The Kid - what he said was actually very intelligent.. it''s one of those questions that questions the very existance of meaning.

His question is just one of those ones thats supposed to get your brain working. Obviously there is no clear answer to it, and that''s the whole point.

for( i = 0, i < infinity , i++){
its like "if he''s omnipotent then he can create it, but if he''s omnipotent then there is nothing he cannot lift"
}


How about this "If he''s omnipotent, can he move the unmovable object?" hehehe

oooooooooooooooooooo.

~Cobra~

In good humor ... let me get at the point that I think The Kid was trying to get at ... perhaps a little less edgy though.

The argument about whether or not God can create a rock so huge He can''t lift it is an oxymoron. Basically, that "idea" is a self contradiction. Think of it as an optical illusion for your mind.

You see, there can''t possibly exist something greater than infinity, which is what the argument presupposes (contradiction to the defnition of infinity). And if there IS something greater than infinity, well then ... what we thought was infinity is actually not ...

Thus to say that God COULD create a rock too heay for Him to lift would mean that God is not God, for He would have created something more perfect than Himself.

Can something infinitely perfect create something more perfect than itself? Of course not, for otherwise that "infinitely perfect" thing would not be infinitely perfect! It''s a self contradiction. In fact, nothing God creates could be greater than Him, because at the very least it would still be imperfect in that it owed it''s entire existance upon God (and could disappear if God stopped thinking about it).

God can do anything ... or to put a twist on it ... God can''t do nothing. And a rock that is too heavy for God to lift is obviously a no-thing (contradicts itself by its nature) ... which is obviously nothing.

The question is legitimate, as it asks for clarification about perfection and philosophical theology, but it''s not a new argument (it''s been around forever). Basically, it is a misunderstanding of the notion of perfection and infinity.

I wish you all my best in searching for the Truth. Heh heh ... didn''t think I''d see these discussions popping up on an OpenGl newsgroup, but it just goes to show you how important these issues are, wouldn''t you say?

Happy coding!

eriol

ps I think the reason why people put tags like "#DEFINE Jesus 1" is to instigate conversations or thoughts as has just happened here. If you don''t like it, ignore it (they''re not misusing their freedom of speech - I''ve seen freedom of speech much more wildly abused than in a controversial idea in a response tag). But if you call it to attention, realize that this sort of response is going to occur.

You religious people just don''t quit do you....
go to a religious forum for stuff like that, why should anyone want you to discuss this here....
please leave it alone, I and many with me would be very pleased if you go to www.wherever_god_might_have_a_webpage.com for that stuff - OK ......

sorry to keep this annoying thread going but...

Anonymous: Simply saying that the heavy rock is a contradiction and therefore nonexistant does not counter the argument. Why then, can''t god create a contradictory thing such as the rock? What laws tell him that he can''t? You are implying that god created logic which includes making the rock impossible. Why can''t he then change the laws to make the rock possible?

ha

why can''t he convert all muslims to cristianity ....
and he surely could code OpenGL.....
who gives a ?#%¤!/#%¤%& ....

Well.. I''m sorry about my post (sorry The Kid if you felt hurt or something)... it was only a joke.
I''m agnostic... I don''t believe in any religion, but I believe that there is "something" that coded and ordered from chaos the life program (ADN). Call it anyway you want. If you want to call it GOD, it''s ok for me (and for anyone, i guess)...
Ok, everybody... don''t take me bad about it, it''s only my way to see the things...
Let''s code some OpenGL...

C u soon, pals...

First thing I will say: Yes RPGman, this whole discussion/argument is your fault. I certainly hope you're proud of yourself. It has nothing to do at all with OpenGL, and should probably be shut down. This bulletin board is not meant for this sort of thing, really...

That being said, *stretches arms out before him, fingers locked together, palms forward* I figure I might as well participate with the rest of the community here.

A person's religion does not matter here, and should not. You're getting offended at something that you should not be affended by; you are correct about freedom of speech. You say that "it gets annoying." ...Oh, please. It's not hurting anybody. Do yourself a favor and ignore it - if we all did ignore little things like that that bother us but don't matter, we'd all get along a lot better.

Kleenex is, indeed, a mystery.

To participate in the survey, I will say that I myself am somewhere between a Christian and an agnostic. You could call me a questioning Catholic, as I was raised to be Catholic. I've got my own point of view of things, I participate in philosophical discussions...I believe in Physics, and I figure that God has got to be the best programmer that you can possibly imagine - no, better than that...But I suppose, of the two given choices (Christian and atheist) I could be categorized as a Christian. I don't believe in categories, anyway...

As for the God/rock problem...Does it matter? I myself haven't ever seen God lift a rock, heh...You see, the whole issue is centered about how you define "God." I always thought that God wasn't some sort of person that would walk over some place and lift a rock, but was instead some sort of essence that we can't really understand at all, but that we vaguely realize is there (some of us, anyway...heehee). Sure, some think they know a whole lot, I try not to presume that I do. Hmm...I might suggest that you ask this question to people that produce themselves as offspring, somebody who took a snapshot of a natural occurence of Escher's stairs, or to anyone who can resurrect Douglas Adams. (That's right folks, the writer of The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy died last Friday...I'm mourning *sighs* )

"This statement is false."

"The next statement is true."
"The previous statement is false."

I think that I shall never see a poem as lovely as a tree...A binary tree, of course. Speaking of which, it's time to get back to coding. Ciao all, dos vidanya, sayoonara, auf wiedersehen, goodbye. Don't let the existential doggy door hit your ass on the way out.

- Bucket_Head

Edited by - Bucket_Head on May 13, 2001 7:45:04 PM

Its simple. God is bound by his own laws. He cannot lie, and he cannot go aginst his word. So if he created a rock so that he could not lift it then he would not lift it. But if he created a rock that could be lifted then he would lift it. And what is the point of just creating rocks. Nothing so just leave it alone.

What you said is not even thought provoking.

The statement below is false
The statement above is true

There try that on for size. Nither of the statements is true or false.

Matthew
WebMaster
www.Matt-Land.com

Hey RealMAN...Great minds... B)

- Bucket_Head

- Hai, watashi no chichi no kuruma ga oishikatta desu!
...or, in other words, "Yes, my dad''s car was deliscious!"

Alright since this thread is here...
If God exists, he undoubtedly cannot do anything, or else he would convert all non-christians to christianity and save everyone from going to hell, unless he either
a) wants everyone to go to hell or
b) can''t do anything
Personally I''ve never seen God do anything, and have never heard of God doing anything, and find it really funny when people use examples from the Bible to prove that God exists, e.g.
"If God doesn''t exist, who parted the sea for Moses?" and stuff like that.
Also, if God kills everyone who doesn''t believe in him by striking them with lightning or wiping them out with floods and whatever, how come I''m still writing this reply?
RPGman: Your post is very hypocritical, it would be the same as a religious person starting a thread saying
" This is an opengl forum, why do people have footnotes that say stuff like "#define jesus 0"...
I know it''s freedom of speech, but please, it gets annoying. We do not gather at a programming forum to talk about atheism.
P.S. if any of you non-believers are gonna rant and nag about this religion stuff, please just head on over here... http://bible.com/"
Both of those topics would be equally hypocritical, atheism is no more correct than christianity, they are both impossible to prove. There is no evidence that PROVES God exists... but there is also no evidence that PROVES he doesn''t, so it is a pointless argument.

Personally I believe that there is no God and people just believe in one because it makes them feel better, but I don''t care that much what other people believe in as long as they don''t burn non-christians at the stake. It is POSSIBLE that God might exist, but the chance is so slim that it can be safely dismissed.
I don''t like the religion of Christianity much however because it excludes all others, and says they will all burn in hell. That seems a little bit overboard.

-"I used to be an agnostic, but now I''m not so sure"