Blahg        

One of the great philisophical arguments against an omnipotent being, such as God, is the old unmovable object/irresistable force problem. That is an OB should be able to create both an immovable object and an irresistable force, but, since they’re mutually exclusive, there can’t be an OB.

I think I came up with a possible answer. That by definition there cannot be an immovable object. Matter, the very material of an object is always moving. Except for at absolute zero, a temperature an OB should have the ability to actually create. But that should yield to even slight energy in theory.

You may say that an OB should be able to create an immovable object, or any other supposedly impossible thing. However, if movement is actually inherent in any form of matter, then it isn’t possible by definition. After all if an OB can create the impossible then it should be able to create a mamal that doesn’t have live birth, hair, milk to nurse its young, and also has scales and is cold blooded (some mamals fit some of the criteria, but not all). But this creature by definition would not be a mamal at all–just like an object can’t be unmovable.

Any critisim or comment on this? (No comments about the abbreviation OB, I know it sounds more like OBGYN, but aren’t they nearly omnipotent anyway?)

Comments(6)

Comments(0)

Comments(0)

Comments(0)

Comments(0)