If God were truly all-powerful...?

[Kilgore Trout]

This problem has nothing to do with language. It has to do with whether God can do the impossible.

Read deeper.

 

[Dan4reason]

Read deeper.

I already read the rock argument as deeply as the statement could go. I even independently came up with the idea that the problem may not be with God but with the statement itself. However, reading deeper, I found that was wrong. It supports my conclusion unequivocally as far as I can tell. Is there something I missed?

See post #38 for my reasoning. It is not long.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I already read the rock argument as deeply as the statement could go. I even independently came up with the idea that the problem may not be with God but with the statement itself. However, reading deeper, I found that was wrong. It supports my conclusion unequivocally as far as I can tell. Is there something I missed?

See post #38 for my reasoning. It is not long.

Nah, there's nothing wrong with your argument. It just seems to me that, whatever way you slice it, it breaks down most simply as a problem with the limitations of language convoluting logic.

 

[Willamena]

This problem has nothing to do with language. It has to do with whether God can do the impossible.

It's also definitional problem (hence language). Can the impossible be possible?

 

[1AOA1]

The conclusion to this is that an omnipotent being, a being who can do anything cannot exist. The best a being can do is be able to do anything which can be done. However, that is not omnipotence.

Doesn't omnipotence define what can be done by being able to do everything which can be done? Wouldn't doing the impossible be doing nothing since it is everything that is possible? If doing nothing can be done, doesn't it also do the impossible?

 

[Willamena]

Doesn't omnipotence define what can be done by being able to do everything which can be done?

"Ability plus opportunity" is but one interpretation of omnipotence.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Oh contrare, my dear Penguin. Those are the very rules the question doesn't abide; so, in the end, it is logic that saves us from the dilemma.

The question "if God does (insert something impossible)..." defies logic itself, because the impossible, if it can be done, is possible, so creates a contradiction.

On reflection, I think I've come to the conclusion that the rock dilemma doesn't actually create a contradiction or a problem for the notion of omnipotence.

Another way of phrasing the question is to as, "does the inability to counteract limitless power represent a limit on power itself?" When I look at it that way, I'm not sure that the rock dilemma is really that big a problem at all. In that context, the answer's no: a limitless limit isn't really a limit.

 

[Dan4reason]

Nah, there's nothing wrong with your argument. It just seems to me that, whatever way you slice it, it breaks down most simply as a problem with the limitations of language convoluting logic.

I don't understand how the limitations of language factor into this problem.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I don't understand how the limitations of language factor into this problem.

Not so much the limitations of language, as the limitations imposed on our conceptions by language. The language of the stated problem is itself imposing a dilemma where none actually exists. However, people are easily confused by the vagaries of language. Hence, why there are so many riddles and puzzles which are based on exploiting this.

 

[Willamena]

On reflection, I think I've come to the conclusion that the rock dilemma doesn't actually create a contradiction or a problem for the notion of omnipotence.

Another way of phrasing the question is to as, "does the inability to counteract limitless power represent a limit on power itself?" When I look at it that way, I'm not sure that the rock dilemma is really that big a problem at all. In that context, the answer's no: a limitless limit isn't really a limit.

I like that... but you seem to have turned it around. Is the limit expressed what is limitless? or the power?

 

[Dan4reason]

It's also definitional problem (hence language). Can the impossible be possible?

That rock argument is not assuming that the impossible is possible in order to disprove omnipotence. If it did, then the contradiction is in the question itself rather than with an omnipotent being. On the contrary, the argument is stating that IF you assume God is omnipotent, then you have to agree that the impossible is possible. If God is omnipotent, then there is nothing he can't do. If this is so, then he can lift any rock. Therefore it is impossible to have a rock he can't lift.

If you assume that God is omnipotent then you are assuming that he can do everything including the impossible. However, there is a contradiction with being able to do everything and with there being things that cannot be done even by God. The rock analogy is not self-contradictory, it proves that a universe in which the impossible exists cannot contain the omnipotent. Omnipotence because of the impossible is logically impossible.

 

[Dan4reason]

Doesn't omnipotence define what can be done by being able to do everything which can be done?

That is not what omnipotence is. Omnipotence is when you are all powerful. In other words, you can do anything. There is nothing you can't do. By this definition the limitation that God can only do things which can be done is superfluous because by definition he can do everything. If a being can do all things then all things can be done. Nothing is impossible.

Wouldn't doing the impossible be doing nothing since it is everything that is possible? If doing nothing can be done, doesn't it also do the impossible?

Making a rock you can't move is not doing nothing. it is a hypothetical action. If it is indeed impossible to do because such a rock cannot exist, then that is a limitation on your abilities of making it.

The bible may very well have meant that God is omnipotent if you are only considering things which have any possibility of being done, so this argument does not disprove a judeo-Christian God. The bible doesn't go into detail and isn't very technical. It only disproves a God who can do absolutely anything.

 

[Dan4reason]

Not so much the limitations of language, as the limitations imposed on our conceptions by language. The language of the stated problem is itself imposing a dilemma where none actually exists. However, people are easily confused by the vagaries of language. Hence, why there are so many riddles and puzzles which are based on exploiting this.

I do not see how language is imposing a limitation. The only limitation that is being imposed by us is the assumption that God cannot do the logically impossible.

 

[1AOA1]

That is not what omnipotence is. Omnipotence is when you are all powerful. In other words, you can do anything. There is nothing you can't do. By this definition the limitation that God can only do things which can be done is superfluous because by definition he can do everything. If a being can do all things then all things can be done. Nothing is impossible.

So why do you call it impossible when it can be done? You say it create a rock...then add 'which it can't move'? Aren't you already stripping it of it's omnipotence by adding 'which it cant move'?

Making a rock you can't move is not doing nothing. it is a hypothetical action. If it is indeed impossible to do because such a rock cannot exist, then that is a limitation on your abilities of making it.

The bible may very well have meant that God is omnipotent if you are only considering things which have any possibility of being done, so this argument does not disprove a judeo-Christian God. The bible doesn't go into detail and isn't very technical. It only disproves a God who can do absolutely anything.

If it can do all things, then wouldn't something it can't do be nothing? Meaning there is nothing it can't do? Or nothing is impossible?

 

[Willamena]

the argument is stating that IF you assume God is omnipotent, then you have to agree that the impossible is possible.

That's the definitional problem I referred to...

If God is omnipotent, then there is nothing he can't do. If this is so, then he can lift any rock. Therefore it is impossible to have a rock he can't lift.

Something that can be done is possible, therefore we'd not be agreeing that the impossible is possible, but rather that the possible is possible. But (by your definitions) for a being for whom there is nothing he can't do to bring about the circumstance of something he can't do is, by definition, the impossible. Contradiction occurs; logic stops here.

If you assume that God is omnipotent then you are assuming that he can do everything including the impossible.

:tsk: Contradiction.

However, there is a contradiction with being able to do everything and with there being things that cannot be done even by God. The rock analogy is not self-contradictory, it proves that a universe in which the impossible exists cannot contain the omnipotent. Omnipotence because of the impossible is logically impossible.

Well, it's a priori, it can't actually prove... But fair enough.

 

[Thief]

There a plenty of rocks He cannot move......

the stubborn hearts of non-believers.

 

[Nois Forme]

For (at least) as far back as the 12th century, it has been commonly accepted that there are 'limitations' even with an omnipotent deity (and a bit later; "Nothing which implies contradiction falls under the omnipotence of God." -Aquinas).

Simply put, omnipotence is 'the ability to do anything that is possible to do'. To ask that one 'do something that isn't possible', is to ask that someone 'do something that isn't anything'. For those that wish to redefine it to suit their argument's needs, it simply isn't valid.

The rock 'argument' is no more than a play on words, which when distilled into an equation, shows itself to be illogical on its face. The language used develops a paradox inherent in the words themselves, not in this god's supposed attributes or abilities.

It is a cousin of the 'can god create a square-circle' problem, which suffers from the same type of internal logic problems. With both, you are essentially asking if god can make 'A' = 'not A'. Can (he) actualize a logical contradiction. The answer (no) has nothing to do with this god's 'abilities' or 'power'.

It is worthy of discussion in that it raises the question of whether or not this deity would be 'subject' (subordinate?) to the laws of logic. Most theologians worth their salt seem to think that god does operate within logic, but that this does not somehow lessen (his) abilities. I've no idea how that's supposed to work. But this is a different, more direct, and in my opinion more fruitful question.

(Incidentally, I'm a dyed in the wool atheist. I just happen to have a low tolerance for poor arguments, despite which 'side of the aisle' they come from.)

 

[Thief]

For (at least) as far back as the 12th century, it has been commonly accepted that there are 'limitations' even with an omnipotent deity (and a bit later; "Nothing which implies contradiction falls under the omnipotence of God." -Aquinas).

Simply put, omnipotence is 'the ability to do anything that is possible to do'. To ask that one 'do something that isn't possible', is to ask that someone 'do something that isn't anything'. For those that wish to redefine it to suit their argument's needs, it simply isn't valid.

The rock 'argument' is no more than a play on words, which when distilled into an equation, shows itself to be illogical on its face. The language used develops a paradox inherent in the words themselves, not in this god's supposed attributes or abilities.

It is a cousin of the 'can god create a square-circle' problem, which suffers from the same type of internal logic problems. With both, you are essentially asking if god can make 'A' = 'not A'. Can (he) actualize a logical contradiction. The answer (no) has nothing to do with this god's 'abilities' or 'power'.

It is worthy of discussion in that it raises the question of whether or not this deity would be 'subject' (subordinate?) to the laws of logic. Most theologians worth their salt seem to think that god does operate within logic, but that this does not somehow lessen (his) abilities. I've no idea how that's supposed to work. But this is a different, more direct, and in my opinion more fruitful question.

(Incidentally, I'm a dyed in the wool atheist. I just happen to have a low tolerance for poor arguments, despite which 'side of the aisle' they come from.)

So....logic is required....

What if God is not altogether logical?
What if this life and living is just one big joke.....
and some people just don't get it?

A way of saying....not all will believe....no matter what the logic.

 

[McBell]

So....logic is required....

What if God is not altogether logical?
What if this life and living is just one big joke.....
and some people just don't get it?

A way of saying....not all will believe....no matter what the logic.

Then it would be illogical to argue with logic about a being who is not bound by the logic you argue with.

Nor would it be logical to attempt using logic to even discuss a being that is not bound by the logic with which you speak.

Simple really.

 

[Danmac]

I know this is an old and kind of silly paradox, but really think about it. It's a good question. If your god truly were all-powerful, could he create a rock he cannot lift? If not, he is not all powerful, and if he cannot lift it he is also not all-powerful.

The size of the largest rock cannot be determined because it is infinite. God's strength is also infinite. When you can weigh infinity we can make the determination. Until then your question is impossible to answer.