First, I must say that I know how much people like to attack semantic meaning, etc....however, this was written with the words we use, understand, and accept. Arguing the meaning of words is another argument, so lets just take this as it is. = ) Anyways.... The Paradox of the Stone is an attack against the concept of omnipotence. Omnipotence is the state of one (or many; however you like your stories) having unlimited power. The way that the Paradox challenges omnipotence goes as follows[1]: All powerful means all powerful. Capable of anything. Incapable of nothing. Any other redundant phrase that means there's nothing they can't do. A paradox is a clever little mind puzzle that makes something seem self-contradictory. Actually, I take that back, sort of. A paradox doesn't make something seem self-contradictory. It exposes the true contradiction within the statement that it is contradicting. Paradoxes, to me, are ideally the discovery of some extremely intelligent smart-aleck. When ideas contradict themselves, they tend to be discounted as truth. Most often, when referring to omnipotence, God[2] is the supposed possessor of said all-powerfulness. Therefore, this particular paradox is arguing against the idea of an all powerful god, which is generally a trait considered to be possessed by most of the theistic deities. Can God create a stone so big that he cannot lift it? If God is all-powerful, then surely he can create a rock of any magnitude. Regardless of what creating such a big stone entails as far as the capability of one being able to lift it, all-powerful means that he does in fact have the power to create such a stone. However, here is the fun part, if it is established that he can create this colossal[3] stone so gargantuan that not even he can lift it, it is at the same time being admitted that he cannot lift it. Keyword: cannot. Can, as in the ability to do something, not, as in…well, as in the disability to do something. Suppose he can lift it, however. He just hefts it up over his shoulders with a smile. If that is the case, then he failed in making the stone big enough for him (self) to lift. Either way, there is something that God cannot do. Either he can't create a big enough stone, or he can't lift the stone. Creating the stone and lifting the stone can't co-exist. It follows that because since even God can't make both halves of the situation logically possible (which comes into play later)…omnipotence is non-existent. Therefore, if God is real, he cannot be omnipotent. The Paradox of the Stone is meant to discount the idea of omnipotence. The bigger picture, however, is for the paradox to discount the concept of the existence of God entirely. As was previously stated, theologians claim that their God is in fact omnipotent. That is one of the characteristics which define God as God. If God must be omnipotent to be God, and omnipotence doesn't exist, then God can't be omnipotent. This means the he doesn't meet all of the necessary criteria to qualify as God, and thereby isn't God, so if God isn't God, then God doesn't exist. Of course, there are some serious arguments against the argument against the existence of God. Some have decided to come up with a solution/response to the Paradox of the Stone, in order to make God real again[4]. Logical impossibility concerning this paradox seems to be the most frequently used and best response. The only things that can be conceived of as possible are those things which are logically possible. Can one understand the concept of this occurrence in regards to the generally accepted ideals of logic and reason? Is the paradox "fair" as far as these ideals are concerned? The theists[5] that use this argument say no. The paradox doesn't follow the rules of logic. It is logically impossible for one to both create this rock and lift this rock. Okay, so hypothetically God cannot do this, but other than in a hypothetical sense, this situation cannot exist. According to this argument, following the ideas of theism, there can be no rock that God cannot lift. Therefore, suggesting that this rock's existence is a contradiction in itself debunks that part of the paradox, leaving it fragile and missing a crucial half. It follows that if this rock cannot exist, then God shouldn't be held accountable for not being able to create it. It does not take his omnipotence away if the task at hand isn't possible anyways. But he's God! All powerful means all powerful. All. Omnipotence isn't defined as power over all things logical. It's power over all things period. I, as well as many others, find the idea of a supreme father figure who just wanted love derived from the free-will of these creatures called humans and decided to create this whole thing called a universe and said "action", allowing the play to commence to be extremely illogical. There are multiple ideas concerning the idea of this supreme being that people like myself (and very much unlike myself, I'm sure) find to be illogical[6]. Okay, so following the ideas behind theism, all these things are logical. Well I'm not following the lines of theism! The point of the paradox is to discount theism, and you can't use theistic rules to govern anti-theistic ideas. The logical possibility argument is using the rules that it is trying to prove to try and prove its rules. It's circular. It just doesn't work. Any set of rules could be made up to fit any situation and make something seem logical. Just because a vast amount of people believe these rules doesn't mean that they are the ultimately correct set of rules. To the theist, they are correct. That is fine. To the non-theist, they are not. That is fine as well. However, as a response to the Paradox of the Stone, they just don't work. The fact that the paradox is a clever play on words that cannot be defeated by other words and rules governed by theists, does not, to me, conclusively indicate that there is no God. I don't think that just because the paradox side of the argument wins, the theists should throw in their towels and submit to atheism. A paradox is called a paradox (according to definition) for a reason, which is that it is trying to prevent itself from being solved. A good one is worded/thought up in a way that keeps itself from destruction. The Paradox of the Stone, when challenged by the logical possibility argument, is the more successful argument and if I based my beliefs upon this alone, I would have to deny the concept of omnipotence, and therefore God. [1] Follows, yes, although I wouldn't say follows closely, for I have a tendency to get off track at times. [2] The term/name God is used somewhat loosely as the title for any and all theistic deities. They're all the same guy, really (as far as this paper is concerned, not necessarily based on the author's beliefs). [3] Like, so big that you can't even imagine, colossal just seemed like the best word for big to me. [4] And by that, of course, I mean make it once again possible for one to believe in God while still being able to follow the lines of reason. [5] Anyone who was trying to come up with a proper argument against the paradox could come up with the logical possibility argument, but since the paradox is trying to argue against the existence of God, we'll let the theists stand in for everyone because they're arguing the existence of God based on belief and life-altering states of mind versus arguing just to be more right than the other guy. [6] Which does not in any way mean that the author is atheistic or theistic. We're just talking logic here.
Easily solved Yes God can create a stone so large he cannot lift it. He simply creates a rock the size of the universe. Since the rock is so large it has no room to move, so despite having the power to move it he can't becuase by defination it has nowhere to move it. now since the universe expands in a moment he can lift the roock. But for one brief moment the rock could not be lifted. thus satisfying all parts of the paradox.
"Yes God can create a stone so large he cannot lift it."-Then he's not omnipotent, for you just stated that he cannot do something. "But for one brief moment the rock could not be lifted."-So even if overall, he's omnipotent...for that said brief moment, he wasn't. Either he is or he isn't. I can't picture "god" as being a part-time job. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Also, I just want to say that I mean no harm. For the most part. (Contradiction in comparison with the above statements?) I rock it.
omnipotent is all powerful quite literally. Now power is the ability to do work, make change and so on. Now in the example I give for one brief moment untill the universe grows the only reason God cannot lift the rock is that the rock has nowhere to go. You can provide all the pwer you want, but if there is no room to go there is no movement. The very next moment the stone can be moved becuase it has somehwere to go. There is no gap in logic here at all, but i will break it down. 1: God creates Rock the same size as universe. 2: God applies power to lift rock but rock does not move as rock is same size as universe. Meaning there is literally no place for it to go to. If the rock could move it would, but it cannot. 3: Universe Expands as it has since God made the Big Bang. 4. God applies force and moves the rock.
god solves this paradox by dividing himself into two entities. one is omnipotent so he can lift the rock and the other is not, so he can't lift the stone. another solution: first god creates a rock so big that he can't lift it. then after 3 days lifts it. The universe (space) is infinite... you can't create a rock that is infinite in size.
So is this another thing an omnipotent God can't do? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
God is supposedly omniscient as well - so God can not learn something new. Which is funny, because I can. So I can do something God can not do. I can also be surprised - God can not, as It already knows everything. Although the more primitive notions of God in the OT has "Him" being surprised and angry and I believe He once lost a battle because the other guys had Iron.
god can make himself forget everything so that he can learn things and become surprised. he can even make himself into humans. what do you think we are? god can do everything imaginable but try to imagine an infinite rock, you can't because it's illogical and impsosible
god can do everything imaginable but try to imagine an infinite rock, you can't because it's illogical and impsosible[/QUOTE] *Points at the part about the logical possibility argument.* Nuff' said.
Can God turn Itself into Two Gods? Can God Die? Can God leave the Universe forever? Can God enjoy sex? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Since weight, matter, energy are nothing to God, he could certainly make a stone and then make himself not be able to lift it. Lifting things and making things are illusions, God can manipulate them as easily as we speak. They aren't even real to us, but we are trapped in mental models we call reality. If you can think it, it can be done. If you express a paradox, it's always apparent as a paradox. Can God make sense of a paradox? Maybe all you have to do is twist perception. Schizophrenic people believe all sorts of non-obvious things, so it's at least theoretically possible. The Paradox of the Stone is flawed in it's assumptions that there is a reality, and that it's contents are subject to power. God need not exercise power.
God was omnipotent. In the second millenium of his rule of the cosmos, he realised that he could indeed make a rock so big that even he could not lift it. Being a god of petty self-doubt and pride in his own superiority (as the bible teaches us) he created this rock. Unfortunately it materialized over his head and promptly crushed him. This is why there is no god.
*Points at the part about the logical possibility argument.* Nuff' said.[/QUOTE] Actually the universe is not infinite and at one point was no bigger than a marbel.
TW Scott, Can God be mistaken? Can God be wrong? Can God be Confused? Can God be two independent antagonistic beings? Can God be dead and gone? Michael
Um ... hello? You're talking about God, here. Then in that moment, God moves the entire Universe°. Remember that God is not confined to or excluded from the Universe. The condition we call God transcends all other realities. An interesting examination of the question can be found at Conservapedia. Wikipedia's entry regarding the Omnipotence paradox (of which the Stone is one of the defining examples) addresses the issue fairly well. _____________________ Notes: ° God moves the entire Universe — If the question should arise, "Where?" the prescribed answer, simply, is, "God only knows." Remember what we're talking about here: God, the monotheistic source of all. Whether or not one believes in God is beside the point. That which is capable of transcending the rules must be considered accordingly.
