If man can create something too heavy for him to lift, why can't God ?

Maybe God is smart enough to build his objects in the vacuum of space where there is less gravity. Man, not so much.

 

RE: Challenge for Atheists: Define God
※→ Adorno, et al,

I respectfully disagree.

(COMMENT)

I stand by my statement.

Adorno: 1) Why do you assert that a god is needed to create life?

Rocco: A1: Other than the Theory of First Motion (a theological argument by Saint Thomas Aquinas), there is no knowledge we have yet acquired by means of the senses, observation and experimentation that either detects the latent intervention or creation by a Supreme Being (SB). And so I say "no evidence;" I do not say there is there is no SB (God).​

Adorno: 2) Logic is fundamentally a different type of thing than a living thing. The latter is a contingent thing (it is possible for it to not exist, on the other hand logic is a necessary thing. Hence logic is not created, it did not come into being. ... ※→

Rocco: A2: I agree that "Logic" (a form of thought) is different "living thing" (a life form). I agree that Logic can support both the existence and the non-existence of the SB. Having said that, the impact of persuasion (the existence of God) is usually based on some tangible evidence supporting the logical and reasoning.
​

Adorno: •) Hence they did not appear, there was no time in which the rules of logic didn't exist. On the other hand, as I understand it, the laws of physics are contingent, based on experiential observation (unlike logical claims). They could have been otherwise, in other words, there could be other universes (part of the multiverse for example, in which the laws of entropy are different - hence they came into existence with the creation of the universe (how or why is the million dollar question).

Rocco: A3: Your hypothesis is that there is a Supreme Being. I only ask that you design and perform an experiment the either accepts or reject the notion hypothesis. Otherwise, you have to go back to the drawing board. ​

Remember the validity of an argument can be painted either true or false; a valid argument may still have a false conclusion.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

I believe there may be some miscommunication here. My post was originally in response to Etbauer's comment/questions. My position is in defense of naturalism, not theism. In relation to the following points above:

1) I'm not claiming that God is required for the creation of life or for the universe. In fact, just the opposite, I was asking for clarification in relation to Etbauer's assumption that there was a need to posit divine origin. As for Aquinas's argument, I wholeheartedly agree with your statement here, indeed, it seems that the both the first and second ways of Aquinas's cosmological argument are susceptible to serious critique from scientific and philosophical arguments. The third element of his cosmological argument is from necessary being (why is there something rather than nothing), and even this presupposes the legitimacy of the PSR (principle of sufficient reason - that for every event there must be a cause - this was taken to be a necessary truth by Aquinas and later by Leibniz, but both merely assumed its truth, if one grants that some things "just are" - e.g. quantum fields, then there may in fact not be in any reason need for positing an explanatory cause, and if this is true then Aquinas argument falls short in making a persuasive case for divine causation. To make a long story short. My position argues for the legitimacy of an atheistic position - not a theistic one.

2) My point here was to suggest that the laws of logic are not created entities. They exist with or without a divine being. This is in response to Etbauer's earlier claim, that they must be accounted for by some creative force. I disagreed. I again wholeheartedly agree that far more would have to be presented in defense of a theistic explanation. Again my position is in support of naturalism here not theism.

3) My position does not entail a Supreme Being, again my point was to argue that cosmological arguments in defense of a deity are unconvincing. Again, the point of my post above was to demonstrate that laws of logic do not require a divine origin. While I agree that the explanatory success of science is quite important and impressive, I hold that not all knowledge is reducible to scientific methodology. I leave open the arena of knowing to also include philosophical and aesthetic claims. As my avatar's name implies, I am a sympathetic to a thoroughgoing dedication to philosophical argumentation.

My apologies for not making my position clearer in my earlier posts. I have no disagreement with what you have stated here.

 

Don't you know that galaxies are held together by gravity?

 

And everywhere there is a big old object there would be a lot less of it had God not parked a double-wide there.

 

This is an easy one to refute. Omnipotence is someone who can do all things. A "thing" often means a real thing not a fake thing. So really God can do all things that are real, or things that can really be done. Which means the logically impossible or making 2=3 or turning good into evil are logically impossible and not covered under omnipotence since it only covers things that can be done. Logically a stone that a person who can lift all things can't lift is impossible and so doesn't exist, and no God can't do the logically impossible or lift stones that don't exist.

 

God is omnipotent. meaning He's all powerful. however there some things He can't do like contradict Himself or His powers. so the simple answer to the question is no. God can't make a rock so big He can't lift it. Now I have a question for you. If a line goes forever in two directions and a ray goes forever in one direction in geometry then which is longer?