The Stone--and other Paradoxes of Infinity

[mague]

Can God (being omnipotent) create a stone that is so heavy that he cannot lift it?

Being omnipotent implies that [there is nothing that God cannot do], so it would appear that he must be able to create such a stone, else there would be something that God cannot do. However, in order to do it, it would appear that he must create something that is beyond his ability to lift, which implies that there is necessarily something that God cannot do.

Whats the problem ?

He snips with his fingers and a stone is to heavy to lift. Once he wants to lift it he snips with his fingers again and the stone has zero weight.

[altonhare]

Can God (being omnipotent) create a stone that is so heavy that he cannot lift it?

Being omnipotent implies that [there is nothing that God cannot do], so it would appear that he must be able to create such a stone, else there would be something that God cannot do. However, in order to do it, it would appear that he must create something that is beyond his ability to lift, which implies that there is necessarily something that God cannot do.

Whats the problem ?

He snips with his fingers and a stone is to heavy to lift. Once he wants to lift it he snips with his fingers again and the stone has zero weight.

Well, while I agree with you Mague that this question is trivial because if you *define* God as omnipotent then any question "Can God..." is answered "yes" and we're done. However if God "snips his fingers" and the stone is too heavy for him to lift, he is temporarily not omnipotent. You can only have it one way, he's either omnipotent or not.

The "problem" is that I'm defining God as omnipotent. Then, when you (or whoever) asks if God can create a stone he cannot lift, you have redefined God as not omnipotent. You're stating that there can be a stone that God cannot lift, thereby contradicting the definition that God is omnipotent.

Person A: God is omnipotent. There is nothing he cannot do.

Person B: Can he create a stone he cannot lift?

Person A: I have *defined* God as omnipotent, therefore he can lift any stone. Are you saying there's a stone God cannot lift?

Person B: I'm saying God cannot create a stone he cannot lift

Person A: But you're working under the assumption that there is, or can be, a stone God cannot lift. I'm working under the assumption that there is not. If I disagree with your assumption then any stone God creates, he can lift. The debate is now whether God is omnipotent or not, not whether he can lift the stone or not. The God can either lift the stone or he can't, depending on your definition of God.

Person B: I see, I don't think God is omnipotent, there could be a rock he cannot lift.

Person A: And I think God is omnipotent, there cannot be a rock he cannot lift.

Person B: Guess we will have to agree to disagree.

So the debate has everything to do with if you agree that God is omnipotent or not. If you agree that he's omnipotent, then any stone he creates he will be able to lift. If you disagree that God is omnipotent then you can say he cannot lift the stone he just created. It's just that simple.

[altonhare]

The 11th century Monk Peter Damien said that God is "omnipotent enough" to restore a woman's virginity!

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/peter-damian/#4

Probably omnipotent enough to restore a man's too.

Did Peter have an omnipotence meter? Did it go from 1 to 10 or did it have a 0 indicating total impotence? Could a 10 level omnipotence restore potency to an impotent person? Level 5? Or is the 0 just impotent for life? Inquiring mathematicians want to know...

Damian's reputation as a thinker who denies the universal validity of the principle of non-contradiction goes back to a series of studies that the German scholar J.A. Endres published early in the twentieth century (Endres 1906, Endres 1910, and some others).

Which is probably what leads to his incessant pursuit of these tail-chasing notecard-turning games:

In De divina omnipotentia, Damian treats two questions related to divine power: Can God restore virginity to a woman who has lost it? Can God bring it about that what has been done has not been done?

Peter: God can do anything!

Skeptic: But is there something he can't do?

Peter: Yes!

Skeptic: ... what the hell are you talking about?

Peter: God can do everything AND there are things God cannot do!

Skeptic: Okay boys get the strait jacket and take him in.

Peter: Nooo... I don't wanna go back to the white place... I'm better I promise...

[altonhare]

The doctrine of omnipotence (omnipotentia) implies that God “is capable of everything” (omnia possit; e.g., 596C-D, 610C-D). In Damian's view, it does not follow from the doctrine that we should think that God would be able to do anything whatsoever. Admittedly, there are many things that God cannot do, e.g., God cannot lie (e.g., 597C). Lying is an evil thing.

Har har, guffaw!

Retroactive redefinition much?

Peter: God can do anything!

Peter: Except, umm, lie. Yeah, that would be, umm, bad. And I don't like bad things. My God is the opposite of bad, he's good. So he can only do good things. But what if lying achieves a good end, like lying to Satan about where someone who might be tempted is...

Skeptic: Okay boys we need something to knock this loon out for a while, I can't stand to listen to it anymore. We'll figure something out before he wakes up, I hope. Can't kill him, but maybe we'll excise his vocal cords or something. I donno, killing may be merciful, or at least a lobotomy.

[bboyer]

Talk (thought) is cheap.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liar_paradox

[Grey Cloud]

Talk (thought) is cheap.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liar_paradox

"No one means all he says, and yet very few say all they mean, for words are slippery, and thought is viscous."--Henry Brooks Adams (The Education of Henry Adams (1907) ch. 31)

[altonhare]

Talk (thought) is cheap.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liar_paradox

Thanks arc, the "liar paradox" is certainly relevant, although the length of discussion presented on wiki is not necessary. The whole "paradox" boils down to answering:

"Is A A?"

Once you concede that yes, A is indeed A, the answers to questions regarding A follow from what A is.

A: Omnipotent

Can A do...

Yes.

A: Omnipotent

Is there something A cannot do?

No.

What if there was something A could not do?

Then A would not be omnipotent.

Done.

[bboyer]

I think perhaps you may have missed your true calling, Alton. Your posts demonstrate the potential of an excellent Zen master. Just mho, of course.

[bboyer]

"No one means all he says, and yet very few say all they mean, for words are slippery, and thought is viscous."--Henry Brooks Adams (The Education of Henry Adams (1907) ch. 31)

I'll second that.

Concepts can at best only serve to negate one another, as one thorn is used to remove another, and then be thrown away. Only in deep silence do we leave concepts behind. Words and language deal only with concepts, and cannot approach Reality.
Ramesh Balsekar

No, I shan't define Reality.

[Grey Cloud]

I think perhaps you may have missed your true calling, Alton. Your posts demonstrate the potential of an excellent Zen master. Just mho, of course.

'Open mouth, already a mistake'. - Zen saying.

[soulsurvivor]

And if none of the observers to god's ominpotence (omnipotentia) live long enough to observe differently, then how are you going to know for certain if god is ominpotent or not? I'm not convinced there's a god. If there is, god had to begin with the thought and feeling of "ouch".

[altonhare]

And if none of the observers to god's ominpotence (omnipotentia) live long enough to observe differently, then how are you going to know for certain if god is ominpotent or not? I'm not convinced there's a god. If there is, god had to begin with the thought and feeling of "ouch".

We're not invoking observers. We're defining God as omnipotent for the purposes of this discussion.

I think perhaps you may have missed your true calling, Alton. Your posts demonstrate the potential of an excellent Zen master. Just mho, of course.

Well, thank you, I'm flattered.

[mague]

Well, while I agree with you Mague that this question is trivial because if you *define* God as omnipotent then any question "Can God..." is answered "yes" and we're done. However if God "snips his fingers" and the stone is too heavy for him to lift, he is temporarily not omnipotent. You can only have it one way, he's either omnipotent or not.

So the question we want to ask is if god is able to quit his job ?

We have to do a bit bean counting. Omnipotence is comming from potencial. Omni potencial is not all-mighty, just all-possible.

Reminds me of CC when he asked Juan if he can cut down wood and rocks with his fists like the asian masters do. He replied that he never tried, because its useless. But if needed the force would enable him to do so

[altonhare]

So the question we want to ask is if god is able to quit his job ?

You're asking if God can make himself no longer omnipotent? Of course, he can do anything. Got snaps his fingers and he's now powerless.

God: Can do anything.

Question: Can God...

Answer: Yes.

Done.

This is different than your scenario, where God makes himself impotent, then restores his omnipotence.

God: omnipotent

Question: Can God make himself impotent?

Answer: Yes, he can do anything.

God: Now impotent

Question: Can God now restore his omnipotence?

Answer: No, he is no longer omnipotent

Done.

We have to do a bit bean counting. Omnipotence is comming from potencial. Omni potencial is not all-mighty, just all-possible.

Define the difference between "all mighty" and "all possible". Are you going to follow in the foot tracks of Mr. Damian?

[Antone]

Can you imagine 'an' unbounded "object"?

Of course I can.

Show it to me!

My response is in the post that you quoted to ask this question. I suggest you reread it and if you still can't figure out what I'm trying to say then lets assumet that either I'm not smart enough to explain it in terms that you can understand or you're not smart enough to understand what I'm saying.

Take your pick. But in either case I expect it is best to leave our discussion at that. Because this endlessly repeating the same stuff in the same ways is getting really, really tired.