Total Posts:52|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

The Paradox of the Stone

Charles0103
Posts: 523
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2011 7:20:44 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
I myself am a Christian, but many nonchristians for hundreds of years have used this paradox to attempt to prove there is no God.

Here's the paradox:
If there is a God, then He can create a stone that is too heavy for him to lift. But, if He can't lift that stone, He's not omnipotent. If God cannot create a stone too heavy for Him to lift, then he's not omnipotent."

I came up with five answers to this paradox. But I wanted to see if any of my other Christians brothers and sisters have any more ways to solve this.
"And so I tell you, keep on asking, and you will receive what you ask for. Keep on seeking, and you will find. Keep on knocking, and the door will be opened to you. For everyone who asks, receives. Everyone who seeks, finds. And to everyone who knocks, the door will be opened." Jesus in Luke 11:9-10
Zetsubou
Posts: 4,933
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2011 7:51:42 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Omnipotence by definition means he can defy logic, however it is logic that defines paradoxes to start with.

He just can because that's what omnipotence means.
'sup DDO -- july 2013
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2011 7:56:26 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/17/2011 7:51:42 AM, Zetsubou wrote:
Omnipotence by definition means he can defy logic, however it is logic that defines paradoxes to start with.

He just can because that's what omnipotence means.

That is possibly the most, indeed the only, intelligent thing you have ever said on the forums.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2011 8:07:13 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/17/2011 8:04:16 AM, NO55 wrote:
Faith and logic never, EVER, mix.

At worst they should be entwined, at best they should be the same thing.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2011 8:12:12 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/17/2011 8:04:16 AM, NO55 wrote:
Faith and logic never, EVER, mix.:

Aha! So that's why so many religious people are stupid.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2011 8:14:27 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/17/2011 8:12:12 AM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
At 1/17/2011 8:04:16 AM, NO55 wrote:
Faith and logic never, EVER, mix.:

Aha! So that's why so many religious people are stupid.

Yea, lets all mock Christians then circle jerk around a statue of Dawkins!
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
unitedandy
Posts: 1,173
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2011 8:18:32 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
As an atheist, I find such an argument pretty easily dismissed:

God is omnipotent in the sense that He can only do what is logically possible, thus things like making such a stone is logically contradictory, and can no more exist than a married bachelor or a square circle. Furthermore, if those making such a proposition insist, then God could do even that which is logically impossible - making such a stone and then lifting it.

The stone paradox is essentially a paradox for whoever makes such a bad argument. Either God is logically consistent and the proposition makes no sense, or He does not and can perform an action which contradicts logic. BTW, I'm not sure anyone who has read even the most basic philosophical material would ever use such an argument. Usually, theists will restrict God a logical entity, and atheists will try to show how this position is untenable.
Charles0103
Posts: 523
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2011 9:19:10 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
I think faith and logic mix all the time. Philosophers like Socrates or Plato believed that you can't prove God materially since he exists outside the material world. Instead, you have to prove his existence through logic.
"And so I tell you, keep on asking, and you will receive what you ask for. Keep on seeking, and you will find. Keep on knocking, and the door will be opened to you. For everyone who asks, receives. Everyone who seeks, finds. And to everyone who knocks, the door will be opened." Jesus in Luke 11:9-10
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2011 9:22:32 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/17/2011 9:19:10 AM, Charles0103 wrote:
I think faith and logic mix all the time.

Sure they do. It's like mixing a mighty feast with arsenic. The results are fatal, and it's usually only done when the intention is to kill whomever is on the receiving end.

Philosophers like Socrates or Plato believed that you can't prove God materially since he exists outside the material world. Instead, you have to prove his existence through logic.

Both were incorrect. Interestingly, it is logic, in a general sense, that gives you the most ground disproving his existence (beyond the usual "lack of evidence" business and cheeky paradoxes).
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,923
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2011 11:35:43 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/17/2011 8:04:16 AM, NO55 wrote:
Faith and logic never, EVER, mix.

I think you have no idea what you're talking about.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2011 11:47:56 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
God is so too fat to do a pull up.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
Floid
Posts: 751
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2011 1:32:43 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Here's the paradox:
If there is a God, then He can create a stone that is too heavy for him to lift. But, if He can't lift that stone, He's not omnipotent. If God cannot create a stone too heavy for Him to lift, then he's not omnipotent."

Well, what is the definition of lifting something? I would propose the following definition:

lifting - an application of energy to an object that increases the distance between the object and the center of gravity of the Earth

Now, if we grant that an all powerful God is strong enough to move the Earth then here is how I propose to solve the problem:

Let God stand on the stone that is to heavy for him to move and push the Earth away from the object. In doing so, God would have increased distance between the center of gravity of the Earth and the stone and therefore he lifted the stone. He just didn't lift it in the manner everyone thought he would.
badger
Posts: 11,793
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2011 2:07:01 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/17/2011 8:57:34 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
I took the Paradox of the Stone and made a bigger argument out of it, actually.

let's hear it then..
signature
badger
Posts: 11,793
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2011 2:09:32 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/17/2011 8:12:12 AM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
At 1/17/2011 8:04:16 AM, NO55 wrote:
Faith and logic never, EVER, mix.:

Aha! So that's why so many religious people are stupid.

that was hilarious.. i'mma try and sig it!
signature
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2011 2:40:17 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
"Omnipotent" is easily defined as being able to do anything that is logically possible. In the Bible, God was only called "omnipotent" once, and there's no reason to assume that this meant that He could do things that His own existence excludes. Same goes for "almighty." The Paradox of the Stone is, in reality, one giant semantical argument.
gavin.ogden
Posts: 1,729
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2011 3:04:28 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/17/2011 7:20:44 AM, Charles0103 wrote:
I myself am a Christian, but many nonchristians for hundreds of years have used this paradox to attempt to prove there is no God.

Here's the paradox:
If there is a God, then He can create a stone that is too heavy for him to lift. But, if He can't lift that stone, He's not omnipotent. If God cannot create a stone too heavy for Him to lift, then he's not omnipotent."

I came up with five answers to this paradox. But I wanted to see if any of my other Christians brothers and sisters have any more ways to solve this.

I have news for you. We are all related biologically, regardless of religion, creed, sexuality, skin color and even regardless of species. So, what have you to say to your atheist brothers and sisters, or your primate cousins?
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,923
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2011 4:36:05 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/17/2011 7:51:42 AM, Zetsubou wrote:
Omnipotence by definition means he can defy logic, however it is logic that defines paradoxes to start with.

He just can because that's what omnipotence means.

...that makes no sense.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
J.Kenyon
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2011 4:39:03 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/17/2011 7:51:42 AM, Zetsubou wrote:
Omnipotence by definition means he can defy logic, however it is logic that defines paradoxes to start with.

He just can because that's what omnipotence means.

lol no.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,923
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2011 4:46:30 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/17/2011 4:42:07 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 1/17/2011 11:35:43 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 1/17/2011 8:04:16 AM, NO55 wrote:
Faith and logic never, EVER, mix.

I think you have no idea what you're talking about.

You might talk to Kleptin about that.

Why? We've had the conversation about a billion times and all it ends with him is talking about empiricism.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
badger
Posts: 11,793
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2011 4:53:11 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/17/2011 4:39:03 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
At 1/17/2011 7:51:42 AM, Zetsubou wrote:
Omnipotence by definition means he can defy logic, however it is logic that defines paradoxes to start with.

He just can because that's what omnipotence means.

lol no.

why lol no?
signature
badger
Posts: 11,793
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2011 4:59:20 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/17/2011 4:46:30 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 1/17/2011 4:42:07 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 1/17/2011 11:35:43 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 1/17/2011 8:04:16 AM, NO55 wrote:
Faith and logic never, EVER, mix.

I think you have no idea what you're talking about.

You might talk to Kleptin about that.

Why? We've had the conversation about a billion times and all it ends with him is talking about empiricism.

you could explain to me how they do.. if you wanted :)
signature
J.Kenyon
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2011 5:03:37 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/17/2011 4:53:11 PM, badger wrote:
At 1/17/2011 4:39:03 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
At 1/17/2011 7:51:42 AM, Zetsubou wrote:
Omnipotence by definition means he can defy logic, however it is logic that defines paradoxes to start with.

He just can because that's what omnipotence means.

lol no.

why lol no?

Because omnipotence is just the ability to actualize any metaphysically possible state of affairs.
badger
Posts: 11,793
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2011 5:11:27 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/17/2011 5:03:37 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
At 1/17/2011 4:53:11 PM, badger wrote:
At 1/17/2011 4:39:03 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
At 1/17/2011 7:51:42 AM, Zetsubou wrote:
Omnipotence by definition means he can defy logic, however it is logic that defines paradoxes to start with.

He just can because that's what omnipotence means.

lol no.

why lol no?

Because omnipotence is just the ability to actualize any metaphysically possible state of affairs.

and that's how it was defined in the bible? i thought it just meant being all powerful? so now it only means being able to do anything that's possible? i could possibly do possible things...? am i god?
signature
badger
Posts: 11,793
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2011 5:13:15 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/17/2011 5:11:27 PM, badger wrote:
At 1/17/2011 5:03:37 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
At 1/17/2011 4:53:11 PM, badger wrote:
At 1/17/2011 4:39:03 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
At 1/17/2011 7:51:42 AM, Zetsubou wrote:
Omnipotence by definition means he can defy logic, however it is logic that defines paradoxes to start with.

He just can because that's what omnipotence means.

lol no.

why lol no?

Because omnipotence is just the ability to actualize any metaphysically possible state of affairs.

and that's how it was defined in the bible? i thought it just meant being all powerful? so now it only means being able to do anything that's possible? i could possibly do possible things...? am i god?

i suppose i can't definitely do them.. i'm still surely like some sorta demi god or something though, right?
signature
J.Kenyon
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2011 5:14:50 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/17/2011 5:11:27 PM, badger wrote:
and that's how it was defined in the bible? i thought it just meant being all powerful?

The Bible is not a textbook on analytic philosophy. Use your head.

so now it only means being able to do anything that's possible? i could possibly do possible things...? am i god?

Can you do everything that's possible?
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2011 5:21:29 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/17/2011 4:36:05 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 1/17/2011 7:51:42 AM, Zetsubou wrote:
Omnipotence by definition means he can defy logic, however it is logic that defines paradoxes to start with.

He just can because that's what omnipotence means.

...that makes no sense.

Logic implies definitions and limitations. Either God is not bound by logic, or we are simply forced to accept that omnipotence simply means he can do whatever is logically possible. Either way the paradox of the stone is laid to rest.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.