The Paradox of Omnipotence

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Again, defining an object so heavy that it cannot be lifted as one that approaches or exceeds the universe in size, and then arguing that if one succeeds in lifting said object, then he is not truly lifting it, but pushing away from it, is arguing semantics. Clearly, the point is whether the being is powerful enough to affect the unaffectable object. Your argument does not even address this.

Originally posted by Creshosk
Still nothing as to why my solution does not fit the criteria of the original challenge. Just you trying to change the criteria of the original problem.

God and the rock is a Schrodinger event, wherein, simultaneously, it is too heavy to lift, and it is being lifted. 😈

Originally posted by Creshosk
Still nothing as to why my solution does not fit the criteria of the original challenge. Just you trying to change the criteria of the original problem.

Your argument does not address the problem presented by the paradox, i.e. whether or not the being is powerful enough to affect the unaffectable object. You are simply arguing the semantics of the term lift.

Oh joy, more dodging...

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Your argument does not address the problem presented by the paradox,

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
i.e. whether or not the being is powerful enough to affect the unaffectable object.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
You are simply arguing the semantics of the term lift.

Is this all you're capable of using? Logically invalid arguments? Cause that's all you're doing.

Suppressed evidence- You choose to discard my solution rather than address it. You dismiss it by saying that it doesn't address the problem. When it does.
No true scotsman- After the assertation/question/claim has been challenged you attempt to disprove the challange by ad hoc changeing the assertation/question/claim
Ad Hominem- you take the argument to me, and start in on me rather than addressing my point.

Is this all you have to offer me?

Originally posted by Creshosk
Oh joy, more dodging...

. . . from you.

Originally posted by Creshosk
Actually my solution addressed what was there. Ignoring a point does not make it go away.. that would be the suppressed evidence fallacy.

For me to ignore a valid argument, you would have to have one to begin with. Your argument addresses whether or not lifting an object that approaches or exceeds the size of the universe truly qualifies as lifting, whereas the problem presented by the paradox is whether or not the being has the ability to elevate, raise, or transport an object that by definition cannot be elevated, raised, or transported.

Originally posted by Creshosk
Redefining the problem is a logical fallacy, I've pointed this out before.

Ad hominem arguments are invalid.

Again, the only one who is trying to define the premises in such a way that it suits his argument is you, i.e. by trying to quanitfy the size of an object that by necessity need only be so heavy that it cannot be lifted, not necessarily of a particular size.

Furthermore, for me to have comitted an ad hominem fallacy, I would have had to have addressed you, and not your argument. If you cannot cite logical fallacies correctly, then do not cite them at all.

Originally posted by Creshosk
Is this all you're capable of using? Logically invalid arguments? Cause that's all you're doing.

Suppressed evidence- You choose to discard my solution rather than address it. You dismiss it by saying that it doesn't address the problem. When it does.
No true scotsman- After the assertation/question/claim has been challenged you attempt to disprove the challange by ad hoc changeing the assertation/question/claim
Ad Hominem- you take the argument to me, and start in on me rather than addressing my point.

Is this all you have to offer me?

By all means, explain how your argument addresses whether or not the being is capable of elevating, raising, or transporting an object that by defintion cannot be eleveated, raised or transported.

Again, the only one who is trying to define the premises in such a way that it suits his argument is you. You are attempting to define an argument about the ability of a being to affect and object that by definition is unaffectable into an argument about what truly qualifies as lifting.

By all means, indicate where I have addressed you, and not your argument.

Creshy...you should just understand that your solution is not a solution, but dodging of the question. You should also realize that even if there was a solution to that question, there would be more abstract and more defined questions that would show the paradox again without having a solution. The topic of this thread is not whether "can God create a stone so heavy he can not lift" is a valid question or has a solution, it is whether the nature of omnipotence is paradoxical, you should start to treat it as that.

Furthermore it is good that you know some logical fallacies, but stating that this or that is one does not make it really one and it also does not stop you from having to answer. The three fallacies/bad debating styles you named so far have not occurred anywhere in this thread and by naming them you have dodged very valid questions that would have brought the debate to an end if you had thought about them.

I am sorry, but you are just wrong in this conversation, you should realize it as Adam as well as I have showed you that your point is invalid.

I'm so glad that you two are totally incapable of adressing my solution. Instead you choose to dismiss it by calling it invalid and then try to redfine the terms. There is nothing said in the question about a size requirment so there is nothing wrong with the size of the rock I used.

And the title of the thread may simply be "The Paradox of Omnipotence" however most of the first post in the thread is talking about the question that I have addressed.

All you two are doing id dodging. Not I, I have responded to the original post of the thread.

Originally posted by mattrab
The Paradox of Omnipotence

Can God make a boulder heavier than he can lift?

If he can make a boulder heavier than he can lift than he is not all powerful, but if he cannot lift the boulder than he is not all-powerful.

Another one which i would like to no more about is, Does the universe exist when nobody is looking? I read this in a magazine and it incoporates the idea of Quantum Mechanics, for how do you know that your living room exists when nobody is in there?

As you'll see. You cannot simply say that a person is wrong and then ignore it. I simply chose one size for the rock to be. By attacking the size of the rock that I choose you're dodging. I never said it had to be that size.

The more you dodge the more you inadvertantly state that I'm right because it seems you CAN'T address the solution. You've been given several opportunities and I don't know if you're really trying or not.

Technically I've addressed the only part of the original post that matches the title. If you two don't like it t's not my fault.

What you two are doing seems very much like going into a thread labeled "colors" where the first post is "what's your favorite color?" and then talking about the effercts different colors have on people.
Meanwhile I have answered the question and given an explination why, then you wo come up and say my answer is invalid and then talk about how colors have different effects on people.

Originally posted by Creshosk
I'm so glad that you two are totally incapable of adressing my solution. Instead you choose to dismiss it by calling it invalid and then try to redfine the terms. There is nothing said in the question about a size requirment so there is nothing wrong with the size of the rock I used.

And the title of the thread may simply be "The Paradox of Omnipotence" however most of the first post in the thread is talking about the question that I have addressed.

All you two are doing id dodging. Not I, I have responded to the original post of the thread.

I have addressed your argument; your argument does not address the problem presented by the paradox. The only one who is being evasive is you, by failing to explain how your argument addresses whether or not the being is capable of elevating, raising, or transporting an object that by defintion cannot be eleveated, raised or transported.

Originally posted by Creshosk
As you'll see. You cannot simply say that a person is wrong and then ignore it.

. . . as you have been doing?

I did not state that you are wrong, I stated that your argument does not address the problem presented by the paradox, and I have detailed why it does not.

Originally posted by Creshosk
I simply chose one size for the rock to be.

Thereby multiplying entities unecesissarily.

Originally posted by Creshosk
By attacking the size of the rock that I choose you're dodging. I never said it had to be that size.

I did not state that the object could not approach or exceed that size of the universe, only that it need not to by necessity.

The size of the object does not affect my argument, whereas your argument is based on the premise that the object be astronomical in size. Hence, why you continue to cling to this premise incessantly, and why you object to reducing the paradox to abstract terms that cannot be argued semantically.

Originally posted by Creshosk
The more you dodge the more you inadvertantly state that I'm right because it seems you CAN'T address the solution. You've been given several opportunities and I don't know if you're really trying or not.

Technically I've addressed the only part of the original post that matches the title. If you two don't like it t's not my fault.

What you two are doing seems very much like going into a thread labeled "colors" where the first post is "what's your favorite color?" and then talking about the effercts different colors have on people.
Meanwhile I have answered the question and given an explination why, then you wo come up and say my answer is invalid and then talk about how colors have different effects on people.

I have evaded nothing. You however, continue to evade the challenge that I posed to you in my previous post:

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
By all means, explain how your argument addresses whether or not the being is capable of elevating, raising, or transporting an object that by defintion cannot be eleveated, raised or transported.

I think the Concept of God, in Christian and Islamic terms is a paradox itself.

Think about it....God is supposed to have omniscience and omnipotence, yet we are supposed to have Free Will.

God is supposed to be All Loving, yet he will only take a few to Heaven, while judging the rest only worthy of Hell (eternal torment)

God is supposed to be perfect, far above human nature, yet in the Bible and Quran he exhibits characteristics of jealousy, wrath, self centeredness, and even commits acts of murder and genocide.

God, according to the Bible, is a man of Peace, but also a man of War.

Jesus is the son he loves the most, yet he sent his own son to be tortured and killed

God loves but he also hates. God is supposed to be good, but he has commited acts of evil upon the world, and upon humanity (according to the stories of the Great Flood, Sodom and Gomorrha and the like)

God, himself, is a paradox.

Originally posted by Creshosk
That's an easy yes.

I think one problem people are having is still with definition.

A paradox is self-contradictory.

Omnipotence itself is just "All power" That alone is hardly self contradictory.

The proofs against omnipotence are allegedly the paradoxes, not omnipotence itself.

Omnipotence is illogical, but by itself is not self contradictory.

In other words, in order for omnipotence to be a paradox, it by itself would have to contradict itself rather than there being proofs which contradict themselves.

sigh. thats very untrue. you see, now ur nitpicking. a phrase might not be self contradictory. yet if you add a singlw word infront of it it might become self contradictory. or a sentence. ill give you an example.

"whatever i shall say after this sentence will be false."

a complete sentence nuthing self contradictory about it. now watch

"whatever i shall say after this sentence will be false." "the previous sentence i spoke was false"

NOW the collection of the two sentences{call it a paragraph} HAS become self contradictory. since one of the claims is false and if the TWO at the SAME TIME were both said to be true than the situation would be a paradox. now lets say we were to name it{for the sake of naming} the "paradox of the sentence which claimed that the next sentence is a lie".

NOW what your saying is that simply because we used the WORDS sentence to describe the paradox{and in reality it is only a paradox when a second sentence opposing the first one's validity is added to it to create a paragraph}, we should say its false?! OFCOURSE NOT. the intentions of the statement to name the paradox is clear and your merely relying on technicalities to do away with the WHOLE THING.

same with omnipotence. in FORMAL LOGIC what your saying is true. the statement or phenomenon of omnipotence does NOT become a paradox as long as any AFFECTS/VALID EXTRAPOLATIONS from the real or imaginary world{ANY template in which a CONSEQUENCE of that supreme power can be displayed} are kept SEPERATE from it.

yet u shud have understood that the INTENTION of the statement{paradox of omnipotence} had to do with the paradox which was created as a CONSEQUENCE of supreme power. after all, the words/phenomenon, "supreme power" has no paradox as u say as long as that claim is not put to the test. but i think both u and i are educated enough to see the meaning behind the simple words wudnt u agree 🙂 🙂 🙂 .

hmmm, now that u mention it, no1 DID answer the paradox i brought up about why a perfect god wud need to create anything to begin with. frusty

hold on, i can give u no lesss than 4 genuine arguments which rise as a result of the combined claim of the presence of omnipotence/omniscience/omnibenevolane/man's free will. doh

Superposition.

Originally posted by Creshosk
I'm so glad that you two are totally incapable of adressing my solution. Instead you choose to dismiss it by calling it invalid and then try to redfine the terms. There is nothing said in the question about a size requirment so there is nothing wrong with the size of the rock I used.

And the title of the thread may simply be "The Paradox of Omnipotence" however most of the first post in the thread is talking about the question that I have addressed.

All you two are doing id dodging. Not I, I have responded to the original post of the thread.

Alright, lets give it the benefit of doubt and assume that we did not refute it nor understand it yet.

Could you, to advance the debate restate your solution in as simple terms as possible, so I can address why I don't think it is sufficent.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
I have addressed your argument;

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
your argument does not address the problem presented by the paradox.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
The only one who is being evasive is you, by failing to explain how your argument addresses whether or not the being is capable of elevating, raising, or transporting an object that by defintion cannot be eleveated, raised or transported.

Your suppresed evidence fallacy is not a valid argument and does not properly address mine.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
. . . as you have been doing?

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
I did not state that you are wrong,

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
I stated that your argument does not address the problem presented by the paradox, and I have detailed why it does not.

The no true scotsman fallacy again.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Thereby multiplying entities unecesissarily.

The no true scotsman fallacy again.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
I did not state that the object could not approach or exceed that size of the universe, only that it need not to by necessity.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
The size of the object does not affect my argument, whereas your argument is based on the premise that the object be astronomical in size. Hence, why you continue to cling to this premise incessantly, and why you object to reducing the paradox to abstract terms that cannot be argued semantically.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
I have evaded nothing. You however, continue to evade the challenge that I posed to you in my previous post:

Ignoreing what has been said is another dodge. Is that all you're truly capable of? Dodging and evading?

Should I try to debate like you by sticking my fingers in my ears and go "lalalala"?

You don't do exactly that but it'd be just as good wouldn't it?

Originally posted by Bardock42
Alright, lets give it the benefit of doubt and assume that we did not refute it nor understand it yet.

Could you, to advance the debate restate your solution in as simple terms as possible, so I can address why I don't think it is sufficent.

Okay, by making it so there is nothing to lift the rock from, the rock can be of any size. But any weight chosen would make it impossible to lift as there is as previously stated nothing to lift it from.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
sigh. thats very untrue. you see, now ur nitpicking. a phrase might not be self contradictory. yet if you add a singlw word infront of it it might become self contradictory. or a sentence. ill give you an example.

"whatever i shall say after this sentence will be false."

a complete sentence nuthing self contradictory about it. now watch

"whatever i shall say after this sentence will be false." "the previous sentence i spoke was false"

NOW the collection of the two sentences{call it a paragraph} HAS become self contradictory. since one of the claims is false and if the TWO at the SAME TIME were both said to be true than the situation would be a paradox. now lets say we were to name it{for the sake of naming} the "paradox of the sentence which claimed that the next sentence is a lie".

NOW what your saying is that simply because we used the WORDS sentence to describe the paradox{and in reality it is only a paradox when a second sentence opposing the first one's validity is added to it to create a paragraph}, we should say its false?! OFCOURSE NOT. the intentions of the statement to name the paradox is clear and your merely relying on technicalities to do away with the WHOLE THING.

same with omnipotence. in FORMAL LOGIC what your saying is true. the statement or phenomenon of omnipotence does NOT become a paradox as long as any AFFECTS/VALID EXTRAPOLATIONS from the real or imaginary world{ANY template in which a CONSEQUENCE of that supreme power can be displayed} are kept SEPERATE from it.

yet u shud have understood that the INTENTION of the statement{paradox of omnipotence} had to do with the paradox which was created as a CONSEQUENCE of supreme power. after all, the words/phenomenon, "supreme power" has no paradox as u say as long as that claim is not put to the test. but i think both u and i are educated enough to see the meaning behind the simple words wudnt u agree 🙂 🙂 🙂 .

Sure, I'm just trying to knock down the concept one paradox at a time.

AS soon as there is an accepted solution to the rock problem I'll move onto the next one.

It just seems to me it bothers people when the Unanswerable questions, become answered.

Originally posted by Creshosk
Okay, by making it so there is nothing to lift the rock from, the rock can be of any size. But any weight chosen would make it impossible to lift as there is as previously stated nothing to lift it from.

Okay, so you are saying he can not lift that rock, thereby making his omnipotence impossible?

Originally posted by Goddess Kali
I think the [b]Concept of God, in Christian and Islamic terms is a paradox itself.

Think about it....God is supposed to have omniscience and omnipotence, yet we are supposed to have Free Will.

God is supposed to be All Loving, yet he will only take a few to Heaven, while judging the rest only worthy of Hell (eternal torment)

God is supposed to be perfect, far above human nature, yet in the Bible and Quran he exhibits characteristics of jealousy, wrath, self centeredness, and even commits acts of murder and genocide.

God, according to the Bible, is a man of Peace, but also a man of War.

Jesus is the son he loves the most, yet he sent his own son to be tortured and killed

God loves but he also hates. God is supposed to be good, but he has commited acts of evil upon the world, and upon humanity (according to the stories of the Great Flood, Sodom and Gomorrha and the like)

God, himself, is a paradox. [/B]

Originally posted by Bardock42
Okay, so you are saying he can not lift that rock, thereby making his omnipotence impossible?

It more a limitation on the words used in the original problem.

It's sort of like another paradox that is usually presented:

Can an omnipotent being make a circle with three corners and only consisting of three straight lines?

Yes, but its called a triangle. Triangles existed before the word triangle did. By creating something to your specifications it becomes a triangle. You can give it the propername of Circle if it makes you feel better but it doesn't change the way things are. Just the words you use to describe events concepts and things.

Originally posted by Creshosk
Sure, I'm just trying to knock down the concept one paradox at a time.

AS soon as there is an accepted solution to the rock problem I'll move onto the next one.

It just seems to me it bothers people when the Unanswerable questions, become answered.

huh? but u obviously dont get what im saying. the whole THING is a paradox and thats what the posters were referring to, your wrongly interpreting the paradox that they are pointing at. also, the question you answered wasnt the question posed to begin with. i thought that was the SUBJECT matter of my last post. 😕 😕