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

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

Holiday20310401
 
Reply Sat 2 Aug, 2008 07:22 pm
@Aedes,
Aedes wrote:
Because life isn't binary,


But God isn't living.Laughing So that can't apply. Yes we may not be able to get to the heart of the issue, but it would a something to prove, not the truth of whether the cosmos were binary or not. Purely or partially. Although, I think that for something like God we should look at dimension, whether that will inevitably evoke a binaric system. But whatever.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Sat 2 Aug, 2008 08:04 pm
@Zetetic11235,
Zetetic11235 wrote:
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.


Even if I could prove it, you would say that I needed proof that the proof was correct. So, there is no way to win with you. As I said, faith is belief without support. But there is a lot of support for the proposition that logic is the best way to find the truth. Therefore, logic does not depend on faith. And that is a proof I just gave you.
 
Zetetic11235
 
Reply Sat 2 Aug, 2008 08:35 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy wrote:
Even if I could prove it, you would say that I needed proof that the proof was correct. So, there is no way to win with you. As I said, faith is belief without support. But there is a lot of support for the proposition that logic is the best way to find the truth. Therefore, logic does not depend on faith. And that is a proof I just gave you.

From Merriam Webster
Faith:
2 a (1): belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2): belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1): firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2): complete trust

You can drum up support or evidence for anything, it will never constitute a proof as long as it allows for reality to falsify it, which it must since it concerns reality. There is a lot of evidence to support anything as long as you exclude the evidence which does not support it. As with the scientific method, a non existence of antithetical evidence does not constitute a proof, it is still falsifiable.

It is easy to win with me:either prove me wrong or admit you either do not know or that you are wrong.Very Happy
 
nerdfiles
 
Reply Mon 2 Mar, 2009 10:53 am
@Mephistopheles phil,
The question is meaningless. It has no truth-conditions that we have epistemic access to. The common way to go about answering it is to assume that "to make," "to lift," have their customary sense while "God" has a customary sense. But God doesn't. It's a technical term that requires elucidation before one can answer the question adequately. Thus, it depends on how you define God, and since the new term is being predicated with properties, one must shift or redfine the meaning of the terms taken to have their customary sense. They must now have a new technical sense.

If I say "The dog told me where to save Timmy" this isn't just like "Bob told me where I could find my wallet."

Obviously "Bob" and "The dog" are categorically different names (they're different species, for one). Thus, in the former "told" takes on a technical sense or has, at least, an idiosyncratic sense with respect to the latter sentence. So whereas the latter is self-evident what it looks like for one person to tell another person something, it is not as self-evident what it looks like for a dog to "tell" a person something.

By analogy, it requires clarification of what the definition of "to lift", etc are supposed to mean when predicated of a thing like God. If you define God as "just another human being" then you can answer the particular question. Namely, yes, he can. Answering this question is quite easy. The hard part is the conceptual commitments you make by defining such a term (God) in such a way, for your conceptual commitments within the context of that question are typically (by clever atheists, etc) taken to hold for the span of the responder's other beliefs.

But nothing says that the responder must be consistent with one question. I could easily define God as such for that question just to answer it. I could also just as easily ask, "How is it relevant how I answer the question? How is the conclusion, whatever it is, relevant to the rest of my other beliefs? Show me that first."

And I'm serious about that. We can play logic games like this, in an attempt to be clever or intellectual, but perhaps we should understand why we play these games in the first place and whether they (as language games) relate to the other language games we play (such as going to church, praying, giving religious guide, moral guidance, etc).
 
evangelion
 
Reply Thu 19 Mar, 2009 04:29 am
@Mephistopheles phil,
Mephistopheles;16334 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.

i dont know if this was already said (too lazy to read all the posts)
this question can be translated to : what will happen if an irrestible force meet an unmovable object which it can be translated mathematicaly to what is the solution of (+inf)-(+inf)=? this an inedetermintaded equation becouse it have one soulution (first degree equation) but this solution can have an infinity of values it can be 0,1,2...+inf,or-inf it can be any value , therfore God can simply create infinty of reality in each reality this equartion would have a determined value

this solution was presented by Dr hawking to solve the paradox of the black holes and i thought that it may work to solve this paradox
but of course God would have a way sampler solution to this paradox than this one but it is a solution
 
HexHammer
 
Reply Tue 31 Mar, 2009 11:47 pm
@Mephistopheles phil,
Sorry for not reading the entire thread, but here's my bid on the wheel.

If god can manipulate quantum, thereby reverse the weak dorment magnetism he can make the objects repulse eachother, thus lift any sized rock.
 
Ichthus91
 
Reply Wed 1 Apr, 2009 08:18 pm
@Mephistopheles phil,
That question is based on the fact that God is omnipotent. Indeed, he is. The question presents the idea that if God is omnipotent then he can create a rock so big that he can't pick it up. However, if he is omnipotent then he must also be able to pick up this rock. Therefore, either answer leads to the idea that God is not omnipotent (atheists often jump to the conclusion that God mustn't exist because of this).

However, there is a vital piece of information missing here. That is that God's omnipotence is not independent of His nature. Rather, It's part of His nature. God has a nature and His attributes operate within that nature, as does anything with a nature (like human nature). Omnipotence, then, must be consistent with what He is and not with what He is not since His omnipotence is not an entity to itself. Therefore, God can only do the things that are consistent with His nature. An example of this, is the fact that God cannot lie. His nature simply doesn't permit it.
 
HexHammer
 
Reply Fri 3 Apr, 2009 03:25 pm
@Ichthus91,
Ichthus91 wrote:
That question is based on the fact that God is omnipotent. Indeed, he is. The question presents the idea that if God is omnipotent then he can create a rock so big that he can't pick it up. However, if he is omnipotent then he must also be able to pick up this rock. Therefore, either answer leads to the idea that God is not omnipotent (atheists often jump to the conclusion that God mustn't exist because of this).

Don't see how it's a fact that god is omnipotent, less that ominipotence has anything to with subject at hand.
Are construction workers also omnipotent when they create massive structures?
 
Ichthus91
 
Reply Sat 4 Apr, 2009 01:21 am
@HexHammer,
HexHammer;56567 wrote:
Don't see how it's a fact that god is omnipotent, less that ominipotence has anything to with subject at hand.
Are construction workers also omnipotent when they create massive structures?


I was implying that this is a question that atheists try to use to prove to others, who take the bible as infallible truth, that God doesn't exist. The bible is what tells of God's omnipotence.
 
HexHammer
 
Reply Sat 4 Apr, 2009 12:16 pm
@Mephistopheles phil,
I'm afraid talking about omnipotence is sidetracking the subject at hand.

In the term "lifting" it has to be "moving" an object away from another, thereby a rock can't take be infinitivly big per se, it has to share the universe with another object that is significantly in size, else the term "lift" will fail.

But the lifting in itself, can't yet be determined since we don't know all the possible ways of doing that trick.

Inspired by myself, I had a huge piece of rock in my backyard, my dad cursed it as the lawnmower often would hit the tiny tip it had above ground. He had tryed to get rid of it, but it was to huge to lift and said it couldn't be done, a large crane had to move it, but a crane wouldn't be able to reach it for house or garden, so it stayed in place.
When I grew older it found out a simple way to lift it up and move it.

First digging a trench around it, then useing wooden polese to gently rock it from side to side filling a bit of dirt under it.

As of moving the rock over ground, big plywood plates were used putting wooden rollers between rock and plywood, then again useing wooden poles to move it.


There are often simple solutions to big problems, it's often just us who are too narrowminded to see what can be done.
 
nerdfiles
 
Reply Sat 4 Apr, 2009 12:19 pm
@Mephistopheles phil,
The right answer is: "Yes. And he can lift it too."

---------- Post added at 01:22 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:19 PM ----------

Quote:
Then logically prove that logic is the correct method of attaining truth.


Logic is about structure and form. It is not and never has or could be "a correct method of attaining truth."
 
YumClock
 
Reply Tue 21 Apr, 2009 10:57 pm
@Mephistopheles phil,
Have god make a creature that can lift the rock he cannot lift. Or, at least, make himself too weak to carry a simple rock, and force a person to lift it.

Therefore, he has the power to lift it, but cannot lift it himself.
 
Riordan
 
Reply Mon 11 May, 2009 05:45 pm
@nerdfiles,
Making a logical judgment about God, if there were to be one, would be to project the properties of our universe unto him. I was to understand 'he' is boundless and not subject to our understanding.

I believe that you can logically prove that God doesn't exist inside our universe. This isn't hard to do.
 
NCBrianS
 
Reply Sat 23 May, 2009 04:27 am
@Mephistopheles phil,
"A common scenario is thus: can God make a rock not even he can lift?"

There are two answers to this, and in either case, God is not an omnipotent being. God either:

1) Can make a rock that he can not lift, which negates any assertion that he is omnipotent, since he can not lift the rock.

2) Can not make a rock that he can not lift. Which also means that God is not omnipotent, since he can not make a rock which he can not lift.

For any sort of reference I do consider my self to be an atheist and I do not utilize the lack of any god's omnipotence ( I assume we are referring to the God of the three Abrahamic religions) to be justification for my philosophy. I'm not sure if this bares any relevance or not, but I wanted to put it out there.
 
Inquisition
 
Reply Thu 3 Dec, 2009 08:32 pm
@nameless,
I would like to point out that most christian theologians subscribe to a different definition of omnipotence than most church going christians, atheist and all people would think.

Basicly there are two views of omnipotence, each which has different implications further down the road.

These are as follows:

First view of omnipotence: God can bring about any state of affairs, including those contrary to logic.

Second view of Omnipotence: God can bring about any possible state of affairs, but cannot do what is logically impossible.

Most (educated) theists hold to the second view. Why? because some problematic implications arise if they hold to the first view (none of which are helpfull to one's argument). These are:

We would not be able to trust god: if god is above logic, he can lie and tell the truth at the same time.

Go and moral goodness: if god is above logic, the he can do evil and be righteous at the same time.

These implications would make most religions fall apart. Why would you want to beleive in a god who doesn't stick to his word, who could be anything at anytime. Including not exist.

So it is abvious we should adopt the second view of omnipotence for the sake of this argument in this thread. Otherwise we will argue in circles.

---------- Post added 12-03-2009 at 09:36 PM ----------

also i would like to point out to all those that say that are saying God is beyond our understanding that:

It is a fine argument but you must stick with it.

Likewise you cannot say god is above our understanding while still speaking of god, because that would be illogical. You cannot say he is infite and boundless while still mantaining that everyone else in this thread cannot hope to understand him, because that would imply you don't either and your argument would be null.
 
IntoTheLight
 
Reply Thu 3 Dec, 2009 09:43 pm
@Inquisition,
Inquisition;107991 wrote:

First view of omnipotence: God can bring about any state of affairs, including those contrary to logic.

Second view of Omnipotence: God can bring about any possible state of affairs, but cannot do what is logically impossible.

Most (educated) theists hold to the second view. Why? because some problematic implications arise if they hold to the first view (none of which are helpfull to one's argument). These are:

We would not be able to trust god: if god is above logic, he can lie and tell the truth at the same time.

Go and moral goodness: if god is above logic, the he can do evil and be righteous at the same time.

These implications would make most religions fall apart. Why would you want to beleive in a god who doesn't stick to his word, who could be anything at anytime. Including not exist.


If there is a limitation on "omnipotence", then logically it is not omnipotence.

If you want to argue that God is not omnipotent, then do so. But stating that God is omnipotent, but still limited to human constucts (eg. logic) is stating that God is both A and Not A at the same time.

That's a contradiction in terms. So much for your "logical" argument.
 
Krumple
 
Reply Thu 3 Dec, 2009 10:40 pm
@IntoTheLight,
IntoTheLight;108013 wrote:
If there is a limitation on "omnipotence", then logically it is not omnipotence.

If you want to argue that God is not omnipotent, then do so. But stating that God is omnipotent, but still limited to human constucts (eg. logic) is stating that God is both A and Not A at the same time.

That's a contradiction in terms. So much for your "logical" argument.


You ignore the question, which isn't even a logic question.

If god is omnipotent then he should be able to create a clone of himself and arm wrestle his clone. But which would win? It is not a question based in logic nor is it referencing any logic argument. What it is purely doing is pointing out that the only place omnipotence exists is in our imagination.
 
Emil
 
Reply Thu 3 Dec, 2009 11:40 pm
@IntoTheLight,
IntoTheLight;108013 wrote:
If there is a limitation on "omnipotence", then logically it is not omnipotence.

If you want to argue that God is not omnipotent, then do so. But stating that God is omnipotent, but still limited to human constucts (eg. logic) is stating that God is both A and Not A at the same time.

That's a contradiction in terms. So much for your "logical" argument.


Obviously there are more than one sense of omnipotent. One of them is unrestricted omnipotence (god can do any action). Another is logical omnipotence (god can do logically possible action).

---------- Post added 12-04-2009 at 06:42 AM ----------

Krumple;108033 wrote:
You ignore the question, which isn't even a logic question.

If god is omnipotent then he should be able to create a clone of himself and arm wrestle his clone. But which would win? It is not a question based in logic nor is it referencing any logic argument. What it is purely doing is pointing out that the only place omnipotence exists is in our imagination.


One can only say that you have not shown that. Disproving omnipotence is not that easy. Try writing out the argument in complete form.
 
Krumple
 
Reply Thu 3 Dec, 2009 11:48 pm
@Emil,
Emil;108046 wrote:
One can only say that you have not shown that. Disproving omnipotence is not that easy. Try writing out the argument in complete form.


This is a joke right? Because the first premise is false, so I couldn't even complete the argument.
 
Emil
 
Reply Thu 3 Dec, 2009 11:53 pm
@Krumple,
Krumple;108049 wrote:
This is a joke right? Because the first premise is false, so I couldn't even complete the argument.


It is not a joke. Present your argument against omnipotence in complete form. That way it is much easier to notice fallacies, if there are any. Of course you need to know logic to do this.
 
 

 
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.02 seconds on 08/15/2020 at 02:48:56