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

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

kennethamy
 
Reply Fri 4 Dec, 2009 01:41 am
@Mephistopheles phil,
1. If God can make a rock He cannot lift, then God is not omnipotent.
2. If God cannot make a rock He cannot lift, then God is not omnipotent.
3. Either God can make a rock He cannot lift, or God cannot make a rock He cannot lift.

Therefore, 4, God is not omnipotent. (From 1,2,3. Constructive Dilemma).
 
Emil
 
Reply Fri 4 Dec, 2009 01:47 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;108060 wrote:
1. If God can make a rock He cannot lift, then God is not omnipotent.
2. If God cannot make a rock He cannot lift, then God is not omnipotent.
3. Either God can make a rock He cannot lift, or God cannot make a rock He cannot lift.

Therefore, 4, God is not omnipotent. (From 1,2,3. Constructive Dilemma).


Sure. That's valid but unsound since (1) is false.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Fri 4 Dec, 2009 01:53 am
@Emil,
Emil;108061 wrote:
Sure. That's valid but unsound since (1) is false.


In any event, there is no fallacy. And the case can easily be put into logical form, since even I can do it.
 
Emil
 
Reply Fri 4 Dec, 2009 02:13 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;108062 wrote:
In any event, there is no fallacy. And the case can easily be put into logical form, since even I can do it.


The reason why many/some people think (1) is true is a modal fallacy, but not the modal fallacy. It's a confusion of actuality with possibility.

Read more about it here.
 
Krumple
 
Reply Fri 4 Dec, 2009 02:17 am
@Emil,
Emil;108050 wrote:
Of course you need to know logic to do this.


And the jokes just keep on coming... you should go standup.

Logical axioms are not really all that functional.

By the way the first premise that I was saying was false is the existence of god. You can write axioms all day long about the existence of god but they do nothing, absolutely nothing for any arguments made about god. So why use logical axioms?

does the flying pink elephant exist?

. existence does not require experience
. pink elephants have been experienced
. the flying pink elephant exists

for an axiom to be true, if premises A and B are both true then the conclusion is true. Of course you can not cheat the conclusion.
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Sun 6 Dec, 2009 09:12 pm
@Mephistopheles phil,
I vote that God can both create the rock AND then lift it. I'm joking but it seems to be the answer that shows Dad the respect he deserves. We shouldn't speak ill of the dead.
 
Krumple
 
Reply Sun 6 Dec, 2009 09:23 pm
@Reconstructo,
Reconstructo;108656 wrote:
I vote that God can both create the rock AND then lift it. I'm joking but it seems to be the answer that shows Dad the respect he deserves. We shouldn't speak ill of the dead.


Alright I might be nitpicking here but first you say you are joking then you say it is the answer that shows the respect deserved.

Why would you say joking then turn around and say it's the answer that shows respect?

Well why does "he" deserve any respect?

So this implies that the argument need not be true, but respect is more important than truth.
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Sun 6 Dec, 2009 09:45 pm
@Mephistopheles phil,
Man, you are taking me all too seriously. I find the paradox charming. I don't think there is a solution. It's a trick of language, smoke and mirrors. So I answered the question aesthetically.

God is an old friend I used to believe in. Lord Jesus, I sure would like to be God. I would punch out mountains. I would create a harem of billions. I would create smaller Gods I could fight with. They could also create worlds but not as good as mine.

If you don't see the playfulness in this post, I am forced to suspect you of crustiness.
 
Habek
 
Reply Fri 18 Dec, 2009 12:39 pm
@Reconstructo,
In my opinion, although I am an agnostic myself, the question is illogical and there is no real "dilemma".

If you say that god is the one that is able to do everything and you define "stone" and "lift" as a part of everything, that simply implies that that stone does not exist, for it contradicts it's own logical group("everything").

Therefore you ought to modify the question to find a solution to it.
 
mithukrishna
 
Reply Fri 18 Dec, 2009 12:41 pm
@Mephistopheles phil,
Hello Friends..

I am having trouble finding the answers of these questions about fallacies. Any one can help me to find out the fallacy involved in these questions then it will be appreciated.



Fallacy Identification.Identify the fallacy , if there is one, in each of the following arguments. Note: there needn't be a fallacy present.

The fallacies are AA=appeal to authority
AC=appeal to the crowd
AE=appeal to emotion
AF=appeal to force
AH=ad hominem
AI=appeal to ignorance
AM=ambiguous
BP=beside the point
BW=black and white
CI=circular
CQ=complex question
DC=division-composition
FS=false stereotype
GF=genetic fallacy
OP=opposition
PC=pro-con
PH=post hoc
SM=straw man


1.Drinking and smoking are not harmful for anyone. This is because Winston Churchill smoked cigars and drank whiskey every day, and he lived a long life.
2.Yogi Berra was a great baseball player, and he was Italian American. This means all Italian Americans are great baseball players.
3.Syracuse will win the basketball game today because coach Boeheim is wearing an orange tie. They always win when he wears his orange tie.
4.Bishop Berkeley's theory of metaphysical idealism must be false because he wasn't even an academic philosopher - he was a priest.
S.Venus is reported to have some irregular perturbations this month, and there is a lunar eclipse later this week. Therefore, people will be caused to act crazy this month.
6.The charges that I am guilty of extortion are patently false. Why do I think this? Because m; accusers are envious of my power and seek to defame my name!
7.Lion Forests, the bowler, claimed that there are objective moral truths. But this must be false because Forests is an acclaimed adulterer.
8.If you do not give me a 0 in this class so that I can pass it, then I will not graduate this semester. My family will be very disappointed in me, and I will have to explain to everyone why I am still attending this school. Hence, you should give me a D.
9.Manager to subordinate: "You should give me a good evaluation when the CEO comes and asks about my leadership in this company. If you don't then I will be sure to keep you from getting the raise you need to help pay for your wedding."
10.Martin Heidegger argued that Dasein is a Being that cares about its very Being. But, we can be sure that his argument is bad because he was a Nazi.
11.FOR should held responsible for Truman's dropping the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki because FOR was president before Truman, causing the latter to make those fateful decision in world history.
12.I can explain psychological illness: evil spirits are able to invade and possess people's mind: making people feel mentally ill and act unusually.
13.Every person I have met from Montana is a Republican; yep, all twenty of them are Republican. It's the darndest thing! All people from Montana must be Republican!
14.I can explain phsychological illeness; evil spirits are able to invade and posses peoples mind: making people feel mentally ill and act unusually.
15.Every Person I have met from Montana is Republican, yep all twenty of them are republican. It's the darndest thing! All people from Montana must be republican.
16.Capitalism attempts to suck out of the working class. Therefore, capitalism is bad.
 
Ichthus91
 
Reply Tue 29 Dec, 2009 05:13 pm
@Mephistopheles phil,
Can God make a rock which He can not lift?

Axioms:
A) God exists
B) God is omnipotent

Inferences:
If God can or cannot create a rock which He cannot lift, then either Axiom A or B is apparently incorrect. For if God is able to create the rock; He will limit his power in doing such. If God isn't able to create the rock then Axiom B is falsified.

In order for Axiom B to be correct; God must be able to do all i.e. create the rock which He cannot lift, create a rock and lift it (it is thus not defined as "rock which He cannot lift"), or not create the rock at all. Indeed Axiom B assumes all these things true. Thus, we can observe that the omnipotent God has a choice.

Observe that in the inferences I said "For if God is able to create the rock; He will limit his power in doing such". Notice now that the conclusion of the premise is in past tense. Axiom B says that God is omnipotent; not that He will always be. A possible rock which cannot be lifted doesn't nullify the fact that God was omnipotent in the moment at which we specified the axiom.

Now let us take the axiom "God was, is, and will always be omnipotent", a modification of Axiom B which we shall call Axiom C. Since God creating a rock which He is not able to lift would either reduce or nullify His omnipotence and we are considering Axiom C as fact; we can conclude that God never makes that choice although His omnipotence allows for the possibility. Remember that saying "will always be" is exclusively a prediction; not an observance.
 
cws910
 
Reply Sat 2 Jan, 2010 06:56 pm
@Mephistopheles phil,
Think of a paradox as a clash in logic that causes an endless cycle of contradictory statements. Because god is infinite, couldn't he "correctly" answer every section of this cycle by existing in infinitely many ways?
 
HexHammer
 
Reply Fri 12 Feb, 2010 09:34 am
@Mephistopheles phil,
 
Emil
 
Reply Fri 12 Feb, 2010 10:52 am
@HexHammer,
HexHammer;127456 wrote:


lift - Wiktionary
[INDENT]to lift (third-person singular simple present lifts, present participle lifting, simple past and past participle lifted)

  1. (transitive, intransitive) To raise.
  2. (transitive, slang) To steal.
  3. (transitive) To remove (a ban, restriction, etc.)

[/INDENT]
 
HexHammer
 
Reply Fri 12 Feb, 2010 11:20 am
@Emil,
Emil;127480 wrote:
lift - Wiktionary
[INDENT]to lift (third-person singular simple present lifts, present participle lifting, simple past and past participle lifted)

  1. (transitive, intransitive) To raise.
  2. (transitive, slang) To steal.
  3. (transitive) To remove (a ban, restriction, etc.)

[/INDENT]
Yes? Don't really see where it conflicts my statemen.
 
Emil
 
Reply Fri 12 Feb, 2010 12:16 pm
@HexHammer,
HexHammer;127498 wrote:
Yes? Don't really see where it conflicts my statemen.


I don't know if it does, but you say "define lift" and I provided you with a definition (not exactly the same as defining it but close enough for present purposes).
 
HexHammer
 
Reply Fri 12 Feb, 2010 12:24 pm
@Emil,
Emil;127541 wrote:
I don't know if it does, but you say "define lift" and I provided you with a definition (not exactly the same as defining it but close enough for present purposes).
Ah! Ok, thanks! ^^
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Mon 15 Feb, 2010 10:17 pm
@Protoman2050,
Protoman2050;19032 wrote:
Yes, God is restricted by logic.


This denies that possibility that the human mind is limited. Why should God be limited by what mere humans call logic? This is a projection of human mental limits on to God. Our concept of transcendence might also be a silly cartoon to a transcendent God.
 
ryancook
 
Reply Mon 15 Feb, 2010 11:05 pm
@Mephistopheles phil,
I'll take a stab...

Assuming that God exists and that logic exists externally (some philosophers have argued that logic is a result of how human brains perceive the world), and assuming that any proposition regarding the potentiality of an act by God is true, then we can conclude that God is able to create a rock that 1) He can lift, 2) He cannot lift. Simplified, we have concluded that TRUE = FALSE.

Furthermore:

1) If God transcends logic, then we are unable to understand or postulate what that conclusion means, and logical analysis stops there.

2) If God does NOT transcend logic, then that definition of God is illogical and a being of that nature cannot exist

3) A third possibility is that God exists, but is not omnipotent and does not transcend logic, and he can choose to make balls of any sort he prefers.

I welcome criticism, I'm sure this argument is not airtight.
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Mon 15 Feb, 2010 11:20 pm
@ryancook,
ryancook;128824 wrote:

1) If God transcends logic, then we are unable to understand or postulate what that conclusion means, and logical analysis stops there.

Good post.

We seem to be able to partially conceive of it. We know enough to say where we can't know. I admit it's a strange notion, the transcendence of logic.

We have the phrase "square circle." It's not meaningless. We know what the atoms mean. We just can't process the combination.

Have you ever read Flatland?
 
 

 
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 08/09/2020 at 09:20:53