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

[firedragon]

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.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

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.

Now you just have to show that all of this applies to God and is not just how some people think in effect.

So as always there are 3 versions at play. It is known that logic applies to God. It is known that logic doesn't apply to God. It is unknown one way or another.
And please don't claim that human rules for how to debate decides what God can do or not do.

 

[Ajax]

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.

Do you consider it logically possible that God raised Jesus (and others) from the dead?

 

[HonestJoe]

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.

What created the logic that even God is subject to then? The irrationality of the question isn't (just) a problem for the question itself, it is also a problem for the concept of omnipotence.

 

[McBell]

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.

So you are in effect saying that god is limited..?

 

[firedragon]

Do you consider it logically possible that God raised Jesus (and others) from the dead?

Brother. I do not believe Jesus was raised after his death. BUT, the claim of Christians if they do claim the resurrection it's "logically possible".

I urge you to just read up on analytical truths and logical impossibilities.

 

[dybmh]

Logical Contradiction

This ^^ in my opinion is the best counter argument to this specific anti-theistic challenge.

I've written about it elsewhere, but, if the challenge is distilled into symbolic logical statements, the fact that an onmi-potent being cannot create an unliftable rock CONFIRMS onmi-potence. It doesn't compromise it. But the anti-theist isn't doing the work to look for the answer to the dilemma, if they even had the knowledge and skills to do it at all.

It's typical for criticism. They don't care enough to seek answers. They are happy enough criticizing, and they do not possess the desire to engage with the target of their criticism, unlike those of us who truly love theology.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

This ^^ in my opinion is the best counter argument to this specific anti-theistic challenge.

I've written about it elsewhere, but, if the challenge is distilled into symbolic logical statements, the fact that an onmi-potent being cannot create an unliftable rock CONFIRMS onmi-potence. It doesn't compromise it. But the anti-theist isn't doing the work to look for the answer to the dilemma, if they even had the knowledge and skills to do it at all.
.
It's typical for criticism. They don't care enough to seek answers. They are happy enough criticizing, and they do not possess the desire to engage with the target of their criticism, unlike those of us who truly love theology.

And this because you say so, so in effect your reasoning causes God to exist as God does. So you are greater than God.

 

[dybmh]

And this because you say so, so in effect your reasoning causes God to exist as God does. So you are greater than God.

Nope. I can show you.

 

[firedragon]

What created the logic that even God is subject to then?

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.

 

[dybmh]

if the challenge is distilled into symbolic logical statements

@mikkel_the_dane ,

Please see above. The reason logic is so powerful is because it has nothing to with my opinion or yours.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Nope. I can show you.

Yeah, you can show me the logic that determines what God is. I do understand what you are saying.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

@mikkel_the_dane ,

Please see above. The reason logic is so powerful is because it has nothing to with my opinion or yours.

Well, it is based on how you think. Now if you can actually point to it as independent of your thinking, then I will watc whhat it is that you see and thus you can show me as independent of how you think.

 

[dybmh]

Yeah, you can show me the logic that determines what God is. I do understand what you are saying.

No, you're being silly.

Do you know the challenge dilemma which is being discussed? It begins with the word "IF".

 

[dybmh]

Well, it is based on how you think.

It isn't. It's reproducible.

Do you have a light switch where you are?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

No, you're being silly.

Do you know the challenge dilemma which is being discussed? It begins with the word "IF".

Yes, it is some great thinking and thought in the head of some humans. Now if only that would also apply outiside the heads, then you would have a case.

 

[dybmh]

Yes, it is some great thinking and thought in the head of some humans. Now if only that would also apply outiside the heads, then you would have a case.

Lol. When you're ready to discuss this specific challenge dilemma, let me know. You look to me to be afraid.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

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.

Did God created logic? If so, he should be able to do illogical things right? Do you believe God does miracles?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

It isn't. It's reproducible.

Do you have a light switch where you are?

No, just show me God as actaully showing me God as per seeing God. Not how you understand God, but God not in your head, but out there.

I am not going to play how logic applies to humans. I already know that. I want to know how you know it applies to God. Have you looked and checked?

 

[muhammad_isa]

So you are in effect saying that god is limited..?

No .. it seems to be human reasoning that is limited.

Some people can't seem to realize that making nonsensical statements, or asking nonsensical
questions are not what theists are referring to, when they say G-d is Omnipotent.
..or so they claim (not to realize)