Fallacy of "can God make a rock not even he can lift?"

[Holiday20310401]

Originally Posted by midas77

"What will happen if an unstopable object collides with an immovable object." Unthinkable.

Answer: The two objects will never collide if living and if not then they would cease to exist, although it would be interesting to note whether causality has any influence on the abiotic.

[midas77]

Originally Posted by Holiday20310401

Answer: The two objects will never collide if living and if not then they would cease to exist, although it would be interesting to note whether causality has any influence on the abiotic.

Holiday, might it be, the Armageddon?

[Holiday20310401]

I suppose but first we would have to figure out whether the two objects had a cause for existence, it seems crude though.
Unstoppable, vs. unmovable are universal, the two objects would always have that quality.
Good and evil aren't universal views, they are subjective, and one's view of somebody being evil may be another's view of the same person being being.

[midas77]

Holiday, its only a mental calisthenics on logic. It does not need to be actually real. If two concepts are mutually exclusive of its other, if one exists, then the other must not.

[Holiday20310401]

Couse it does. God has to be real, and the rock must be potentially real in order for the situation to potentially occur.

[midas77]

Holiday, a brief discussion on the rules of contrary terms. If A is True, B is always false. If B is true, A is always false. If B is false, A may be false or may be true.
The possibility of the concept of an immovable rock is incosistent with the concept of an irrisitable mover-god. IF such rock exist, no irrisitable mover-god exists.

Its just logic, mental calisthenics.

[Holiday20310401]

Ok, sorry. This seems to parallel math with positive and negative, but what if two things are compared that aren't opposites in the perception that you are trying to grasp the true and false of?
For example, an orange is true to be orange and round, though those are two different perceptions of the orange, which are not opposites. In respect to opposites, an immovable object, an unstoppable object; then the rule applies, both are false. But why should that logic apply when you consider god, when nothing can be accurately defined as its opposite? When having an undefined variable the logic is useless, left to the imaginary.

[midas77]

Originally Posted by Holiday20310401

For example, an orange is true to be orange and round, though those are two different perceptions of the orange, which are not opposites.

In this case holiday, the attributes orange and round can exist in the same orange. Roundness and orangeness is not mutually exclusive of each other. But a square and circular orange is an impossibility.

In respect to opposites, an immovable object, an unstoppable object; then the rule applies, both are false.

It is not necessary that both is false. It is just that the non-existence of another can not be a sufficient reason for the non-existence of another.

But why should that logic apply when you consider god, when nothing can be accurately defined as its opposite? When having an undefined variable the logic is useless, left to the imaginary.

that's the point. It is fallacious in form and substance. Sophistic in intent.

[VideCorSpoon]

I agree with you midas77. I also see you utilize Aristotelian substantial predicates

You are right to suppose the attributes of orange and round can exists within the same substance. But remember that the word orange is itself an attribute of the substrate. But I agree with you completely. But I think there is an interesting conversation to be had on squarish circularity… I think is may be possible to have that shape within that system.

Also, on the impossibility of a square and circular orange...



Gentlemen... I present the hylomorphic squarange... [cheering and applause to ensue]

[Holiday20310401]

Lol. The question is.. can the orange be a square and a circle at the exact same time, with the potential of a circle and the potential of a square at the same time. I mean it kind of looks like a 2D circle in a 3D cube.