The stone paradox reframed.

[A Vestigial Mote]

Permit me a question: Do you think you might have responded differently had I used the word heavy instead of orange?

There's a good reason the OP seemed like a joke.

What if, here on Earth, within an arena known (tentatively by some) as "reality", I told you the following: "The stone was so orange that no matter how hard I pushed, it wouldn't budge."?
Now, what if I told you: "The stone was so heavy that no matter how hard I pushed, it wouldn't budge."?

Would YOU respond to ME differently if I posed one or the other of the above to you in recounting a tale of my attempts to move a rock? It should come as no shock if you have to admit that you would.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

There's a good reason the OP seemed like a joke.

As you wish.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

As you wish.

What I wish is that you would have answered my question.

 

[McBell]

How do we know the stone isn't still orange on the inside?

Perhaps the stone has always felt like it was a feather....

 

[Willamena]

There's a good reason the OP seemed like a joke.

What if, here on Earth, within an arena known (tentatively by some) as "reality", I told you the following: "The stone was so orange that no matter how hard I pushed, it wouldn't budge."?
Now, what if I told you: "The stone was so heavy that no matter how hard I pushed, it wouldn't budge."?

Would YOU respond to ME differently if I posed one or the other of the above to you in recounting a tale of my attempts to move a rock? It should come as no shock if you have to admit that you would.

Would you respond to me differently if I posed one or the other of the above about G-d?

 

[Willamena]

Yes. Harder in a similar sense to how heavier things are harder to lift than lighter things: could God set the rules of the universe such that the colour of an object affects how much force is needed to lift it?

BTW: you keep on throwing the word "preternatural" in; what difference do you think it makes?


If we're talking about lifting, then it's relevant. We can measure the ease or difficulty of lifting a rock in terms of a quantifiable value: the force needed to lift it. It's meaningful to say that a heavier rock is more difficult to lift than a lighter rock, even if both rocks are well within the lifting capacity of whoever is lifting them.

But by what means would a preternatural agency move a rock?

Necessarily, we cannot say by what means, so we cannot say anything about that means.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

BTW: you keep on throwing the word "preternatural" in; what difference do you think it makes?

I'm sorry. I intended to respond to this earlier and got distracted. To answer:

It is solely a matter of personal preference. To me "super-" connotes "more-than-" while "preter-" connotes "other-than-", hence ..

• supernatural suggests more than natural, while
• preternatural suggests other than natural

I find value in focusing on the otherness. Hopefully, the use of the term does not prove too disconcerting to others.​

 

[Ponder This]

Perhaps the stone has always felt like it was a feather....

Perhaps it is even made of feathers... lots and lots and lots of feathers, petrified feathers.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Perhaps it is even made of feathers... lots and lots and lots of feathers, petrified feathers.

(You gotta love these adolescent attempts to mock.)

 

[Sunstone]

I mean, it's obvious. No?

Seemed obvious enough (and funny) until you started talking about taking the question "in earnest".

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Seemed obvious enough (and funny) until you started talking about taking the question "in earnest".

That's probably why people don't take me to parties.

 

[blü 2]

Can G-d create a stone too orange for Him to move?

So, like, can God create a stone of a shade of orange so revolting to [him] that [he] can't bear to go near it to lift it?

Well, you can do anything in a story, so yes, of course [he] can. At least until chapter 22.

Or perhaps [he] can create a stone of an orange color so delicate and exquisite that [he] dare not move it by lifting &c. (And unique, although I'm not sure how [he] could be unable to make another.)

 

[Quagmire]

It's a paradox because it's a question that only God could answer, and He's not going to because He's too busy reading another thread.

 

[idav]

As you wish.

I think it could be possible, not out of the range of improbable, that in some universe, orange is the frequency you see for immovable objects, like what a black hole would be, but orange.

 

[Grandliseur]

Can G-d create a stone too orange for Him to move?

Thank you for the parody.

I think the original question that of an insane mind. What do you think? Is it really a rational question?

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

I don't believe in paradoxes.

Very many things seem to be paradoxes till we understand the question they put.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I'm sorry. I intended to respond to this earlier and got distracted. To answer:

It is solely a matter of personal preference. To me "super-" connotes "more-than-" while "preter-" connotes "other-than-", hence ..

• supernatural suggests more than natural, while
• preternatural suggests other than natural

I find value in focusing on the otherness. Hopefully, the use of the term does not prove too disconcerting to others.​

I understood that much. What I didn't understand is why you think - apparently - that the God being preternatural/supernatural is especially relevant. It seems like you're assuming that by labelling it "preternatural" (or "supernatural"), you're trying to imply that it has some specific set of traits, but I have no idea what that set of traits is.

For me, calling something "preternatural" (or "supernatural") tells me absolutely nothing about the thing, but you're using the term as if you expect us to consider it meaningful.

That's what I was getting at.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I think the original question that of an insane mind. What do you think?

Well, since you asked: I think that says a great deal more about you than about the question.

 

[Grandliseur]

Well, since you asked: I think that says a great deal more about you than about the question.

OooK.

Not much about the logic in the original question there.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Would you respond to me differently if I posed one or the other of the above about G-d?

We can dispense with the stone entirely, if you want - considering the issue at hand here is that "heavy" doesn't apply to the "realm" of God (as if anyone knows what this really is), and use some more traditional/generally-accepted aspect of God's "being". Let's try:

• Can God create a universe so large that He can become lost within it?
• Can God create a population of beings so numerous that He can't keep track of them all?
• Does God have the ability to sin?

The original question (or any of the above) is only used to highlight the fact that God being "all powerful" is simply an impossibility. If God cannot create a universe so large He can become lost within it, then that is an example of something He CANNOT do - therefore He isn't "all powerful". And if God CAN create a universe so large He can become lost within it, then He is also proven less than "all powerful" because He is unable to find His way in a universe that large.

If God is incapable of "sin" - either because He is "too perfect" or because His action, by its very definition, is not sin, then sinning is something He is unable to do... and therefore He is not "all powerful."

I have a sneaking suspicion that I didn't need to explain all of this to you... however it seems a naive thing to point to "orange" and "heavy" and pretend that I am of the opinion that those are the only things that do, or don't make sense to apply to God. In point of fact, if ANYTHING AT ALL applies to God (which, let's face it... there had better be SOMETHING, or one might actually be forced to admit that He doesn't exist), then I can formulate a problematic interrogative like any of the above, guaranteed.