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

[Ajax]

Which miracle in the Bible violates the law of non-contradiction?

Your question is invalid. Miracles can not violate the law of non-contradiction because they are framed as a miraculous events, which by definition, lie outside the scope of natural laws and logical constraints. The principle of non-contradiction applies to logical and natural phenomena within a given framework, whereas miracles are considered exceptions to these rules. In any case, the law of non-contradiction states that something cannot be both true and false at the same time and in the same sense. They do however violate natural laws and logical constraints. So the question really is, what is more probable, that someone wrote a lie, or the natural laws and logic were violated? Also the one who makes a positive miracle claim, has the burden of proof.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Seems to me it all boils down to whether or not one believes that God is limited...

Well, you would be wrong .. G-d does not 'do' gibberish !

 

[muhammad_isa]

..the law of non-contradiction states that something cannot be both true and false at the same time and in the same time..

Right .. so a statement that contradicts itself is nonsense.

 

[McBell]

Well, you would be wrong .. G-d does not 'do' gibberish !

Your above quoted reply does not appear to have anything to do with what it is in reply to.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Your above quoted reply does not appear to have anything to do with what it is in reply to.

Wrong again..
You said "Seems to me it all boils down to whether or not one believes that God is limited..."

..so are you suggesting that G-d should be limited and NOT be limited simultaneously?
That has little to do with G-d's powers, and everything to do with the way we communicate
with each other.
i.e. the construction of statements

 

[Ajax]

Well, you would be wrong .. G-d does not 'do' gibberish !

You have to prove what you just wrote.

 

[Ajax]

Right .. so a statement that contradicts itself is nonsense.

True, but here we have two statements; one which is double unproven, i.e. God is omnipotent, which states that there is a God who also is omnipotent, If it is proven that such a claim exists, then follows another statement/question, of whether he can can make an unliftable by him object.

 

[firedragon]

And it is a something for God to do because theist think God is omnipotent, isn't he?

I don't think you still understand a logical impossibility.

Tell me. Can God create a married bachelor?

(Someone argued that a married guy could have a bachelor of science. So a married bachelor. One of the most stupid arguments I have ever heard in my entire life. So be sure that I am speaking of a bachelor, not someone with a bachelors degree.)

 

[firedragon]

You have to prove what you just wrote.

Well. Absurdities like a married bachelor cannot be done. Simple. That sentence itself proves what he wrote.

 

[firedragon]

Your question is invalid. Miracles can not violate the law of non-contradiction because they are framed as a miraculous events, which by definition, lie outside the scope of natural laws and logical constraints.

No. Even miracles can have logical constraints. That means, some miracles are logically impossible. Like "an all powerful being making an un-liftable stone". The OP says it all. A miracle worker cannot create a married bachelor. Logically impossible.

It's not a thing. It's an absurdity. It's a nothing. By definition.

 

[McBell]

Wrong again..
You said "Seems to me it all boils down to whether or not one believes that God is limited..."

..so are you suggesting that G-d should be limited and NOT be limited simultaneously?

No idea how got to this from what I actually said.
It is my opinion that all the limitations theists put on their deities is more about them than it is about the deity in question.
Why claim omnipotent then go out of your way to strip them of the title just to argue that are still are omnipotent?
I am not a big fan of Humpty Dumptying words.

That has little to do with G-d's powers, and everything to do with the way we communicate
with each other.

No idea where you got the idea I was going down that particular path.

 

[Ajax]

Well. Absurdities like a married bachelor cannot be done. Simple. That sentence itself proves what he wrote.

Wrong as usual and please don't tell me for the Nth time to read the OP.
He made a positive statement "G-d does not 'do' gibberish" which he has to prove that a) god exists and b) he does not 'do' gibberish", according to your writings.

 

[firedragon]

He made a positive statement "G-d does not 'do' gibberish"

Exactly. As I said ?married bachelor" is "gibberish.

he has to prove that a) god exists

Gos's existence is irrelevant to the OP. It's about an Atheists argument. The onus is on you as an atheist mate. It doesn't matter if God exists or not to address an argument.

By the way, a married bachelor is gibberish. It's absurd. The Argument addressed in the OP is also "absurd" to the same degree of a married bachelor.

 

[Ajax]

Exactly. As I said ?married bachelor" is "gibberish.


Gos's existence is irrelevant to the OP. It's about an Atheists argument. The onus is on you as an atheist mate. It doesn't matter if God exists or not to address an argument.

By the way, a married bachelor is gibberish. It's absurd. The Argument addressed in the OP is also "absurd" to the same degree of a married bachelor.

Despite what you write, I never mentioned married bachelor, nor omnipotent God and the stone he can not lift. Unless you can not think of anything else to write.
Our friend and you made positive claims about God. You should both prove that these claims exist, before you continue with the paradox. If you can not substantiate you claims, there is no point in this discussion. It is completely irrelevant and nonsensical.

Also you make the claim that God exists and atheists are having fun of your absolute knowledge of God' characteristics, hence the paradox. And of course it matters if you start a discussion about a fictitious entity with imaginary attributes.

 

[Kathryn]

We are relying on man's logic, which is flawed and limited.

 

[muhammad_isa]

I never mentioned married bachelor, nor omnipotent God and the stone he can not lift.

Well, that's the topic.

 

[Madsaac]

Tell me. Can God create a married bachelor?

No. So what...........?

Now your turn to answer a logically impossible question. 'Can there be a pregnant virgin?' NB. 2000 years a go

 

[McBell]

Tell me. Can God create a married bachelor?

Yes

 

[Ajax]

We are relying on man's logic, which is flawed and limited.

That's the only proven logic that exists.

 

[RestlessSoul]

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

Humans can do that, so it’s logical to assume that God can too