'Unliftable Stone' Paradox - Logically flawed argument people make even today

[Clizby Wampuscat]

Do you think that there is a logical contradiction inherent in the concept of omnipotence?

The famous "unliftable rock" is supposed to prove that omnipotence is logically impossible due to a paradox.

I do not make that claim. I am asking if someone can give good evidence or reasoning that it does not have a logical contradiction.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

The greater good is peace. This is peace-making. Not reunion. After there is peace then there is a reunion.

Tony, Before peace, if there is reunion, the consequence is WAR.

This is not OP related.

Spoiler: Clarification

I just worded it badly, sorry about that. It is the last quote from. Abdul'baha I was referencing.

Baha'u'llah offered.

"Religion, writes Bahá’u’lláh, is “the chief instrument for the establishment of order in the world, and of tranquillity amongst its peoples.”

“Is not the object of every Revelation,” He asks, “to effect a transformation in the whole character of mankind, a transformation that shall manifest itself, both outwardly and inwardly, that shall affect both its inner life and external conditions?”

The separations and conflicts between people, carried out in the name of religion, are contrary to its true nature and purpose.

Abdulbaha offered “If religion becomes a cause of dislike, hatred and division, it were better to be without it, and to withdraw from such a religion would be a truly religious act. “Any religion which is not a cause of love and unity is no religion."

Unfortunately, if I start an OP inclusive of Baha'i quotes affirming humanity can find unity, if inly we practiced faith in the light God gave it, there is a 90% chance it will be removed.

You have always been friendly and fair in faith, I know you are part of the peace that we all can find. Regards Tony

Regards Tony

 

[firedragon]

So God did not create logic then, it is just part of who he is. He is bound by his nature that he did not create.

It's not being "bound". It's as I said, it's his nature. But I guess, in speaking language you could say you are bound by your nature.

 

[firedragon]

I am asking if someone can give good evidence or reasoning that it does not have a logical contradiction.

How do you understand a logical contradiction?

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Omnipotence

Omnipotence means having the power to do anything that is logically possible. It's important to understand that this does not mean doing things that are self-contradictory or nonsensical.

The Problem with the Question

1. Category Mistake

The question’s got different categories of concepts absolutely mixed up. It's like asking if a square can be round. Omnipotence refers to the ability to do anything that makes sense within the rules of logic, not to do things that are self-contradictory. Anyone who makes the argument above is not read, neither is he aware of logical axioms.

2. Logical Contradiction

The question creates a contradiction. If God is omnipotent (can do anything), then there can't be a stone He can't lift. If there were such a stone, then He wouldn't be omnipotent. So, asking if God can create a stone so heavy that He can't lift it is like asking if God can make a square circle. It's a trick question because it asks for something that's logically impossible.

3. Misunderstanding Omnipotence

The question shows a misunderstanding of what it means to be all-powerful. Being omnipotent doesn't mean being able to do the logically impossible. Just because God can do anything doesn't mean He can do things that don't make sense, like creating a rock so heavy that He can't lift it.

4. Redefining the Question

If we rephrase the question to fit logical rules, it becomes clear that it's meaningless. The idea of a rock that an all-powerful being can't lift is nonsense. It’s like asking if an all-powerful being can make an unliftable liftable rock. The contradiction lies in the question itself, not in the nature of omnipotence.

5. Self-Referential Paradox

The question involves a paradox: it’s self-contradictory. If God can make such a stone, then He isn't omnipotent because He can’t lift it. If He can’t make such a stone, He isn't omnipotent because there's something He can't create. This is a classic example of a "catch-22," a situation where any answer leads to a contradiction.

6. Philosophical Context

Philosophers like Thomas Aquinas have pointed out that omnipotence doesn't include doing logically impossible things. It's not a weakness or a limitation; it's just a reflection of logical rules. So, saying God can’t create a rock so heavy He can’t lift it doesn’t mean He’s not omnipotent. It just means He doesn’t do nonsense.

7. False Choice

The question presents a false choice. It tries to make you think that either God can create such a stone (and thus is not omnipotent because He can't lift it) or He can't create the stone (and thus is not omnipotent because He can't create it). This false choice ignores the fact that creating such a stone is a nonsensical task.

I had never heard of such things.

After looking it, it is only a paradox born out of the ignorance of a limited mind.

Luckily science has released us from such useless paradoxical limitations.

Regards Tony

 

[firedragon]

I had never heard of such things.

After looking it, it is only a paradox born out of the ignorance of a limited mind.

Luckily science has released us from such useless paradoxical limitations.

Regards Tony

The value of science is, it begins with philosophy. And the fundamental axiom is methodological naturalism. Thus, trying to claim science to one's self and breaking it at the same time by begging to breaking its own axioms is an oxymoron. That itself is a contradiction.

Nevertheless, I must tell you that this question in the OP is asked by atheists on a daily basis. Of course, it's not asked by educated atheist philosophers because they find this an absolutely silly question. I opened the OP because this same question was asked several times in this very forum. So I wanted to see how people think.

Just read through this thread. Look at how people think.

Thanks brother. Cheers.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Please restate your position on the OP?

It's logically impossible for G-d to both be limited in what He can lift, and not be limited in what He can lift.
i.e. it's contradictory

All they are in effect doing, is cite an unlimited action and then claim G-d should also be limited too.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

It's not being "bound". It's as I said, it's his nature. But I guess, in speaking language you could say you are bound by your nature.

Can God change the laws of logic or get rid of them if it wants?

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

How do you understand a logical contradiction?

Breaks one of the three basic laws of logic

 

[firedragon]

Can God change the laws of logic or get rid of them if it wants?

Give me an example a law of logic that could be changed and give me how it will work?

 

[firedragon]

Breaks one of the three basic laws of logic

Give me an example.

 

[McBell]

Omnipotence

Omnipotence means having the power to do anything that is logically possible. It's important to understand that this does not mean doing things that are self-contradictory or nonsensical.

The Problem with the Question

1. Category Mistake

The question’s got different categories of concepts absolutely mixed up. It's like asking if a square can be round. Omnipotence refers to the ability to do anything that makes sense within the rules of logic, not to do things that are self-contradictory. Anyone who makes the argument above is not read, neither is he aware of logical axioms.

2. Logical Contradiction

The question creates a contradiction. If God is omnipotent (can do anything), then there can't be a stone He can't lift. If there were such a stone, then He wouldn't be omnipotent. So, asking if God can create a stone so heavy that He can't lift it is like asking if God can make a square circle. It's a trick question because it asks for something that's logically impossible.

3. Misunderstanding Omnipotence

The question shows a misunderstanding of what it means to be all-powerful. Being omnipotent doesn't mean being able to do the logically impossible. Just because God can do anything doesn't mean He can do things that don't make sense, like creating a rock so heavy that He can't lift it.

4. Redefining the Question

If we rephrase the question to fit logical rules, it becomes clear that it's meaningless. The idea of a rock that an all-powerful being can't lift is nonsense. It’s like asking if an all-powerful being can make an unliftable liftable rock. The contradiction lies in the question itself, not in the nature of omnipotence.

5. Self-Referential Paradox

The question involves a paradox: it’s self-contradictory. If God can make such a stone, then He isn't omnipotent because He can’t lift it. If He can’t make such a stone, He isn't omnipotent because there's something He can't create. This is a classic example of a "catch-22," a situation where any answer leads to a contradiction.

6. Philosophical Context

Philosophers like Thomas Aquinas have pointed out that omnipotence doesn't include doing logically impossible things. It's not a weakness or a limitation; it's just a reflection of logical rules. So, saying God can’t create a rock so heavy He can’t lift it doesn’t mean He’s not omnipotent. It just means He doesn’t do nonsense.

7. False Choice

The question presents a false choice. It tries to make you think that either God can create such a stone (and thus is not omnipotent because He can't lift it) or He can't create the stone (and thus is not omnipotent because He can't create it). This false choice ignores the fact that creating such a stone is a nonsensical task.

Why is God bound by logic?

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

Give me an example a law of logic that could be changed and give me how it will work?

I have no idea how one of the three laws of logic can be changed. If God can't change them then he is subject to them just like I am.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

Give me an example.

I can't. This is your problem to solve not mine.

 

[firedragon]

I can't. This is your problem to solve not mine.

If you cannot give an example of a logical contradiction, you don't know what a contradiction is.

 

[firedragon]

I have no idea how one of the three laws of logic can be changed. If God can't change them then he is subject to them just like I am.

You dont know what a contradiction is. Try and do a five minute research.

 

[firedragon]

@Clizby Wampuscat

I'll tell you what. Let me give you an internet source you could read about "Logical contradictions".

Contradiction and Consistency

www.csus.edu

 

[dybmh]

I do not make that claim. I am asking if someone can give good evidence or reasoning that it does not have a logical contradiction.

I understand that. I was trying to start at the beginning so that we could get back on the same page.

Yes, I can show you that it is not logically inconsiistent.

This is how the "omnipotence paradox" is presented to theists:

If God cannot create a rock which God cannnot lift, then God is not omnipotent.

Do you agree that this is the focus of our discussion? If so, I will be showing that the above proposition is FALSE. The true statement is:

If God cannnot create a rock which God cannot lift, then God IS omnipotent.

Do you see it?

FALSE ---- > "If God cannot create a rock which God cannnot lift, then God is not omnipotent."
TRUE ------ > "If God cannnot create a rock which God cannot lift, then God IS omnipotent."

If I am successful, then, the "unliftable rock" confirms omnipotence. Here we go:

We start with the event: God Cannot Create a Rock which cannot be lifted. Below is this event described in logical notation.

∃(created-rock) and Not Lifted (created-rock) = False
∃(created-rock) and Not Lifted (created-rock) = Not True
Not (∃(created-rock) and Not Lifted (created-rock)) = True

The above is nothing more than the transitive property, moving the negation from one side of the equation to the other. It's just like algebra. Then,, we take the last line and...

... Applying DeMorgan's Law and the negation of an existential quantifier ...

∀(created-rock) OR Lifted (created-rock) = True

Here, above, the "NOT" on the far left is distributed. Again, just like algebra. However, when the negation is distrubuted the "AND NOT" in the center becomes an "OR". That's Demorgans law. The Existential Quantifier is negated, and now it is a Universal Quantifier.

Therefore, if the rock is created, lifting it or not is irrelevant to the truth value of the proposition. Because of this, answering "no" to the original question literally means, ANY rock can be lifted or not which is true and consistent with the defintion of omnipotence.

Got it?

 

[TransmutingSoul]

I understand that. I was trying to start at the beginning so that we could get back on the same page.

Yes, I can show you that it is not logically inconsiistent.

This is how the "omnipotence paradox" is presented to theists:

If God cannot create a rock which God cannnot lift, then God is not omnipotent.

Do you agree that this is the focus of our discussion? If so, I will be showing that the above proposition is FALSE. The true statement is:

If God cannnot create a rock which God cannot lift, then God IS omnipotent.

Do you see it?

FALSE ---- > "If God cannot create a rock which God cannnot lift, then God is not omnipotent."
TRUE ------ > "If God cannnot create a rock which God cannot lift, then God IS omnipotent."

If I am successful, then, the "unliftable rock" confirms omnipotence. Here we go:

We start with the event: God Cannot Create a Rock which cannot be lifted. Below is this event described in logical notation.

∃(created-rock) and Not Lifted (created-rock) = False
∃(created-rock) and Not Lifted (created-rock) = Not True
Not (∃(created-rock) and Not Lifted (created-rock)) = True

The above is nothing more than the transitive property, moving the negation from one side of the equation to the other. It's just like algebra. Then,, we take the last line and...

... Applying DeMorgan's Law and the negation of an existential quantifier ...

∀(created-rock) OR Lifted (created-rock) = True

Here, above, the "NOT" on the far left is distributed. Again, just like algebra. However, when the negation is distrubuted the "AND NOT" in the center becomes an "OR". That's Demorgans law. The Existential Quantifier is negated, and now it is a Universal Quantifier.

Therefore, if the rock is created, lifting it or not is irrelevant to the truth value of the proposition. Because of this, answering "no" to the original question literally means, ANY rock can be lifted or not which is true and consistent with the defintion of omnipotence.

Got it?

No, but very well explained. Regards Tony

 

[dybmh]

No, but very well explained. Regards Tony

No? What do you mean?