Originally Posted by Civbert

Hi Brian L. Great post.



Nicely put. That does lay it out clearly.


But here he is wrong. The point that the stone is a self-contradiction is the secret to this false paradox. You can put any self-contradictory object in it's place and the "paradox" appears: Can God create a round square? You see, as long as the object of God's omnipotence is itself a contradiction, it seems like an insoluble paradox. But the problem is not in the meaning of "omnipotence". I can also substitute any other predicate for "omnipotence" and the paradox remains. In fact, I can change the subject to anything and the paradox is still there: Can Anthony the musical draw a round square? No? Does the prove I am not musical? No. It is because a round square is a self contradiction.

Try it.

Can (insert adjective) (insert subject) (insert verb) (insert self contradictory object).

Can a homeless cat produce a soundless bang. No. Ergo, a homeless cat is a paradox?

What is sneaky about the question of the omnipotent being is it appears the the meaning of omnipotent is the cause of the paradox - but any subject no matter what adjective you attach to it will suffer from the same problem.




What I think the question demonstrates is that the logically impossible is logically impossible. A stone so massive it can not be lifted by any power is a contradiction - and is logically impossible. Saying God is omnipotent does make contradictions into non-contradictions.

Can an omniscient cow know A and not-A (at the same time and manner)? No? Then an omniscient cow does not know something? Therefore omniscient is a contradiction? No, A and not-A are a contradiction.

I need to go to bed now so I don't have time to clean this up, but please think about it. It really does not matter what the subject of the question is, or what attributes it has - it can never cause, create, bring about, etc, anything that is a self-contradiction because the self-contradiction is meaningless in itself. Omnipotent, omniscient, omni(whatever) can not meaningfully do the meaningless. So not even omnipotent beings can do what is logically impossible (no more than the homeless cat can).

This works every time. What do you think?

Originally Posted by BrianLanier

This does nothing to solve the problem--it just begs the question. This only works if we assume God exists and (A) and (D) are necessary truths. But isn't the point of the paradox to show how these will not go together?

Originally Posted by Brian Bosse

Hello Caleb,

OK, a little Aristotelian Categorical Syllogistic argumentation, eh? Good job. I will continue playing the Devil's advocate. All of this rests on the assumption: God has absolute control over all creation. How far are you willing to go with this? For instance, does God have absolute control over the rapist in the very act of rape? Does God have absolute control over me? If not, then it is not the case that God has absolute control over all of creation. This would undermine the argument. If God does have absolute control, then in what sense is God in absolute control over my evil choices?

Brian

Originally Posted by caleb_woodrow

Haha, a wrong Brian responded to my post as well! j/k. Anyways,


Sigh. The "problem" is an *internal critique*, so of course we assume the biblical view of God. I think you missed the main point of my argument anyway.

Originally Posted by Civbert

In fact, I can change the subject to anything and the paradox is still there: Can Anthony the musical draw a round square? No? Does the prove I am not musical? No. It is because a round square is a self contradiction.

Try it.

Can (insert adjective) (insert subject) (insert verb) (insert self contradictory object).

Can a homeless cat produce a soundless bang. No. Ergo, a homeless cat is a paradox?

What is sneaky about the question of the omnipotent being is it appears the meaning of omnipotent is the cause of the paradox - but any subject no matter what adjective you attach to it will suffer from the same problem

Originally Posted by BrianLanier

No, the "problem" is with the notion of omnipotence qua omnipotence (this could be for God or anyone else). So the argument could be (as the one by Savage was) formed *neutral* to the questions of 1) whether God exists, and 2) whether God-is-omnipotent is a necessary truth. It doesn't *have* to be an "internal (using Van Tillian language) critique" of the biblical view of God.

I don't think I missed the the main point of your argument, it's just that other philosophers have constructed better arguments (this is not meant with any offense or rudeness) that don't beg the question and still conclude *affirming* God's omnipotence.

Originally Posted by caleb_woodrow

How about the ability to strip oneself of the attritbute of omnipotence? How about the ability to somehow make oneself less powerful (which is why my argument is attacking if you haven't noticed yet)? Omnipotence is somewhat like a parabola. When one has the ability to do to many things, like make oneself less powerful etc, one is not as powerful.

Originally Posted by Brian Bosse

Hello Caleb,
Fair enough. So, playing the role of a thoughtful atheist, I would point out that your use of “absolute control” is either mis-defined or at best ill-defined. That is to say, before we can move the argument forward we need to decide what it means for God to have absolute control over creation.

Originally Posted by Brian Bosse

OK, you are making a distinction between something being metaphysically possible and metaphysically impossible. You have given an example of each, but they are not exact parallels. Can you define metaphysical possibility?

Originally Posted by caleb_woodrow

I'm pretty sure Geisler's a libertarian.

Originally Posted by Brian Bosse

Hello Brian,



OK. Keep in mind that we have already defined omnipotence to be…

Definition: Person A is omnipotent if and only if person A can do what he wills.

That is to say, the context of all of this is now in light of the above definition for omnipotence. If you use a different definition, then you are no longer addressing the issue in light of the context.

Originally Posted by caleb_woodrow

Metaphysical possibility: having the capability of existing in a logically possible world.
According to the Christian, The Christian God exists in all possible worlds. This includes all of God’s attributes, which includes his control over creation. There is a possible world in which the rapist doesn’t exist, or at least God has stopped the rapist from committing the crime.

Originally Posted by shackleton

This sounds like Molinism.

Originally Posted by Civbert

An un-liftable object or an object of infinite mass is implied by the question, and both are incoherent by definition of object.

Think about this: what are the minimum attributes of an object? What makes an object an object? 1) Volume. 2) Mass.

For any given mass, there is a definable force that can lift that mass.

What am I missing?

Originally Posted by BrianLanier

No. God cannot create a stone which He cannot lift.

This is not a problem however, since this is just to say that if God can create a stone then He can lift it.

Originally Posted by BrianLanier

"(1) Either x can create a stone which x cannot lift, or x cannot create a stone which x cannot lift.
(2) If x can create a stone which x cannot lift, then, necessarily, there is at least one task which x cannot perform (namely, lift the stone in question).
(3) If x cannot create a stone which x cannot lift, then, necessarily, there is at least one task which x cannot perform (namely, create the stone in question).
(4) Hence, there is at least one task which x cannot perform.
(5) If x is an omnipotient being, then x can perform any task.
(6) Therefore, x is not omnipotent.

Originally Posted by Brian Bosse

As Scott pointed out, being omnipotent does not mean being able to do anything. Here is a definition for omnipotence...

Definition: Person A is omnipotent if and only if person A can do what he wills.

If I were an atheist, upon hearing this response I would ask: Can God will to create a rock too heavy to lift?

Now, my response would be that God cannot will to create any object that has contradictory properties.

Originally Posted by BrianLanier

Since it does not contain the word "God," no critic can maintain that [the argument] assumes God is omnipotent……

…….
They are only contradictory if we assume that God exists and that God is omnipotent is a necessary truth. But if we assume those propositions in order to arrive at the contradiction, then we are guilty of begging the question, since the point of the argument is to establish that the existence of an omnipotent being is logically impossible.

Originally Posted by BrianLanier

No one is saying that the object has to be of infinite mass, just enough so that God cannot lift it--in other words, there is no predefined "weight" assumed in the argument. Again, think outside the physically impossible and into the logically possible.