Could God microwave a burrito so hot that not even he could eat?

Xolo wrote:Could God microwave a burrito so hot that not even he could eat?

but then again being all powerful if he can't eat a burrito because it is too hot, is he powerful at all?

Eclipse wrote:

Xolo wrote:Could God microwave a burrito so hot that not even he could eat?

but then again being all powerful if he can't eat a burrito because it is too hot, is he powerful at all?

First, you have to define what type of "god" you are referring to, as there are many hypothetical versions.

If you are talking about a Judeo-Christian "God," as an athiest, I would say neither as there is no proof for such a thing.

Xolo wrote:Could God microwave a burrito so hot that not even he could eat?

but then again being all powerful if he can't eat a burrito because it is too hot, is he powerful at all?

Eclipse wrote:

Xolo wrote:Could God microwave a burrito so hot that not even he could eat?

but then again being all powerful if he can't eat a burrito because it is too hot, is he powerful at all?

First, you have to define what type of "god" you are referring to, as there are many hypothetical versions.

If you are talking about a Judeo-Christian "God," as an athiest, I would say neither as there is no proof for such a thing.

Boricua wrote:

Eclipse wrote:

Xolo wrote:Could God microwave a burrito so hot that not even he could eat?

but then again being all powerful if he can't eat a burrito because it is too hot, is he powerful at all?

First, you have to define what type of "god" you are referring to, as there are many hypothetical versions.

If you are talking about a Judeo-Christian "God," as an athiest, I would say neither as there is no proof for such a thing.

I beg to differ. There is proof of God everywhere, you just have to open your eyes and see it. Everything that you see, example: nature itself, is God's majesty and grace at work.

Eclipse wrote:

Boricua wrote:

Eclipse wrote:

Xolo wrote:Could God microwave a burrito so hot that not even he could eat?

but then again being all powerful if he can't eat a burrito because it is too hot, is he powerful at all?

First, you have to define what type of "god" you are referring to, as there are many hypothetical versions.

If you are talking about a Judeo-Christian "God," as an athiest, I would say neither as there is no proof for such a thing.

I beg to differ. There is proof of God everywhere, you just have to open your eyes and see it. Everything that you see, example: nature itself, is God's majesty and grace at work.

Why does the existance of nature mean they is a "god?" Just because a certain randomness of existance and evolution led to our current world does some magical entity need to be involved? So far you've used nature as a reason for a "god" with out any supporting proof. Without giving any proof or further evidence to support your statement, it more leads to the idea that you are the one keeping your eyes closed to reality and simply following a religious dogma rather than look at the world rationally.

Boricua wrote:

Eclipse wrote:

Boricua wrote:

Eclipse wrote:

Xolo wrote:Could God microwave a burrito so hot that not even he could eat?

but then again being all powerful if he can't eat a burrito because it is too hot, is he powerful at all?

First, you have to define what type of "god" you are referring to, as there are many hypothetical versions.

If you are talking about a Judeo-Christian "God," as an athiest, I would say neither as there is no proof for such a thing.

I beg to differ. There is proof of God everywhere, you just have to open your eyes and see it. Everything that you see, example: nature itself, is God's majesty and grace at work.

Why does the existance of nature mean they is a "god?" Just because a certain randomness of existance and evolution led to our current world does some magical entity need to be involved? So far you've used nature as a reason for a "god" with out any supporting proof. Without giving any proof or further evidence to support your statement, it more leads to the idea that you are the one keeping your eyes closed to reality and simply following a religious dogma rather than look at the world rationally.

I look at things rationally, that's how I came to my conclusion. Think about it, how is it possible that nature itself can create something so perfect on its own even through evolution? If there is no God, then that means that everything happened by pure coincidence right? How is that possible? And if this is correct, we have like no purpose in live.

Eclipse wrote:
Um, that's the whole reason for natural selection. If you really did look at it from a purely rational prospective, how could you believe in a "god" when there is no reason for one to exist? Evolution and natural selection provide the rational reasons, not that everything was created exactly as it is. For that matter, how old do you think the world is? If you believe the Bible, you go ing the face of history, carbon dating, and fossils. Against such concrete proof, what chance does a book of fiction have?

Boricua wrote:Like u said your self, evolution and natural selection provides the rational reasons to believe that everything was not created as is seems. But who is to say that this correct anyways. I mean, natural selections is just a theory, is not even a proven scientific fact. And even if it were "true" science always makes mistakes. All the time.

I personally do not know how old the world is. I do believe in the Bible and facts and science, and do you know that there is a lot of things in the Bible that has been proven true by science? And also think about it. The Bible states in Genesis, that God created the heavens and the earth, right? Now, it says that the earth was in chaos and in darkness right? If God is perfect, which He is, then that means that God cannot create something in this state right? So this means that prior to when God created the earth for us, there was something already made, which is when the dinosaurs lived. So of course the earth is pretty old. And there is a lot more to this, but I don't have time to explain it.

Eclipse wrote:
Again, I hate to kill your thought line, but evolution has consistantly proven to be true. Science may make mistakes, but it adapts to new information. that's something religion never does nor can do.

You can't fully believe both fully. The Bible states that the world is, if I recall, 2,000 years old. Now, if you tell that to any reasonable person, they'll laugh you out of the room. But how about some simple questions:

You think "god" is all powerful. Can he create a rock so heavy not even he can move it?

"God" knows all, right? So how can we have free will?

Boricua wrote:

Eclipse wrote:
Again, I hate to kill your thought line, but evolution has consistantly proven to be true. Science may make mistakes, but it adapts to new information. that's something religion never does nor can do.

You can't fully believe both fully. The Bible states that the world is, if I recall, 2,000 years old. Now, if you tell that to any reasonable person, they'll laugh you out of the room. But how about some simple questions:

You think "god" is all powerful. Can he create a rock so heavy not even he can move it?

"God" knows all, right? So how can we have free will?

This prove how little you know about "religion". The Bible doesn't state that the earth is 2,000 years old. The Bible was written within 2,000 years. The earth is way older than that as you and I know. And ya, I would laugh at someone if they said the earth is 2,000 years old.

Regardless how I answer this question to you, either way you will find a loop hole. Trying to understand God, is like trying to put all the earth's oceans into a can of soda, its just impossible.

And ya, we have free will. And God does know what we do prior to when we do it. He knows everything. Whether we decide to do something, or do something else, by free will, He would still know what we do regardless.

Eclipse wrote:

Well, I admit I took that from of a Christian lecture I heard a while back. I guess he wasn't that reliable. After looking it up, the Biblical Age of the Earth <10000 years old, yes?

The reason you say that is it's impossile to do both, yet you think a "god" has that power.

If "god" knows what we all will do, then we don't have free will.

Boricua wrote:

Eclipse wrote:

Well, I admit I took that from of a Christian lecture I heard a while back. I guess he wasn't that reliable. After looking it up, the Biblical Age of the Earth <10000 years old, yes?

The reason you say that is it's impossile to do both, yet you think a "god" has that power.

If "god" knows what we all will do, then we don't have free will.

10k? No. The Bible has references of times that could be dated back millions of years. And the interesting thing about it is, how is it possible that people in that era, are able to know these facts, when they didn't have science or the knowledge we have right now.

And no, God is almighty and powerful. He can do as He pleases. But that argument of if He can make a stone so big that He cannot move it, can be the same as "what came first, the chicken or the egg?" or if a tree falls in the middle of the forest..." No matter what the answer is, there is always a loophole that someone ca go through.

ILoveInquiry wrote:Logic is a very powerful tool. Human reason is extraordinary. But do logic and reason provide answers to all of life's questions? Aren't some questions beyond logic and reason? For example - this is part of the point of Nagel's article about what it is like to be a bat. Reason has limits. Although science can answer many questions, that does not mean that it can answer all questions - just as humans may be able to 'know' everything there is to know about being a bat but would still be unable to really fathom what bat EXPERIENCE is like. Aren't some aspects of human experience beyond the scope of science and reason? This is not to say that we should set reason aside - rather, it is to say, that at the pinnacle of reason, it is possible that a leap beyond reason is necessary (many excellent thinkers suggest exactly this)... just a thought... And the daoists would say that reason gets in the way of pure experience. And Kierkegaard would say that belief is precisely non-rational - that nobody would be able to 'argue' him into belief and that reason most often gets in the way of belief - that true belief requires a leap of faith. But then Hume would agree with Eclipse...