1. Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Featured The stone paradox reframed.

Discussion in 'Religious Debates' started by Jayhawker Soule, Oct 1, 2017.

  1. A Vestigial Mote

    A Vestigial Mote Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2015
    Messages:
    4,096
    Ratings:
    +2,600
    Religion:
    ?
    Oh, and by the way... the answer is "yes", "yes I most certainly would respond to you differently. Which again, should come as no shock... but at least I can admit it without compunction.
     
    • Useful Useful x 1
  2. David T

    David T Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2011
    Messages:
    7,533
    Ratings:
    +2,810
    Can man create an idea to large to lift?
     
  3. Kuzcotopia

    Kuzcotopia If you can read this, you are as lucky as I am.

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2015
    Messages:
    1,869
    Ratings:
    +1,534
    Religion:
    Fat Stack 'o Pancakes
    Reposted.

    Haven't seen this answer yet, and I did respond to your additional questions in Post #10. Thanks!
     
  4. Meow Mix

    Meow Mix Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2010
    Messages:
    7,156
    Ratings:
    +841
    Religion:
    Nontheist
    The question doesn't make any more sense than it would if it were the old "too heavy to lift" canard. In fact, when it's stated with the word "heavy," it might as well say this instead since the referents for the reference are impossible.

    If you have an immovable object then there's no such thing as an unstoppable force; and vice versa.
     
  5. idav

    idav Being
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2011
    Messages:
    18,969
    Ratings:
    +3,287
    Religion:
    Pantheist
    True though it isn't impossible for a deity to have both those attributes in potential, depending if it wanted to stay or move.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  6. Jayhawker Soule

    Jayhawker Soule <yawn> ignore </yawn>
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2004
    Messages:
    36,855
    Ratings:
    +10,212
    Religion:
    Judaism
    In fact, this "canard" has occupied many remarkable minds over recent centuries. So, for example:



    One might be forgiven to suspect that many of these minds dwarf yours and mine and that, in any event, deserve consideration and respect. That you would employ such a dismissive characterization is simply sophomoric.
     
  7. Meow Mix

    Meow Mix Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2010
    Messages:
    7,156
    Ratings:
    +841
    Religion:
    Nontheist
    I'm familiar with the history. It's generally accepted and noncontroversial in modern theology that omnipotence has logical limitations -- hence the "old canard" as the question "can God lift a rock so heavy He can't lift it" is usually offered up by those unfamiliar with the centuries of thought you mention.

    This is the second time you've been inordinately antagonistic towards me, though. Maybe don't do that? Can't we be friends?

    Edit: Maybe you misinterpreted the tone of my post and thought it was attacking you for the OP? It was not
     
    #67 Meow Mix, Oct 5, 2017
    Last edited: Oct 5, 2017
  8. Meow Mix

    Meow Mix Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2010
    Messages:
    7,156
    Ratings:
    +841
    Religion:
    Nontheist
    Can you tell us more about the purpose of replacing "heavy," an intuitive pronoun, with an unintuitive pronoun, "orange?"
     
  9. Jayhawker Soule

    Jayhawker Soule <yawn> ignore </yawn>
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2004
    Messages:
    36,855
    Ratings:
    +10,212
    Religion:
    Judaism
    Perhaps. What non-derogatory definition of 'canard' did you have in mind?
     
  10. Meow Mix

    Meow Mix Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2010
    Messages:
    7,156
    Ratings:
    +841
    Religion:
    Nontheist
    It's a fluff word expressing an opinion over an idea. I thought you were just a straight shooter and enjoyed speaking frankly. The first thing you've said to me since my return was that my post was "wordy," "underwhelming," and "*facepalm emoji*." I took it in stride, just figured that's the way you like to banter. I play rough with my friends, ya know. If injecting personal inflection isn't welcome I can certainly tone it down, but really, maybe we just got off on the wrong foot? I'd rather be able to joke and discuss than wonder whether we're making zingers at one another :p
     
  11. Willamena

    Willamena Just me
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2006
    Messages:
    39,199
    Ratings:
    +6,375
    Necessarily, we could not say if a preternatural being has traits. Traits depict nature.

    The OP is not a trick question of traits or definition, it is simply is not answerable. The point being that the original question of the stone, which on the surface appears to make sense, is similar. It is also inherently unanswerable.

    (You could say it's a trick, but of language, that in asking a question that is grammatically correct and whose parts make sense, we expect that we have asked something that makes sense. But that's not necessarily the case.)
     
  12. A Vestigial Mote

    A Vestigial Mote Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2015
    Messages:
    4,096
    Ratings:
    +2,600
    Religion:
    ?
    Unfortunately for your premise here, even "being wholly undetectable" is actually a "trait."

    Could God make himself so undetectable that He is unable to detect Himself?

    In fact, in the same way that "all powerful" is shown to be impossible by the sort of question posed above, I would argue that "having no traits" is also an impossibility. For even "having no discernible traits" is, itself, a trait.

    I would also add that some "thing" which has no traits is indistinguishable from something that does not exist in the first place.
     
    #72 A Vestigial Mote, Oct 6, 2017
    Last edited: Oct 6, 2017
  13. 9-10ths_Penguin

    9-10ths_Penguin 1/10 Riboflavin
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2007
    Messages:
    54,959
    Ratings:
    +13,513
    Religion:
    None (atheist)
    I get the sense that you're equivocating, but if it was true that preternatural beings do not have traits, then it would always be incorrect to say that they're preternatural (since the label implies the thing has the trait of being preternatural).

    Right: any answer to the question violates the premises, and therefore can't be correct. It illustrates that omnipotence is inherently self-contradictory, which we can use to conclude that omnipotence cannot exist.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  14. Willamena

    Willamena Just me
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2006
    Messages:
    39,199
    Ratings:
    +6,375
    I meant literally no trait. Whatever you derive as a trait is inadequate. It is impossible to describe G-d, which is why the word ineffable gets knocked around.

    And yes, even existence and nonexistence are inadequate.
     
  15. Willamena

    Willamena Just me
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2006
    Messages:
    39,199
    Ratings:
    +6,375
    We needn't bother with words at all, nor with talking about the topic. But humans delight in the sound of their own voice.

    The question violates the premise. It's essentially a straw man about a caricature, which I believe was Epicurus's point.
     
  16. 9-10ths_Penguin

    9-10ths_Penguin 1/10 Riboflavin
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2007
    Messages:
    54,959
    Ratings:
    +13,513
    Religion:
    None (atheist)
    You know how you talked before about stringing words together in a grammatically correct way but ending up with something meaningless? I think you just provided a good example.

    "The question violates the premise"? Was that supposed to make sense?
     
  17. A Vestigial Mote

    A Vestigial Mote Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2015
    Messages:
    4,096
    Ratings:
    +2,600
    Religion:
    ?
    I guess I can't understand how something for which no descriptor at all applies can be considered relevant. If God is beyond description, beyond detection, beyond any capability for a human to understand... then why waste any time/energy even discussing the idea? What fruit will be yielded if it ultimately leads to "well, we simply can't grasp it", "we can't pretend to know God", or "God does exist, but just appears not to by ALL accounts?"

    How does a God, who has absolutely no properties a human can possibly comprehend, even matter at all? If He were out there, running the universe and insuring our continued survival - then those are "traits" of God. If He's out there simply watching, waiting and doing mostly nothing - those still comprise traits of God. I would argue that if He truly has NO traits that can be grasped from a human perspective, then from that same perspective there is no benefit to recognizing this thing called "God." In fact... how DOES one even RECOGNIZE a thing that has no TRAITS? Sounds very suspiciously like NOTHING.
     
  18. Willamena

    Willamena Just me
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2006
    Messages:
    39,199
    Ratings:
    +6,375
    That's a good question. I read a fine history of thought once that included a history of religious thought. I believe it has less to do with deity and more to do with the conclusions of nihilism, and the desire to cling to life, being, and ultimately the world, complete with its pain and pleasure.

    And if you look at religious discussions, they are less about god and more about man's relation to the world. It's more the atheists who harp on whether god exists. Those who have accepted god have no need to dwell on it, just as the person who has accepted that "something exists, rather than nothing" doesn't dwell on it.

    I'll be the first in line to say it: it doesn't matter at all. Religion is for the devotee, not for deity. Elevating a "god" image to something worshipped (i.e. idolatry) isn't necessary. Ritual that supports superstition isn't necessary. The religion that recognizes going about one's every day--participating in the world in the best way one can--as the height of worship and ritual has my respect.
     
  19. A Vestigial Mote

    A Vestigial Mote Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2015
    Messages:
    4,096
    Ratings:
    +2,600
    Religion:
    ?
    If would have my respect also, as long as it's accepted doctrine or traditions did not include the sort of "insult to intelligence" that exists in religions that prescribe fairy tales as explanations for existence and why one man should be good toward another. The moment those elements are mutually required to be in place to foster my relationship with a fellow "practitioner" is the moment that entire organization unwittingly admits to me, personally, that it has fallen down philosophically, intellectually and emotionally. It is the moment I realize there is nothing in it for me.
     
  20. Jayhawker Soule

    Jayhawker Soule <yawn> ignore </yawn>
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2004
    Messages:
    36,855
    Ratings:
    +10,212
    Religion:
    Judaism
    Agreed; there is nothing here for you. But neither is there anything in the above quote relevant to the this thread -- a thread dealing with theology rather than religions.
     
Loading...