Answer to Paradox of Stone

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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

You and I are done discussing this topic. I'm still willing to talk about it with people who are willing to engage in reasonable disussion.

 

[Darryl Lankford]

You and I are done discussing this topic. I'm still willing to talk about it with people who are willing to engage in reasonable disussion.

...The topic is "Can God create a rock so heavy that he cannot lift it?" I have supplied an answer that fully resolves the question and to which nobody seems to be able to demonstrate a flaw. ...Based on the thread topic, how is this not considered "reasonable discussion" in your mind?

Furthermore, all of you who are contemplating if God can "thwart his own will" should probably start rethinking your arguments. If God is able to bend logic by way of paradoxical means (just as the Stone Paradox does) then a paradox is no longer a bellwether as to gaging omnipotence.

If a logical fallacy can be neutralized by way of a counter-paradox of equal measure, then all arguments raised on either side become moot. Ultimately you are forced to evaluate omnipotence from a completely different perspective.

-Darryl

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

...The topic is "Can God create a rock so heavy that he cannot lift it?" I have supplied an answer that fully resolves the question and to which nobody seems to be able to demonstrate a flaw. ...Based on the thread topic, how is this not considered "reasonable discussion" in your mind?

You haven't resolved anything, but you've shown an inability or unwillingness to discuss this topic without getting trollish to the point that I see no reason to continue talking about it with you.

 

[Darryl Lankford]

You haven't resolved anything, but you've shown an inability or unwillingness to discuss this topic without getting trollish to the point that I see no reason to continue talking about it with you.

...If I haven't resolved anything, then you should have no trouble at all in demonstrating how I haven't, right?

Furthermore, since these "specifically-designed" omnipotence paradox questions can be neutralized by way of a "specifically-designed" counter-paradoxical response, then it is a valid argument that a "paradox" merely represents twisted logic and cannot serve as an accurate tool for demonstrating or eliminating the existence of omnipotence.

But this would require you to accept the Circular God Counter-paradox as an example of exactly what I'm proposing ...and you simply don't want to accept what is clearly right in front of you.

-Darryl

 

[McBell]

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

You truly are a legend in your own mind.

Sadly you are not fooling anyone but yourself.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

...If I haven't resolved anything, then you should have no trouble at all in demonstrating how I haven't, right?

I already did. The fact that you didn't understand this was a big part of my realization that continuing the discussion was pointless.

 

[Mister Emu]

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

There is no demand in omnipotence that all desires be congruent. Saying God's active will is thwarting God's active will is the same as saying His will is not His will. It all boils down to the question of can God do the logically impossible.

If God himself limits his own power, then God is omnipotent.

Was there a "not" intended to be present in this sentence, after the "is" and before the "omnipotent"?

This isn't a matter of logical contradiction built into what's being asked

But, it must be or there is no paradox.

Nobody can actually create a square circle

If you exempt those things which are logically impossible then the Stone paradox itself falls apart, as a stone beyond the lifting capacity of an infinitely capable lifter is as logically incoherent as a square circle.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

There is no demand in omnipotence that all desires be congruent.

Right: so omnipotence has built into itself its own contradiction.

Saying God's active will is thwarting God's active will is the same as saying His will is not His will.

No, it amounts to saying that one aspect of his will is not the entirety of his will.

It all boils down to the question of can God do the logically impossible.

And to whether omnipotence itself is logically impossible. It seems to me that if we exclude logical contradictions from the definition of omnipotence, we'll end up something as meager as the sort of "choice" in Henry Ford's quip "you can have any colour you want, as long as it's black." Is omnipotence minus logical contradictions something that can be rightly called "omnipotence" at all?

Was there a "not" intended to be present in this sentence, after the "is" and before the "omnipotent"?

Yeah - sorry about that.

But, it must be or there is no paradox.

I meant that there's no logical contradiction built into the idea of someone having conflicting desires in general.

If you exempt those things which are logically impossible then the Stone paradox itself falls apart, as a stone beyond the lifting capacity of an infinitely capable lifter is as logically incoherent as a square circle.

So God can't create a stone too heavy to lift?

But at the same time, a stone made by an infinitely capable stone creator working at its utmost will be unliftable by any lifter.

Edit: so if we exempt the logically impossible as you suggest, then God can neither lift the stone or create the stone.

 

[Mister Emu]

Right: so omnipotence has built into itself its own contradiction.

There is no contradiction in having incongruous desires whether you are omnipotent or not. Unless you are demanding that God do the logically impossible, which is the point I've been making in every post.

Is omnipotence minus logical contradictions something that can be rightly called "omnipotence" at all?

Exactly.

But at the same time, a stone made by an infinitely capable stone creator working at its utmost will be unliftable by any lifter.

It doesn't matter which side you approach it from, you're asking for nonsense.

Asking if an omnipotent actor can create a stone so heavy he can't lift it is asking for a logical impossibility; the assumption that if the answer is yes, that it is has logical implications is absurdist.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

There is no contradiction in having incongruous desires whether you are omnipotent or not. Unless you are demanding that God do the logically impossible, which is the point I've been making in every post.

I'm saying that for God to be omnipotent, he would have be able to actualize any desire - or any logically possible desire - he might have. If God can have conflicting desires, then he can't actualize every logically possible desire.

It doesn't matter which side you approach it from, you're asking for nonsense.

Asking if an omnipotent actor can create a stone so heavy he can't lift it is asking for a logical impossibility; the assumption that if the answer is yes, that it is has logical implications is absurdist.

... because the whole idea of omnipotence is absurd to begin with.

 

[Darryl Lankford]

It's designed in a way that God is working against himself. Again: that's the whole point. ... What is and isn't a fact remains to be seen. And you aren't my friend.

And does this "3rd option" involve God thwarting his own will or not?

...And as I clearly stated in my response, God has thwarted and not thwarted His own will at the exact same moment. An omnipotent being is able to do so and I have clearly demonstrated how this task can be achieved.

"Sufficient" seems overly charitable.
...It misses the whole point of the Stone Paradox.

The question that the paradox is getting at is this: can God thwart his own will?

- if no, then there's something God can't do (and therefore he isn't omnipotent).
- if yes, then God's will can be thwarted (and therefore he isn't omnipotent).

Semantic games to get rid of the conflict do nothing to answer the question of what happens when the conflict does occur.

...Again, if God's will is to create a rock that He cannot lift, then He has thwarted His own will by being able to lift the same rock at the exact same moment. And if God's will is to be able to lift all things, then He has thwarted His own will by having a rock present that He cannot lift at the exact same moment.

There is no "semantic game" present and the state of omnipotence is being fully utilized. You simply do not want to accept the conditions that have been clearly demonstrated. That represents a refusal to learn.

I already did. The fact that you didn't understand this was a big part of my realization that continuing the discussion was pointless.

...The only argument you provided against the Circular God Counter-Paradox was that the Stone Paradox was "designed in a way that God is working against himself." and that my Counter-paradoxical solution does not address this issue. ...You are clearly incorrect!

God is Thwarting His will and not thwarting His will at the exact same moment by lifting and not lifting the rock at the exact same moment. That is the "THIRD OPTION!"

Again, you are merely refusing to accept what is written right in front of you, and this is sad.

-Darryl

 

[Mister Emu]

I'm saying that for God to be omnipotent, he would have be able to actualize any desire - or any logically possible desire - he might have.

Being capable of doesn't equal being required to.

Let's take it out of the abstract: I believe God wants existence to be orderly, for humans to be able to freely choose to do evil and for humans all to make only good choices. His desire for use to be free, for logic to stand, and for only good choices for a set of incongruous desires. I believe he sets the hierarchy of desires as order, freedom, and good. Thus his will is that people are free to do evil instead of forced to do good.

How does that contradict omnipotence?

... because the whole idea of omnipotence is absurd to begin with.

No, only the position that a being capable of breaching the rules of logic is able to be judged via a logical paradox.

 

[Milton Platt]

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.

It doesn't matter from where or to where. Do you believe that with the potentially hundreds of billions of planets in the universe, that the earth is the only place rocks can exist?

But more to the point, none of that matters. It is a thought experiment to demonstrate that the concept of omnipotence is flawed. Why is that so hard for you?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Being capable of doesn't equal being required to.

If God can't do a thing, then he's incapable of it.

Let's take it out of the abstract: I believe God wants existence to be orderly, for humans to be able to freely choose to do evil and for humans all to make only good choices. His desire for use to be free, for logic to stand, and for only good choices for a set of incongruous desires. I believe he sets the hierarchy of desires as order, freedom, and good. Thus his will is that people are free to do evil instead of forced to do good.

How does that contradict omnipotence?

By the same token, how does it require omnipotence?

As far as I can tell, nothing you describe adds any contradiction to the idea of omnipotence that wasn't there already... though it likely does create contradictions when considered alongside other Christian ideas.

No, only the position that a being capable of breaching the rules of logic is able to be judged via a logical paradox.

There's no paradox in the idea that soneone can have conflicting desires.

There's no paradox in the idea that if someone's desires conflict, then at least one of those desires will go unfulfilled.

If someone's desire could go unfulfilled and there's no inherent logical contradiction in that desire, then they're not onnipotent.

 

[Stevicus]

It doesn't matter from where or to where. Do you believe that with the potentially hundreds of billions of planets in the universe, that the earth is the only place rocks can exist?

But more to the point, none of that matters. It is a thought experiment to demonstrate that the concept of omnipotence is flawed. Why is that so hard for you?

I think it does matter from where or to where God is "lifting" something, since that's the crux of the entire question. Did I say that the Earth is the only place rocks can exist? If not, then why would you ask such a leading question? Why is it so hard for you to see that the question itself is not valid, since it assumes that the Earth is the entire universe and that God could potentially make a rock (presumably on Earth) that he may or may not be able to lift (away from Earth)?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I think it does matter from where or to where God is "lifting" something, since that's the crux of the entire question. Did I say that the Earth is the only place rocks can exist? If not, then why would you ask such a leading question? Why is it so hard for you to see that the question itself is not valid, since it assumes that the Earth is the entire universe and that God could potentially make a rock (presumably on Earth) that he may or may not be able to lift (away from Earth)?

The term "lift" implies an "up". This doesn't have to mean "away from Earth" - any gravity well will do.

 

[Mister Emu]

If God can't do a thing, then he's incapable of it.

And what are you suggesting God cannot do?

By the same token, how does it require omnipotence?

No, I never said it required omnipotence; you've said conflicting desires are inherently contradictory with the idea of omnipotence itself.

As far as I can tell, nothing you describe adds any contradiction to the idea of omnipotence that wasn't there already...

Okay, then you agree that omnipotence and conflicting desires are not inherently contradictory? Correct? A being can have incongruous desires and that doesn't reflect in any way, in and of itself, upon possible omnipotence.

If someone's desire could go unfulfilled and there's no inherent logical contradiction in that desire, then they're not onnipotent.

Because we're talking about multiple desires, not a single one, then we have to consider a logical contradiction in instantiating both/all of the desires simultaneously the same as if a single desire were inherently contradictory.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

And what are you suggesting God cannot do?

Thwart his own will.

If someone wants two mutually exclusive things, he can at most only get one of them.

No, I never said it required omnipotence; you've said conflicting desires are inherently contradictory with the idea of omnipotence itself.

I was trying to get at something else: why does it matter to you? What tenet of your religion requires an omnipotent god?

Okay, then you agree that omnipotence and conflicting desires are not inherently contradictory? Correct? A being can have incongruous desires and that doesn't reflect in any way, in and of itself, upon possible omnipotence.

Let's back up: I didn't see where what you describe necessarily implies conflicting desires. That's why I said it wasn't necessarily incompatible with omnipotence. If I missed something, then I'll have to re-evaluate my position.

Because we're talking about multiple desires, not a single one, then we have to consider a logical contradiction in instantiating both/all of the desires simultaneously the same as if a single desire were inherently contradictory.

We aren't talking about actually instantiating them; we're talking about attempting to instantiate both, or about instantiating one and thereby thwarting the other.

Say I have two competing desires:

- I want to visit Central Park.
- I want to boycott New York City.

There's nothing logically contradictory about holding either desire or acting on it. There's also nothing logically contradictory about holding both desires simultaneously: wishing for both of these separate desires isn't the same as, say, wishing to visit a New York landmark that isn't in New York. The two desires each stand on their own; they just both happen to be held by the same person.

If I do what I want when it comes to visiting Central Park, I will have failed to do what I want when it comes to the boycott, and vice versa. Either way, I will be incapable of doing something that was logically possible.

 

[Darryl Lankford]

If God can't do a thing, then he's incapable of it.

There's no paradox in the idea that if someone's desires conflict, then at least one of those desires will go unfulfilled.

If someone's desire could go unfulfilled and there's no inherent logical contradiction in that desire, then they're not onnipotent.

...This is simply not true. I have clearly demonstrated how an omnipotent being can have conflicting desires (I.e, "Create a rock that He cannot lift" -and- "Never compromise omnipotence"). If a very basic example can be provided that demonstrates how both of these "conflicting desires" can be achieved, then your argument is not valid.

-Darryl

 

[Mister Emu]

If someone wants two mutually exclusive things, he can at most only get one of them.

Can only logically get one of them, because the conflicting desires would require a logical contradiction for both to be fulfilled.

I was trying to get at something else: why does it matter to you?

The last cry of a fallen argument? Why does it even matter to you?

It is an intriguing curiosity to me that logic could theoretically demand that it is not the final arbiter of truth.

It also ties to a theological position I am considering; and I think it is logically defensible, and likely in the even that my religious beliefs about the creation of reality as we know it are representative of the truth, that logic itself is contingent upon God.

What tenet of your religion requires an omnipotent god?

None that I am sure of, I am teasing out a hypothesis of justification that would require a logic defeating omnipotence, of course I need to ensure I can rationally defend the prerequisite omnipotent being in a vacuum.

I didn't see where what you describe necessarily implies conflicting desires.

You cannot logically have a free agent whose actions are restricted to only good choices, and God's desire to have only good men is unmet.

We aren't talking about actually instantiating them

Of course we are, you're saying that if a being cannot instantiate them both then he isn't omnipotent. I happen to agree.

The two desires each stand on their own; they just both happen to be held by the same person.

And under that condition they are paired and just as logically impossible to obtain together as wanting to visit the Eiffel Tower in New York.

 

[Milton Platt]

I think it does matter from where or to where God is "lifting" something, since that's the crux of the entire question. Did I say that the Earth is the only place rocks can exist? If not, then why would you ask such a leading question? Why is it so hard for you to see that the question itself is not valid, since it assumes that the Earth is the entire universe and that God could potentially make a rock (presumably on Earth) that he may or may not be able to lift (away from Earth)?

It is a thought exercise designed to demonstrate the problem with claiming a deity is omnipotent. It makes absolutely no assumptions other than the person claiming their deity is omnipotent.

The fact that you are trying to insert all sorts of irrelevant detritus into the concept actually demonstrates that you believe your deity is not omnipotent. You are placing all sorts of limitations on your deity to avoid the obvious conclusion.