Answer to Paradox of Stone

[9-10ths_Penguin]

A nonsensical question. If God wills something thwarted, then that is his will. If he doesn't will it thwarted, whence the thwarting action? Can God's will be not his will?

So you're assuming that all of God's desires/intents/etc. must all necessarily be aligned with each other?

Simplified, omnipotence demands A = ¬A to retain coherence, and if the law of identity can be broken, so all logic follows. There are two ways to address this, either you submit omnipotence to logic, which means that logic is most superior, or logic is contingent. I argue the latter.

Having conflicting desires doesn't break any laws of logic.

 

[LuisDantas]

Isn't this so-called paradox an illustration of the contradictions of some conceptions of deity?

What alternate uses do people see to it?

 

[Darryl Lankford]

So you're assuming that all of God's desires/intents/etc. must all necessarily be aligned with each other? Having conflicting desires doesn't break any laws of logic.

...God's desiring that His creations possess free will while also desiring they submit to His will could be considered "conflicting desires." Whether this is logical is arguable. Spiritual logic says that it is. Pure logic would say that it is not.

It is "spiritually logical" that free will in combination with God's desire that his creations "submit to His will" merely represents a more justified version of "submitting to God's will." However, "pure logic" would show that a desire for maintaining a perfect order of things along with allowing for random occurrence as being illogical.

Logical or not, in the end, "submission by choice" trumps "submission by design."

 

[Thief]

...God's desiring that His creations possess free will while also desiring they submit to His will could be considered "conflicting desires." Whether this is logical is arguable. Spiritual logic says that it is. Pure logic would say that it is not.

It is "spiritually logical" that free will in combination with God's desire that his creations "submit to His will" merely represents a more justified version of "submitting to God's will." However, "pure logic" would show that a desire for maintaining a perfect order of things along with allowing for random occurrence as being illogical.

Logical or not, in the end, "submission by choice" trumps "submission by design."

freewill is required

see yourself as the First...in mind and heart
and there is substance all around you....by your will

the universe responds to your touch and to your voice
but it does not really.....respond

for a response to be other than your Echo.....
you need to form (of substance and spirit) a situation such as ours

turn Man loose to learn what he will
and then choose the ones you like

the rest may burn in hell

 

[McBell]

All that is required out of me is an
"answer." The Circular God Counter-paradox delivers the required answer no matter how or why it was designed.

Yet you have not provided an answer to the paradox in question.

You changed the paradox in order for your "answer" to work.

...The fact stands right now that the Paradox of the Stone has been completely negated.

You must have a rather Humpty Dumpty definition of the word "fact".

If it hasn't been you would have demonstrated so by now. What remains unseen is if you ever find a way to negate the Circular God Counter-paradox response. Then it would be a different story. But until that time happens...................... It remains as fact!

Your "response doe snot do what you claim it does and thus can be dismissed as the wishful thinking it is.

...God is able to thwart his will and not thwart His will at the exact same moment

B old empty claim

-- unless, of course, you are able to specifically show otherwise????

you made the bold empty claim.
It is on YOU to support said claim.
Until such time as you can support your claim, your claim can be dismissed as the wishful thinking you presented it as.

Can you demonstrate otherwise?

No need to demonstrate otherwise.
You have not done anything to support your bold empty claim.

 

[Darryl Lankford]

Yet you have not provided an answer to the paradox in question.

...You cannot simply state this without providing proof / support of your claim. Since the Circular God Counter-paradox now exists, YOU now become the one who is required to demonstrate where it has failed to meet the requirements stated in the Stone Paradox.

You changed the paradox in order for your "answer" to work.

...No alterations to the Stone paradox have been made and only the specific items stated within the Stone Paradox were used within the design this counter-paradoxical solution. This is clearly stated at the 2:45 mark in the CGCP video clip.

You must have a rather Humpty Dumpty definition of the word "fact".

...Demonstrate where what I have claimed is not factual.

Your "response doe snot do what you claim it does and thus can be dismissed as the wishful thinking it is.

...Again, you are required to demonstrate where the Circular God Counter Paradox has failed to nullify the paradox of the Stone. If you are unable to do so, then your claim is rendered invalid and the counter-paradoxical solution still stands as the answer.

Bold empty claim. you made the bold empty claim.It is on YOU to support said claim.
Until such time as you can support your claim, your claim can be dismissed as the wishful thinking you presented it as.

...I have provided an answer. An answer is not an "empty claim." My answer has all of the support material included within to show its validity. Since this answer is now present and available for peer scrutiny, it is now up to YOU to show where the Stone Paradox has not been nullified.

No need to demonstrate otherwise. You have not done anything to support your bold empty claim.

...Every element of the Circular God Counter-paradox is fully supported. If you perceive a lack of support, then demonstrate where this "lack of support" exists.

Until you are able to specifically demonstrate where the Circular God Counter-paradox has failed to nullify the Stone paradox, then this answer serves as a completely viable resolution to the Stone Paradox.

If my claim is empty, then you should have no difficulty at all in clearly showing where it has failed to meet the challenge specified within the Stone Paradox.

......................Right?

 

[Mister Emu]

So you're assuming that all of God's desires/intents/etc. must all necessarily be aligned with each other?

If we were merely speaking of conflicting desires it wouldn't be a paradox. It isn't a paradox to say a stone is unliftable because God's desire for it to be so is the greater.

 

[McBell]

Since the Circular God Counter-paradox now exists,

Calling a tail a leg does not make a tail a leg.
Nice try though.

YOU now become the one who is required to demonstrate where it has failed to meet the requirements stated in the Stone Paradox.

It has already been pointed out in this very thread more than once.
Your refusal to see it is on you, not any one else.

...I have provided an answer. An answer is not an "empty claim." My answer has all of the support material included within to show its validity. Since this answer is now present and available for peer scrutiny, it is now up to YOU to show where the Stone Paradox has not been nullified.

You offer up a "reply" that does not answer anything but instead diverts attention from the meat of the paradox by focussing attention on a tangent.
This is what I believe is called a strawman.
Your jumping up and down screaming everyone is wrong and you are right does nothing to help your "argument"

Until you are able to specifically demonstrate where the Circular God Counter-paradox has failed to nullify the Stone paradox, then this answer serves as a completely viable resolution to the Stone Paradox.

If my claim is empty, then you should have no difficulty at all in clearly showing where it has failed to meet the challenge specified within the Stone Paradox.

......................Right?

Your empty claims are empty claims because they are empty claims.
Matter not one bit how much puffery, window dressing, fluffy bunny nonsense you ad to divert from the fact that you hav ebeen shown over and over in this very thread.

Now since it is extremely difficult to take you seriously....
Have a nice day.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If we were merely speaking of conflicting desires it wouldn't be a paradox. It isn't a paradox to say a stone is unliftable because God's desire for it to be so is the greater.

The whole thing is about conflicting desires. If God's desire to lift the stone loses because it's thwarted by God's desire for it to be unliftable, then one of God's desires is left unfulfilled.

God wanted something to happen but was prevented from having it happen. This implies that God is less than perfectly omnipotent. The fact that it was God himself who thwarted God's will doesn't change the fact that God's will has been thwarted.

 

[Darryl Lankford]

Calling a tail a leg does not make a tail a leg.
Nice try though.

...Absolutely meaningless.

First off, I want to help you understand the difference between a baseless statement and a statement with a basis:

BASELESS VS BASIS - EXAMPLE #1:

Einstein: "The curvature of space-time is directly determined by the distribution of matter and energy contained within it."

Science: "Prove it."

Einstein: "I don't have to. ...It just is!"

-- Here is the same example, but with a supplied basis:

Einstein: "The curvature of space-time is directly determined by the distribution of matter and energy contained within it. ."

Science: "Prove it."

Einstein: "Okay, it's called the Theory of General Relativity, and here's how it works ...(explanation)"

BASELESS VS BASIS - EXAMPLE #2:

Lankford: "God can lift a rock and not lift a rock at the exact same moment."

Mestemia: "Prove it."

Lankford: "I don't have to. ...He just can!"

-- Here is the same example, but with a supplied basis:

Lankford: "God can lift a rock and not lift a rock at the exact same moment."

Mestemia: "Prove it."

Lankford: "Okay, it's called the Circular God Counter-paradox, and here it how it works ...(explanation)."

BASELESS VS BASIS - EXAMPLE #3:

Mestemia: "The Circular God Counter paradox does not answer the paradox of the Stone."

Lankford: "Prove it."

Mestemia: "I don't have to. ...It just doesn't!"

-- Here is the same example, but with a supplied basis:

Mestemia: "The Circular God Counter paradox does not answer the paradox of the Stone."

Lankford: "Prove it."

Mestemia: (???)

...Where is your counter argument with a supplied basis?

Since the majority of your response represents a meaningless tirade of emotionally-based prose, I will focus on your following quote as this represents the closest you've managed to come in offering a counter-argument.

You offer up a "reply" that does not answer anything but instead diverts attention from the meat of the paradox by focussing attention on a tangent.
This is what I believe is called a strawman.
Your jumping up and down screaming everyone is wrong and you are right does nothing to help your "argument"

...The Stone Paradox is a question which asks, "Can God create a rock so heavy that He cannot lift it?" If I am able to provide a clear and direct answer to this question, then this does not represent a Strawman Fallacy:

Strawman Fallacy Example #1:

Person 1: makes claim Y.

Person 2: restates person 1’s claim (in a distorted way).

Person 2: attacks the distorted version of the claim.
Therefore, claim Y is false.

The (((ONLY WAY))) a strawman argument can come into play is if I refuse to directly answer the Stone Paradox question and instead choose to argue against the merits of the question (just as Thomas Aquinas, Alvin Plantinga, Rene Descartes, George Mavrodes and most of the people on this forum have attempted to do).

Strawman Fallacy Example #2:

Person 1: "If God can make a rock so heavy that He cannot lift it, then God is not omnipotent".

Person 2: "What you are really saying is that God is in some way bound by logic, able to be marginalized and subject to the limitations of a paradox."

Person 2: "God is all-powerful in ways that are not bound by the limitations of paradoxical logic nor does an omnipotent God operate in that manner.
Therefore, your claim is false."

...Since I have in no way avoided the question nor have I re-directed the question based on the merits of the question, then the Circular God Counter-paradox does not represent a Strawman Fallacy at all by it's own definition.

I'm sorry, Mestemia, but I'm looking for someone to provide me with any critical flaws found within my counter-paradoxical response. Unless you can provide a valid counter-argument to the Circular God Counter-paradox, then I'll just have to add you to the growing list of non-responders.

-Darryl

 

[joshuapecci]

When one is trying to move mountains by Faith, you realize you are He who put the mountain there, so there it stays.

 

[McBell]

I'm sorry, Mestemia, but I'm looking for someone to provide me with any critical flaws found within my counter-paradoxical response.

[GALLERY=media, 5187]Rolling-on-the-floor-laughing-smiley-emoticon by Mestemia posted Mar 25, 2015 at 9:22 PM[/GALLERY]

 

[Mister Emu]

If God's desire to lift the stone loses because it's thwarted by God's desire for it to be unliftable, then one of God's desires is left unfulfilled.

Which doesn't form a logical contradiction.

This implies that God is less than perfectly omnipotent.

Only in the case that it is an agent or force outside of the omnipotent actor, and logical contradictions don't rely on implications, they rely on proofs.

The fact that it was God himself who thwarted God's will doesn't change the fact that God's will has been thwarted.

It absolutely impacts whether that thwarting is a failure of omnipotence.

The question must form a paradox, that is the whole point; it aims to subordinate God's power to logic. You may as well ask whether God can create a square-circle in two dimensions, or ask, as I did, can God make A = ¬A. If a being must follow the rules of logic, the questioner implies, it cannot therefore be omnipotent.

 

[Darryl Lankford]

Okay, so 9-10ths_Penguin, Thief and Mestemia have officially tapped out. Here's the breakdown:

Thief's final input is a curious response parsed with strangely disjointed sentence structure reminiscent of a haiku.

9-10ths_Penguin's final assessment is that a fully-functional counter-paradoxical resolution to the "Paradox of the Stone" which holds the #1 spot on Quora over 365 other responses since 2010, shows up four separate times on the first page of a Google search, holds the #1 spot on a YouTube video search and has a copyright pending approval by the US Copyright Office is somehow ...the work of a "troll."

Mestemia's full cumulative force of his entire intellectual capacity was made manifest in the form of a embedded laughter emoticon.

....Anybody else want to give it a try?

Here is the current solution to the Paradox of the Stone:
Circular God Counter-paradox

...If you can find a flaw within the design of this counter-paradoxical response, please post your observation. If there are no flaws, then this answer serves as the terminal response for the "Paradox of the Stone." Anytime you are presented with the Stone Paradox question, you can use this counter-paradoxical response.

-Darryl

 

[Milton Platt]

I suppose God could move any object in the universe, although I'm not sure where he would "lift" a giant rock from or in which direction. It would have to be larger than any known planet.

Could God create a star that's so big it could envelop an entire galaxy? Or perhaps make a star 100 billion light years in diameter? Could God increase the speed of light at will (or slow it down)?

You miss the point of the thought exercise. If god is said to be omnipotent, that means he could do anything. This creates a paradox. If he can create a stone so heavy he cannot lift it, then he cannot do everything because he cannot lift it. If he cannot create a stone too heavy for him to lift, then he cannot do everything in this case either, since he cannot create said stone. Not a challenge to the existence of a god, so much as a challenge to the concept of omnipotence.

 

[Darryl Lankford]

You miss the point of the thought exercise. If god is said to be omnipotent, that means he could do anything. This creates a paradox. If he can create a stone so heavy he cannot lift it, then he cannot do everything because he cannot lift it. If he cannot create a stone too heavy for him to lift, then he cannot do everything in this case either, since he cannot create said stone. Not a challenge to the existence of a god, so much as a challenge to the concept of omnipotence.

...But if God is able to use the powers associated with omnipotence to lift the stone and not lift the stone at the exact same paradoxical moment, then the point of the "thought exercise" has not been missed at all. In fact, it becomes a knockout punch to the Stone Paradox by way of God's omnipotence.

Stone Paradox Solution: Circular God Counter-paradox

-Darryl

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Okay, so 9-10ths_Penguin, Thief and Mestemia have officially tapped out. Here's the breakdown:

Thief's final input is a curious response parsed with strangely disjointed sentence structure reminiscent of a haiku.

9-10ths_Penguin's final assessment is that a fully-functional counter-paradoxical resolution to the "Paradox of the Stone" which holds the #1 spot on Quora over 365 other responses since 2010, shows up four separate times on the first page of a Google search, holds the #1 spot on a YouTube video search and has a copyright pending approval by the US Copyright Office is somehow ...the work of a "troll."

Mestemia's full cumulative force of his entire intellectual capacity was made manifest in the form of a embedded laughter emoticon.

....Anybody else want to give it a try?

Here is the current solution to the Paradox of the Stone:
Circular God Counter-paradox

...If you can find a flaw within the design of this counter-paradoxical response, please post your observation. If there are no flaws, then this answer serves as the terminal response for the "Paradox of the Stone." Anytime you are presented with the Stone Paradox question, you can use this counter-paradoxical response.

-Darryl

Don't put words in my mouth, thanks.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Which doesn't form a logical contradiction.

Not on it's own. It only forms a logical contradiction when we consider it with the premise that God is omnipotent.

Only in the case that it is an agent or force outside of the omnipotent actor, and logical contradictions don't rely on implications, they rely on proofs.

Ha! So this Internet forum discussion doesn't meet the level of rigor that you would like?

It absolutely impacts whether that thwarting is a failure of omnipotence.

The question must form a paradox, that is the whole point; it aims to subordinate God's power to logic. You may as well ask whether God can create a square-circle in two dimensions, or ask, as I did, can God make A = ¬A. If a being must follow the rules of logic, the questioner implies, it cannot therefore be omnipotent.

By definition, if an entity's power is limited, its power is not unlimited... IOW, it is not omnipotent.

If God himself limits his own power, then God is omnipotent. If God is unable to limit his own power, then that inability is a limitation itself and God is not omnipotent.

This isn't a matter of logical contradiction built into what's being asked, because having conflicting desires is eminently, demonstrably possible. Nobody can actually create a square circle, but I'm sure you know plenty of people who have competing desires... right?

 

[Darryl Lankford]

Don't put words in my mouth, thanks.

...Uhhh, in case you're not keeping up on current events, here are your words as quoted:

You've used up my benefit of the doubt that you aren't just here to troll. We're done.

 

[Stevicus]

You miss the point of the thought exercise. If god is said to be omnipotent, that means he could do anything. This creates a paradox. If he can create a stone so heavy he cannot lift it, then he cannot do everything because he cannot lift it. If he cannot create a stone too heavy for him to lift, then he cannot do everything in this case either, since he cannot create said stone. Not a challenge to the existence of a god, so much as a challenge to the concept of omnipotence.

But if God makes a rock so big, then "lifting" it becomes irrelevant. "Lift" it away from what, and to where? If God makes a rock 10 times larger than the Earth itself, then it's the Earth that would have to be lifted, not the rock.