The Instigator
dairygirl4u2c
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Domr
Con (against)
Winning
4 Points

Can God create a rock so big he can't lift it, or not create the rock? either, not at same time

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 1 vote the winner is...
Domr
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/12/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 682 times Debate No: 58876
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (1)

 

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 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.
Domr

Con

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.



Debate Round No. 1
dairygirl4u2c

Pro

"MY simple rebuttal is why can he not do both at the same time."

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?
Domr

Con

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?)




Debate Round No. 2
dairygirl4u2c

Pro

i don't see how con is arguing that there's a difference between an unlimited world, and the world we live in with a said unlimited God.

"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.
Domr

Con

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.



Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Silk 2 years ago
Silk
The whole thang is moot.. If god is the end all and be all of "ALL".. then it could create a situation
where it could create a rock so big it couldn't lift it and turn around and create another situation where
it could lift it. Why if god is as is thought by many it could do any STUPID THING IT WANTED LIKE CREATING HUMANS WHO ASKED RHETORICAL MEANINGLESS QUESTIONS JUST TO SHOW HOW CLEVER THEY WERE..
IT'S CALLED 'INFERIORTY COMPLEX'..............
Posted by bigtown 2 years ago
bigtown
The question of the debate can be dealt with hopefully thus: (the source is 'The Trivium' by Sister Miriam Joseph). All credit to her on this one.
So as I see it, Pro asks 'Can God can make a stone so large that He couldn't lift it' and attempts to get over the dilemma of answering yes or no to this question. The dilemma being either way you answer the question you seem to be denying the very omnipotence of God. So Pro attempts to break this down to asserting God being able to create an immovable rock, and then asserting He uses unlimited power to move it, but not both at the same time.
In simple terms, the answer to the whole question should always be NO and Pro's subsequent assertions are also false. But you obviously have to qualify this answer if you are to defend effectively the omnipotence of God to yourself or others. Skeptics love to ask this question and watch believers squirm, Much like asking 'Can God make a square circle?
Can we effectively agree that the propositions made by Pro are of a metaphysical nature and necessary, ie not contingent, and saying that this is the way reality must be?
For example, propositions expressing relations metaphysically necessary:
The effect cannot be greater than its cause, or An equilateral triangle is necessarily equiangular.
Something is metaphysically necessary 'if it could not be otherwise for the reason that it would be impossible, inconceivable or involving sheer contradiction'
'Metaphysical necessity is such that not even God can make it otherwise. God is the source of order and not of disorder and confusion. To be unable to do what is contradictory is not a limitation of His Omnipotence , nor imperfection, but a perfection. Thus God cannot make a square circle or a stone so big that He could not lift it' But that makes God perfectly good.
Miracles, in contrast, are the suspension of the Laws of Nature which physical necessity rests on, and therefore possible. God cannot suspend metaphysical laws.
Posted by dairygirl4u2c 2 years ago
dairygirl4u2c
for the purposes of this debate, i don't see why we can't keep it minimalistic, and say 'unlimited'
Posted by Domr 2 years ago
Domr
could you please define omnipotent?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by InnovativeEphemera 2 years ago
InnovativeEphemera
dairygirl4u2cDomrTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 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: 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.