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

[RestlessSoul]

I asked to demonstrate if miracles or possible. Not if future events are possible.

Something which is possible is something which has the potential to happen in the future. And there’s no way of knowing that for certain until it happens; regardless of whatever has happened before.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

either way.

Well in the philosophical sense it in effect depends on what you take for granted for metaphysics, ontologgy and logic.
In one sense if you accept the limitation of induction then you can't rule out another cause and effect for a miracle. Thus is not impossible.

As for evidence in the naturalistic sense that in effect depends if you use methodlogical or metaphysical naturalism in some sense as to how you view the idea of a miracle.

 

[firedragon]

Something which is possible is something which has the potential to happen in the future.

I don't understand why people keep saying "possible" while what is stated in the OP is "Logically Possible".

Logically Possible things could occur right now, could have occurred in the past, could occur in the future. Your statement is wrong.

 

[CG Didymus]

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

Okay, take each person that Baha'is say are messengers of God, Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, Krishna, Buddha, Zoroaster, Jesus, Muhammad, the Bab, and Baha'u'llah... and tell me what we learn and get to know about God from what they taught.

 

[firedragon]

God can only be known through the Messengers.

Not necessarily. God can be known through reason. It has been the case for a long long time. But you guys are derailing the thread. These are not relevant to the topic. Why do you that?

 

[Alien826]

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.

This has always been my position. It's possible to use words to describe things that can't exist, simply because the words are contradictory. Examples include "square circle" "married bachelor" and so on. There's no need to drag God into it, the words refute themselves.

 

[McBell]

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

Wow.
Yet another limitation on god....

 

[firedragon]

This has always been my position. It's possible to use words to describe things that can't exist, simply because the words are contradictory. Examples include "square circle" "married bachelor" and so on. There's no need to drag God into it, the words refute themselves.

Inspired. BTW, this topic was opened because this same illogical argument was made by a few so many times through maybe a fortnight. It was unbelievable.

 

[dybmh]

I asked to demonstrate if miracles or possible

it'll be a miracle if this thread gets back on track....

 

[dybmh]

I don't understand why people keep saying "possible" while what is stated in the OP is "Logically Possible".

the people you're referring to are critics? short-attention-span and heavy on the assumptions

 

[dybmh]

Yet another limitation on god....

No friend. That would be a limitation on the observer, not the object of their observation.

 

[firedragon]

the people you're referring to are critics? short-attention-span and heavy on the assumptions

No. Not critics. Those who are bringing in irrelevant topics.

 

[dybmh]

No. Not critics. Those who are bringing in irrelevant topics.

They're not critics? Really? Are you sure?

 

[firedragon]

They're not critics? Really? Are you sure?

Absolutely. If they don't address the OP, they are irrelevant. Critics address the argument, not irrelevance.

There is no need to get angry. And I am absolutely sure you understand what I am saying. Absolutely.

 

[dybmh]

Critics address the argument, not irrelevance.

Evade, Distract, Obfuscate...

Bait and switch...

Critics.

 

[dybmh]

There is no need to get angry

Who's angry?

 

[dybmh]

And I am absolutely sure you understand what I am saying. Absolutely.

Of course. Do you understand what I'm saying?

 

[dybmh]

I don't understand why

^^^ You don't understand why ^^^ is what you said. Maybe that's because the individuals you are referring to are not understood. That explains why, you don't understand ... why.

 

[RestlessSoul]

I don't understand why people keep saying "possible" while what is stated in the OP is "Logically Possible".

Logically Possible things could occur right now, could have occurred in the past, could occur in the future. Your statement is wrong.

The difference between a logical impossibility and a physical impossibility, is that the former would defy the laws of logic while the latter would defy the laws of physics. Since both the laws of logic and the laws of physics are abstract, your objection is merely semantic

 

[muhammad_isa]

Since both the laws of logic and the laws of physics are abstract, your objection is merely semantic..

What do you mean by "abstract" ?
Without constructing logical statements, communication (through language) would be impossible.

Most of these paradoxes rely on 'sleight of hand', in the form of statements that attempt to hide
the correct interpretation.

eg. G-d is not omnipotent because He cannot make a stone "too heavy to lift"

but on closer inspection, we see that omnipotence has already implied that
i.e. There is no stone that G-d cannot lift

Go figure!