The Instigator
raviagravat
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Mangani
Pro (for)
Winning
21 Points

Can God create a stone that it cannot carry?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 3 votes the winner is...
Mangani
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/9/2009 Category: Religion
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,770 times Debate No: 7311
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (3)

 

raviagravat

Con

If it can carry the stone, then surely it's not God?
Mangani

Pro

I thank my opponent for posing this debate. As my opponent has not defined God, I will do so for the purposes of this debate. My opponent has also failed to explain the resolution. From his first round argument it can be assumed logically, however, that the resolution can be re-stated as "If God cannot create a stone that he/she/it cannot carry, then he/she/it cannot possibly be God". I will argue Pro in that I believe the resolution is irrelevant to the existence, as well as the scope of power of God given the following definitions.

God: 1 capitalized : the supreme or ultimate reality: as a: the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe b Christian Science : the incorporeal divine Principle ruling over all as eternal Spirit : infinite Mind 2: a being or object believed to have more than natural attributes and powers and to require human worship ; specifically : one controlling a particular aspect or part of reality3: a person or thing of supreme value4: a powerful ruler (http://www.merriam-webster.com...)

For the purpose of this debate and for Pro, all these definitions are valid. The ability of God to create a stone he cannot carry is an invalid question for many reasons. I will examine these reasons for each definition.

#1- Supreme/Ultimate Reality, being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness, etc.: For this definition the ability to create a stone "it" cannot carry is irrelevant to "it's" being, as well as the attributes in the definition. The definition does not assign a corporeal form to God, which would give "it" the ability to "carry" something, nor does it personify God. Furthermore, the definition does not assign the ability to create anything outside of the laws set forth by this very being we call God under this hypothetical definition, if the definition is to be considered hypothetical.

#2, #3, and #4- A being or object believed to have more than natural attributes and powers, etc.: This definition, again, neither assigns the ability to create a stone that cannot be carried, nor does the definition imply powers that would limit the definition by the inability to do so.

As you can see by my arguments, my opponent's paradox is only so given the scope of his understanding of God.

I await my opponent's response.

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 1
raviagravat

Con

Thank you for my opponent's response and I welcome you to the debate.

Firstly I can see you have made some valid points. Indeed, the expectation of the response I thought I would get.

I would apologise, for not defining what I meant by God. However, my statement was short and well thought out. I stated and used the word 'it' for the reason that, when you imply the word he/she, you are stating that God is a person or God is a living thing. Is god a living thing? Hence, I thought I would just clarify this up.

All, my opponent has merely done is expanded someone else's definitions of God. But my question to my opponent is how can you define God? Defining is purely words. Can you really 'word' God? My opinion is that you cannot 'word' God. Hence, you cannot talk about God, you cannot write your explanation about God, however maybe you can feel God.

Please mark my words though; here I am not defining God in anyway.

Referring back to the statement. If God can create a stone that it cannot carry, then it's not the ultimate; not the supreme. Why? Because it cannot lift the stone.

My opponent states 'personify God' - again relating God to as a person/living being. Hence, I think this is where my opponent is wrong. Although, my opponent has consciously stated that God has un-human like qualities, they unconsciously think God has Human like qualities almost in to the fact that God is a Superhero. In reality, that's what they think, am I not right?

So hence, I conclude this part of my argument, that if my opponent expands a definition which, again are statements, then they will obviously think God can create a stone that it cannot carry.

I look forward to my opponent's response and I'm open to hear what my opponent has to say.

Kind regards.
Mangani

Pro

My opponent has chosen a very unusual way to present his "God/Stone" paradox. Even if he had argued the conventional method of presenting this paradox, it would be a paradox limited by his understanding of a being he doesn't seem to believe in. He has not, however, presented a solid argument against "any" belief in God, as he claims God cannot be defined. How, then, do you define God in this conundrum? Indeed, if you cannot define God, you cannot limit him by this paradox.

My opponent claims that his statement was "short and well thought out". A statement can be short, and well thought out, but it does not make it an argument. Indeed, my opponent's first round argument was no argument at all, and was simply a question: "If it can carry the stone, then surely it's not God?"

I explained in my own first round argument that this question is irrelevant to the being of God given the definitions I provided. I even went as far as re-stating my opponent's resolution, as he failed to present a logical one, rather his stated resolution is one question: Can God creat a stone that it cannot carry?; and he followed this up with his first round question (which cannot be considered an argument): If it can carry the stone, then surely it's not God?

Both questions are irrelevant to the being of God given the definitions I provided in my first round argument.

My opponent then attempts to clear up his use of "it" in personifying God, not realizing that regardless of using "it", the question itself personifies God. Indeed a bird is an "it" if it's gender is not known, yet "it" can lift many things. A true non-personification of God would in and of itself nullify the question: "Can God create a stone that it cannot carry?"

Assigning gender to God (he/she) does not assign to this belief the ability to "lift" things, nor does the belief that God is "living" assign to God the necessity of breathing, eating, or doing anything (like lifting, eg.). These are all paradoxes of limited understanding, not of truth. Some believe the Earth itself to be alive, and assign to it the gender of "she", but this does not assign to the Earth the ability to create a stone that it cannot carry, nor does it assign to it the ability to "lift" anything at all. Indeed the Earth produces life, sustains life, and has it's own life cycle (as does the Sun and all the stars), but the belief and definition of this "life" is limited by our understanding. For instance, a child might view these statements as stating that the Earth breathes, eats, defecates, sleeps, etc., as does his little brother, but a scientist would view the Earth's life cycle in an entirely different light.

My opponent claims that all I have done is expand someone else's definition of God. Indeed, I have used the Merriam-Webster Collegiate Dictionary definitions of God, as my own definition cannot be viewed as a reliable source for the sake of this debate. My opponent then attempts to discredit these definitions by implying you cannot define God because definitions are purely words. He then asks "can you really 'word' God?"- a contradiction in and of itself. In my opponent's use of the word, he answers his own question, and nullifies this line of reasoning. He then confirms this by saying "however, maybe you can feel God". If my opponent believes you can feel a being without defining it, then his entire argument is null because you cannot limit something you cannot define with rules, because the rules would be limited to a definition. The paradox, as I have stated before, is in my opponent's own understanding.

My opponent then circles back to the resolution: If God can create a stone that it cannot carry, then it's not the ultimate; not the supreme. Why? Because it cannot lift the stone.

My opponet offers no explanation. His paradox makes no sense. For example, in the United States the Supreme Court is the highest court in the land. However, it is limited in scope in that it's rulings must adhere to the US Constitution, and the rulings are based on majority decisions between 9 judges. The Court, being limited by the Laws of the country it serves, is still the Supreme Court. Why? Because every other court is subordinate to the US Constitution as well. If we personify God as a being, and compare "it" to all other beings, is there a being that can defy the laws of science? No, but it is God that wrote them. If we believe this, then we must also believe that God would be limited by them- no matter what our definition of God. For instance in Christianity, God is limited by his moral standards. His "perfection" is based on his inability to do certain things... like lie. The Chrsitian bible says God cannot lie. Does this take from his perfection? Well, that would depend on our understanding of perfection. If you are looking at the sky through yellow goggles you will see the sky as green. If Christianiy prescribes clear goggles, and you look at the sky, it should be blue. Given the scope of this debate, I have provided many goggles, or definitions and/or understandings. None of these definitions, again, limit God's being by the resolution.

My opponent then refers to "they" and implies that I have personified God. I have not- I have provided several definitions, some of which do not require God to be personified, and none of which limit God by the resolution. My opponent claims "they" think God is a superhero, and "they" think this or that. I do not know who "they" are, but it is I who is arguing the Pro in this debate, not "they".

In his book, "The Problem of Pain", CS Lewis writes: "If you choose to say God can give a creature free will and at the same time withhold free will from it', you have not succeeded in saying anything about God: meaningless combination of words do not suddenly acquire meaning simply because we prefix to them to other words ‘God can'".

He then goes on to say that this is not because God's power is an obstacle (to himself), but because "nonsense remains nonsense even when we talk it about God".

Because my opponent's question- a question of ability disguised as a question of inability- is based on our understanding of definitions, then for his statement to make sense God would have to be defined. Otherwise I could say "God, to me, is an ant. He can lift many times his own weight, but he cannot 'create' anything, let alone a stone he cannot lift. This ant, however, is my God, nonetheless". Again, my opponent's refusal to define God, or to adhere his arguments to my definitions of God negates his question.

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 2
raviagravat

Con

raviagravat forfeited this round.
Mangani

Pro

My opponent has forfeited his last round, and final chance to clarify his position. In doing so I believe he has forfeited the entire debate, as you cannot win a three round debate with only one argument. I urge the readers to vote PRO.

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by NYCDiesel 8 years ago
NYCDiesel
I think this is an automatic win for the Pro as Con failed to make a point, and then forfeited the last round.

All points Pro.
Posted by gregthedestroyer 8 years ago
gregthedestroyer
I don't get it.
Posted by Justinisthecrazy 8 years ago
Justinisthecrazy
your paradox is ridicilous
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by wjmelements 8 years ago
wjmelements
raviagravatManganiTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by NYCDiesel 8 years ago
NYCDiesel
raviagravatManganiTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Mangani 8 years ago
Mangani
raviagravatManganiTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07