/sci/ - Science & Math

>>15011364
But it can't occupy all of space if it's infinite, because the space it occupies would have to be infinite, so you'd never occupy the whole thing

Easiest way is for god to simply use his power to make himself forget he's a god and forget how to use god powers.

>>15011369
>space is finite
the rock has the same volume as space
>space is infinite
the rock is infinite

>>15011374
Space can not be finite, as nothing exists besides space

>>15011364
Only one paradox here -- why people still belive in fairy tale dude that made everything

>>15011384
Our universe is a 3D slice of a 4D space. Space is finite and there is no edge. Go any direction and you will end where you started

>>15011364
In this example "space" has more omnipotence then God.

>>15011390
And the fairy tale that space exists and can be "occupied" when all you can show is "occupied space"

Checkmate

>be omnipotent overlord of reality, perhaps as God, or a simulator of realities
>wonder if you can make a rock so big you cannot move it
>create maximally large, maximally dense rock
>the rock occupies all space, as such, you cannot move it presently
>big think
>plug flash drive in to universe, i now have more space
>move rock
checkmate retard
>nooo that doesn't count
>alter rock size parameter
>move rock
checkmate retard

Checkmate

>>15011550
Pseudoscience belongs on /x/, I advise you to go there

>>15011364
>God can't even move infinite rock
Weak! Not omnipotent

If a rock is all there is, what is?

>>15012042
A non-state. No inference. Nothing. It can't be defined as a rock as there is no space to infer. It is, generally, a pre-life that can potentially, well, is, but current times suggest it isn't. If a rock is all there is, it isn't.

>God
Not science or math >>>/trash/

>>15011364
>An infinitely spacious rock has nowhere to be moved
WRONG
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hilbert%27s_paradox_of_the_Grand_Hotel

>Worldly logic applies to a supreme being outside our reality
There's your problem, hylics

>>15011550
>Go any direction and you will end where you started
sauce nao

>>15011577
>In this example "space" has more omnipotence then God.
Since God isn't part of space, that isn't really true.

>>15011364
>An infinitely dense rock would warp space and matter into itself, once again occupying all of space
Black holes occupy all of space and can't be moved? Black holes attract each other and collide all the time.

>>15013085
see: the 2D surface of a 3D sphere
>>15013135
black holes aren’t infinitely dense

>>15013164
>the 2D surface of a 3D sphere
Neither of these are 4D, which doesn't exist you schizo faggot

>>15013172
Either you accept that our universe is the 3D “surface” of a 4D sphere or you must deal with the problem of the edge of space, and how space is expanding. If you imagine a circle expanding, then the one-dimensional circumference, from within its own perspective, is not expanding into anything. But all the objects along the circumference would become less dense, which is how the expansion of our universe is described.

>>15013182
>edge of space
No such thing
>how space is expanding
It isn't expanding

That rock is created, the world ends and therefore time ends, a new world is created and therefore time begins to exist again. That rock is then made moveable.

The "rock that can't be moved for an eternity" becomes a "rock that can't be moved for an eternity, then can be moved". If you take into account the possibility of going into the past then an omnipotent god would simply have created such a rock in the past ( more precisely, before the creation of the world ) so that in the present the rock is "immovable for an eternity" and all he has to do is move it.

>Answering an impossible question with reasoning using impossible assumptions
Shut the fuck up

>>15011384
>Space can not be finite, as nothing exists besides space
Prove it

>>15011364
>Creates the world
>Loool but youre still not omnipotent because of a rock
Silly.

>>15011364
>Invent retarded concept of god
>Invent a problem in such concept
>Attempt to find problem to invented horseshit god concept
Eat shit a die, fuck off from /sci/ retarded gorilla nigger

>>15011390
>why people still belive in fairy tale dude that made everything
Antropomorphic factor, plus inability of some people to actually think.

>>15011384
Perhaps there is no void or space persay, only fields. Wilzek's The Lightness of Being and Nothing: A Very Short introduction are good on this.

>>15011364
You cannot have any one thing that fills all of "space." Every measurement everywhere would be the same, with no variance, right? So there is no information content. Existence presupposes difference. If any description applies equally to all things, everywhere, always, then there is really nothing. Pure, undifferentiated sameness as being is the same thing as nothing. You see this idea in Hegel and Bohm among others, and it necessarily flows from information theory.

Such a rock would have no qualities unless you divide the rock up and imagine differences existing within it, between sections of it. At best you could posit that it had some sort of bare haecceity, an existence that simply is, but is wholly contentless. It is debatable if this is a coherent view.

If the rock has differences within it then we can simply say the rock is space and talk about the discernible differences with it and how they interact. The rocks difference from space becomes superfluous.

>>15014206
>Prove it
Open your eyes, retard
Now prove that anything exists outside of space, I'll wait
>>15014225
>Perhaps there is no void or space persay, only fields
Fields are matter/energy, not space, space is a vessel for matter/energy to exist in

The whole thing boils down to are the properties of an object time-dependent or not.
It's common sense to think yes since everything that exists goes through change.

>>15013182
>Either you accept that our universe is the 3D “surface” of a 4D sphere or you must deal with the problem of the edge of space, and how space is expanding.
Sounds like a (You) problem.

>>15011364
Wow, the concept of god is retarded and self-contradictory. Who knew

>>15014259
And space and time were distinct, absolute "containers" before they weren't as well. There are tons of problems with space-time. It's a paradigm many are sure will be replaced.

I've heard a few compelling arguments for thinking of space-time as merely the "metric field."

Or you can think of things as only existing in terms of relationships (the physics equivalent of formalism in mathematics). Whitehead conceived of space as a set of relationships not a container.

>>15014296
Spacetime is a coordinate system, not a physical thing

God is the necessary being of reality, not a bearded guy in a robe who's really strong. The rock shit is based on Greek mount olympus gods as they were understood 2000 years ago.

>>15014349
The greeks believed in a creator god they just didn't sacrifice animals to him.

>>15014349
>God is the necessary being of reality
Have you considered not saying retarded shit in public?

This was never a paradox to begin with. I don't understand how the question of "Can God create a stone he can't move" ever baffled people.

The answer is yes.

No this doesn't nullify Him being God by being unable to move it because He was the one who made it unmoveable in the first place meaning it's movability or lack thereof is ultimately determined by Him.

What's so hard to understand?

>>15014366
>What's so hard to understand?
The fact that people as dumb as you exist is hard to understand

>>15014368
God isn't powerful. He is power itself.

>>15014368
What did he say that was incorrect?

>>15014301
A coordinate system that interacts with other physical systems, curves, and can curve into a singularity...

Space as a coordinate systems is just a useful analogy for some use cases. All space, is seemingly seething with complex activity.

>>15011364
The question is worded better as, can God create a task that he himself cannot do? By the definition of omnipotence no he can't, but his inability to do that doesn't make him not omnipotent, it just means he's so powerful no task can be beneath him. Omnipotent might mean all powerful but given that the concept of "all powerful" and "can do anything" is somewhat subjective in interpretation I stand by my previous reasoning.

Another answer which I heard in an anime was that maybe the omnipotent being doesn't have to be omnipotent all the time. He creates the rock, heavier then he can lift, then redefines the boundaries of omnipotence to make himself stronger than it again. By the end he's still omnipotent

>>15014455
No, it doesn't interact with anything, it's just numbers assigned to describe relative states of a system, space and time are not things, matter inside space is a thing, but space is made of nothing, there is no edge,nothing to expand, nowhere to expand to, because it isn't made of anything.

>>15011364
so you're saying your "God" can't move that rock he just made?
what a weak and definitely non-omnipotent "God"
checkmate, theists

>>15013164
>see: the 2D surface of a 3D sphere
source that the universe has a similar geometry tho

>>15014469
>can God create a task that he himself cannot do?
An omnipotent being can of course remove his own omnipotence.

>>15011390
>He equates God to some abrahamic sky daddy
Peak midwit take

>>15014363
Ok then, what created the universe smart guy?

>>15011390
Because they're too stupid to read science papers and textbooks which unambiguously disprove the existence of god

>>15015096
the universe is a 3D space in a 4D hyperspace
it is a 3-torus
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3-torus

>>15015108
the universe was never "created"
such a thing is in fact metaphysically impossible
the universe always existed (which ironically is the justification theists use for their purported but erroneous postulation of a creator deity, even though it doesn't actually explain anything, since that can simply be said to be true for the universe itself, which it indeed is)

>>15014991
It interacts with itself, seeing as how there is a constant that describes how fast the expansion of space is accelerating, which is determined by how much space there is.
Additionally, the universe as we currently understand it using the standard model was at one point an incredibly dense point of energy, that suddenly expanded and cooled to allow the physical processes that govern our reality to occur. Are you saying you have evidence that disproves the standard model?

>>15015112
Metaphysically you are literally wrong. The universe as it is in its current state could have been poofed into existence mere seconds ago, with all memories of your life and everyone else’s falsely implanted at its creation, and you would have no way to disprove that

>>15015111
what are you basing that assertion on?

>>15014301
>>15014991
I don't get your image since it seems like you have a take similar to Whitehead.

It isn't as popular as >>15015113 but I blame that on Whitehead's book being probably one of the most difficult things to get through outside the Phenomenology of Spirit (not a compliment).

>>15015108
Nothing, the universe has always existed, there never was anything before it
>>15015111
>the universe is [thing that doesn't exist]

>>15015125
Claiming nothing existed before the universe is as faith based as claiming it was created by god. It’s unprovable

>>15015133
Except one is supported by science and the other by superstition

>>15015113
>It interacts with itself
What interacts with itself?
>there is a constant that describes how fast the expansion of space is accelerating
This constant is baseless and was plugged in to make the math work
>the universe as we currently understand it using the standard model was at one point an incredibly dense point of energy,
Doesn't have anything to do with the expansion of space, or space itself, you're describing matter interactions, not space, which you can't provide an explanation of expansion for because there isn't anything to expand and nowhere to expand to, not only that the big bang model itself is a very far fetched what-if that you can't prove in any way
>>15015124
I have no idea who this whitehead is and I don't care, I observe the universe and make logical conclusions based on said observations instead of making up immeasurabe, indescribable and unobservable shit that doesn't exist and has no logical basis outside of makimg some schizo theory work that otherwise wouldn't work

>>15015141
Show me scientific evidence that supports the claim that nothing existed before the universe. Go on, I’ll wait

>>15015158
No, the constant was derived from observing the redshifting of very old galaxies and comparing it to much closer ones. A discrepancy was discovered, in that galaxies that are very far away seem to be redshifting more than they should be based on how far away they are, showing that the speed which things are moving away from each other is increasing.

>>15015175
Show me scientific evidence that supports the claim that there is, or ever was, anything besides the universe. Go on, I'll wait.
>>15015177
1. The velocity difference needed for this is very small, relying more on the vast distance between two points
2. You are describing the movement of matter, not the expansion of space

>>15015183
I’m not claiming that the universe had a precursor, simply pointing out that you are practicing faith when you say without a doubt it is eternal. It’s ok to admit when you don’t know things anon

>>15015183
>Show me scientific evidence that supports the claim that there is, or ever was, anything besides the universe. Go on, I'll wait.
The Big Bang. Now you go.

>>15015190
We have observed the universe, we haven't observed no universe, thus the logical conclusion points towards there not being anything else
>>15015191
>thing that never happened
Yes, you should go

>>15015116
>Metaphysically you are literally wrong
nope, metaphysically speaking I'm 100% correct
>The universe as it is in its current state could have been poofed into existence mere seconds ago, with all memories of your life and everyone else’s falsely implanted at its creation, and you would have no way to disprove that
that's exactly where you're wrong, because it's not possible for something to come from nothing
ex nihilo nihil fit
the universe could indeed have turned into its current form in the way you describe, that's what the argument about quantum fluctuations leading to Boltzmann brains is all about, but the universe itself always existed

>>15015191
the "Big Bang" was an ad hoc explanation in a feeble attempt to explain redshift, using the analogy to the recently expounded upon Doppler effect and extending it to light
people argued that redshift must mean that everything is receding from everything else and thus that the universe is expanding
this is of course incredibly stupid nonsense with zero basis in reality, and probably the dumbest and most absurd explanation you could possibly come up with to explain redshift
in fact, Hubble himself was extremely vocal about the dubiousness of such a ridiculous proposal, and suggested that redshift was most likely caused by something else
fact is: the universe is not expanding, and there never was any Big Bang, this is an eternal universe with no origin and no end

>>15011384
Citations requested.

>>15015423
There is no evidence to suggest otherwise without violating every current observation of the universe, thus it is the most logical conclusion without introducing things that don't exist

>>15011384
totally false
a space can easily be finite and unbounded
just like the surface of a sphere is unbounded but has a finite area, so does the same apply to the universe in one higher dimension, i.e. instead of being the surface of a sphere it is a space embedded in the higher-dimensional equivalent of a sphere

>>15015472
>just like the surface of a sphere is unbounded but has a finite area
You're already starting off with a contradiction, a sphere has a very tangible, observable and measurable boundary, something which the universe does not have.
>so does the same apply to the universe in one higher dimension
No such thing you schizo retard, take your meds.

>>15015476
you don't understand basic geometry
no, the surface of a sphere does not have a boundary at all
it is unbounded
yet, its area is finite
the universe is exactly the same, except one dimension up: it is an unbounded space with finite volume

>>15015478
>the universe is exactly the same, except one dimension up
There is no such thing, take your meds

>>15015479
yes, the universe is 3-dimensional, not 2-dimensional
what are you, a Flatlander?
take your meds and learn some basic geometry, fool

>>15015480
And any three dimensional object has distinct measurable boundaries, something which the universe does not have, take your meds

>>15015483
>any three dimensional object has distinct measurable boundaries
wrong
there are infinite 3-dimensional objects that are unbounded
see e.g.: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3-torus

>>15015485
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3-torus
this
does
not
exist
take
your
meds
schizo

>>15015486
of course it does, you're living in one, moron
take your meds

>>15015487
>you're living in one
>source : my unmedded ass

>>15015489
those are the facts
that's what every single empirical observation indicates
deal with it and start taking your meds, schizo

>>15015495
>that's what every single empirical observation indicates
Riiight, and yet you still have no evidence for any of your claims, you're living in a delusion, which is why it's time to take your meds.

>>15015499
>all the empirical evidence ever
>"nO eViDeNcE"
meds now, schizo

>>15015501
But you have no evidence, all you've provided is a shitty one paragraph wikipedia page describes geometry which only exists mathematically and has a picture that is cgi, which is not direct observational evidence. What you fail to understand is that the universe does not operate with mathematics, the universe simply exists, making up things does not make them real. Space is made of nothing, matter/energy is what occupies space, there can't be anything outside of nothing, thus space is infinite.

>>15011390
I don't see any problem in a Prime Mover who has a personality of his own, after all faith doesn't need evidence, otherwise it will be a fact, the problem is when religious people start giving Him qualities which can't stand a simple reality check.

I recognize mine is more of a personal taste, but then if we all attempted to function just by pure scientific inquiry instead of sometimes trusting in belief and narratives society would simply stop working and I don't see most of you lasting a week in "the state of nature".

>>15015104
God defined in the Bible is the only major religion that doesn't ascribe any attributes to God that violates Aristotle's prime mover, midwit

>>15015528
>"nO eViDeNcE"
>literally all empirical evidence ever
meds, schizo
>which only exists mathematically
wrong, such objects are completely real, and you live in one
deal with it
>a picture that is cgi, which is not direct observational evidence
yeah, because clearly I provided that image as observational evidence
wait, I missed the part where I captioned the image "telescope observation of universe"
meds now, schizo
>the universe does not operate with mathematics
hilariously false, so wrong that you can't even begin to understand how wrong you are
the universe is absolutely a mathematical structure
in fact, it cannot be otherwise, because mathematics is simply a description of relations between various objects, and the universe is a nested and hierarchical set of objects, so it's impossible for it to be otherwise
>making up things does not make them real
exactly, so stop making up you "iNfInItE sPaCe" when it's clear that the universe, while unbounded, is still finite
>"there can't be anything outside of nothing, thus space is infinite"
>this fucking retard still doesn't understand that the exact same observation is true for a finite and unbounded space
it's all so tiresome
meds now, schizo

>>15015592
>still no evidence
Damn, you really are a loonie, aren't you?

>>15015595
literally every single piece of empirical evidence ever
and you don't even understand basic geometry
typical schizo
meds, right this moment

>>15011384
Why cant it be?
Much like this anon said.
>>15011550

Most of the calculations are done considering a flat universe, huge amounts of recalculations would have to be done in order to fine tune the physics concerned. And it seems to be necessary, as according to the latest data, there’s significantly more gravitational lensing of the CMB than expected, and this could be explained by inserting a positive curvature for the universe instead of a flat one.

>>15011364
It cannot be moved?
So god can't move it?
So god is not omnipotent because moving the rock is impossible for him.

What's hard to get?

>>15015489
>wants sources
>believes in god
hmmmmmmm

>>15015608
His premise is wrong. A rock that takes up infinite space mathematically can still be moved. See >>15013068

>>15015630
Doesn't matter either way.
Whichever he chooses (rock cannot be moved or god cannot create such a rock) leads to "god is not omnipotent", which is the point of the argument.

>>15015595
Okay man we get it. You're delusional and retarded. Seek actual help.

>>15015109
>science papers and textbooks which unambiguously disprove the existence of god
citations?

>>15015649
From the same journal that proves god exists

>>15011369
The rock is the same size as the universe, it doesn't matter how big the universe is because he could just make the rock as big as he needs to

>>15014225
>You cannot have any one thing that fills all of "space."
>because of meaningless pseudo-scientific bullshit
Sorry that you're so retarded you can't conceive of a big rock, faggot. We aren't all limited by the same extra chromosome you have

>>15014225
This is the wrong board to bring up Hegel retard, /x/ is that way ->

>>15015639
>(rock cannot be moved or god cannot create such a rock) leads to "god is not omnipotent",
that is just adding different false-premises. For instance, why can't God turn the immovable rock into a movable one? If you say "because then it doesn't match the definition of immovable" then you are a priori deciding God can't do something: make an immovable rock he can turn into a movable rock. Your hypothetical presents two scenarios that you have a prior decided God cannot do to.
Therefore, that hypothetical is invalid since the premises of both scenarios rely on the conclusion already being true: God being unable to do something. That is textbook begging the question.
>which is the point of the argument
His argument fell apart due to false premises. You're implying he's trying to "scientifically" create the omnipotence paradox, which is not an argument but a question. The omnipotence paradox relies on many baseless assumptions before it turns into a paradox, I just showed only one of many above.

>>15015649
Chris Langan

>>15014296
Can time exist without motion?
If something doesn't vibrate, is it outside of time?

>>15015709
>that is just adding different false-premises
You don't seem familiar with the argument

This is a question that has been around for a long time:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnipotence_paradox

>>15015754
>the argument
>This is a question
Questions are not arguments and the post directly mentioned the omnipotence paradox.
You should read past the first sentence before you respond