Good morning. Today’s disservice, with many thanks to AntiCitizen-X, is on the short and sweet side as cracking this particular religious chestnut is neither particularly complex or time consuming. Necessary? Of course, but hey on the Canadian long weekend everyone gets a brain break. :)
Enjoy.
[Edit: Grr. – What I get for not previewing my post. This is the correct video, Dr.Oz is scheduled later in the week.]
[Edit #2: Adding the syllogism for sake of clarity.]
1. God is omnipotent (definition of God).
2. Omnipotence is the power to do all that is logically possible.
3. A logically possible feat is any coherent action one can speak out loud without contradiction (definition of logical possibility)
3a. Any feat that has ever been done before is logically possible.
4. It is logically possible to create a finite mass of rock that cannot be lifted by its own maker.
5. Therefore, an omnipotent being can create a finite mass of rock that cannot be lifted by its own maker.
6. Therefore, an omnipotent being can create a finite mass of rock that cannot be lifted by an omnipotent being (definition of “maker” by an omnipotent being).
7. For any finite mass of rock, it is logically possible to generate a force that will lift it against a uniform gravitational field. (Newton’s 2nd Law of Motion)
8. Therefore, an omnipotent being can lift any finite mass of rock. (from #2 and #7)
9. Premise #6 and premise #8 are contradictions.
10. Therefore, it is logically impossible to be omnipotent (from #3 and #8)
11. Therefore, God is logically impossible.
bleatmop
Mystro
The Arbourist
Dead Wild Roses 
46 comments
June 29, 2014 at 5:52 am
john zande
And just when you think we might have actually crawled down out of the trees….
LikeLike
June 29, 2014 at 6:46 am
N℮üґ☼N☮☂℮ṧ
LOL — I saw this the other day. It was both hilariously brilliant and educational.
LikeLike
June 29, 2014 at 7:43 am
The Arbourist
@JZ
Well, a good chunk of humanity has, but then (apparently) we need a class of people whose job it is to justify why staying in the trees and flinging poo is still perfectly alright. :>
I almost majored in Philosophy, scary thought. :>
LikeLike
June 29, 2014 at 7:45 am
The Arbourist
@NN
It is nice when one can find a resource that tackles the arguments and rhetoric used on a level that isn’t your own.
I enjoy Anti-Citizen X’s work – he manages to avoid most of the sexism that is so endemic in the Atheist community.
LikeLike
June 29, 2014 at 7:58 am
john zande
Homoignoramus.
I minored in philosophy without even knowing it. No shit, i found out on the graduation stage (which was actually wrong, too, as i was too drunk the days before to read the dates correctly, and accidentally missed my actual class graduation:) ). There i was, mildly embarrassed, in the wrong colours with faces i didn’t recognise, on stage being handed two pieces of paper. I gave the second one back saying, “this isn’t mine.” The Dean (who’s PA was a good friend of mine and had worked wonders to get me into the second grad ceremony) handed it back, saying, “Look at the name at the bottom, JZ.” Fark me!
LikeLike
June 29, 2014 at 8:05 am
The Arbourist
@JZ
Nice. I wish my University experience was colourful as yours. Sadly, it was quite a prosaic experience.
Then again, that is not atypical for me as I place a good deal of value on living in calm reasonable zone and am willing to trade some experience for security and stability. :)
LikeLike
June 29, 2014 at 8:12 am
john zande
No mushies for you then in your student days? ;)
LikeLike
June 29, 2014 at 8:15 am
The Arbourist
@JZ
Sadly, no. :)
Did the long view thing – getting the pinch for drug use as a teacher doesn’t exactly send the right message to your students. That is how I justified my relative purity at the time.
LikeLike
June 29, 2014 at 10:35 am
Mystro
4 doesn’t actually follow from 3. What has happened before is that a finite mass has been created that its non-omnipotent creator couldn’t lift. There has never been a case where an omnipotent creator couldn’t lift its creation – especially due to the fact that there’s never been an omnipotent creator, but I digress. 3 to 4 is an apples to oranges comparison, and therefore fallacious.
If one states that omnipotence is bound by logic (as done by this video), the answer is no, god cannot create such a mass, as it would defy logic. Not being able to create the unliftable mass is like not being able to make a square circle, so not a threat to god’s omnipotence.
If one defines omnipotence as not bound by logic, then the answer is yes, god can create a rock so big that even he can’t lift it. And then he lifts it.
Much better for disproving the perfect god is the problem of evil.
That one is
*puts on sunglasses*
Rock Solid.
YEEEAAAAHHHHH!
LikeLike
June 29, 2014 at 10:40 am
tildeb
…we need a class of people whose job it is to justify why staying in the trees and flinging poo is still perfectly alright.
I think we already have that class: creationists in general, but Discoveroids in particular… ably led by David Klinghoffer, poo-flinger extraordinaire.
LikeLike
June 29, 2014 at 11:24 am
The Arbourist
@Tildeb
Agreed.
One of the problems in dealing with poo-flingers is that facts don’t matter. Name your realm of dispute and the people who tend to make the most egregious transgressions against factual information are religious.
Thus in discussions the rational person must often do their best pre-Neo-matrix impression and bend over backwards dodging the vacuous bullshit thrown in their direction.
LikeLike
June 29, 2014 at 11:50 am
The Arbourist
@Mystro
I think you’re calling fallacy preemptively.
The argument in question:
#2. Omnipotence is the power to do all that is logically possible.
#3. A logically possible feat is any coherent action one can speak out loud without contradiction.
#3a. Any feat that has ever been done before is logically possible.
#4. It is logically possible to create a finite mass of rock that cannot be lifted by its own maker.
Since when are we talking about non-omnipotent creators? You’ve introduced a class of being into the argument that the syllogism is not addressing.
Thus:
Premise #2 states that: Omnipotence is the power to do all that is logically possible.
So we’re talking about a feature of omnipotence in question, and thus 3 to 4 do, in fact, follow.
Please demonstrate how 3 –> 4 does not follow with regards to being about omnipotent beings.
LikeLike
June 29, 2014 at 12:13 pm
N℮üґ☼N☮☂℮ṧ
@Arb — that is not the original video that showed in the reader or on your site when I made my comment. Did you change videos?
LikeLike
June 29, 2014 at 12:17 pm
N℮üґ☼N☮☂℮ṧ
@Arb — never mind — I just read your edit. Whew — I thought I had lost it there for a minute. :D
LikeLike
June 29, 2014 at 12:17 pm
The Arbourist
@NN
Absolutely correct, as I was browsing though my feed I saw the wrong video posted to this post. I changed it the one I actually intended to post and made an editorial comment in the body of the post noting my error.
Sorry for the confusion. The Dr.Oz post is happening later in the week.
LikeLike
June 29, 2014 at 12:18 pm
The Arbourist
@NN
The Saturday morning brain-fog will be the end of me. :)
LikeLike
June 29, 2014 at 12:19 pm
N℮üґ☼N☮☂℮ṧ
@Arb — I completely understand and can relate, Lol.
LikeLike
June 29, 2014 at 6:39 pm
Mystro
@Arb
It seems to me that it was presented in such a way that 3a was meant to justify 4. Why else include 3a? But as I said, in the case of an omnipotent being, it’s never happened before, so this justification doesn’t hold and there is no reason for 4 to hold true for an omnipotent being.
On the other hand, if 3a has nothing to do with 4, then there is simply no reason for 4 to hold true for an omnipotent being. Indeed the rest of the video demonstrates why 4 cannot be applied to an omnipotent being.
So that means that 4 is true if and only if we are talking strictly about non-omnipotent beings, which we aren’t.
LikeLike
June 30, 2014 at 8:02 am
The Arbourist
@Mystro
This argument seems to be about making the case against omnipotent beings as presented by the religious. So yes back here in reality based non-philsowank reality I am agreeing with what you are saying.
But.
I think the assumption is on tackling this argument is for the presupposition that said omnipotent being exists or has existed in whatever form necessary to keep the religious hearthfires burning.
LikeLike
June 30, 2014 at 10:12 am
Mystro
@Arb
Even so, the assumed omnipotent being would never have made anything it can’t lift before, therefore 3a still doesn’t lead to 4.
On a side note, I’m kind of tickled that I’m playing “Devil’s Advocate” in this conversation.
LikeLike
June 30, 2014 at 11:53 am
The Arbourist
@Mystro
This looks to me like an assumption.
An assumed omnipotent being (AOB) in theory, could have indeed made something it couldn’t lift beforehand.
I’m not sure that 3a is meant to directly lead to 4.
In any case, Anti-C’s response –
“Everyone – this is not difficult. If I can create a finite rock that cannot be lifted by its maker, then that fact alone is all it takes for such an action to fall into the set of “logically possible things.” However, God, by definition, can do “all things” in that set. Therefore, God can create a rock that cannot be lifted by its maker. This is basic axiomatic set theory.
1) “Create a rock that cannot be lifted by its maker” is an element of “things I can do.”
2) “Things I can do” is a subset of “logically possible things.”
3) Therefore, “Create a rock that cannot be lifted by its maker” is a logically possible thing.
4) Therefore, God can “Create a rock that cannot be lifted by its maker.”
LikeLike
June 30, 2014 at 1:53 pm
Mystro
@Arb
‘This looks to me like an assumption.’
The vid proved it.
‘If I can create a finite rock that cannot be lifted by its maker, then that fact alone is all it takes for such an action to fall into the set of “logically possible things.”‘
This is listing a weakness as something able to be done. Yes, we can make something so big that our limited strength cannot lift it. That doesn’t make it an ability.
You making the rock is and ability and definitely belongs in the set ‘things I can do’ and ‘logically possible things’. But you then not being able to lift it is another part altogether, and is, by definition, not in the set ‘things I can do’. “I can can’t lift it” just doesn’t make sense.
It would be like saying “I can make a spelling or simple arithmetic mistake. Such mistakes are therefore possible, but and all powerful being wouldn’t be able to make said mistakes. This counts as a limiter to it’s power, thereby disproving it’s all-powerfulness.”
The argument is, in effect, trying to put ‘what I can’t do’ in the set ‘what I can do’, or x = not x. It’s contradictory.
LikeLike
June 30, 2014 at 2:45 pm
The Arbourist
@Mystro
The ability to lift all the things – being logically possible – isn’t a part of omnipotence. How many more distinctions did you want to add into this particular syllogism before you’re happy? When we get to 3c? 3 double A prime?
The definition of omnipotence is precisely that, able to do all logically possible things. The argument is about showing the contradictory and thus paradoxical nature of claims of omnipotence, which it does so.
Precisely; the set of all things an omnipotent being can do should encompass everything, yet clearly it does not. Hence the illustration, via the syllogism, of the paradoxical nature of the claim to omnipotence.
Mixing sets, “what I can’t do/what I can do”, when there is only one set (Omnipotence can do every logically possible thing), does not seem to bring greater clarity to the idea that omnipotent beings, to be omnipotent as defined in the syllogism, must be able to do everything.
LikeLike
July 1, 2014 at 8:02 am
Mystro
@Arb
“The ability to lift all the things – being logically possible – isn’t a part of omnipotence.”
Yes it is. Not being able to do something is not a part of omnipotence.
“The ability to lift all the things – being logically possible – isn’t a part of omnipotence.”
“How many more distinctions did you want to add into this particular syllogism before you’re happy?”
As many as it takes to get rid of the equivocations and expose the contradictions that were snuck in. It’s that whole ‘if the premises aren’t sound, then neither is the conclusion’ thing.
” the set of all things an omnipotent being can do should encompass everything”
It does. The lack of the ability to lift something isn’t a something. It’s a lack of something. Saying ‘not being able to lift something’ is an ability is like saying ‘a lack in the belief in gods’ is a religion.
You may as well say ‘for each and every feat, it is possible for something not to be able to do it, thus omnipotence includes “unable to do anything”‘.
” to be omnipotent as defined in the syllogism, must be able to do everything.”
I’ve demonstrated that omnipotence, “as defined in the syllogism”, seems to be “can do everything, but also can’t do anything”. This redefinition of omnipotence doesn’t make sense (as I wrote above) and it makes the syllogism circular – if I change the definition of omnipotence to be self-contradictory, then omnipotence is self-contradictory.
LikeLike
July 1, 2014 at 11:59 am
The Arbourist
@Mystro
A:“The ability to lift all the things – being logically possible –
isn’tis a part of omnipotence.”Whoops,typo.
How else does one disprove an Omnipotent beings nature other than by finding a situation where they cannot do all the things? How would we be able to say it isn’t raining in calgary when not allowed to using the limiting factor of whether it is raining or not?
Does premise two actually say that? – “#2. Omnipotence is the power to do all that is logically possible.” I’m not seeing how you are getting from A to B.
The definition of Omnipotence seems pretty solid to me. In practice though, it is rife with paradox.
Edit: Check out AC-X’s blog on the subject. :)
LikeLike
July 1, 2014 at 12:30 pm
AnticitizenX
“The lack of the ability to lift something isn’t a something. It’s a lack of something”
Virtually any action you can say out loud can be expressed as positive or negative potentials. “Dying” can be described as “lack of resistance against death.” Immortality is a “lack of ability to cease living.” It doesn’t matter, though. All of these things are “logical possibilities” becuase they contain no contradiction. That is the *only* condition on omnipotence. You are twisting the definition into things that it is not.
Here, let’s create a template:
1) Agent X can do action Y.
2) Therefore, Y is a logical possibility.
3) God can do all that is logically possible.
4) Therefore, God can do Y.
Insert anything you want for Y. Logical possibility is a form of unrestricted comprehension. Anything you say in a complete, consistent sentence is allowed. That is why omnipotence, as defined, must fail. Language itself requires self-references in our actions and cannot be avoided.
LikeLike
July 2, 2014 at 9:42 am
Mystro
@Arb
“How else does one disprove an Omnipotent beings nature other than by finding a situation where they cannot do all the things? How would we be able to say it isn’t raining in calgary when not allowed to using the limiting factor of whether it is raining or not?”
You certainly don’t have to twist the concept ‘rain’ to include equivocation to establish whether or not it’s raining. If we’re talking about an omni-x god, the problem of evil certainly disproves it. But if a god only has one perfection, say omnipotence, (or even if it’s just missing one perfection from the omni-x god) it’s in the same league as leprechauns and space teapots. Not disprovable.
“I’m not seeing how you are getting from A to B.”
Your case has been it’s logically possible for me to not lift something I made, thus, so can an omnipotent being. But, as I said last time, the same could then be applied to any feat conceivable. It is logically possible to not be able to lift a grain of sand. That means, omnipotence, the way you’re describing it, would also include ‘not being able to lift a grain of sand’. Do the same line of reasoning for every conceivable feat, and you get from A to B.
@ AnticitizenX
“Dying” can be described as “lack of resistance against death.”
There is no fancy double negatives used in ‘I can’t lift this’. The twisting of omnipotence is trying to get ‘Cannot do something’ into the list of things Agent X ‘Can do’.
You’re template is fine. Y in the video, however, was used equivocally. Agent X can make something that its maker cannot lift. In this case ‘its maker’ is referring to a non-omnipotent being – apples. God cannot make something that its maker cannot lift. In this case ‘its maker’ is referring to an omnipotent being – oranges. What the template actually proves in this case, in the absence of equivocation, is that creating something a non-omnipotent Agent X cannot lift is possible, thus God can create something that Agent X cannot lift.
Or, switched, it is logically impossible for any Agent X to create something that an omnipotent being couldn’t lift. It is also logically impossible for God to create something an omnipotent being couldn’t lift. As it is logically impossible, this does not contradict its omnipotence.
The unstoppable force and the immovable object, then (as per those laws of physics) would both be impossible, and both be absent from the list ‘things god can do’, just as making a square circle is also absent from the list.
LikeLike
July 2, 2014 at 12:39 pm
The Arbourist
@Mystro
But its what you’re doing when your version of omnipotence, but that is currently beside the point.
Since when are we talking about non-omnipotent creators? You’ve introduced a class of being into the argument that the syllogism is not addressing.
The category is omnipotent beings, not you or I.
#2. Omnipotence is the power to do all that is logically possible.
That is the definition being used here. You tread toward special pleading when you misconstrue what omnipotence is.
The question itself demonstrates that omnipotence is paradoxical.
Broadly, there are two possible resolutions to the paradox:
1. There is no such thing as an omnipotent being.
2. A being which is omnipotent is not constrained by logic.
You are coming about in your own way to result #1.
Note that #1 is not the same thing as saying “there is no God”. God may well exist but not be omnipotent. It may be that God is merely far, far, far powerful than anything humans can conceive, but not infinitely so, and we just call it “omnipotent” for convenience. For very small humans, the difference between “much much much much more powerful” and “infinitely powerful” may be negligible, except that the latter leads to paradoxes.
So, as with lepruachons and teapots, we can say that omnipotent versions of them do not exist. The same for gods.
LikeLike
July 2, 2014 at 1:06 pm
The Arbourist
@Mystro
No, it isn’t. It is referring to itself (an omnipotent being).
#4. It is logically possible to [for god to] create a finite mass of rock that cannot be lifted by [himself] its own maker.
There is no apple to be had here. There is no mention of non-omnipotent beings in *any* of the versions of the argument I’ve seen, especially this one. Furthermore, the syllogism specifically categorized what a “maker” is.
#6.Therefore, an omnipotent being can create a finite mass of rock that cannot be lifted by an omnipotent being (definition of “maker” by an omnipotent being).
So the only person who is equivocating between apples and oranges would seem to be you. Unless you can find evidence in syllogism that it is referring to a non-omnipotent being.
I’ll list the syllogism for your perusal.
1. God is omnipotent (definition of God).
2. Omnipotence is the power to do all that is logically possible.
3. A logically possible feat is any coherent action one can speak out loud without contradiction (definition of logical possibility)
3a. Any feat that has ever been done before is logically possible.
4. It is logically possible to create a finite mass of rock that cannot be lifted by its own maker.
5. Therefore, an omnipotent being can create a finite mass of rock that cannot be lifted by its own maker.
6. Therefore, an omnipotent being can create a finite mass of rock that cannot be lifted by an omnipotent being (definition of “maker” by an omnipotent being).
7. For any finite mass of rock, it is logically possible to generate a force that will lift it against a uniform gravitational field. (Newton’s 2nd Law of Motion)
8. Therefore, an omnipotent being can lift any finite mass of rock. (from #2 and #7)
9. Premise #6 and premise #8 are contradictions.
10. Therefore, it is logically impossible to be omnipotent (from #3 and #8)
11. Therefore, God is logically impossible.
LikeLike
July 2, 2014 at 2:05 pm
john zande
@Mystro & Arb
I’m enjoying this conversation, but to this early point:
“If one states that omnipotence is bound by logic (as done by this video), the answer is no, god cannot create such a mass, as it would defy logic. Not being able to create the unliftable mass is like not being able to make a square circle, so not a threat to god’s omnipotence.”
This does ruin the whole Omnipotent coat as it means logic predates the big fellow. That’s to say, logic is not determined by the Omnifellow because he has to follow its rules, therefore he didn’t create it.
LikeLike
July 3, 2014 at 8:50 am
Mystro
@Arb
“No, it isn’t. It is referring to itself (an omnipotent being).
#4. It is logically possible to [for god to] create a finite mass of rock that cannot be lifted by [himself] its own maker.”
In that case, it’s simply wrong. As I stated earlier ‘being able to make something that cannot be lifted by its creator’ could only be true if the maker in question is not omnipotent. As you are instead talking about an omnipotent maker, then 4 is nonsense.
As per ACX, a mass can be defined by how much force it takes to move it. As omnipotence would include infinite power, any mass, no matter how large, can be moved by an omnipotent being. Which means, as I stated above (a few times now) that 4 is a false premise if you try to apply it to an omnipotent being.
The only thing your argument proves is that omnipotent beings cannot logically co-exist with immovable objects or with unstoppable forces. As I see no reason to grant the existence of either of the latter two (indeed, I would say their definitions are self-contradictory and logically impossible in their own right), there is no reason to resolutely discount the existence of the former.
I would say that it seems that the video does not agree with you, that 4 is referring to any maker, omnipotent or otherwise (also suggested by ACX’s use of ‘Agent-X’ in his template). In that case, 4 is half right (that is, in the ‘or otherwise’ category). The inclusion of 3a supports this, as the ‘or otherwise’ category is the only part that has happened before.
And so, I don’t think I added the non-omnipotent creator, but if I did, it was an act of charity on my part as a non-omnipotent creator is the only way 3a and 4 can make sense.
So, given your version of 4, 4 is just wrong and nonsensical.
Given my version 4, the argument is equivocal and fallacious.
Either way, the argument fails.
I tried to be clear on distinguishing my points on both these interpretations in earlier comments, though I did spend a good deal more time addressing the second as I didn’t realize you were pushing for the first. Sorry about that.
“#2. Omnipotence is the power to do all that is logically possible.
That is the definition being used here. You tread toward special pleading when you misconstrue what omnipotence is.”
You have it backwards. You say that’s the definition you’re using, but as I showed earlier, this is not the case. The definition this argument needs to work is ‘the power to do all that is logically possible, and the inability to do anything at all’, which is nonsense. You asked for clarification on how I got from A (your argument) to B (the nonsensical definition of omnipotence that includes ‘not being able to things) and I gave it. You have yet to answer this.
Summary of that bit:
A(in defence of 4): ‘it is logically possible not to be able to lift something, thus it’s included in omnipotence’
M:’if that form was valid, “it is possible to not be able to do X, so not being able to do X is included in omnipotence’, then any conceivable feat could be put in the place of X. So while your stated definition is “#2. Omnipotence is the power to do all that is logically possible”, what your argument instead necessarily leads to and uses the much different and self-contradictory definition “Omnipotence is the power to do all that is logically possible and the inability to do anything at all.” As such, it fails.
LikeLike
July 3, 2014 at 9:07 am
Mystro
@JZ
I’m having fun too. As to your point I have a couple possible answers.
1. Would you say the act of creating logic is logically possible? If so, how?If not, then it isn’t an exception to omnipotence and not a problem.
2. If you wish to make omnipotence also include the ability to do things that are logically impossible, then that changes everything. In that case the Omnifellow (love that term, by the way) can indeed create a rock that even he cannot lift. He can do so as he can do things that are logically impossible. Then Omnifellow goes ahead and lifts the rock that he cannot lift, because, as just stated, he can do logically impossible things.
LikeLike
July 3, 2014 at 9:32 am
john zande
@Mystro
I don’t think 2 can exist, not in this universe at least. Logic rules, and the Omnifellow is subject to it. However, you’ve gone and thrown a tremendous spanner in the works by suggesting logic can be created. Kudos. If so, then there are universe that are necessarily illogical. If the Omnifellow is responsible for all possible universes then he, blessed be his sandals, is also illogical. Given then that illogical things can only exist in a logical setting (such as our particular universe) through thought exercises then this would negate the very existence of the Omnifellow. That is to say, his blessed sandals are a logical impossibility and we should all just have a cup of tea.
My brain just farted :)
LikeLike
July 3, 2014 at 9:36 am
The Arbourist
This is also the reason why this argument in this form is called the Paradox of Omnipotence. Stop reinventing the wheel – it is understood that this syllogism is about paradox.
So an omnipotent being can do everything except make something he cannot lift. This is the point of the syllogism.
Repeating an erroneous definition of omnipotence isn’t clarifying the situation. Because with this syllogism it works, and again your special version of omnipotence is irrelevant to the question at hand.
Logical Possibility = 3. A logically possible feat is any coherent action one can speak out loud without contradiction (definition of logical possibility)
Omni-god can create a rock he can’t lift since he can do anything. Okay stop.
Is this logically possible? Yes/no?
We’re not talking about not being able to lift said rock, or not not able. Just the ability to do this, that’s it, full stop. No lifting involved, we are not even there yet. The answer is yes because I just said it, as logical possibility. Since Omni-god can do *anything (that is LP)* it is well within his province to create something he cannot lift.
We’re not going past this point until we are on the same page.
LikeLike
July 3, 2014 at 10:32 am
AnticitizenX
It does not matter who the agent is that does some action. If agent X can do Y, then Y is logically possible. Virtually any action you speak out loud is going to contain some kind of implicit self-reference. For example:
1) I can commit suicide.
2) Therefore suicide is logically possible.
3) Can you commit suicide?
If you take this literally, then for me to “commit suicide” I must kill myself. So in order for you to replicate this action, you must likewise “kill myself.” But if you kill me, you committed a “homicide” – not “suicide. That’s just how how language works. Actions necessarily contain implicit self-references in our language. Therefore, no, in order for you to replicate my logical possibility, you must kill YOURSELF.
This is the point people keep missing. It does not matter if I am omnipotent or not. If I can create a rock that is too heavy to be lifted by its maker, then that action is no logically possible. A being that can do all that is logically possible must therefore replicate it as spoken.
1) I can commit suicide.
2) Therefore, suicide is logically possible.
3) God can do all that is logically possible.
4) Therefore, God can commit suicide.
LikeLike
July 3, 2014 at 11:58 am
The Arbourist
@AntiCitizen-X
Thank you for taking the time to interject into our debate. I’m not a philosopher and I feel like I’m missing some of the groundwork necessary to properly defend this argument.
I really enjoy your videos, please keep up the good work. :)
LikeLike
July 3, 2014 at 1:05 pm
Mystro
@arb
” Stop reinventing the wheel.”
Stop breaking it. Proper displays of contradiction don’t have contradictory premises. For example, lets disprove round squares. A. squares are comprised entirely of straight lines B. round means not straight. C. therefore squares cannot be round.
Note, neither A nor B are self-contradictory, and that is precisely why they demonstrated the paradox of round squares. If they relied on being self-contradictory themselves, the syllogism would be circular and fail.
“So an omnipotent being can do everything except make something he cannot lift. This is the point of the syllogism.”
It can do everything except what is logically impossible, as per 2. What is logically impossible extends quite beyond, though it certainly includes, ‘making something so big that an omnipotent being can’t lift it’.
“Omni-god can create a rock he can’t lift since he can do anything. Okay stop.
Is this logically possible? Yes/no?”
The answer is no. I’ve said outright multiple times (you even quoted me) that Omni-god cannot create a rock he can’t lift, precisely because it is not logically possible. And as it is not logically possible, it does not count as an exception to its omnipotence.
Or another way, using 3:
Making an object so large that an omnipotent being cannot lift it is NOT a coherent action one can speak out loud without contradiction.
How do we know it is not logically possible to make an object that an omnipotent being cannot lift? One way is by the definition of mass and lift -one of those parts of my comments that’s gone ignored so far.
Another way to show something isn’t logically possible is to assume it’s true and see if it leads to a contradiction. And it turns out, (see 4-9) such an assumption does indeed lead to contradiction and therefore cannot be true.
“your special version of omnipotence is irrelevant to the question at hand”
What ‘special version’ do you think I’m using? I’ve stressed that the ‘can do’ part of “can do everything logically possible” is a very important part of the definition of omnipotence, a part violated by your syllogism’s attempt to include the inability to do things. That is, I strictly adhered to #2, while what you’re attempting to prove does not.
LikeLike
July 3, 2014 at 1:06 pm
Mystro
@AnticitizenX
Sure, let’s talk language. The difference between ‘suicide’ and ‘homicide’ is who does the action, not what the action is. The action is ‘kill Entity A’. If Entity A and does this action, it is called suicide. If Entity B does this action, it’s called homicide. Now, whether it is logically possible to ‘kill Entity A’ depends entirely what Entity A is, not on who attempts to do it. Nor, if it turns out that Entity A is such a thing that can be killed, does that say anything about how possible it is to kill Entity B.
In the same way, when you say ‘I can make a rock I cannot lift’, who makes the rock has nothing to do with whether or not you can lift it. What does matter is who you are. That alone determines whether you can lift said rock or if such a rock is logically possible to be made. In the case of an omnipotent being, ‘who it is’ negates the logical possibility of such a rock being made by anyone, including that same omnipotent being.
LikeLike
July 3, 2014 at 3:52 pm
The Arbourist
@Mystro
You missed the boat. So did I. There are very specific meanings and applications going on in this argument that is making you stick to an apparent contradiction and me try to persuade you otherwise.
The goal of this video is not about Omnipotence, but rather how the statements built around the idea of Omnipotence cloud the issue (and lead to paradox of course) and let apologists get away with murder. Or to quote ACX – “Unrestricted comprehension plus naive universals plus self-referencing equals contradictions and paradoxes. It cannot be avoided.” This sentence needs unpacking, but we’ll get to that…
I’m parsing the thread on Youtube to get down to the areas under contention.
I was totally wrong about make being Omni-dude it can be anyone, omnipotent or not. This copy pasta, but I’ll do my best to make it coherent copy-pasta. (Or go to the comment section under the video)
Woo, wall of text incoming!
_____
Internet Punter(IP):
Now I think this is also similar to your objection, as you’ve said that omnipotent beings couldn’t make a rock so heavy etc…
AntiC-X first shot at explanation –
Did that help much? Didn’t do shit for me, so I traveled downward on the thread.
I’m pretty sure this is your objection as now internet punter also has his teeth into it.
AntiC-X ‘s response-
AntiC-X’s follow up – and where the light bulb started flickering for me…
AntiC-X’s Third response to IP – And most important I think as it summarizes what bringing up the syllogism is actually for…
Oh. :/
Well I can see where I argued past what the argument was actually about.
But hey, one last stab at lifting, or not, that rock –
LikeLike
July 4, 2014 at 9:51 am
Mystro
@Arb
“You missed the boat. So did I.”
Speak for yourself. I’ve spent a few comments on how you missed the boat, but I also have already addressed the points in your quotes from ACX.
From Block1: “1) A “logically possible” action is any feat that does not contain a contradiction.”
The sentence ‘An object that cannot be lifted by an omnipotent being can exist and be made’ contains a contradiction. Thus it isn’t on the list of all possible things. That’s it. I could stop right there. But one good wall of text deserves another :)
From Block2: “No one said “infinite strength maker.” I said maker. That includes all makers. If any finite-strength maker can create a finite rock and then fail at lifting it, that makes it a logical possibility. Please stick to the terms being used.”
As I mentioned, if 4 does mean ‘all makers’, then it is only half right. That is, the part that refers to non-omnipotent makers is right. The part that refers to omnipotent makers is wrong. See objection to Block1.
Now focus on the part “and then fail at lifting it”. Here he is expressly trying to add ‘what can’t be done’ to the list of things ‘what can be done’. It’s nonsense.
From Block3:”We are not talking about what specific beings with specific attributes can or cannot do….A being that can do “all that is logically possible,” by definition, has to do all of those things at once.”
Say what? “An omnipotent being (that’s a specific attribute and a specific being) CAN DO all that is logically possible (that would be what it can and cannot do). What specific beings with specific attributes can or cannot do is exactly what we’re talking about.
And where does that ‘all those things at once’ come from? It makes no sense. On that list, there will be many items that follow this form:
n1 – it is possible to be X
n2 – it is possible to be not-X
but nowhere on the list will there be
n3 – is possible to be simultaneously X and not-X
This highlights how ACX tries to implant the contradictions into the definition of omnipotence. Right after giving IP grief for not sticking to the terms as defined, no less.
From Block4:” It is not my fault if the meaning of “Himself” changes with the subject of the sentence.”
So he admits that X in case one is fundamentally different than X in case two (making it X-prime, not strictly X) but figures since the language he used hides this equivocation, we must therefore accept this sophistry? Language tricks don’t count as logic:
Two people are talking on the Golden Gate Bridge.
One says, “I’m not here”
Two replies, “Yes you are. You’re standing here, right next to me.’
One: ‘Am I in China?’
Two:”No”
One:”Then I must be somewhere else”
Two:”Right”
One:”If I’m somewhere else, that means I’m not here. That’s what ‘somewhere else’ means”
Two:”Well yeah, but…”
One:”It’s not my fault that ‘somewhere else’ changes between the sentences. It proves I’m not here”
He then goes on to immortality which isn’t relevant. 1) Immortality has to be shown to be logically possible for it to be an attribute of the Omnifellow. 2) Even if it is, there is no logical necessity that death be permanent – it just happens to be so for us non-omnipotent beings. There is no contradiction in an omnipotent being killing itself, then it’s dead essence having the power to resurrect itself all phoenix style and then carrying on being immortal.
Block5
More trying to put ‘things I can’t do’ in the list of ‘things I can do’. This is why he figures he can add impossible things to the list of all possible things, like making a rock so large an omnipotent being can’t lift it. It’s incoherent.
Plus everything in my last reply to ACX.
LikeLike
July 4, 2014 at 12:41 pm
The Arbourist
@Mystro
I suggest you review try to fully understand the specific way logical possibility is used in this syllogism because you are misunderstanding how it works.
Unhelpfully repeating the same erroneous objections did/does little to clarify the situation, and I realize the errors I made, and for my part, have attempted to correct them.
No, it does not.
“*****We’re talking about basic set theory:
1) Let A = “Create rock that cannot be lifted by its own maker.”
2) Let B = “things I can do.”
3) Let C = “All logically possible things.”
4) Let D = “Things God can do.”
4) A is a subset of B.
5) B is a subset of C.
6) C is a subset of D.
7) Therefore, A is a subset of D. ***** ”
Is it logically possible to create a rock that can not be lifted by its maker? Absolutely it is logically possible, as defined by what making something logically possible is.
Try it out.
1) I can do X.
2) Therefore, X is a logical possibility.
3) God can do all that is logically possible.
4) Therefore, God can do X.
Insert anything you want for X.
It works, honest. And that is all a logical possibility describes. No contradiction in sight, given the rules of what logical possibilities are. This is a counter intuitive twist, I realize that, but it is coherent and it is logical.
Until you can see this point we’re done, because it lays at the foundation of the syllogism and correctly interpreting it.
Do note that this argument is an example of what ACX talks about here.
So, assiduously reinventing the wheel isn’t going to further our philosophical knowledge of this matter, because this argument has been had, examined, and solutions offered already.
LikeLike
July 4, 2014 at 3:12 pm
Mystro
@Arb
“The sentence ‘An object that cannot be lifted by an omnipotent being can exist and be made’ contains a contradiction.
No, it does not.”
I’ve already shown, using two different methods, that it does. Neither of these have been addressed by you or ACX. You just saying “no it does not’ doesn’t cover it.
Actually ACX admits as much. From your wall of text
“ACX: IF you have infinite strength, then it is not logically possible for you to fail at lifting finite rocks.”
He goes on to say that this is irrelevant, but it isn’t. There is no logical contradiction in saying “An omnipotent being has infinite strength” thus it’s on his list of all logically possible things, and thereby part of his definition of omnipotence. It follows then, that his argument says both that this failing to lift a rock is logically impossible and that it is logically possible. He is contradicting himself and his argument depends on that contradiction.
“1) Let A = “Create rock that cannot be lifted by its own maker.””
I’ve also thoroughly shown how this is employing language tricks to sneak in an equivocation. Just ignoring that fallacy out of hand doesn’t fix it.
“So, assiduously reinventing the wheel isn’t going to further our philosophical knowledge of this matter, because this argument has been had, examined, and solutions offered already.”
I still don’t know what wheel you think I’m reinventing. Self-contradictory premises don’t lead to valid conclusions and using equivocation is fallacious. Nothing new here.
LikeLike
July 4, 2014 at 4:26 pm
The Arbourist
@Mystro
Solution sets based on the wrong definition of ‘logical possibility’ don’t count.
So, to quote from the earlier last post,
Until you can see this point, what logical possibility is, we’re done, because it lays at the foundation of the syllogism and correctly interpreting it.
This is ACX from the yt thread, a bit further down.
LikeLike
July 6, 2014 at 12:13 pm
The Arbourist
@Mystro
What is missing here comes from focusing on the action rather than meaning.
Logically possible has a very distinct meaning and it is key to this argument.
Omnipotent beings can do everything within the set of Logical Possibilities. Just because it has never happened before to a omnipotent being is not necessary for the definition of logical possibility in this context to hold true.
Arb(mortal)can create a mass of rocks that I cannot lift.
Therefore creating a mass of rocks that Arb cannot lift is a logical possibility.
Omni-dude can do all things that logically possible.
Therefore omni-dude can create a mass of rocks that he cannot lift.
>>1) A “logically possible” action is any feat that does not contain a contradiction. You can even write this down as a list. Get out a piece of paper and write down every coherent, consistent sentence you can think of. This is the set of all logical possibilities.
2) God, by definition, is a being that can do everything on that list.<<
M:The sentence ‘An object that cannot be lifted by an omnipotent being can exist and be made’ contains a contradiction.
There is no contradiction as long as we are defining things as ‘logically possible’. The preconditions (omni-dudes omnipotence) are still intact.
You insist this is an inherent contradiction…
M:“1) Let A = “Create rock that cannot be lifted by its own maker.””
I’ve also thoroughly shown how this is employing language tricks to sneak in an equivocation. Just ignoring that fallacy out of hand doesn’t fix it. “
Set theory isn’t a language trick.
1) Let A = “Create rock that cannot be lifted by its own maker.”
2) Let B = “things I can do.”
3) Let C = “All logically possible things.”
4) Let D = “Things God can do.”
4) A is a subset of B.
5) B is a subset of C.
6) C is a subset of D.
7) Therefore, A is a subset of D.
M:Now focus on the part “and then fail at lifting it”. Here he is expressly trying to add ‘what can’t be done’ to the list of things ‘what can be done’. It’s nonsense.
Can I fail at lifting rocks, yes I can. Thus, to maintain the logically possible adherence, so can omni-dude.
—
And thus, the problem with unrestricted comprehension (anything I can describe with words), when coupled with naive universals (God can do ALL things), can be blown up by adding self-references (make rock unliftable by maker)..
I can see now where ACX was going with this and the inherently paradoxical nature of the Omnipotence argument.
Thanks to Mystro for pointing out the extra contradictory bits that make paradoxial argument even more paradoxical.
Moving on now, thanks for all the fish. :>
LikeLike
July 7, 2014 at 12:04 pm
Mystro
@Arb
“Just because it has never happened before to a omnipotent being is not necessary for the definition of logical possibility in this context to hold true.”
So 3a was included purely to add extra cloudiness and obfuscation in order to help hide the logical inconsistencies going on, while not actually adding anything to the argument.
“Arb(mortal)can create a mass of rocks that I cannot lift.
Therefore creating a mass of rocks that Arb cannot lift is a logical possibility.
Omni-dude can do all things that logically possible.
Therefore omni-dude can create a mass of rocks that he cannot lift.”
That’s right, omni-dude can create a mass of rocks that Arb(mortal) cannot lift. Or were you doing that equivocation thing and trying to make that ‘he’ refer to a completely different subject again?
“Logically possible has a very distinct meaning and it is key to this argument.”
Just as the set of ‘All possible shapes’ has a bunch of things that don’t belong in the set ‘All possible shapes that have four sides’, the set ‘all logically possible things’ is very different that the set ‘all things that can logically be done’. Again, its that ‘can do’ part of the omnipotence definition that you and ACX want to keep ignoring.
I realize that this unjustifiable interchanging of very different of sets is key to the argument presented. Kind of my point. You saying ‘we’re done if you don’t accept this fallacious set up’, doesn’t help your case.
“Thanks to Mystro for pointing out the extra contradictory bits that make paradoxial argument even more paradoxical.”
Doesn’t make it paradoxical, just wrong.
And you’re welcome.
LikeLike
July 8, 2014 at 9:03 am
The Arbourist
@Mystro
We’ll have to agree to disagree on this philosophical issue. :)
LikeLike