The Instigator
linate
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 @ 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: 8/25/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 533 times Debate No: 60916
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (1)

 

linate

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 solution is to say that God is limited by logic as far as we can see, but it is possible for him to act beyond logic. 'the otherwise unlimited force of God that is limited by logic'. and the opt out, that God is God and he can do whatever he wants, logical or not.

the questions of the paradox are 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 more so 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. 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 "God cannot create the rock i.e. limit himself in that way?" or does it translate into 'he can create the rock cause he is unlimited, but he can't lift it?"

the solution is to say 'the otherwise unlimited force of God that is limited by logic'. and then i gave an opt out, that God is God and he can do whatever he wants, logical or not. if God wants to make the moon mean fish, or a circle be a square, he can.

the solution lies examining God according to logic, versus the unlimited imagination. for example, in the real world as we can claim to know it, 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 translates into God's abilities. so, God in the world of imagination where circles can be squares, God is in no way limited. but in the real world as we know it, 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, an as an 'unlimited as otherwise limited by logic'.... so 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.

to highlight the time element. if God made a rock that could not be lifted for a week, then for a week he could not lift it. when we merely say God can make the rock, but then he can lift it, we are assuming that the time has elapsed such that God is able to then 'switch gears' and lift it. when we add a time element such as "a week" it highlights that there are in fact restrictions if God makes that rock.

we have to suppose that God knows what he's doing when he makes decisions like that to prevent lifting it for a week. and, this is a matter of consistency.... it is like dropping a ball or not. i can say i won't drop a ball, and if i am consistent as i would imagine God is, then i won't drop the ball. if he creates the rock, whether or not he can lift it, he probably won't lift it for as long as he says he won't. not that he couldn't.

but, if God wanted to lift the rock which should not be able to be lifted, then he can. but this is getting into illogic, making a circle a square type stuff.

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.

--------

and last, it is notable to approach this from the point of 'the unlimited paradox'. "the unlimited paradox states that an immovable object cannot exist at the same time as an unstoppable force. the fact that it cannot exist at the same time, shows that the unlimited truly doesn't exist." this approach in practice, highlights more that those who are atheists will find ways to make 'the unlimited paradox' not be a paradox, while the "God paradox" has the same issue with regards to theists.
Domr

Con

This simple answer is: Yes. An omnipotent being can create a rock so big/heavy that even the being cannot move it.

Why?

Omnipotence means being able to do ANYTHING.
This includes logical impossibilities.

Just because it doesn't make sense to us, doesn't mean it can't happen. Inifinite power is unfathomable to humans, as we are restricted by logic. An omnipotent being, or even "God" is said to have created out world, created OUR logic.





Now to look at the individual components...

'God' (our omnipotent being) has unlimited/infinite power in this scenario. This means if God were to bench press any amount of weight, we can safely assume 'God' can lift any numerical amount of weight.

Pro is propsoing there is a rock. This rock is "immovable" or "unliftable". Meaning that its mass has to be infinite in order to counter God's power.



Inifinite mass is illogical.

Inifnite power is illogical.



Yet, Pro is proposing a question that is trying to limit to illogical objects/beings/forces by logic.



To summarize simply again...

Since the objects in question are illogical, they are not required to abide by logic, therefore, Yes 'God' can create a rock so big that even He cannot lift it.


Debate Round No. 1
linate

Pro

i dont think con read my opening argument very closely. i argued that God could create a rock he couldn't lift, so con needs to negate that. i wasn't just positing the paradox for him or others to rebut.

also, as to con's reasoning. con says an infinite source couldn't exist that would make a rock immovable. but the only reason we'd have to assume that to begin with, is because we assume that an unlimited force of God exists. if there's illogic involved, it's ebcause of God at the beginning, not because we have to assume an infinite force w the rock.

and what happens when two opposiing infinite sources hit each other? well, the universe explodes, i guess. we just don't entertain the idea. we entertain one infinte force or another, not both. and if both aren't infinite, then one doesn't need to eb infinite, just extrememly large.

plus there's no reason it has to be infinite to be immovable, unless again it's ebcause we are assuming the unlimited of God to begin with. it just need to be 'immovable'. which could be extrmely large for our purposes.
Domr

Con

I have not misread the arguments, Pro has posted ridiculous amount in their opening, most of which is repetitive or nonsense. Here is the biggest piece of information thatt needed to be taken from Round 1 (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."

As I mentioned, my answer is yes he and do both. (At the same time) So I have negated that premise.


" and what happens when two opposiing infinite sources hit each other? "
This is not part of the deabte, this was merely a point you brought up in your argument because it has similarites to your premise. But it is not the same situtation, So I am going to ignore it as it does not fully apply to our debate.



Pro is misinterpretting my points. I never said "infinite source couldn't exist that would make a rock immovable."

I said that a rock that big is simply illogical. Why is Pro proposing a question of two illogical objects/forces that must be forced toa bide by logic?


And I proved how this rock had to be infinite to be immovable by an omnipotent being. If it is just "Really big" and 'not infinite' that it must have a numerical mass. Omnipotence is iniftinite power, meaning it can lift any numerical mass. Infinite mass is the only thing that could counter omnipotence.

If Pro is stating that the rock is literally so large it CAN't be moved from one spot to another, this is also illogical. This means the rock is as big as space itself. However, space expands with the as the objects (galaxies, planets, stars etc) grow or expand.

This means there is no logical way for the rock to be so heavy, or so large to be a part of logic.

Omnipotence is already illogical.


Therefore, I have already countered your premise, "my position is that he can do one or the other, at different times,".

'God' can do both, at the same time.
Omnipotences trumps logic, meaning that even though it doesn't make sense to us, someone/something, having the ability to do ANYTHING and EVERYHTING can defy logic.
Debate Round No. 2
linate

Pro

con says omnipotence is illogical. there's no reason there can't be 'unlimited as otherwise limited by logic' though. that wouldn't require a rock so infinite that it can't be moved by an unlimited source. it would require there to be a tipping point that abides by the laws of physics.

approaching it from illogic, even by con's own reasoing that God can do anything at the same time, that is not true cause he's trying to make sense of it by logic. we can say he can do either at the same time, either at different times, one at the same time, jibberish.
also according to the unlimited that doesn't abide by logic, the only reason again that the rock can't exist as con argues is cause there's something illogical to begin with, namely, an unlimited force. if we assume one thing can be unlimited, we can assume another thing can be unlimited. plus if iit's all based on illogic to begin with, there's no reason we can't have a rock so infinite that it can't be moved.... cause it doesn't abide by logic so anything we say can be true, or not true.

con mainly loses cause he didn't approach the debate from a matter of logic first, assuming God to abide by logic, and in terms of illogic, anything anyone says can be true or not true anyway.
Domr

Con

Pro asserting that I have lost this debate is absurd.

Please remember his point in this debate:

"my position is that he can do one or the other, at different times, but he can't do both at the same time"

Now Pro goes on to say in this final round:


"if we assume one thing can be unlimited, we can assume another thing can be unlimited."

I assumed there could be the unlimited. As per my first argument, if Omnipotence means "the ability to do anything / infinite power" then doing the illogical is possible per the definition of ANYTHING.

I merely pointed out afterwards the lack of logic to begin with. There is nothing wrong with assuming the unlimited is true. But to assume that, we are assuming illogical things.

The guidelines of accepting things without logic is fine, but accepting them and then believing they are no logical is ridiculous.


I have agreed the omnipotent being and the rock can exist. They would have to exist outside logical understanding.

The only reason 'God' cannot lift the rock he created to be "too big" is because its "logically impossible".

However, if both beings/objects are illogical, then performing a logical possibility is perfectly fine and obtainable as the beings do not abide by logic to begin with.

This has been my argument from the begging which Pro has ignored, or misinterpreted.

Pro has not fufilled Burden of Proof.

Clear Vote for Con.
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Malacoda 2 years ago
Malacoda
It seems like the only way to get out of these paradoxes is to pull the "it goes beyond human logic" thing. That's kind of why I hate these types of debates.
Posted by Ragnar 2 years ago
Ragnar
If a rock is too big, it ceases to be a rock.
Posted by blackkid 2 years ago
blackkid
I'd accept this but it's too easy. "Omnipotence" defies human logic therefore the answer is always "Yes". There's no need to explain why because it's an axiomatic "Yes". Your argument would fail instantly.
Posted by Dragonfang 2 years ago
Dragonfang
I believe the simplest response to this pseudo-paradox is:

Omnipotent, as in: Able to effortlessly actuality his will/infinite power. (Logic and morality are in synonym with a God, who have no need to change, so he doesn't violate them)

Immovable rock, as in: Unable to be moved by anything in existence.

Therefore, these two entitys that contradict each other by definition. The pseudo-paradox assumes an omnipotent entity exists, this means that it also concedes that an immovable rock or anything that is immune to actualization to something in existence would be impossible to exist in this scenario.
Therefore, it does not follow to assume an immovable rock exists.

Your welcome.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
linateDomrTied
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 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: con proved pro's positioning was illogical and impossible. And as always, Pro had terrible spelling. Yes, teribl speling lik thiss.