AJ: "And I have no need to go back in time and shoot myself, but that wouldn’t stop it being a paradox if I did."

Good point.

Consider:
It is impossible for God to create a triangle with more than 3 sides
It is impossible for God to create a situation in which He is not God

The first is intrinsically impossible. In no sense is it possible or something we would ask of God.

The second is not possible if the following verse is from God

"The originator of the heavens and the earth. When He decrees a matter, He only says to it, ‘Be’, and it is.” (Qur'an 2:117)

If this is the word of God, then God is informing us he does not lift.

So "Can God create a rock that He cannot lift" entails God doing something He has has informed us he does not do.

I should get back to your question regarding the spirit, but do you see my point?

grateful,

I am fully aware of these apologetics you're using. I used to use some of them myself as a Christian. You're not springing anything on me that I haven't heard a thousand times before.

<<It is impossible for God to create a triangle with more than 3 sides>>

Well, there could be a fifth side if there were a forth angle of 180 degrees. But yes, I know what you're saying.

<<It is impossible for God to create a situation in which He is not God>>

It shouldn't be if he's omnipotent. Which is why omnipotence is a paradox.

<<The first is intrinsically impossible. In no sense is it possible or something we would ask of God.>>

Correct, it is impossible.

But whether or not we would ask it of God is irrelevant. I'm not sure what the point was in mentioning that.

<<The second is not possible if the following verse is from God>>

The second is not possible even if it isn't.

<<If this is the word of God, then God is informing us he does not lift.>>

I've already explained why whether or not a god lifts is irrelevant to whether or not a paradox exists. Please re-read my last post. That's pretty much all I talk about.

<<I should get back to your question regarding the spirit, but do you see my point?>>

That would be good if you could get back to my question regarding spirits. But yes, I see your point. I had anticipated it long before you even made it, which is why my earlier posts had managed to preempt it.

Again, nothing that you're saying is new to me.

Dear Jay,

Indeed it's incorrect to describe God as 'He', 'She' or 'It', but I must use some language. I am well aware that no language is or ever can be adequate in describing or defining God. The reason is that only objects can be defined or described - and God is not an object.

What can be said about God, if it is any helpful, is only in the negative: we can say what God is not. Well because God is not an object, not a "thing", you can safely state that "God is not __fill_in_this_space_with_anything_you_like__".

So why should one get involved with God at all?

- Because you already are, because we are totally involved with God already whether we know it or not. One may ignore all concepts of God (and I agree that concepts of God that are being used to control others should be avoided), but one cannot ignore God Himself (sorry for having to use a pronoun, I know it's inadequate). Everything you do, everything you have and everything you are, are God. Put simply, there is nothing but God.

In the movie-screen analogy (and please bear in mind that it is only an analogy - God is not a white cloth!), no movie - good, bad or ugly, can be screened without the underlying white sheet. Beyond all the appearances: boring, exciting, disgusting and so many combinations thereof, the only reality is that white sheet on which rays of coloured light are projected.

When watching movies, we tend to get involved, believing that what we see is real and forget about the white cloth. Yet the cloth is real and the drama is an illusion. Once you are distressed or sick&tired enough of the movies, you can shift your attention to the underlying cloth. Since you've been watching the movies for a long time and are habitually focused on the illusions rather than on the true reality, it can take some effort to divert your attention. Religion in this analogy, provides you with methods to do so.

Yutsie: believing that what we see is real.

No I don't.

Regarding the Movies. I'd likely watch all three.

Yutsie: God is not an object, not a "thing", you can safely state that "God is not __fill_in_this_space_with_anything_you_like__".

"God is not __fill_in_this_space_with_anything_you_like__". "Human", God can't be, humans are fallible, have size & shape, therefore must be limited in time.

"God is not __fill_in_this_space_with_anything_you_like__". "Visible" Therefore ethereal.

"God is not __fill_in_this_space_with_anything_you_like__". "Real"

Dear Jay,

<<Regarding the Movies. I'd likely watch all three.>>

Fine, you seem to enjoy it all, but then don't complain for example about "Children born all twisted up, dying in pain of many & varied diseases" - that was your choice.

Once you become truly sick and tired of watching children born all twisted up, of drugs and alcohol that kill and maim people, of medical problems and of wars fought over religion - whether this be tomorrow or in a trillion year's time, completely up to you, then you have the option of either turning off the projector or even while the projector is on, you could train yourself to notice the ever-present white cloth upon which the movies are screened. At that time of your choice you may want to use the advice of some established religion - or you can find your own methods: both ways are valid, although the latter, refraining from the practical advice of your predecessors, would take you longer.

Now I'm glad you got it: God is not human, visible or real - but remember: there is nothing but God, including yourself, which means that you also are neither human, visible or real. The world too, including the sufferings therein, is like the movies - unreal!

Enjoy yourself for as long as you want, and meanwhile suffer as well - it's part of the deal: once you grow tired of it, religion can show you the way to the true reality beyond all appearances - God.

AJ: <<<<It is impossible for God to create a situation in which He is not God>>

It shouldn't be if he's omnipotent. Which is why omnipotence is a paradox.>>

No, it should be impossible even when he is omnipotent in the same sense as the triangle statement.

Consider the following verse:

"For, God’s are all the forces of the heavens and the earth; and God is indeed almighty, truly wise!" Al-Fath 48:7

This implies nothing can exist without God and in particular “a situation in which He is not God” cannot exist. This situation is impossible in the same sense that it is impossible for a triangle with more than 3 sides to exist.

So to ask "Can God create a rock that is too heavy for him to lift?" is to ask whether God can create a situation which cannot exist.