that quantum mechanics contain non-causalities? He doesn't have to accept them as the cause of the universe, simply state whether or not he acepts their existance. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 06:15, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::Since the debate seems to have ended, I'd like to propose a close with the answers '''No''','''Indeterminable''' and '''Indeterminable'''. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 09:26, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

==Indeterminable==

We won't know until we understand all of physics completely, and we may never get there.

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

Seconded. [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 17:32, 12 November 2007 (EST)

==Causation itself is unnecessary==
Causation isn't even a part of modern physics. Physics, at least when it is being precise, speaks of the relations between physical objects, not of causes with effects. These attempts to prove the existence of God are ultimately just sophistry and they will convince no one. Read Matthew 13. --[[User:Andy|Andy]] 12:18, 17 November 2007 (EST)

Debate:What is the relationship between religion and the human tendency to kill each other?

2008-04-11T15:26:04Z

Barnes: /* Some other reasons */

==No Religion?==
This sounds like John Lennons Imagine song. For those who don't know what the definition of religion is, you'd better look it up. What the question really should be asking is that if people didn't believe in anything would they have reason to kill each other. Maybe if they were indoctrinated to the point where they weren't allowed to take a stance on anything. Like if people ever really needed a reason. Don't worry, if there wasn't any religion I'm one hundred percent sure people would come up with a reason to kill, or go to war. Oh, and for you Humanist out there, that's right, Humanism is a religion too.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 18:37, 14 April 2007 (EDT)
::communism Vs. capitalism. [[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 18:40, 14 April 2007 (EDT)
::"Humanism is a religion too"
::How can you possibly call humanism a religion?
::Religions is about dogmas and belifs (often in one divine god) and almost allwas has bunch of traditions which everyone must follow.
::Humanism is about trying to make a positive life for yourself and everybody else by following your own conscience, making the best out of everything and showing support to thoes who need it.
::There isn't anything supernatural or other accpect of it which can be realted to religion in it, it is only way of describing someone, and mabye describing youself. --[[User:Nabroon|Nabroon]] 05:52, 5 March 2008 (EST)
::: You can call humanism a religion because it is. Your definition of "religion" is a humanistic one. Try reading [[religion]]. Humanism includes the ''belief'' that there is no god. That is, humanism has beliefs also. And Christianity has very little if anything in the way of necessary traditions. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:57, 5 March 2008 (EST)
:::You go to church doesn't you? :)--[[User:Nabroon|Nabroon]] 09:14, 5 March 2008 (EST)
:::: I don't go to church out of tradition, and it's not strictly ''necessary'' to go to church to be a Christian. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:14, 5 March 2008 (EST)

Of course we would. Not all conflicts are really about religion. Oh, there may be some rhetoric about “God
being on our side” and all that, but most conflicts have been over territory, and the control of resources.

Well of course people would still kill each other, however a lot of killing would not have happened and there would be less conflict today. The crusades, purely religious motives. The Northern Ireland situation was caused by politics, however if there was no religion, then there would be no labels by which the two sides could remain two sides, and the whole conflict would now be over. [[Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 18:20, 20 April 2007

Kaine murdered Able because of jealousy.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 10:48, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

I think we would've found a reason to kill each other. But the reality is that now, conservative americans put the faith of the people as an excuse to get what they want.
===Some other reasons===
Well, there's money, pride, oil... [[User:Totnesmartin|Totnesmartin]] 16:58, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

hey did anyone forget jeffery dahmer? he was just hungry...
--[[User:Wally|Wally]] 19:50, 26 June 2007 (EDT)

There are a bunch of reason to fight wars that aren't based on religion. Genocide would be rarer though. It is either religiously or ethnically based and without faith the distinction between ethnic groups would be less.

This topic is a loaded question- [http://www.myspace.com/barnes_ Barnes]

==Lebensraum==

Whatever reasons humanity has to fight amongst each other, one fact will always be certain: Humans are creatures with an ever expanding population, living on a planet with limited living space. Therefore, if you remove every other reason for fighting wars, we will still need to fight wars simply to make room for people to live.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 17:06, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

==Poorly worded==

I think the real question hear is: If their was no belief in God, would we still kill each other. The answer seems to be an obvious yes. Atheists kill as much (and according to some "facts" on this website - even more ...) then people who believe in a higher power. [[User:DLerner|DLerner]] 10:36, 5 March 2008 (EST)

Debate:What is the relationship between religion and the human tendency to kill each other?

2008-04-11T15:25:09Z

Barnes: /* No Religion? */

==No Religion?==
This sounds like John Lennons Imagine song. For those who don't know what the definition of religion is, you'd better look it up. What the question really should be asking is that if people didn't believe in anything would they have reason to kill each other. Maybe if they were indoctrinated to the point where they weren't allowed to take a stance on anything. Like if people ever really needed a reason. Don't worry, if there wasn't any religion I'm one hundred percent sure people would come up with a reason to kill, or go to war. Oh, and for you Humanist out there, that's right, Humanism is a religion too.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 18:37, 14 April 2007 (EDT)
::communism Vs. capitalism. [[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 18:40, 14 April 2007 (EDT)
::"Humanism is a religion too"
::How can you possibly call humanism a religion?
::Religions is about dogmas and belifs (often in one divine god) and almost allwas has bunch of traditions which everyone must follow.
::Humanism is about trying to make a positive life for yourself and everybody else by following your own conscience, making the best out of everything and showing support to thoes who need it.
::There isn't anything supernatural or other accpect of it which can be realted to religion in it, it is only way of describing someone, and mabye describing youself. --[[User:Nabroon|Nabroon]] 05:52, 5 March 2008 (EST)
::: You can call humanism a religion because it is. Your definition of "religion" is a humanistic one. Try reading [[religion]]. Humanism includes the ''belief'' that there is no god. That is, humanism has beliefs also. And Christianity has very little if anything in the way of necessary traditions. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:57, 5 March 2008 (EST)
:::You go to church doesn't you? :)--[[User:Nabroon|Nabroon]] 09:14, 5 March 2008 (EST)
:::: I don't go to church out of tradition, and it's not strictly ''necessary'' to go to church to be a Christian. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:14, 5 March 2008 (EST)

Of course we would. Not all conflicts are really about religion. Oh, there may be some rhetoric about “God
being on our side” and all that, but most conflicts have been over territory, and the control of resources.

Well of course people would still kill each other, however a lot of killing would not have happened and there would be less conflict today. The crusades, purely religious motives. The Northern Ireland situation was caused by politics, however if there was no religion, then there would be no labels by which the two sides could remain two sides, and the whole conflict would now be over. [[Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 18:20, 20 April 2007

Kaine murdered Able because of jealousy.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 10:48, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

I think we would've found a reason to kill each other. But the reality is that now, conservative americans put the faith of the people as an excuse to get what they want.
===Some other reasons===
Well, there's money, pride, oil... [[User:Totnesmartin|Totnesmartin]] 16:58, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

hey did anyone forget jeffery dahmer? he was just hungry...
--[[User:Wally|Wally]] 19:50, 26 June 2007 (EDT)

There are a bunch of reason to fight wars that aren't based on religion. Genocide would be rarer though. It is either religiously or ethnically based and without faith the distinction between ethnic groups would be less.

Loaded question- [http://www.myspace.com/barnes_ Barnes]

==Lebensraum==

Whatever reasons humanity has to fight amongst each other, one fact will always be certain: Humans are creatures with an ever expanding population, living on a planet with limited living space. Therefore, if you remove every other reason for fighting wars, we will still need to fight wars simply to make room for people to live.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 17:06, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

==Poorly worded==

I think the real question hear is: If their was no belief in God, would we still kill each other. The answer seems to be an obvious yes. Atheists kill as much (and according to some "facts" on this website - even more ...) then people who believe in a higher power. [[User:DLerner|DLerner]] 10:36, 5 March 2008 (EST)

Debate:Could God create a rock so heavy that he himself could not lift it?

2008-04-10T16:19:51Z

Barnes: /* "Everything that exists has a cause outside of itself." */

{{debate-religion}}

Could God create a rock so heavy that he himself could not lift it?
Discuss--[[User:Sm355|Sm355]] 18:08, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

The answer is NO He cannot "do" that. Note that there is no limit however to the size of a rock that He can create, and there is no limit to the size of a rock that He can lift. Thus the question - answered in the negative - involves no limitation on God's prerogatives; if answered in the positive however does. The whole thing is a play on words as is explained more or less in various ways below. It's negation does not mean God is not omnipotent - it means that omnipotence is not properly tested as implied by this question. [[User:Qwestor|Qwestor]] 14:54, 28 December 2007 (EDT)

This old one... its supposed to be a paradox showing the omnipotence is impossible: If God can create the rock, He must not be all-powerful because He cannot lift it. If He cant create the rock, then He still isn't all powerful. Either way, no all-powerful being. Personally, I think God just has no reason to create such a rock, so why would He? - BornAgainBrit

Because he wants to disprove his own existence. --[[User:Huey gunna getcha|Huey gunna getcha]] 18:17, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

But you can't assume that God is temporally limited like us mere mortals. He can create the rock so heavy he can't lift it one minute, then, the next minute, he lifts it. Just because we can't conceive of it, doesn't mean God can't lift it. -mittromney

:He'd get YOU to lift it. --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 18:51, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

::No! No matter how heavy the rock would be, God would still be able to lift it because he is the Almighty.
:::"He only is my rock and my salvation: he is my defence; I shall not be moved." (Psalm 62:6)
::[[User:JC|JC]] 09:44, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

==Traditional Paradox of God==
God is omnipotent Therefore he can But since he is omnipotent He can lift the rock he cannot lift Therefore God is a paradox and cannot exist

[[User:Helios|Helios]] loves the creator of this page and will worship him as though he were a paradoxical God.

The part that people miss is assuming that God is picking the rock up with a pair of arms like a human. God isn't a human. God doesn't have a physical body. God can't lift rocks. God makes the rock lift itself.
:Doesn't "lifting" assume an "up"? What is an omnipresent being standing on when lifting a rock? I think this question is broken. [[User:Totnesmartin|Totnesmartin]] 16:55, 16 May 2007
(EDT)

Alright, then can he make a rock so large he cannot make it move? And another thing disproving that he exists; it says in Genesis it took him six days to create the universe. A perfect, all-powerful god would have created it instantly. And some say that maybe he took his time, etc. That doesn't work either, because if he was perfect, everything he did would be as efficient as possible, and that would mean instantly. And, on top of that, he had to rest from the effort. Now, granted, creating a universe in only six days, and only resting for one is still pretty impressive, but that doesn't mean omnipotence.- Bob Sanchez

::Did it ever occur to anyone that it might take time to create imperfection from perfection? JM ([[user:Meyje|Meyje]])
:::What "imperfection from perfection"? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:29, 23 October 2007 (EDT)

:As far as the rock is concerned, that has been answered below, I believe. God can do anything ''that can be done''. Creating a rock too big for Him to move is not something that can be done.
:You are incorrect in claiming that a "perfect, all-powerful god would have created [the universe] instantly". The correct statement would be that He ''could'' create it instantly, not that He ''would''.
:By claiming that He would not have taken longer because that would be less efficient is (a) not obviously true (sometimes it is more efficient to take longer), and (b) presumes that efficiency is the prime goal. Rather, it would appear from Exodus 20:11 that God chose to take six days in order to set the pattern for the week.
:Similarly, you misunderstand the reference to resting. The Bible doesn't say that God was tired and needed to recuperate. The Hebrew word translated "rest" simply means to take a break, to stop from working. Again, this would have been in order to set the pattern for the week: work six days and take the seventh day off.
:In summary, then, you have basically tried picking holes with the account by saying that if God was truly omnipotent, He would have done things the way that you think He would have done them, which overlooks that perhaps there are reasons that He ''chose'' to do them the way He did that you hadn't considered.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:02, 17 July 2007 (EDT)
God is almighty, it'll be dumb if He created a rock to the point where He Himself can not lift it. God created the Heavens and the Earth, God can lift any rock. Now if HE did created such a rock, He do have the powers to make it easier fro Him to lift it. Didn't anyone think of that? I like what Philip J. Rayment said there, it is true, He did make the patterns of the week. That's why every time God created something, the BIBLE said that it was the 1st or 2nd or 3rd day.

if god is perfect, then what reason would he have to bother with existence? Surely he would do anything he would ever need or want to do in an infinitely small time, and then simply pop out of existence. If he was all-knowing, he would know it was all he could ever want to do, and if he was capable of anything, he could stop existing.
(Rowan)
: That argument presupposes that God exists in time, which He doesn't, as "time" is part of His creation. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:20, 10 December 2007 (EST)

== Absurd ==

This question is absurd and this revolves around the question of what omnipotence is. If you use the definition of "omnipotence is the ability to do anything" then you hit this problem. If you use the definition of "omnipotence is the ability to do anything that may be done" then the problem does not exist.

Lets take an alternative form of this argument:
# If God is omnipotent, then God can create a square circle
# God cannot create a square circle
# Therefore, God is not omnipotent

This is of the form
#p -> q
#~q
#therefore ~p
which is a valid argument form known as modus tollens. To attack this argument it is necessary to look at the premises. The second premise is fair so the first must be examined. This can be broken down into:
##God is omnipotent
##Therefore God can create or do anything
##A square circle is a thing
##Therefore God can create a square circle

Theistic scholar/philosophers do not claim the omnipotence of God, but rather that God is the maximally powerful being. That God can do anything that can be done. With the modified argument:
##God the maximally powerful being
##Therefore God can create or do anything
##A square circle is a thing
##Therefore God can create a square circle
It falls apart and the first premise of the argument fails. Ultimately, this does not limit God's power - He can do anything that can be done and create anything that can exist.

This can then be summed up in:
* God is the maximally powerful being.
* That which cannot exist, cannot be created.
There is no paradox here, and any claim otherwise rests on absurdity.
--[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 18:25, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Let's apply this argument by logical constraint to a few other Christian doctrines, then, shall we?

Example 1:
## For a woman to beome pregnant, she must be inseminated.
## Virgins have not been inseminated
## Mary was a virgin
## Therefore, Mary was not pregnant.

Example 2:
## Everything that exists has a cause outside of itself. (Premise)
## The universe exists. (Premise)
## Therefore, the universe has a cause outside of itself.
## We call that cause God (cosmological argument).
## God exits (Premise)
## Therefore, God has a cause outside of itself.

So - God is too weak to create a squared circle. I get that - but what about the rock?

"Any claim otherwise rests on absurdity"? You seem fairly confident that by using a lot of logical jargon and organizing your post in a way that intimates you know what you're talking about, you can circumvent the inherent logical fallacy that you're assuming you can conceptualize what can exist and what can be created. If you claim to know what can and what cannot be created, such as, for example, a rock that God can't lift, shouldn't that be in the entry for hubris? -mittromney
: I am simply stating the solution to the paradox of omnipotence that was given back as an answer in one of the religious studies classes I took at a Catholic highschool and again in a university class on "Philosophy and Religion." At best, the paradox of omnipotence is a strawman argument. [http://www.philosophyofreligion.info/impossiblerock.html] [http://www.philosophyofreligion.info/omnipotence.html] [http://www.skepticwiki.org/wiki/index.php/Omnipotence_Paradox] [http://www.greatplay.net/uselessia/articles/omnipyparadox.html] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnipotence_paradox] Thomas Aquinas said it well "Since the principles of certain sciences, such as logic, geometry and arithmetic are taken only from the formal principles of things, on which the essence of the thing depends, it follows that God could not make things contrary to these principles. For example, that a genus was not predicable of the species, or that lines drawn from the center to the circumference were not equal, or that a triangle did not have three angles equal to two right angles." - granted this is founded on euclidean space, but it goes back to the question of can God break the laws of the universe that He created. Alternatively, you can go to Augustine of Hippo and read "For He is called omnipotent on account of His doing what He wills, not on account of His suffering what He wills not; for if that should befall Him, He would by no means be omnipotent. Wherefore, He cannot do some things for the very reason that He is omnipotent." [http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf102.iv.V.10.html] --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 18:54, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Isn't the fact that your quote from Aquinas included a notion that was later proved to be totally incorrect by Einstein absolutely damning for your argument that humans can adequately perceive and evaluate logical concepts? I guess I'm curious how any of what you say deals properly with the idea that God is totally superior in every way, and therefore to say He can or can't do something is pointless hubris a fortiori? -mittromney
: It depends if you take it literally or what he was trying to say. The question is can God do something that is against the rules of logic? If you don't like the triangle example that Aquinas gave, then use four sided triangles or square circles in place of them. Read the first sentence again and you will see that these are perfectly valid substitutions - "Since the principles of certain sciences, such as logic, geometry and arithmetic are taken only from the formal principles of things, on which the essence of the thing depends, it follows that God could not make things contrary to these principles." --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 19:01, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
::So you're saying that we should just choose a new facially contradictory idea, and go ahead with that, while my whole point was that we're totally incapable of evaluating what's consistent and what's contradictory? I'm not sure how choosing new examples of things we assume to be not true helps you at all... -mittromney
::: You are suggesting that Aquinas is proven wrong because he used a definition of a triangle that only worked in euclidean space. This false-paradox is a straw man for an atheistic world view that is based on a particular definition of omnipotence - it is just as bad as creationists giving straw man arguments that are counter evolution (do note, I am not a creationist). If you wish to argue that a logical impossibility is not beyond omnipotence, then you can work from the Cartesian viewpoint of the trickster god or demon that allows 2+2=5, though that is more a question of belief and knowledge than omnipotence. If you wish to argue about omnipotence with a theistic philosopher, then it is necessary to work from that definition of omnipotence. I am presenting that definition and showing how the rest of the question falls to absurdity when this definition is used - which does not limit omnipotence. Simply said, God can do anything that can be done. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 19:15, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Again, I don't think you properly respond to what I'm saying. I claim the idea of a logical impossibility is a hobgoblin of mediocre minds: We have no idea what's logically possible or impossible. To say we do, and subsequently to claim that somehow human logic limits the omnipotence of god, is foolhardy. What I was suggesting with your Aquinas example is that things which may at one point in time appear to be facially and obviously contradictory can, in the future, be shown to actually be possible, and the original belief was therefore just an incorrect human assumption and not "logic". How that argument is a false-paradox straw man is beyond me: It appears you just throw those terms around to try to demonstrate that you're familiar with logical jargon in the hopes that the other side will assume you know better than they do. When you argue through implicit authority (not to even bring up the Descartes reference), you sound like a liberal who belongs at wiki... -mittromney

:I would urge you to ask your priest or minister the question of the rock so heavy. You will likely get a similar answer to mine (and that of Aquinas and Augustine of Hippo). Omnipotence is a human definition with words that are constrained by our language. Head to the seminary and you will find half a dozen different definitions of omnipotence and various theologians arguing for and against each one being the correct interpretation of the word. You will even find Judaism (which also asserts the omnipotent God) claims that God works through persuasion rather than action - the creation of possibility rather than miracles or violations of natural law - that His omnipotence is shown through that means. Other branches of Christianity use "God cannot make you sin" as part of its philosophy, that if God was to make you sin then you would not have free will and thus would not be sinning. The only reason to pose the paradox of omnipotence is to try to assert that God does not have such power. My take on it (and I agree with those sources I have linked above) is that the proper definition of omnipotence is "to have any power that can be had" or to be the maximally powerful being and as such the question of the rock or a square circle or a four sided triangle becomes a silly question - that which cannot exist cannot be created. If you wish to assert a different definition and solution to this question, then by all means do so. However, I have not seen any reasonable argument against this position from you yet. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 20:41, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

"Maximally powerful" doesn't mean "all-powerful". Your arguement implies that the Bible was incorrect in naming God as omnipotent, which completely destroys the foundation for faith in Christianity: The belief that the Bible is without error. - Bob Sanchez
----

Can God predict the future? [[User:kchittur|kchittur]]

How heavy do you think the rock that god can't lift would be? --[[User:Huey gunna getcha|Huey gunna getcha]] 18:48, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Maybe 1*10^abs(1/0) kg.--[[User:Sm355|Sm355]] 18:49, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:Shhhhh, you supposed to use lbs.! --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 19:06, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Guys, you are debating the wrong question which is really only a red herring. The real question that each must answer is this: "Will a man become so filled with pride and enamored with thoughts of his own intellectual superiority as to use a silly logical argument as an excuse to close his mind and his heart to the truth of the Gospel and thus reject his only hope of salvation?" --[[User:HSDad|HSDad]] 10:34, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:Or perhaps the real question is, "Why do so many people blindly follow religious stories and texts with nothing to go on but faith with out any facts?". But that's another question for another debate. Lets just stick to the original question.--[[User:Sm355|Sm355]] 12:38, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Aaaaagh you just disprooved god[[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 15:37, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

God can make the rock, but every time He tries to lift it the planet he's standing on crumbles under His feet. [[User:Teresita|Teresita]] 00:22, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

If we assume that God does exist, I'm gonna have to go with Thomas Aquinas on this one. In his ''Summa Theologica'', he wrote:
<blockquote>Therefore, everything that does not imply a contradiction in terms, is
numbered amongst those possible things, in respect of which God is
called omnipotent: whereas whatever implies contradiction does not
come within the scope of divine omnipotence, because it cannot have
the aspect of possibility. Hence it is better to say that such things
cannot be done, than that God cannot do them.</blockquote>
That is, if God exists, he can do all that is logically possible, and nothing that is not. So, because there is a contradiction whether God can or cannot create the rock, it cannot be done. [[User:Masterbratac|Masterbratac]] 19:43, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

:God is powerful, I like that square circle example. He can creat anything he want to created. Now why would God creat such a rock that even Himself can't lift. If the rock was heavy than God can just use His powers to make it easier to lift duhh. God is too strong to creat a rock too heavy for Him to lift. [[User:Amphibious|Amphibious]] 02:14, 27 October 2007 (EDT)

[added~]

haha. its kind of funny arguing about this kind of thing...because personally, i dont believe in higher beings like god. its only a figment of your mind; god holds only as much power as you give him. there is the concept of god for those who want a pillar of support around and them and i realize that there are those who truly would like to believe. and im fine with that. however, for someone like me who believes it is impractical, impossible, and downright strange to have an "omnipotent" being watching over us in such a way, i say heck sure he could. if he existed. but if we're going to put this in the context of fiction, anything is possible. but to me, if the root of this argumnet, god, does not exist, then i consider the possiblity of him creating a rock that he cant lift as invalid. {{unsigned|KuR0K4R4}}

:So what reason do you provide for God's non-existence? None! You don't believe He does—but that doesn't mean He doesn't—yet you provide absolutely no reason whatsoever for your subjective opinion. Many people have provided very good arguments supporting the view that God does exist, but you are obviously unaware of them or simply choose to ignore them, because you've made no attempt whatsoever to answer them. Instead, you simply type some throwaway lines about your personal views and expect that to count as some sort of argument (this ''is'' a ''debate'' page). [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:50, 4 December 2007 (EST)

=== "Everything that exists has a cause outside of itself." ===
Not sure who, they didn't sign their post properly, but they made this statement. There is a problem here... that is not the premise that Christians make. The statement should go like this...
:'''Everything that ''begins to'' exist has a cause.'''
* Notice that I added "begins to". For example, when a baby is born, it has a beginning, therefore it has a cause. God is the exception to the rule. Since He is the highest/most supreme Being in existence, out of necessity He always exists.
*# Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
*# God does not have a beginning.
*# Therefore God does not have a cause.
* How do we know God doesn't have a beginning or ending? Psalm 90:2 "...Even from everlasting to everlasting, You are God." (NASB)
* A side note... "outside of itself" is not necessary in the statement. It's obvious that something cannot be the cause of itself, if it does not exist. That would be illogical. So it can be safely assumed in the statement without saying it. At least I am assuming it.
--[[User:Ymmotrojam|Ymmotrojam]] 21:33, 4 December 2007 (EST)
:Oh, I don't know. When you've got people believing that the universe formed out of nothing for no reason, perhaps some of these obvious things need to be spelt out. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:37, 5 December 2007 (EST)
::I don't think Big Bang cosmology implies that the universe formed out of nothing for no reason. The theory states that we can trace the expansion of space back to a singularity, that is to say a point beyond which we cannot probe. The theory doesn't state that nothing existed prior to the singularity (indeed the singularity itself must have existed for an indeterminate time prior to its expansion into the universe we know and love). [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 20:27, 10 December 2007 (EST)
::: Discover magazine in 2002 described the views of Alan Guth, one of the originators of the inflation theory of the Big Bang thus: {{QuoteBox|The universe burst into something from absolutely nothing—zero, nada. And as it got bigger, it became filled with even more stuff that came from absolutely nowhere.[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2507/]}} I think that supports what I said quite nicely. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:08, 10 December 2007 (EST)

:::Then he created a terrible strawman for the Big Bang theory, it has since been refined by Hawking among others. Whilst paradoxes remain as they always will, they seem as equally paradoxical as God; although the implications of such a being in turn create yet more paradoxes. -Barnes
:::: I assume that you are referring to Alan Guth creating a strawman. A strawman argument is an argument that claims that ''someone else'' proposes something, which you then proceed to demolish. But Guth was not claiming that ''someone else'' proposed this: he is one of the Big Bang experts, and ''he'' was proposing this. So no, it's not a strawman argument at all. Further, this dates from six years ago; I'm not sure that you are correct that Hawking has "since" refined it. And what paradoxes are implied by the existence of God? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:20, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

:::Perhaps not a strawman, but regardless of his standing this explanation of the Big Bang is laughable. General relativity shows time not to be a passive background to events but a dynamic entity which is warped my matter and energy inside it. At a point of infinite energy density time does not progress, and thus whilst we are left with the paradox of why there was a bang we do not need to answer where the energy came from.

:::The paradox of God is his realm of his existence, and his interaction in the world. It also begs the question of why he waited an infinite time before he created the universe (if this is even possible). Then of course there is the good old problem of evil, though of course his attributes are subjective interpretations derived from 'experience'. -Barnes
::::I see lots of pins and dancing angels. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 18:39, 7 April 2008 (EDT)

:::: "''this explanation of the Big Bang is laughable''": True, but then the whole idea of the Big Bang is laughable. Regardless of Guth's particular description, the Big Bang is basically "nothing exploded and became everything".
:::: Why don't we need to answer where the energy came from? I don't follow your explanation of that.
:::: "''The paradox of God is his realm of his existence, and his interaction in the world.''": Sorry, but that's not explaining the alleged paradox.
:::: "''It also begs the question of why he waited an infinite time before he created the universe...''": No, your argument is a loaded one, presuming something that is not claimed, and not true. Part of God's creation (the space/time/matter universe) is ''time''. That means that God ''created time''. That means that God ''does not exist IN time''. Therefore, it is not true to argue that God "waited an infinite time", because "time" didn't exist.
:::: "''... (if this is even possible).''": Why would it not be possible for an all-powerful Creator to create the universe?
:::: "''Then of course there is the good old problem of evil...''": The "good old problem of evil" is the good old bibliosceptic argument that's been long answered over and over. It's old, but it's not good.
:::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:11, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

The Big Bang does not say anything about nothing. That is a misconception not because of what carefully selected scientists have to say about the theory but because you are taking a Newtonian approach to time. 'Nothing' never existed, as i explained before because time is not merely a background to events but it is shaped by the density of matter and energy inside of it. If you have a point of infinite density then time will not progress, it will stay still. So whilst you can leave God to fill the paradox of what caused the expansion itself and therefore the progression of time, it would be wrong to think of something appearing out of nothing. Therefore, if the energy had always existed then it need not have come from anywhere.

The realm of God's existence is of course paradoxical, because the word supernatural is an oxymoron. Here is a little paste from an article about this paradox:

"Now that we have the definition of Nature and Supernatural we see a very conflicting view: One is the entirety of all the laws which govern existence as we know it, and the other is a term for those activities that can happen outside the laws of nature. That is an impossibility. If Nature is Everything, then Something cannot exist outside of Everything unless Everything is only a Something; in which case Nature therefore is incorrect in it's definition and cannot be called the laws which govern all of life, only a portion of laws that govern life. So either Nature is incorrect, or Supernatural is incorrect, they cannot be existing together logically."

Time is a paradox for God because it is only through time that anything progresses. If time were stationary for God then nothing would progress for him or us; it is through chronological progression that causality can exist. If God is infinite in time, then how could he not have been waiting around for an infinite amount of time before the Big Bang? And if He is finite in time, then how was he created? If He is neither finite nor infinite, then He is exempt from time and therefore causality itself.

As for the problem of evil, it is only problematic if you assume the attribute of benevolence and the degree to which you hold him responsible for our situation and therefore the situation of others. I deny free will both on empirical, metaphysical and even divine grounds, therefore we cannot be held responsible for our actions or the suffering of others. -Barnes

:Which article? I would like to read the whole thing at some point. o_0 [[User:Kektklik|Fuzzy|AFD]] 19:00, 9 April 2008 (EDT)

http://forum.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=messageboard.viewThread&groupID=100096596&page=0&EntryID=30321825

:That nothing existed before the Big Bang is not just based on a quote from one Big Bang expert. Paul Davies, for example, said "According to modern physics, the big bang represented the origin of space and time, as well as of matter and energy."
: If your scenario is correct, and time stood still because of infinite density, and assuming God didn't trigger the Big Bang, then why isn't time still standing still? What caused the Big Bang? Any change that triggered the Big Bang would require something to be happening in time.
: The quote from the article only works because it switches meanings. From the section (in your link) just before your quote, "Nature" is defined as referring the "the material world" and "the physical world", yet the writer then bases his argument on "nature" meaning "everything". No, according to the definitions he himself supplied, it does ''not'' mean "everything". And without that, the argument collapses: there is no paradox.
: You say that time is a paradox for God because it is only through time that anything progresses, but this is something that you cannot know. What would be more accurate to say is that it is only through time that anything ''natural'' progresses, but as God is ''supernatural'', that doesn’t necessarily hold (and ''doesn't'' hold if God is the creator of time)
: If you have no free will, then even your thoughts are the unavoidable outcomes of chemical processes in your brain, which means that everything you said above you were in effect forced to say, rather than it having any basis in evidence, logic, or reason. So if you have no free will, I'm free (assuming I do have free will) to ignore everything you say. Of course, to be consistent, I have no free will either, which means that my cranial mental processes are nothing more than chemical reactions, which means that my unavoidable chemical reactions are arguing for something different than your unavoidable chemical reactions, which means that those chemical reactions do not produce consistent results, which means they are not to be trusted. Which again means that I've got no reason to take any notice of you or your arguments.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:18, 9 April 2008 (EDT)

Im not arguing that the Big Bang theory is not prone to paradoxes, for the progression of time is undoubtedly a paradox. Though whether such a theory requires the untestable and highly complex hypothesis of a God to cause it who is himself paradoxical, im not so sure. Transcending time is a logical impossibility, or rather a copout. If something is beyond our realm of comprehension to the extent that it isnt even a speculative concept, then it is a dissatisfying 'cause' to the universe. It is just as paradoxical as the progression of time, although infinitely more complex and therefore not preferable.

The definitions lead me to believe that nature is everything we see around us. "The forces and processes that produce and control all the phenomena of the material world: the laws of nature". Thus if God does interact with the world, it is only through the laws of nature that he could, and being only a something external to the empirical universe he would be not be everything but merely a something and thus limited. -[http://www.myspace.com/barnes_ Barnes]

==Logical fallacy==
It is illogical to apply physical attributes to a non-physical being. Also, it is illogical to question whether something can be created to be mightier than He who is Almighty. That God cannot create something more powerful than Himself does not mean God is not all-powerful. The definition of all-powerful is that there is nothing more powerful! Furthermore, this is pitting God against Himself; His abilities against His own abilities. That makes no sense! Look at it this way: can you defeat yourself at wrestling? Of course not.

Additionally, God cannot create square circles because squares are squares and circles are circles. It's like asking God to make 1 equal 0 or to make bthe color blue the color red. Of course, I suppose God could do some M.C. Escher thing and make square circles.

Anyway, the only thing questions like these prove is how intellectually bankrupt neo-atheists are. They so want God to not exist that they will ignore their own illogic. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 20:56, 10 December 2007 (EST)

: A good response to this type of question has just been posted on the Creation Ministries International website[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/5566]. It is consistent with other comments above, including Jinxmchue's comment (complete with an M. C. Escher picture!), but is explained very clearly, in my opinion.
: There are actually several answers:
:* 'A rock too heavy for a being who can lift anything' is a self-contradictory statement, and a self-contradictory statement is a ''nothing'', so "Can God create a rock too heavy for Him to lift?" really amounts to "Can God create a nothing?", which is clearly absurd.
:* Can God create a square circle? An all-powerful being can do anything that takes ''power'' to do. How much power does it take to create a square circle? It's not ''power'' that is required (again, because it's an illogical impossibility), so that's no argument against God's omnipotence either.
:* Yes, God ''can'' create a rock too heavy for God to lift! That is, God (the Father) can create a rock too heavy for God (the Son) to lift—because God the Son (Jesus) voluntarily gave up some of His divine powers!
: The article also relates [[C. S. Lewis]]' thoughts on the matter.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:32, 12 January 2008 (EST)

::"God (the Father) can create a rock too heavy for God (the Son) to lift" lol! I like that one. I'll have to remember to use it next time I see this argument presented by someone who thinks they're the first person to ever present it. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 09:40, 26 January 2008 (EST)

In addition, the Bible states that God is by nature good; as He cannot do anything contrary to His nature and because creating such an object would render logic illogic, one is inclined to conclude that this argument has no bearing on His undeniable existence. {{unsigned|VoteGOP21}}

==I'VE SOLVED IT!==
Yes, God ''can'' make a rock so big that He can't lift it. But He can also shrink it again to a size small enough that he can lift it too again. Crisis averted, argument over. --[[User:Cranky Joe|Cranky Joe]] 20:35, 7 January 2008 (EST)
: <grin> [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:34, 8 January 2008 (EST)
:The heaviest thing in the universe may only be one cubic millimetre. [[User:Jallen|Jallen]] 08:35, 12 January 2008 (EST)
::Hooray for incredibly dense objects. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 19:52, 24 January 2008 (EST)
:::Your ''mom's'' an incredibly dense object. :D Seriously though, this is a linguistic paradox more than a philosophical one. [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 19:43, 11 February 2008 (EST)

Debate:Could God create a rock so heavy that he himself could not lift it?

2008-04-09T23:20:56Z

Barnes: /* "Everything that exists has a cause outside of itself." */

{{debate-religion}}

Could God create a rock so heavy that he himself could not lift it?
Discuss--[[User:Sm355|Sm355]] 18:08, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

The answer is NO He cannot "do" that. Note that there is no limit however to the size of a rock that He can create, and there is no limit to the size of a rock that He can lift. Thus the question - answered in the negative - involves no limitation on God's prerogatives; if answered in the positive however does. The whole thing is a play on words as is explained more or less in various ways below. It's negation does not mean God is not omnipotent - it means that omnipotence is not properly tested as implied by this question. [[User:Qwestor|Qwestor]] 14:54, 28 December 2007 (EDT)

This old one... its supposed to be a paradox showing the omnipotence is impossible: If God can create the rock, He must not be all-powerful because He cannot lift it. If He cant create the rock, then He still isn't all powerful. Either way, no all-powerful being. Personally, I think God just has no reason to create such a rock, so why would He? - BornAgainBrit

Because he wants to disprove his own existence. --[[User:Huey gunna getcha|Huey gunna getcha]] 18:17, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

But you can't assume that God is temporally limited like us mere mortals. He can create the rock so heavy he can't lift it one minute, then, the next minute, he lifts it. Just because we can't conceive of it, doesn't mean God can't lift it. -mittromney

:He'd get YOU to lift it. --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 18:51, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

::No! No matter how heavy the rock would be, God would still be able to lift it because he is the Almighty.
:::"He only is my rock and my salvation: he is my defence; I shall not be moved." (Psalm 62:6)
::[[User:JC|JC]] 09:44, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

==Traditional Paradox of God==
God is omnipotent Therefore he can But since he is omnipotent He can lift the rock he cannot lift Therefore God is a paradox and cannot exist

[[User:Helios|Helios]] loves the creator of this page and will worship him as though he were a paradoxical God.

The part that people miss is assuming that God is picking the rock up with a pair of arms like a human. God isn't a human. God doesn't have a physical body. God can't lift rocks. God makes the rock lift itself.
:Doesn't "lifting" assume an "up"? What is an omnipresent being standing on when lifting a rock? I think this question is broken. [[User:Totnesmartin|Totnesmartin]] 16:55, 16 May 2007
(EDT)

Alright, then can he make a rock so large he cannot make it move? And another thing disproving that he exists; it says in Genesis it took him six days to create the universe. A perfect, all-powerful god would have created it instantly. And some say that maybe he took his time, etc. That doesn't work either, because if he was perfect, everything he did would be as efficient as possible, and that would mean instantly. And, on top of that, he had to rest from the effort. Now, granted, creating a universe in only six days, and only resting for one is still pretty impressive, but that doesn't mean omnipotence.- Bob Sanchez

::Did it ever occur to anyone that it might take time to create imperfection from perfection? JM ([[user:Meyje|Meyje]])
:::What "imperfection from perfection"? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:29, 23 October 2007 (EDT)

:As far as the rock is concerned, that has been answered below, I believe. God can do anything ''that can be done''. Creating a rock too big for Him to move is not something that can be done.
:You are incorrect in claiming that a "perfect, all-powerful god would have created [the universe] instantly". The correct statement would be that He ''could'' create it instantly, not that He ''would''.
:By claiming that He would not have taken longer because that would be less efficient is (a) not obviously true (sometimes it is more efficient to take longer), and (b) presumes that efficiency is the prime goal. Rather, it would appear from Exodus 20:11 that God chose to take six days in order to set the pattern for the week.
:Similarly, you misunderstand the reference to resting. The Bible doesn't say that God was tired and needed to recuperate. The Hebrew word translated "rest" simply means to take a break, to stop from working. Again, this would have been in order to set the pattern for the week: work six days and take the seventh day off.
:In summary, then, you have basically tried picking holes with the account by saying that if God was truly omnipotent, He would have done things the way that you think He would have done them, which overlooks that perhaps there are reasons that He ''chose'' to do them the way He did that you hadn't considered.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:02, 17 July 2007 (EDT)
God is almighty, it'll be dumb if He created a rock to the point where He Himself can not lift it. God created the Heavens and the Earth, God can lift any rock. Now if HE did created such a rock, He do have the powers to make it easier fro Him to lift it. Didn't anyone think of that? I like what Philip J. Rayment said there, it is true, He did make the patterns of the week. That's why every time God created something, the BIBLE said that it was the 1st or 2nd or 3rd day.

if god is perfect, then what reason would he have to bother with existence? Surely he would do anything he would ever need or want to do in an infinitely small time, and then simply pop out of existence. If he was all-knowing, he would know it was all he could ever want to do, and if he was capable of anything, he could stop existing.
(Rowan)
: That argument presupposes that God exists in time, which He doesn't, as "time" is part of His creation. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:20, 10 December 2007 (EST)

== Absurd ==

This question is absurd and this revolves around the question of what omnipotence is. If you use the definition of "omnipotence is the ability to do anything" then you hit this problem. If you use the definition of "omnipotence is the ability to do anything that may be done" then the problem does not exist.

Lets take an alternative form of this argument:
# If God is omnipotent, then God can create a square circle
# God cannot create a square circle
# Therefore, God is not omnipotent

This is of the form
#p -> q
#~q
#therefore ~p
which is a valid argument form known as modus tollens. To attack this argument it is necessary to look at the premises. The second premise is fair so the first must be examined. This can be broken down into:
##God is omnipotent
##Therefore God can create or do anything
##A square circle is a thing
##Therefore God can create a square circle

Theistic scholar/philosophers do not claim the omnipotence of God, but rather that God is the maximally powerful being. That God can do anything that can be done. With the modified argument:
##God the maximally powerful being
##Therefore God can create or do anything
##A square circle is a thing
##Therefore God can create a square circle
It falls apart and the first premise of the argument fails. Ultimately, this does not limit God's power - He can do anything that can be done and create anything that can exist.

This can then be summed up in:
* God is the maximally powerful being.
* That which cannot exist, cannot be created.
There is no paradox here, and any claim otherwise rests on absurdity.
--[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 18:25, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Let's apply this argument by logical constraint to a few other Christian doctrines, then, shall we?

Example 1:
## For a woman to beome pregnant, she must be inseminated.
## Virgins have not been inseminated
## Mary was a virgin
## Therefore, Mary was not pregnant.

Example 2:
## Everything that exists has a cause outside of itself. (Premise)
## The universe exists. (Premise)
## Therefore, the universe has a cause outside of itself.
## We call that cause God (cosmological argument).
## God exits (Premise)
## Therefore, God has a cause outside of itself.

So - God is too weak to create a squared circle. I get that - but what about the rock?

"Any claim otherwise rests on absurdity"? You seem fairly confident that by using a lot of logical jargon and organizing your post in a way that intimates you know what you're talking about, you can circumvent the inherent logical fallacy that you're assuming you can conceptualize what can exist and what can be created. If you claim to know what can and what cannot be created, such as, for example, a rock that God can't lift, shouldn't that be in the entry for hubris? -mittromney
: I am simply stating the solution to the paradox of omnipotence that was given back as an answer in one of the religious studies classes I took at a Catholic highschool and again in a university class on "Philosophy and Religion." At best, the paradox of omnipotence is a strawman argument. [http://www.philosophyofreligion.info/impossiblerock.html] [http://www.philosophyofreligion.info/omnipotence.html] [http://www.skepticwiki.org/wiki/index.php/Omnipotence_Paradox] [http://www.greatplay.net/uselessia/articles/omnipyparadox.html] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnipotence_paradox] Thomas Aquinas said it well "Since the principles of certain sciences, such as logic, geometry and arithmetic are taken only from the formal principles of things, on which the essence of the thing depends, it follows that God could not make things contrary to these principles. For example, that a genus was not predicable of the species, or that lines drawn from the center to the circumference were not equal, or that a triangle did not have three angles equal to two right angles." - granted this is founded on euclidean space, but it goes back to the question of can God break the laws of the universe that He created. Alternatively, you can go to Augustine of Hippo and read "For He is called omnipotent on account of His doing what He wills, not on account of His suffering what He wills not; for if that should befall Him, He would by no means be omnipotent. Wherefore, He cannot do some things for the very reason that He is omnipotent." [http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf102.iv.V.10.html] --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 18:54, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Isn't the fact that your quote from Aquinas included a notion that was later proved to be totally incorrect by Einstein absolutely damning for your argument that humans can adequately perceive and evaluate logical concepts? I guess I'm curious how any of what you say deals properly with the idea that God is totally superior in every way, and therefore to say He can or can't do something is pointless hubris a fortiori? -mittromney
: It depends if you take it literally or what he was trying to say. The question is can God do something that is against the rules of logic? If you don't like the triangle example that Aquinas gave, then use four sided triangles or square circles in place of them. Read the first sentence again and you will see that these are perfectly valid substitutions - "Since the principles of certain sciences, such as logic, geometry and arithmetic are taken only from the formal principles of things, on which the essence of the thing depends, it follows that God could not make things contrary to these principles." --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 19:01, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
::So you're saying that we should just choose a new facially contradictory idea, and go ahead with that, while my whole point was that we're totally incapable of evaluating what's consistent and what's contradictory? I'm not sure how choosing new examples of things we assume to be not true helps you at all... -mittromney
::: You are suggesting that Aquinas is proven wrong because he used a definition of a triangle that only worked in euclidean space. This false-paradox is a straw man for an atheistic world view that is based on a particular definition of omnipotence - it is just as bad as creationists giving straw man arguments that are counter evolution (do note, I am not a creationist). If you wish to argue that a logical impossibility is not beyond omnipotence, then you can work from the Cartesian viewpoint of the trickster god or demon that allows 2+2=5, though that is more a question of belief and knowledge than omnipotence. If you wish to argue about omnipotence with a theistic philosopher, then it is necessary to work from that definition of omnipotence. I am presenting that definition and showing how the rest of the question falls to absurdity when this definition is used - which does not limit omnipotence. Simply said, God can do anything that can be done. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 19:15, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Again, I don't think you properly respond to what I'm saying. I claim the idea of a logical impossibility is a hobgoblin of mediocre minds: We have no idea what's logically possible or impossible. To say we do, and subsequently to claim that somehow human logic limits the omnipotence of god, is foolhardy. What I was suggesting with your Aquinas example is that things which may at one point in time appear to be facially and obviously contradictory can, in the future, be shown to actually be possible, and the original belief was therefore just an incorrect human assumption and not "logic". How that argument is a false-paradox straw man is beyond me: It appears you just throw those terms around to try to demonstrate that you're familiar with logical jargon in the hopes that the other side will assume you know better than they do. When you argue through implicit authority (not to even bring up the Descartes reference), you sound like a liberal who belongs at wiki... -mittromney

:I would urge you to ask your priest or minister the question of the rock so heavy. You will likely get a similar answer to mine (and that of Aquinas and Augustine of Hippo). Omnipotence is a human definition with words that are constrained by our language. Head to the seminary and you will find half a dozen different definitions of omnipotence and various theologians arguing for and against each one being the correct interpretation of the word. You will even find Judaism (which also asserts the omnipotent God) claims that God works through persuasion rather than action - the creation of possibility rather than miracles or violations of natural law - that His omnipotence is shown through that means. Other branches of Christianity use "God cannot make you sin" as part of its philosophy, that if God was to make you sin then you would not have free will and thus would not be sinning. The only reason to pose the paradox of omnipotence is to try to assert that God does not have such power. My take on it (and I agree with those sources I have linked above) is that the proper definition of omnipotence is "to have any power that can be had" or to be the maximally powerful being and as such the question of the rock or a square circle or a four sided triangle becomes a silly question - that which cannot exist cannot be created. If you wish to assert a different definition and solution to this question, then by all means do so. However, I have not seen any reasonable argument against this position from you yet. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 20:41, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

"Maximally powerful" doesn't mean "all-powerful". Your arguement implies that the Bible was incorrect in naming God as omnipotent, which completely destroys the foundation for faith in Christianity: The belief that the Bible is without error. - Bob Sanchez
----

Can God predict the future? [[User:kchittur|kchittur]]

How heavy do you think the rock that god can't lift would be? --[[User:Huey gunna getcha|Huey gunna getcha]] 18:48, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Maybe 1*10^abs(1/0) kg.--[[User:Sm355|Sm355]] 18:49, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:Shhhhh, you supposed to use lbs.! --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 19:06, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Guys, you are debating the wrong question which is really only a red herring. The real question that each must answer is this: "Will a man become so filled with pride and enamored with thoughts of his own intellectual superiority as to use a silly logical argument as an excuse to close his mind and his heart to the truth of the Gospel and thus reject his only hope of salvation?" --[[User:HSDad|HSDad]] 10:34, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:Or perhaps the real question is, "Why do so many people blindly follow religious stories and texts with nothing to go on but faith with out any facts?". But that's another question for another debate. Lets just stick to the original question.--[[User:Sm355|Sm355]] 12:38, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Aaaaagh you just disprooved god[[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 15:37, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

God can make the rock, but every time He tries to lift it the planet he's standing on crumbles under His feet. [[User:Teresita|Teresita]] 00:22, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

If we assume that God does exist, I'm gonna have to go with Thomas Aquinas on this one. In his ''Summa Theologica'', he wrote:
<blockquote>Therefore, everything that does not imply a contradiction in terms, is
numbered amongst those possible things, in respect of which God is
called omnipotent: whereas whatever implies contradiction does not
come within the scope of divine omnipotence, because it cannot have
the aspect of possibility. Hence it is better to say that such things
cannot be done, than that God cannot do them.</blockquote>
That is, if God exists, he can do all that is logically possible, and nothing that is not. So, because there is a contradiction whether God can or cannot create the rock, it cannot be done. [[User:Masterbratac|Masterbratac]] 19:43, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

:God is powerful, I like that square circle example. He can creat anything he want to created. Now why would God creat such a rock that even Himself can't lift. If the rock was heavy than God can just use His powers to make it easier to lift duhh. God is too strong to creat a rock too heavy for Him to lift. [[User:Amphibious|Amphibious]] 02:14, 27 October 2007 (EDT)

[added~]

haha. its kind of funny arguing about this kind of thing...because personally, i dont believe in higher beings like god. its only a figment of your mind; god holds only as much power as you give him. there is the concept of god for those who want a pillar of support around and them and i realize that there are those who truly would like to believe. and im fine with that. however, for someone like me who believes it is impractical, impossible, and downright strange to have an "omnipotent" being watching over us in such a way, i say heck sure he could. if he existed. but if we're going to put this in the context of fiction, anything is possible. but to me, if the root of this argumnet, god, does not exist, then i consider the possiblity of him creating a rock that he cant lift as invalid. {{unsigned|KuR0K4R4}}

:So what reason do you provide for God's non-existence? None! You don't believe He does—but that doesn't mean He doesn't—yet you provide absolutely no reason whatsoever for your subjective opinion. Many people have provided very good arguments supporting the view that God does exist, but you are obviously unaware of them or simply choose to ignore them, because you've made no attempt whatsoever to answer them. Instead, you simply type some throwaway lines about your personal views and expect that to count as some sort of argument (this ''is'' a ''debate'' page). [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:50, 4 December 2007 (EST)

=== "Everything that exists has a cause outside of itself." ===
Not sure who, they didn't sign their post properly, but they made this statement. There is a problem here... that is not the premise that Christians make. The statement should go like this...
:'''Everything that ''begins to'' exist has a cause.'''
* Notice that I added "begins to". For example, when a baby is born, it has a beginning, therefore it has a cause. God is the exception to the rule. Since He is the highest/most supreme Being in existence, out of necessity He always exists.
*# Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
*# God does not have a beginning.
*# Therefore God does not have a cause.
* How do we know God doesn't have a beginning or ending? Psalm 90:2 "...Even from everlasting to everlasting, You are God." (NASB)
* A side note... "outside of itself" is not necessary in the statement. It's obvious that something cannot be the cause of itself, if it does not exist. That would be illogical. So it can be safely assumed in the statement without saying it. At least I am assuming it.
--[[User:Ymmotrojam|Ymmotrojam]] 21:33, 4 December 2007 (EST)
:Oh, I don't know. When you've got people believing that the universe formed out of nothing for no reason, perhaps some of these obvious things need to be spelt out. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:37, 5 December 2007 (EST)
::I don't think Big Bang cosmology implies that the universe formed out of nothing for no reason. The theory states that we can trace the expansion of space back to a singularity, that is to say a point beyond which we cannot probe. The theory doesn't state that nothing existed prior to the singularity (indeed the singularity itself must have existed for an indeterminate time prior to its expansion into the universe we know and love). [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 20:27, 10 December 2007 (EST)
::: Discover magazine in 2002 described the views of Alan Guth, one of the originators of the inflation theory of the Big Bang thus: {{QuoteBox|The universe burst into something from absolutely nothing—zero, nada. And as it got bigger, it became filled with even more stuff that came from absolutely nowhere.[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2507/]}} I think that supports what I said quite nicely. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:08, 10 December 2007 (EST)

:::Then he created a terrible strawman for the Big Bang theory, it has since been refined by Hawking among others. Whilst paradoxes remain as they always will, they seem as equally paradoxical as God; although the implications of such a being in turn create yet more paradoxes. -Barnes
:::: I assume that you are referring to Alan Guth creating a strawman. A strawman argument is an argument that claims that ''someone else'' proposes something, which you then proceed to demolish. But Guth was not claiming that ''someone else'' proposed this: he is one of the Big Bang experts, and ''he'' was proposing this. So no, it's not a strawman argument at all. Further, this dates from six years ago; I'm not sure that you are correct that Hawking has "since" refined it. And what paradoxes are implied by the existence of God? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:20, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

:::Perhaps not a strawman, but regardless of his standing this explanation of the Big Bang is laughable. General relativity shows time not to be a passive background to events but a dynamic entity which is warped my matter and energy inside it. At a point of infinite energy density time does not progress, and thus whilst we are left with the paradox of why there was a bang we do not need to answer where the energy came from.

:::The paradox of God is his realm of his existence, and his interaction in the world. It also begs the question of why he waited an infinite time before he created the universe (if this is even possible). Then of course there is the good old problem of evil, though of course his attributes are subjective interpretations derived from 'experience'. -Barnes
::::I see lots of pins and dancing angels. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 18:39, 7 April 2008 (EDT)

:::: "''this explanation of the Big Bang is laughable''": True, but then the whole idea of the Big Bang is laughable. Regardless of Guth's particular description, the Big Bang is basically "nothing exploded and became everything".
:::: Why don't we need to answer where the energy came from? I don't follow your explanation of that.
:::: "''The paradox of God is his realm of his existence, and his interaction in the world.''": Sorry, but that's not explaining the alleged paradox.
:::: "''It also begs the question of why he waited an infinite time before he created the universe...''": No, your argument is a loaded one, presuming something that is not claimed, and not true. Part of God's creation (the space/time/matter universe) is ''time''. That means that God ''created time''. That means that God ''does not exist IN time''. Therefore, it is not true to argue that God "waited an infinite time", because "time" didn't exist.
:::: "''... (if this is even possible).''": Why would it not be possible for an all-powerful Creator to create the universe?
:::: "''Then of course there is the good old problem of evil...''": The "good old problem of evil" is the good old bibliosceptic argument that's been long answered over and over. It's old, but it's not good.
:::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:11, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

The Big Bang does not say anything about nothing. That is a misconception not because of what carefully selected scientists have to say about the theory but because you are taking a Newtonian approach to time. 'Nothing' never existed, as i explained before because time is not merely a background to events but it is shaped by the density of matter and energy inside of it. If you have a point of infinite density then time will not progress, it will stay still. So whilst you can leave God to fill the paradox of what caused the expansion itself and therefore the progression of time, it would be wrong to think of something appearing out of nothing. Therefore, if the energy had always existed then it need not have come from anywhere.

The realm of God's existence is of course paradoxical, because the word supernatural is an oxymoron. Here is a little paste from an article about this paradox:

"Now that we have the definition of Nature and Supernatural we see a very conflicting view: One is the entirety of all the laws which govern existence as we know it, and the other is a term for those activities that can happen outside the laws of nature. That is an impossibility. If Nature is Everything, then Something cannot exist outside of Everything unless Everything is only a Something; in which case Nature therefore is incorrect in it's definition and cannot be called the laws which govern all of life, only a portion of laws that govern life. So either Nature is incorrect, or Supernatural is incorrect, they cannot be existing together logically."

Time is a paradox for God because it is only through time that anything progresses. If time were stationary for God then nothing would progress for him or us; it is through chronological progression that causality can exist. If God is infinite in time, then how could he not have been waiting around for an infinite amount of time before the Big Bang? And if He is finite in time, then how was he created? If He is neither finite nor infinite, then He is exempt from time and therefore causality itself.

As for the problem of evil, it is only problematic if you assume the attribute of benevolence and the degree to which you hold him responsible for our situation and therefore the situation of others. I deny free will both on empirical, metaphysical and even divine grounds, therefore we cannot be held responsible for our actions or the suffering of others. -Barnes

:Which article? I would like to read the whole thing at some point. o_0 [[User:Kektklik|Fuzzy|AFD]] 19:00, 9 April 2008 (EDT)

http://forum.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=messageboard.viewThread&groupID=100096596&page=0&EntryID=30321825&CategoryID=0&get=1&adTopicId=27&lastpagesent=8&Mytoken=5E60CA81-0BD6-432B-928EA40A4D62CE2513584616

==Logical fallacy==
It is illogical to apply physical attributes to a non-physical being. Also, it is illogical to question whether something can be created to be mightier than He who is Almighty. That God cannot create something more powerful than Himself does not mean God is not all-powerful. The definition of all-powerful is that there is nothing more powerful! Furthermore, this is pitting God against Himself; His abilities against His own abilities. That makes no sense! Look at it this way: can you defeat yourself at wrestling? Of course not.

Additionally, God cannot create square circles because squares are squares and circles are circles. It's like asking God to make 1 equal 0 or to make bthe color blue the color red. Of course, I suppose God could do some M.C. Escher thing and make square circles.

Anyway, the only thing questions like these prove is how intellectually bankrupt neo-atheists are. They so want God to not exist that they will ignore their own illogic. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 20:56, 10 December 2007 (EST)

: A good response to this type of question has just been posted on the Creation Ministries International website[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/5566]. It is consistent with other comments above, including Jinxmchue's comment (complete with an M. C. Escher picture!), but is explained very clearly, in my opinion.
: There are actually several answers:
:* 'A rock too heavy for a being who can lift anything' is a self-contradictory statement, and a self-contradictory statement is a ''nothing'', so "Can God create a rock too heavy for Him to lift?" really amounts to "Can God create a nothing?", which is clearly absurd.
:* Can God create a square circle? An all-powerful being can do anything that takes ''power'' to do. How much power does it take to create a square circle? It's not ''power'' that is required (again, because it's an illogical impossibility), so that's no argument against God's omnipotence either.
:* Yes, God ''can'' create a rock too heavy for God to lift! That is, God (the Father) can create a rock too heavy for God (the Son) to lift—because God the Son (Jesus) voluntarily gave up some of His divine powers!
: The article also relates [[C. S. Lewis]]' thoughts on the matter.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:32, 12 January 2008 (EST)

::"God (the Father) can create a rock too heavy for God (the Son) to lift" lol! I like that one. I'll have to remember to use it next time I see this argument presented by someone who thinks they're the first person to ever present it. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 09:40, 26 January 2008 (EST)

In addition, the Bible states that God is by nature good; as He cannot do anything contrary to His nature and because creating such an object would render logic illogic, one is inclined to conclude that this argument has no bearing on His undeniable existence. {{unsigned|VoteGOP21}}

==I'VE SOLVED IT!==
Yes, God ''can'' make a rock so big that He can't lift it. But He can also shrink it again to a size small enough that he can lift it too again. Crisis averted, argument over. --[[User:Cranky Joe|Cranky Joe]] 20:35, 7 January 2008 (EST)
: <grin> [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:34, 8 January 2008 (EST)
:The heaviest thing in the universe may only be one cubic millimetre. [[User:Jallen|Jallen]] 08:35, 12 January 2008 (EST)
::Hooray for incredibly dense objects. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 19:52, 24 January 2008 (EST)
:::Your ''mom's'' an incredibly dense object. :D Seriously though, this is a linguistic paradox more than a philosophical one. [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 19:43, 11 February 2008 (EST)

Debate:Could God create a rock so heavy that he himself could not lift it?

2008-04-09T23:20:12Z

Barnes: /* "Everything that exists has a cause outside of itself." */

{{debate-religion}}

Could God create a rock so heavy that he himself could not lift it?
Discuss--[[User:Sm355|Sm355]] 18:08, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

The answer is NO He cannot "do" that. Note that there is no limit however to the size of a rock that He can create, and there is no limit to the size of a rock that He can lift. Thus the question - answered in the negative - involves no limitation on God's prerogatives; if answered in the positive however does. The whole thing is a play on words as is explained more or less in various ways below. It's negation does not mean God is not omnipotent - it means that omnipotence is not properly tested as implied by this question. [[User:Qwestor|Qwestor]] 14:54, 28 December 2007 (EDT)

This old one... its supposed to be a paradox showing the omnipotence is impossible: If God can create the rock, He must not be all-powerful because He cannot lift it. If He cant create the rock, then He still isn't all powerful. Either way, no all-powerful being. Personally, I think God just has no reason to create such a rock, so why would He? - BornAgainBrit

Because he wants to disprove his own existence. --[[User:Huey gunna getcha|Huey gunna getcha]] 18:17, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

But you can't assume that God is temporally limited like us mere mortals. He can create the rock so heavy he can't lift it one minute, then, the next minute, he lifts it. Just because we can't conceive of it, doesn't mean God can't lift it. -mittromney

:He'd get YOU to lift it. --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 18:51, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

::No! No matter how heavy the rock would be, God would still be able to lift it because he is the Almighty.
:::"He only is my rock and my salvation: he is my defence; I shall not be moved." (Psalm 62:6)
::[[User:JC|JC]] 09:44, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

==Traditional Paradox of God==
God is omnipotent Therefore he can But since he is omnipotent He can lift the rock he cannot lift Therefore God is a paradox and cannot exist

[[User:Helios|Helios]] loves the creator of this page and will worship him as though he were a paradoxical God.

The part that people miss is assuming that God is picking the rock up with a pair of arms like a human. God isn't a human. God doesn't have a physical body. God can't lift rocks. God makes the rock lift itself.
:Doesn't "lifting" assume an "up"? What is an omnipresent being standing on when lifting a rock? I think this question is broken. [[User:Totnesmartin|Totnesmartin]] 16:55, 16 May 2007
(EDT)

Alright, then can he make a rock so large he cannot make it move? And another thing disproving that he exists; it says in Genesis it took him six days to create the universe. A perfect, all-powerful god would have created it instantly. And some say that maybe he took his time, etc. That doesn't work either, because if he was perfect, everything he did would be as efficient as possible, and that would mean instantly. And, on top of that, he had to rest from the effort. Now, granted, creating a universe in only six days, and only resting for one is still pretty impressive, but that doesn't mean omnipotence.- Bob Sanchez

::Did it ever occur to anyone that it might take time to create imperfection from perfection? JM ([[user:Meyje|Meyje]])
:::What "imperfection from perfection"? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:29, 23 October 2007 (EDT)

:As far as the rock is concerned, that has been answered below, I believe. God can do anything ''that can be done''. Creating a rock too big for Him to move is not something that can be done.
:You are incorrect in claiming that a "perfect, all-powerful god would have created [the universe] instantly". The correct statement would be that He ''could'' create it instantly, not that He ''would''.
:By claiming that He would not have taken longer because that would be less efficient is (a) not obviously true (sometimes it is more efficient to take longer), and (b) presumes that efficiency is the prime goal. Rather, it would appear from Exodus 20:11 that God chose to take six days in order to set the pattern for the week.
:Similarly, you misunderstand the reference to resting. The Bible doesn't say that God was tired and needed to recuperate. The Hebrew word translated "rest" simply means to take a break, to stop from working. Again, this would have been in order to set the pattern for the week: work six days and take the seventh day off.
:In summary, then, you have basically tried picking holes with the account by saying that if God was truly omnipotent, He would have done things the way that you think He would have done them, which overlooks that perhaps there are reasons that He ''chose'' to do them the way He did that you hadn't considered.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:02, 17 July 2007 (EDT)
God is almighty, it'll be dumb if He created a rock to the point where He Himself can not lift it. God created the Heavens and the Earth, God can lift any rock. Now if HE did created such a rock, He do have the powers to make it easier fro Him to lift it. Didn't anyone think of that? I like what Philip J. Rayment said there, it is true, He did make the patterns of the week. That's why every time God created something, the BIBLE said that it was the 1st or 2nd or 3rd day.

if god is perfect, then what reason would he have to bother with existence? Surely he would do anything he would ever need or want to do in an infinitely small time, and then simply pop out of existence. If he was all-knowing, he would know it was all he could ever want to do, and if he was capable of anything, he could stop existing.
(Rowan)
: That argument presupposes that God exists in time, which He doesn't, as "time" is part of His creation. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:20, 10 December 2007 (EST)

== Absurd ==

This question is absurd and this revolves around the question of what omnipotence is. If you use the definition of "omnipotence is the ability to do anything" then you hit this problem. If you use the definition of "omnipotence is the ability to do anything that may be done" then the problem does not exist.

Lets take an alternative form of this argument:
# If God is omnipotent, then God can create a square circle
# God cannot create a square circle
# Therefore, God is not omnipotent

This is of the form
#p -> q
#~q
#therefore ~p
which is a valid argument form known as modus tollens. To attack this argument it is necessary to look at the premises. The second premise is fair so the first must be examined. This can be broken down into:
##God is omnipotent
##Therefore God can create or do anything
##A square circle is a thing
##Therefore God can create a square circle

Theistic scholar/philosophers do not claim the omnipotence of God, but rather that God is the maximally powerful being. That God can do anything that can be done. With the modified argument:
##God the maximally powerful being
##Therefore God can create or do anything
##A square circle is a thing
##Therefore God can create a square circle
It falls apart and the first premise of the argument fails. Ultimately, this does not limit God's power - He can do anything that can be done and create anything that can exist.

This can then be summed up in:
* God is the maximally powerful being.
* That which cannot exist, cannot be created.
There is no paradox here, and any claim otherwise rests on absurdity.
--[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 18:25, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Let's apply this argument by logical constraint to a few other Christian doctrines, then, shall we?

Example 1:
## For a woman to beome pregnant, she must be inseminated.
## Virgins have not been inseminated
## Mary was a virgin
## Therefore, Mary was not pregnant.

Example 2:
## Everything that exists has a cause outside of itself. (Premise)
## The universe exists. (Premise)
## Therefore, the universe has a cause outside of itself.
## We call that cause God (cosmological argument).
## God exits (Premise)
## Therefore, God has a cause outside of itself.

So - God is too weak to create a squared circle. I get that - but what about the rock?

"Any claim otherwise rests on absurdity"? You seem fairly confident that by using a lot of logical jargon and organizing your post in a way that intimates you know what you're talking about, you can circumvent the inherent logical fallacy that you're assuming you can conceptualize what can exist and what can be created. If you claim to know what can and what cannot be created, such as, for example, a rock that God can't lift, shouldn't that be in the entry for hubris? -mittromney
: I am simply stating the solution to the paradox of omnipotence that was given back as an answer in one of the religious studies classes I took at a Catholic highschool and again in a university class on "Philosophy and Religion." At best, the paradox of omnipotence is a strawman argument. [http://www.philosophyofreligion.info/impossiblerock.html] [http://www.philosophyofreligion.info/omnipotence.html] [http://www.skepticwiki.org/wiki/index.php/Omnipotence_Paradox] [http://www.greatplay.net/uselessia/articles/omnipyparadox.html] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnipotence_paradox] Thomas Aquinas said it well "Since the principles of certain sciences, such as logic, geometry and arithmetic are taken only from the formal principles of things, on which the essence of the thing depends, it follows that God could not make things contrary to these principles. For example, that a genus was not predicable of the species, or that lines drawn from the center to the circumference were not equal, or that a triangle did not have three angles equal to two right angles." - granted this is founded on euclidean space, but it goes back to the question of can God break the laws of the universe that He created. Alternatively, you can go to Augustine of Hippo and read "For He is called omnipotent on account of His doing what He wills, not on account of His suffering what He wills not; for if that should befall Him, He would by no means be omnipotent. Wherefore, He cannot do some things for the very reason that He is omnipotent." [http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf102.iv.V.10.html] --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 18:54, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Isn't the fact that your quote from Aquinas included a notion that was later proved to be totally incorrect by Einstein absolutely damning for your argument that humans can adequately perceive and evaluate logical concepts? I guess I'm curious how any of what you say deals properly with the idea that God is totally superior in every way, and therefore to say He can or can't do something is pointless hubris a fortiori? -mittromney
: It depends if you take it literally or what he was trying to say. The question is can God do something that is against the rules of logic? If you don't like the triangle example that Aquinas gave, then use four sided triangles or square circles in place of them. Read the first sentence again and you will see that these are perfectly valid substitutions - "Since the principles of certain sciences, such as logic, geometry and arithmetic are taken only from the formal principles of things, on which the essence of the thing depends, it follows that God could not make things contrary to these principles." --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 19:01, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
::So you're saying that we should just choose a new facially contradictory idea, and go ahead with that, while my whole point was that we're totally incapable of evaluating what's consistent and what's contradictory? I'm not sure how choosing new examples of things we assume to be not true helps you at all... -mittromney
::: You are suggesting that Aquinas is proven wrong because he used a definition of a triangle that only worked in euclidean space. This false-paradox is a straw man for an atheistic world view that is based on a particular definition of omnipotence - it is just as bad as creationists giving straw man arguments that are counter evolution (do note, I am not a creationist). If you wish to argue that a logical impossibility is not beyond omnipotence, then you can work from the Cartesian viewpoint of the trickster god or demon that allows 2+2=5, though that is more a question of belief and knowledge than omnipotence. If you wish to argue about omnipotence with a theistic philosopher, then it is necessary to work from that definition of omnipotence. I am presenting that definition and showing how the rest of the question falls to absurdity when this definition is used - which does not limit omnipotence. Simply said, God can do anything that can be done. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 19:15, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Again, I don't think you properly respond to what I'm saying. I claim the idea of a logical impossibility is a hobgoblin of mediocre minds: We have no idea what's logically possible or impossible. To say we do, and subsequently to claim that somehow human logic limits the omnipotence of god, is foolhardy. What I was suggesting with your Aquinas example is that things which may at one point in time appear to be facially and obviously contradictory can, in the future, be shown to actually be possible, and the original belief was therefore just an incorrect human assumption and not "logic". How that argument is a false-paradox straw man is beyond me: It appears you just throw those terms around to try to demonstrate that you're familiar with logical jargon in the hopes that the other side will assume you know better than they do. When you argue through implicit authority (not to even bring up the Descartes reference), you sound like a liberal who belongs at wiki... -mittromney

:I would urge you to ask your priest or minister the question of the rock so heavy. You will likely get a similar answer to mine (and that of Aquinas and Augustine of Hippo). Omnipotence is a human definition with words that are constrained by our language. Head to the seminary and you will find half a dozen different definitions of omnipotence and various theologians arguing for and against each one being the correct interpretation of the word. You will even find Judaism (which also asserts the omnipotent God) claims that God works through persuasion rather than action - the creation of possibility rather than miracles or violations of natural law - that His omnipotence is shown through that means. Other branches of Christianity use "God cannot make you sin" as part of its philosophy, that if God was to make you sin then you would not have free will and thus would not be sinning. The only reason to pose the paradox of omnipotence is to try to assert that God does not have such power. My take on it (and I agree with those sources I have linked above) is that the proper definition of omnipotence is "to have any power that can be had" or to be the maximally powerful being and as such the question of the rock or a square circle or a four sided triangle becomes a silly question - that which cannot exist cannot be created. If you wish to assert a different definition and solution to this question, then by all means do so. However, I have not seen any reasonable argument against this position from you yet. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 20:41, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

"Maximally powerful" doesn't mean "all-powerful". Your arguement implies that the Bible was incorrect in naming God as omnipotent, which completely destroys the foundation for faith in Christianity: The belief that the Bible is without error. - Bob Sanchez
----

Can God predict the future? [[User:kchittur|kchittur]]

How heavy do you think the rock that god can't lift would be? --[[User:Huey gunna getcha|Huey gunna getcha]] 18:48, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Maybe 1*10^abs(1/0) kg.--[[User:Sm355|Sm355]] 18:49, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:Shhhhh, you supposed to use lbs.! --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 19:06, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Guys, you are debating the wrong question which is really only a red herring. The real question that each must answer is this: "Will a man become so filled with pride and enamored with thoughts of his own intellectual superiority as to use a silly logical argument as an excuse to close his mind and his heart to the truth of the Gospel and thus reject his only hope of salvation?" --[[User:HSDad|HSDad]] 10:34, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:Or perhaps the real question is, "Why do so many people blindly follow religious stories and texts with nothing to go on but faith with out any facts?". But that's another question for another debate. Lets just stick to the original question.--[[User:Sm355|Sm355]] 12:38, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Aaaaagh you just disprooved god[[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 15:37, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

God can make the rock, but every time He tries to lift it the planet he's standing on crumbles under His feet. [[User:Teresita|Teresita]] 00:22, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

If we assume that God does exist, I'm gonna have to go with Thomas Aquinas on this one. In his ''Summa Theologica'', he wrote:
<blockquote>Therefore, everything that does not imply a contradiction in terms, is
numbered amongst those possible things, in respect of which God is
called omnipotent: whereas whatever implies contradiction does not
come within the scope of divine omnipotence, because it cannot have
the aspect of possibility. Hence it is better to say that such things
cannot be done, than that God cannot do them.</blockquote>
That is, if God exists, he can do all that is logically possible, and nothing that is not. So, because there is a contradiction whether God can or cannot create the rock, it cannot be done. [[User:Masterbratac|Masterbratac]] 19:43, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

:God is powerful, I like that square circle example. He can creat anything he want to created. Now why would God creat such a rock that even Himself can't lift. If the rock was heavy than God can just use His powers to make it easier to lift duhh. God is too strong to creat a rock too heavy for Him to lift. [[User:Amphibious|Amphibious]] 02:14, 27 October 2007 (EDT)

[added~]

haha. its kind of funny arguing about this kind of thing...because personally, i dont believe in higher beings like god. its only a figment of your mind; god holds only as much power as you give him. there is the concept of god for those who want a pillar of support around and them and i realize that there are those who truly would like to believe. and im fine with that. however, for someone like me who believes it is impractical, impossible, and downright strange to have an "omnipotent" being watching over us in such a way, i say heck sure he could. if he existed. but if we're going to put this in the context of fiction, anything is possible. but to me, if the root of this argumnet, god, does not exist, then i consider the possiblity of him creating a rock that he cant lift as invalid. {{unsigned|KuR0K4R4}}

:So what reason do you provide for God's non-existence? None! You don't believe He does—but that doesn't mean He doesn't—yet you provide absolutely no reason whatsoever for your subjective opinion. Many people have provided very good arguments supporting the view that God does exist, but you are obviously unaware of them or simply choose to ignore them, because you've made no attempt whatsoever to answer them. Instead, you simply type some throwaway lines about your personal views and expect that to count as some sort of argument (this ''is'' a ''debate'' page). [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:50, 4 December 2007 (EST)

=== "Everything that exists has a cause outside of itself." ===
Not sure who, they didn't sign their post properly, but they made this statement. There is a problem here... that is not the premise that Christians make. The statement should go like this...
:'''Everything that ''begins to'' exist has a cause.'''
* Notice that I added "begins to". For example, when a baby is born, it has a beginning, therefore it has a cause. God is the exception to the rule. Since He is the highest/most supreme Being in existence, out of necessity He always exists.
*# Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
*# God does not have a beginning.
*# Therefore God does not have a cause.
* How do we know God doesn't have a beginning or ending? Psalm 90:2 "...Even from everlasting to everlasting, You are God." (NASB)
* A side note... "outside of itself" is not necessary in the statement. It's obvious that something cannot be the cause of itself, if it does not exist. That would be illogical. So it can be safely assumed in the statement without saying it. At least I am assuming it.
--[[User:Ymmotrojam|Ymmotrojam]] 21:33, 4 December 2007 (EST)
:Oh, I don't know. When you've got people believing that the universe formed out of nothing for no reason, perhaps some of these obvious things need to be spelt out. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:37, 5 December 2007 (EST)
::I don't think Big Bang cosmology implies that the universe formed out of nothing for no reason. The theory states that we can trace the expansion of space back to a singularity, that is to say a point beyond which we cannot probe. The theory doesn't state that nothing existed prior to the singularity (indeed the singularity itself must have existed for an indeterminate time prior to its expansion into the universe we know and love). [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 20:27, 10 December 2007 (EST)
::: Discover magazine in 2002 described the views of Alan Guth, one of the originators of the inflation theory of the Big Bang thus: {{QuoteBox|The universe burst into something from absolutely nothing—zero, nada. And as it got bigger, it became filled with even more stuff that came from absolutely nowhere.[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2507/]}} I think that supports what I said quite nicely. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:08, 10 December 2007 (EST)

:::Then he created a terrible strawman for the Big Bang theory, it has since been refined by Hawking among others. Whilst paradoxes remain as they always will, they seem as equally paradoxical as God; although the implications of such a being in turn create yet more paradoxes. -Barnes
:::: I assume that you are referring to Alan Guth creating a strawman. A strawman argument is an argument that claims that ''someone else'' proposes something, which you then proceed to demolish. But Guth was not claiming that ''someone else'' proposed this: he is one of the Big Bang experts, and ''he'' was proposing this. So no, it's not a strawman argument at all. Further, this dates from six years ago; I'm not sure that you are correct that Hawking has "since" refined it. And what paradoxes are implied by the existence of God? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:20, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

:::Perhaps not a strawman, but regardless of his standing this explanation of the Big Bang is laughable. General relativity shows time not to be a passive background to events but a dynamic entity which is warped my matter and energy inside it. At a point of infinite energy density time does not progress, and thus whilst we are left with the paradox of why there was a bang we do not need to answer where the energy came from.

:::The paradox of God is his realm of his existence, and his interaction in the world. It also begs the question of why he waited an infinite time before he created the universe (if this is even possible). Then of course there is the good old problem of evil, though of course his attributes are subjective interpretations derived from 'experience'. -Barnes
::::I see lots of pins and dancing angels. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 18:39, 7 April 2008 (EDT)

:::: "''this explanation of the Big Bang is laughable''": True, but then the whole idea of the Big Bang is laughable. Regardless of Guth's particular description, the Big Bang is basically "nothing exploded and became everything".
:::: Why don't we need to answer where the energy came from? I don't follow your explanation of that.
:::: "''The paradox of God is his realm of his existence, and his interaction in the world.''": Sorry, but that's not explaining the alleged paradox.
:::: "''It also begs the question of why he waited an infinite time before he created the universe...''": No, your argument is a loaded one, presuming something that is not claimed, and not true. Part of God's creation (the space/time/matter universe) is ''time''. That means that God ''created time''. That means that God ''does not exist IN time''. Therefore, it is not true to argue that God "waited an infinite time", because "time" didn't exist.
:::: "''... (if this is even possible).''": Why would it not be possible for an all-powerful Creator to create the universe?
:::: "''Then of course there is the good old problem of evil...''": The "good old problem of evil" is the good old bibliosceptic argument that's been long answered over and over. It's old, but it's not good.
:::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:11, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

The Big Bang does not say anything about nothing. That is a misconception not because of what carefully selected scientists have to say about the theory but because you are taking a Newtonian approach to time. 'Nothing' never existed, as i explained before because time is not merely a background to events but it is shaped by the density of matter and energy inside of it. If you have a point of infinite density then time will not progress, it will stay still. So whilst you can leave God to fill the paradox of what caused the expansion itself and therefore the progression of time, it would be wrong to think of something appearing out of nothing. Therefore, if the energy had always existed then it need not have come from anywhere.

The realm of God's existence is of course paradoxical, because the word supernatural is an oxymoron. Here is a little paste from an article about this paradox:

"Now that we have the definition of Nature and Supernatural we see a very conflicting view: One is the entirety of all the laws which govern existence as we know it, and the other is a term for those activities that can happen outside the laws of nature. That is an impossibility. If Nature is Everything, then Something cannot exist outside of Everything unless Everything is only a Something; in which case Nature therefore is incorrect in it's definition and cannot be called the laws which govern all of life, only a portion of laws that govern life. So either Nature is incorrect, or Supernatural is incorrect, they cannot be existing together logically."

Time is a paradox for God because it is only through time that anything progresses. If time were stationary for God then nothing would progress for him or us; it is through chronological progression that causality can exist. If God is infinite in time, then how could he not have been waiting around for an infinite amount of time before the Big Bang? And if He is finite in time, then how was he created? If He is neither finite nor infinite, then He is exempt from time and therefore causality itself.

As for the problem of evil, it is only problematic if you assume the attribute of benevolence and the degree to which you hold him responsible for our situation and therefore the situation of others. I deny free will both on empirical, metaphysical and even divine grounds, therefore we cannot be held responsible for our actions or the suffering of others. -Barnes

:Which article? I would like to read the whole thing at some point. o_0 [[User:Kektklik|Fuzzy|AFD]] 19:00, 9 April 2008 (EDT)

<a href="http://forum.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=messageboard.viewThread&groupID=100096596&page=0&EntryID=30321825&CategoryID=0&get=1&adTopicId=27&lastpagesent=8&Mytoken=5E60CA81-0BD6-432B-928EA40A4D62CE2513584616">Here is the article</a>

==Logical fallacy==
It is illogical to apply physical attributes to a non-physical being. Also, it is illogical to question whether something can be created to be mightier than He who is Almighty. That God cannot create something more powerful than Himself does not mean God is not all-powerful. The definition of all-powerful is that there is nothing more powerful! Furthermore, this is pitting God against Himself; His abilities against His own abilities. That makes no sense! Look at it this way: can you defeat yourself at wrestling? Of course not.

Additionally, God cannot create square circles because squares are squares and circles are circles. It's like asking God to make 1 equal 0 or to make bthe color blue the color red. Of course, I suppose God could do some M.C. Escher thing and make square circles.

Anyway, the only thing questions like these prove is how intellectually bankrupt neo-atheists are. They so want God to not exist that they will ignore their own illogic. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 20:56, 10 December 2007 (EST)

: A good response to this type of question has just been posted on the Creation Ministries International website[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/5566]. It is consistent with other comments above, including Jinxmchue's comment (complete with an M. C. Escher picture!), but is explained very clearly, in my opinion.
: There are actually several answers:
:* 'A rock too heavy for a being who can lift anything' is a self-contradictory statement, and a self-contradictory statement is a ''nothing'', so "Can God create a rock too heavy for Him to lift?" really amounts to "Can God create a nothing?", which is clearly absurd.
:* Can God create a square circle? An all-powerful being can do anything that takes ''power'' to do. How much power does it take to create a square circle? It's not ''power'' that is required (again, because it's an illogical impossibility), so that's no argument against God's omnipotence either.
:* Yes, God ''can'' create a rock too heavy for God to lift! That is, God (the Father) can create a rock too heavy for God (the Son) to lift—because God the Son (Jesus) voluntarily gave up some of His divine powers!
: The article also relates [[C. S. Lewis]]' thoughts on the matter.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:32, 12 January 2008 (EST)

::"God (the Father) can create a rock too heavy for God (the Son) to lift" lol! I like that one. I'll have to remember to use it next time I see this argument presented by someone who thinks they're the first person to ever present it. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 09:40, 26 January 2008 (EST)

In addition, the Bible states that God is by nature good; as He cannot do anything contrary to His nature and because creating such an object would render logic illogic, one is inclined to conclude that this argument has no bearing on His undeniable existence. {{unsigned|VoteGOP21}}

==I'VE SOLVED IT!==
Yes, God ''can'' make a rock so big that He can't lift it. But He can also shrink it again to a size small enough that he can lift it too again. Crisis averted, argument over. --[[User:Cranky Joe|Cranky Joe]] 20:35, 7 January 2008 (EST)
: <grin> [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:34, 8 January 2008 (EST)
:The heaviest thing in the universe may only be one cubic millimetre. [[User:Jallen|Jallen]] 08:35, 12 January 2008 (EST)
::Hooray for incredibly dense objects. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 19:52, 24 January 2008 (EST)
:::Your ''mom's'' an incredibly dense object. :D Seriously though, this is a linguistic paradox more than a philosophical one. [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 19:43, 11 February 2008 (EST)

Debate:Could God create a rock so heavy that he himself could not lift it?

2008-04-09T22:54:49Z

Barnes: /* "Everything that exists has a cause outside of itself." */

{{debate-religion}}

Could God create a rock so heavy that he himself could not lift it?
Discuss--[[User:Sm355|Sm355]] 18:08, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

The answer is NO He cannot "do" that. Note that there is no limit however to the size of a rock that He can create, and there is no limit to the size of a rock that He can lift. Thus the question - answered in the negative - involves no limitation on God's prerogatives; if answered in the positive however does. The whole thing is a play on words as is explained more or less in various ways below. It's negation does not mean God is not omnipotent - it means that omnipotence is not properly tested as implied by this question. [[User:Qwestor|Qwestor]] 14:54, 28 December 2007 (EDT)

This old one... its supposed to be a paradox showing the omnipotence is impossible: If God can create the rock, He must not be all-powerful because He cannot lift it. If He cant create the rock, then He still isn't all powerful. Either way, no all-powerful being. Personally, I think God just has no reason to create such a rock, so why would He? - BornAgainBrit

Because he wants to disprove his own existence. --[[User:Huey gunna getcha|Huey gunna getcha]] 18:17, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

But you can't assume that God is temporally limited like us mere mortals. He can create the rock so heavy he can't lift it one minute, then, the next minute, he lifts it. Just because we can't conceive of it, doesn't mean God can't lift it. -mittromney

:He'd get YOU to lift it. --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 18:51, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

::No! No matter how heavy the rock would be, God would still be able to lift it because he is the Almighty.
:::"He only is my rock and my salvation: he is my defence; I shall not be moved." (Psalm 62:6)
::[[User:JC|JC]] 09:44, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

==Traditional Paradox of God==
God is omnipotent Therefore he can But since he is omnipotent He can lift the rock he cannot lift Therefore God is a paradox and cannot exist

[[User:Helios|Helios]] loves the creator of this page and will worship him as though he were a paradoxical God.

The part that people miss is assuming that God is picking the rock up with a pair of arms like a human. God isn't a human. God doesn't have a physical body. God can't lift rocks. God makes the rock lift itself.
:Doesn't "lifting" assume an "up"? What is an omnipresent being standing on when lifting a rock? I think this question is broken. [[User:Totnesmartin|Totnesmartin]] 16:55, 16 May 2007
(EDT)

Alright, then can he make a rock so large he cannot make it move? And another thing disproving that he exists; it says in Genesis it took him six days to create the universe. A perfect, all-powerful god would have created it instantly. And some say that maybe he took his time, etc. That doesn't work either, because if he was perfect, everything he did would be as efficient as possible, and that would mean instantly. And, on top of that, he had to rest from the effort. Now, granted, creating a universe in only six days, and only resting for one is still pretty impressive, but that doesn't mean omnipotence.- Bob Sanchez

::Did it ever occur to anyone that it might take time to create imperfection from perfection? JM ([[user:Meyje|Meyje]])
:::What "imperfection from perfection"? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:29, 23 October 2007 (EDT)

:As far as the rock is concerned, that has been answered below, I believe. God can do anything ''that can be done''. Creating a rock too big for Him to move is not something that can be done.
:You are incorrect in claiming that a "perfect, all-powerful god would have created [the universe] instantly". The correct statement would be that He ''could'' create it instantly, not that He ''would''.
:By claiming that He would not have taken longer because that would be less efficient is (a) not obviously true (sometimes it is more efficient to take longer), and (b) presumes that efficiency is the prime goal. Rather, it would appear from Exodus 20:11 that God chose to take six days in order to set the pattern for the week.
:Similarly, you misunderstand the reference to resting. The Bible doesn't say that God was tired and needed to recuperate. The Hebrew word translated "rest" simply means to take a break, to stop from working. Again, this would have been in order to set the pattern for the week: work six days and take the seventh day off.
:In summary, then, you have basically tried picking holes with the account by saying that if God was truly omnipotent, He would have done things the way that you think He would have done them, which overlooks that perhaps there are reasons that He ''chose'' to do them the way He did that you hadn't considered.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:02, 17 July 2007 (EDT)
God is almighty, it'll be dumb if He created a rock to the point where He Himself can not lift it. God created the Heavens and the Earth, God can lift any rock. Now if HE did created such a rock, He do have the powers to make it easier fro Him to lift it. Didn't anyone think of that? I like what Philip J. Rayment said there, it is true, He did make the patterns of the week. That's why every time God created something, the BIBLE said that it was the 1st or 2nd or 3rd day.

if god is perfect, then what reason would he have to bother with existence? Surely he would do anything he would ever need or want to do in an infinitely small time, and then simply pop out of existence. If he was all-knowing, he would know it was all he could ever want to do, and if he was capable of anything, he could stop existing.
(Rowan)
: That argument presupposes that God exists in time, which He doesn't, as "time" is part of His creation. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:20, 10 December 2007 (EST)

== Absurd ==

This question is absurd and this revolves around the question of what omnipotence is. If you use the definition of "omnipotence is the ability to do anything" then you hit this problem. If you use the definition of "omnipotence is the ability to do anything that may be done" then the problem does not exist.

Lets take an alternative form of this argument:
# If God is omnipotent, then God can create a square circle
# God cannot create a square circle
# Therefore, God is not omnipotent

This is of the form
#p -> q
#~q
#therefore ~p
which is a valid argument form known as modus tollens. To attack this argument it is necessary to look at the premises. The second premise is fair so the first must be examined. This can be broken down into:
##God is omnipotent
##Therefore God can create or do anything
##A square circle is a thing
##Therefore God can create a square circle

Theistic scholar/philosophers do not claim the omnipotence of God, but rather that God is the maximally powerful being. That God can do anything that can be done. With the modified argument:
##God the maximally powerful being
##Therefore God can create or do anything
##A square circle is a thing
##Therefore God can create a square circle
It falls apart and the first premise of the argument fails. Ultimately, this does not limit God's power - He can do anything that can be done and create anything that can exist.

This can then be summed up in:
* God is the maximally powerful being.
* That which cannot exist, cannot be created.
There is no paradox here, and any claim otherwise rests on absurdity.
--[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 18:25, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Let's apply this argument by logical constraint to a few other Christian doctrines, then, shall we?

Example 1:
## For a woman to beome pregnant, she must be inseminated.
## Virgins have not been inseminated
## Mary was a virgin
## Therefore, Mary was not pregnant.

Example 2:
## Everything that exists has a cause outside of itself. (Premise)
## The universe exists. (Premise)
## Therefore, the universe has a cause outside of itself.
## We call that cause God (cosmological argument).
## God exits (Premise)
## Therefore, God has a cause outside of itself.

So - God is too weak to create a squared circle. I get that - but what about the rock?

"Any claim otherwise rests on absurdity"? You seem fairly confident that by using a lot of logical jargon and organizing your post in a way that intimates you know what you're talking about, you can circumvent the inherent logical fallacy that you're assuming you can conceptualize what can exist and what can be created. If you claim to know what can and what cannot be created, such as, for example, a rock that God can't lift, shouldn't that be in the entry for hubris? -mittromney
: I am simply stating the solution to the paradox of omnipotence that was given back as an answer in one of the religious studies classes I took at a Catholic highschool and again in a university class on "Philosophy and Religion." At best, the paradox of omnipotence is a strawman argument. [http://www.philosophyofreligion.info/impossiblerock.html] [http://www.philosophyofreligion.info/omnipotence.html] [http://www.skepticwiki.org/wiki/index.php/Omnipotence_Paradox] [http://www.greatplay.net/uselessia/articles/omnipyparadox.html] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnipotence_paradox] Thomas Aquinas said it well "Since the principles of certain sciences, such as logic, geometry and arithmetic are taken only from the formal principles of things, on which the essence of the thing depends, it follows that God could not make things contrary to these principles. For example, that a genus was not predicable of the species, or that lines drawn from the center to the circumference were not equal, or that a triangle did not have three angles equal to two right angles." - granted this is founded on euclidean space, but it goes back to the question of can God break the laws of the universe that He created. Alternatively, you can go to Augustine of Hippo and read "For He is called omnipotent on account of His doing what He wills, not on account of His suffering what He wills not; for if that should befall Him, He would by no means be omnipotent. Wherefore, He cannot do some things for the very reason that He is omnipotent." [http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf102.iv.V.10.html] --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 18:54, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Isn't the fact that your quote from Aquinas included a notion that was later proved to be totally incorrect by Einstein absolutely damning for your argument that humans can adequately perceive and evaluate logical concepts? I guess I'm curious how any of what you say deals properly with the idea that God is totally superior in every way, and therefore to say He can or can't do something is pointless hubris a fortiori? -mittromney
: It depends if you take it literally or what he was trying to say. The question is can God do something that is against the rules of logic? If you don't like the triangle example that Aquinas gave, then use four sided triangles or square circles in place of them. Read the first sentence again and you will see that these are perfectly valid substitutions - "Since the principles of certain sciences, such as logic, geometry and arithmetic are taken only from the formal principles of things, on which the essence of the thing depends, it follows that God could not make things contrary to these principles." --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 19:01, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
::So you're saying that we should just choose a new facially contradictory idea, and go ahead with that, while my whole point was that we're totally incapable of evaluating what's consistent and what's contradictory? I'm not sure how choosing new examples of things we assume to be not true helps you at all... -mittromney
::: You are suggesting that Aquinas is proven wrong because he used a definition of a triangle that only worked in euclidean space. This false-paradox is a straw man for an atheistic world view that is based on a particular definition of omnipotence - it is just as bad as creationists giving straw man arguments that are counter evolution (do note, I am not a creationist). If you wish to argue that a logical impossibility is not beyond omnipotence, then you can work from the Cartesian viewpoint of the trickster god or demon that allows 2+2=5, though that is more a question of belief and knowledge than omnipotence. If you wish to argue about omnipotence with a theistic philosopher, then it is necessary to work from that definition of omnipotence. I am presenting that definition and showing how the rest of the question falls to absurdity when this definition is used - which does not limit omnipotence. Simply said, God can do anything that can be done. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 19:15, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Again, I don't think you properly respond to what I'm saying. I claim the idea of a logical impossibility is a hobgoblin of mediocre minds: We have no idea what's logically possible or impossible. To say we do, and subsequently to claim that somehow human logic limits the omnipotence of god, is foolhardy. What I was suggesting with your Aquinas example is that things which may at one point in time appear to be facially and obviously contradictory can, in the future, be shown to actually be possible, and the original belief was therefore just an incorrect human assumption and not "logic". How that argument is a false-paradox straw man is beyond me: It appears you just throw those terms around to try to demonstrate that you're familiar with logical jargon in the hopes that the other side will assume you know better than they do. When you argue through implicit authority (not to even bring up the Descartes reference), you sound like a liberal who belongs at wiki... -mittromney
: I would urge you to ask your priest or minister the question of the rock so heavy. You will likely get a similar answer to mine (and that of Aquinas and Augustine of Hippo). Omnipotence is a human definition with words that are constrained by our language. Head to the seminary and you will find half a dozen different definitions of omnipotence and various theologians arguing for and against each one being the correct interpretation of the word. You will even find Judaism (which also asserts the omnipotent God) claims that God works through persuasion rather than action - the creation of possibility rather than miracles or violations of natural law - that His omnipotence is shown through that means. Other branches of Christianity use "God cannot make you sin" as part of its philosophy, that if God was to make you sin then you would not have free will and thus would not be sinning. The only reason to pose the paradox of omnipotence is to try to assert that God does not have such power. My take on it (and I agree with those sources I have linked above) is that the proper definition of omnipotence is "to have any power that can be had" or to be the maximally powerful being and as such the question of the rock or a square circle or a four sided triangle becomes a silly question - that which cannot exist cannot be created. If you wish to assert a different definition and solution to this question, then by all means do so. However, I have not seen any reasonable argument against this position from you yet. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 20:41, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

"Maximally powerful" doesn't mean "all-powerful". Your arguement implies that the Bible was incorrect in naming God as omnipotent, which completely destroys the foundation for faith in Christianity: The belief that the Bible is without error. - Bob Sanchez
----

Can God predict the future? [[User:kchittur|kchittur]]

How heavy do you think the rock that god can't lift would be? --[[User:Huey gunna getcha|Huey gunna getcha]] 18:48, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Maybe 1*10^abs(1/0) kg.--[[User:Sm355|Sm355]] 18:49, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:Shhhhh, you supposed to use lbs.! --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 19:06, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Guys, you are debating the wrong question which is really only a red herring. The real question that each must answer is this: "Will a man become so filled with pride and enamored with thoughts of his own intellectual superiority as to use a silly logical argument as an excuse to close his mind and his heart to the truth of the Gospel and thus reject his only hope of salvation?" --[[User:HSDad|HSDad]] 10:34, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

: Or perhaps the real question is, "Why do so many people blindly follow religious stories and texts with nothing to go on but faith with out any facts?". But that's another question for another debate. Lets just stick to the original question.--[[User:Sm355|Sm355]] 12:38, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Aaaaagh you just disprooved god[[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 15:37, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

God can make the rock, but every time He tries to lift it the planet he's standing on crumbles under His feet. [[User:Teresita|Teresita]] 00:22, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

If we assume that God does exist, I'm gonna have to go with Thomas Aquinas on this one. In his ''Summa Theologica'', he wrote:
<blockquote>Therefore, everything that does not imply a contradiction in terms, is
numbered amongst those possible things, in respect of which God is
called omnipotent: whereas whatever implies contradiction does not
come within the scope of divine omnipotence, because it cannot have
the aspect of possibility. Hence it is better to say that such things
cannot be done, than that God cannot do them.</blockquote>
That is, if God exists, he can do all that is logically possible, and nothing that is not. So, because there is a contradiction whether God can or cannot create the rock, it cannot be done. [[User:Masterbratac|Masterbratac]] 19:43, 23 September 2007 (EDT)
God is powerful, I like that square circle example. He can creat anything he want to created. Now why would God creat such a rock that even Himself can't lift. If the rock was heavy than God can just use His powers to make it easier to lift duhh. God is too strong to creat a rock too heavy for Him to lift. [[User:Amphibious|Amphibious]] 02:14, 27 October 2007 (EDT)

[added~]

haha. its kind of funny arguing about this kind of thing...because personally, i dont believe in higher beings like god. its only a figment of your mind; god holds only as much power as you give him. there is the concept of god for those who want a pillar of support around and them and i realize that there are those who truly would like to believe. and im fine with that. however, for someone like me who believes it is impractical, impossible, and downright strange to have an "omnipotent" being watching over us in such a way, i say heck sure he could. if he existed. but if we're going to put this in the context of fiction, anything is possible. but to me, if the root of this argumnet, god, does not exist, then i consider the possiblity of him creating a rock that he cant lift as invalid. {{unsigned|KuR0K4R4}}
: So what reason do you provide for God's non-existence? None! You don't believe He does—but that doesn't mean He doesn't—yet you provide absolutely no reason whatsoever for your subjective opinion. Many people have provided very good arguments supporting the view that God does exist, but you are obviously unaware of them or simply choose to ignore them, because you've made no attempt whatsoever to answer them. Instead, you simply type some throwaway lines about your personal views and expect that to count as some sort of argument (this ''is'' a ''debate'' page). [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:50, 4 December 2007 (EST)

=== "Everything that exists has a cause outside of itself." ===
Not sure who, they didn't sign their post properly, but they made this statement. There is a problem here... that is not the premise that Christians make. The statement should go like this...
:'''Everything that ''begins to'' exist has a cause.'''
* Notice that I added "begins to". For example, when a baby is born, it has a beginning, therefore it has a cause. God is the exception to the rule. Since He is the highest/most supreme Being in existence, out of necessity He always exists.
*# Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
*# God does not have a beginning.
*# Therefore God does not have a cause.
* How do we know God doesn't have a beginning or ending? Psalm 90:2 "...Even from everlasting to everlasting, You are God." (NASB)
* A side note... "outside of itself" is not necessary in the statement. It's obvious that something cannot be the cause of itself, if it does not exist. That would be illogical. So it can be safely assumed in the statement without saying it. At least I am assuming it.
--[[User:Ymmotrojam|Ymmotrojam]] 21:33, 4 December 2007 (EST)
:Oh, I don't know. When you've got people believing that the universe formed out of nothing for no reason, perhaps some of these obvious things need to be spelt out. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:37, 5 December 2007 (EST)
::I don't think Big Bang cosmology implies that the universe formed out of nothing for no reason. The theory states that we can trace the expansion of space back to a singularity, that is to say a point beyond which we cannot probe. The theory doesn't state that nothing existed prior to the singularity (indeed the singularity itself must have existed for an indeterminate time prior to its expansion into the universe we know and love). [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 20:27, 10 December 2007 (EST)
::: Discover magazine in 2002 described the views of Alan Guth, one of the originators of the inflation theory of the Big Bang thus: {{QuoteBox|The universe burst into something from absolutely nothing—zero, nada. And as it got bigger, it became filled with even more stuff that came from absolutely nowhere.[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2507/]}} I think that supports what I said quite nicely. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:08, 10 December 2007 (EST)

:::Then he created a terrible strawman for the Big Bang theory, it has since been refined by Hawking among others. Whilst paradoxes remain as they always will, they seem as equally paradoxical as God; although the implications of such a being in turn create yet more paradoxes. -Barnes
:::: I assume that you are referring to Alan Guth creating a strawman. A strawman argument is an argument that claims that ''someone else'' proposes something, which you then proceed to demolish. But Guth was not claiming that ''someone else'' proposed this: he is one of the Big Bang experts, and ''he'' was proposing this. So no, it's not a strawman argument at all. Further, this dates from six years ago; I'm not sure that you are correct that Hawking has "since" refined it. And what paradoxes are implied by the existence of God? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:20, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

:::Perhaps not a strawman, but regardless of his standing this explanation of the Big Bang is laughable. General relativity shows time not to be a passive background to events but a dynamic entity which is warped my matter and energy inside it. At a point of infinite energy density time does not progress, and thus whilst we are left with the paradox of why there was a bang we do not need to answer where the energy came from.

:::The paradox of God is his realm of his existence, and his interaction in the world. It also begs the question of why he waited an infinite time before he created the universe (if this is even possible). Then of course there is the good old problem of evil, though of course his attributes are subjective interpretations derived from 'experience'. -Barnes
::::I see lots of pins and dancing angels. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 18:39, 7 April 2008 (EDT)

:::: "''this explanation of the Big Bang is laughable''": True, but then the whole idea of the Big Bang is laughable. Regardless of Guth's particular description, the Big Bang is basically "nothing exploded and became everything".
:::: Why don't we need to answer where the energy came from? I don't follow your explanation of that.
:::: "''The paradox of God is his realm of his existence, and his interaction in the world.''": Sorry, but that's not explaining the alleged paradox.
:::: "''It also begs the question of why he waited an infinite time before he created the universe...''": No, your argument is a loaded one, presuming something that is not claimed, and not true. Part of God's creation (the space/time/matter universe) is ''time''. That means that God ''created time''. That means that God ''does not exist IN time''. Therefore, it is not true to argue that God "waited an infinite time", because "time" didn't exist.
:::: "''... (if this is even possible).''": Why would it not be possible for an all-powerful Creator to create the universe?
:::: "''Then of course there is the good old problem of evil...''": The "good old problem of evil" is the good old bibliosceptic argument that's been long answered over and over. It's old, but it's not good.
:::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:11, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

The Big Bang does not say anything about nothing. That is a misconception not because of what carefully selected scientists have to say about the theory but because you are taking a Newtonian approach to time. 'Nothing' never existed, as i explained before because time is not merely a background to events but it is shaped by the density of matter and energy inside of it. If you have a point of infinite density then time will not progress, it will stay still. So whilst you can leave God to fill the paradox of what caused the expansion itself and therefore the progression of time, it would be wrong to think of something appearing out of nothing. Therefore, if the energy had always existed then it need not have come from anywhere.

The realm of God's existence is of course paradoxical, because the word supernatural is an oxymoron. Here is a little paste from an article about this paradox:

"Now that we have the definition of Nature and Supernatural we see a very conflicting view: One is the entirety of all the laws which govern existence as we know it, and the other is a term for those activities that can happen outside the laws of nature. That is an impossibility. If Nature is Everything, then Something cannot exist outside of Everything unless Everything is only a Something; in which case Nature therefore is incorrect in it's definition and cannot be called the laws which govern all of life, only a portion of laws that govern life. So either Nature is incorrect, or Supernatural is incorrect, they cannot be existing together logically."

Time is a paradox for God because it is only through time that anything progresses. If time were stationary for God then nothing would progress for him or us; it is through chronological progression that causality can exist. If God is infinite in time, then how could he not have been waiting around for an infinite amount of time before the Big Bang? And if He is finite in time, then how was he created? If He is neither finite nor infinite, then He is exempt from time and therefore causality itself.

As for the problem of evil, it is only problematic if you assume the attribute of benevolence and the degree to which you hold him responsible for our situation and therefore the situation of others. I deny free will both on empirical, metaphysical and even divine grounds, therefore we cannot be held responsible for our actions or the suffering of others. -Barnes

==Logical fallacy==
It is illogical to apply physical attributes to a non-physical being. Also, it is illogical to question whether something can be created to be mightier than He who is Almighty. That God cannot create something more powerful than Himself does not mean God is not all-powerful. The definition of all-powerful is that there is nothing more powerful! Furthermore, this is pitting God against Himself; His abilities against His own abilities. That makes no sense! Look at it this way: can you defeat yourself at wrestling? Of course not.

Additionally, God cannot create square circles because squares are squares and circles are circles. It's like asking God to make 1 equal 0 or to make bthe color blue the color red. Of course, I suppose God could do some M.C. Escher thing and make square circles.

Anyway, the only thing questions like these prove is how intellectually bankrupt neo-atheists are. They so want God to not exist that they will ignore their own illogic. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 20:56, 10 December 2007 (EST)

: A good response to this type of question has just been posted on the Creation Ministries International website[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/5566]. It is consistent with other comments above, including Jinxmchue's comment (complete with an M. C. Escher picture!), but is explained very clearly, in my opinion.
: There are actually several answers:
:* 'A rock too heavy for a being who can lift anything' is a self-contradictory statement, and a self-contradictory statement is a ''nothing'', so "Can God create a rock too heavy for Him to lift?" really amounts to "Can God create a nothing?", which is clearly absurd.
:* Can God create a square circle? An all-powerful being can do anything that takes ''power'' to do. How much power does it take to create a square circle? It's not ''power'' that is required (again, because it's an illogical impossibility), so that's no argument against God's omnipotence either.
:* Yes, God ''can'' create a rock too heavy for God to lift! That is, God (the Father) can create a rock too heavy for God (the Son) to lift—because God the Son (Jesus) voluntarily gave up some of His divine powers!
: The article also relates [[C. S. Lewis]]' thoughts on the matter.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:32, 12 January 2008 (EST)

::"God (the Father) can create a rock too heavy for God (the Son) to lift" lol! I like that one. I'll have to remember to use it next time I see this argument presented by someone who thinks they're the first person to ever present it. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 09:40, 26 January 2008 (EST)

In addition, the Bible states that God is by nature good; as He cannot do anything contrary to His nature and because creating such an object would render logic illogic, one is inclined to conclude that this argument has no bearing on His undeniable existence. {{unsigned|VoteGOP21}}

==I'VE SOLVED IT!==
Yes, God ''can'' make a rock so big that He can't lift it. But He can also shrink it again to a size small enough that he can lift it too again. Crisis averted, argument over. --[[User:Cranky Joe|Cranky Joe]] 20:35, 7 January 2008 (EST)
: <grin> [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:34, 8 January 2008 (EST)
:The heaviest thing in the universe may only be one cubic millimetre. [[User:Jallen|Jallen]] 08:35, 12 January 2008 (EST)
::Hooray for incredibly dense objects. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 19:52, 24 January 2008 (EST)
:::Your ''mom's'' an incredibly dense object. :D Seriously though, this is a linguistic paradox more than a philosophical one. [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 19:43, 11 February 2008 (EST)

Debate:Could God create a rock so heavy that he himself could not lift it?

2008-04-06T22:45:33Z

Barnes: /* "Everything that exists has a cause outside of itself." */

{{debate-religion}}

Could God create a rock so heavy that he himself could not lift it?
Discuss--[[User:Sm355|Sm355]] 18:08, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

The answer is NO He cannot "do" that. Note that there is no limit however to the size of a rock that He can create, and there is no limit to the size of a rock that He can lift. Thus the question - answered in the negative - involves no limitation on God's prerogatives; if answered in the positive however does. The whole thing is a play on words as is explained more or less in various ways below. It's negation does not mean God is not omnipotent - it means that omnipotence is not properly tested as implied by this question. [[User:Qwestor|Qwestor]] 14:54, 28 December 2007 (EDT)

This old one... its supposed to be a paradox showing the omnipotence is impossible: If God can create the rock, He must not be all-powerful because He cannot lift it. If He cant create the rock, then He still isn't all powerful. Either way, no all-powerful being. Personally, I think God just has no reason to create such a rock, so why would He? - BornAgainBrit

Because he wants to disprove his own existence. --[[User:Huey gunna getcha|Huey gunna getcha]] 18:17, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

But you can't assume that God is temporally limited like us mere mortals. He can create the rock so heavy he can't lift it one minute, then, the next minute, he lifts it. Just because we can't conceive of it, doesn't mean God can't lift it. -mittromney

:He'd get YOU to lift it. --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 18:51, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

::No! No matter how heavy the rock would be, God would still be able to lift it because he is the Almighty.
:::"He only is my rock and my salvation: he is my defence; I shall not be moved." (Psalm 62:6)
::[[User:JC|JC]] 09:44, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

==Traditional Paradox of God==
God is omnipotent Therefore he can But since he is omnipotent He can lift the rock he cannot lift Therefore God is a paradox and cannot exist

[[User:Helios|Helios]] loves the creator of this page and will worship him as though he were a paradoxical God.

The part that people miss is assuming that God is picking the rock up with a pair of arms like a human. God isn't a human. God doesn't have a physical body. God can't lift rocks. God makes the rock lift itself.
:Doesn't "lifting" assume an "up"? What is an omnipresent being standing on when lifting a rock? I think this question is broken. [[User:Totnesmartin|Totnesmartin]] 16:55, 16 May 2007
(EDT)

Alright, then can he make a rock so large he cannot make it move? And another thing disproving that he exists; it says in Genesis it took him six days to create the universe. A perfect, all-powerful god would have created it instantly. And some say that maybe he took his time, etc. That doesn't work either, because if he was perfect, everything he did would be as efficient as possible, and that would mean instantly. And, on top of that, he had to rest from the effort. Now, granted, creating a universe in only six days, and only resting for one is still pretty impressive, but that doesn't mean omnipotence.- Bob Sanchez

::Did it ever occur to anyone that it might take time to create imperfection from perfection? JM ([[user:Meyje|Meyje]])
:::What "imperfection from perfection"? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:29, 23 October 2007 (EDT)

:As far as the rock is concerned, that has been answered below, I believe. God can do anything ''that can be done''. Creating a rock too big for Him to move is not something that can be done.
:You are incorrect in claiming that a "perfect, all-powerful god would have created [the universe] instantly". The correct statement would be that He ''could'' create it instantly, not that He ''would''.
:By claiming that He would not have taken longer because that would be less efficient is (a) not obviously true (sometimes it is more efficient to take longer), and (b) presumes that efficiency is the prime goal. Rather, it would appear from Exodus 20:11 that God chose to take six days in order to set the pattern for the week.
:Similarly, you misunderstand the reference to resting. The Bible doesn't say that God was tired and needed to recuperate. The Hebrew word translated "rest" simply means to take a break, to stop from working. Again, this would have been in order to set the pattern for the week: work six days and take the seventh day off.
:In summary, then, you have basically tried picking holes with the account by saying that if God was truly omnipotent, He would have done things the way that you think He would have done them, which overlooks that perhaps there are reasons that He ''chose'' to do them the way He did that you hadn't considered.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:02, 17 July 2007 (EDT)
God is almighty, it'll be dumb if He created a rock to the point where He Himself can not lift it. God created the Heavens and the Earth, God can lift any rock. Now if HE did created such a rock, He do have the powers to make it easier fro Him to lift it. Didn't anyone think of that? I like what Philip J. Rayment said there, it is true, He did make the patterns of the week. That's why every time God created something, the BIBLE said that it was the 1st or 2nd or 3rd day.

if god is perfect, then what reason would he have to bother with existence? Surely he would do anything he would ever need or want to do in an infinitely small time, and then simply pop out of existence. If he was all-knowing, he would know it was all he could ever want to do, and if he was capable of anything, he could stop existing.
(Rowan)
: That argument presupposes that God exists in time, which He doesn't, as "time" is part of His creation. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:20, 10 December 2007 (EST)

== Absurd ==

This question is absurd and this revolves around the question of what omnipotence is. If you use the definition of "omnipotence is the ability to do anything" then you hit this problem. If you use the definition of "omnipotence is the ability to do anything that may be done" then the problem does not exist.

Lets take an alternative form of this argument:
# If God is omnipotent, then God can create a square circle
# God cannot create a square circle
# Therefore, God is not omnipotent

This is of the form
#p -> q
#~q
#therefore ~p
which is a valid argument form known as modus tollens. To attack this argument it is necessary to look at the premises. The second premise is fair so the first must be examined. This can be broken down into:
##God is omnipotent
##Therefore God can create or do anything
##A square circle is a thing
##Therefore God can create a square circle

Theistic scholar/philosophers do not claim the omnipotence of God, but rather that God is the maximally powerful being. That God can do anything that can be done. With the modified argument:
##God the maximally powerful being
##Therefore God can create or do anything
##A square circle is a thing
##Therefore God can create a square circle
It falls apart and the first premise of the argument fails. Ultimately, this does not limit God's power - He can do anything that can be done and create anything that can exist.

This can then be summed up in:
* God is the maximally powerful being.
* That which cannot exist, cannot be created.
There is no paradox here, and any claim otherwise rests on absurdity.
--[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 18:25, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Let's apply this argument by logical constraint to a few other Christian doctrines, then, shall we?

Example 1:
## For a woman to beome pregnant, she must be inseminated.
## Virgins have not been inseminated
## Mary was a virgin
## Therefore, Mary was not pregnant.

Example 2:
## Everything that exists has a cause outside of itself. (Premise)
## The universe exists. (Premise)
## Therefore, the universe has a cause outside of itself.
## We call that cause God (cosmological argument).
## God exits (Premise)
## Therefore, God has a cause outside of itself.

So - God is too weak to create a squared circle. I get that - but what about the rock?

"Any claim otherwise rests on absurdity"? You seem fairly confident that by using a lot of logical jargon and organizing your post in a way that intimates you know what you're talking about, you can circumvent the inherent logical fallacy that you're assuming you can conceptualize what can exist and what can be created. If you claim to know what can and what cannot be created, such as, for example, a rock that God can't lift, shouldn't that be in the entry for hubris? -mittromney
: I am simply stating the solution to the paradox of omnipotence that was given back as an answer in one of the religious studies classes I took at a Catholic highschool and again in a university class on "Philosophy and Religion." At best, the paradox of omnipotence is a strawman argument. [http://www.philosophyofreligion.info/impossiblerock.html] [http://www.philosophyofreligion.info/omnipotence.html] [http://www.skepticwiki.org/wiki/index.php/Omnipotence_Paradox] [http://www.greatplay.net/uselessia/articles/omnipyparadox.html] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnipotence_paradox] Thomas Aquinas said it well "Since the principles of certain sciences, such as logic, geometry and arithmetic are taken only from the formal principles of things, on which the essence of the thing depends, it follows that God could not make things contrary to these principles. For example, that a genus was not predicable of the species, or that lines drawn from the center to the circumference were not equal, or that a triangle did not have three angles equal to two right angles." - granted this is founded on euclidean space, but it goes back to the question of can God break the laws of the universe that He created. Alternatively, you can go to Augustine of Hippo and read "For He is called omnipotent on account of His doing what He wills, not on account of His suffering what He wills not; for if that should befall Him, He would by no means be omnipotent. Wherefore, He cannot do some things for the very reason that He is omnipotent." [http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf102.iv.V.10.html] --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 18:54, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Isn't the fact that your quote from Aquinas included a notion that was later proved to be totally incorrect by Einstein absolutely damning for your argument that humans can adequately perceive and evaluate logical concepts? I guess I'm curious how any of what you say deals properly with the idea that God is totally superior in every way, and therefore to say He can or can't do something is pointless hubris a fortiori? -mittromney
: It depends if you take it literally or what he was trying to say. The question is can God do something that is against the rules of logic? If you don't like the triangle example that Aquinas gave, then use four sided triangles or square circles in place of them. Read the first sentence again and you will see that these are perfectly valid substitutions - "Since the principles of certain sciences, such as logic, geometry and arithmetic are taken only from the formal principles of things, on which the essence of the thing depends, it follows that God could not make things contrary to these principles." --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 19:01, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
::So you're saying that we should just choose a new facially contradictory idea, and go ahead with that, while my whole point was that we're totally incapable of evaluating what's consistent and what's contradictory? I'm not sure how choosing new examples of things we assume to be not true helps you at all... -mittromney
::: You are suggesting that Aquinas is proven wrong because he used a definition of a triangle that only worked in euclidean space. This false-paradox is a straw man for an atheistic world view that is based on a particular definition of omnipotence - it is just as bad as creationists giving straw man arguments that are counter evolution (do note, I am not a creationist). If you wish to argue that a logical impossibility is not beyond omnipotence, then you can work from the Cartesian viewpoint of the trickster god or demon that allows 2+2=5, though that is more a question of belief and knowledge than omnipotence. If you wish to argue about omnipotence with a theistic philosopher, then it is necessary to work from that definition of omnipotence. I am presenting that definition and showing how the rest of the question falls to absurdity when this definition is used - which does not limit omnipotence. Simply said, God can do anything that can be done. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 19:15, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Again, I don't think you properly respond to what I'm saying. I claim the idea of a logical impossibility is a hobgoblin of mediocre minds: We have no idea what's logically possible or impossible. To say we do, and subsequently to claim that somehow human logic limits the omnipotence of god, is foolhardy. What I was suggesting with your Aquinas example is that things which may at one point in time appear to be facially and obviously contradictory can, in the future, be shown to actually be possible, and the original belief was therefore just an incorrect human assumption and not "logic". How that argument is a false-paradox straw man is beyond me: It appears you just throw those terms around to try to demonstrate that you're familiar with logical jargon in the hopes that the other side will assume you know better than they do. When you argue through implicit authority (not to even bring up the Descartes reference), you sound like a liberal who belongs at wiki... -mittromney
: I would urge you to ask your priest or minister the question of the rock so heavy. You will likely get a similar answer to mine (and that of Aquinas and Augustine of Hippo). Omnipotence is a human definition with words that are constrained by our language. Head to the seminary and you will find half a dozen different definitions of omnipotence and various theologians arguing for and against each one being the correct interpretation of the word. You will even find Judaism (which also asserts the omnipotent God) claims that God works through persuasion rather than action - the creation of possibility rather than miracles or violations of natural law - that His omnipotence is shown through that means. Other branches of Christianity use "God cannot make you sin" as part of its philosophy, that if God was to make you sin then you would not have free will and thus would not be sinning. The only reason to pose the paradox of omnipotence is to try to assert that God does not have such power. My take on it (and I agree with those sources I have linked above) is that the proper definition of omnipotence is "to have any power that can be had" or to be the maximally powerful being and as such the question of the rock or a square circle or a four sided triangle becomes a silly question - that which cannot exist cannot be created. If you wish to assert a different definition and solution to this question, then by all means do so. However, I have not seen any reasonable argument against this position from you yet. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 20:41, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

"Maximally powerful" doesn't mean "all-powerful". Your arguement implies that the Bible was incorrect in naming God as omnipotent, which completely destroys the foundation for faith in Christianity: The belief that the Bible is without error. - Bob Sanchez
----

Can God predict the future? [[User:kchittur|kchittur]]

How heavy do you think the rock that god can't lift would be? --[[User:Huey gunna getcha|Huey gunna getcha]] 18:48, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Maybe 1*10^abs(1/0) kg.--[[User:Sm355|Sm355]] 18:49, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:Shhhhh, you supposed to use lbs.! --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 19:06, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Guys, you are debating the wrong question which is really only a red herring. The real question that each must answer is this: "Will a man become so filled with pride and enamored with thoughts of his own intellectual superiority as to use a silly logical argument as an excuse to close his mind and his heart to the truth of the Gospel and thus reject his only hope of salvation?" --[[User:HSDad|HSDad]] 10:34, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

: Or perhaps the real question is, "Why do so many people blindly follow religious stories and texts with nothing to go on but faith with out any facts?". But that's another question for another debate. Lets just stick to the original question.--[[User:Sm355|Sm355]] 12:38, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Aaaaagh you just disprooved god[[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 15:37, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

God can make the rock, but every time He tries to lift it the planet he's standing on crumbles under His feet. [[User:Teresita|Teresita]] 00:22, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

If we assume that God does exist, I'm gonna have to go with Thomas Aquinas on this one. In his ''Summa Theologica'', he wrote:
<blockquote>Therefore, everything that does not imply a contradiction in terms, is
numbered amongst those possible things, in respect of which God is
called omnipotent: whereas whatever implies contradiction does not
come within the scope of divine omnipotence, because it cannot have
the aspect of possibility. Hence it is better to say that such things
cannot be done, than that God cannot do them.</blockquote>
That is, if God exists, he can do all that is logically possible, and nothing that is not. So, because there is a contradiction whether God can or cannot create the rock, it cannot be done. [[User:Masterbratac|Masterbratac]] 19:43, 23 September 2007 (EDT)
God is powerful, I like that square circle example. He can creat anything he want to created. Now why would God creat such a rock that even Himself can't lift. If the rock was heavy than God can just use His powers to make it easier to lift duhh. God is too strong to creat a rock too heavy for Him to lift. [[User:Amphibious|Amphibious]] 02:14, 27 October 2007 (EDT)

[added~]

haha. its kind of funny arguing about this kind of thing...because personally, i dont believe in higher beings like god. its only a figment of your mind; god holds only as much power as you give him. there is the concept of god for those who want a pillar of support around and them and i realize that there are those who truly would like to believe. and im fine with that. however, for someone like me who believes it is impractical, impossible, and downright strange to have an "omnipotent" being watching over us in such a way, i say heck sure he could. if he existed. but if we're going to put this in the context of fiction, anything is possible. but to me, if the root of this argumnet, god, does not exist, then i consider the possiblity of him creating a rock that he cant lift as invalid. {{unsigned|KuR0K4R4}}
: So what reason do you provide for God's non-existence? None! You don't believe He does—but that doesn't mean He doesn't—yet you provide absolutely no reason whatsoever for your subjective opinion. Many people have provided very good arguments supporting the view that God does exist, but you are obviously unaware of them or simply choose to ignore them, because you've made no attempt whatsoever to answer them. Instead, you simply type some throwaway lines about your personal views and expect that to count as some sort of argument (this ''is'' a ''debate'' page). [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:50, 4 December 2007 (EST)

=== "Everything that exists has a cause outside of itself." ===
Not sure who, they didn't sign their post properly, but they made this statement. There is a problem here... that is not the premise that Christians make. The statement should go like this...
:'''Everything that ''begins to'' exist has a cause.'''
* Notice that I added "begins to". For example, when a baby is born, it has a beginning, therefore it has a cause. God is the exception to the rule. Since He is the highest/most supreme Being in existence, out of necessity He always exists.
*# Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
*# God does not have a beginning.
*# Therefore God does not have a cause.
* How do we know God doesn't have a beginning or ending? Psalm 90:2 "...Even from everlasting to everlasting, You are God." (NASB)
* A side note... "outside of itself" is not necessary in the statement. It's obvious that something cannot be the cause of itself, if it does not exist. That would be illogical. So it can be safely assumed in the statement without saying it. At least I am assuming it.
--[[User:Ymmotrojam|Ymmotrojam]] 21:33, 4 December 2007 (EST)
:Oh, I don't know. When you've got people believing that the universe formed out of nothing for no reason, perhaps some of these obvious things need to be spelt out. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:37, 5 December 2007 (EST)
::I don't think Big Bang cosmology implies that the universe formed out of nothing for no reason. The theory states that we can trace the expansion of space back to a singularity, that is to say a point beyond which we cannot probe. The theory doesn't state that nothing existed prior to the singularity (indeed the singularity itself must have existed for an indeterminate time prior to its expansion into the universe we know and love). [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 20:27, 10 December 2007 (EST)
::: Discover magazine in 2002 described the views of Alan Guth, one of the originators of the inflation theory of the Big Bang thus: {{QuoteBox|The universe burst into something from absolutely nothing—zero, nada. And as it got bigger, it became filled with even more stuff that came from absolutely nowhere.[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2507/]}} I think that supports what I said quite nicely. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:08, 10 December 2007 (EST)

:::Then he created a terrible strawman for the Big Bang theory, it has since been refined by Hawking among others. Whilst paradoxes remain as they always will, they seem as equally paradoxical as God; although the implications of such a being in turn create yet more paradoxes. -Barnes
:::: I assume that you are referring to Alan Guth creating a strawman. A strawman argument is an argument that claims that ''someone else'' proposes something, which you then proceed to demolish. But Guth was not claiming that ''someone else'' proposed this: he is one of the Big Bang experts, and ''he'' was proposing this. So no, it's not a strawman argument at all. Further, this dates from six years ago; I'm not sure that you are correct that Hawking has "since" refined it. And what paradoxes are implied by the existence of God? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:20, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

:::Perhaps not a strawman, but regardless of his standing this explanation of the Big Bang is laughable. General relativity shows time not to be a passive background to events but a dynamic entity which is warped my matter and energy inside it. At a point of infinite energy density time does not progress, and thus whilst we are left with the paradox of why there was a bang we do not need to answer where the energy came from.

:::The paradox of God is his realm of his existence, and his interaction in the world. It also begs the question of why he waited an infinite time before he created the universe (if this is even possible). Then of course there is the good old problem of evil, though of course his attributes are subjective interpretations derived from 'experience'. -Barnes

==Logical fallacy==
It is illogical to apply physical attributes to a non-physical being. Also, it is illogical to question whether something can be created to be mightier than He who is Almighty. That God cannot create something more powerful than Himself does not mean God is not all-powerful. The definition of all-powerful is that there is nothing more powerful! Furthermore, this is pitting God against Himself; His abilities against His own abilities. That makes no sense! Look at it this way: can you defeat yourself at wrestling? Of course not.

Additionally, God cannot create square circles because squares are squares and circles are circles. It's like asking God to make 1 equal 0 or to make bthe color blue the color red. Of course, I suppose God could do some M.C. Escher thing and make square circles.

Anyway, the only thing questions like these prove is how intellectually bankrupt neo-atheists are. They so want God to not exist that they will ignore their own illogic. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 20:56, 10 December 2007 (EST)

: A good response to this type of question has just been posted on the Creation Ministries International website[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/5566]. It is consistent with other comments above, including Jinxmchue's comment (complete with an M. C. Escher picture!), but is explained very clearly, in my opinion.
: There are actually several answers:
:* 'A rock too heavy for a being who can lift anything' is a self-contradictory statement, and a self-contradictory statement is a ''nothing'', so "Can God create a rock too heavy for Him to lift?" really amounts to "Can God create a nothing?", which is clearly absurd.
:* Can God create a square circle? An all-powerful being can do anything that takes ''power'' to do. How much power does it take to create a square circle? It's not ''power'' that is required (again, because it's an illogical impossibility), so that's no argument against God's omnipotence either.
:* Yes, God ''can'' create a rock too heavy for God to lift! That is, God (the Father) can create a rock too heavy for God (the Son) to lift—because God the Son (Jesus) voluntarily gave up some of His divine powers!
: The article also relates [[C. S. Lewis]]' thoughts on the matter.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:32, 12 January 2008 (EST)

::"God (the Father) can create a rock too heavy for God (the Son) to lift" lol! I like that one. I'll have to remember to use it next time I see this argument presented by someone who thinks they're the first person to ever present it. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 09:40, 26 January 2008 (EST)

In addition, the Bible states that God is by nature good; as He cannot do anything contrary to His nature and because creating such an object would render logic illogic, one is inclined to conclude that this argument has no bearing on His undeniable existence. {{unsigned|VoteGOP21}}

==I'VE SOLVED IT!==
Yes, God ''can'' make a rock so big that He can't lift it. But He can also shrink it again to a size small enough that he can lift it too again. Crisis averted, argument over. --[[User:Cranky Joe|Cranky Joe]] 20:35, 7 January 2008 (EST)
: <grin> [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:34, 8 January 2008 (EST)
:The heaviest thing in the universe may only be one cubic millimetre. [[User:Jallen|Jallen]] 08:35, 12 January 2008 (EST)
::Hooray for incredibly dense objects. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 19:52, 24 January 2008 (EST)
:::Your ''mom's'' an incredibly dense object. :D Seriously though, this is a linguistic paradox more than a philosophical one. [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 19:43, 11 February 2008 (EST)

Debate:Could God create a rock so heavy that he himself could not lift it?

2008-04-06T22:44:53Z

Barnes: /* "Everything that exists has a cause outside of itself." */

{{debate-religion}}

Could God create a rock so heavy that he himself could not lift it?
Discuss--[[User:Sm355|Sm355]] 18:08, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

The answer is NO He cannot "do" that. Note that there is no limit however to the size of a rock that He can create, and there is no limit to the size of a rock that He can lift. Thus the question - answered in the negative - involves no limitation on God's prerogatives; if answered in the positive however does. The whole thing is a play on words as is explained more or less in various ways below. It's negation does not mean God is not omnipotent - it means that omnipotence is not properly tested as implied by this question. [[User:Qwestor|Qwestor]] 14:54, 28 December 2007 (EDT)

This old one... its supposed to be a paradox showing the omnipotence is impossible: If God can create the rock, He must not be all-powerful because He cannot lift it. If He cant create the rock, then He still isn't all powerful. Either way, no all-powerful being. Personally, I think God just has no reason to create such a rock, so why would He? - BornAgainBrit

Because he wants to disprove his own existence. --[[User:Huey gunna getcha|Huey gunna getcha]] 18:17, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

But you can't assume that God is temporally limited like us mere mortals. He can create the rock so heavy he can't lift it one minute, then, the next minute, he lifts it. Just because we can't conceive of it, doesn't mean God can't lift it. -mittromney

:He'd get YOU to lift it. --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 18:51, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

::No! No matter how heavy the rock would be, God would still be able to lift it because he is the Almighty.
:::"He only is my rock and my salvation: he is my defence; I shall not be moved." (Psalm 62:6)
::[[User:JC|JC]] 09:44, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

==Traditional Paradox of God==
God is omnipotent Therefore he can But since he is omnipotent He can lift the rock he cannot lift Therefore God is a paradox and cannot exist

[[User:Helios|Helios]] loves the creator of this page and will worship him as though he were a paradoxical God.

The part that people miss is assuming that God is picking the rock up with a pair of arms like a human. God isn't a human. God doesn't have a physical body. God can't lift rocks. God makes the rock lift itself.
:Doesn't "lifting" assume an "up"? What is an omnipresent being standing on when lifting a rock? I think this question is broken. [[User:Totnesmartin|Totnesmartin]] 16:55, 16 May 2007
(EDT)

Alright, then can he make a rock so large he cannot make it move? And another thing disproving that he exists; it says in Genesis it took him six days to create the universe. A perfect, all-powerful god would have created it instantly. And some say that maybe he took his time, etc. That doesn't work either, because if he was perfect, everything he did would be as efficient as possible, and that would mean instantly. And, on top of that, he had to rest from the effort. Now, granted, creating a universe in only six days, and only resting for one is still pretty impressive, but that doesn't mean omnipotence.- Bob Sanchez

::Did it ever occur to anyone that it might take time to create imperfection from perfection? JM ([[user:Meyje|Meyje]])
:::What "imperfection from perfection"? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:29, 23 October 2007 (EDT)

:As far as the rock is concerned, that has been answered below, I believe. God can do anything ''that can be done''. Creating a rock too big for Him to move is not something that can be done.
:You are incorrect in claiming that a "perfect, all-powerful god would have created [the universe] instantly". The correct statement would be that He ''could'' create it instantly, not that He ''would''.
:By claiming that He would not have taken longer because that would be less efficient is (a) not obviously true (sometimes it is more efficient to take longer), and (b) presumes that efficiency is the prime goal. Rather, it would appear from Exodus 20:11 that God chose to take six days in order to set the pattern for the week.
:Similarly, you misunderstand the reference to resting. The Bible doesn't say that God was tired and needed to recuperate. The Hebrew word translated "rest" simply means to take a break, to stop from working. Again, this would have been in order to set the pattern for the week: work six days and take the seventh day off.
:In summary, then, you have basically tried picking holes with the account by saying that if God was truly omnipotent, He would have done things the way that you think He would have done them, which overlooks that perhaps there are reasons that He ''chose'' to do them the way He did that you hadn't considered.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:02, 17 July 2007 (EDT)
God is almighty, it'll be dumb if He created a rock to the point where He Himself can not lift it. God created the Heavens and the Earth, God can lift any rock. Now if HE did created such a rock, He do have the powers to make it easier fro Him to lift it. Didn't anyone think of that? I like what Philip J. Rayment said there, it is true, He did make the patterns of the week. That's why every time God created something, the BIBLE said that it was the 1st or 2nd or 3rd day.

if god is perfect, then what reason would he have to bother with existence? Surely he would do anything he would ever need or want to do in an infinitely small time, and then simply pop out of existence. If he was all-knowing, he would know it was all he could ever want to do, and if he was capable of anything, he could stop existing.
(Rowan)
: That argument presupposes that God exists in time, which He doesn't, as "time" is part of His creation. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:20, 10 December 2007 (EST)

== Absurd ==

This question is absurd and this revolves around the question of what omnipotence is. If you use the definition of "omnipotence is the ability to do anything" then you hit this problem. If you use the definition of "omnipotence is the ability to do anything that may be done" then the problem does not exist.

Lets take an alternative form of this argument:
# If God is omnipotent, then God can create a square circle
# God cannot create a square circle
# Therefore, God is not omnipotent

This is of the form
#p -> q
#~q
#therefore ~p
which is a valid argument form known as modus tollens. To attack this argument it is necessary to look at the premises. The second premise is fair so the first must be examined. This can be broken down into:
##God is omnipotent
##Therefore God can create or do anything
##A square circle is a thing
##Therefore God can create a square circle

Theistic scholar/philosophers do not claim the omnipotence of God, but rather that God is the maximally powerful being. That God can do anything that can be done. With the modified argument:
##God the maximally powerful being
##Therefore God can create or do anything
##A square circle is a thing
##Therefore God can create a square circle
It falls apart and the first premise of the argument fails. Ultimately, this does not limit God's power - He can do anything that can be done and create anything that can exist.

This can then be summed up in:
* God is the maximally powerful being.
* That which cannot exist, cannot be created.
There is no paradox here, and any claim otherwise rests on absurdity.
--[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 18:25, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Let's apply this argument by logical constraint to a few other Christian doctrines, then, shall we?

Example 1:
## For a woman to beome pregnant, she must be inseminated.
## Virgins have not been inseminated
## Mary was a virgin
## Therefore, Mary was not pregnant.

Example 2:
## Everything that exists has a cause outside of itself. (Premise)
## The universe exists. (Premise)
## Therefore, the universe has a cause outside of itself.
## We call that cause God (cosmological argument).
## God exits (Premise)
## Therefore, God has a cause outside of itself.

So - God is too weak to create a squared circle. I get that - but what about the rock?

"Any claim otherwise rests on absurdity"? You seem fairly confident that by using a lot of logical jargon and organizing your post in a way that intimates you know what you're talking about, you can circumvent the inherent logical fallacy that you're assuming you can conceptualize what can exist and what can be created. If you claim to know what can and what cannot be created, such as, for example, a rock that God can't lift, shouldn't that be in the entry for hubris? -mittromney
: I am simply stating the solution to the paradox of omnipotence that was given back as an answer in one of the religious studies classes I took at a Catholic highschool and again in a university class on "Philosophy and Religion." At best, the paradox of omnipotence is a strawman argument. [http://www.philosophyofreligion.info/impossiblerock.html] [http://www.philosophyofreligion.info/omnipotence.html] [http://www.skepticwiki.org/wiki/index.php/Omnipotence_Paradox] [http://www.greatplay.net/uselessia/articles/omnipyparadox.html] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnipotence_paradox] Thomas Aquinas said it well "Since the principles of certain sciences, such as logic, geometry and arithmetic are taken only from the formal principles of things, on which the essence of the thing depends, it follows that God could not make things contrary to these principles. For example, that a genus was not predicable of the species, or that lines drawn from the center to the circumference were not equal, or that a triangle did not have three angles equal to two right angles." - granted this is founded on euclidean space, but it goes back to the question of can God break the laws of the universe that He created. Alternatively, you can go to Augustine of Hippo and read "For He is called omnipotent on account of His doing what He wills, not on account of His suffering what He wills not; for if that should befall Him, He would by no means be omnipotent. Wherefore, He cannot do some things for the very reason that He is omnipotent." [http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf102.iv.V.10.html] --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 18:54, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Isn't the fact that your quote from Aquinas included a notion that was later proved to be totally incorrect by Einstein absolutely damning for your argument that humans can adequately perceive and evaluate logical concepts? I guess I'm curious how any of what you say deals properly with the idea that God is totally superior in every way, and therefore to say He can or can't do something is pointless hubris a fortiori? -mittromney
: It depends if you take it literally or what he was trying to say. The question is can God do something that is against the rules of logic? If you don't like the triangle example that Aquinas gave, then use four sided triangles or square circles in place of them. Read the first sentence again and you will see that these are perfectly valid substitutions - "Since the principles of certain sciences, such as logic, geometry and arithmetic are taken only from the formal principles of things, on which the essence of the thing depends, it follows that God could not make things contrary to these principles." --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 19:01, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
::So you're saying that we should just choose a new facially contradictory idea, and go ahead with that, while my whole point was that we're totally incapable of evaluating what's consistent and what's contradictory? I'm not sure how choosing new examples of things we assume to be not true helps you at all... -mittromney
::: You are suggesting that Aquinas is proven wrong because he used a definition of a triangle that only worked in euclidean space. This false-paradox is a straw man for an atheistic world view that is based on a particular definition of omnipotence - it is just as bad as creationists giving straw man arguments that are counter evolution (do note, I am not a creationist). If you wish to argue that a logical impossibility is not beyond omnipotence, then you can work from the Cartesian viewpoint of the trickster god or demon that allows 2+2=5, though that is more a question of belief and knowledge than omnipotence. If you wish to argue about omnipotence with a theistic philosopher, then it is necessary to work from that definition of omnipotence. I am presenting that definition and showing how the rest of the question falls to absurdity when this definition is used - which does not limit omnipotence. Simply said, God can do anything that can be done. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 19:15, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Again, I don't think you properly respond to what I'm saying. I claim the idea of a logical impossibility is a hobgoblin of mediocre minds: We have no idea what's logically possible or impossible. To say we do, and subsequently to claim that somehow human logic limits the omnipotence of god, is foolhardy. What I was suggesting with your Aquinas example is that things which may at one point in time appear to be facially and obviously contradictory can, in the future, be shown to actually be possible, and the original belief was therefore just an incorrect human assumption and not "logic". How that argument is a false-paradox straw man is beyond me: It appears you just throw those terms around to try to demonstrate that you're familiar with logical jargon in the hopes that the other side will assume you know better than they do. When you argue through implicit authority (not to even bring up the Descartes reference), you sound like a liberal who belongs at wiki... -mittromney
: I would urge you to ask your priest or minister the question of the rock so heavy. You will likely get a similar answer to mine (and that of Aquinas and Augustine of Hippo). Omnipotence is a human definition with words that are constrained by our language. Head to the seminary and you will find half a dozen different definitions of omnipotence and various theologians arguing for and against each one being the correct interpretation of the word. You will even find Judaism (which also asserts the omnipotent God) claims that God works through persuasion rather than action - the creation of possibility rather than miracles or violations of natural law - that His omnipotence is shown through that means. Other branches of Christianity use "God cannot make you sin" as part of its philosophy, that if God was to make you sin then you would not have free will and thus would not be sinning. The only reason to pose the paradox of omnipotence is to try to assert that God does not have such power. My take on it (and I agree with those sources I have linked above) is that the proper definition of omnipotence is "to have any power that can be had" or to be the maximally powerful being and as such the question of the rock or a square circle or a four sided triangle becomes a silly question - that which cannot exist cannot be created. If you wish to assert a different definition and solution to this question, then by all means do so. However, I have not seen any reasonable argument against this position from you yet. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 20:41, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

"Maximally powerful" doesn't mean "all-powerful". Your arguement implies that the Bible was incorrect in naming God as omnipotent, which completely destroys the foundation for faith in Christianity: The belief that the Bible is without error. - Bob Sanchez
----

Can God predict the future? [[User:kchittur|kchittur]]

How heavy do you think the rock that god can't lift would be? --[[User:Huey gunna getcha|Huey gunna getcha]] 18:48, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Maybe 1*10^abs(1/0) kg.--[[User:Sm355|Sm355]] 18:49, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:Shhhhh, you supposed to use lbs.! --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 19:06, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Guys, you are debating the wrong question which is really only a red herring. The real question that each must answer is this: "Will a man become so filled with pride and enamored with thoughts of his own intellectual superiority as to use a silly logical argument as an excuse to close his mind and his heart to the truth of the Gospel and thus reject his only hope of salvation?" --[[User:HSDad|HSDad]] 10:34, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

: Or perhaps the real question is, "Why do so many people blindly follow religious stories and texts with nothing to go on but faith with out any facts?". But that's another question for another debate. Lets just stick to the original question.--[[User:Sm355|Sm355]] 12:38, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Aaaaagh you just disprooved god[[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 15:37, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

God can make the rock, but every time He tries to lift it the planet he's standing on crumbles under His feet. [[User:Teresita|Teresita]] 00:22, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

If we assume that God does exist, I'm gonna have to go with Thomas Aquinas on this one. In his ''Summa Theologica'', he wrote:
<blockquote>Therefore, everything that does not imply a contradiction in terms, is
numbered amongst those possible things, in respect of which God is
called omnipotent: whereas whatever implies contradiction does not
come within the scope of divine omnipotence, because it cannot have
the aspect of possibility. Hence it is better to say that such things
cannot be done, than that God cannot do them.</blockquote>
That is, if God exists, he can do all that is logically possible, and nothing that is not. So, because there is a contradiction whether God can or cannot create the rock, it cannot be done. [[User:Masterbratac|Masterbratac]] 19:43, 23 September 2007 (EDT)
God is powerful, I like that square circle example. He can creat anything he want to created. Now why would God creat such a rock that even Himself can't lift. If the rock was heavy than God can just use His powers to make it easier to lift duhh. God is too strong to creat a rock too heavy for Him to lift. [[User:Amphibious|Amphibious]] 02:14, 27 October 2007 (EDT)

[added~]

haha. its kind of funny arguing about this kind of thing...because personally, i dont believe in higher beings like god. its only a figment of your mind; god holds only as much power as you give him. there is the concept of god for those who want a pillar of support around and them and i realize that there are those who truly would like to believe. and im fine with that. however, for someone like me who believes it is impractical, impossible, and downright strange to have an "omnipotent" being watching over us in such a way, i say heck sure he could. if he existed. but if we're going to put this in the context of fiction, anything is possible. but to me, if the root of this argumnet, god, does not exist, then i consider the possiblity of him creating a rock that he cant lift as invalid. {{unsigned|KuR0K4R4}}
: So what reason do you provide for God's non-existence? None! You don't believe He does—but that doesn't mean He doesn't—yet you provide absolutely no reason whatsoever for your subjective opinion. Many people have provided very good arguments supporting the view that God does exist, but you are obviously unaware of them or simply choose to ignore them, because you've made no attempt whatsoever to answer them. Instead, you simply type some throwaway lines about your personal views and expect that to count as some sort of argument (this ''is'' a ''debate'' page). [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:50, 4 December 2007 (EST)

=== "Everything that exists has a cause outside of itself." ===
Not sure who, they didn't sign their post properly, but they made this statement. There is a problem here... that is not the premise that Christians make. The statement should go like this...
:'''Everything that ''begins to'' exist has a cause.'''
* Notice that I added "begins to". For example, when a baby is born, it has a beginning, therefore it has a cause. God is the exception to the rule. Since He is the highest/most supreme Being in existence, out of necessity He always exists.
*# Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
*# God does not have a beginning.
*# Therefore God does not have a cause.
* How do we know God doesn't have a beginning or ending? Psalm 90:2 "...Even from everlasting to everlasting, You are God." (NASB)
* A side note... "outside of itself" is not necessary in the statement. It's obvious that something cannot be the cause of itself, if it does not exist. That would be illogical. So it can be safely assumed in the statement without saying it. At least I am assuming it.
--[[User:Ymmotrojam|Ymmotrojam]] 21:33, 4 December 2007 (EST)
:Oh, I don't know. When you've got people believing that the universe formed out of nothing for no reason, perhaps some of these obvious things need to be spelt out. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:37, 5 December 2007 (EST)
::I don't think Big Bang cosmology implies that the universe formed out of nothing for no reason. The theory states that we can trace the expansion of space back to a singularity, that is to say a point beyond which we cannot probe. The theory doesn't state that nothing existed prior to the singularity (indeed the singularity itself must have existed for an indeterminate time prior to its expansion into the universe we know and love). [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 20:27, 10 December 2007 (EST)
::: Discover magazine in 2002 described the views of Alan Guth, one of the originators of the inflation theory of the Big Bang thus: {{QuoteBox|The universe burst into something from absolutely nothing—zero, nada. And as it got bigger, it became filled with even more stuff that came from absolutely nowhere.[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2507/]}} I think that supports what I said quite nicely. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:08, 10 December 2007 (EST)

:::Then he created a terrible strawman for the Big Bang theory, it has since been refined by Hawking among others. Whilst paradoxes remain as they always will, they seem as equally paradoxical as God; although the implications of such a being in turn create yet more paradoxes. -Barnes
:::: I assume that you are referring to Alan Guth creating a strawman. A strawman argument is an argument that claims that ''someone else'' proposes something, which you then proceed to demolish. But Guth was not claiming that ''someone else'' proposed this: he is one of the Big Bang experts, and ''he'' was proposing this. So no, it's not a strawman argument at all. Further, this dates from six years ago; I'm not sure that you are correct that Hawking has "since" refined it. And what paradoxes are implied by the existence of God? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:20, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

:::Perhaps not a strawman, but regardless of his standing this explanation of the Big Bang is laughable. General relativity shows time not to be a passive background to events but a dynamic entity which is warped my matter and energy inside it. At a point of infinite energy density time does not progress, and thus whilst we are left with the paradox of why there was a bang we do not need to answer where the energy came from.

The paradox of God is his realm of his existence, and his interaction in the world. It also begs the question of why he waited an infinite time before he created the universe (if this is even possible). Then of course there is the good old problem of evil, though of course his attributes are subjective interpretations derived from 'experience'.

==Logical fallacy==
It is illogical to apply physical attributes to a non-physical being. Also, it is illogical to question whether something can be created to be mightier than He who is Almighty. That God cannot create something more powerful than Himself does not mean God is not all-powerful. The definition of all-powerful is that there is nothing more powerful! Furthermore, this is pitting God against Himself; His abilities against His own abilities. That makes no sense! Look at it this way: can you defeat yourself at wrestling? Of course not.

Additionally, God cannot create square circles because squares are squares and circles are circles. It's like asking God to make 1 equal 0 or to make bthe color blue the color red. Of course, I suppose God could do some M.C. Escher thing and make square circles.

Anyway, the only thing questions like these prove is how intellectually bankrupt neo-atheists are. They so want God to not exist that they will ignore their own illogic. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 20:56, 10 December 2007 (EST)

: A good response to this type of question has just been posted on the Creation Ministries International website[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/5566]. It is consistent with other comments above, including Jinxmchue's comment (complete with an M. C. Escher picture!), but is explained very clearly, in my opinion.
: There are actually several answers:
:* 'A rock too heavy for a being who can lift anything' is a self-contradictory statement, and a self-contradictory statement is a ''nothing'', so "Can God create a rock too heavy for Him to lift?" really amounts to "Can God create a nothing?", which is clearly absurd.
:* Can God create a square circle? An all-powerful being can do anything that takes ''power'' to do. How much power does it take to create a square circle? It's not ''power'' that is required (again, because it's an illogical impossibility), so that's no argument against God's omnipotence either.
:* Yes, God ''can'' create a rock too heavy for God to lift! That is, God (the Father) can create a rock too heavy for God (the Son) to lift—because God the Son (Jesus) voluntarily gave up some of His divine powers!
: The article also relates [[C. S. Lewis]]' thoughts on the matter.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:32, 12 January 2008 (EST)

::"God (the Father) can create a rock too heavy for God (the Son) to lift" lol! I like that one. I'll have to remember to use it next time I see this argument presented by someone who thinks they're the first person to ever present it. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 09:40, 26 January 2008 (EST)

In addition, the Bible states that God is by nature good; as He cannot do anything contrary to His nature and because creating such an object would render logic illogic, one is inclined to conclude that this argument has no bearing on His undeniable existence. {{unsigned|VoteGOP21}}

==I'VE SOLVED IT!==
Yes, God ''can'' make a rock so big that He can't lift it. But He can also shrink it again to a size small enough that he can lift it too again. Crisis averted, argument over. --[[User:Cranky Joe|Cranky Joe]] 20:35, 7 January 2008 (EST)
: <grin> [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:34, 8 January 2008 (EST)
:The heaviest thing in the universe may only be one cubic millimetre. [[User:Jallen|Jallen]] 08:35, 12 January 2008 (EST)
::Hooray for incredibly dense objects. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 19:52, 24 January 2008 (EST)
:::Your ''mom's'' an incredibly dense object. :D Seriously though, this is a linguistic paradox more than a philosophical one. [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 19:43, 11 February 2008 (EST)

Debate:Could God create a rock so heavy that he himself could not lift it?

2008-04-06T00:15:46Z

Barnes: /* "Everything that exists has a cause outside of itself." */

{{debate-religion}}

Could God create a rock so heavy that he himself could not lift it?
Discuss--[[User:Sm355|Sm355]] 18:08, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

The answer is NO He cannot "do" that. Note that there is no limit however to the size of a rock that He can create, and there is no limit to the size of a rock that He can lift. Thus the question - answered in the negative - involves no limitation on God's prerogatives; if answered in the positive however does. The whole thing is a play on words as is explained more or less in various ways below. It's negation does not mean God is not omnipotent - it means that omnipotence is not properly tested as implied by this question. [[User:Qwestor|Qwestor]] 14:54, 28 December 2007 (EDT)

This old one... its supposed to be a paradox showing the omnipotence is impossible: If God can create the rock, He must not be all-powerful because He cannot lift it. If He cant create the rock, then He still isn't all powerful. Either way, no all-powerful being. Personally, I think God just has no reason to create such a rock, so why would He? - BornAgainBrit

Because he wants to disprove his own existence. --[[User:Huey gunna getcha|Huey gunna getcha]] 18:17, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

But you can't assume that God is temporally limited like us mere mortals. He can create the rock so heavy he can't lift it one minute, then, the next minute, he lifts it. Just because we can't conceive of it, doesn't mean God can't lift it. -mittromney

:He'd get YOU to lift it. --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 18:51, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

::No! No matter how heavy the rock would be, God would still be able to lift it because he is the Almighty.
:::"He only is my rock and my salvation: he is my defence; I shall not be moved." (Psalm 62:6)
::[[User:JC|JC]] 09:44, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

==Traditional Paradox of God==
God is omnipotent Therefore he can But since he is omnipotent He can lift the rock he cannot lift Therefore God is a paradox and cannot exist

[[User:Helios|Helios]] loves the creator of this page and will worship him as though he were a paradoxical God.

The part that people miss is assuming that God is picking the rock up with a pair of arms like a human. God isn't a human. God doesn't have a physical body. God can't lift rocks. God makes the rock lift itself.
:Doesn't "lifting" assume an "up"? What is an omnipresent being standing on when lifting a rock? I think this question is broken. [[User:Totnesmartin|Totnesmartin]] 16:55, 16 May 2007
(EDT)

Alright, then can he make a rock so large he cannot make it move? And another thing disproving that he exists; it says in Genesis it took him six days to create the universe. A perfect, all-powerful god would have created it instantly. And some say that maybe he took his time, etc. That doesn't work either, because if he was perfect, everything he did would be as efficient as possible, and that would mean instantly. And, on top of that, he had to rest from the effort. Now, granted, creating a universe in only six days, and only resting for one is still pretty impressive, but that doesn't mean omnipotence.- Bob Sanchez

::Did it ever occur to anyone that it might take time to create imperfection from perfection? JM ([[user:Meyje|Meyje]])
:::What "imperfection from perfection"? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:29, 23 October 2007 (EDT)

:As far as the rock is concerned, that has been answered below, I believe. God can do anything ''that can be done''. Creating a rock too big for Him to move is not something that can be done.
:You are incorrect in claiming that a "perfect, all-powerful god would have created [the universe] instantly". The correct statement would be that He ''could'' create it instantly, not that He ''would''.
:By claiming that He would not have taken longer because that would be less efficient is (a) not obviously true (sometimes it is more efficient to take longer), and (b) presumes that efficiency is the prime goal. Rather, it would appear from Exodus 20:11 that God chose to take six days in order to set the pattern for the week.
:Similarly, you misunderstand the reference to resting. The Bible doesn't say that God was tired and needed to recuperate. The Hebrew word translated "rest" simply means to take a break, to stop from working. Again, this would have been in order to set the pattern for the week: work six days and take the seventh day off.
:In summary, then, you have basically tried picking holes with the account by saying that if God was truly omnipotent, He would have done things the way that you think He would have done them, which overlooks that perhaps there are reasons that He ''chose'' to do them the way He did that you hadn't considered.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:02, 17 July 2007 (EDT)
God is almighty, it'll be dumb if He created a rock to the point where He Himself can not lift it. God created the Heavens and the Earth, God can lift any rock. Now if HE did created such a rock, He do have the powers to make it easier fro Him to lift it. Didn't anyone think of that? I like what Philip J. Rayment said there, it is true, He did make the patterns of the week. That's why every time God created something, the BIBLE said that it was the 1st or 2nd or 3rd day.

if god is perfect, then what reason would he have to bother with existence? Surely he would do anything he would ever need or want to do in an infinitely small time, and then simply pop out of existence. If he was all-knowing, he would know it was all he could ever want to do, and if he was capable of anything, he could stop existing.
(Rowan)
: That argument presupposes that God exists in time, which He doesn't, as "time" is part of His creation. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:20, 10 December 2007 (EST)

== Absurd ==

This question is absurd and this revolves around the question of what omnipotence is. If you use the definition of "omnipotence is the ability to do anything" then you hit this problem. If you use the definition of "omnipotence is the ability to do anything that may be done" then the problem does not exist.

Lets take an alternative form of this argument:
# If God is omnipotent, then God can create a square circle
# God cannot create a square circle
# Therefore, God is not omnipotent

This is of the form
#p -> q
#~q
#therefore ~p
which is a valid argument form known as modus tollens. To attack this argument it is necessary to look at the premises. The second premise is fair so the first must be examined. This can be broken down into:
##God is omnipotent
##Therefore God can create or do anything
##A square circle is a thing
##Therefore God can create a square circle

Theistic scholar/philosophers do not claim the omnipotence of God, but rather that God is the maximally powerful being. That God can do anything that can be done. With the modified argument:
##God the maximally powerful being
##Therefore God can create or do anything
##A square circle is a thing
##Therefore God can create a square circle
It falls apart and the first premise of the argument fails. Ultimately, this does not limit God's power - He can do anything that can be done and create anything that can exist.

This can then be summed up in:
* God is the maximally powerful being.
* That which cannot exist, cannot be created.
There is no paradox here, and any claim otherwise rests on absurdity.
--[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 18:25, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Let's apply this argument by logical constraint to a few other Christian doctrines, then, shall we?

Example 1:
## For a woman to beome pregnant, she must be inseminated.
## Virgins have not been inseminated
## Mary was a virgin
## Therefore, Mary was not pregnant.

Example 2:
## Everything that exists has a cause outside of itself. (Premise)
## The universe exists. (Premise)
## Therefore, the universe has a cause outside of itself.
## We call that cause God (cosmological argument).
## God exits (Premise)
## Therefore, God has a cause outside of itself.

So - God is too weak to create a squared circle. I get that - but what about the rock?

"Any claim otherwise rests on absurdity"? You seem fairly confident that by using a lot of logical jargon and organizing your post in a way that intimates you know what you're talking about, you can circumvent the inherent logical fallacy that you're assuming you can conceptualize what can exist and what can be created. If you claim to know what can and what cannot be created, such as, for example, a rock that God can't lift, shouldn't that be in the entry for hubris? -mittromney
: I am simply stating the solution to the paradox of omnipotence that was given back as an answer in one of the religious studies classes I took at a Catholic highschool and again in a university class on "Philosophy and Religion." At best, the paradox of omnipotence is a strawman argument. [http://www.philosophyofreligion.info/impossiblerock.html] [http://www.philosophyofreligion.info/omnipotence.html] [http://www.skepticwiki.org/wiki/index.php/Omnipotence_Paradox] [http://www.greatplay.net/uselessia/articles/omnipyparadox.html] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnipotence_paradox] Thomas Aquinas said it well "Since the principles of certain sciences, such as logic, geometry and arithmetic are taken only from the formal principles of things, on which the essence of the thing depends, it follows that God could not make things contrary to these principles. For example, that a genus was not predicable of the species, or that lines drawn from the center to the circumference were not equal, or that a triangle did not have three angles equal to two right angles." - granted this is founded on euclidean space, but it goes back to the question of can God break the laws of the universe that He created. Alternatively, you can go to Augustine of Hippo and read "For He is called omnipotent on account of His doing what He wills, not on account of His suffering what He wills not; for if that should befall Him, He would by no means be omnipotent. Wherefore, He cannot do some things for the very reason that He is omnipotent." [http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf102.iv.V.10.html] --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 18:54, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Isn't the fact that your quote from Aquinas included a notion that was later proved to be totally incorrect by Einstein absolutely damning for your argument that humans can adequately perceive and evaluate logical concepts? I guess I'm curious how any of what you say deals properly with the idea that God is totally superior in every way, and therefore to say He can or can't do something is pointless hubris a fortiori? -mittromney
: It depends if you take it literally or what he was trying to say. The question is can God do something that is against the rules of logic? If you don't like the triangle example that Aquinas gave, then use four sided triangles or square circles in place of them. Read the first sentence again and you will see that these are perfectly valid substitutions - "Since the principles of certain sciences, such as logic, geometry and arithmetic are taken only from the formal principles of things, on which the essence of the thing depends, it follows that God could not make things contrary to these principles." --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 19:01, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
::So you're saying that we should just choose a new facially contradictory idea, and go ahead with that, while my whole point was that we're totally incapable of evaluating what's consistent and what's contradictory? I'm not sure how choosing new examples of things we assume to be not true helps you at all... -mittromney
::: You are suggesting that Aquinas is proven wrong because he used a definition of a triangle that only worked in euclidean space. This false-paradox is a straw man for an atheistic world view that is based on a particular definition of omnipotence - it is just as bad as creationists giving straw man arguments that are counter evolution (do note, I am not a creationist). If you wish to argue that a logical impossibility is not beyond omnipotence, then you can work from the Cartesian viewpoint of the trickster god or demon that allows 2+2=5, though that is more a question of belief and knowledge than omnipotence. If you wish to argue about omnipotence with a theistic philosopher, then it is necessary to work from that definition of omnipotence. I am presenting that definition and showing how the rest of the question falls to absurdity when this definition is used - which does not limit omnipotence. Simply said, God can do anything that can be done. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 19:15, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Again, I don't think you properly respond to what I'm saying. I claim the idea of a logical impossibility is a hobgoblin of mediocre minds: We have no idea what's logically possible or impossible. To say we do, and subsequently to claim that somehow human logic limits the omnipotence of god, is foolhardy. What I was suggesting with your Aquinas example is that things which may at one point in time appear to be facially and obviously contradictory can, in the future, be shown to actually be possible, and the original belief was therefore just an incorrect human assumption and not "logic". How that argument is a false-paradox straw man is beyond me: It appears you just throw those terms around to try to demonstrate that you're familiar with logical jargon in the hopes that the other side will assume you know better than they do. When you argue through implicit authority (not to even bring up the Descartes reference), you sound like a liberal who belongs at wiki... -mittromney
: I would urge you to ask your priest or minister the question of the rock so heavy. You will likely get a similar answer to mine (and that of Aquinas and Augustine of Hippo). Omnipotence is a human definition with words that are constrained by our language. Head to the seminary and you will find half a dozen different definitions of omnipotence and various theologians arguing for and against each one being the correct interpretation of the word. You will even find Judaism (which also asserts the omnipotent God) claims that God works through persuasion rather than action - the creation of possibility rather than miracles or violations of natural law - that His omnipotence is shown through that means. Other branches of Christianity use "God cannot make you sin" as part of its philosophy, that if God was to make you sin then you would not have free will and thus would not be sinning. The only reason to pose the paradox of omnipotence is to try to assert that God does not have such power. My take on it (and I agree with those sources I have linked above) is that the proper definition of omnipotence is "to have any power that can be had" or to be the maximally powerful being and as such the question of the rock or a square circle or a four sided triangle becomes a silly question - that which cannot exist cannot be created. If you wish to assert a different definition and solution to this question, then by all means do so. However, I have not seen any reasonable argument against this position from you yet. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 20:41, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

"Maximally powerful" doesn't mean "all-powerful". Your arguement implies that the Bible was incorrect in naming God as omnipotent, which completely destroys the foundation for faith in Christianity: The belief that the Bible is without error. - Bob Sanchez
----

Can God predict the future? [[User:kchittur|kchittur]]

How heavy do you think the rock that god can't lift would be? --[[User:Huey gunna getcha|Huey gunna getcha]] 18:48, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Maybe 1*10^abs(1/0) kg.--[[User:Sm355|Sm355]] 18:49, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:Shhhhh, you supposed to use lbs.! --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 19:06, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Guys, you are debating the wrong question which is really only a red herring. The real question that each must answer is this: "Will a man become so filled with pride and enamored with thoughts of his own intellectual superiority as to use a silly logical argument as an excuse to close his mind and his heart to the truth of the Gospel and thus reject his only hope of salvation?" --[[User:HSDad|HSDad]] 10:34, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

: Or perhaps the real question is, "Why do so many people blindly follow religious stories and texts with nothing to go on but faith with out any facts?". But that's another question for another debate. Lets just stick to the original question.--[[User:Sm355|Sm355]] 12:38, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Aaaaagh you just disprooved god[[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 15:37, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

God can make the rock, but every time He tries to lift it the planet he's standing on crumbles under His feet. [[User:Teresita|Teresita]] 00:22, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

If we assume that God does exist, I'm gonna have to go with Thomas Aquinas on this one. In his ''Summa Theologica'', he wrote:
<blockquote>Therefore, everything that does not imply a contradiction in terms, is
numbered amongst those possible things, in respect of which God is
called omnipotent: whereas whatever implies contradiction does not
come within the scope of divine omnipotence, because it cannot have
the aspect of possibility. Hence it is better to say that such things
cannot be done, than that God cannot do them.</blockquote>
That is, if God exists, he can do all that is logically possible, and nothing that is not. So, because there is a contradiction whether God can or cannot create the rock, it cannot be done. [[User:Masterbratac|Masterbratac]] 19:43, 23 September 2007 (EDT)
God is powerful, I like that square circle example. He can creat anything he want to created. Now why would God creat such a rock that even Himself can't lift. If the rock was heavy than God can just use His powers to make it easier to lift duhh. God is too strong to creat a rock too heavy for Him to lift. [[User:Amphibious|Amphibious]] 02:14, 27 October 2007 (EDT)

[added~]

haha. its kind of funny arguing about this kind of thing...because personally, i dont believe in higher beings like god. its only a figment of your mind; god holds only as much power as you give him. there is the concept of god for those who want a pillar of support around and them and i realize that there are those who truly would like to believe. and im fine with that. however, for someone like me who believes it is impractical, impossible, and downright strange to have an "omnipotent" being watching over us in such a way, i say heck sure he could. if he existed. but if we're going to put this in the context of fiction, anything is possible. but to me, if the root of this argumnet, god, does not exist, then i consider the possiblity of him creating a rock that he cant lift as invalid. {{unsigned|KuR0K4R4}}
: So what reason do you provide for God's non-existence? None! You don't believe He does—but that doesn't mean He doesn't—yet you provide absolutely no reason whatsoever for your subjective opinion. Many people have provided very good arguments supporting the view that God does exist, but you are obviously unaware of them or simply choose to ignore them, because you've made no attempt whatsoever to answer them. Instead, you simply type some throwaway lines about your personal views and expect that to count as some sort of argument (this ''is'' a ''debate'' page). [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:50, 4 December 2007 (EST)

=== "Everything that exists has a cause outside of itself." ===
Not sure who, they didn't sign their post properly, but they made this statement. There is a problem here... that is not the premise that Christians make. The statement should go like this...
:'''Everything that ''begins to'' exist has a cause.'''
* Notice that I added "begins to". For example, when a baby is born, it has a beginning, therefore it has a cause. God is the exception to the rule. Since He is the highest/most supreme Being in existence, out of necessity He always exists.
*# Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
*# God does not have a beginning.
*# Therefore God does not have a cause.
* How do we know God doesn't have a beginning or ending? Psalm 90:2 "...Even from everlasting to everlasting, You are God." (NASB)
* A side note... "outside of itself" is not necessary in the statement. It's obvious that something cannot be the cause of itself, if it does not exist. That would be illogical. So it can be safely assumed in the statement without saying it. At least I am assuming it.
--[[User:Ymmotrojam|Ymmotrojam]] 21:33, 4 December 2007 (EST)
:Oh, I don't know. When you've got people believing that the universe formed out of nothing for no reason, perhaps some of these obvious things need to be spelt out. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:37, 5 December 2007 (EST)
::I don't think Big Bang cosmology implies that the universe formed out of nothing for no reason. The theory states that we can trace the expansion of space back to a singularity, that is to say a point beyond which we cannot probe. The theory doesn't state that nothing existed prior to the singularity (indeed the singularity itself must have existed for an indeterminate time prior to its expansion into the universe we know and love). [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 20:27, 10 December 2007 (EST)
::: Discover magazine in 2002 described the views of Alan Guth, one of the originators of the inflation theory of the Big Bang thus: {{QuoteBox|The universe burst into something from absolutely nothing—zero, nada. And as it got bigger, it became filled with even more stuff that came from absolutely nowhere.[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2507/]}} I think that supports what I said quite nicely. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:08, 10 December 2007 (EST)

:::Then he created a terrible strawman for the Big Bang theory, it has since been refined by Hawking among others. Whilst paradoxes remain as they always will, they seem as equally paradoxical as God; although the implications of such a being in turn create yet more paradoxes. -Barnes

==Logical fallacy==
It is illogical to apply physical attributes to a non-physical being. Also, it is illogical to question whether something can be created to be mightier than He who is Almighty. That God cannot create something more powerful than Himself does not mean God is not all-powerful. The definition of all-powerful is that there is nothing more powerful! Furthermore, this is pitting God against Himself; His abilities against His own abilities. That makes no sense! Look at it this way: can you defeat yourself at wrestling? Of course not.

Additionally, God cannot create square circles because squares are squares and circles are circles. It's like asking God to make 1 equal 0 or to make bthe color blue the color red. Of course, I suppose God could do some M.C. Escher thing and make square circles.

Anyway, the only thing questions like these prove is how intellectually bankrupt neo-atheists are. They so want God to not exist that they will ignore their own illogic. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 20:56, 10 December 2007 (EST)

: A good response to this type of question has just been posted on the Creation Ministries International website[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/5566]. It is consistent with other comments above, including Jinxmchue's comment (complete with an M. C. Escher picture!), but is explained very clearly, in my opinion.
: There are actually several answers:
:* 'A rock too heavy for a being who can lift anything' is a self-contradictory statement, and a self-contradictory statement is a ''nothing'', so "Can God create a rock too heavy for Him to lift?" really amounts to "Can God create a nothing?", which is clearly absurd.
:* Can God create a square circle? An all-powerful being can do anything that takes ''power'' to do. How much power does it take to create a square circle? It's not ''power'' that is required (again, because it's an illogical impossibility), so that's no argument against God's omnipotence either.
:* Yes, God ''can'' create a rock too heavy for God to lift! That is, God (the Father) can create a rock too heavy for God (the Son) to lift—because God the Son (Jesus) voluntarily gave up some of His divine powers!
: The article also relates [[C. S. Lewis]]' thoughts on the matter.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:32, 12 January 2008 (EST)

::"God (the Father) can create a rock too heavy for God (the Son) to lift" lol! I like that one. I'll have to remember to use it next time I see this argument presented by someone who thinks they're the first person to ever present it. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 09:40, 26 January 2008 (EST)

In addition, the Bible states that God is by nature good; as He cannot do anything contrary to His nature and because creating such an object would render logic illogic, one is inclined to conclude that this argument has no bearing on His undeniable existence. {{unsigned|VoteGOP21}}

==I'VE SOLVED IT!==
Yes, God ''can'' make a rock so big that He can't lift it. But He can also shrink it again to a size small enough that he can lift it too again. Crisis averted, argument over. --[[User:Cranky Joe|Cranky Joe]] 20:35, 7 January 2008 (EST)
: <grin> [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:34, 8 January 2008 (EST)
:The heaviest thing in the universe may only be one cubic millimetre. [[User:Jallen|Jallen]] 08:35, 12 January 2008 (EST)
::Hooray for incredibly dense objects. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 19:52, 24 January 2008 (EST)
:::Your ''mom's'' an incredibly dense object. :D Seriously though, this is a linguistic paradox more than a philosophical one. [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 19:43, 11 February 2008 (EST)

Debate:Could God create a rock so heavy that he himself could not lift it?

2008-04-06T00:13:56Z

Barnes: /* "Everything that exists has a cause outside of itself." */

{{debate-religion}}

Could God create a rock so heavy that he himself could not lift it?
Discuss--[[User:Sm355|Sm355]] 18:08, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

The answer is NO He cannot "do" that. Note that there is no limit however to the size of a rock that He can create, and there is no limit to the size of a rock that He can lift. Thus the question - answered in the negative - involves no limitation on God's prerogatives; if answered in the positive however does. The whole thing is a play on words as is explained more or less in various ways below. It's negation does not mean God is not omnipotent - it means that omnipotence is not properly tested as implied by this question. [[User:Qwestor|Qwestor]] 14:54, 28 December 2007 (EDT)

This old one... its supposed to be a paradox showing the omnipotence is impossible: If God can create the rock, He must not be all-powerful because He cannot lift it. If He cant create the rock, then He still isn't all powerful. Either way, no all-powerful being. Personally, I think God just has no reason to create such a rock, so why would He? - BornAgainBrit

Because he wants to disprove his own existence. --[[User:Huey gunna getcha|Huey gunna getcha]] 18:17, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

But you can't assume that God is temporally limited like us mere mortals. He can create the rock so heavy he can't lift it one minute, then, the next minute, he lifts it. Just because we can't conceive of it, doesn't mean God can't lift it. -mittromney

:He'd get YOU to lift it. --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 18:51, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

::No! No matter how heavy the rock would be, God would still be able to lift it because he is the Almighty.
:::"He only is my rock and my salvation: he is my defence; I shall not be moved." (Psalm 62:6)
::[[User:JC|JC]] 09:44, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

==Traditional Paradox of God==
God is omnipotent Therefore he can But since he is omnipotent He can lift the rock he cannot lift Therefore God is a paradox and cannot exist

[[User:Helios|Helios]] loves the creator of this page and will worship him as though he were a paradoxical God.

The part that people miss is assuming that God is picking the rock up with a pair of arms like a human. God isn't a human. God doesn't have a physical body. God can't lift rocks. God makes the rock lift itself.
:Doesn't "lifting" assume an "up"? What is an omnipresent being standing on when lifting a rock? I think this question is broken. [[User:Totnesmartin|Totnesmartin]] 16:55, 16 May 2007
(EDT)

Alright, then can he make a rock so large he cannot make it move? And another thing disproving that he exists; it says in Genesis it took him six days to create the universe. A perfect, all-powerful god would have created it instantly. And some say that maybe he took his time, etc. That doesn't work either, because if he was perfect, everything he did would be as efficient as possible, and that would mean instantly. And, on top of that, he had to rest from the effort. Now, granted, creating a universe in only six days, and only resting for one is still pretty impressive, but that doesn't mean omnipotence.- Bob Sanchez

::Did it ever occur to anyone that it might take time to create imperfection from perfection? JM ([[user:Meyje|Meyje]])
:::What "imperfection from perfection"? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:29, 23 October 2007 (EDT)

:As far as the rock is concerned, that has been answered below, I believe. God can do anything ''that can be done''. Creating a rock too big for Him to move is not something that can be done.
:You are incorrect in claiming that a "perfect, all-powerful god would have created [the universe] instantly". The correct statement would be that He ''could'' create it instantly, not that He ''would''.
:By claiming that He would not have taken longer because that would be less efficient is (a) not obviously true (sometimes it is more efficient to take longer), and (b) presumes that efficiency is the prime goal. Rather, it would appear from Exodus 20:11 that God chose to take six days in order to set the pattern for the week.
:Similarly, you misunderstand the reference to resting. The Bible doesn't say that God was tired and needed to recuperate. The Hebrew word translated "rest" simply means to take a break, to stop from working. Again, this would have been in order to set the pattern for the week: work six days and take the seventh day off.
:In summary, then, you have basically tried picking holes with the account by saying that if God was truly omnipotent, He would have done things the way that you think He would have done them, which overlooks that perhaps there are reasons that He ''chose'' to do them the way He did that you hadn't considered.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:02, 17 July 2007 (EDT)
God is almighty, it'll be dumb if He created a rock to the point where He Himself can not lift it. God created the Heavens and the Earth, God can lift any rock. Now if HE did created such a rock, He do have the powers to make it easier fro Him to lift it. Didn't anyone think of that? I like what Philip J. Rayment said there, it is true, He did make the patterns of the week. That's why every time God created something, the BIBLE said that it was the 1st or 2nd or 3rd day.

if god is perfect, then what reason would he have to bother with existence? Surely he would do anything he would ever need or want to do in an infinitely small time, and then simply pop out of existence. If he was all-knowing, he would know it was all he could ever want to do, and if he was capable of anything, he could stop existing.
(Rowan)
: That argument presupposes that God exists in time, which He doesn't, as "time" is part of His creation. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:20, 10 December 2007 (EST)

== Absurd ==

This question is absurd and this revolves around the question of what omnipotence is. If you use the definition of "omnipotence is the ability to do anything" then you hit this problem. If you use the definition of "omnipotence is the ability to do anything that may be done" then the problem does not exist.

Lets take an alternative form of this argument:
# If God is omnipotent, then God can create a square circle
# God cannot create a square circle
# Therefore, God is not omnipotent

This is of the form
#p -> q
#~q
#therefore ~p
which is a valid argument form known as modus tollens. To attack this argument it is necessary to look at the premises. The second premise is fair so the first must be examined. This can be broken down into:
##God is omnipotent
##Therefore God can create or do anything
##A square circle is a thing
##Therefore God can create a square circle

Theistic scholar/philosophers do not claim the omnipotence of God, but rather that God is the maximally powerful being. That God can do anything that can be done. With the modified argument:
##God the maximally powerful being
##Therefore God can create or do anything
##A square circle is a thing
##Therefore God can create a square circle
It falls apart and the first premise of the argument fails. Ultimately, this does not limit God's power - He can do anything that can be done and create anything that can exist.

This can then be summed up in:
* God is the maximally powerful being.
* That which cannot exist, cannot be created.
There is no paradox here, and any claim otherwise rests on absurdity.
--[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 18:25, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Let's apply this argument by logical constraint to a few other Christian doctrines, then, shall we?

Example 1:
## For a woman to beome pregnant, she must be inseminated.
## Virgins have not been inseminated
## Mary was a virgin
## Therefore, Mary was not pregnant.

Example 2:
## Everything that exists has a cause outside of itself. (Premise)
## The universe exists. (Premise)
## Therefore, the universe has a cause outside of itself.
## We call that cause God (cosmological argument).
## God exits (Premise)
## Therefore, God has a cause outside of itself.

So - God is too weak to create a squared circle. I get that - but what about the rock?

"Any claim otherwise rests on absurdity"? You seem fairly confident that by using a lot of logical jargon and organizing your post in a way that intimates you know what you're talking about, you can circumvent the inherent logical fallacy that you're assuming you can conceptualize what can exist and what can be created. If you claim to know what can and what cannot be created, such as, for example, a rock that God can't lift, shouldn't that be in the entry for hubris? -mittromney
: I am simply stating the solution to the paradox of omnipotence that was given back as an answer in one of the religious studies classes I took at a Catholic highschool and again in a university class on "Philosophy and Religion." At best, the paradox of omnipotence is a strawman argument. [http://www.philosophyofreligion.info/impossiblerock.html] [http://www.philosophyofreligion.info/omnipotence.html] [http://www.skepticwiki.org/wiki/index.php/Omnipotence_Paradox] [http://www.greatplay.net/uselessia/articles/omnipyparadox.html] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnipotence_paradox] Thomas Aquinas said it well "Since the principles of certain sciences, such as logic, geometry and arithmetic are taken only from the formal principles of things, on which the essence of the thing depends, it follows that God could not make things contrary to these principles. For example, that a genus was not predicable of the species, or that lines drawn from the center to the circumference were not equal, or that a triangle did not have three angles equal to two right angles." - granted this is founded on euclidean space, but it goes back to the question of can God break the laws of the universe that He created. Alternatively, you can go to Augustine of Hippo and read "For He is called omnipotent on account of His doing what He wills, not on account of His suffering what He wills not; for if that should befall Him, He would by no means be omnipotent. Wherefore, He cannot do some things for the very reason that He is omnipotent." [http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf102.iv.V.10.html] --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 18:54, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Isn't the fact that your quote from Aquinas included a notion that was later proved to be totally incorrect by Einstein absolutely damning for your argument that humans can adequately perceive and evaluate logical concepts? I guess I'm curious how any of what you say deals properly with the idea that God is totally superior in every way, and therefore to say He can or can't do something is pointless hubris a fortiori? -mittromney
: It depends if you take it literally or what he was trying to say. The question is can God do something that is against the rules of logic? If you don't like the triangle example that Aquinas gave, then use four sided triangles or square circles in place of them. Read the first sentence again and you will see that these are perfectly valid substitutions - "Since the principles of certain sciences, such as logic, geometry and arithmetic are taken only from the formal principles of things, on which the essence of the thing depends, it follows that God could not make things contrary to these principles." --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 19:01, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
::So you're saying that we should just choose a new facially contradictory idea, and go ahead with that, while my whole point was that we're totally incapable of evaluating what's consistent and what's contradictory? I'm not sure how choosing new examples of things we assume to be not true helps you at all... -mittromney
::: You are suggesting that Aquinas is proven wrong because he used a definition of a triangle that only worked in euclidean space. This false-paradox is a straw man for an atheistic world view that is based on a particular definition of omnipotence - it is just as bad as creationists giving straw man arguments that are counter evolution (do note, I am not a creationist). If you wish to argue that a logical impossibility is not beyond omnipotence, then you can work from the Cartesian viewpoint of the trickster god or demon that allows 2+2=5, though that is more a question of belief and knowledge than omnipotence. If you wish to argue about omnipotence with a theistic philosopher, then it is necessary to work from that definition of omnipotence. I am presenting that definition and showing how the rest of the question falls to absurdity when this definition is used - which does not limit omnipotence. Simply said, God can do anything that can be done. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 19:15, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Again, I don't think you properly respond to what I'm saying. I claim the idea of a logical impossibility is a hobgoblin of mediocre minds: We have no idea what's logically possible or impossible. To say we do, and subsequently to claim that somehow human logic limits the omnipotence of god, is foolhardy. What I was suggesting with your Aquinas example is that things which may at one point in time appear to be facially and obviously contradictory can, in the future, be shown to actually be possible, and the original belief was therefore just an incorrect human assumption and not "logic". How that argument is a false-paradox straw man is beyond me: It appears you just throw those terms around to try to demonstrate that you're familiar with logical jargon in the hopes that the other side will assume you know better than they do. When you argue through implicit authority (not to even bring up the Descartes reference), you sound like a liberal who belongs at wiki... -mittromney
: I would urge you to ask your priest or minister the question of the rock so heavy. You will likely get a similar answer to mine (and that of Aquinas and Augustine of Hippo). Omnipotence is a human definition with words that are constrained by our language. Head to the seminary and you will find half a dozen different definitions of omnipotence and various theologians arguing for and against each one being the correct interpretation of the word. You will even find Judaism (which also asserts the omnipotent God) claims that God works through persuasion rather than action - the creation of possibility rather than miracles or violations of natural law - that His omnipotence is shown through that means. Other branches of Christianity use "God cannot make you sin" as part of its philosophy, that if God was to make you sin then you would not have free will and thus would not be sinning. The only reason to pose the paradox of omnipotence is to try to assert that God does not have such power. My take on it (and I agree with those sources I have linked above) is that the proper definition of omnipotence is "to have any power that can be had" or to be the maximally powerful being and as such the question of the rock or a square circle or a four sided triangle becomes a silly question - that which cannot exist cannot be created. If you wish to assert a different definition and solution to this question, then by all means do so. However, I have not seen any reasonable argument against this position from you yet. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 20:41, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

"Maximally powerful" doesn't mean "all-powerful". Your arguement implies that the Bible was incorrect in naming God as omnipotent, which completely destroys the foundation for faith in Christianity: The belief that the Bible is without error. - Bob Sanchez
----

Can God predict the future? [[User:kchittur|kchittur]]

How heavy do you think the rock that god can't lift would be? --[[User:Huey gunna getcha|Huey gunna getcha]] 18:48, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Maybe 1*10^abs(1/0) kg.--[[User:Sm355|Sm355]] 18:49, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:Shhhhh, you supposed to use lbs.! --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 19:06, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Guys, you are debating the wrong question which is really only a red herring. The real question that each must answer is this: "Will a man become so filled with pride and enamored with thoughts of his own intellectual superiority as to use a silly logical argument as an excuse to close his mind and his heart to the truth of the Gospel and thus reject his only hope of salvation?" --[[User:HSDad|HSDad]] 10:34, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

: Or perhaps the real question is, "Why do so many people blindly follow religious stories and texts with nothing to go on but faith with out any facts?". But that's another question for another debate. Lets just stick to the original question.--[[User:Sm355|Sm355]] 12:38, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Aaaaagh you just disprooved god[[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 15:37, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

God can make the rock, but every time He tries to lift it the planet he's standing on crumbles under His feet. [[User:Teresita|Teresita]] 00:22, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

If we assume that God does exist, I'm gonna have to go with Thomas Aquinas on this one. In his ''Summa Theologica'', he wrote:
<blockquote>Therefore, everything that does not imply a contradiction in terms, is
numbered amongst those possible things, in respect of which God is
called omnipotent: whereas whatever implies contradiction does not
come within the scope of divine omnipotence, because it cannot have
the aspect of possibility. Hence it is better to say that such things
cannot be done, than that God cannot do them.</blockquote>
That is, if God exists, he can do all that is logically possible, and nothing that is not. So, because there is a contradiction whether God can or cannot create the rock, it cannot be done. [[User:Masterbratac|Masterbratac]] 19:43, 23 September 2007 (EDT)
God is powerful, I like that square circle example. He can creat anything he want to created. Now why would God creat such a rock that even Himself can't lift. If the rock was heavy than God can just use His powers to make it easier to lift duhh. God is too strong to creat a rock too heavy for Him to lift. [[User:Amphibious|Amphibious]] 02:14, 27 October 2007 (EDT)

[added~]

haha. its kind of funny arguing about this kind of thing...because personally, i dont believe in higher beings like god. its only a figment of your mind; god holds only as much power as you give him. there is the concept of god for those who want a pillar of support around and them and i realize that there are those who truly would like to believe. and im fine with that. however, for someone like me who believes it is impractical, impossible, and downright strange to have an "omnipotent" being watching over us in such a way, i say heck sure he could. if he existed. but if we're going to put this in the context of fiction, anything is possible. but to me, if the root of this argumnet, god, does not exist, then i consider the possiblity of him creating a rock that he cant lift as invalid. {{unsigned|KuR0K4R4}}
: So what reason do you provide for God's non-existence? None! You don't believe He does—but that doesn't mean He doesn't—yet you provide absolutely no reason whatsoever for your subjective opinion. Many people have provided very good arguments supporting the view that God does exist, but you are obviously unaware of them or simply choose to ignore them, because you've made no attempt whatsoever to answer them. Instead, you simply type some throwaway lines about your personal views and expect that to count as some sort of argument (this ''is'' a ''debate'' page). [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:50, 4 December 2007 (EST)

=== "Everything that exists has a cause outside of itself." ===
Not sure who, they didn't sign their post properly, but they made this statement. There is a problem here... that is not the premise that Christians make. The statement should go like this...
:'''Everything that ''begins to'' exist has a cause.'''
* Notice that I added "begins to". For example, when a baby is born, it has a beginning, therefore it has a cause. God is the exception to the rule. Since He is the highest/most supreme Being in existence, out of necessity He always exists.
*# Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
*# God does not have a beginning.
*# Therefore God does not have a cause.
* How do we know God doesn't have a beginning or ending? Psalm 90:2 "...Even from everlasting to everlasting, You are God." (NASB)
* A side note... "outside of itself" is not necessary in the statement. It's obvious that something cannot be the cause of itself, if it does not exist. That would be illogical. So it can be safely assumed in the statement without saying it. At least I am assuming it.
--[[User:Ymmotrojam|Ymmotrojam]] 21:33, 4 December 2007 (EST)
:Oh, I don't know. When you've got people believing that the universe formed out of nothing for no reason, perhaps some of these obvious things need to be spelt out. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:37, 5 December 2007 (EST)
::I don't think Big Bang cosmology implies that the universe formed out of nothing for no reason. The theory states that we can trace the expansion of space back to a singularity, that is to say a point beyond which we cannot probe. The theory doesn't state that nothing existed prior to the singularity (indeed the singularity itself must have existed for an indeterminate time prior to its expansion into the universe we know and love). [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 20:27, 10 December 2007 (EST)
::: Discover magazine in 2002 described the views of Alan Guth, one of the originators of the inflation theory of the Big Bang thus: {{QuoteBox|The universe burst into something from absolutely nothing—zero, nada. And as it got bigger, it became filled with even more stuff that came from absolutely nowhere.[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2507/]}} I think that supports what I said quite nicely. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:08, 10 December 2007 (EST)
:::Then he created a terrible strawman for the Big Bang theory, it has since been refined by Hawking among others. Whilst paradoxes remain as they always will, they seem as equally paradoxical as God; although the implications of such a being in turn create yet more paradoxes.

==Logical fallacy==
It is illogical to apply physical attributes to a non-physical being. Also, it is illogical to question whether something can be created to be mightier than He who is Almighty. That God cannot create something more powerful than Himself does not mean God is not all-powerful. The definition of all-powerful is that there is nothing more powerful! Furthermore, this is pitting God against Himself; His abilities against His own abilities. That makes no sense! Look at it this way: can you defeat yourself at wrestling? Of course not.

Additionally, God cannot create square circles because squares are squares and circles are circles. It's like asking God to make 1 equal 0 or to make bthe color blue the color red. Of course, I suppose God could do some M.C. Escher thing and make square circles.

Anyway, the only thing questions like these prove is how intellectually bankrupt neo-atheists are. They so want God to not exist that they will ignore their own illogic. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 20:56, 10 December 2007 (EST)

: A good response to this type of question has just been posted on the Creation Ministries International website[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/5566]. It is consistent with other comments above, including Jinxmchue's comment (complete with an M. C. Escher picture!), but is explained very clearly, in my opinion.
: There are actually several answers:
:* 'A rock too heavy for a being who can lift anything' is a self-contradictory statement, and a self-contradictory statement is a ''nothing'', so "Can God create a rock too heavy for Him to lift?" really amounts to "Can God create a nothing?", which is clearly absurd.
:* Can God create a square circle? An all-powerful being can do anything that takes ''power'' to do. How much power does it take to create a square circle? It's not ''power'' that is required (again, because it's an illogical impossibility), so that's no argument against God's omnipotence either.
:* Yes, God ''can'' create a rock too heavy for God to lift! That is, God (the Father) can create a rock too heavy for God (the Son) to lift—because God the Son (Jesus) voluntarily gave up some of His divine powers!
: The article also relates [[C. S. Lewis]]' thoughts on the matter.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:32, 12 January 2008 (EST)

::"God (the Father) can create a rock too heavy for God (the Son) to lift" lol! I like that one. I'll have to remember to use it next time I see this argument presented by someone who thinks they're the first person to ever present it. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 09:40, 26 January 2008 (EST)

In addition, the Bible states that God is by nature good; as He cannot do anything contrary to His nature and because creating such an object would render logic illogic, one is inclined to conclude that this argument has no bearing on His undeniable existence. {{unsigned|VoteGOP21}}

==I'VE SOLVED IT!==
Yes, God ''can'' make a rock so big that He can't lift it. But He can also shrink it again to a size small enough that he can lift it too again. Crisis averted, argument over. --[[User:Cranky Joe|Cranky Joe]] 20:35, 7 January 2008 (EST)
: <grin> [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:34, 8 January 2008 (EST)
:The heaviest thing in the universe may only be one cubic millimetre. [[User:Jallen|Jallen]] 08:35, 12 January 2008 (EST)
::Hooray for incredibly dense objects. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 19:52, 24 January 2008 (EST)
:::Your ''mom's'' an incredibly dense object. :D Seriously though, this is a linguistic paradox more than a philosophical one. [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 19:43, 11 February 2008 (EST)