toolzombie
Registered Member
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.
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.
