|
Navigation
The Rational Response Squad is a group of atheist activists who impact society by changing the way we view god belief. This site is a haven for those who are pushing back against the norm, and a place for believers of gods to have their beliefs exposed as false should they want to try their hand at confronting us. Buy any item on AMAZON, and we'll use the small commission to help improve critical thinking. Buy a Laptop -- Apple
|
Theistic Riddle
Posted on: April 13, 2007 - 1:51pm
  Offline
Theistic Riddle
Ok this might be old, but here goes.
Can an all powerful god create a rock that is so heavy even they can't lift it? Bisexuality immediately doubles your chances for a date on Saturday night. -Woody Allen
|
|
Copyright Rational Response Squad 2006-2021.
|
"No! God can only do things that are logically possible!"
Hell, he can't even move chariots of iron.
Judges 1:19
And Jacob wrestled with God...and won!
(Genesis 32:24-28)
Lmao, I remember that.
LOL!
It was P-Dunn that said that, right?
Atheist Books
Yeah, it was Pee Dung. Although I'm sure the others from TWeb would've used that too.
Morons.
Like raising the dead and walking on water and making 5000 meals out of one.
Look at my blog! It's awesome!
I'm also on this Twitter thing
Don't tell me, tell the theists here. LOL!
Atheist Books
They know the truth! You're the uneducated one who believes in irrational stuff! Just look at the banana, the human eye and a building and tell me that a 2000 year old Jew didn't create that!
Look at my blog! It's awesome!
I'm also on this Twitter thing
A 2000 year old Jew didn't create that.
Atheist Books
Uh....shit, I'm out of arguments. You win. But you're still wrong and going to hell.
Look at my blog! It's awesome!
I'm also on this Twitter thing
whenever i hear the banana argument i ask them to explain the pineapple.
The reason that the "rock so big that even he could not lift it" is not a valid question is because it is structed in such a way that it assumes certain things have limits which, according the premises it seeks to poke at, do not.
For instance. A mathematical analogy might be stated like this.. God could create a rock infinitely big, as well as lift a rock infinitely big.
As soon as you can define infinite it terms of size, the question is invalid.
Hmmm.... at least I think thats the way it goes. The square circle one is fun as well.
I did not say "everything", I said "certain things".
Like I said, I don't believe the question does that since "infinite size" and "infinite strength" is not a "limit". The only way you could consider it a "limit" is if you conceptualize and define "infinite" as something "finite". Which-- obviously, is difficult to do.
As for "logically impossible for God to have no limits".. depends on what you mean. If the premise is "omnipotence".. then the only limits are those he chooses to place upon himself at any particular point at time.
This conclusion is not concluded to be "logically impossible" by way of this old riddle.
In my opinion.
I never said the question did. I said that is how the answer is rightly answered as a consequence of the premise "omnipotence".
He could create "an infinitely big rock" and "his strength is infinite". Yet, since "infinite" does not have a size that can be "conceptualized", the answer is meaningless, although no less valid answer to the question-- it just makes the question meaningless as well.
a) the question does not say anything about an infinite size rock. It only attacks the idea of a god with infinite abilities, since having infinite abilities contradicts itself.
b) I don't understand how the fact that "infinite size" and "infinite strength" not being limits, somehow means the question doesn't point out the contradiction in infinite ability.
If something has an infinite ability, it would be able to create a rock too heavy for itself to lift.
But if it has infinite ability, it would also have to be able to lift any rock, no matter how heavy it is.
Both of these statements would have to be possible for something to have infinite abilities. But these statements are mutually exclusive, therefore it is not possible for something to have infinite abilities.
The whole purpose of asking the question is not because the person who wrote it wanted a logical answer. It deliberately poinsts out a contradiction in the idea of infinite ability. See my explanation above.
You guys DO know that I was just kidding when I said that, right?
Atheist Books
Hmm... well I could be wrong and you could be right.
I consider this part of the question "create so big" and "he could not" as assuming that there is a either/or relationship with regards to limits.
To put it more clearly, or relate my mind more clearly:
Could an omnipotent God create a rock of any size? Yes.
Could an omnipotent God lift a rock of any size? Yes.
By putting them together it seems to create this either/or relationship which, to me, makes the question invalid.
I could get this. I know it doesn't say anything about an infinite size rock.. I'm saying that these words would be involved within the only valid answer.
What is the biggest rock an omnipotent God could create? One of infinite size.
What is the biggest rock an omnipotent God could lift? One of infinite size.
Therefore: Could God create a rock so big even he could not life it? God could create a rock of infinite size and could life a rock of infinite size as well.
Hmm.. I'm not sure I understand this contention. Could you explain it more?
It only contradicts itself if one trys to define "infinite" as anything more then "without perceived end".
To say that infinite ability contradicts itself because this question leads to the answer I stated above, I don't understand it-- it's just a place holder.. I don't believe a concept of infinite exists in such a way that is necessary in order to say that it is contradictory.
We're just using the word "infinite" a lot. "Infinite power", "infinite size created", "infinite strength". I don't believe it's contradictory.. just meaningless.
Agreed then. Logically inconsistent for an omnipotent God to have limits.
Believe me, I understand from where the normal confusion comes from.. I'm just contending that to answer the question is as meaningless as asking this one.
Can infinity stop so that infinity can overtake it?
The understanding of "infinity" coupled with "stop" is already a invalid grouping.
Ah.. apologies then.
There is no logical answer because the question itself is not structured logically. See above.
If the question is "meaningless".. how can you be deriving meaning from it?
If the question is "meaningless".. how could it point out a contradiction?
To me this would the same as this:
To cha fum tiggy mochu silly?
The question is meaningless, internally. How, therefore, can it have a purpose?
It is not the question which is stating that there is something god can't do. It's the answers that do that
It is the answers which point out the contradiction in infinite abilities.
Also take for example: "can god create a square circle?"
If god has infinite abilities, he must be able to make one. But since it is impossible to make a square circle, then that is a limit on god's abilities, which contradicts the idea of infinite ability.
If god can't create a rock too heavy for himself to lift, then that is a limit on his ability.
if a rock exists that is too heavy for god to lift, that is a limit on his ability.
Either way, it means that an infinite ability contradicts itself.
Infinite ability necessarily means no limits. But if there are no limits to his ability, that would also include logically impossible tasks. That's where infinite ability contradicts itself.
If he can create and lift a rock of infinite size, then he cannot create a rock too heavy for himself to lift.
The conclusion is that god does not have infinite abilities, assuming he exists.
When I posted, I realised they weren't inside a quote box, so I edited my post to fix the quotes.
come on, i need a theist to give me a response to this. if god made the banana so perfectly for us, where was his logic when he made the pineapple?
Look at my blog! It's awesome!
I'm also on this Twitter thing
Since "god" likes to make surprises for himself, does "god" sleep on his hand before a toss? (A move known as "the stranger."
Alrighty, just making sure. o.o;
Atheist Books
If god knows all, than are his actions merely just fulfilling his knowledge? But if he had all power, could he do something to 'break that'? At which point, would he have all knowledge? Does god have the ability to do something without knowing it? If not, why not?
Or am I babbeling here? I'm sleepy.
-----------------------
I'll get back to you when I think of something worthwhile to say.
He made the pineapple as an object lesson for marriage.
I UNDERSTAND what the answer is meant to suggest--don't get me wrong, I've heard it many times before. I'm merely saying that the question itself is invalid since is internally inconsistent.
The same goes for the "square circle". Square is a word with a mathematical basis, it has an axiomatic definition-- the same with a circle.
The reason these two questions are invalid is because they wish to suggest something regarding A) concepts without clear definitions or B) axiomatic definitions can be anything but axiomatic definitions.
In the first question, I'll say this again, it question suggests an either/or relationship where one MUST place a limit on one of the concepts. Yet, by definition of "omnipotence" we use words like "infinite power", which, by definition do not have end.
Both the size of the rock and the strength he uses to lift it would, by deduction of the premise, GO OFF into infinity. There is no either/or relationship.
In the latter question, the problem is that "circle" and "square" are not entities in and of themselves, they are definitions defined by man for a particular set of characteristics. It is 'logically impossible' because man has defined these to such a degree as to make the concepts incongruent.
Could God do it? Sure. It just wouldn't be logical. However, if you ask me to explain the illogical, it would be a pretty odd conversation.. since outside of the realm of logic I can make any inferences, deductions, I want.
"Could God create a square circle?" Yes.
"How?" Illogically.
"How does he do that?" I wouldn't be able to explain, it is just the logical conclusion of the premise "omnipotent."
As I stated in my contention.. I believe it is a false bifurcation (I believe is the phrase). An either/or relationship where none exists.
The "square circle" is a logically impossible task. The "so big even he could not lift it" is a logically invalid question.
There is a difference.
Only if you are "limiting" the word "infinite" in my answers.. can you make this conclusion.
I'm disagreeing with the post on the grounds that the question is a logically invalid question. NOT that the conclusion leads to a necessary conclusion.
True. Which is why I said "He could create a square circle". Yet, I am drawing a distinction between the "logically impossible" and the "logically invalid question."
If infinite doesn't exist beyond conceptual (which I would agree), then how can the question assume that it does exist by placing an either/or relationship between the powers of an "infinitely powerful" God? (assuming of course, agreed, that he exists).
To say that "omnipotence" requires the "ability to do the logically impossible tasks" is NOT contradictory and it IS a logical construct.
While "meaningless", yes, in so far as one would find it hard to find some common ground when describing a "the process at which one would do a logically impossible task."
I contend.
Just making sure my contention sticks-- I realize what the question is meant to suggest even as I know what the question "if a plane crashes on the border of Canada and the US where are the survivors buried?" is meant to suggestion, my contention is merely that the question itself is meaningless, invalid, logically contradictory.
I wrote the question to give an example of a logically invalid question since to put "infinity" with "stop" is internally contradictory with regards to the question itself-- even as the coupling of "survivors" "buried" is inconsistent.
Heh.. I apologize again then.
I contend.
Hm.
I contend. The question is meaningless because it is internally contradictory.
Agreed.
The either/or relationship is deliberately contradictory to point out the inconsistency in infinite ability.
Again, the question is not designed to come to a logical answer. It's designed to point out the contradictions in the answers, and therefore, the contradictions in infinite ability.
We both agree the question is illogical.
It is illogical, but it is deliberately so. The question is specifically tied to infinite ability. Because there is contradiction in infinite ability, there is contradiction in the question.
The conclusion we draw is that infinite ability can't exist, because it is contradictory.
I'm just going to have to stop and concede that its possible we are just not understanding eachother's points.
I am saying the question is invalid because the question is internally contradictory (WITHOUT an answer).
As an invalid question it points out nothing, it leads to nothing, it concludes nothing, because it is an invalid question.
I believe this to be incorrect--I leave it up to an objective third party to support one of us this.
But..
If omnipotent then "ability to do logically impossible tasks." Is not a "logically impossible conclusion"-- the conclusion would be logical in this case. As for whether the "logically impossible thing being done" is "logically impossible"-- well, I'm pretty sure through circular logic I can say nothing else. Yet, just to reiterate, there is a distinction between the "logical conclusion" and the "logical impossibility of the thing being done".
Once again.. this leads back to the beginning. I must concede that perhaps we will not understand one another.
Like I said... the logical conclusion of an omnipotent God is that he can make it, since he can do the "logically impossible".. it is a NECESSARY conclusion from the premise of "omnipotent God".
I contend. Yet, in closing, I will reiterate my position above.. people may read and choose for themselves what to come of it with regards to this particular riddle.
Essentially, it is not possible for god to do the logically impossible, because it is logically impossible.
And, if you state that "infinite ability" is self-contradictory and that is why the question is illogical-- then fine.
But.. let me point out, that if THIS question is the basis for the conflusion that "infinite ability" is self-contradictory.. then it would appear to be circular argumentation-- or, at the very least, an "incorrect reversal".
Argumentation in this case:
If I.A. is illogical, question is illogical.
Because question is illogical, I.A. is illogical.
The mistake is that just because I would agree with the first conditional statement that the latter "deduction" is necessary-- but it is not.
The "incorrect reversal" can be represented in this:
If a pen has ink, it can be used to write.
Because it can be used to write, it is a pen with ink.
I'm not saying that this IS what you are doing.. but if you ARE, then I would present this contention with regards to the defense of the riddle.
Hm. Well then I would point you to the Arrow Paradox. According to this.. "movement" is logically impossible. Logical impossibility or possibility is not the kill all cure all of what is actually possible.
So when you say something "cannot be done" BECAUSE it is "logically impossible"-- I'm not sure that's a correct understanding of what logic is or does.
It's just a tool.. that can be used in many ways.. with regards to your statement.. it requires the assumption, in or to be correct, that "anything that is logically impossible is impossible in fact."
Anycase, getting a bit of topic. I've conceded to let the thread be.
Unfortunately for Christianity, people are forced to believe that their god performs logically impossible tasks.
The question doesn't absolutely prove that no god exists. But it does prove that many definitions of god can't exist, if people try to define god as being infinite.
The logic, basically, is this:
1. said being has certain abilities
2. to test: can this being perform task x, which is within the said abilities?
3. the answer to the question, yes or no. Taking into consideration if the task is physically possible.
4. If yes, then this supports 1. If no, this contradicts 1.
In the case of this particular question:
1. god has infinite ability
2. To test: If god has infinite ability, can he perform task x?
3. Task x is logically impossible, so the answer is no.
4. Therefore, his abilities have limits, which contradicts 1.
If task x is impossible to do, it is described as illogical, or logically impossible.
How is it that I keep getting drawn back into this. Clever. Heh. I'm tired.
And I'm stating that the logic, basically is wrong because of this:
1. God has infinite ability.
2. To test: If god has infinite ability, can he perform task x? Yes.
3. Task x is logically impossible, so the answer is still yes. (In accordance with LOGIC, this is the only conclusion you can make in accordance with a premise of "omnipotence". It makes absolute no difference what task x is.. the answer will always be yes.)
4. N/A.
The PROBLEM, and I'll state this once again, is that the question doesn't ask 2, in which "can he do x?" is held on its own.
The question add the extra qualification "so that even he could not carry it". It is not just "do x" (which, logically, the answer would ALWAYS be yes) but also "so that y".
The relationship between the two is what makes the question INVALID since "so that y" is a qualification which would REQUIRE the limitation of one of his powers, which according to the first premise is not possible. Also known as a trick question, the answer, either in the affirmative or the negative suggest premise which is incongruent with the stated (or true) premise.
To form from the answer to a question, a premise, is a dangerous task because it is completely dependent on the formulation of the question.
Do you still kick kittens?
While the question is formulated to suggest a "yes or no" answer is the only valid answer-- it is not. (Unless you actually have kicked kittens at one time) another valid answer would be "I never kicked kittens."
So.. moving backwards from the answer of this question one of three conclusions can be understood.
A: Yes. Conclusion: He has kicked kittens and still kicks kittens.
B: No. Conclusion: He has kicked kittens but does not still kick kittens.
C: I never kicked kittens. Conclusion: He never kicked kittens.
The "riddle" is much the same way.. searching for a "Yes or No" answer in order to suggest a wanted conclusion.
A: Yes. God can create a rock so big he cannot lift it. Conclusion: God is not omnipotent.
B: No. God cannot create a rock so big he cannot lift it. Conclusion: God is not omnipotent.
C: God can create a rock infinitely big. God's strength is infinite. Conclusion: God is omnipotent.
To move backwards from a question is dangerous. But if a question assumes a premise while at the same time (seemingly) requiring answers that would allow an opposite premise-- the question is invalid.
I will give an example:
Premise: You can jump infinitely high.
Question: Can you jump higher than you can't?
A: Yes.
B: No.
C. I can jump infinitely high.
No.. that is not what "logic" is. "Logic", in the sense that we have been using it (I believe), is:
1. the science that investigates the principles governing correct or reliable inference.
2. a particular method of reasoning or argumentation: We were unable to follow his logic.
If task x is impossible to do it is not described as "illogical" or "logically impossible"-- perhaps some people would use it this way but I'm pretty sure they are not correct in doing so.
Not necessarily. I believe a Christian may be forced to believe that their God CAN perform "logically impossible tasks"-- not that he NECESSARILY does so.
Once again. Logic does not pertain to absolute proof.. only logical proof. Furthermore, I still contend with your contention that this riddle proves anything.
But.. thats for a different post.
That's why "infinite ability" is self-contradictory.
Are you saying the premise that god has infinite ability is also untrue?
Because that's exactly what I'm trying to get at.
So.. moving backwards from the answer of this question one of three conclusions can be understood.
A. God can create a rock too heavy for himself to lift
B. God can't create a rock too heavy for himself to lift
C. God is not omnipotent (assuming he exists)
The question is specifically designed to come to conclusion C, since A and B are illogical.
When talking about whether an idea is logical, I am talking about whether it makes sense.
If the word "logic" is not attatched to a concept or idea, you can use the other definitions.
Conceded. But if this is the definition you are using.. then we are on different wavelengths.. because "logic", in the tool sense, is objectiving, "to make sense", is not.
"Not that he NECESSARILY does so" implies that such thing that one might consider "breaking the laws of physics" are not NECESSARY to believe in order to accept a Christian God. For instance, the "worldwide flood", is not NECESSARY belief-- although some choose to believe it.
Yet, we are using different definitions for the word "logic" so.. you may be meaning something else.
And "reasonable doubt" doesn't really have any limits outside of the courtroom-- it to would be completely subjective.
But.. anycase, heh, for real now, I'm done.
People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.
Or that an infant's torso is the perfect size for a dingo's mouth? It also has perforated skin, a non-slip surface, an outward display of freshness (the bigger the baby, the less ripe) easily peeled wrapper (at least when you're using dingo teeth) tastes delicious (to dingoes) and it fits perfectly into their mouths. Therefore, babies were made, by god, to be eaten by dingoes.
Look at my blog! It's awesome!
I'm also on this Twitter thing
The cucumber fits perfectly into both the anus and the vagina. The penis fits into the cantaloupe if you cut a hole in it.
Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team
This question is valid. It also proves nothing can be all powerful. Including god. No way you could aruge against it either. Simple reasoning.
If god creates a rock to big for him to lift, he does succeed, however proves hes not all-powerfull because he can't lift the rock.
If he can not create a rock big enough he can not lift, he is at a equal loss, he proves he can not make a rock bigger then his own power, but also proves he has a limit.
Either way he is not all-powerfull. This is the kind of reasoning that proves god, or anything can not be all powerful. Another problem is, is god is all-placing(being everywhere) then he is infinitly large, you can not exceed infinite(unless your reasoning multiverse) so he can not make a rock larger then infinite, and since his power is withen and is infinite can never succeed in making a rock that large.
Same questions would be.
Can god ever become bored enough to create a universe. (same reasoning, an eternal being can not have boredom, thus never create a universe, meaning god can not exist if we exist. If anything can have boredom, they will eventually destroy themselves out of boredom. Can god destroy himself? Hmmm...)
Does god have free will? (No, anything with free will can not exist for eternity. Goes hand in hand with boredom. They will eventually kill themselves, and if they already lived for an eternity he would of destroied himself eternity ago)
Actually it was this reasoning that I do not believe. That and no evidence for god.
"When I die I shall be content to vanish into nothingness.... No show, however good, could conceivably be good forever.... I do not believe in immortality, and have no desire for it." ~H.L. Mencken
Thank god i'm a atheist!
If a questions purpose is to make judgement on a particular premise, it cannot, as a necessity of that question, hold the premise to be untrue already-- similar questions structures-- (well it can, the question would just be considered invalid or a "trick question":
Premise: You are not a pervert.
Q: Are you still a pervert?
Premise: You do not punch your teacher.
Q: Are you planning on punching your teacher again?
Premise: Your IQ was never below 60.
Have your raised your IQ above 60 yet?
Premise: You are not a girl.
Have you told your friends you're really a girl?
Premise: You never kick a dog.
Will you kick your dog again?
These questions' lead to an answer which a conclusion can be drawn, yet, as a necessity of each of the questions, hold the premise to be untrue already.
The reason this question is invalid is because it assumes that boredom is a necessity for creation and also, that an eternal being cannot be bored-- yet it makes no attempt to justify the assertions.
Hm.. truth be told, I've never heard this question before.
How does freewill necessitate boredom? How does boredom eventually lead to killing oneself?
Both of these are assertions.. which, if one accepts, perhaps the conclusion can be drawn.
Each makes the decision on his own regarding evidence... and each with regards to reasoning.
Ok, sorry should of explained more clearly. I guess I gave you to much credit. I though you had the reasoning power above 90 IQ enough to understand it, however I was wrong.
Infinity requires every action to happen not only once, but an infinite times by itself. No matter the action, it will happen an infinite times.
That being said, and being true you go to heaven. Being in total happiness able to do anything you want. Being under the undersanding of infinity, no matter how hard you try not to do something, eventually you will do that. Out of boredom, or curiosity. No matter how hard you try, you can argue against that and fail, so just save the trouble and don't. Now, one time you get the idea i heaven "Hey, wonder what it would be like to butt-fuck my grandfather." now you try to resist. Eventually you get to the point, say a google years later and do rape, or he agree with it and butt-fuck your grandfather. Now, no matter how hard you try, you will do that event a infinite times. Take that event, think of another event you think you will never do, you'll do that an infinite times. Your daughter? Yup. Your mother? Yup. Your cousin? Yup. Hell, you'll even get to the point where you will torture yourself, either out of boredom or curosity. This is infinity. Thats why I dispiese the idea of eternity. Although, Christians will argue god stops you from doing these acts, meaning he takes away your free will.
Myself I would rather go into nothingness then butt-fuck every member, pet, person of my family infinite times. How about you?
Now this leads into free will. With free will, it's really an illusion if infinity exists. Which I describes. If something has a begining(anything with a begining has an end), then it's free will is no longer and illusion. Since with a begining and end, you do have free will to resist every urge to do something your against. However with infinite life, no matter how much you try you will eventually do it. This also leads into god. If he has free will and is infinitly powerful, he will eventually destroy himself. Even god is limited to the infinity free-will contridiction. Now if god has free will and feels, then boredom will eventually take over and he will want to kill himself. Now for an eternal being thats a contridiction, because he already existed for eternity, meaning he already did everything, including destroy himself. Meaning he should not exist, therefore we should not exist. This leads into the fact that no matter what, if god exists he has no intelligence, and just creates. Hes just a force that creates and leave, no feeling, no will.
Also, for us to exist, knowing all this the only possible way would be for an un-intelligent force to create the universe. If you want to call that force, or energy god, go ahead, myself i'll call it energy.
(Also, if boredom exists, which is does, and you go to heaven, no matter how good it is, you will get bored eventually. It might take a million years, maybe a trillion. Maybe a google. However you will get bored. Bored enough to want to die, to beg god to kill you. Take the time you think you will be bored at, times it by infinity, and you get how long you have to stay in heaven... Bored..... Heaven is torture, so is hell. I do not wish either or on anyone.)
"When I die I shall be content to vanish into nothingness.... No show, however good, could conceivably be good forever.... I do not believe in immortality, and have no desire for it." ~H.L. Mencken
Thank god i'm a atheist!
If you want me to respond "in kind" to this remark.. I will. Yet, I'd rather seeing as there easy to accomplish and serve little purpose.
You're assuming there is a fine things to do. If there is an "infinite" amount of things to do.. then your argument is no longer applicable. And, since we are presupposing about this "heaven".. I can simple state.. "there is an infinite amount of things to do". I mean.. it's easy enough to make an assertion or state a premise. A lot harder to argue that the premise or assertion is necessary in accordance with some commonly held premises.
Heh.. once again-- I think you are making a fundamental mistake regarding heaven with regards to "infinite time" yet some limit to "things to do".
If you agree that "things to do" is equally plausible to be "infinite" and "finite"-- then you must conclude that your assuming things are "finite" just for the purpose of the argument. Yet, this is simply undone by me assuming that things are "infinite".
And IF you concede, for the purpose of argumentation, that "things to do" are "infinite".. then anytime you use any of these statements or words:
"Eventually"
"Requires every action"
"Will happen"
To make ANY of this statements is to implicitly place a limit on infinite.
Of course not. Any other questions?
You make so many assertions within this paragraph its amazing.
1. If infinity then freewill is illusion.
2. If something has a beginning then has an end.
3. Infinite life requires that you do everything (irregardless of whether or not "things to do" are infinite as well).
4. If freewill and infinite power then self-destruction.
5. Contradiction between freewill and infinity.
6. Boredom is related to suicide.
7. (And now I'm stopping...)
Hmm.. based upon the same unsubstantiated premise that "things to do" are necessarily "finite".
Listen, all these assumptions are fine to have, yet.. they are not logically necessary, in accordance with logically necessary assumptions of non-singular ("just me"
So.. I in my opinion, I believe it might be wiser to make less absolute statements and more qualified statements within this particular type of argument.
For instance.
If life will be eternal and there is only a limited amount of things to do-- then, if boredom a necessary end to repeating actions, then we will all get bored after doing these limited amount of things infinite amount of times. If this is the case, then, we will all be infinitely bored and wish to die--if boredom is directly related to suicide.
There.
I don't mind responding to a response.. but if you do directly address me, I'd appreciate it if you kept any snide remarks out of it.
Hey, the penis fits into the mouth AND the anus! Is god OK with gay sex?
Look at my blog! It's awesome!
I'm also on this Twitter thing
Thought so.
You do not understand infinite then. If there is an infinite things to do, you will do each and every thing during the infinite times. Even if infinitly was limited as you see. Which you explain by saying if there is an infinite things, then you can't do each thing and infinite times each. Which is wrong but if you wanna hold on to that fine, i'll explain it in those terms. Simple editing. You will still do every event ONCE still, by your reasoning. So yes, you will butt-fuck your grandfather. Good day.
Already address your first point. You will still do everything at least once by your reasoning. You fail.
Something with an begining will eventually do an/any event given enough time. Things that have no begining already have done every/any event. Infinity also does require an event to happen, or it stops being infinity, and just finite. Sorry.
Do you agree you will still eventually do every event? At least once during infinite time?
Yes, that is right. Infinity does require at least every event in existance to happen at least once. Meaning free-will stops being free will in the sense you will do every action at least once, if you want to or not.
If something has a begining, it has an end. Take it this way. If something begins, it is imposible to reach infinity. Since infinity does not end. Meaning no longer how long you live, you will always be infinity away from infinity. Of course you could still live forever, but in the sense of time you will never reach infinity, and always have the chance to have an end. Also, the chances of reaching no end, are 1/infinity, if you have a begining.
Requires you to do every action you are capable of. If god limits you in heaven fine. However why would he limit you in heaven, but not on earth? Seems weird to me.
Infinity requires atleast every action to happen once. Since destruction is an action, it's required. Now, since god is eternal, he already did every action, thus already did destruction. Unless he could not kill himself, then hes not all powerful because he can not destroy himself. Or he has no intelligence.
How so?
Yes it is. So is depression, hate, anger, and curosity. People have killed themselves out of boredom. Since boredom has the ability to make some people of low mentality kill themselves, during infinity you will be in boredom, and a state of lower mentality, and will kill yourself.
Good.
Already addressed. Boredom will lead to sucide eventually. So will curosity.
"When I die I shall be content to vanish into nothingness.... No show, however good, could conceivably be good forever.... I do not believe in immortality, and have no desire for it." ~H.L. Mencken
Thank god i'm a atheist!