Total Posts:37|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

The Stone Paradox

Fictional_Truths1
Posts: 6
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2013 4:35:13 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
The Stone Paradox is the paradox that states "Can an omnipotent being create a stone that he cannot lift? If the answer is yes, he is not omnipotent because their is something he cannot do (lift the stone). If the answer is no, then there is something he cannot to (create the stone). Therefore, a being cannot be omnipotent"

I have a few thoughts about this, but I know I am not a philosopher. I was hoping some of the more philosophically advanced people on the site could hep me out.

First: What if the being were to make the stone, and then make an exact copy of himself that could not? Would that negate the paradox?

Second: If a being is omnipotent, doesn't that give him the power to change the fundamental laws of logic? For if the omnipotent being is constrained by logic, that means there are set parameters that limit him.
"Congratulations, you've just reached a new rung on your echeladder - easily outfoxed by small utensils."
Poetaster
Posts: 587
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2013 4:41:05 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
If I cannot perform a no-arms pushup, does this imply that my arms aren't maximally strong?
"The book you are looking for hasn't been written yet. What you are looking for you are going to have to find yourself, it's not going to be in a book..." -Sidewalker
DakotaKrafick
Posts: 1,517
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2013 4:54:14 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/24/2013 4:35:13 PM, Fictional_Truths1 wrote:
The Stone Paradox is the paradox that states "Can an omnipotent being create a stone that he cannot lift? If the answer is yes, he is not omnipotent because their is something he cannot do (lift the stone). If the answer is no, then there is something he cannot to (create the stone). Therefore, a being cannot be omnipotent"

I have a few thoughts about this, but I know I am not a philosopher. I was hoping some of the more philosophically advanced people on the site could hep me out.

First: What if the being were to make the stone, and then make an exact copy of himself that could not? Would that negate the paradox?

Second: If a being is omnipotent, doesn't that give him the power to change the fundamental laws of logic? For if the omnipotent being is constrained by logic, that means there are set parameters that limit him.

Can an impenetrable shield be penetrated by an all-penetrating sword? Logically, these two things could not coexist in the same universe.

Omnipotent can be understood to mean either (a) able to do anything including the logically absurd, or (b) able to do anything except the logically absurd.

If we were using the (a) definition, then sure, God can create a stone so heavy he can't lift it, whatever that means. If we were using the (b) definition, then no, he can't; an unmovable stone and an all-moving God can't coexist in the same universe.

To answer your first question, I don't think two omnipotent beings can coexist. And to answer your second question, I don't think an omnipotent being (under the b definition) can change the laws of logic.
ConservativePolitico
Posts: 8,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2013 5:01:44 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
One way to think about it is that perhaps our mortal minds can't truly perceive what it means to be omnipotent because it defies our logic which is derived from the universe we live in. An omnipotent being, who most likely created the universe, probably wouldn't be bound by the same laws but that thought is incomprehensible to our minds which are bound to this plane of existence.

The other way is to semantic around with the definition of omnipotent to find a solution.
the_croftmeister
Posts: 678
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2013 5:27:28 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/24/2013 5:01:44 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
One way to think about it is that perhaps our mortal minds can't truly perceive what it means to be omnipotent because it defies our logic which is derived from the universe we live in. An omnipotent being, who most likely created the universe, probably wouldn't be bound by the same laws but that thought is incomprehensible to our minds which are bound to this plane of existence.

The other way is to semantic around with the definition of omnipotent to find a solution.
Yet a third solution is to change the domain of your anything quantifier to insist on predicativity or some other notion that would ensure that 'create a rock that it cannot lift' is not an allowable substitution. Although this is technically a semantic change, it is one that can be done without actually changing the words of the definition.

The OP also mentions the laws of logic. I happen to think that this benefits from an analogy to abstract coordinate systems in langragian mechanics. We can usually make constraints disappear by altering the way we parameterise the space. The usual example is a marble running down a groove in a piece of stone. The groove may have a meandering path that moves this way and that. If we parameterise the space in 2d then we have to put additional constraints on the marble (it can't go anywhere on the plane, we have to restrict it to the groove) but if we parameterise the coordinates in one dimension so that they follow the groove this constraint disappears. We can create a natural coordinate system for a given manifold rather than using a coordinate system which results from embedding it in Euclidean space. If we consider God's powers to be the same, we reparameterise his abilities so that the constraints due to logic disappear, then in this space God is omnipotent, but cannot violate the laws of logic. This results from the space that God is 'in' (which might have different rules from this world) rather than limitations on what God can do. If we don't have the means of describing what God can't do, then can we really say there is anything he can't do?

You might say that this approach can make any being omnipotent, but the important part is that this choice of parameterisation must be a 'natural' one. It must also conserve his ability to do all the things we already accept he does do. My position is that logical impossibilities are not really possibilities at all anyway so if he can't do something by virtue of it being logically impossible then it's not really something he can't do, it just isn't something.

Of course all of this must be read under the caveat that I am not a theist and so am not best placed to determine what a theist would or would not accept their God as being capable of doing. Then again, those friends of mine who are religious don't generally accept God's omnipotence anyway.
Jack212
Posts: 572
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2013 6:11:36 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
"Omnipotence" is impossible in a world based on logic. Can God make both ends of a see-saw touch the ground while keeping it straight and intact, and without warping the fabric of space-time? Perhaps, but it could never occur because our world is built on physical laws that prevent such things from happening. If God messed with the logic governing the see-saw, the see-saw would no longer be part of our universe. And because a see-saw disappearing from existence also violates logic, the see-saw could never have existed in the first place. This is why we don't observe acts of logic-defying divine intervention in the real world.
the_croftmeister
Posts: 678
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2013 6:28:57 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/24/2013 6:11:36 PM, Jack212 wrote:
"Omnipotence" is impossible in a world based on logic. Can God make both ends of a see-saw touch the ground while keeping it straight and intact, and without warping the fabric of space-time? Perhaps, but it could never occur because our world is built on physical laws that prevent such things from happening. If God messed with the logic governing the see-saw, the see-saw would no longer be part of our universe. And because a see-saw disappearing from existence also violates logic, the see-saw could never have existed in the first place. This is why we don't observe acts of logic-defying divine intervention in the real world.

I doubt very much that the see-saw 'disappearing' violates any laws of logic. It will violate laws of physics, but theists usually assert that God made those too.
DakotaKrafick
Posts: 1,517
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2013 6:29:54 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/24/2013 6:11:36 PM, Jack212 wrote:
"Omnipotence" is impossible in a world based on logic. Can God make both ends of a see-saw touch the ground while keeping it straight and intact, and without warping the fabric of space-time?

He could bend the ground to a valley-like slope.
Poetaster
Posts: 587
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2013 7:08:19 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/24/2013 6:29:54 PM, DakotaKrafick wrote:
At 7/24/2013 6:11:36 PM, Jack212 wrote:
"Omnipotence" is impossible in a world based on logic. Can God make both ends of a see-saw touch the ground while keeping it straight and intact, and without warping the fabric of space-time?

He could bend the ground to a valley-like slope.

God cannot violate the laws of playground equipment. Your argument is invalid.
"The book you are looking for hasn't been written yet. What you are looking for you are going to have to find yourself, it's not going to be in a book..." -Sidewalker
DakotaKrafick
Posts: 1,517
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2013 7:26:18 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/24/2013 7:08:19 PM, Poetaster wrote:
At 7/24/2013 6:29:54 PM, DakotaKrafick wrote:
At 7/24/2013 6:11:36 PM, Jack212 wrote:
"Omnipotence" is impossible in a world based on logic. Can God make both ends of a see-saw touch the ground while keeping it straight and intact, and without warping the fabric of space-time?

He could bend the ground to a valley-like slope.

God cannot violate the laws of playground equipment. Your argument is invalid.

The playground equipment remains the same; the ground is what changes.
Poetaster
Posts: 587
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2013 7:28:10 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/24/2013 7:26:18 PM, DakotaKrafick wrote:
At 7/24/2013 7:08:19 PM, Poetaster wrote:
At 7/24/2013 6:29:54 PM, DakotaKrafick wrote:
At 7/24/2013 6:11:36 PM, Jack212 wrote:
"Omnipotence" is impossible in a world based on logic. Can God make both ends of a see-saw touch the ground while keeping it straight and intact, and without warping the fabric of space-time?

He could bend the ground to a valley-like slope.

God cannot violate the laws of playground equipment. Your argument is invalid.

The playground equipment remains the same; the ground is what changes.

The playground includes the ground as an inherent property.
"The book you are looking for hasn't been written yet. What you are looking for you are going to have to find yourself, it's not going to be in a book..." -Sidewalker
the_croftmeister
Posts: 678
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2013 7:29:40 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/24/2013 7:26:18 PM, DakotaKrafick wrote:
At 7/24/2013 7:08:19 PM, Poetaster wrote:
At 7/24/2013 6:29:54 PM, DakotaKrafick wrote:
At 7/24/2013 6:11:36 PM, Jack212 wrote:
"Omnipotence" is impossible in a world based on logic. Can God make both ends of a see-saw touch the ground while keeping it straight and intact, and without warping the fabric of space-time?

He could bend the ground to a valley-like slope.

God cannot violate the laws of playground equipment. Your argument is invalid.

The playground equipment remains the same; the ground is what changes.
But does not the book of Play say that 'All ground on which ye shall rest thy playground is inviolable, and any who attempt to distort it shall find they distort only thyself'?
Poetaster
Posts: 587
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2013 7:33:38 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/24/2013 7:29:40 PM, the_croftmeister wrote:
At 7/24/2013 7:26:18 PM, DakotaKrafick wrote:
At 7/24/2013 7:08:19 PM, Poetaster wrote:
At 7/24/2013 6:29:54 PM, DakotaKrafick wrote:
At 7/24/2013 6:11:36 PM, Jack212 wrote:
"Omnipotence" is impossible in a world based on logic. Can God make both ends of a see-saw touch the ground while keeping it straight and intact, and without warping the fabric of space-time?

He could bend the ground to a valley-like slope.

God cannot violate the laws of playground equipment. Your argument is invalid.

The playground equipment remains the same; the ground is what changes.
But does not the book of Play say that 'All ground on which ye shall rest thy playground is inviolable, and any who attempt to distort it shall find they distort only thyself'?

That's the Older Testament of the book of Play, in the Newer Testament everything changes, so we can basically ignore the first half.
"The book you are looking for hasn't been written yet. What you are looking for you are going to have to find yourself, it's not going to be in a book..." -Sidewalker
the_croftmeister
Posts: 678
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2013 7:36:09 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/24/2013 7:33:38 PM, Poetaster wrote:
At 7/24/2013 7:29:40 PM, the_croftmeister wrote:
At 7/24/2013 7:26:18 PM, DakotaKrafick wrote:
At 7/24/2013 7:08:19 PM, Poetaster wrote:
At 7/24/2013 6:29:54 PM, DakotaKrafick wrote:
At 7/24/2013 6:11:36 PM, Jack212 wrote:
"Omnipotence" is impossible in a world based on logic. Can God make both ends of a see-saw touch the ground while keeping it straight and intact, and without warping the fabric of space-time?

He could bend the ground to a valley-like slope.

God cannot violate the laws of playground equipment. Your argument is invalid.

The playground equipment remains the same; the ground is what changes.
But does not the book of Play say that 'All ground on which ye shall rest thy playground is inviolable, and any who attempt to distort it shall find they distort only thyself'?

That's the Older Testament of the book of Play, in the Newer Testament everything changes, so we can basically ignore the first half.
Damn, so does that mean I can't kill people who slide backwards down the slide anymore?
Poetaster
Posts: 587
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2013 7:42:55 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/24/2013 7:36:09 PM, the_croftmeister wrote:
At 7/24/2013 7:33:38 PM, Poetaster wrote:
At 7/24/2013 7:29:40 PM, the_croftmeister wrote:
At 7/24/2013 7:26:18 PM, DakotaKrafick wrote:
At 7/24/2013 7:08:19 PM, Poetaster wrote:
At 7/24/2013 6:29:54 PM, DakotaKrafick wrote:
At 7/24/2013 6:11:36 PM, Jack212 wrote:
"Omnipotence" is impossible in a world based on logic. Can God make both ends of a see-saw touch the ground while keeping it straight and intact, and without warping the fabric of space-time?

He could bend the ground to a valley-like slope.

God cannot violate the laws of playground equipment. Your argument is invalid.

The playground equipment remains the same; the ground is what changes.
But does not the book of Play say that 'All ground on which ye shall rest thy playground is inviolable, and any who attempt to distort it shall find they distort only thyself'?

That's the Older Testament of the book of Play, in the Newer Testament everything changes, so we can basically ignore the first half.
Damn, so does that mean I can't kill people who slide backwards down the slide anymore?

Depends on your denomination. Some require it, others forbid it, but both claim to be compatible with one another.
"The book you are looking for hasn't been written yet. What you are looking for you are going to have to find yourself, it's not going to be in a book..." -Sidewalker
the_croftmeister
Posts: 678
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2013 7:45:47 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/24/2013 7:42:55 PM, Poetaster wrote:
Depends on your denomination. Some require it, others forbid it, but both claim to be compatible with one another.

Well that shags it, perhaps I'll have to find a different article of playground faith. I've heard of this book called playenetics...
Jack212
Posts: 572
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2013 11:51:22 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
@ the_croftmeister

Our universe is a logical construct. All things in the universe must fit into that logical construct. If the see-saw no longer obeys universal logic, then it is not part of the logical construct called "the universe". But the universe still requires a logical explanation for where the see-saw went, and none can be found because the see-saw no longer follows logic. Therefore, the see-saw either cannot disappear, or disappears from the past as well in order to maintain a logically consistent timeline.

If we were able to interact with the see-saw after it had become illogical, that would create a paradox and probably fvck up the entire universe. A fvcked up universe probably wouldn't support life very well.

@ DakotaKrafick

That is still changing some aspect of the playground to make it logical. The point was to have him violate logic.

@ Everybody else

My denomination says that what though doeth with the playground hath no relevance, so long as the ginger kid getteth a wedgie.
the_croftmeister
Posts: 678
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2013 12:07:40 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/24/2013 11:51:22 PM, Jack212 wrote:
@ the_croftmeister

Our universe is a logical construct. All things in the universe must fit into that logical construct. If the see-saw no longer obeys universal logic, then it is not part of the logical construct called "the universe". But the universe still requires a logical explanation for where the see-saw went, and none can be found because the see-saw no longer follows logic. Therefore, the see-saw either cannot disappear, or disappears from the past as well in order to maintain a logically consistent timeline.
As I was saying before, this is a result of a physical law (conservation of matter) not a logical one. There is nothing logically inconsistent about me ceasing to exist right now (my existence is not a logical tautology) even though it can be derived from physical facts about the universe. Everything else I can agree with (though it merits further investigation).

If we were able to interact with the see-saw after it had become illogical, that would create a paradox and probably fvck up the entire universe. A fvcked up universe probably wouldn't support life very well.
Well, I'm not sure it would screw the entire universe, but sure, it could not sensibly interact with us. That doesn't mean that its disappearing is illogical. No law of logic I know proves conservation of energy or matter, that's a physical axiom that we could do without. Though it would be an interesting universe to consider.
1Devilsadvocate
Posts: 1,518
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2013 12:38:01 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/24/2013 4:41:05 PM, Poetaster wrote:
If I cannot perform a no-arms pushup, does this imply that my arms aren't maximally strong?

^ basically this.

There are many answers that have been given to this question.
My favorite answer is that it's not even a question. The term "a rock god can't lift" has no meaning, it CANNOT exist. The term "a rock god can't lift", is an internal contradiction in terms, analogous to the term square circle. "a rock god can't lift", is an incoherent jumble of words, not a real plausible object, so you can't ask if he can create it, there is no "it".
Analogies:
"Can god checkmate with just a king?" Is not a question, because there is no such thing as "check mate with just a king".
"Can God create a square circle?"
"Can god create qwerty?" "qwerty", has no meaning, thus the question has no meaning, nothing comprehendable has been asked.
Not all sentences that follow the rules of grammar make sense. Noam Chomsky illustrates this with the sentence "colorless green ideas sleep furiously".

This answer is attributed to the great philosopher C. S. Lewis, but there are a variety of different answers given over the centuries. The "paradox" is now more of a riddle, with various ways of being answered, than a serious theological problem.

Many of the answers are similar, I"ll provide a sampling here:

1)Norman Geisler & Richard Swinburne:

The paradox assumes a wrong definition of omnipotence.
Omnipotence, does not mean that God can do anything at all but, rather, that he can do anything that's possible according to his nature. The distinction is important. God cannot perform logical absurdities; he can't, for instance, make 1+1=3. Likewise, God cannot make a being greater than himself because he is, by definition, the greatest possible being. God is limited in his actions to his nature. They bring evidence to this from the bible. For example Hebrews 6:18 says that it"s "impossible for God to lie." According to these theologians, this law is not a law above God that he assents to but, rather, logic is an eternal part of God's nature, like his omniscience or omnibenevolence. God obeys the laws of logic because God is eternally logical in the same way that God doesn't perform evil actions because God is eternally good.

2) Thomas Aquinas:
The paradox arises from a misunderstanding of omnipotence. Inherent contradictions and logical impossibilities do not fall under the omnipotence of God.

In the 3rd round of this debate, I presented some other answers.
http://www.debate.org...
I cannot write in English, because of the treacherous spelling. When I am reading, I only hear it and am unable to remember what the written word looks like."
"Albert Einstein

http://www.twainquotes.com... , http://thewritecorner.wordpress.com... , http://www.onlinecollegecourses.com...
Jack212
Posts: 572
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2013 2:29:07 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/25/2013 12:07:40 AM, the_croftmeister wrote:
At 7/24/2013 11:51:22 PM, Jack212 wrote:
@ the_croftmeister

Our universe is a logical construct. All things in the universe must fit into that logical construct. If the see-saw no longer obeys universal logic, then it is not part of the logical construct called "the universe". But the universe still requires a logical explanation for where the see-saw went, and none can be found because the see-saw no longer follows logic. Therefore, the see-saw either cannot disappear, or disappears from the past as well in order to maintain a logically consistent timeline.
As I was saying before, this is a result of a physical law (conservation of matter) not a logical one. There is nothing logically inconsistent about me ceasing to exist right now (my existence is not a logical tautology) even though it can be derived from physical facts about the universe. Everything else I can agree with (though it merits further investigation).

If we were able to interact with the see-saw after it had become illogical, that would create a paradox and probably fvck up the entire universe. A fvcked up universe probably wouldn't support life very well.
Well, I'm not sure it would screw the entire universe, but sure, it could not sensibly interact with us. That doesn't mean that its disappearing is illogical. No law of logic I know proves conservation of energy or matter, that's a physical axiom that we could do without. Though it would be an interesting universe to consider.

Laws of Physics are a type of logic. This and this, therefore that. The universe is basically a framework of logic. Something that contradicts that framework is not part of it. The see-saw's disappearance contradicts previously established rules, so it cannot be included or else the framework falls apart. "Not logical" doesn't mean "cannot be imagined", it just means "not compatible" or "cannot fit".
the_croftmeister
Posts: 678
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2013 2:45:00 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/25/2013 2:29:07 AM, Jack212 wrote:
At 7/25/2013 12:07:40 AM, the_croftmeister wrote:
At 7/24/2013 11:51:22 PM, Jack212 wrote:
@ the_croftmeister

Our universe is a logical construct. All things in the universe must fit into that logical construct. If the see-saw no longer obeys universal logic, then it is not part of the logical construct called "the universe". But the universe still requires a logical explanation for where the see-saw went, and none can be found because the see-saw no longer follows logic. Therefore, the see-saw either cannot disappear, or disappears from the past as well in order to maintain a logically consistent timeline.
As I was saying before, this is a result of a physical law (conservation of matter) not a logical one. There is nothing logically inconsistent about me ceasing to exist right now (my existence is not a logical tautology) even though it can be derived from physical facts about the universe. Everything else I can agree with (though it merits further investigation).

If we were able to interact with the see-saw after it had become illogical, that would create a paradox and probably fvck up the entire universe. A fvcked up universe probably wouldn't support life very well.
Well, I'm not sure it would screw the entire universe, but sure, it could not sensibly interact with us. That doesn't mean that its disappearing is illogical. No law of logic I know proves conservation of energy or matter, that's a physical axiom that we could do without. Though it would be an interesting universe to consider.

Laws of Physics are a type of logic. This and this, therefore that. The universe is basically a framework of logic. Something that contradicts that framework is not part of it. The see-saw's disappearance contradicts previously established rules, so it cannot be included or else the framework falls apart. "Not logical" doesn't mean "cannot be imagined", it just means "not compatible" or "cannot fit".
Oooooo you've opened a real can of worms now. Doesn't that commit you to asserting that the universe cannot be any other way? The laws of logic are usually conceived to be necessary (i.e. they cannot change between possible worlds). If physics is logic then the physical world can only be one way. Mathematics for instance is the study of the properties that an entity has once you define certain non-logical properties (mathematical ones like equality of numbers or group operations or manifolds). The properties of an entity without any definitions are the domain of pure logic. Or is this not a distinction you think is worth making?

The laws of physics are not derived from anything, they are assumed and their consequences experimentally tested. The study of their consequences is a logical one, but the laws themselves are empirically determined (or at least that is the usual interpretation). In this case, a violation of the law counts as evidence that the law is false, it is not a 'logical impossibility' in the same way that a contradiction is.
DakotaKrafick
Posts: 1,517
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2013 3:46:30 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/24/2013 7:28:10 PM, Poetaster wrote:
At 7/24/2013 7:26:18 PM, DakotaKrafick wrote:
At 7/24/2013 7:08:19 PM, Poetaster wrote:
At 7/24/2013 6:29:54 PM, DakotaKrafick wrote:
At 7/24/2013 6:11:36 PM, Jack212 wrote:
"Omnipotence" is impossible in a world based on logic. Can God make both ends of a see-saw touch the ground while keeping it straight and intact, and without warping the fabric of space-time?

He could bend the ground to a valley-like slope.

God cannot violate the laws of playground equipment. Your argument is invalid.

The playground equipment remains the same; the ground is what changes.

The playground includes the ground as an inherent property.

Well, now your true cultist colors shine through. Modern Playground calvinists would never succumb to such blatantly false prose. What scripture can you use to support your ontological claim that being ground can be a playground-equipment-making property?
Poetaster
Posts: 587
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2013 4:13:10 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/25/2013 3:46:30 PM, DakotaKrafick wrote:
At 7/24/2013 7:28:10 PM, Poetaster wrote:
At 7/24/2013 7:26:18 PM, DakotaKrafick wrote:
At 7/24/2013 7:08:19 PM, Poetaster wrote:
At 7/24/2013 6:29:54 PM, DakotaKrafick wrote:
At 7/24/2013 6:11:36 PM, Jack212 wrote:
"Omnipotence" is impossible in a world based on logic. Can God make both ends of a see-saw touch the ground while keeping it straight and intact, and without warping the fabric of space-time?

He could bend the ground to a valley-like slope.

God cannot violate the laws of playground equipment. Your argument is invalid.

The playground equipment remains the same; the ground is what changes.

The playground includes the ground as an inherent property.

Well, now your true cultist colors shine through. Modern Playground calvinists would never succumb to such blatantly false prose. What scripture can you use to support your ontological claim that being ground can be a playground-equipment-making property?

A playground is only as good as the ground it stands on.
Therefore, a maximally great playground would rest on ground no less great than it.

If God created a playground, it would be maximally great.
Therefore, if God creates a playground, the ground on which it rests must be maximally great.

A playground that exists is better than one which doesn't
Therefore, a maximally great playground necessarily exists.

A maximally great playground must be created by a maximally great being.
God is a maximally great being.
Therefore, God necessarily exists and makes playgrounds on maximally great ground.

It follows that if a maximally great playground or ground does not exist, then God does not exist.
A maximally great playground does not exist.
Therefore, God does not exist.

Well, that went unexpectedly.

QED
"The book you are looking for hasn't been written yet. What you are looking for you are going to have to find yourself, it's not going to be in a book..." -Sidewalker
Poetaster
Posts: 587
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2013 4:31:13 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I just converted myself to Playenetics.
"The book you are looking for hasn't been written yet. What you are looking for you are going to have to find yourself, it's not going to be in a book..." -Sidewalker
Jack212
Posts: 572
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2013 6:13:47 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/25/2013 2:45:00 AM, the_croftmeister wrote:
At 7/25/2013 2:29:07 AM, Jack212 wrote:
At 7/25/2013 12:07:40 AM, the_croftmeister wrote:
At 7/24/2013 11:51:22 PM, Jack212 wrote:
@ the_croftmeister

Our universe is a logical construct. All things in the universe must fit into that logical construct. If the see-saw no longer obeys universal logic, then it is not part of the logical construct called "the universe". But the universe still requires a logical explanation for where the see-saw went, and none can be found because the see-saw no longer follows logic. Therefore, the see-saw either cannot disappear, or disappears from the past as well in order to maintain a logically consistent timeline.
As I was saying before, this is a result of a physical law (conservation of matter) not a logical one. There is nothing logically inconsistent about me ceasing to exist right now (my existence is not a logical tautology) even though it can be derived from physical facts about the universe. Everything else I can agree with (though it merits further investigation).

If we were able to interact with the see-saw after it had become illogical, that would create a paradox and probably fvck up the entire universe. A fvcked up universe probably wouldn't support life very well.
Well, I'm not sure it would screw the entire universe, but sure, it could not sensibly interact with us. That doesn't mean that its disappearing is illogical. No law of logic I know proves conservation of energy or matter, that's a physical axiom that we could do without. Though it would be an interesting universe to consider.

Laws of Physics are a type of logic. This and this, therefore that. The universe is basically a framework of logic. Something that contradicts that framework is not part of it. The see-saw's disappearance contradicts previously established rules, so it cannot be included or else the framework falls apart. "Not logical" doesn't mean "cannot be imagined", it just means "not compatible" or "cannot fit".
Oooooo you've opened a real can of worms now. Doesn't that commit you to asserting that the universe cannot be any other way? The laws of logic are usually conceived to be necessary (i.e. they cannot change between possible worlds). If physics is logic then the physical world can only be one way. Mathematics for instance is the study of the properties that an entity has once you define certain non-logical properties (mathematical ones like equality of numbers or group operations or manifolds). The properties of an entity without any definitions are the domain of pure logic. Or is this not a distinction you think is worth making?

The laws of physics are not derived from anything, they are assumed and their consequences experimentally tested. The study of their consequences is a logical one, but the laws themselves are empirically determined (or at least that is the usual interpretation). In this case, a violation of the law counts as evidence that the law is false, it is not a 'logical impossibility' in the same way that a contradiction is.

Fine. Our null hypothesis states that a straight, intact see-saw cannot have both ends touching the ground, provided the ground and the space-time between them is flat. We must assume that see-saws cannot behave in this manner until evidence proves otherwise. As an omnipotent god must be able to perform this feat, we must assume that God is not omnipotent until we observe a see-saw that violates our null hypothesis. Paradox resolved, thanks for playing.
Poetaster
Posts: 587
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2013 6:19:06 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/25/2013 6:13:47 PM, Jack212 wrote:
Paradox resolved, thanks for playing.

So you've converted to Playenetics, too?
"The book you are looking for hasn't been written yet. What you are looking for you are going to have to find yourself, it's not going to be in a book..." -Sidewalker
Jack212
Posts: 572
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2013 6:26:18 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/25/2013 6:19:06 PM, Poetaster wrote:
At 7/25/2013 6:13:47 PM, Jack212 wrote:
Paradox resolved, thanks for playing.

So you've converted to Playenetics, too?

As I recall, I'm the one who introduced the see-saw analogy. That makes me the goddamn prophet of Playenetics. Thou shalt heed my teachings.
the_croftmeister
Posts: 678
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2013 6:29:40 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/26/2013 6:26:18 PM, Jack212 wrote:
At 7/25/2013 6:19:06 PM, Poetaster wrote:
At 7/25/2013 6:13:47 PM, Jack212 wrote:
Paradox resolved, thanks for playing.

So you've converted to Playenetics, too?

As I recall, I'm the one who introduced the see-saw analogy. That makes me the goddamn prophet of Playenetics. Thou shalt heed my teachings.
All hail the prophet! Thou shalt now choose an appropriate prophet name.
Jack212
Posts: 572
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2013 9:05:41 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/26/2013 6:29:40 PM, the_croftmeister wrote:
At 7/26/2013 6:26:18 PM, Jack212 wrote:
At 7/25/2013 6:19:06 PM, Poetaster wrote:
At 7/25/2013 6:13:47 PM, Jack212 wrote:
Paradox resolved, thanks for playing.

So you've converted to Playenetics, too?

As I recall, I'm the one who introduced the see-saw analogy. That makes me the goddamn prophet of Playenetics. Thou shalt heed my teachings.
All hail the prophet! Thou shalt now choose an appropriate prophet name.

Merrius Goroundus.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2013 11:43:30 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
I grant the theist "logical" omnipotence, however it contradicts The Bible. The Bible says all things are possible with God, not God cannot do the impossible... Just sayin'