The Instigator
GarretKadeDupre
Pro (for)
Losing
5 Points
The Contender
LeTheodote
Con (against)
Winning
9 Points

The Paradox Of The Stone Is Self-Refuting

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 4 votes the winner is...
LeTheodote
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/12/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 733 times Debate No: 43828
Debate Rounds (1)
Comments (1)
Votes (4)

 

GarretKadeDupre

Pro


The Paradox of the Stone is a rhetorical question posed as an attempt to prove that the concept of an omnipotent (all-powerful) God is illogical. However, it is self-refuting because both the affirmative and negative responses to the riddle reveal that the concept of an omnipotent God is logical in both cases!


If one answers no, than this means that God can't perform the logic defying task. However, a no implies that the definition of omnipotence excludes the power to defy logic, so it is already expected that God can't create this stone. God's omnipotence remains a logically sound concept.


If one answers yes, than this means that God can defy logic because that is what the task entails (being able to create a stone so heavy that an omnipotent being can't lift it). Since the definition of omnipotence used includes the power to defy logic, than God remains omnipotent, through defiance of logic... the same logic that the Paradox tries to use to make it's case! Logic itself is no longer binding, so God just ignores it, and remains omnipotent.


The Paradox of the Stone is self-refuting. Thanks for this debate!


LeTheodote

Con

You make your first error by using two definitions of "omnipotence" This is a case of moving the goalposts. It's not very convincing to say "God is X, and whatever X happens to be, he's that."

Omnipotence by definition is the power to do *anything*. This includes the power to defy logic. Your "No" answer implies that God cannot do something, namely defy logic, which standards as a contradiction to his omnipotence.

Your "Yes" answer fails as well. An omnipotent being cannot be a logically consistent one. You first say that "yes, he can defy logic," implying he can't lift the stone, and then turn around and say, "God remains omnipotent, through defiance of logic" This amounts to, "Can God defy logic and remain logical at the same time?" You may answer yes with omnipotence, but if you want a *logical* answer, then the law of non-contradiction will tell you that a thing cannot be true and false at the same time. As you can see, this demonstrates the fact that God, if omnipotent, is not logically consistent. You could just have God keep omnipotently "doing" away all his problems by changing the nature of logic, but you're left with something that's completely unfalsifiable and thus irrelevant.

Your argument actually fails twice on the second point - when arguing the irrelevancy or subjectivity of logic, you completely undermine your point by appealing to the objective nature of logic by *using it* to attempt to prove your point! I can just as easily dismiss your argument with my own illogical logic. It's the problem of "what evidence do you use to convince somebody who does not value evidence to value evidence?"

If you really want to drive the point home, God could answer both yes and no to the riddle. If he couldn't, he wouldn't be omnipotent, as it would be something he "could not do." An omnipotent being could mandate that 1+1=3, or that Yes is No. You can go on like this, but the logical inconsistency of omnipotence is well established, stone or no stone.
Debate Round No. 1
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by NovaLux 2 years ago
NovaLux
Just looked this up on google, perhaps this website makes it a bit clearer. As far as I can see, it's irrefutable.
http://www.existence-of-god.com...

(Note: not arguing for or against the existence of God)
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by WilliamofOckham 2 years ago
WilliamofOckham
GarretKadeDupreLeTheodoteTied
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 committing the goalposts fallacy and ignoring the law of non-contradiction pretty much made this debate a free win for con from the beginning, this being a one round debate. Con pointed out all of the fallacies that pro had committed, and then presented his own solid case.
Vote Placed by TheAntidoter 2 years ago
TheAntidoter
GarretKadeDupreLeTheodoteTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: No sources used. LeTheodote Appeals to the Law of Non-Contradiction, which is negated by dialetheism and other well-known Paradoxes. Con Attempts to appeal to long-ago concepts that have since been challenged. Con Misunderstands Pro's first point, not saying that he can't, but that it is implied. This is used in contradiction with the 2nd possible answer, and so isn't necessarily his answer. Misquotes by con Connote S&G, and conduct was also connoted by con. Wonderful debate, thank's for the read, LeTheodote and GarretKade.
Vote Placed by KingDebater 2 years ago
KingDebater
GarretKadeDupreLeTheodoteTied
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 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: Con refuted pro's arguments by proving that one option tried to prove that God could be logical and defy logic at the same time.
Vote Placed by EndarkenedRationalist 2 years ago
EndarkenedRationalist
GarretKadeDupreLeTheodoteTied
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: CON had stronger arguments, pointing out the moving the goalposts fallacy as well as establishing the flaws within PRO's case and bringing up his own argument - can G-d defy logic and remain logical -. Neither side used sources. S&G were even. Conduct was even.