God is omnicient, omnipitent and omnipresent. if you do not believe this this i shall ask you not to reply.
The question is; if god is all of these things could he create a rock so big that He Himself could not lift it?

Omnicient= all powerful
Omnipitent= all knowing
Omnipresent= all places, he exists in all places similtaniously

got a good answer/theory, post it. not in a dorogotory way though simply state you thoughts.

This has been done.

Pops up ever so often.

Logic is a bed of roses, that smell bad- Mr. Spock

If you aren't willing to accept opposing views, you should not have posted in the General Religion forum.

That being said, Epicurus sums it up pretty well:

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?”
-Epicurus

What a nice Epicurian Delight

Yes he could.

How you might ask.

He creates the rock, then he simply decides not to lift it.

Why you might ask.

Because he forbade himself to do so.

Why you might ask.

Because he obeys himself.

Why you might ask.

Because he is God.

I remember asking this question of a church leader when I was teen. His answer was yes, but he would be able to lift it.

Who cares if he can lift a rock? I think there are more important questions to ask God. Like.....oh I dunno....why the world is so f'ed up?

That's either an enigma or a paradox, I don't know which.

That's really funny.

However - Epicurus makes the fundamental mistake of attempting to quantify Evil. What is evil but falling short of Good? That is like quantifying darkness whch is defined as an absence of light - or cold - which is a varying degree of heat, but not definable without it. Therefore - Epicurus' premise that evil is a quantity is in doubt - and therefore his conclusion dubious at best. While it may be true to reach a true conclusion through a false premise - if the logic flows from an unacceptable premise, and is not flawed - the conclusion is unacceptable.

That's why he's called God.

The question does not make sense. God is not a material being - so wondering if He is incapable of doing a material task is illogical.

God/Goddess/ (put name here) is whatever each individual imagines him/her/it to be, as each individual has a different idealogy of what works best for him.

You really haven't explained anything. If he is the loving god that we are lead to believe he is, why allow war to continue, why allow the genocides throughout history, why allow people to starve to death? Either he can stop all of this, or he can't. If he can, why doesn't he? If he can't he isn't all powerful, if he isn't all powerful, why call him god?
More importantly, if he is the loving god that we are lead to believe, why should it matter how we belief? I can remember the talks my parents gave me about not being allowed in the house again, if I ever got a tattoo. I now have 10, and more in the works, my parents still love me, just as much as before my tattoos, and I am still allowed in their house. So, all I really see here, is if we need to belief like "person X" to be "saved", then it's just another shining example of how we are better than god. And I see no reason to worship something that I'm better than.

So what you are saying i that your expectations of God is to be a loving God - jet not a just one, and on top of that, that he fullfill your requirements of what "love" is. Next - you expect god to take responsibilitiy for the actions of men, and allow some behaviors, but not others. So what you are saying - is that you are God's judge. How did that come to be? How is it that God is not allowed to judge man for his actions - but is held responsibile for allowing them? Perhaps the idea of this "loving God" that you are presuming is but a mere figment of your imagination. Since you are not God - you cannot presume to assume that you know how God has influenced anyone who participates in genocides - or abates in the starvation of those in countries where the military and dictators control all of the weath and power despite the wealfare of their "subjects". A closer examination reveals the selfishness of man - not the lack of compassion of God. Do you not think that there is enough food thrown away in this country alone on a daily basis to feed all of the starving people in Africa? So where does the blame belong? Man is rebellios - and they will do what they want - despite the consequences to themselves, or how it makes others feel. You yourself are a prime example. Obviously you could care less about your parents - you're going to satisfy your own desires despite what it might do to others. If you developed blood poisoning on your next tatoo, are you going to blame your parents for it? Are you going to care one iota about their having to watch helplessly as you play russian roulette with a loaded gun?

You're a walking contradiction Inkracer, and I can't follow your logic on the conclusions you've come to about the nature of God.

I am not the one saying that god is loving. You hear it every Sunday in church, and by a number of posters on this board. It's not blaming god for man's actions, I find it very hard to believe something that supposedly loves us would just sit idly by while these events are occurring. Simple research shows that a number of the genocides committed throughout history have had religion as a major influence into it's cause. I also find it hard to belief in something like a god, that would give man a choice, and then punish us if it feels we made the wrong choice. Basically, god is punishing us, because of his own decision about us. As I stated last time, I refuse to belief in, and worship something that I am so obviously morally superior to.



Those are pretty big assumptions on your part. Where did I ever say I don't care about my parents? Where did I say my parents are the "ones to blame" for me getting a tattoo? Why would I blame them, for my own choices and actions?




This line is really quite hilarious. You make that claim, yet I have not changed in anything I have said. YOU on the other hand, have constantly changed your arguments, trying to give yourself a false sense of superiority.

That's exactly what my point is. Why are you blsaming God for the choices of man? You claim moral superiority to God because you feel he should be intervening - when you aren't even sure what God's participation even is. What are you basing your moral superiority on? You've created this idea of a God who is not even up to your moral standards. Are you sure this is God? Or have you just created a God in your mind that doean't exist? Because I don't see your idea of God as representative of the one from scripture. It is no wonder you don't believe in God - if you haven't got the right idea about who and what God is - what is there to believe in. That God only exists for you.



I'm not changing any of my arguments - I'm trying to make sense out of yours. I've not represented any arguments on my understanding of God - I'm using yours.

I just came back to have another laugh at this.

Nothing exploded.

Think about it.