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

[muhammad_isa]

I am not claiming that. You are claiming that some miracles do not violate this law or the other laws of logic. Can you support this? Telling people how uninformed they are is not doing that.

@firedragon said: "If you think a miracle by default breaks the law of non-contradiction please explain logically."

..which you haven't done. Which miracle in the Bible violates the law of non-contradiction?

 

[firedragon]

I do understand. You need to give evidence to the claim that a miracle does not have to be logically contradictory.

1. Miracles
A common definition is that miracles are events that defy the laws of nature and are usually attributed to a divine or supernatural agency. They are extraordinary and not explainable by natural laws alone.

2. Laws of Nature
The laws of nature, such as the laws of physics, are typically understood as descriptions of how the natural world operates under normal conditions. They are not prescriptive but rather descriptive; they tell us what generally happens, not what must happen.

3. Logical Coherence
The concept of a miracle does not entail a logical contradiction. A logical contradiction occurs when two or more propositions cannot be true simultaneously. For instance, the statement “an event both conforms to and violates natural laws simultaneously in the same context” would be a contradiction.

4. Contingency of Natural Laws
The laws of nature are generally seen as contingent, meaning they could be different or could be suspended under certain conditions. If natural laws are contingent, it is conceivable that an event could occur that does not follow these laws without resulting in a logical contradiction.

5. The Role of a Supernatural Agent
If a miracle is defined as an intervention by a supernatural agent (such as God), it implies that the event is not bound by natural laws. The supernatural agent is considered to operate beyond the scope of natural law, so their actions are not subject to the constraints that apply to natural phenomena. This avoids contradiction because the event is not claiming to be both natural and supernatural.

6. Philosophical Perspectives

• Modal Logic: Using modal logic, one can argue that if it is possible in some possible world for natural laws to be suspended or for supernatural intervention to occur, then miracles are logically possible.

Example of Logical Coherence:
Suppose a miracle is described as “water turning into wine instantaneously.” For this to be a logical contradiction, we would need to show that “water” and “wine” cannot coexist as descriptions of the same substance at the same time. However, if a supernatural agent changes the molecular structure of water to wine, there’s no inherent contradiction—what was water becomes wine. The process defies natural laws but does not defy logic.

The concept of a miracle, defined as an extraordinary event caused by a supernatural agency, is not self-contradictory. Given the contingency of natural laws and the concept of a supernatural agent, there is no inherent logical reason why miracles could not occur.

Read up.

Are there any proofs that miracles are impossible?

Are there any logical proofs that miracles are impossible? In this case I define a miracle as an interference with nature by a supernatural power. [Edit: Possibly due to confusion about the diffe...

philosophy.stackexchange.com

 

[dybmh]

I think it's imperative that you read about logical contradictions.

Contradiction and Consistency

Also read about logical impossibility.

[M07] Types of possibility

philosophy.hku.hk

It's not a contradiction.

It's not a logical impossibility.

It's not imperative, but, it would be good to consider that I'm your equal in knowledge and expertise in this subject matter.

If we don't agree, it could be, I'm right. Have you thought of that?

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

yes



yes

Many-worlds interpretation - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Can you demonstrate any of your claims are true?

 

[HonestJoe]

It's not that God is "subject". Like a taxation. You have got it absolutely wrong.

A logical impossibility is "not a thing". You have not understood the OP. Whatsoever.

The arrogant insult isn't appreciated. I understood your OP perfectly well, I am just challenging it (ironically, on the basis of logic).

You can certainly say that nobody is "subject to" logic, though it's the kind of philosophical concept that it is difficult to find meaningful terms to describe at all. My point remains though; You are saying that something that is logically impossible simple can't happen, but that still raises the questions of how logically impossible is defined and what actually prevents it from happening.

I don't expect you to have answers to that, which is part of my point. We're talking about concepts that, by definition, exist outside the scope of our perception. Your assumption that logic applies beyond our perception is no more justified that assuming an omnipotent god is impossible because of this logical paradox.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

..and what has that got to do with miracles?
Are you aware of any miracle in the Bible that fits that description?

What you describe are 'logical impossibilities' .. and I for one, rule those out when speaking about what G-d can and can't do.

Otherwise, we might as well be talking gibberish, with no logical sense in anything we say.
When I say that G-d is Omnipotent, I do not consider myself talking gibberish.

..but if you include logical impossibilities in Omnipotence, I would be.

Why? Did God not create the universe with the laws of logic baked in? Or are the laws of logic outside of God that it has to obey?

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

@firedragon said: "If you think a miracle by default breaks the law of non-contradiction please explain logically."

..which you haven't done. Which miracle in the Bible violates the law of non-contradiction?

Again, I never made that claim.

 

[firedragon]

It's not a contradiction.

It's not a logical impossibility.

It's not imperative, but, it would be good to consider that I'm your equal in knowledge and expertise in this subject matter.

If we don't agree, it could be, I'm right. Have you thought of that?

If you think only making statements with no source to back what you say from a philosophical teaching is valid, then that's delusion.

Thanks for engaging.

 

[firedragon]

The arrogant insult isn't appreciated. I understood your OP perfectly well, I am just challenging it (ironically, on the basis of logic).

You can certainly say that nobody is "subject to" logic, though it's the kind of philosophical concept that it is difficult to find meaningful terms to describe at all. My point remains though; You are saying that something that is logically impossible simple can't happen, but that still raises the questions of how logically impossible is defined and what actually prevents it from happening.

I don't expect you to have answers to that, which is part of my point. We're talking about concepts that, by definition, exist outside the scope of our perception. Your assumption that logic applies beyond our perception is no more justified that assuming an omnipotent god is impossible because of this logical paradox.

Ciao.

 

[dybmh]

Can you demonstrate any of your claims are true?

No. Only that there is no logical contradiction.

In context of this thread that should be sufficient.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

No. Only that there is no logical contradiction.

Where is that exactly?

 

[muhammad_isa]

Why? Did God not create the universe with the laws of logic baked in?

Irrelevant .. for us to communicate, we consciously or unconsciously interpret statements for
evaluation .. without logic, they would be meaningless.

Or are the laws of logic outside of God that it has to obey?

It is not about G-d .. it is about ourselves and concept.

G-d knows best what He can and can't do in an absolute sense.
We merely try to understand, and appreciate His Greatness. (or not, as the case may be)

 

[dybmh]

Where is that exactly?

Sorry, where is what? Here is the quote which prompted your reply:

No. Only that there is no logical contradiction.

There is no logical contradiction in omnipotence. There is no logical contradiction in the examples you brought of the assumed mutually exclusive pairs of events.

 

[muhammad_isa]

There is no logical contradiction in the examples you brought of the assumed mutually exclusive pairs of events.

Mmm .. after I agreed they were logical contradictions, I was thinking about that .. I'm not sure.
..but I'm sure about the OP though.

 

[dybmh]

I'm sure about the OP though.

Please restate your position on the OP?

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

Irrelevant .. for us to communicate, we consciously or unconsciously interpret statements for
evaluation .. without logic, they would be meaningless.


It is not about G-d .. it is about ourselves and concept.

G-d knows best what He can and can't do in an absolute sense.
We merely try to understand, and appreciate His Greatness. (or not, as the case may be)

Then the answer is you don't know and that is a reasonable answer. But it is a relevant question whether God created logic or not.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

Sorry, where is what? Here is the quote which prompted your reply:



There is no logical contradiction in omnipotence. There is no logical contradiction in the examples you brought of the assumed mutually exclusive pairs of events.

Ok, I don't think we are communicating well which is my fault I guess.

 

[firedragon]

Then the answer is you don't know and that is a reasonable answer. But it is a relevant question whether God created logic or not.

In classical theism, logic is Logic is not something external to God but is seen as reflecting God's rational nature. In this sense, logic is inherent in the nature of God and is a part of the divine essence. It's an eternal truth.

 

[dybmh]

Ok, I don't think we are communicating well which is my fault I guess.

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.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

In classic theism, logic is Logic is not something external to God but is seen as reflecting God's rational nature. In this sense, logic is inherent in the nature of God and is a part of the divine essence. It's an eternal truth.

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.