Can god create a rock so heavy he himself cannot lift it

>can god create a rock so heavy he himself cannot lift it
HOLY SHIT CHRISTIANS ABSOLUTELY UNQUESTIONABLY UNEQUIVOCALLY BTFO FROM HERE TO ETERNITY

i miss hitch

I don't have the witt to unravel this common false dichotomy in a short and sweet way. Can someone else do it for me?

If he wishes to do so, then it can be done.

...

He would have supported Trump after Bernie dropped out. He hated the Clinton's with a passion

Hitchens was my first red-pill obsession
sorely missed

Peter > Christopher

If he wishes to do so, then it cannot be done

Peter is the patrician choice

>can god create a rock so heavy he himself cannot lift it

A game programmer can make a rock that in real life can be too heavy to lift, but in game lifting is a none issue.

God is a fallacy on its own, why even try to argue it?

God can't lift anything, stupid. You think God's walking around just lifting shit?

Peter was the better brother and god allowed him to live longer

Rocks are physical things.
God is not a physical thing.
Asking if God can create a thing he cannot move is like asking if a programmer can code a timer that he can't initiate. They both create instances in the universe where the object exists to interact with it.

God can make a rock that can't be moved by anything in the universe, but he can also make something afterwards that can move the rock.

>God makes a rock that he can lift
>saps away his strength temporarily
>now he can lift it, but also can't

>this is the mentality of your typical repugnant religious loser
Go back to reading your book written by people who literally shit in the street like indians

anyone who actually believes this is incomprehensibly stupid.

>can God not do something

>no? haha this proves god cant do everything

atheists, not even once

I could write a software program to create an immutable object, then i can change the program to make the object mutable.
what's so hard to understand?

You ever see initial d, where bunta buys a subaru and tells takumi to go and drive it? Takumi beats his AE86 times in the subie, then tries to beat it in the eight six by learning a faster line. But the next time he drives the subie, he beats his own time.

Same thing.

>Christians getting cucked by basic logic

What else is new.

God can't create a rock He can't lift because God, being omnipotent, can lift all rocks. Henceforth a rock He can't lift is incapable of existing. The concept of its existence is contradictory.

"The concept of infinite eludes me" said the atheist cuck to no one in particular. Little did he know, a banana would soon find its way into his lower colon.

>The concept of any gods existence is contradictory.

We know what you really mean.

Yes. But then he would lift it.

It's true leaf, I've seen the videos of him railing against her

there are forces which create order, some call those god

doesnt mean he'd support an un-intellectual like trump. he stated that he would vote for clinton if the other choice was worse.

Yes.
>Creates a rock
>Turns himself into a human with only certain powers, and it doesn't include the ability to lift any rock
>Reverts back omni-everything state of Godness and removes the rock from existence
>Checkmate

/thread
>OP, in between sucking cocks: That's not what I mean, you guys! *goes back to throating black dicks*
>Sup Forums: You didn't specify.

KEK

"God can only do things that are possible, it is impossible to create something that he cannot lift.". God damn Sup Forums is so fucking dumb these days. Read a book you brainlet. Go take a class at your CC.

Peter speaks so much truth and truly changed my mind about a lot of things. Christopher is a better at debating and putting on a show but doesn't know what he's talking about, in the end he just mastabates himself and his fans.

Logic is a universal concept. God is extra-universal. It's that simple

This guy gets it

*creates infinite alternate realities where the rock exists at various levels of being able to be lifted by me*

Omnipotence doesn't necessarily imply the ability to perform the logically absurd. If it did, the answer would be "Yes, God can create a rock so heavy He Himself could not lift it, and He would still be able to lift it." The contention "But that's logically absurd," would not be valid if the ability to perform the logically absurd were part of the definition of "omnipotence."
It's really a stupid question, actually. I wouldn't be surprised if Hitchens really did use it.

Wtf I hate Christianity now

>heavy
>God literally created the concept of "heavy", and weight, and the systems we know as physics and motor functions

God is so outside of these systems you can't even comprehend. He is a higher being, outside of and unbound by these rules and laws that he created.

In order for there to be a rock that he cannot lift, he would have to lower himself to our level, step under the rule of the systems he created, and exist within them. Which he did by the way, when he walked among us as God the Son, Jesus Christ, in a physical human body with all the same limitations we have. (All his miracles are irrelevant, if he just used his physical body with no God-power there would undoubtedly be things that were too heavy)

>Crtl+f
>No mention of Summa con gentiles
>No mention of the omnipotent paradox
>No mention of the Roman philosopher that first proposed it; assumed to be Hitchens
>Everyone just tries to clumsily answer it themselves without doing prior research

You guys fucking suck.

Preposterous question implying a fallacy of combining post and pretense to create an inherant paradox.

>can god create a rock so heavy he himself cannot lift it
Yes. And then he can lift an impossibly heavy rock.

The question doesnt make sense when you understand the nature of God. he is outside of time and space and physical reality is subject to him not the otherway around therefore defining in those limited terms is impossible.

And now you know why God is illogical.

>prior research

>research illogical nonsense about whether superman could beat goku

kys

>you should research what historical people potentially as retarded as the person who came up with this "paradox" have to say about it, before you can offer a proper refutation
see non sequitur. The existence of the logically absurd doesn't imply God is logically absurd, dumb atheist.

see

This board is full of underaged LARPers.

I remember a video posted here featuring Bannon talking about the Church Millitant and everyone was circlejerking about how badass it was and Deus Volt and whatnot... I guess there are some pretty knowledgeable people here, but there's even more underaged retards who contribute noise and nothing else. This board has gone downhill in quality in the past year or two, I think because T_D brought an influx of redditards that know nothing.

>evolution disproves Christianity
>evolution exists and early man branched off into different species with different traits and intelligence levels

Hitler was right
Thanks OP

>>evolution disproves Christianity
source? You have to be pretty fucking stupid to regurgitate something like this.

what if us knowledgeable people are fucking tired? Everyone needs to rest.

I'll tell you what if he's omnipotent that means he does both the lifting and the non lifting, he's all the variables.

Dinosaurs faggot, it disproves Abrahamic religion, you never watched discovery channel as a kid? Oh wait its all ancient aliens and ghost stories now your generation is fucked.

I forgot what is the default font on browsers?

>Dinosaurs faggot, it disproves Abrahamic religion
source? You have to be pretty fucking stupid to regurgitate something like this.

I had that picture for the background of my Zune in 2008

The problem is in answering with either a simple yes or no.

Either answer leaves the other person saying that there is something God can not do.

The real answer is yes, God could create something so heavy that he cannot lift it. But then He would no longer be God. So, yes, God could choose to no longer be omnipotent if he wanted to.

>implying god exists inside the universe instead of as the universe

>implying that the limitation in strength would be god's and not his physical form's, which could be changed at his will

got it right

>un-intellectual
Speaking of "un-intellectuals".

Everything is Dual; everything has poles; everything has its
pair of opposites; like and unlike are the same; opposites are
identical in nature, but different in degree; extremes meet;
all truths are but half-truths; all paradoxes may be
reconciled.

What are you banned from google numnutz? Tldr abrahamic scripture sets a time frame from which humanity was created and in a specific way. You have to be pretty fucking retarded to miss it considering you ever read up on it in the first place....or just lying.

While we're at it, Hitchen's razor merely creates an implicit false equivocation between "can" and "should," thus creating an implicit argument from ignorance. If the statement were explicit about its implications, it would be "What is asserted without evidence should be dismissed without evidence" - an argument from ignorance. That guy was nothing but a bitter, drunken idiot. It's no wonder he was an atheist hero.
Yes, Christians think a symbolic painting happened.
>being this stupid
>Tldr abrahamic scripture sets a time frame from which humanity was created and in a specific way.
It does no such thing explicitly. It is debated among Christians as to how any sort of non-historical timeframe could be established. Most just agree that the bible uses phenomenal language, and leave it at that. You still have yet to support your regurgitation. Maybe you should try googling something other than "how r christians wrong tho ;_;"

You are fucking cancer, kill yourself before you hurt someone else.
Most retarded and ignorant post I have read today.

The thing as genius posts is, they come off as retarded and ignorant to stupid people.

about* not as. FUCK
I edited this pic for u guis

Anybody who can create, out of thin air, a rock so heavy that even a God cannot lift it is what I consider a strong indication that we are still dealing with a God.

Prove that wrong. Protip: you can't

>genius post
??
I don't fucking see any """"""""""genius""""""""""" behind your argumentation
You are fucking pathetic if you actually think your post had any substance.

>bitter, drunken idiot
ad hominem

>an argument from ignorance
This is not an argument
Mind explaining WHY it would make you ignorant?

> false equivocation
How about giving an actual solution to the problem, instead of writing "WRONG!"?

>phenomenal language
Oh, which parts of it is metaphorical?
The parts you choose, the part your church chooses, the part your country chooses or the part the majority of Christians chooses?

the rock of your heart

If we evolved from monkeys, how come there's still monkeys around ?
Checkmate atheists

God is infinite and eternal. Anything that He cannot lift IS Him by definition, or has its "un-liftable" parts drawn directly from His nature(e.g. logic, the human soul)

>I don't fucking see any """"""""""genius""""""""""" behind your argumentation
Yeah maybe it wasn't clear enough. Here's the revised rebuttal of Hitchen's razor: Hitchen's razor merely creates an implicit false equivocation between "can" and "should," and "dismissed" and "dismissed as false," thus creating an implicit argument from ignorance. If the statement were explicit about its implications, it would be "What is asserted without evidence should be dismissed as false" - an argument from ignorance.
>ad hominem
Incorrect. That he was a bitter, drunken idiot is the conclusion, not a premise.
>This is not an argument
Perhaps, but it's a citation of a fallacy, making it a valid contention.
>Mind explaining WHY it would make you ignorant?
It doesn't. It's an argument -from- ignorance. google it.
>How about giving an actual solution to the problem, instead of writing "WRONG!"?
The false equivocation is a premise to the conclusion, which is that Hitchen's razor is invalid.
>Oh, which parts of it is metaphorical?
Irrelevant. That a historical document might use phenomenal language has no bearing on its truth value or validity.

Checkmate, faggot. /thread.

refutation* not rebuttal. FUCK
I edited this pic for u guis

My arguments are grounded not in reality but in semantics : the post

It isn't rhetoric. It is all logic. Feel free to question anything I said. I don't think my presumably being on the spectrum allows me not to use logic.

Boomhauer never fails to bring the wisdom.

If you spend more time saying 'argument from ignorance' and 'phenomenal language' than telling actual facts you might not have a very strong case to begin with.. that's lawyer-tier argumentation, and it's good if you want to shame teenagers into staying in your church, but otherwise not very convincing to a genuinely inquiring person

>If God is so powerful can he create an object he cannot move?

Imagine being connected neurologically to every being in existence. You experience what they experience, feel their pain, love, sadness, you name it. You create a species of animal that is greater than the others, you give it the ability to think for itself. It does, and it multiplies like crazy. It builds empires and grows in depravity. It comes to a point where all you see and feel from them is hate and pain. You wash them all away and start a new.

Thousands of years go by and now they have risen to the point again where they cry out to you, not in love of despair, but in anger and hate. You can feel their hate for you, you can experience it first hand. Instead of washing them away, you give them what they want. A world without a God, a universe where you do not exist. Only chaos, heat searching for equilibrium with space, energy dissipating in a billion different directions.

If God does not exist, then perhaps we are in a timeline that he chose to leave. If he does exist, then we are to live like we are his only way to interact with the world, to show love, happiness and peace.

So he isnt omnipotent?

>If you spend more time saying 'argument from ignorance' and 'phenomenal language' than telling actual facts you might not have a very strong case to begin with
Case for what - that Hitchens was an idiot?
>that's lawyer-tier argumentation, and it's good if you want to shame teenagers into staying in your church, but otherwise not very convincing to a genuinely inquiring person
It's simply a logical deduction to Hitchen's idiocy. What did you expect me to argue? There is no such thing as "facts" without logical deduction. I have shown how it is a "fact" that Hitchen's razor is invalid, thus increasing the probability that Hitchens was an idiot.

No, its just showing that omnipotence isnt an actually conceivable trait. Nothing is or logically can be omnipotent.

he creates rock he can't lift
but then he is able to lift it
technically he is unable to not lift said rock for a certain time

thats like asking what number is infinity

atheists BTFO until.. THE BEGGINING OF TIME oh what you dont know about quantum time loop theory thanks for coming mate maybe you'll try and not be retarded in your next life, doubt it though lmfao, scrub kid get rekt, go cry into your dads dick for the rest on eternal time and try and treat ur anal devestation but you cant actually haha scrub

Omnipotence doesn't necessarily imply the ability to perform the logically absurd. If it did, nothing could logically be something that is defined as implying the ability to perform the logically absurd. Epistemically, God could be either definition, and sure the former is illogical, but by that definition of omnipotence, that's irrelevant.

latter* not former. FUCK
I edited this pic for u guis

>Uses simple inequivalence theory but falsely characterizing gods unlimited power after you implicated that he can't lift the rock whilst not being able to lift it after its created because you imply god cannot before the person even answers this shitty question.

TL:DR

This is a really crappy argument against the concept of infinity because infinity can constrain infinity via either Choice, or logical precedent given that both sources of infinite are controlled by the same being.

Hitchens BTFO.

If God willed a rock heavier than He could could lift then it would be so, but He can immediately make the stone movable by Him or just make himself have the power to lift it. Nice try ((athiest))

How does Evolution disprove God?

all right fuccbois let me set you all straight on this one. God is an omnipotent being, yet he is forced to stay within his own nature. God cannot do anything against his nature, for example "sinning." The first response would be, 'well then God is not omnipotent." Unfortunately, because of His own guidelines, he can do things outside the realm of human logic, like create from nothing, exist eternally in the past, and be outside human time. It really is a confusing matter, but in the end, this one has already been solved. omnipotence=/= breaking the boundaries of given nature. checkmate atheists.

>>can god create a rock so heavy he himself cannot lift it
No, because a rock is a material object and God isn't limited by physical constraints

>hurr but then hes not omnipotent
Omnipotence doesn't mean immunity from basic logic

Dinosaurs n shieeeeeet

Can god beat Demonbane?

Okay but then aren't you limiting the strength of gods allegedly infinite powers? Like by definition he can do anything so couldn't he make a rock that big? How is it not possible of existing if it can exist in thought?

Easily.

>or just make himself have the power to lift it.

I like that

If there was an omnipotent being, it could create a rock so heavy it couldn't lift it, and then left it anyways. It's foolish to imagine you can comprehend the reality of something like omnipotence, or omniscience. It's just mental masturbation.

>>evolution disproves Christianity
The father of genetics, Gregor Mendel, was a catholic monk. The creator of the big bang theory was a catholic priest.

Centuries ago, Aquinas argued that God was the force that set our universe in motion.

Please rejoin the conversation when you abandon your false dichotomies.

>He hated the Clinton is
americans can't even speak their own language

Also I would like to point out that its widely accepted that nothing exists separate from god hence the genesis of creation, so trying to amputate logic from god is as about as futile as resisting the fucking BORG.

Everytime some dora spouts this meme at me I instantly point out that their entire question actually hinges on the bet that the person being asked doesn't understand that god is a being that controls everything and is the creator of everything, hence can never be separate from what ever he creates. So under the false pretext that the rock and god are still separate, you faggots still get BTFO because the rock is finite in its own existence after its created, and god can merely either choose to not lift it or choose to attempt to lift it. Infinity cannot be constrained by finite, but infinity cannot also be constrained by infinity. There is a constant loop of energy for an eternity until god decides to stop it.

Most likely referred to as the unstoppable force meets immovable object example.

TL:DR

More summarized version of my last post basically points out that god can be separate AND connected with everything at the same time, making a an arbitrary super positional situation with logic. Meaning that you're still wrong because you know fuck all about the concept of infinity and actually are dumb enough to use hypotheticals as arguments against the concept of an all powerful being.

>How is it not possible of existing if it can exist in thought?
We can conceived of logically absurd things - called paradoxes. There are two options: 1) No, and 2) the logically absurd option - creating a rock too heavy to lift, and lifting it anyway. Which option is the answer is simply a matter of whether God can perform the logically absurd. Obviously if He can, it can't be logically understood.

He spearheaded Clinton's impeachment in the 90's and alienated himself from the democratic movement for the rest of his life, and was for the war in Iraq, you realize this right?

He most likely would have taken Julian Assanges stance on it, that both candidates are being attacked rightly so for their own appropriate reasons, but that Trump being misogynistic as a typical frat male is still the lesser of two evils against a wall street and wealthy elite led candidate with years of monumental governmental scandals and shady deals in the middle east on her side, and her only redeeming factor being in that she is a woman. But I'll back off, if you aren't trolling then you are really just a leaf regardless.