Answer to Paradox of Stone

[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)?

Your post did infer what I said more plainly. You said for him to lift such a rock he would have to lift the earth.

 

[Stevicus]

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.

I don't have a deity, omnipotent or otherwise.

I suppose you could call it a "thought exercise," but it seems a bit too limited in its scope - especially if it's to challenge the concept of omnipotence.

 

[Stevicus]

Your post did infer what I said more plainly. You said for him to lift such a rock he would have to lift the earth.

Essentially, this is a hypothetical where God is doing two separate and distinct tasks:

1. Make big rock
2. Lift (or move) big rock

If we assume that God exists and that He made the universe, then it implies that God is powerful enough to make big rocks. Since everything in the universe is in motion, it is also implied that God is powerful enough to lift/move big rocks. We would also be presuming that God created the gravitational constant of the universe and the laws of motion.

Since the galaxies are in motion, then at the very least, (assuming all the above to be true) we can suggest that God would be at least powerful enough to make a rock as big as a galaxy (100,000 ly in diameter) and that He could move it. We might also assume that such a rock might also have gravity itself, so it would no longer be a question of "lifting" the rock away from something, since smaller objects would have to be "lifted" away from the giant rock.

How big would the rock have to be? It would have to be so big that it would fill up the entire universe - so that it would have no place to go, no place to move it to. But then, God could just make a bigger universe, so it would be a never-ending process.

 

[Milton Platt]

Essentially, this is a hypothetical where God is doing two separate and distinct tasks:

1. Make big rock
2. Lift (or move) big rock

If we assume that God exists and that He made the universe, then it implies that God is powerful enough to make big rocks. Since everything in the universe is in motion, it is also implied that God is powerful enough to lift/move big rocks. We would also be presuming that God created the gravitational constant of the universe and the laws of motion.

Since the galaxies are in motion, then at the very least, (assuming all the above to be true) we can suggest that God would be at least powerful enough to make a rock as big as a galaxy (100,000 ly in diameter) and that He could move it. We might also assume that such a rock might also have gravity itself, so it would no longer be a question of "lifting" the rock away from something, since smaller objects would have to be "lifted" away from the giant rock.

How big would the rock have to be? It would have to be so big that it would fill up the entire universe - so that it would have no place to go, no place to move it to. But then, God could just make a bigger universe, so it would be a never-ending process.

In other words, it would not be possible for him to be omnipotent......

 

[Darryl Lankford]

How big would the rock have to be? It would have to be so big that it would fill up the entire universe - so that it would have no place to go, no place to move it to. But then, God could just make a bigger universe, so it would be a never-ending process.

...I have become extremely amused at the back-and-forth on whether or not an "omnipotent being" (God) can exist. It's interesting how each of you involved in the discussion are debating if an omnipotent being can have "conflicting wills" or is able to "thwart his own will."

Then you go on to provide these supposed omnipotence-challenging scenarios that are crafted by non-omnipotent beings with absolutely no understanding of how we all came to be.

Now here we are trying to deduce the necessary size requirement of a rock based on an existing universe and the measurements found within.

"Galaxy sized rock!"

"Universe sized rock"

"100k mile wide rock"

Size is of no consequence based on the "Stone Paradox" question. It could remain the size of a pebble as long as the weight was deemed greater than what God can lift.

You will never be able to eliminate or support the concept of omnipotence by way of non-omnipotent beings using already-existing objects.

-Darryl

 

[LukeS]

The answer is that lifting is a causal mechanism. It involves mechanical process. . So God can create something unliftable, in the context of things for lifting it made available. There is a crane (lifting device) and a tower block, the crane cant lift it.

Otherwise, "lifting" loses its conventional meaning, if its meant to be something magical like levitation or psychokinesis.

Its not "God cant lift it", its "the mechanism" (eg a crane) is insufficient. Can god create a mass so large a mechanism has no effect? Is that a better way of phrasing it?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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

Right. But neither desire is logically impossible on its own, therefore both are things that an omnipotent being can do.

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

No, just a tangent for the sake of curiosity. You seem really invested in this. I wanted to find out why.

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.

Oh dear. I hope you're not becoming a presuppositionalist.

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.

Good luck with that.

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.

One implication of the assertion of an omnipotent, omniscient, and perfectly sovereign God ruling everything is that everything is exactly as God wants it. In such a scenario, there would be no opportunity for anything undesired by God to insert itself into Creation.

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

And no being can instantiate both, since one precludes the other. Therefore, omnipotence is impossible.

In the example I gave, even if you are boycotting New York, it's still possible to visit Central Park; it's just that if you do it, you've ended your boycott. Both desires can't be fulfilled simultaneously, but fulfilling one doesn't necessarily make fulfilling the other one logically impossible. This means that there are cases where omnipotence - defined in terms of what's logically possible - includes the ability of the omnipotent being to undermine its own omnipotence.

If you did try to boycott New York and visit Central Park simultaneously, and if you succeeded at both as much as you were able, you would have violated your boycott. Attempting to instantiate both would not result in actually instantiating both.

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.

That's right: omnipotence implies logical impossibilities.

 

[Mister Emu]

You seem really invested in this.

That is the product of imagination.

Both desires can't be fulfilled simultaneously, but fulfilling one doesn't necessarily make fulfilling the other one logically impossible.

If it is logically impossible to fulfill both desires simultaneously(it is) then an omnipotence defined by what is logically possible is not infringed in being incapable of fulfilling both desires simultaneously.

If omnipotence is defined under the parameters of that which is logically possible, then paradoxes or situations that create logically impossible desires are not a mark against omnipotence. If omnipotence is defined as the capability to do all things conceivable or inconceivable then paradoxes are meaningless; there can be nothing that logically follows any statement in regards to the omnipotent being.

Oh dear. I hope you're not becoming a presuppositionalist.

I am thoroughly confused in how my statement could possibly lead to this statement. I am not so becoming.

One implication of the assertion of an omnipotent, omniscient, and perfectly sovereign God ruling everything is that everything is exactly as God wants it.

I'm going to disagree here, but that is for another debate.

That's right: omnipotence implies logical impossibilities.

Exactly.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If omnipotence is defined under the parameters of that which is logically possible, then paradoxes or situations that create logically impossible desires are not a mark against omnipotence. If omnipotence is defined as the capability to do all things conceivable or inconceivable then paradoxes are meaningless; there can be nothing that logically follows any statement in regards to the omnipotent being.

You're trying to stack the deck and effectively hand-wave away any logical problems with omnipotence.

As I pointed a few times now, there's nothing logically impossible about what I'm describing. To use my example again:

- is it logically possible for me, as a human being, to travel to Central Park? Yes.
- is it logically possible for me, as a human being, to boycott New York? Yes.
- having declared a boycott of New York, is it still possible for me, as a human, to go to Central Park? Yes.

You seem to be saying that omnipotent beings are even more limited than non-omnipotent beings. This is absurd.

You're abusing the idea of "logical possibility" built into some definitions of omnipotence.

 

[Darryl Lankford]

And no being can instantiate both, since one precludes the other. Therefore, omnipotence is impossible.

...This is not necessarily true. The attributes associated with omnipotence supports a conversion of logic that would allow for an "Act" and "Non Act" to happen simultaneously. This is demonstrated in my Circular God Counter-paradox solution to the Stone Paradox. The limitations of logic cannot be used to undermine the Creator of logic.

In the example I gave, even if you are boycotting New York, it's still possible to visit Central Park; it's just that if you do it, you've ended your boycott. Both desires can't be fulfilled simultaneously, but fulfilling one doesn't necessarily make fulfilling the other one logically impossible. This means that there are cases where omnipotence - defined in terms of what's logically possible - includes the ability of the omnipotent being to undermine its own omnipotence.

...You are correct in that your omnipotent being can end its boycott which would allow for free access to visiting Central Park, but this is not "Thwarting it's own will" - nor is this - "Undermining it's own omnipotence." That merely represents a forward progression of events with an omnipotent being establishing a boycott, lifting a boycott and then visiting Central Park. ...No will has been thwarted or undermined.

If you did try to boycott New York and visit Central Park simultaneously, and if you succeeded at both as much as you were able, you would have violated your boycott. Attempting to instantiate both would not result in actually instantiating both.

...This is simply not true! Again, there are simultaneous events where an "act" and a "non-act" can be manifested by an omnipotent being. A perfect example of this process has already been demonstrated in my Circular-God Counter-paradox.

Both of you are having your omnipotent being forced to behave as a mortal and therefore must be subject to the limitations of the same logic that binds our mortal hands ...and this is not the case when dealing with omnipotence.

The Omnipotent Creator of New York and Central Park would be able to use the exact same powers that it used to create the Universe, Earth, New York and Central Park and separate all parts into completely different dimensional entities if it so chooses. An omnipotent being (with infinity in its arsenal) would also be able to manipulate the fabric of time to allow for such an event to happen.

God would not be found standing over in Jersey totally perplexed on how He can visit Central Park while promising Himself to never enter the state of New York. Only a non-omnipotent being would do such a limited thing.

God, the omnipotent being that created the game, can re-write the rules at any given moment to meet any required task.

This is clearly demonstrated in the Circular God Counter-paradox. And if it is demonstrated as possible in this Stone Paradox scenario, then logic states that it is possible in others as well.

-Darryl

 

[Mister Emu]

You're trying to stack the deck and effectively hand-wave away any logical problems with omnipotence.

I'm pointing out that the definitions and their implications render the question moot. You can't use a logical impossibility to deny a characteristic that you define in terms of logical possibilities, or, you can't make logically coherent statements about a characteristic that allows for the truly illogical.

As I pointed a few times now, there's nothing logically impossible about what I'm describing.

Yes, there is, or else you're not describing a deviation from omnipotence as defined by what is logically possible.

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

Because it is logically impossible to fulfill both wants. Which if you define omnipotence by what is logically possible cannot be a mark against omnipotence. If you do not so define omnipotence, then God could do both because logical statements and realities are meaningless before omnipotence.

You seem to be saying that omnipotent beings are even more limited than non-omnipotent beings. This is absurd.

No, I'm saying that you cannot be inconsistent in the application of definitions.

You're abusing the idea of "logical possibility" built into some definitions of omnipotence.

Pointing out that a position is untenable by the nature of its own argument isn't abuse.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Yes, there is, or else you're not describing a deviation from omnipotence as defined by what is logically possible.

So you're saying that this is logically impossible?

Having decided to boycott New York, you visit Central Park.

Not only is it the case that nobody has ever done this, but nobody can ever do this?

Because it is logically impossible to fulfill both wants. Which if you define omnipotence by what is logically possible cannot be a mark against omnipotence.

Human beings are also constrained from doing the logically impossible. If a human being can do it, it's not logically impossible.

Edit: and I've repeatedly agreed with you that both desires can't be realized simultaneously. What I'm saying is possible is the attempt to satisfy both. You can try to do both without doing anything impossible. One of the conflicting desires will not be achieved, but there's nothing impossible about the attempt to do both.

 

[Mister Emu]

So you're saying that this is logically impossible?

Having decided to boycott New York, you visit Central Park.

Not only is it the case that nobody has ever done this, but nobody can ever do this?

Previously you've said that in visiting, a being would thwart their desire to boycott and in boycotting a being would thwart their desire to visit, thus a desire is thwarted and therefore the being is not omnipotent. If you are no longer maintaining that position, I apologize for missing the change.

What I'm saying is possible is the attempt to satisfy both.

Logic demands you fail, and failure at a logically impossible task cannot be a mark against a characteristic that is defined in terms of what is logically possible.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Previously you've said that in visiting, a being would thwart their desire to boycott and in boycotting a being would thwart their desire to visit, thus a desire is thwarted and therefore the being is not omnipotent. If you are no longer maintaining that position, I apologize for missing the change.

No, that's my position.

Logic demands you fail, and failure at a logically impossible task cannot be a mark against a characteristic that is defined in terms of what is logically possible.

As I said earlier: if a human being can do it, it's logically possible.

... and a human being can visit Central Park despite having committed to a boycott of New York. This is not a logical impossibility.

 

[Mister Emu]

No, that's my position.

Which is at odds with a definition of omnipotence that only includes logical capabilities. Which is my point.

As I said earlier: if a human being can do it, it's logically possible.

... and a human being can visit Central Park despite having committed to a boycott of New York. This is not a logical impossibility.

A human being cannot maintain a boycott upon a location simultaneous with visiting that location. That is a logical impossibility.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Which is at odds with a definition of omnipotence that only includes logical capabilities. Which is my point.

So human beings can do the impossible?

A human being cannot maintain a boycott upon a location simultaneous with visiting that location. That is a logical impossibility.

That's right: doing both is logically impossible; attempting both is not.

Having started a boycott, and even if desiring to maintain the boycott, he can visit Central Park. When this happens, the boycott has failed. The fact that the act would cause the boycott to fail doesn't make the act logically impossible. By the time he visits Central Park, he is no longer boycotting New York, so he never does the two acts simultaneously. Logic is preserved.

 

[Mister Emu]

That's right: doing both is logically impossible

Therefore a definition of omnipotence that only includes logical capabilities cannot be infringed by a failure in the "attempt". Therefore any demand that the inability to maintain and visit simultaneously is representative of non-omnipotence must rely on a definition that includes the impossible.

Having started a boycott, and even if desiring to maintain the boycott, he can visit Central Park. When this happens, the boycott has failed. The fact that the act would cause the boycott to fail doesn't make the act logically impossible. By the time he visits Central Park, he is no longer boycotting New York, so he never does the two acts simultaneously. Logic is preserved.

This doesn't address your claim that having either desire unfulfilled demonstrates a lack of omnipotence as defined by logical possibilities.

Produce a logically possible scenario where both desires are simultaneously fulfilled or withdraw the claim that the inability to maintain fulfillment of both is evidence or proof that a being is incapable of all logically possible things. A logically possible scenario that does not meet the criteria fails this hurdle.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Therefore a definition of omnipotence that only includes logical capabilities cannot be infringed by a failure in the "attempt".

You're begging the question by trying to redefine omnipotence. Normally, when omnipotence is limited to the "logically possible", this is about not requiring omnipotence to include abilities that imply absurdities: square circles and the like. It isn't used to say that omnipotent beings are incapable of doing things that even a human being can do.

You've expanded this greatly to assume that the concept of omnipotence can have no logical problems whatsoever. AFAIK, only you use the word this way. It seems to me that this redefinition of the term is your attempt to beg the question with semantic hand-waving: "oh, no - omnipotence can't have any logical problems, because those would create 'logical impossibilities' and my definition of omnipotence doesn't have any 'logical impossibilities.'"

What else is your "omnipotent" God incapable of doing? How small is the God that remains after your redefinition of him?

 

[Mister Emu]

You're begging the question by trying to redefine omnipotence.

I've not defined omnipotence in this way, you have. I'm trying to get you to be aware that you are arguing with two contradictory positions: that omnipotence is defined by the logically possible and that a logical impossibility you have crafted defeats omnipotence.

this is about not requiring omnipotence to include abilities that imply absurdities: square circles and the like.

A boycott-visit is the like. Every bit as absurd as a square circle. You've attempted to disguise this and obfuscate with scenarios that don't fit the criteria you are asking for.

It isn't used to say that omnipotent beings are incapable of doing things that even a human being can do.

You continue to entirely make up this absurd charge, and I continue to deny it. What have I said that an omnipotent being cannot do that a human can?

my definition of omnipotence doesn't have any 'logical impossibilities.'

You, again, have confused yourself. My definition does in fact include logical impossibilities; and every time you've said that omnipotence requires the logically absurd, I've agreed as that is my point.

 

[Darryl Lankford]

You're begging the question by trying to redefine omnipotence. Normally, when omnipotence is limited to the "logically possible", this is about not requiring omnipotence to include abilities that imply absurdities: square circles and the like. It isn't used to say that omnipotent beings are incapable of doing things that even a human being can do.

...The Stone Paradox represents a legitimate challenge to omnipotence based on its simplicity. It doesn't require God to do something already deemed illogical (make 2 * 2 = 5 or make a square circle) require God to do something stupid (mkae a prison to which He cannot escape) or require Him to harm Himself in the process (Can God kill Himself?).

Aside from the Stone Paradox rising above the other omnipotence paradox questions, it still requires twisted logic in order for it to be able to destroy omnipotence. Asking an omnipotent God to make Himself non-omnipotent in order to prove that He is omnipotent is not a legitimate request. Asking someone to prove they can do something by having them not do something is not a to verify an ability.

However, once you get past all of that, it is indeed possible for God to use the powers of omnipotence to simultaneously defeat these paradoxical questions as is demonstrated in my Circular God Counter-paradox.

You've expanded this greatly to assume that the concept of omnipotence can have no logical problems whatsoever. AFAIK, only you use the word this way. It seems to me that this redefinition of the term is your attempt to beg the question with semantic hand-waving: "oh, no - omnipotence can't have any logical problems, because those would create 'logical impossibilities' and my definition of omnipotence doesn't have any 'logical impossibilities.'"

...It is closer to the truth that God is not limited, but rather our understanding of omnipotence is limited based on our not being omnipotent. An omnipotent being is not subject to the failures and flaws found in paradoxical logic. A square will always be a square and a circle will always be a circle. Requiring God to demonstrate omnipotence by making a square circle does not nullify omnipotence, but rather demonstrates how truly non-omnipotent a human mind can be.

What else is your "omnipotent" God incapable of doing? How small is the God that remains after your redefinition of him?

...An omnipotent God possesses the ability at any moment remove all things and redefine all things to meet any challenge offered. If an omnipotent being is responsible for bringing into existence all things that demonstrate God to be omnipotent, then these things God has brought into existence cannot be used to negate His omnipotence in the process.

Requiring an omnipotent God to prove that He is omnipotent by making Himself non-omnipotent is illogical by its own design. So if your method for verifying the existence of omnipotence is not logically valid, then neither are any conclusions that are drawn within the process.

An omnipotent being is not small nor large as omnipotence is infinite in an infinite amount of ways.