Fallacy of "can God make a rock not even he can lift?"

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

Protoman2050
 
Reply Sun 20 Jul, 2008 06:48 pm
@Mephistopheles phil,
Mephistopheles wrote:
First off, I just want to say this is the first subforum I've been browsing around in since I joined here, and I'm absolutely astounded by the intelligence of people here. I am honestly impressed. I have been to many forums and I haven't found anything with such high quality.

That being said, the highest mathematics course I've taken is trigonometry/algebra II. I also don't know if this has been said before. But I do have a grasp of basic logic to make the following assertion:

A common scenario is thus: can God make a rock not even he can lift?

There's two conclusions I've come to. One, ∞<x =/=. Nothing can exceed infinity by the very nature of infinity. Thus, this question is invalid because it uses illogic to try to come to a "logical" conclusion which obviously means the whole scenario is corrupt. However, the second simultaneous conclusion is that indeed, if there is a God, he has limitations. Personally I'm an atheist, but it's still something to consider.

Assuming reality is material.

Just thought this might interest some of you.


God cannot, b/c He is not omnipotent, ie can do anything. Rather, God is maximally powerful, ie can do anything that can be done. God cannot create square circles, make 2+2=5, etc. Your question pits His power against itself, and it is a fallacy. I believe someone else w/ a greater grasp of theology and philosophy than mine can explain this better.
 
Holiday20310401
 
Reply Sun 20 Jul, 2008 07:22 pm
@Protoman2050,
Protoman, You are specifying that God is restricted by logical possibilities.

Irrationality cannot construe with God nor therefore God's will, just as God's will must be morally equitable, and rational. However, being that God is omnipotent I don't see how its possible to have a most rational action out of possibilities for a given cause. God would not have a cause. God is not a conclusion nor can it be discerned by any premises to make it real because anything real is a figment of something that can't be perfect.

So not only can God not create square circles, but God can't create, and doesn't really have a purpose when defined as 'perfection'. So God is not real.

But one can say that God only exists through an unbiased take on it, being that rationality itself must not equate to its being, (my opinion, so if it stinks tell me). So either God is everything or God is nothing, or God is singular so as to not allow itself to have relative perspectives, or perceptions to be compared to. So God can be a product of introspect.

But what is the use anymore of trying to define what makes God, when God is imply whatever you want it to be because it can only exist fundamentally, or rather, God does not essentially exist.
 
Protoman2050
 
Reply Sun 20 Jul, 2008 07:31 pm
@Holiday20310401,
Holiday20310401 wrote:
Protoman, You are specifying that God is restricted by logical possibilities.

Irrationality cannot construe with God nor therefore God's will, just as God's will must be morally equitable, and rational. However, being that God is omnipotent I don't see how its possible to have a most rational action out of possibilities for a given cause. God would not have a cause. God is not a conclusion nor can it be discerned by any premises to make it real because anything real is a figment of something that can't be perfect.

So not only can God not create square circles, but God can't create, and doesn't really have a purpose when defined as 'perfection'. So God is not real.

But one can say that God only exists through an unbiased take on it, being that rationality itself must not equate to its being, (my opinion, so if it stinks tell me). So either God is everything or God is nothing, or God is singular so as to not allow itself to have relative perspectives, or perceptions to be compared to. So God can be a product of introspect.

But what is the use anymore of trying to define what makes God, when God is imply whatever you want it to be because it can only exist fundamentally, or rather, God does not essentially exist.


Yes, God is restricted by logic. Creation ex nihilo is not illogical. And God's purpose is not perfection --how is that a purpose, anyway?!--, it is to create and maintain this universe; actually a self-existent being cannot have a purpose, b/c that would imply a cause, and self-exist beings ipso facto do not have causes.

Would anyone else like attack or defend me and the existence and attributes of God?
 
Holiday20310401
 
Reply Sun 20 Jul, 2008 07:54 pm
@Protoman2050,
God's not about perfection, but about striving for perfection, thats my view on life, so my view on God if it were to every symbolize a purpose for the least.

Perfection is not a purpose because something that is perfect can't exist, some may not agree with that, but it is true. That's something I want to here a counter to.

God does not maintain the universe, why should it when it would know how to abandon it?

Perhaps cause and effect are non-negotiable with God, because I doubt the self-existent being would have cause and effect placed upon itself, cause and effect implies that there is imperfection, sort of, being also that free will as Boagie views it, is non-existent with reactions. God would have created a reality for perception of cause and effect I think, and thus implying that whatever created God was by randomness, but thats simply absurd so God must have either always existed or doesn't exist.

I did not say that God's purpose was for perfection, simply that people view it to be of that nature, which is believing in something false to their own nature, which God would not choose for you to ignore in your quest for God.
 
nameless
 
Reply Mon 21 Jul, 2008 03:17 am
@Protoman2050,
Protoman2050;19032 wrote:
...attack or defend me and the existence and attributes of God

Are you identifying yourself, somehow, with the "existence and attributes of God", that you would consider a 'difference of opinion/Perspective' on this 'god' as a 'personal attack'? (common egoic identification with the object of a 'belief'?)

Isn't 'existence' also considered 'creation' (by most of the 'goddists')? If so, therefore, the 'Creator' cannot be 'demoted' to the 'Creation'. From that Perspective, anyway, 'god' cannot 'exist' (in the duality/context that is necessary for 'existence')...

'God' has no attributes but in ignorant people's minds, who 'create 'it' in their own egoic image. Giving a 'god', such as the Judeo/Xtian version, 'attributes' is considered 'idolatry', an 'image' on the altar of your mind (even if nowhere else).

(I'm neither 'attacking or defending' your 'opinions', I'm offering food for thought.)
 
midas77
 
Reply Mon 21 Jul, 2008 03:34 am
@Holiday20310401,
Quote:

Perhaps cause and effect are non-negotiable with God, because I doubt the self-existent being would have cause and effect placed upon itself, cause and effect implies that there is imperfection.


Cause and effect relationship requires a relation of perfection and imperfection. Perfection on the part of cause and imperfection on the the part of the effect. The existence of the cause must not be derived from the existence of the effect. If in ways an effect is imperfect it does not mean that the cause suffers from the same imperfection.
 
Holiday20310401
 
Reply Mon 21 Jul, 2008 12:07 pm
@midas77,
I am obviously not stating that I am God, lol. I just wouldn't believe in the God other people have thought of it as, so I rationalize or at least view it under my perspective.
 
Aedes
 
Reply Sun 27 Jul, 2008 09:02 pm
@midas77,
midas77 wrote:
Cause and effect relationship requires a relation of perfection and imperfection.
If I have a perfect square and I cut it in half, I will have two perfect right triangles.
 
socrato
 
Reply Sun 27 Jul, 2008 09:38 pm
@Mephistopheles phil,
Mephistopheles wrote:
can God make a rock not even he can lift?

There's two conclusions I've come to. One, ∞<x =/=. Nothing can exceed infinity by the very nature of infinity. Thus, this question is invalid because it uses illogic to try to come to a "logical" conclusion which obviously means the whole scenario is corrupt. However, the second simultaneous conclusion is that indeed, if there is a God, he has limitations. Personally I'm an atheist, but it's still something to consider.



God can do anything! So he, oh I get it now. I asked the paster this question and he says why would God want to. He enver answers my questions with a yes or no answer.
 
Aedes
 
Reply Sun 27 Jul, 2008 09:46 pm
@socrato,
socrato wrote:
He enver answers my questions with a yes or no answer.
When it comes down to it, how many questions really are as simple as a yes/no answer?
 
socrato
 
Reply Sun 27 Jul, 2008 09:53 pm
@Aedes,
Why can't anythingbe broken down to yes or no?
 
Aedes
 
Reply Sun 27 Jul, 2008 10:05 pm
@socrato,
Because life isn't binary, and yes/no questions don't always get to the heart of an issue. Consider the question "Is it permissible to end the life of another human being? YES or NO?" Well, this isn't a yes-no question -- it requires context. Taking another person's life is generally considered ok in the context of self-defense, or war, or perhaps capital punishment. So you cannot flat out say NO. But you can't universally answer the question YES, lest you make it permissible all of the time.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Mon 28 Jul, 2008 06:13 am
@socrato,
socrato wrote:
Why can't anythingbe broken down to yes or no?


But some things can be answered yes or no. And some things cannot. And, of course, even when the answer is either yes or no, you often have to explain and qualify the answer.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Mon 28 Jul, 2008 06:20 am
@socrato,
socrato wrote:
God can do anything!


God can do anything that can be done. But, since some things cannot be done, no one, including God, can do them. So we have to determine whether what we are asking about is a possible action. Only possible actions can be done. Impossible actions (like doing what is self-contradictory) cannot be done-not even by God, since they are not really actions at all.
 
midas77
 
Reply Mon 28 Jul, 2008 06:28 am
@Aedes,
Aedes wrote:
If I have a perfect square and I cut it in half, I will have two perfect right triangles.

If you have a perfect hand, that will be perfect... So what's the question aedes in your post?
 
Aedes
 
Reply Mon 28 Jul, 2008 12:26 pm
@midas77,
midas77 wrote:
If you have a perfect hand, that will be perfect... So what's the question aedes in your post?
I objected to the idea that change involved a relationship of perfection and imperfection.
 
midas77
 
Reply Mon 28 Jul, 2008 06:23 pm
@Aedes,
[quote=Aedes]I objected to the idea that change involved a relationship of perfection and imperfection.[/quote]

I did not say change Aedes, I said cause and effect relation. But i get the point since change involves cause and effect relation.

[quote=Aedes]
If I have a perfect square and I cut it in half, I will have two perfect right triangles.[/quote]

The relation of the perfect square to the two perfect right triangle is a relation of the whole (the square) to the part (the two triangle). The part is imperfect in relation to the whole, the part being only part of the whole. The triangle lacks the perfection of dimension (measurable quantity) of the square. The perfection of the triangle is derived from the perfection of the square. If the square is askew the triangle will also be askew.
I suggested that if you have a perfect hand because if your hand is not perfect it will be impossible for you to cut a perfect right triangle, your knife too must be perfectly razor sharp.
 
Zetetic11235
 
Reply Sat 2 Aug, 2008 01:03 am
@midas77,
Platonic solids do not exist materially as nothing follows the criteria for smothness and mathematical density/continuity. Discrete units of matter prevent it.
What is denoted by the geometric names is a rule set by which the shape can be inductively approximated but the approximations run asymptotic to absolute adherence to the rule set.

Also, god defines what is possible by definition, does god not? Stop personifying god as though god were necessarily human. If god were understandable by humans god would be limited by human limitations, which god created. God could only be self limiting and thus not limited should god be the creator. God must not be understandable by humans to fit the parameters given to god as the creator. I object to using pronouns in reference to god as god is not an entity with universal identity.

If you believe in god, you must not speak of god but see god in god's works or contemplate silently upon god. I cannot refute god through logic, even if I could, logic requires a leap of faith to accept, and thus I must disprove god only to myself by my own faith in god's nonexistence.

Man is not a beast of logic nor reason, but a beast of faith or instinct. A skeptic cannot use logic witout conceeding that faith must be had in the process to find value in its outcome; and I have my faith in reason, but only for reason to achieve what it might, only to place a measure on that with which I interact. Simply because it has been the case that things are the way they are and never have been different by my knowledge does not exclude any possibility of change. The change may currently be inconcievable, however it was only recently that man has adopted reason in lieu of shamanism, the right brain gave way to the left.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Sat 2 Aug, 2008 09:35 am
@Zetetic11235,
Zetetic11235 wrote:
If you believe in god, you must not speak of god but see god in god's works or contemplate silently upon god. I cannot refute god through logic, even if I could, logic requires a leap of faith to accept, and thus I must disprove god only to myself by my own faith in god's nonexistence.

.


But faith is belief without support for the belief, or very little support. On the other hand, we have a great deal of reason to think that logic is the best way to attain truth. So, logic does not, so far as I can see, require a leap of faith.
 
Zetetic11235
 
Reply Sat 2 Aug, 2008 07:04 pm
@kennethamy,
Then logically prove that logic is the correct method of attaining truth. If you can't do that, you can't say logic requires no faith.
 
 

 
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.02 seconds on 08/09/2020 at 08:53:40