It is written that what is impossible for man is possible for God.
A simple thought experiment proves this.
Just imagine being omnipotent. Now, in your mind, imagine creating an
immovable object that is infinite in size and mass. Then ask yourself
the question:
"Can you imagine yourself moving what you have made?"
If you answer the question truthfully, the answer will be "yes" even
though the language would have you believe that you have failed in your
imagination of an immovable object.
For this reason, the "conundrum" of the question:
"Can God make something too big for Him to move?"
becomes the simple answer:
"No"
that does not mean God is no longer omnipotent but does mean that God
is infinitely bigger than our language is able to describe Him.
The way to God is truly straight and very narrow:
http://makeashorterlink.com/?A2642108A
You will remain in my prayers, dear Bob, whom I love, in Lord Christ's
holy name.
May you reject your pride and accept Him as your personal Lord and
Savior, someday, so that you too will have eternal life and the
fascinating riches of His everlasting kingdom.
Here's how:
http://makeashorterlink.com/?I22222129
Please note that God truly made this special link describing that He is
the great "I am" and that His message is as simple as the number 2
which is a number between 1 to 9 and reminds us of His 2 commandments,
the 2 arms of the cross, the 2nd part of the Trinity, the 2 finger sign
of the Prince of Peace [who remains *V*ictorious over death and satan],
and the 2PD Approach. Let it not ever be written that Christ did not
make His presence known here on Usenet :-)
Also, note that Exodus 16:16 continues to remind us that 16 oz plus 16
oz makes 2 pounds, which is "a certain measure of weight," which is
what "omer" literally means in Hebrew.
Enter the 2PD-OMER Approach:
http://www.heartmdphd.com/wtloss.asp
At His service,
Andrew
--
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist
**
Suggested Reading:
(1) http://makeashorterlink.com/?L26062048
(2) http://makeashorterlink.com/?O2F325D1A
(3) http://makeashorterlink.com/?X1C62661A
(4) http://makeashorterlink.com/?U1E13130A
(5) http://makeashorterlink.com/?K6F72510A
(6) http://makeashorterlink.com/?I24E5151A
(7) http://makeashorterlink.com/?I22222129
Bob (this one) wrote:
> Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
> > Happy Dog wrote:
> >><snip> It's clear that you believe
> >>that god can make a rock too heavy to lift and lift it.
> > Speaking as one who is well versed in physics, lifting something is
defined by
> > both frame of reference and exerting an opposing force that exceeds
a
> > gravitational force.
> As usual, Andrew misses the entire point to create his own irrelevant
> analysis. It's not about rocks or force or frame of reference. It's
> about mututally exclusive terms. It's about impossibility by
> definition. It's about ideas.
> As for that analysis about physics, it's as flawed and deliberately
> narrow as the rest of the charade in this thread. The question might
> be more broadly framed as "Can God make an immovable object and then
> move it?" To make it easy to grasp, "move" means simply to locate it
> somewhere other than where it started, in or out of the universe. No
> direction, no gravitation, no examination of forces. Just have it be
> otherwhere at the end.
> It's the old immovable object versus the irresistible force
conundrum.
> One must be falsely defined at their confrontation. And if it's God
> who is to do both the construction of the object and wield the power,
> one part must be deficient in fact.
> > Our heavenly Father is creator of everything, the universe, the
natural laws of
> > the universe, and time. He unifies all the forces of the universe.
Such an
> > incredible omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent Entity is greater
than any frame
> > of reference or force in this universe. A frame of reference can
be chosen to
> > define the movement of us mere mortals who are infinitesimally
smaller than
> > Him. There is no such frame of reference for God. He is simply
too big and too
> > all encompassing and too all powerful.
> This is a wonderful premise from which to say *anything* about God.
If
> it's accepted as a reasonable beginning, there's nothing left to say;
> all further assertions proceed from it to any conclusion desired by
> the person speaking.
> If, OTOH, the premise is seen merely as a statement of one person's
> faith and, as such, separate from logic or reason, then anything that
> proceeds from it can be dismissed as the mouthings of the besotted.
If
> some bits of evidence can be offered, some part of it may be
accepted,
> but the entire concept must pass muster as reasonable and believable
> for it to be accepted as offered.
> So, Andrew, can God make something simultaneously nothing? How could
> that be? It is or it is not at this moment.
> >>That's faith.
> > Actually, understanding what I just wrote requires only a basic
understanding of
> > simple physics.
> Actually, it has nothing to do with physics at all. It has to do with
> the meaning of identity. It has to do with mutual exclusivity. It has
> to do with leaving the realm of overblown rhetoric and entering the
> realm of the practical and testable.
> >>Not truth.
> > It seems you have no ability to discern the truth.
> It doesn't seem, it's fact, that Andrew makes claims and casts
> aspersions he can't support.
> Bob
