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

[dybmh]

we should not erase or destroy God’s name and should avoid writing it

Bingo

It's avoiding the necessity for proper disposal.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

I understand the dillema in my mind. Now I want to know how you know it actually applies to God and is not just some thoughts in your mind.

Just actually explain how you know it applies to God.

God can only be known through the Messengers. They are the appointed "Self of God" they are the proof, they are the example, they are the Logic, they are the Cause.

Regards Tony

My above reply is also applicable to this question.

Regards Tony

 

[dybmh]

"God, the Most High"

Exactly!

It's out of respect for the divine names of "The-Most-High"

It's great we're all on the same page, isn't it?

 

[firedragon]

It's Jewish. It's avoiding the necessity for proper disposal.

If this were a written correspondence, once a divine name is written, there is a proper method for disposing of the paper. It's out of respect for the divine names of "The-Most-High". The word God is not a divine name, but, the word God, among Jews, was written in the form of G-d as a way to stay in the habit of keeping the divine names sacred. If a person gets into the habit of casually referring to God, then, they will perhaps also accidentally, casually start writing the other divine names. And casually disposing of it, etc...

However, on the internet, this is no longer a problem. It's not at all the same as a written piece of paper. And, like I said, the word God is not a divine name anyway. When conversing with non-Jews, people get confused, so many of us in the Orthodox community have stopped hyphenating in mixed company.

That's profound information. thanks a lot. As a matter of fact, I never pronounce the Jewish name of God from the day I found that it's bad in the Jewish eyes. I mean the tetragrammaton. But I did not know it has any extension to the English language.

Nevertheless, thank you so much for the information. Truly appreciated.

 

[firedragon]

I imagine that we all have our own reasons..
..but @Tony is right in a way .. I refer to the One God of Abraham, and use 'G-d'
as in "God, the Most High"

Thanks brother. I didn't mean any disrespect. And I was being irrelevant to the thread.

Thanks for your thought.

 

[muhammad_isa]

The word God is not a divine name, but, the word God, among Jews, was written in the form of G-d as a way to stay in the habit of keeping the divine names sacred..

Yes .. and I started writing G-d, as I often converse with atheists who fling the word God around with disrespect, and rather than writing out "God, the Most High" in every post, I use the shorthand.

In this manner, I continually remind MYSELF of God's Reverence.
It has been recorded.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Bingo

I personally choose to write G_d when speaking those of the Jewish faith. I am of the opinion G_d wants us to embrace the 'Greatest Name' as that will be the cause of our oneness with G_d.

To me that is logical, how can we Love what we cannot know? God gives us what we can know and love, and they confirm the paradox.

Regards Tony

 

[Regiomontanus]

God can only be known through the Messengers. They are the appointed "Self of God" they are the proof, they are the example, they are the Logic, they are the Cause.

Regards Tony

I think God can also be known through His handiwork, Creation.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

I think God can also be known through His handiwork, Creation.

I would agree, but I see that would be a limited knowledge.

See if I can offer a metephor. It would be seeing the picture but not knowing the artist.

We are created to know and Love God, creation is only part of that knowledge, the "I Am" is the source.

Regards Tony

 

[osgart]

I respect your thought. But you should understand that this thread is not about the existence or non-existence of God. It's about the "topic of the OP".

But I agree with your statement that "Not everything logical is existent". That's a very pertinent statement and I believe most of us must reflect upon that statement. It's so profound, and thought I do not make this claim, maybe even you do not understand how profound your own statement is. But that's just speculation since you made that statement passingly. But it could be that you do understand how profound your own statement is, but you have gone beyond it so you think it's simple and you expect others to understand like ABC

I thought it was obvious that to deduce something you have to have a whole set of known facts, to get at something of further knowledge. If a person wants to go further with their logic then having knowledge in parts instead of wholes is only going to be speculative and nothing iron clad.

There's a lot of big if conditionals that have to be evidenced or proved. I think with trying to learn new knowledge everyone tries to make minimal assumptions, but still there's no guarantees that those assumptions are absolutely correct.

I thought it was known that validity doesn't imply that the valid argument is about something existent. From youth we rely on our experience senses to tell us about reality. And we use mathematics as an extension of that beyond our senses. Without evidence or stronger yet, proof, we are very much lost in the sea of existence.

The logic of the OP is by default existence in all possible worlds. But the second part of your statement "easily this is false", I do not understand. Please elaborate when you get time.

We know that life is minute in the vast expanse of the cosmos. Our cells are constantly repairing themselves, and disease, and tragedy happens very arbitrarily to anyone. Life is more of a side effect. Life as humans desire it to be is far from the reality. Life is not the major, predominant thing in the universe. All life is faced with hardships that make life a challenge to survive and exist here. Nature is not harmonious to life. We started out like all the other animals in a hunter/prey situation of desperate survival. With technology we are far removed from the life and death challenges moment to moment that is the default nature of reality.

 

[dybmh]

how can we Love what we cannot know

Easy.

 

[wellwisher]

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.

God also has omniscience, or is all knowing. He can figure out a work around, so the paradox remains but does not remain. For example, the weight of any stone is based on the size and density of the stone and the force of gravity. God can simply turn off gravity and float it away. Lifting is connected to applying a force opposite gravity. This does not apply when there is zero gravity, so technically he did not lift, but moved it. This moving may appear like lifting but is not lifting.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Easy.

I would ask what love is that? I see this statement as logical.

"..Love Me, that I may love thee. If thou lovest Me not, My love can in no wise reach thee. Know this, O servant."

Love can be ill directed.

Regards Tony

 

[Soandso]

God also has omniscience, or is all knowing. He can figure out a work around, so the paradox remains but does not remain. For example, the weight of any stone is based on the size and density of the stone and the force of gravity. God can simply turn off gravity and float it away. Lifting is connected to applying a force opposite gravity. This does not apply when there is zero gravity, so technically he did not lift, but moved it. This moving may appear like lifting but is not lifting.

Uhhh... What?

 

[dybmh]

I would ask what love is that?

Unconditional love.

 

[osgart]

rather easily? What is it that you are concluding is false? By reason of nature?

It's false that life is masterfully created with all the essentials for living. By nature the human body is highly dependent on other animals for food to survive. The human body is wasteful and is not self sufficient.

If life was masterfully created there would be no wastefulness and dependency on the environment and other animals. Life is not the primary goal of existence. If God existed there would be perfect harmony with nature.

 

[dybmh]

It's false that life is masterfully created with all the essentials for living.

Correct. There is only one which is perfect. And it's not the created world.

If the created world were perfect then it would be identical to God, hence, not monotheistic.

Pointing to the imperfections of creation does not contradict God's perfection.

 

[osgart]

Correct. There is only one which is perfect. And it's not the created world.

If the created world were perfect then it would be identical to God, hence, not monotheistic.

Pointing to the imperfections of creation does not contradict God's perfection.

It's not only imperfect, life is not even important to what exists. The universe will be here for many eons long after life is extinct.

 

[firedragon]

We know that life is minute in the vast expanse of the cosmos. Our cells are constantly repairing themselves, and disease, and tragedy happens very arbitrarily to anyone. Life is more of a side effect. Life as humans desire it to be is far from the reality. Life is not the major, predominant thing in the universe. All life is faced with hardships that make life a challenge to survive and exist here. Nature is not harmonious to life. We started out like all the other animals in a hunter/prey situation of desperate survival. With technology we are far removed from the life and death challenges moment to moment that is the default nature of reality.

Appreciate your time and thoughts. But this is not relevant to the OP or the question.

 

[firedragon]

God also has omniscience, or is all knowing. He can figure out a work around, so the paradox remains but does not remain. For example, the weight of any stone is based on the size and density of the stone and the force of gravity. God can simply turn off gravity and float it away. Lifting is connected to applying a force opposite gravity. This does not apply when there is zero gravity, so technically he did not lift, but moved it. This moving may appear like lifting but is not lifting.

It's not logical to make an argument that creating a stone that is not liftable for God, being omnipotent, and without gravity, and so on, and so forth. It's just getting worse with all the addition.