The Instigator
dairygirl4u2c
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
aburk903
Con (against)
Winning
13 Points

Can God create a rock so big he can't lift it, or can he not create the rock? answer is yes...

Do you like this debate?NoYes-1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 4 votes the winner is...
aburk903
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/26/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 566 times Debate No: 58221
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (7)
Votes (4)

 

dairygirl4u2c

Pro

Can an Omnipotent God create a rock he cannot lift? it is said that If one answers yes to the question, then God is therefore not omnipotent because he cannot lift the rock, but if one answers no to the question, God is no longer omnipotent because he cannot create the rock.

my position is that he can do one or the other, at different times, but he can't do both at the same time. and, that he can't do both at the same time doesn't disprove God as omnipotent.

the question is basically another way of saying the following...
"can the unlimited limit itself? if not, it is not unlimited. is so, it is not unlimited."

does the fact that we can ask those questions show that the unlimited is possible only in theory, but when examined, is not actually possible? a mere human construct that has been shown to not hold up against scrutiny?

not necessarily. it moreso shows the absurdity of the question. no matter how we approach it, the unlimited is then limited. calling the unlimited, limited, for the above stated reasons, is an absurd notion itself.
the only way to approach it is to say, if the unlimited is truly unlimited, then it cannot limit itself. that would be illogical. we must say that the unlimited cannot limit itself. this is true at the abstract level, but has troubling consequences in application. cause what gives, can he make the rock or can't he? does the inability of the unlimited being unable to limit itself translate into "no God cannot create the rock ie limit himself, he who is unlimited?" or does it translate into 'no he can create the rock cause he is unlimited, but he can't lift it?"

the solution lies in stepping back from the abstract, in the real world. for example, in the real world, a circle cannot at the same time be a square. if the inability for a square to at the same time be a circle shows that the unlimited is not possible, then yes, the unlimited does not exist. but in the real world, the unlimited can be said to exist, if it follows the laws of logic. this all translates into God by replacing "unlimited" with "God". the unlimited ultimately transaltes into God's abilities. so, God in the world of imagation where circles and be squares, God is not unlimited. but in the real world, God is limited by logic. perhaps it is better not to say that God is unlimited, but that God is reality, which includes logic. or at least to recognize that the unlimited can only be so in the real world where logic restricts what it really mean to be unlimited.

so we've examined the unlimited when it comes to the square circle, what about back to the issue of God and the rock?

to answer this, we need to ask another question. what happens when an immovable rock meets the unstoppable force of God?

the issue-- the paradox arises because it rests on two premises"that there exist such things as immovable rocks and unstoppable forces"which cannot both be true at once. If there exists an unstoppable force, it follows logically that there cannot be any such thing as an immovable rock, and vice versa.

so the key then is "at once". to ask if God can create both scenarios at once is a logical impossibility. God cannot do the logically impossible.

if God creates the immovable rock, he cannot be an unstoppable force. and if God acts as the unstoppable force, he cannot create an immovable rock. he must choose which scenario exists at any given time. and, in fact, the fact that he would be able to choose the scenario, highlights the underlying omnipotence of God to begin with.
so, as some have intuitively argued, God can create the rock, but then he can also choose to lift it. but he can't create both scenarios at once. that would be illogical.
so.. yes, in some sense, God as the unlimited has been shown to not exist... he is restricted. but.... he's merely restricted from the world of imagination, due to logic. God cannot be illogical.

so, ultimately... the notion of unlimited that follows logic hasn't been shown to not exist.... it and the following notion of God, has been shown to be possible..... as long as it's consistent, and logical.
aburk903

Con

I believe I have understood the main contentions of my opponent's case, but some of the wording seems a bit illogical. However, I accept this debate merely based on the fact that the paradox presented by this premise is a fallacious one. My opponent claims that the answer is yes, but to do so with utter certainty requires assumptions that she cannot reasonably make. My opponent must, for instance, know of a God. Further, this God must be omnipotent. Further still, according to my opponents case, despite His omnipotence He is bound by the human understanding of the laws of logic. All of these things must be arbitrarily accepted to even begin to consider the validity of my opponent's conclusion of "yes". This is, however, not the case. This paradox is unanswerable because the parts of it are undefinable (objectively). Therefore, my opponent's premise is false in that it provides an answer to a paradox that cannot exist with any objective validity.
Debate Round No. 1
dairygirl4u2c

Pro

well, i admit there are a lot of impied assmptions one must make when taking this debate. most people approach it as in "if God as the unlimited does exist..." and then they argue about it. i respect con's points, but this is not the direction i wanted the debate to go, so will not proceed further with it. these are other debates for different times.
if ya all want to vote against me for it, so be it.
aburk903

Con

As Pro hasn't offered a direct concession I cannot treat her previous statement as such. Indeed, this debate might have been more interesting if Pro had mandated that certain assumptions be made by both sides as starting points in this debate. However, that is not the case, as is indicated by the fact that she provides an answer to the paradox within the resolution. To that I offer the contention that that answer is unattainable without accepting certain unknowable concepts (such as omnipotent sentient force, etc.,). I would hope that this debate does not end so quickly, but will understand if it does.
Debate Round No. 2
dairygirl4u2c

Pro

that you for pointing out all the hidden assumptions. it is a shame we differ on where we would like the debate to go. i stand by my resolution not to engage these issues in this debate.
it's not like con and i haven't engaged in 'does God exist' type debates before, so it's not like im trying to compeltely avoid the issue. im not just into debating that stuff, and given my focus is clearly not gearted towards that stuff, i dont feel all that bad about not tackling it.
again, if voters want to penalize me for not taking the, admittedly valid, approach offered by con, so be it.
aburk903

Con

I'm not sure if I entirely understand the content of my opponent's previous round, but I believe I grasp the main idea. Ultimately, the problem with this debate is that my opponent advocates that this paradox is answerable, and that it is answerable in the affirmative. Whether or not my opponent intended to enter into a theological debate is irrelevant to the fact that it follows by necessity from the resolution and is ultimately the key weakness in her case. Because the only way my opponent's conclusion could be validated would be through knowledge that is necessarily unknowable, her argument is invalid. Therefore, you must vote Con.
Debate Round No. 3
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by ArcTImes 2 years ago
ArcTImes
Having 2 debates on the same topic at the same time gives an advantage to your opponents because they can read their arguments lol.
Posted by ArcTImes 2 years ago
ArcTImes
IF his argument is a fallacy, his opponent just to point it out, explain it and he is going to get the free win.
At the end you can win with logic and a counter example.
Posted by T_parkour 2 years ago
T_parkour
It's a loaded question. Your entire argument is a logical fallacy. Way to get a free win by taking a cheap shot at whoever accepts.
Posted by SandmanTF131 2 years ago
SandmanTF131
I do not know if I have ever read a debate so poorly constructed.
Posted by iamanatheistandthisiswhy 2 years ago
iamanatheistandthisiswhy
This is a silly proposition, actually its just dumb.

You have all the options, no matter what the person says you can just say exactly. I mean how can you be pro and con in a debate? Absurd.
Posted by Raymond_Reddington 2 years ago
Raymond_Reddington
This is unreadable
Posted by IceClimbers 2 years ago
IceClimbers
sigh.............
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by NiamC 2 years ago
NiamC
dairygirl4u2caburk903Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: invalid argument
Vote Placed by neutral 2 years ago
neutral
dairygirl4u2caburk903Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Con, the assumptions argument.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
dairygirl4u2caburk903Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: pro had to prove god as well as limiting omnipotence down to human logic
Vote Placed by FuzzyCatPotato 2 years ago
FuzzyCatPotato
dairygirl4u2caburk903Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: pro must prove god or enforce it as given