hannukah harry

maybe my understanding of a logical phallacy is wrong, but doing something to a inherent quality to an object doesn't make it a phallacy. a rock has mass. how much? could be 1 gram, could be 1 kilogram, could be enough to be called a planet. making the mass infinite would mean taking it's mass and adding 1 enternally. why can't that be done? and we're not talking about a rock of infinite mass. we're talking about a rock that's just big/heavy enough that god can't lift it. like a body builder who can lift 300 lbs, but not 305 lbs. an all powerful creature can eitehr create it or he can't. if he can, but can't move it, then he's not all powerful. if he can't make it, he's not all powerful.

a square has 4 sides. a circle none. they are to distinctly different objects, with different qualities.
-to make a square circle would be to change those qualities so that it is neither a square nor a circle, which s why that would be a logical phallacy.
-a box with no volume would not be a box by the definintion of a box.
-i'm not understanding the point in space thing, how is that an example of anything?
-since -3 is an imaginary number, there can be no real square that yeilds it. you're trying to take apples and get a kumkwat (sp, i know, but i like the way it looks).

rocks have mass. to give a rock a mass of "x" amount is not a phallacy. whether or not "god" can do that, and then lift it, is not a phallacy as far as i can see. explain it to me. explain it to me as if you w explaining it to the dumbest person on the planet (i'd like to think i'm not, but who knows, i haven't met everyone). don't say, it's a phallacy, like these other examples where you then try to give properties of one object to a different one and still call it the first. explain exactly why it's a phallacy.

oh, and why can't god create a baby adult? that's what he did when he created adam, if you were to listen to the story. a baby is defined by its age, not by its size, and other than in legal terms, an adult is usaually a fully mature organism. why couldn't god create a fully mature adult?

__________________
shabbat shalom, mother fucker! - the hebrew hammer

filtherton

Okay, so your saying that adam was, in fact, a baby? I'm not talking about a person who is young yet looks old. I'm talking about imbuing an object with a property it can not have because it is defined as having properties specifically different from said property.
I think we can all agree that god can lift anything with mass. A boulder has mass. It stands to reason that a boulder cannot exist that is too heavy for god to lift. If you want to argue that god can negate god's own omnipotence than than just remember:

Everything i say is a lie.


btw -3 is a real number. The square root of negative three is an imaginary number.

rsl12

asaram, nano: Being omnipotent and deciding to make yourself not omnipotent is not a paradox.

Is it a paradox to be living and then make yourself dead?

__________________
oh baby oh baby, i like gravy.

hannukah harry

i'm not saying that dam was a baby baby, but if he was born a fully formed man, then technically, he was a baby. if a pregnant lady gave birth to a fully mature human, that person would physically be an adult, while still being a baby. but i guess that was just a bad example. the other ones mentioned were where an object was having a property it can't hve imbued to it, like a circular square, and those are impossible. but since a rock has mass, that would not make impossible.

i personally don't agree with the idea taht god can move anything ith mass (probably because i don't believe in god), but i think that would be a good answer to the question. i would think that it could be said that snce god is on a diff. plane of existence, beyond thephysical, that mass has no bearing (baring?) on him or his powers. but if god is subject to the laws of the universe that he created (assuming the laws are there because he was subject to them at creation, laws that affect all reality on all levels) then the questoin would of the rock would be valid, i think.

good call onthe -3. it's been too long sine i've taken any advanced math classes.

Xell101

Couldn't god create a universe that is a single rock, therefore rendering it incapable of motion, for there is no place for it to move?

Death is a function of life. Limitation is not a function of omnipotence. Better analogy would be an immortal dying.

nanofever

A condition of being omnipotent is the consistance of omnipotence. Either you are omnipotent and you can never leave that state or you were never truly omnipotent in the first place.

The living / dead thing is a false analogy as others have pointed-out.

The long post of mine clearly stated why this is a Fallacy, please at least give it a once over before arguing the rock question isn't a fallacy.

__________________
I'm leaving for the University of California: Santa Barbara in 5 hours, give me your best college advice - things I need, good ideas, bad ideas, nooky, ect.

Originally Posted by Norseman on another forum:
"Yeah, the problem with the world is the stupid people are all cocksure of themselves and the intellectuals are full of doubt."

Mantus

hannukah harry,

As illustrated before we can either have rocks that no being can lift or a being that can lift any rock. Either one or the other but never both. If one exists it automatically cancels out the existence of the other.

You say that we are just talking about mass and strength, that there is nothing complicated about these qualities. Well there is nothing complicated about a square and a circle but no shape can poses both qualities. Omnipotence and immovability are not qualities of a god or a rock, but rather qualities of the universe. The universe either has omnipotent beings or immovable rocks; it can never possess both for it would be a contradiction.

hannukah harry

that's the point of the question. they are a contradiction, therefore they don't exist. i don't think that there really is a logical phallacy in the question, i think it's that the answers that are possible given logical reasoning make the answers impossible.

anyways, i'm gonna bow out now, i don't see the logical phallacy in the question... and i guess i never will because i of my own mental block or because it's not there. either way. g'night all!

__________________
shabbat shalom, mother fucker! - the hebrew hammer

rsl12

nanofever, asaram: that's where I disagreewith both of you. Perhaps it's simply a matter of definition. To me, there's nothing inherent in the definition of "omnipotence" that suggests that it must be continual--omnipotence is the state of having absolute power. Your definition seems to be that omnipotence is the state of having absolute power for eternity. If you use that definition, I agree with everything you say.

However, as "omni" means all, and "potence" is power, I don't see anything in the definition that suggests that it has to be forever.

__________________
oh baby oh baby, i like gravy.

asaris

I would agree God has to remain omnipotent. However, for different reasons. It does not contradict his omnipotence for him to cease to be omnipotent (i.e., there's nothing contradictory about an omnipotent being qua omnipotent ceasing to be omnipotent.) It does, however, contradict his nature. God is necessarily omnipotent, and so for him to cease to be omnipotent would mean he would cease to be God.

__________________
"Die Deutschen meinen, daß die Kraft sich in Härte und Grausamkeit offenbaren müsse, sie unterwerfen sich dann gerne und mit Bewunderung:[...]. Daß es Kraft giebt in der Milde und Stille, das glauben sie nicht leicht."

"The Germans believe that power must reveal itself in hardness and cruelty and then submit themselves gladly and with admiration[...]. They do not believe readily that there is power in meekness and calm."

-- Friedrich Nietzsche

rsl12

asaris: that's true--a universe with a god would suddenly turn into a universe without a god. theists would all have to turn athiest.

but very interesting: then you would agree with my point that an omnipotent being could create a rock that he couldn't lift (by virtue of limiting his omnipotence), even though God couldn't do the same thing (because he has to remain omnipotent forever)?

__________________
oh baby oh baby, i like gravy.

rsl12

i should say, the omnipotent being could make a rock that he couldn't lift by creating a new law of physics that limits his omnipotence (ie, he's not really changing himself, he's changing his environment such that such a rock could exist). small point, but just to clear up potential confusion.

__________________
oh baby oh baby, i like gravy.

Mantus

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.

asaris

Mantus -- in general, a nice post, but you misunderstand the idea of 'logical possibility'. It's different than what we might call 'natural possibility'. It's a matter of natural possibility that I cannot fly unaided. As a matter of fact, no human can fly unaided. But it's a matter of logical possibilty that I cannot draw a square circle. No matter what the powers of humans were, they would not be able to draw a round square.

You're also mistaken about the point that the question is logically fallacious. Certainly you're right that only an argument can be logically fallacious, but that doesn't mean that all questions are valid questions. As I argued above, the object 'a rock so big God cannot lift it' falls into the same category as a square circle; something logically impossible.

Finally, a brief point that might be worth taking into account. We've been arguing that God cannot create a rock so big he cannot lift it (because that's nonsensical). But I don't think any of us wants to say that God cannot create a rock that he won't lift.

__________________
"Die Deutschen meinen, daß die Kraft sich in Härte und Grausamkeit offenbaren müsse, sie unterwerfen sich dann gerne und mit Bewunderung:[...]. Daß es Kraft giebt in der Milde und Stille, das glauben sie nicht leicht."

"The Germans believe that power must reveal itself in hardness and cruelty and then submit themselves gladly and with admiration[...]. They do not believe readily that there is power in meekness and calm."

-- Friedrich Nietzsche

rsl12

asaris: i would argue that the term "forever omnipotent" is the logical fallacy since, as described above, the omnipotent being can do something that the forever omnipotent person can't (i.e., change him/herslef to be not omnipotent anymore).

__________________
oh baby oh baby, i like gravy.

hiredgun

Not only was a word invented in this thread, but it's a freaking awesome word.

Phallacy. Hahahahah. awesome. I'm not kidding.

Phallus? Fallacy? No, phallacy.

Back on topic: This thread should have been over with nanofever's post. To ask God to create a rock bigger than he can lift is a logical contradiction.

Mantus

Let me try this again, maybe it will be easier to understand.

Either it is possible that a being which can lift any rock exists or a rock that cannot be lifted to exists. Either one or the other, both cannot exist in the same universe.

Concept 1.

- Objects that cannot be lifted are possible.
- A being that can lift any object is impossible.
- God is omnipotent and can do anything logically possible.
- God can create anything logically possible.
- It is logically impossible for God to lift a rock that cannot be lifted.
- It is logically possible for God to create a rock that cannot be lifted.
- Therefore it is logically possible for god to create a rock that he cannot lift and remain omnipotent.

Concept 2.

- A being that can lift any object is possible.
- Objects that cannot be lifted are impossible.
- God is omnipotent and can do anything logically possible.
- God can create anything logically possible.
- It is logically possible for God to lift any rock.
- It is logically impossible for God to create a rock that cannot be lifted.
- Therefore it is logically impossible for God to create a rock that he cannot lift.

As you see the outcome of the answer depends on whether the universe contains beings that can lift any object or objects that no being can lift.


Asaris,

I don’t believe there is any difference between what you call “naturally possible” and logically possible. Anything that is actually possible is also logically possible. If you cannot do something naturally (actually) you cannot do it then logically as well.

For example, I cannot fly at this moment. It would be impossible to conceive of an argument, which proves that I can indeed fly at this moment without running into a fallacy. That is unless there is some knowledge we are not aware off which would indeed make me able to fly at this moment. In such a case the act becomes both naturally and logically possible.

Further, the only way that an invalid question can occur is if its results somehow became unwanted. For example, you took a survey and the wording in one question lead you to answer in a certain way. If the people doing the survey were looking for impartial answers then they would render you answer and the question invalid.

iman

Nano, I think you're begging the question.

Where did logic come from? Did God create logic? Was it always there? Is it fundamental to the structure of the universe? Didn't God create the universe? Is logic prior to God, does it have power over GOD's will? Why? You can't just assume that!

How can something like logic have power over GOD? And how would you prove that logic is prior to God without using logic (you couldn't use logic to prove the primacy of logic!). That's probably a greater paradox. You just can't answer the original question - that's the point. That's why the paradox has such power - as much power as, say, "If a tree fell in the woods and there was nobody around . . . ". It makes you see the limits of our understanding/our implicit assumptions.

But, back to the question: Can't God's WILL overcome logic? If HE is omnipotent, why shouldn't that be the case?

Why give something as mundane as logic power over GOD's WILL? Can you just assume such a thing?

I think that's the real question being asked in the original thread:

Is GOD a slave to logic?

I'm no expert on Theology, but I think Logic has traditionally been taken to be God's mind, or God's reason. So, can God's will supercede HIS reason/mind? The question of logical phallasy only comes (HA - phallus comes!) up if you assume that God's will is subject to the rules of logic - a GIGANTIC assumption.

rsl12

you're all onto something here: what kind of powers should be associated with being omnipotent? if you can create atoms just by thinking about them, you're violating a big fat law of physics, and aren't the laws of physics the logical laws of the universe? how is that any different from violating the logic of a syllogism? who says that a syllogism has to be valid outside this universe?

so there can't be an omnipotent being unless they have the ability to play with logic in the first place. therefore an omnipotent being is beyond the laws of logic.

__________________
oh baby oh baby, i like gravy.

Evil Milkman

Yeah, but the "Rock" argument is saying just that: God shouldn't have to be bound by any "logical" reasoning. If It can't perform outside of reality, could it create an illogical "reality".

Ouch. 'Nuff thinking for now.

skyscan

Ok, I win....

The real solution is that god would change the defintion of omnipotent from:

Having unlimited or universal power, authority, or force; all-powerful.

To:

Having unlimited or universal power, authority, or force; all-powerful. Except when createing something with the stipulation of the said item causeing a end of having unlimited power.



-Peace Be With You. =)

__________________
Media Stew

Grothendieck

Let me just go into this: Your question is a typical example of Gödel's incompleteness theorem in action. This theorem states that every nontrivial formal language contains statements which are neither provable nor refutable. I.e., they are undecidable. Here the axiom "God is omnipotent" is applied to the paradox "Omnipotent enough to not be omnipotent".

So you see this is not a decidable question. It is not even a sensible question to ask. It's like the barber who shaves every person that doesn't shave themself. It also goes to show that philosophers and the religious have a tendency to go off on issues which are redundant by science.

In a sense I'm paraphrasing rsl12. But my view of "truth" is the notion of "expert's agreement". And we only have our fellow humans to converse with and ask to be our co-experts at the moment. So we're bound to logic.

__________________
Didn't remember how intense love could be... Thank you B.

Tman144

So if the "rock so big he can't lift it" argument is a logical fallacy doesn't that make the notion of an all-powerful and all-knowing being false as well? That means were left with two choices, a) God doesn't exist, or at least not in the form we have come to believe, or b) God created a universe which he is not master of.
Think about that.

__________________
"Don't touch my belt, you Jesus freak!" -Mr. Gruff the Atheist Goat

Grothendieck

I would agree, Tman144.

__________________
Didn't remember how intense love could be... Thank you B.

asaris

Tman. Read the thread. We've been discussing precisely that question the whole time. What the argument amounts to is this: God can't violate the laws of logic because it doesn't make sense to claim that God can violate the laws of logic. Saying God can create a rock so big he can't lift it is like saying God can sgoahgoew.

__________________
"Die Deutschen meinen, daß die Kraft sich in Härte und Grausamkeit offenbaren müsse, sie unterwerfen sich dann gerne und mit Bewunderung:[...]. Daß es Kraft giebt in der Milde und Stille, das glauben sie nicht leicht."

"The Germans believe that power must reveal itself in hardness and cruelty and then submit themselves gladly and with admiration[...]. They do not believe readily that there is power in meekness and calm."

-- Friedrich Nietzsche

filtherton

I think there is a difference between the laws of physics and the laws of logic. The laws of physics, as we know them, are based on the rules of logic. That being said, our definition of logic is highly specialized for human existence and therefore may not be the best judge of what is logical for other beings.

The laws of physics are interpreted for humanity by science and as such are only accurate interpretations as far as we can tell.
That is to say that the physics at one point claimed that atoms took a form similar to plum pudding. If god, at that time, decided to act based on the nuclear model it wouldn't negate the laws of physics, it would just mean that our interpretations of the laws of physics weren't entirely accurate. Indeed, by definition it is not possible to violate the laws of physics, it is only possible to disprove theories describing laws of physics.

It is easy to write off a violation of physical law as not a true violation, but a reflection of our innaccurate interpretations of said laws.

It is also very possible, indeed likely that our conception of what it means to be logical isn't entirely accurate either in comparison to the logic of a deity. Certainly humans may be the most rational beings we know, but we are far from "rational". We're far from vulcans.

So i'm changing my position. I think that it might be possible for god to create a boulder so heavy that god could not lift it. I think the actual answer, at least at this point, is unknowable.

iman

Asaris: I agree that it does not make sense to US that God can violate the laws of logic, since we are slaves to logic and our thought is structured by logic. But why do you assume that what God can do is knowable to us. Why must God's actions be logical just because our thought is logical? Why is logic prior to God. You may presume that logic is prior to everything. I presume that GOD is prior to everything, including logic - and that logic came from somewhere, namely God's mind. If God is prior to logic, then God's will should be able to transcend the laws of logic.

As filtherton said above, the answer to the question of the rock is unknowable to us, since we can only think within the bounds of logic - but just because its unknowable, doesn't mean it's beyond the bounds of what God can do. How can you assume that God can only do what we can make sense of?

asaris

Oh, I never said it was impossible that God be above the laws of logic. I said the claim that he was is meaningless, for the reasons you give. I know it's kind of a thin line, but it works for me.

__________________
"Die Deutschen meinen, daß die Kraft sich in Härte und Grausamkeit offenbaren müsse, sie unterwerfen sich dann gerne und mit Bewunderung:[...]. Daß es Kraft giebt in der Milde und Stille, das glauben sie nicht leicht."

"The Germans believe that power must reveal itself in hardness and cruelty and then submit themselves gladly and with admiration[...]. They do not believe readily that there is power in meekness and calm."

-- Friedrich Nietzsche

thespian86

I'm sitting here with a fellow christian and the first thing he said "What kind of question is that?" My thoughts exactly

__________________
EX: Whats new?
ME: I officially love coffee more then you now.
EX: uh...
ME: So, not much.

Rekna

The question really boils down to can God give up his omnipitancy. Which the answer I would guess is yes.

The problem is having a rock that is so big it cannot be moved and having someone that can move anything reguardless of size are two mutually exclusive events. Meaning A cannot be true if B is true. So can God create a rock so big that he cannot move it? Yes but in doing so he would be giving up his omnipitancy but only when dealing with this rock.

Another thing he could do is create the rock and just say I will never move it. He may have power over it but never exert the power over the rock.

Or another answer to this question is yes but how we have no idea. It is beyond our comprension but to god all things are possible. Including things we cannot understand.

So ask yourself first, can you understand how a rock could exist that cannot be moved along with a being that exists that can move anything? If you cannot see how something like that can even exist then why ask the question because you cannot comprehend the answer even it it existed.

Jay Francis

Nanofever. Excellent excellent analysis of the issue. However, there is a passage in the New Testament in which Jesus compares the difficulty of a rich man getting into heaven with a camel passing through the eye of a needle, then going on to say that all things are possible to God.

I was always amused by this little passage as it opens up the whole argument that the Christian god is capable of handling logical impossibilities, as ridiculous as that is.

Mantus

The phrase "eye of the needle" is seriously misunderstood.

The Eye of the needle was a gate in Jerusalem, that was rather narrow. The law was that if a camel could not pass though the gate because it carried too many goods then they had to be removed until it could pass. Any goods that had to be removed had to be handed over to the King.

So the phrase refers to those who are striving to achieve salvation while holding on to their excess baggage. Such as greed for example.

Seer666

I just feel the need to point out that He already did make a rock he couldn't lift. That rock is called free will.

__________________
Bad spellers of the world untie!!!

I am the one you warned me of

I seem to have misplaced the bullet with your name on it, but I have a whole box addressed to occupant.