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

[dybmh]

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.

What does that have to with God?

Do you know this for certain? There's no space for the unexpected in your judgement?

 

[firedragon]

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.

Based on your epistemology, can you provide evidence for this claim? Just curious.

 

[osgart]

What does that have to with God?

Do you know this for certain? There's no space for the unexpected in your judgement?

I'm off topic with this. I will say that supernatural events have never been witnessed by anyone alive today. The only way to know of a God is by revelation because nature doesn't reveal anything of a God that has command over nature.

 

[firedragon]

I will say that supernatural events have never been witnessed by anyone alive today.

You are making a faith statement. I mean a dogmatic, absolutely unprovable with any kind of evidence, just conjecture based. BUT you are making a positive claim so what's your evidence?

 

[osgart]

Based on your epistemology, can you provide evidence for this claim? Just curious.

It's expected by many cosmologists that the universe will become sterile in a heat death. Even black holes will dissipate over an extreme amount of time.

 

[firedragon]

It's expected by many cosmologists that the universe will become sterile in a heat death. Even black holes will dissipate over an extreme amount of time.

How is that evidence to "The universe will be here for many eons long after life is extinct."?

 

[osgart]

How is that evidence to "The universe will be here for many eons long after life is extinct."?

Is there an alternative scenario that is God based and evident? I'll stop here. I will say that God based scenarios have no evidence behind them. The question of God not being able to lift a rock is an insignificant argument though.

 

[firedragon]

Is there an alternative scenario that is God based and evident?

That's an aunt sally attempt mate. It's beneath you. The existence of God or any kind of alternative scenario or view does not make itself an evidence of your claim.

I will say that God based scenarios have no evidence behind them. The question of God not being able to lift a rock is an insignificant argument though.

This is completely a red herring to avoid the question based on your absolute claim because you made a dogmatic, faith claim. Let me rephrase it. you made a blind faith claim. So now you wanna do an aunt sally so that you could ignore your blind faith claim and attack something else.

that's the definition of a strawman.

Unbelievable.

 

[dybmh]

I'm off topic with this. I will say that supernatural events have never been witnessed by anyone alive today. The only way to know of a God is by revelation because nature doesn't reveal anything of a God that has command over nature.

Ok

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Unconditional love.

Which very few humans can emulate. So I would offer, it is not easy, it is logical that we are not able to emulate unconditionally love, without a knowledge of the Spirit.

If it was easy, everyone would Love God the unknowable, unseen Most-Great-Spirit.

Regards Tony

 

[dybmh]

Which very few humans can emulate. So I would offer, it is not easy,

How does a child love their parents? Do they need to work for it? Or does it come naturally, easily?

 

[dybmh]

If it was easy, everyone would Love God the unknowable, unseen Most-Great-Spirit.

I disagree. But, I don't need to persuade you. There's so many more important things, don't you agree? Let's make a lasting peace between each other?

 

[TransmutingSoul]

How does a child love their parents? Do they need to work for it? Or does it come naturally, easily?

It is not unconditional love a child experiences. That is why there is an age of maturity in Scriptures, we reach a time of choice where we can love unconditionally.

A child that loves its mother, father and family, may hate another race or religion. That is what the world is now experiencing, misplaced Love.

Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

I disagree. But, I don't need to persuade you. There's so many more important things, don't you agree? Let's make a lasting peace between each other?

I have lasting peace with you already, no conditions do I place upon that. It is G_d that guides our hearts.

Regards Tony

 

[dybmh]

It is not unconditional love a child experiences.

I disagree. But I still like you, Tony. You're a good guy.

I have lasting peace with you already

You do? Will you do me a favor?

 

[TransmutingSoul]

You do? Will you do me a favor?

If it is in my power to do so.

Regards Tony

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

My above reply is also applicable to this question.

Regards Tony

Yeah, I have a different faith.

 

[Madsaac]

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.

Omnipotence means God is all-powerful. This means God has supreme power and has no limitations.

You failed to mention if the omnipotence is fictitious, well we have to assume it is because omnipotence can make anything up. And fiction is bound by logic.

And if you can make anything up or do anything, due to fictional logic, it doesn't really exist, an illusion of realism. When you are asking questions like the one about the 'rock' it's just silly and illogical. Omnipotence's limits are something that doesn't really exist both because of concept and because no one can settle just where it ends.

 

[1213]

...
The question’s got different categories of concepts absolutely mixed up. It's like asking if a square can be round....

I am not necessary disagreeing, but this is how you can draw a square circle:

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.

Also the stone would be possible. Essentially it is the question about, can omnipotent person give up his omnipotence. Obviously it is possible and after that he would not be omnipotent anymore. And obviously no one is saying omnipotent is omnipotent after giving up it. Also, in the case of the stone, it could be done, and later, if omnipotent wants to lift it, he could just create more power to him so that he can lift it.

Maybe it is true that there are some logical impossibilities, but, if humans don't know how something is done, it is not necessary impossible for someone with greater abilities.

 

[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.

I agree, but it is a concept that implies there is some form of overall conceptual structure to existence that this omnipotent god exists within. It can still be seen as omnipotence, especially from our point of view, but it would still be conditional omnipotence (which itself, is arguably illogical).

My conclusion it that the entire topic is fundamentally flawed, the paradox you legitimately highlighted being just one example of that. I don't think we can legitimately conceive of a truly omnipotent being, not because such a being would be limited by logic but because our perception is limited by logic.

The core issue here is the concept of gods who are unconceivable omnipotent mysteries while at the same time casually communicating and interacting with humans, to the point of having entirely human behaviours like being angry, getting tricked or wanting things. Put (very) simply, I would argue that you can have omnipotence or you can have God, but you can't have both.