My take on this is that confuses the nature of God with an wierd anthropocentric view of God. God does not “lift” rocks. God is beyond the scale of Universes. In fact, He is beyond even the concept of infinity. Or any other mathematical value. The short answer is no.
Plus, God does all things “perfectly”. This means that He does not sin or make mistakes, however strange His purpose may be to us. I was going to continue this idea, however, I had a completion to this idea which appeared in a flash of insight and then vanished into the wind.
I kind of feel like this question falls into the same category as: “Are you still beating your wife?” The whole catch-22 thingie.
In a case like that, a little more explanation is usually needed, instead of a “straight answer.” As a non-God being, I don’t think I could understand such an explanation, so I don’t lose any sleep over it.
LilShieste
It is simply a malformed, illogical question; classically it is ‘an immovable object’ and ‘an irresistable force’ - clearly if one exists then by definition the other cannot.
You can’t smell the colour nine because by definitiion* nine is not a colour and by definition* colours are not smells. You can change the definitions, but you make the question answerable at the expense of making the universe incomprehensible.
I disagree. I take the position that smiling bandit put forward. We shouldn’t mistake our lack of imagination or understanding for a limitation on the power of god.
The situation I describe is not governed by lack of understanding or imagination, but by definitions; an immovable object is one upon which no force can work, an irresistable force is one which cannot fail to work on an object, no matter how large.
There is a fundamental clash here;an object that cannot be moved cannot exist in a universe where there is a force that can move anything; a force that cannot be resisted cannot exist in a universe where there is an object that resists everything.
Yes that’s a good point, but does it also mean that God is bound by the universe (which was the point about my questions on uncertainity and the measurment problem)
Again, I don’t see it that way. I see God as being able to create a universe with such contradictions. To me, God can be both A and !A at the same time, even though such seems impossible to us, and screws with our heads.
You see my problem is with God being an indeoendant system to the universe. In nearly all of his guises he can exert a physical influence on the universe and the universe must exert some sort of physical influence on him or he would have no conception of it.
So therefore being part of the same physical system as the universe uncertainity and the measurment problem would surely apply to him.
Well, at least in most religions, god is seen as having created the universe, so he must have exsisted before it, which would suggest to me that his existence is not dependant on the Universe’s existence, and since he made the rules, I see no reason why he couldn’t exempt himself from them.
MC: From my limited knowledge of QM I think your argument is based on a faulty premise. AFAIK, there isn’t an uncertainty problem; particles simply don’t have an exact position.
It’s like asking does God know the exact time I get into work every day. I don’t get in at exactly the same time every day, so there’s nothing there to know. (Don’t extend the analogy too far; I know it breaks down )
Yes dylan, but it is possible to have different but limted knowledge of, for example, the momemtum of a particle, I suppose this particular problem shouldn’t be to great if you limit the knowledge of God to that of ay observer observing the particle. But I still can’t see how you can get around the measurment problem or while I’m at it the inabilty of information to travel at faster than light speeds.
Hmm…I don’t get it. I was under the impression that it’s only with the interaction (observation) that it has a more defined position/momentum. There’s simply isn’t an exact one lying underneath that we could find if it wasn’t for those pesky kids and that darned dog.
)