# God 's power and the "heavy stone"

God 's power and the “heavy stone”
==…
Can God make a stone so heavy that He can’t lift it?
My opinion.
a)
Why does God need to create such stone?
Is He a stupid One? No, He isn’t stupid.
He took another solution.
Instead such “heavy stone” He decided to create billions and billions
“small” Galaxies with many – many planets with reasonable people
( even if some of them would ask the question above).
b)
God can create the Universe only using physical-math laws.
And as a wise One He limited all physical-math parameters
in the Universe. These limitations show the God’s power.
But a foolish doesn’t know the God’s laws of limitations and
ask the question above.
c)
The concrete physical-math answer to the question about
the “heavy stone” God gave as " the Chandrasekhar limit":
" Chandrasekhar calculated that a cold star of more than about
one and a half times the mass of the sun, would not be able
to support itself against its own gravity. This mass is now
known as the Chandrasekhar limit."
/ page 38/
“However, when he was awarded the Nobel Prize in 1983,
it was, at least in part, for his early work on the limiting mass
of cold stars.” /page39/
Book:
/ The theory of everything. Third lecture. By Stephen W. Hawking./
=.
Once again: the limits of all physical laws and parameters show
the God’s wisdom and Human’s stupidity.
==…
Best wishes.
==,

God is not a metaphorical construction of human minds.
To create the Universe God was needed Physical laws and formulas.
In my opinion God created the Universe by this plan:
The God’s Code of Nature.
=.
§ 1. Vacuum: T= 0K, E= ∞ , p = 0, t =∞ .
§ 2. Particles: C/D= pi=3,14, R/N=k, E/M=c^2, h=0, c=0, i^2=-1.
§ 3. Photon: h=E/t, h=kb, h=1, c=1.
§ 4. Electron: h*=h/2pi, c>1, E=hf , e^2=ach .
§ 5. Gravity, Star formation: h*f = kTlogW : He II – > He I – > H – > . . .
§ 6. Proton: (p).
§ 7. The evolution of interaction between Photon / Electron and Proton:
a) electromagnetic,
b) nuclear,
c) biological.
§ 8. The Physical Laws:
a) Law of Conservation and Transformation Energy/ Mass,
b) Pauli Exclusion Law,
c) Heisenberg Uncertainty Law.
§ 9. Brain: Dualism of Consciousness.
§ 10. Test and Practice: Parapsychology. Meditation.
===.
God is a Great code–maker.
But, as every code, God’s code also can be cracked with the right key.
In my opinion the right key has two formulas.
The one is - T = - 273, 15. . . .
The second is – c/d= 3,14 . . . .
Using this key somebody, after strict analysis, can discover
who God is,
where God is,
how the God create the Existence.
=========….

God must begin his creation in some reference frame and must use
some quantum particles which have some geometrical form.
a) For the basis of RF I took the zero vacuum T=0K.
b) According to the laws of thermodynamics the particles in T=0K
must have geometrical form of circle: c/d = 3,14 . . . . (pi)
c) According to QT the circle-particles have two (2) kind of own,
inner impulses: h and h*=h/2pi.
These impulses changed the pure zero vacuum continuum.
=…
Today scientists ignore T=0K as a RF of the Universe as a whole.
Today scientists don’t know the geometrical form of quantum particles.
Tomorrow the situation will be another.
===…

Paradox can be set up to dispel faith but can also be an entry to solution by becoming the solution. For example an answer to the question of God and stone is infinity. My opinion.

God is just a Word. Allah is just a Word. Brahman is just a Word.
In the beginning was the (any) Word, a Condition, and of course that’s just another Word.
They all have the same meaning, a permittive Condition, which allowed the creation of this universe.
To assign a “motivated sentience” to the Word is wholly unnecessary to timeless constants (potentials) such as the Mathematical Function in general, and specifically the Fractal Function.
i.e. The Bible and most scriptures which seek to explain the Beginning as a purposeful Act, for all their moral wisdoms, ignore the Mathematical Function altogether and assign Intention. This is why they are unreliable as scientific truths.
They are Morality Tales, not science.

If god is as omnipotent as he is claimed to be by believers, if he wanted to, of course he could create a stone he could not lift. but in the next moment he would be able to lift it if that’s what he wanted to do.
Theists have no idea what omnipotence means, even though they profess to believe in it. It’s just a handy device they feel the need to apply to their god to satisfy their desire for an all-powerful god, They are simply too invested in god belief to see the lack of logic in the concept.
Lois

Guys. I’m pretty sure this nutcase just posts things to bolster his own ego, not to engage in discussion of any sort. I had him on my Ignore list awhile ago, and decided to take a look at these to see if anything changed. Evidently not. I think I’m gonna coin a term for people who post stuff in forums simply for their own pleasure at posting and seeing their words online…posterbators. And since it’s in public, we can say they engage in public posterbation.

Guys. I'm pretty sure this nutcase just posts things to bolster his own ego, not to engage in discussion of any sort. I had him on my Ignore list awhile ago, and decided to take a look at these to see if anything changed. Evidently not. I think I'm gonna coin a term for people who post stuff in forums simply for their own pleasure at posting and seeing their words online...posterbators. And since it's in public, we can say they engage in public posterbation.
You're right. i've had Socratus on my ignore lost for a long time. Life is easier that way. I like "posterbation." Lois
If god is as omnipotent as he is claimed to be by believers, if he wanted to, of course he could create a stone he could not lift. but in the next moment he would be able to lift it if that's what he wanted to do.
It's called the miraculous mystery of god. You gotta believe it or damit to you-all. speaking of
"posterbation."
Have I got a discussion board for socratus http://geneticdrift.sketchedskins.com/viewtopic.php?f=32&t=110
Guys. I'm pretty sure this nutcase just posts things to bolster his own ego, not to engage in discussion of any sort. I had him on my Ignore list awhile ago, and decided to take a look at these to see if anything changed. Evidently not. I think I'm gonna coin a term for people who post stuff in forums simply for their own pleasure at posting and seeing their words online...posterbators. And since it's in public, we can say they engage in public posterbation.
Posterbation. Love it. I'm going to start using that on Facebook. When the word spreads we'll know where it began.
God 's power and the "heavy stone" ==.. The old paradox: Can God make a stone so heavy that He can't lift it? [...]
"Can God make a stone so heavy that He can't lift it?" That is an example of a fallacious question, and that is why it is a paradox, because of its being a fallacious question. Allow me to propose what is the concept of a paradox. From stock knowledge, a paradox is a statement of an event which is contrary to the truth accepted by every reasoning human. Now, what do you folks here think about my example below of a paradox?
A police detective comes to the conclusion that for example Peter Dawson was murdered by Paul Brown, but his friend working in the city's civil registry office tells him that Paul Brown died twenty years back.
Anyway, pardon the poor example, my point is that in every paradox there is an intrinsic contradiction in the thought put forth in subtle words. Let us find out why "Can God make a stone so heavy that He can't lift it?" is a fallacious question. First, it is common knowledge that God in concept is all powerful; if you don't accept that God is all powerful, then you are not talking about God. So, the logical question and the logical answer should be: Q. Can God lift any stone no matter how heavy He makes it? A. Yes, God can lift any stone no matter how heavy He makes it. The fallacy of the question, "Can God make a stone so heavy that He can't lift it?" consists in first conceding that God is all powerful, this concession is put in the first clause: "Can God make a stone so heavy." And then denying that concession with the second clause: "That He can't lift it?" So, the whole question is a self-contradiction, and it is a nonsense question. It is a paradox because it is affirming and denying the same thought, by subtle manipulations of words and concepts. What do you folks here say? You will ask me, what is a fallacy? Here is my concept of what is a fallacy: an uncritical statement of an event that is not grounded upon truths, facts, and logic. The question: "Can God make a stone so heavy that He can't lift it?" is a fallacious question, because it is uncritical for lacking the ingredient of a critical question, namely, the ingredient of logic: it violates logic for logic requires that a thought must not be self-contradictory, as I have explained above.
Guys. I'm pretty sure this nutcase just posts things to bolster his own ego, not to engage in discussion of any sort. I had him on my Ignore list awhile ago, and decided to take a look at these to see if anything changed. Evidently not. I think I'm gonna coin a term for people who post stuff in forums simply for their own pleasure at posting and seeing their words online...posterbators. And since it's in public, we can say they engage in public posterbation.
Posterbation. Love it. I'm going to start using that on Facebook. When the word spreads we'll know where it began. I wonder if posterbators realise that posterbation will make them go blind and get acne.

LoisL says: [ Read annex below for what LoisL says. ]
Sir LoisL, I can’t see what point you are making to contribute to the thread: “God ‘s power and the “heavy stone.”
My point is that the socalled paradox of the heavy stone is that it is no paradox at all if we understand paradox as an instance of a phenomenon that is contrary to what we know to be a truth, or a fact, or logic.
But it is an example of a fallacious question.
What is a fallacious question?
From my stock thinking, a fallacious question is grounded on untruths, un-facts, and illogic.
So, as we analyze the paradox of the heavy stone according to critical thinking, namely, thinking that is grounded on truths, facts, and logic, it is nothing of any critical thinking, namely, it is not grounded at all on truths, facts, and logic.
In the light of critical thinking as opposed to fallacious thinking, the socalled paradox of the heavy stone is all self-contradictory talk, namely, nonsense talk.
Suppose, sir LoisL, you think how you can contribute to the thread by presenting what you feel or better think is wrong with the socalled paradox of the heavy stone; or if you prefer, what you feel or better think what is right with the socalled paradox of the heavy stone; in that way I can learn something from you in regard to paradox, the nature of.
Annex

DarronS - 31 August 2015 09:52 AM
CuthbertJ - 28 August 2015 10:13 AM Guys. I’m pretty sure this nutcase just posts things to bolster his own ego, not to engage in discussion of any sort. I had him on my Ignore list awhile ago, and decided to take a look at these to see if anything changed. Evidently not. I think I’m gonna coin a term for people who post stuff in forums simply for their own pleasure at posting and seeing their words online…posterbators. And since it’s in public, we can say they engage in public posterbation.
Posterbation. Love it. I’m going to start using that on Facebook. When the word spreads we’ll know where it began. I wonder if posterbators realise that posterbation will make them go blind and get acne. Signature

From an atheist viewpoint.
If God made the laws of nature, then how would He be able to change them? Once the laws are made, they are that way!
If a theist proposes that “God made the laws, thus He can change them” then what does that say of God?

If a theist proposes that "God made the laws, thus He can change them" then what does that say of God?
That it's as petty, cruel and capricious as we infidels have long said it is.
From an atheist viewpoint. If God made the laws of nature, then how would He be able to change them? Once the laws are made, they are that way! If a theist proposes that "God made the laws, thus He can change them" then what does that say of God?
That he doesn't exist.
Guys. I'm pretty sure this nutcase just posts things to bolster his own ego, not to engage in discussion of any sort. I had him on my Ignore list awhile ago, and decided to take a look at these to see if anything changed. Evidently not. I think I'm gonna coin a term for people who post stuff in forums simply for their own pleasure at posting and seeing their words online...posterbators. And since it's in public, we can say they engage in public posterbation.
I like it too. Just one remark. Public posterbation seems a pleonasm to me. I have no idea what non-public posterbation can possibly mean. Except you also include private mailings (e.g. mails from crackpots to physics or philosophy professors and so) in the concept of 'posting'.
Guys. I'm pretty sure this nutcase just posts things to bolster his own ego, not to engage in discussion of any sort. I had him on my Ignore list awhile ago, and decided to take a look at these to see if anything changed. Evidently not. I think I'm gonna coin a term for people who post stuff in forums simply for their own pleasure at posting and seeing their words online...posterbators. And since it's in public, we can say they engage in public posterbation.
I like it too. Just one remark. Public posterbation seems a pleonasm to me. I have no idea what non-public posterbation can possibly mean. Except you also include private mailings (e.g. mails from crackpots to physics or philosophy professors and so) in the concept of 'posting'. It's a redundant pleonasm, an oops-mistake, so to speak-as one might say.

My last post was primarily for my own amusement, but ostensibly, also, for enjoyment by others. (I may be a part-time exhibitionist posterbater.)

My last post was primarily for my own amusement, but ostensibly, also, for enjoyment by others. (I may be a part-time exhibitionist posterbater.)
You see, group posterbation can be amusing as well as informative. In addition to being a possible posterbater myself, sometimes I also enjoy watching other posterbaters. Does that make me a voyeur as well? Will I go to posterbater hell?