J
Jonesboy
Guest
I’m alluding to the difference between a weight that cannot be lifted - which is fine with me, to a weight that necessarily cannot be lifted.Maybe you missed my post addressing this, because it was at the end of a page:
*
This thread keeps revolving around this statement. The above statement, which I have quoted, is false. Saying “there is a weight which cannot be lifted” is a completely* coherent and logical statement. I do not know why you think otherwise. Where did you hear that weights have to be liftable or moveable to be considered a weight? It is not true. I would like to know your source.
For example, think of a back hole. For all we know, a back hole is Infinitely dense…its the mass of an entire star (or solar system) condensed into a single point. It’s mass (and weight ) is so great, it cannot be lifted. There no means by which a human person can lift such a weight…even with any present or conceivable future technology. It is a weight that cannot be lifted. Why doesn’t this make sense to you?Weights can and do exist that cannot be lifted.
It is a contradiction to say that God can make a weight that he cannot lift, as weights are finite objects, and God is not a finite object among other finite objects.
But then if you get around it by saying that, given God is not a finite object, then the weight is accordingly, necessarily unliftable, then we are being asked to imagine a weight that isn’t applicable to a finite object. Now that idea is incoherent.
A black hole has finite mass, as do all masses in our universe. A weight that is necessarilly unmoveable isn’t a weight, but some other entity, like a colour.