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

[Mephistopheles]

First off, I just want to say this is the first subforum I've been browsing around in since I joined here, and I'm absolutely astounded by the intelligence of people here. I am honestly impressed. I have been to many forums and I haven't found anything with such high quality.

That being said, the highest mathematics course I've taken is trigonometry/algebra II. I also don't know if this has been said before. But I do have a grasp of basic logic to make the following assertion:

A common scenario is thus: can God make a rock not even he can lift?

There's two conclusions I've come to. One, ∞<x =/=. Nothing can exceed infinity by the very nature of infinity. Thus, this question is invalid because it uses illogic to try to come to a "logical" conclusion which obviously means the whole scenario is corrupt. However, the second simultaneous conclusion is that indeed, if there is a God, he has limitations. Personally I'm an atheist, but it's still something to consider.

Assuming reality is material.

Just thought this might interest some of you.

[VideCorSpoon]

I'm glad you enjoy logic. It's really fun once you get used to it.

Thought it might be interesting to work up a propositional truth table.




First, there are a few presuppositions that make the question itself faulty. Is God sexed and stuff like that. But putting that all aside, I agree that infinity is boundless. But I’m not quite sure I catch what you are getting at by assuming the nature of infinity then proving God cannot make a rock he cannot lift because of the fact that the problem is a paradox, which I take you have interpreted as illogical. Paradox’s in logic almost always end up as tautologies in the end, and never reach a conclusion. But that does not mean they are negated. It’s like pie (the number). Infinite, but not negated as it is used as a constant.

Does a paradox negate God’s limitlessness because we cannot comprehend the nature of an infinite loop? Strikes of Xeno’s paradox to me.

BTW, is it logical to be atheist?

[Mephistopheles]

Originally Posted by VideCorSpoon

I'm glad you enjoy logic. It's really fun once you get used to it.

Thought it might be interesting to work up a propositional truth table.




First, there are a few presuppositions that make the question itself faulty. Is God sexed and stuff like that. But putting that all aside, I agree that infinity is boundless. But I’m not quite sure I catch what you are getting at by assuming the nature of infinity then proving God cannot make a rock he cannot lift because of the fact that the problem is a paradox, which I take you have interpreted as illogical. Paradox’s in logic almost always end up as tautologies in the end, and never reach a conclusion. But that does not mean they are negated. It’s like pie (the number). Infinite, but not negated as it is used as a constant.

Does a paradox negate God’s limitlessness because we cannot comprehend the nature of an infinite loop? Strikes of Xeno’s paradox to me.

BTW, is it logical to be atheist?

Very interesting table indeed! I hadn't considered splicing it down to its linguistic components and then extrapolating algorithms out of the components.

My interpretation of the equation is based on how I view the universe. I am a strict materialist. Thus, while God, if he exists, could probably exceed the logic of the equation because he's God and he created logic, that's just mental acrobatics.

I don't see what my religious beliefs or lack of them thereof have to do with this conversation.

[Holiday20310401]

How about this? God can't because God does not physically exist.

[VideCorSpoon]

Mephistophales,

Logically, the chart shows that there are three instances of an invalid inference to the question. Line one would seem to be the most extreme instance of an answer to the question. If God were omnipotent in all ways (all true truth values) then the fact that he could not lift a rock he created would be false logically. God could lift anything he made because any negation to what he could do would immediately be invalid.

But It’s entirely understandable to have your beliefs. But elaborate more on what you said as this is a discussion of what you posted… unless it was just a statement.

This is how I deciphered your argument;

You have two conclusions to the scenario “Can God make a rock not even he can lift?”

1.You believe “nothing can exceed infinity.” Ok.

“Thus” based off of this premise, you posit that “if God can make a rock not even he can lift,” then in virtue of this paradox the logic is invalid. So I would gather that, yes or no, the outcome is always false as the paradox is tautological, yes?

But then this implicates “simultaneously” that (2) God has limitations, I assume because yes or no, the outcome is always false as the paradox is tautological.

This I think is a hash out of the paradox “Can God make a rock even he cannot lift?” I don’t see anything that relates to a view of the universe until you state “Personally, I’m an atheist.” I also do not see anything relating to materialism besides “assuming reality is material.” But anyway, you may want to clarify your position, because it sounds like you have a good thing going. Also, mental acrobatics is philosophy. It's abstraction in its purest sense.

As to your religious beliefs and what they have to do with the conversation… you state “Personally, I’m an atheist” and “God” in the same introductory post. It's implied.

Holiday,

We do not know for certain that god does not physically exist.

[Mephistopheles]

Originally Posted by VideCorSpoon

Mephistophales,

Logically, the chart shows that there are three instances of an invalid inference to the question. Line one would seem to be the most extreme instance of an answer to the question. If God were omnipotent in all ways (all true truth values) then the fact that he could not lift a rock he created would be false logically. God could lift anything he made because any negation to what he could do would immediately be invalid.

But It’s entirely understandable to have your beliefs. But elaborate more on what you said as this is a discussion of what you posted… unless it was just a statement.

This is how I deciphered your argument;

You have two conclusions to the scenario “Can God make a rock not even he can lift?”

1.You believe “nothing can exceed infinity.” Ok.

“Thus” based off of this premise, you posit that “if God can make a rock not even he can lift,” then in virtue of this paradox the logic is invalid. So I would gather that, yes or no, the outcome is always false as the paradox is tautological, yes?

But then this implicates “simultaneously” that (2) God has limitations, I assume because yes or no, the outcome is always false as the paradox is tautological.

This I think is a hash out of the paradox “Can God make a rock even he cannot lift?” I don’t see anything that relates to a view of the universe until you state “Personally, I’m an atheist.” I also do not see anything relating to materialism besides “assuming reality is material.” But anyway, you may want to clarify your position, because it sounds like you have a good thing going. Also, mental acrobatics is philosophy. It's abstraction in its purest sense.

As to your religious beliefs and what they have to do with the conversation… you state “Personally, I’m an atheist” and “God” in the same introductory post. It's implied.

I believe you're overanalyzing this. My argument is indeed that the whole question of "can God create a rock even he cannot lift" is paradoxical, and yes, I do use it illogically to prove a point. I understand your concern that my statement that the God in the situation has limitations is in itself illogical for several reasons, not only because I already showed it's paradoxical but it would negate the whole concept of God. I suppose I can try to simplify my point: nothing can exceed infinity, and there are limitations to this universe. Nothing is limitless, pragmatically speaking.

As for my comment on atheism, I only mentioned it because I was speaking of God as if God existed in my mind. He doesn't.

[VideCorSpoon]

But this is a logic sub forum thread. Can you overanalyze in logic?

For all intensive purposes...I’m working with your simplified point.

You basically say nothing can exceed infinity yet there are limitations to this universe. But nothing is limitless. There should be more to this statement, some sort of conclusion. Seems very Modus Tollens. It’s correct to assume what you said, but you need more to complete your statement. Can you elaborate on what you are trying to conclude.

[Zetetic11235]

nothing can exceed infinity is sort of a fallacious way of viewing it, rather you must either take the object as finite or approaching infinity. God exceeding infinity is a silly sort of way to view it. i see it this way: There are two options, A or B. Either A; God is beyond human understanding and thus any human attempt to understand him is nonsensical, or B; God is understandable by humans implying that he holds no answers that we don't have access to.

[VideCorSpoon]

I could accept those fundamentals hypothetically. I put it in terms of God being measurable or immeasurable.

If God is measurable, there is some implication that God can be defined in finite terms.

If God is immeasurable, then there is some implication that God cannot be defined.

But whether God is measurable or immeasurable is redundant in a sort of way. If we look at it from a logical perspective, “God” has definite connotations on any arguments regardless of the facts because of the sheer gravity of the word “God.” It’s not the fact of whether he exists or not, it’s that God, or the word God, expressly implies an all encapsulating truth value, which is that anything God does is possible (or true).

It seems to me that even if we had a truth table with all the truth probabilities of a given statement, assertion of God and the value that term holds, negates any false value because we are coming to grips with an all powerful being in the first place.

[nameless]

Can God Make a Rock So Big He Cannot Lift It?

This is one of my favorite questions that comes up from time to time. Indeed, many atheists and skeptics have posed this question in an attempt to stump Christians and somehow disprove the omnipotence (and existence) of God. Maybe you've been there. What is so ironic about a question of this type is that rather than prove any sort of deficiency in the character or nature of God, this question actually shows a lack of clear thinking and logic on the part of the skeptic! In other words, the question itself is flawed and fallacious in several ways and, unfortunately, the person raising the question has not taken the time to truly think this problem through.

Problem #1: this question commits the fallacy known as a loaded question. Imagine if I were to ask you, "Have you stopped beating your spouse yet?" If you answer yes, that means you were beating your spouse but you have since stopped. And if you answer no, that means you're still beating them! Either way you answer the question, you automatically concede that you beat your spouse! This is a no win situation because the question itself starts with a false assumption and is therefore a "loaded" question. Likewise, the question "Can God make a rock so big He cannot life it?" also starts with a false assumption, i.e., that God is not omnipotent. If you answer "Yes" to the question, that means that God is not omnipotent since He can make the rock but isn't powerful enough to lift it. But if you answer "No," that also means that God is not omnipotent since He couldn't make a rock so big He cannot lift it! In other words, the question itself is dishonest, a pseudo-question, since it begs the question by assuming God is not omnipotent.

Problem #2: this question commits a categorical fallacy. The question itself is incoherent and meaningless. Suppose I were to ask you, "What does the color blue smell like?" or "How much does the number seven weigh?" These are category mistakes because colors don't smell and numbers don't weigh anything. They are logical impossibilities. In the same manner, asking the question "Can God make a rock so big He cannot lift it?" is essentially to ask "Can God's power defeat His own power?" This is nonsensical and a category error since the question is being incorrectly applied. Greg Koukl has stated, "The question is nonsense because it treats God as if He were two instead of one. The phrase 'stronger than' can only be used when two subjects are in view...Since God is only one...it makes no sense to ask if He is stronger than Himself."

Problem #3: this question commits a straw man fallacy. The goal of the skeptic who asks this question is to somehow undermine the Christian concept of an omnipotent God. It is thought that if it can be shown there are some things God cannot do, this would prove that God could not be omnipotent and thus could not exist as Christians have traditionally portrayed Him. However, this line of reasoning is attacking a distorted concept of Biblical omnipotence and is therefore guilty of the straw man fallacy.

So what does it mean then that God is omnipotent? Omnipotence doesn't mean that God can do anything. There are actually quite a few things that God cannot do. He cannot make squared circles. He cannot make a one-ended stick. He cannot sin. He cannot improve His morality. So God is limited in a sense. But not one of these "limitations" has to do with power, rather, they are logical contradictions. Also, notice that His "limitations" are not due to any defects in His character or power but rather they are the result of His perfection and rational nature! As Norman Geisler has stated, "He is only 'limited' by His unlimited perfection." To say that God is omnipotent then is to say that God can do anything so long as it is logically possible and consistent with His nature. God's omnipotence does not mean that He can do what is impossible but only that He can do whatever is actually possible.

Conclusion: So what then is the answer? Can God make a rock so big He cannot lift it? My comments above put aside, I still like the way one particular 7-year-old responded: "I can't give you a smart answer to a dumb question."

From me; Any and all 'qualities attributed to 'god', as in the Judeo/Xtian bible, are idolatry and vain. Man making a 'god' in his image. If you fill in the blank with anything, "God is_________", it is vain error.