i said that he was too powerful NOT to be able to lift the stone. he can make a stone of any size, but he's incapable of not picking it up v.v

i know a little bit about hinduism, i just havent studied it thoroughly.

The bible has a lot of contradictions. Often enough people are too lazy to read it and understand it for themselves that they never see those *mistakes*.

As far as homosexuality goes, didn't really read through the past few posts, but homosexuality just goes against the natural law of reproduction. Male mates with female to make a baby, two men or two women can't make a baby without intense scientific breakthrough (And we still can't do it).

I suppose the violation of that natural law is the only thing that makes it a sin.

Infertile people can't make babies. Old people can't make babies. Doesn't change their relationships.

Right. There's the exception to the rule. Of course, Humans only recently have been living into old age thanks to medicine, and infertile humans have only recently been accepted better. Older cultures used to sometimes even kill daughters and/or sons that were proven to be infertile.

That's the only justification I have as far as why homosexuality is a "sin". Bible just went by what they saw at the time. People died before 40, infertile people were usually shamed/killed/exiled. Nowadays things are different and thus perhaps the rule -could- be different. But society clings to that old way of life.

You do realize that there are quite a few documented case of homosexual behavior in animals, correct? So nature is now violating natural law?

Keep in mind, Hrae, that we too are nothing more than advanced animals.

Perhaps disorders might be an answer. Homosexuality could really be a disorder. People with feet fetishes have a psychological disorder that makes the brain think other people's genitals are on their feet.

Likewise, perhaps homosexuals just have the part of their brains either identifying themselves as male/female reversed (Males think they are females or females think they are males), or have their interpretations of other people reversed (they see males and females and females as males).

If a homosexual relationship isn't sexually-based though, there's no reason to call it a relationship then. It's just an advanced and close friendship. Just like straight couples.

Of course, that's the point I'm trying to make. Saying that nature violates natural law doesn't make sense, and I was prempting the rebuttal of "humans aren't animals, we're seperate", etc.

Edit: "Perhaps disorders might be an answer. Homosexuality could really be a disorder. People with feet fetishes have a psychological disorder that makes the brain think other people's genitals are on their feet."

Homosexuality has been removed from the DSM-IV for quite some time.

If it has been I wouldn't know. I'm just theorizing here.

So he can't make a stone too heavy that he can't lift it, right?


So would you like for me to bring them up now?

Such a situation can be compared to AI programming.

You can program any AI and create a virtual world as you desire. You are all-powerful in this virtual world. Though a renegade AI that is left uncontrolled could cause problems. You COULD create an AI that even YOU couldn't control, but why would you want to?

Isn't this like the whole proving a negative? just wondering. Because being all powerful would mean that he could do anything, but you are asking God to do a negative. I.e. you are asking God to prove a negative, which you have already stated can't be done and therefor are illogical. So isn't this line of questioning than illogical??

Just asking.

No, I am asking god to make a stone so heavy, that even he cannot lift it. I am not asking him to prove anything. "Do a negative" is meaningless.

but God can lift anything, regardless of weight. So you're asking him to be nonsensical.

And no, there's no need to go into individual religions. This was meant as a discussion on whether or not Deity(s) exist.

But you are asking for proof of His power correct?

You are asking Him to prove that He is all Powerful. So Powerful in fact that He could create something so heavy that He can't lift it. But if it was so heavy that he can't lift it than he isn't all powerful and if He is unable to create it than again He isn't all powerful.

So you are looking for proof that He is all powerful by showing that He isn't all powerful.

Which is illogical. Prove you are a man by proving you are a woman.

No see, I think you guys have misunderstood me.

I do not want him to prove he is all powerful. I want to show that no being can be all powerful.


As an example of a contradiction for an all powerful being, I can pose this question.


Can an all powerful, omnipotent being make a stone so heavy, that even the being itself cannot lift it?

If yes, the being is not omnipotent, if no, it still isn't omnipotent.

but what if what you're asking defies the very nature of the divine being? God is able to lift everything, so your question is paradoxical, since even an infinitely heavy stone is liftable by God.

So if you are not wanting Him to prove He is all Powerful you are wanting Him to prove He is not all powerful.

Which is again proving a negative.

So, God cannot make stone too heavy for him correct? And it only goes against the nature of omnipotent beings, and here I am proving that absolute omnipotence is impossible.


I do not want him to prove anything. I am trying to show that a being cannot be all powerful.

So what you are saying is that this Question is not about God proving anything to you, but is about you proving to yourself that there is no God. You use the world’s limited knowledge and understanding of not only the physical and natural but also the spiritual and with this limited knowledge and understanding have concluded that no entity can be all powerful because they can not make a stone heavy enough that they are unable to lift it.

Does that about sum it up?

Yes, in effect though it does not have to be a stone. The essence of the point is that an omnipotent being should also have the power to limit itself, thereby making it non-omnipotent.


EDIT: Also, I do not see what physical, natural and "spiritual" knowledge I have applied here, I have applied simple logic.

i know im gonna take alot of heat for this, but it's true....

Logic doesnt solve everything.

Such as?

And don't beat around the bush, reply directly to my point. For the sake of argument, let's assume that you're right, and logic doesn't solve everything. Exactly what is wrong with my statement?

im just saying there ARE things in the world pure logic cant solve. so many things are still mysteries to us and are unexplainable in terms of logic, at this point, at least. not just religion, that is, but in other places too.

And if the omnipotent being has the power to limit himself, does he not also the power to take off those limits also, therefore continuing to make him or her omnipotent?

That just means we don't know enough about them. And you should really give some examples to be taken seriously.


Not when it isn't omnipotent any more. And it would be clearer if you explained using an example like the stone thing.

Ok, if you cut a stone in half, and reunite it, is it not still a complete stone?

and what about things that simply go unexplained? things we dont understand and have remained mysteries to us for long periods of time? what about simple things that effect every human being, such as love? rationality doesnt always work out.

What about the inability to change the future.

If you know the future and you try to change it than the future isn't what you know so there is no longer any reason to change it so therfor you didn't change it which means the future will happen just like you saw it but are unable to change it.

I'm pretty sure that's the argument for why God can't be both omnipotent and omniscient at the same time. Thanks for proving the point.

How does knowing the future and not changing it stop you from knowing the future.

It doesn't. But it's not just about all-knowing. It's also all-powerful. By themselves, the words work. You can be omniscient. You can be omnipotent. But you can't be both omniscient and omnipotent.

Lots of words up there that clash with the idea of omnipotence/omniscient.

Yet if you change it to I knew the future and in the future I stopped my car for no reason, the feeling just came over me. Right as I stopped the car a child ran in front of my car. If I hadn't stopped the kid would have been ran over.

From this the future is now the past. But when the future was still the future if an outside force knew that I had to stop to save the child than the outside force could say stop the car.

Now the future isn't changed, but the outside force already knew I had to stop and therefor caused me to stop.

logic can get you turned into a knot.

But an outside force also has the power to not stop the car (because he IS omnipotent) in which case, what the outside force knew would be wrong.

If the outside force already knew "I" had to stop, then he doesn't have the power to change that (in which case, he's not omnipotent). Lot of assumptions up there.

And your point is?


Examples, or I'm going to ignore. And what is so unexplainable about love?

The fact that it's animalistic nature to go for different partners, yet the force of love makes us human? that Love can make you feel a way in which you would sacrifice yourself? that there's no logical explaination for the comlete dedication of yourself to another person, yet it still feelss completely right?

and my point about the stone is that even if God cuts his strength, he still has his strength, he's just not putting it into use. like when you lift a feather, you dont put all of your strength in it, but it doesnt make you any less powerful.

There are quite a few sexual reproductive strategies present in nature, including life-long monogamy, serial monogamy, and polygamy. "Love" is a word we use to describe certain hormonal changes that occur when attraction is present.

There are quite a few ideas about how altruism has developed, which will only be borne out by more observation, but it does make sense that when we were in small, much more isolated communities, the odds of our genes being present in others in the area were much higher than it is currently. This would make a "sacrifice" of the individual much easier to understand, as it would still be beneficial to the genes themselves, especially if more than one individual would be saved.

Anthropology is a fascinating field, I wish I had more time to dedicate to it.

*shrugs* i choose to believe that it's something much deeper than that.

And how would being related distantly without knowing it affect instinct? if you dont know of any relationship, then it shouldnt really matter. Unless you're somehow implying that instinct makes you psychic.

I guess that's just a fundamental difference. I'm not satisfied with mysteries staying mysteries.

Define human, as you used it.

To whom?


Before I answer this, and Hrae has given a pretty good explanation, why do you think it is impossible to love multiple partners? We can love two parents, both sets of grandparents, multiple siblings, cousins, uncles and aunts, but it is criminal to love two people equally.

IMO one of the reasons we commit to only one partner is because of recent pressure by society. Polygamy and polyandry were pretty common during the olden days.


But I would still like to hear your explanation for this


I fail to see how this negates my point, or even addresses it.

Hm... i guess that goes down to whether you're the kind of person who wants everything explained, or the person who looks for the beauty of the painting that the universe itself makes. emotion vs. rationalism.

the problem is that not everything can neccesarilly be explained, Love being my favorite example.

We will honestly probably never know where we come from simply because us existing before whatever created us through time travel (the only definite way to see what happened, seeing as that's the only way to get a definite picture of it all, if time travel itself is in the least bit possible) would create a bit of a paradox; existing before existance. All we'll ever have is theory, really.

EDIT: sorry vas, your post didnt show up till after i posted.

If you dont see how it addresses your point, im sorry, but i cant make it any more simple. he would have to use less of his strength.

To be human, to me, is to feel. to to care for a specific person. to see the beauty in life. to see have emotion. If you feel love to multiple persons, it's honestly not love. Love is also the dedication of your heart to one person. Romantic Love =/= Familial love, btw.

And we know nothing other than what we've learned through personal experience. i would never cheat on my girlfriend though. Love is the feeling of wanting nothing more than to simply be by the side of someone; to care for them, and protect them from all the sadness and fear and crappiness in the world.

Popping in to answer this part.


There are many reasons for a monogamous relationship being the norm. Western society as a whole developed into this standard due to the fact that it's simply more convenient in most populations where M:F ratio is close to equal. The reasons for it staying that way are many: social stigma, ostrascization, the fact that polygamy is illegal in many countries, shame, upbringing etc.


Explaining it all away in the name of love is frankly, oversimplifying,