Can God create a rock so big he can't lift it, or not create the rock? either, not at same time
Debate Rounds (3)
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 in no way limited. 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.
Thank you for the invite to this debate.
You are asking two questions of an unlimited/omnipotent god.
1. Can this god create an immovable rock
2. can god, with unlimited power move this immovable rock.
(you are asserting a third point...3. yes, but not at the same time)
MY simple rebuttal is why can he not do both at the same time.
First we must look at the rock. The only way a rock to be consider absolutely immovable is if there is no space for the rock to moved to. This means the rock is as big, or bigger than space itself. However the space-continuum will keep expanding to fit any objects inside of it.
Therefore creating such a rock is logically impossible.
Pro has claimed it is possible for an omnipotent god to complete a task that is illogically impossible.
Second, the movement of the rock. This god has unlimited power. By the definition of unlimited, he should be able move such a rock (an illogically created rock).
The problem arises as we have given this illogical rock the inability to move. How could this god move something that is immovable.
The question is not how he could do it, but simply...
If we agree, the omnipotent god can do an illogical task in creating this rock, why are we limiting him to the logic of moving it?
Is there any reason god is only allowed to perform one illogical task and not two?
An unlimited god is not LIMITED to logic. Therefore the illogical is possible as agreed by Pro, in the creation of an immovable rock.
because it is a logical impossiblity. there cannot be at the same time an immovable force and an unstoppable force acting on each other logically. it is impossible, logically.
con even admitted as much in our last debate about the 'unlimited paradox'. he now says it should be possible for God but not for a general notion of an unlimited force? what's the difference? there is none.
con tries to apply physics to the immovable rocks, and i'm not sure he's doing a proper job. the rock wouldnt need to take up the whole univers fo it to be immovable, it would merely be too big for any other existing force to move. therefore such a rock is not impossible.
and why would con say an immovable force be possible in the other debate, but not an immovable rock in this debate?
i never claimed God can do the impossible. in fact, i stated the opposite.
con argues that the unlimited cannot be limited to logic or it is not unlimited. but, we have no reason to think anything other than the logically possible exists. or, we could at least say the otherwise unlimited force of God is limited by logic.
and again, con was before acting as if an unlimited force cannot cause two infinitely opposing forces to come together... so what has changed?
Pro is misinterpretting our last debate about the ability of an unlimited universe.
In a universe without limits, immovable, and unstoppable do not apply as they have imposed limits.
Therefore any arguments regarding "limiting the unlimited" have not been said in this debate and should not apply.
We are now arguing if an unlimited entity can create powers beyond his limit. These premises are different and do not coincide with one another.
" the rock wouldnt need to take up the whole univers fo it to be immovable, it would merely be too big for any other existing force to move. therefore such a rock is not impossible."
The only way this rock could be considred immovable, or too big, is if it had infinte mass. This is logically and physically impossible as infinte mass
If we agree this rock can be created, we must do so agreeing it is logically impossible (but illogically possible).
I stand by my argument:
if an omnipotent god is capable do doing an illogical act (creating the rock) he is should then be able to move the rock, despite its logical impossibility; as this omnipotent god's power does not apply to logic.
(if he can do one, why can he not do the other?)
"In a universe without limits, immovable, and unstoppable do not apply as they have imposed limits."
con in the past debate said that those two forces could in fact exist, and that they couldn't exist at the same time. there's no reason we should make the world with God mean anything more than a world with supposed unlimited potential. if there's immovable objects there can't be unstoppable forces interacting with it. in the past debate or this one.
"We are now arguing if an unlimited entity can create powers beyond his limit. These premises are different and do not coincide with one another."
there's no reason why an 'unlimited entity' would change anything that is different than an unlimited world. if there are restrictions as there were in the past debate, there's restrictions in this debate. that is, God the otherwise unlimited who is limited by logic. if you want to say God is not truely unlimited, i won't argue, but it's only as a matter of logic.
"The only way this rock could be considred immovable, or too big, is if it had infinte mass. This is logically and physically impossible as infinte mass "
i would suppose there would be a tipping point, where a humongous rock, or a rock with dense energy making it immovable, would not need infinite mass. i mean, there's effectively immovable and there's infinitely immovable. effectively, if it has most of the energy in the universe, there's not or in some cases wouldn't be likely going to be anything that can move it.
"This is logically and physically impossible as infinte mass "
i've actually entetained the idea that we can just say 'immovable objects' and 'unstoppable forces' just do not exist, at least in terms of whether they'd abide by our natural laws. but, if we entertain that they are possible, which i would, then we then have to ask all the stuff we've been talking about above.
we do not need to resort to con's point about god being able to do illogic in the second step if he can do illogic in the first step. it's not illogical to begin with. there can't be two effectively immutably opposing forcing that can interact with each other. it this was true in the past debate, i'm still not clear why it wouldn't be true in this debate.
Our past debate does not matter in this debate. They were different premises, with different scenarios that have no bearing on this debate at hand.
But again I will clarify. Unlimited Universe means a separate realm from ours where there are NO LIMITS. This means neither an immovable ojbect, nor an unstoppable force can exist at any time in that universe. You argued one cannot exist while the other one does. I argued that neither exist ever in that universe.
NOW onto our debate.
I will quote a few of Pro's Round 3 debate.
" God the otherwise unlimited who is limited by logic. if you want to say God is not truely unlimited, i won't argue, but it's only as a matter of logic."
"i've actually entetained the idea that we can just say 'immovable objects' and 'unstoppable forces' just do not exist, at least in terms of whether they'd abide by our natural laws. but, if we entertain that they are possible, which i would, then we then have to ask all the stuff we've been talking about above."
Why are we entertaining the idea of illogical, or against nature, objects when the god we are arguing about has to abide by these laws of logic?
Pro has said God must abide by logic, yet deems the two opposing forces, immovable and unstoppable, do not apply to the laws of nature.
He is putting an unlimited omnipotent god in a limited universe. This does not apply as an unlimited all powerful god is not restrainted to "our world" and our "laws of nature".
"there's effectively immovable and there's infinitely immovable. effectively, if it has most of the energy in the universe, there's not or in some cases wouldn't be likely going to be anything that can move it."
Establishing a difference in immovable at this point in this debate seems meaningless. But still able to struck down in argument.
If this immovable object has "most of the energy in the universe" and this omnipotent god has unlimited power/energy in this universe, it is therefore movable by this god. This renders the object movable, failing to meet the criteria of 'immovable'.
If it is infinitely movable, it must have infinte mass, or ALL of the energy in the universe. This is illogical, as nothing can have infinite mass.
This means we are dealing in the realm of illogical. This god should not be tied to logic, if were assuming the objects created are tied to logic.
I do not need to entertain the ideas of these objects existing within our laws of nature, because this god does not exist with our laws of nature.
Concluding, an unlimited, omnipotent god who can create illogical objects deemed immovable, should also be able to perform more illogical tasks. Such as moving said immovable rocks.
Thank you for the debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by InnovativeEphemera 2 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||4|
Reasons for voting decision: Pro attempted to prove that God is omnipotent despite there being something He can't do "because it's a logical impossibility". Con pulled Pro up on this and illustrated that that defies the concept and definition of omnipotence. Omnipotence is a definitional paradox. Without getting into God had to come from somewhere etc etc etc, God does irrational things all the time which are justified because He's metaphysical. Why doesn't his omnipotence fall into this category? Further to the contention itself being flawed, Pro also failed to meet BoP and argument points go to Con.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.