Is there anything God can not do?

[The Neo Nerd]

"I don't know, I'm not a dead person."

And that was the most intelligent answer i got out of you in the whole conversation.

Ok so why don't you address what i said in my post.

Why did your god create in such a way knowing full well that the only way we could learn is through suffering?

and

Why does he not change that now?

Try some scriptural evidence, because as far as i can tell from the other thread all youve been doing is making **** up to suit your argument.

 

[Flat Earth Kyle]

And that was the most intelligent answer i got out of you in the whole conversation.

Ok so why don't you address what i said in my post.

Why did your god create in such a way knowing full well that the only way we could learn is through suffering?

and

Why does he not change that now?

Try some scriptural evidence, because as far as i can tell from the other thread all youve been doing is making **** up to suit your argument.

Obviously you still haven't read The Value of the Veil.

 

[The Neo Nerd]

Why don't you give us the cliff notes

 

[Benhamine]

No, God succeeds at both tasks. You are just thinking about it linearly, which I understand, can relate to.

Question itself is set up for failure at some point, if perception is linear.



It is not a rule as much as it is logic. God created a 'rock' so big, God cannot lift it. (Later) God observed a rock that was enormous (and heavy). Without effort God lifted it.

Hard to describe the process in non linear way, but also easy to bypass logic at work if thinking the rock is "not god." Pretty much is introducing into the inherent logic something that is nonsense. Though here in relative world of nonsense is magically sensible.

Perhaps easy to understand (though may not be) if conceiving of it as "aspects of God." Though that would imply both separation and linearity, so not sure if that would help conceptually.

I must be missing something here, and I'm not trying to attack your view but understand it. It seems to me that by definition the scenario you're describing is where he is creating a rock that he has the capability of lifting.

If we want to make a clearer scenario, Can God create a stone that he will never be able to lift?, has never been able to lift, and cannot lift now? I know this implies a linear timeline, but in a non-linear timeline, the original scenario should be sufficient.

-Benhamine

 

[jmvizanko]

The most enlightened neither grieve for the dead nor become elated for the living. The final goal is to transcend all dualities.

BTW, I would most certainly cry if a pile of puppies was blown to bits, because I love puppies. Not so with any old rock (probably if it was a Lingam, though, and I'd most certainly cry if the Himalayas collapsed.)

How something affects me emotionally is not an indicator for whether or not something is Divine.

If enlightened means not grieving for the dead or being elated for the living, I want nothing to do with it, and I think it would be more properly called out of touch with reality.

I wasn't asking about the destroyed puppies and rocks to explore your emotional response. I wanted to find out why you care more about the puppies being destroyed than the rocks. Is your emotional response just an irrational reaction to just another swirl in your cosmos where everythig is just as important and reverable as everything else? Because I see the sophisticated compilation of the laws of the universe that are people as being transcendental to say a mouse, which is transcendental to say a bacteria, which is transcendental to the inanimate.

Your version of enlightened seems to mean not to transcend reality, but to reject any way of approaching its variety with a variety of awe, respect, and appreciation. What's the point of worshipping a rock?

And I have no clue what transcending all dualities is supposed to mean.

 

[Riverwolf]

If enlightened means not grieving for the dead or being elated for the living, I want nothing to do with it, and I think it would be more properly called out of touch with reality.

Nope. It's called recognizing that all things in this world are temporary, and thus not becoming attached to them. We all will die eventually; what's the point of grieving for that which is inevitable?

I wasn't asking about the destroyed puppies and rocks to explore your emotional response. I wanted to find out why you care more about the puppies being destroyed than the rocks. Is your emotional response just an irrational reaction to just another swirl in your cosmos where everythig is just as important and reverable as everything else?

Yeah, pretty much. Emotions are, by definition, irrational.

Because I see the sophisticated compilation of the laws of the universe that are people as being transcendental to say a mouse, which is transcendental to say a bacteria, which is transcendental to the inanimate.

Your version of enlightened seems to mean not to transcend reality, but to reject any way of approaching its variety with a variety of awe, respect, and appreciation.

Not necessarily. This would probably be the case of Sannyasins who no longer have much love for the world, but it's possible to achieve enlightenment through worldly means. It's just VERY hard because of all the distractions.

What's the point of worshipping a rock?

You've never heard of the Siva Lingam?

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/hinduism-dir/118982-shiva-why-lingam.html

And I have no clue what transcending all dualities is supposed to mean.

This world is one of dualities. Joy and sorrow, heat and cold, good and bad, etc. The Yogic path is about transcending all of that.

 

[jmvizanko]

Nope. It's called recognizing that all things in this world are temporary, and thus not becoming attached to them. We all will die eventually; what's the point of grieving for that which is inevitable?

And I see that as the opposite of what I would call enlightenment. People become attached to things / people / life because they care about them, they interact a lot with them, and they admire them. Sure we all die eventually, but that doesn't mean it isn't sad when a beautiful part of existence, such as a person, leaves us. The only way to your "enlightenment" is to not give a crap about anything.

Yeah, pretty much. Emotions are, by definition, irrational.

I don't believe that for a second. There's a reason we have emotions, and once again, that's because we give a crap about things. Emotions are a beautiful expression of our reactions to the complex events and experiences that come our way.

Not necessarily. This would probably be the case of Sannyasins who no longer have much love for the world, but it's possible to achieve enlightenment through worldly means. It's just VERY hard because of all the distractions.

I was trying to get at the fact that I don't see how you can't see a heirarchy of importance and beauty in the universe. I think anyone that thinks a bacteria's right to life is just as important as a human being's is completely out of touch with how much more complex a human being is, how much more intelligent, and how much more capable one is of experiencing pain, joy, etc...

You've never heard of the Siva Lingam?

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/hinduism-dir/118982-shiva-why-lingam.html

Nope. Can you give me the cliff's notes enough to know why its relevant?

This world is one of dualities. Joy and sorrow, heat and cold, good and bad, etc. The Yogic path is about transcending all of that.

Sure there are dualities, but I don't think everything is composed of one. I see the whole thing as a much less black and white collection of nearly infinite superimposed spectrums.

And I see what glimpse you are giving me of the Yogi path as suggesting that it is more about ignoring all of that than transcending all of that.

 

[Riverwolf]

And I see that as the opposite of what I would call enlightenment. People become attached to things / people / life because they care about them, they interact a lot with them, and they admire them. Sure we all die eventually, but that doesn't mean it isn't sad when a beautiful part of existence, such as a person, leaves us. The only way to your "enlightenment" is to not give a crap about anything.

I don't believe that for a second. There's a reason we have emotions, and once again, that's because we give a crap about things. Emotions are a beautiful expression of our reactions to the complex events and experiences that come our way.

Beauty is subjective, and I believe reason and logic are supposed to be objective.

I don't think I'm explaining it very well.

Actions and duties still must be performed. It's just that they don't have any binding effect on you personally.

I was trying to get at the fact that I don't see how you can't see a heirarchy of importance and beauty in the universe. I think anyone that thinks a bacteria's right to life is just as important as a human being's is completely out of touch with how much more complex a human being is, how much more intelligent, and how much more capable one is of experiencing pain, joy, etc...

So? This "hierarchy of importance" you speak of is illusion based solely on human perspective. Sure, I feel it myself, but my rational brain recognizes that it's only from my own little perspective, and not representative of the whole picture.

Nope. Can you give me the cliff's notes enough to know why its relevant?

The Lingam represents the Formless Absolute, and I believe is only found on the banks of the Ganga, which you should know is the Holy River for Hindus.

Sure there are dualities, but I don't think everything is composed of one. I see the whole thing as a much less black and white collection of nearly infinite superimposed spectrums.

Dualities are the simplified way of expressing the concept. Just as black and white are the two extremes, there are shades of gray in between. Recognizing dualities is not ignoring these shades.

And I see what glimpse you are giving me of the Yogi path as suggesting that it is more about ignoring all of that than transcending all of that.

This is why I'm not a Guru or even a Sishya(official student): I'm not explaining this very well. If you ignore it, you're doing it wrong.

 

[Benhamine]

If enlightened means not grieving for the dead or being elated for the living, I want nothing to do with it, and I think it would be more properly called out of touch with reality.

I wasn't asking about the destroyed puppies and rocks to explore your emotional response. I wanted to find out why you care more about the puppies being destroyed than the rocks. Is your emotional response just an irrational reaction to just another swirl in your cosmos where everythig is just as important and reverable as everything else? Because I see the sophisticated compilation of the laws of the universe that are people as being transcendental to say a mouse, which is transcendental to say a bacteria, which is transcendental to the inanimate.

Your version of enlightened seems to mean not to transcend reality, but to reject any way of approaching its variety with a variety of awe, respect, and appreciation. What's the point of worshipping a rock?

And I have no clue what transcending all dualities is supposed to mean.

I think it's possible to feel more remorse for something that can feel (ie sentient as you put it) because we can relate to that entity. That adds the extra level of tragedy to it. However, each's existence would still be just as sacred. It's the idea that God felt it was important enough to exist that makes it sacred.

This is coming from an Atheist so I don't really believe all that but I felt maybe another description of the idea would help clarify...of course I could be misinterpretting what RiverWolf's trying to say also...so maybe you shouldn't listen to me haha.

-Benhamine

 

[otokage007]

God can't demonstrate his existence. For example.

And that's so simple that even I can do it!

 

[Riverwolf]

I think it's possible to feel more remorse for something that can feel (ie sentient as you put it) because we can relate to that entity. That adds the extra level of tragedy to it. However, each's existence would still be just as sacred. It's the idea that God felt it was important enough to exist that makes it sacred.

This is coming from an Atheist so I don't really believe all that but I felt maybe another description of the idea would help clarify...of course I could be misinterpretting what RiverWolf's trying to say also...so maybe you shouldn't listen to me haha.

-Benhamine

Actually, you did a pretty good job. :yes:

 

[Riverwolf]

God can't demonstrate his existence. For example.

And that's so simple that even I can do it!

Thus God is demonstrating His existence. (I'm a panentheist, BTW.)

 

[otokage007]

Thus God is demonstrating His existence. (I'm a panentheist, BTW.)

I don't get it hehe

 

[Riverwolf]

I don't get it hehe

Panentheism is the idea that God created the world out of Himself. Therefore, at core, we are all part of God.

 

[Acim]

I must be missing something here, and I'm not trying to attack your view but understand it. It seems to me that by definition the scenario you're describing is where he is creating a rock that he has the capability of lifting.

What you're missing in the 'scenario' is that I am asking you to think of answer in non linear way. Because I am putting it that way (as this is how our language works), I can see why you may have tough time grasping it any other way. If I intentionally put it out of order, I think it would read confusing. Let me try it.

God lifted a really humongous rock that God created.

(Then) God created a really humongous rock that not even God could lift.

You might say, but that is two different rocks. In which case, I would revert you back to earlier logic that it is not 'rocks' we are even talking about (really). It is extension of God. The rock is God. Thus not "2 different ones." In linear terms, this may be implausible to ever conceive of.

If we want to make a clearer scenario, Can God create a stone that he will never be able to lift?, has never been able to lift, and cannot lift now? I know this implies a linear timeline, but in a non-linear timeline, the original scenario should be sufficient.

-Benhamine

"Never be able to lift" would be where I would say, affirmatively, no. God couldn't create such a thing, that God would have no ability to how you say influence. Though the question is only about 'lifting' so perhaps there would be quite a lot of leeway for what God could do to said creation. Like God could maybe roll it around (but not lift it), or God could bounce it (but not technically lift it), or God could create "super rock lifters" whereby technically God (in linear aspect) is not the one lifting it. All these plausibilities and probably 900 others if I had the time, could be workarounds to the "rock that God cannot lift" rule that we are putting on this perceived, isolated entity who is all by his lonesome, wondering why he has become so pathetic to not even be able to lift something he made. How irresponsible of God.

 

[Acim]

Thus God is demonstrating His existence. (I'm a panentheist, FTW.)

Fixed.

 

[Dan4reason]

Can God create a rock so heavy that he can not lift it?

lets assume that God is omnipotent. Omnipotence means that you can do anything. So God can lift all rocks. Therefore a rock that God cannot make both does not exist, and cannot exist. So can God make a rock whose existence is logically impossible? Yes. He is omnipotent. Omnipotence also means you can contradict logic and still be right. So God can do something that is logically impossible.

 

[Flat Earth Kyle]

lets assume that God is omnipotent. Omnipotence means that you can do anything. So God can lift all rocks. Therefore a rock that God cannot make both does not exist, and cannot exist. So can God make a rock whose existence is logically impossible? Yes. He is omnipotent. Omnipotence also means you can contradict logic and still be right. So God can do something that is logically impossible.

Doesn't Omnipotent mean all knowing?

 

[DinChild]

Doesn't Omnipotent mean all knowing?

...no? That's omniscience.

 

[otokage007]

Panentheism is the idea that God created the world out of Himself. Therefore, at core, we are all part of God.

Thnks. I get it now.