Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post - Can God make a rock big enough so that he cannot move it?

Mantus · 02-19-2004, 04:25 PM

Now that I think about it hannukah harry is right. A logical fallacy can only occur in an argument not in a question. We can ask the question, which is perfectly valid but the question leads to a response that is a fallacy. Therefore it is not the question but our answer that is causing problems.

For example if I ask: “Can you have a cube and a cylinder fill a square hole?” there would be no problem with asking such a question. The answer is “no”. Only a cube can fill a square hole, a cylinder will not, by its definition. So we came up with the answer “no” because it was logically sound while saying “yes” would lead to a fallacy.

So when we ask “Can God (an omnipotent being) create a rock he cannot lift?” does saying “yes” lead to a logical fallacy? The answer is, it depends.

Maybe I was on to something in the first place. It is true that we cannot have irresistible force and immovable objects in the same world. Yet as I was saying before the definition of omnipotence remains a problem. If we define omnipotence as: the ability to do anything(definition a), then technically an omnipotent being should be able to break the laws of logic and reason. An omnipotent being should be able to make a square-circle. Though such a concept is absurd and we must conclude that omnipotence should be re-defined as: the ability to do anything that is logically possible (definition b) (as nanofever put it).

If we change the definition of omnipotence from (a) to (b) then an omnipotent being can create a rock that it cannot lift. Because if the universe has the ability to poses immovable objects, then irresistible force is logically impossible. Therefore an omnipotent being does not have to possess the quality of infinite strength to be omnipotent, if it did, its existence would be logically impossible.

Going back to my answer to the question. It depends on how we define omnipotence; if we define as definition (a) then the answer is “yes”, God can make such a rock. If the definition is modified to (b) then it depends on whether immovable objects exist or not. If immovable objects exist then “yes” God can create a rock it cannot lift. If immovable objects do not exist then “no” God cannot create a rock it cannot lift.

So where does this leave omnipotence? If we use the revised definition (b) wont a human being qualify as omnipotent? After all we can do everything that is logically possible for us to do.

We can modify the definition again and say that omnipotence is: the ability to do anything logically possible greater then anything/anyone in existence (definition c). Though with such a definition omnipotence would simply become a synonym for “supremacy”. As the above is also the definition for a Supreme Being.

Therefore I must conclude that omnipotence is either a term used to describe something absurd (the ability to do anything), a term that describe pretty much anything that does “work” (the ability to do anything logically possible), or just a synonym for supremacy (the ability to do anything logically possible greater then anything/anyone else in existence).

BTW, I think that rsl12 is on to something here, with his introduction of time into the question. Though I am not ready to respond yet.

02-19-2004, 04:25 PM	#53 (permalink)
Mantus lascivious	Now that I think about it hannukah harry is right. A logical fallacy can only occur in an argument not in a question. We can ask the question, which is perfectly valid but the question leads to a response that is a fallacy. Therefore it is not the question but our answer that is causing problems. For example if I ask: “Can you have a cube and a cylinder fill a square hole?” there would be no problem with asking such a question. The answer is “no”. Only a cube can fill a square hole, a cylinder will not, by its definition. So we came up with the answer “no” because it was logically sound while saying “yes” would lead to a fallacy. So when we ask “Can God (an omnipotent being) create a rock he cannot lift?” does saying “yes” lead to a logical fallacy? The answer is, it depends. Maybe I was on to something in the first place. It is true that we cannot have irresistible force and immovable objects in the same world. Yet as I was saying before the definition of omnipotence remains a problem. If we define omnipotence as: the ability to do anything(definition a), then technically an omnipotent being should be able to break the laws of logic and reason. An omnipotent being should be able to make a square-circle. Though such a concept is absurd and we must conclude that omnipotence should be re-defined as: the ability to do anything that is logically possible (definition b) (as nanofever put it). If we change the definition of omnipotence from (a) to (b) then an omnipotent being can create a rock that it cannot lift. Because if the universe has the ability to poses immovable objects, then irresistible force is logically impossible. Therefore an omnipotent being does not have to possess the quality of infinite strength to be omnipotent, if it did, its existence would be logically impossible. Going back to my answer to the question. It depends on how we define omnipotence; if we define as definition (a) then the answer is “yes”, God can make such a rock. If the definition is modified to (b) then it depends on whether immovable objects exist or not. If immovable objects exist then “yes” God can create a rock it cannot lift. If immovable objects do not exist then “no” God cannot create a rock it cannot lift. So where does this leave omnipotence? If we use the revised definition (b) wont a human being qualify as omnipotent? After all we can do everything that is logically possible for us to do. We can modify the definition again and say that omnipotence is: the ability to do anything logically possible greater then anything/anyone in existence (definition c). Though with such a definition omnipotence would simply become a synonym for “supremacy”. As the above is also the definition for a Supreme Being. Therefore I must conclude that omnipotence is either a term used to describe something absurd (the ability to do anything), a term that describe pretty much anything that does “work” (the ability to do anything logically possible), or just a synonym for supremacy (the ability to do anything logically possible greater then anything/anyone else in existence). BTW, I think that rsl12 is on to something here, with his introduction of time into the question. Though I am not ready to respond yet.