Obviously I agree that lifting a stone is a physical act. But the contradiction is between the very existence of such a stone and the existence of an omnipotent god. If there were a stone which we all believed to be unliftable, and we asked is there could appear a god which could lift it, we should say the latter is a logical impossibility because of the definition of the stone. But, since in this puzzle we are positing that the omnipotent god exists before the unliftable stone, then it is the stone which is a logical impossibility. I will humbly submit that I might be missing something here, but if I am, so are both of the sites I posted.
The apparent contradiction is between god creating it and lifting it, but this is not the contradiction. God cannot create a stone with such properties because its existence is logically mutually exclusive with his own existence.
In your syllogistic reformation of the puzzle, I would simply admit that god cannot do one of the things, the first half of the first premise. But this is because it is logically impossible.
I think the whole round square thing is throwing us both off. I don’t mean to imply that the puzzle is non-sensical.
Oh, and sorry about the whining – but it can be frustrating when you are making clear statements that are just ignored by other posters. I appreciate your recent response.
If we go into the puzzle assuming god is not omnipotent, then God could create a rock that He/She could not lift. But what would be the point of the puzzle if we already assumed a limited god?
It makes more sense to go into the puzzle reading the word god as meaning "a being with omnipotency (the ability to lift everything), etc." If this is the case, then by definition nothing can exist, or come into existence that cannot be lifted by god. The fact that god cannot bring something into existence that contradicts the definition of Himself is not particularly interesting (IMHO).
(Please see the alternating god/God as a reflection of my own agnosticism )
It’s not an “unliftable stone”; it’s a “stone so heavy that God can’t lift it”. You would agree that stones can have different weights, would you not? And would you not agree that the heavier a stone, the more force it requires to lift it? And would you not also agree that, were one omnipotent, that there would be no limit to how heavy a stone they could create? That’s not a logical contradiction. The contradiction is that, if the entity lifting the stone is also omnipotent, then there would be no limit on his ability to lift the stone. It’s a physical contradiction, not a logical one.
I don’t follow you.
IMHO, many Christian writers take liberties with logic.
Sorry, I just don’t understand the distiction you’re trying to make.
I know. That’s why the premise says “cannot”. God CANNOT do this because it is impossible. Surely that was clear.
Then why, when I was discussing with another poster whether it was non-sensical, did you interject with your complaint that I supposedly hadn’t read your post? That’s what STARTED this whole train-wreck.
I agree with all your statements, but they do not entail that “a stone unliftable by god” is somehow different from “a stone so heavy that god cannot lift it.” Nor do they entail that the contradiction is “physical” (which I think means that the existence of such a stone is physically impossible). What is the distinction you are drawing between “too heavy for god to lift” and “unliftable by god” in this context?
Omnipotence means being able to create a stone of any weight, but the whole point is that no matter how heavy it is god can still lift it.
I don’t know how to explain this more clearly. If god can lift anything, then a stone too heavy for god to lift cannot * logically* exist. If god cannot lift everything, then the paradox has no point since we already concede that god is not omnipotent.
I’m not sure why you think the writer of the wikipedia article is coming from a Christian position. Even if he/she is, your objection is just ad hominum dodging. If my particular cites take liberties with logic, point it out. In any case, I didn’t link to those sites for back-up or because I think they have more authority on the matter, I just wasn’t sure the way I was stating things was clear enough.
Because in refuting the non-sensical argument you were still making assumptions that I challenged in my first post. I was frustrated that you did not even take the time to dismiss my objections, much less address them. But that does not mean I was arguing for the position that the puzzle is non-sensical.
,
I addressed this in my last post (and indeed in all of them). Yes, god cannot do it, but I am arguing that this is insignificant since we do not expect god to be able to do the logically impossible.
See above.
…
I didn’t mean for this to become confrontational. I appreciate your opinion on this, and I do not believe I have a monopoly on the right answer.
I believe your position to be that “a rock so heavy that god cannot lift it” is a perfectly sensible phrase and logically possible entity, unlike “round square.” It may be physically impossible, but omnipotence means being able to create the physically impossible.
Is that a fair summation of your view?
My position is that I agree that it is a perfectly sensible phrase, but whether or not it is a logically possible entity depends on whether or not you assume god’s omnipotence. If you don’t assume it, then the entity is logically possible, but the puzzle is pointless. If you do assume it, then the phrase can be translated into “a rock that cannot be lifted by one who can lift anything.” Such an entity is a logical impossibility.
Now, are you disagreeing with the fact that “a rock that cannot be lifted by one who can lift anything” is a logically impossible entity, or with the translation?
Since this thread is still going on, I guess nobody has posted the actual logical answer to this dilemma.
The short answer is yes, God can make a rock too big for him to lift.
The proof is as follows:
If it is a given that God is omnipotent, then as a matter of definition he has the ability to alter his own powers.
God simply creates a rock and then alters his powers so that he is incapable of lifting it. By doing so, he gives up omnipotence and is no longer God, but the question isn’t whether he would still be God, the question is whether he could make a rock he couldn’t lift. Since he was God when he created the rock and he can no longer lift it, he has fulfilled the requirements of the proof.
Well, good to see that intellectual humility is alive and well with you…
I would quibble with the difference between creating “a rock that he can lift when he creates it, but later be unable to lift” and “a rock that he cannot lift.”
But more importantly, while your solution is…creative…it is hardly satisfying to the theist presented with this puzzle. There are lots of solutions that are unsatisfying (such as that god can do the illogical), we’re searching for a satisfying one (or seeking to prove that there is no satisfying one).
::peers around cautiously, wondering if he’s been whooshed::
Well now you’ve changed it. First you said “an unliftable stone”. Now you’ve added the qualifier “by god”. It’s a subtle difference, but one you obviously thought important enough to surreptitiously sneak it in. What you tried to do was make it sound more like a contradiction in words by changing the phrase from “a stone too heavy for God to lift”, to “an unliftable stone”. Then when I pointed out that the two phrases are not the same, you tacked on a little qualifier: “by God”. Sorry, I’m not buying it. The conundrum is not a contradition in words, like “round square”. That’s my point. And trying to make the phrasing sound more like “round square” doesn’t change anything.
I’m not. I was drawing a distinction between “too heavy for God to lift”, and “unliftable”. I’m still trying to get us away from this idea that the conundrum is nonsensical. By changing it to “unliftable”, you’re trying to make it sound like a logical absurdity, as though the property of “unliftability” is intrinsic to the stone. But it’s not asking if God can make a stone with the magic property of “unliftability”; it’s asking if he can make a stone that’s too heavy to lift.
It’s purpose is to demonstrate that. Whether you have already conceded it is immaterial. I concede that 2+2=4; that doesn’t mean the equation 2+2=4 has no purpose.
I thought you had quoted a Christian author. Apologies if you didn’t.
No it’s not. YOU made a fallacious Appeal to Authority.
You need to tell us specifically which cite you are relying on. I can’t refute generalities.
No I wasn’t. You obviously didn’t understand my argument. Please stop blithely referring to your previous posts; it’s annoying. If you disagree with something I say, make a cogent argument. Stop this “you didn’t read my previous post” nonsense.
Well since that was precisely the point I was addressing, you obviously didn’t comprehend what I was saying. I you think I was arguing some other point, then you are mistaken.
You really, really need to stop saying this. You only believe you did.
I disagree. It’s highly significant. It is, in fact, the crux of the conundrum.
I haven’t ignored anything you’ve said. You’re just failing to understand what I write. You think you’ve refuted something, when you don’t even understand what it is you believe you’ve refuted.
And speaking of ignoring, from now on I’m ignoring every time you blithely say “see my previous posts”. That is a completely unproductive way to argue.
No, why did you toss the word “possible” in there? An idea can be logically coherent yet be physically impossible. Understand?
I wouldn’t put it that way. I already said, absolute omnipotence cannot exist given the laws of the universe as we know them.
Well of course you assume it. The OP left off the customary beginning: “If God is omnipotent, can he…” That’s the whole point of the conundrum.
What’s your point?
Once more, from the top: I am saying that the conundrum is not nonsensical, as are phrases such as “round square”. (Another poster argued that it was nonsensical). The logic is sound, therefore the only effective way to dispute it is either to alter your definition of “omnipotent”, or to maintain that logic does not apply to God.
For that matter, the whole idea of a being that exists outside of our universe, and that we have no way of detecting by any objective standards, is not particulary interesting.
Blowero, I apologize. I accused you of not listening to me when you sincerely believe that you were. I shouldn’t have said you were ignoring my objection – I should have just re-stated my objection more clearly and waited for a response.
Now, can we dispense with the long point-by-point posts and get to the heart of our disagreement? If you insist on going point-by-point I will do so (if only to prove that you’re wrong on some of the insignificant ones :)), but in the interests of the OP and everyone else reading this, I think it best to just drop everything but the important points.
Does the difference between “unliftable stone,” “a stone unliftable by god,” and “a stone so heavy that god cannot lift it” have some significance to our disagreement? I don’t think so. My argument about the logical impossibility of the existence of said rock does not hinge on which of those three descriptions we choose, as long as its clear that god cannot lift it.
We both agree that the puzzle assumes god’s omnipotence, it is intended to start with that assumption and then challenge it.
I’m saying, when you start with the assumption that god can lift anything, the existence of a rock that he cannot lift is mutually exclusive with god’s own existence. Mutual exclusivity makes the existence of the rock logically impossible (i.e. impossible in any logical universe), not just physically impossible.
I think part of the reason we don’t agree on the above is because we don’t understand each other’s terms. An entity’s existence can be impossible because of logical rules or physical rules. Using your examples, an example of the former is the round square. An example of the latter is mass moving faster than the speed of light. When I say logically impossible, I mean that it cannot exist because its existence would contradict some logical rule or contradict a valid conclusion arrived at by definitions and logical rules alone. In this case, the logic is:
God, by definition, can lift everything that now or ever will exist, therefore nothing can exist that he cannot lift.
I think if we are both using the above terminology, then we actually agree that the existence of the rock is both logically and physically impossible (since if something is logically impossible it is also physically impossible). Am I wrong about this?
Finally, Do you believe that omnipotency includes the ability to do the logically impossible? If you don’t believe this, then the fact that god cannot do the logically impossible is insignificant, isn’t it?
I’m sorry we got off on the wrong foot. I promise that if I ever believe I’ve refuted something in a previous post that I will just re-post my argument instead of referring you to my other post. I can see how that would be annoying.
I’m sorry, I honestly have no idea what your point is, or how it is different from anything I’ve said. I believe that the conundrum does NOT describe a logical absudity of the nature of “a round square”. It describes the paradox that would result if absolute omnipotence were to exist, thus demonstrating that absolute omnipotence (i.e., that includes the ability to do contradictory things) cannot exist. That is not the same thing as a logical absudity by definition such as “round square”. The conudrum asks whether a being can do two things; “round square” describes an object that is two things. They are dissimilar concepts. You seem to vacillate between agreeing and disagreeing with me. I’ve expounded on the point as much as I am able, and I’m really not clear what your bone of contention is. I don’t know what else to say, but thanks for your input.
But what if “not giving up (or altering) powers” is one of the things God can’t do, because it can’t be done by anyone or anything (similar to making mistakes, or making a round circle, which, yes, I realize some people might disagree with me on that - I’m not sold on that idea 100% either way)?
Good point. Of course, omnipotence is not for Christians a necessary element of being God – something that finally dawned on me while I was reading your answer.
And not only could He do it – He did do it.
Remember what we celebrated two-and-a-half-weeks ago?
There in the manger, God couldn’t even roll over without help.
)
