God is logically impossible

More Than Mortal · February 03, 2015, 04:04:43 PM

P1: God is omnipotent.

P2: Omnipotence is the power to do all things logically possible.

P3: Something is logically possible is any coherent action which can be expressed without contradiction.
3a: Any action which has ever been done before is logically possible.

P4: It is logically possible to create a finite mass of rock that cannot be lifted by its own maker (from P3).

P5: Therefore, an omnipotent being can create a finite mass of rock which cannot be lifted by its own maker (from P2 & P4).

P6: Therefore, an omnipotent being can create a finite mass of rock which cannot be lifted by an omnipotent being.

P7: For any finite mass of rock, it is logically possible to generate a force that will lift it against a uniform gravitational field (2nd Law of Motion).

P8: Therefore, an omnipotent being can lift any finite mass of rock (from P2 and P7).

P9: Premise 6 and Premise 8 are contradictions.

P10: Therefore, it is logically impossible to be omnipotent.

C: Therefore, God is logically impossible.

Mad Max · February 03, 2015, 04:09:10 PM

The problem is that religious folk don't give a shit about the logic.

BlitzFiend · February 03, 2015, 04:18:10 PM

you really are quite clever, ashy

big dog · February 03, 2015, 04:18:23 PM

the bible says he exisit tho

More Than Mortal · February 03, 2015, 04:20:21 PM

Quote from: Doom DH on February 03, 2015, 04:18:10 PM

you really are quite clever, ashy

I should point out that, while I have expressed the same idea before, it wasn't me who structured the argument into the various premises.

BlitzFiend · February 03, 2015, 04:21:29 PM

Quote from: Meta Cognition on February 03, 2015, 04:20:21 PM

Quote from: Doom DH on February 03, 2015, 04:18:10 PM
you really are quite clever, ashy
I should point out that, while I have expressed the same idea before, it wasn't me who structured the argument into the various premises.

still clever

Anonymous (User Deleted) · February 03, 2015, 04:32:03 PM

While we're on this subject, how do you feel about the watchmaker analogy?

rC · February 03, 2015, 04:37:46 PM

Why do you limit an omnipotent agent's abilities to only those logically possible in p2? Seems like a pretty arbitrary restriction to me.

More Than Mortal · February 03, 2015, 04:38:26 PM

Quote from: RC on February 03, 2015, 04:37:46 PM

Why do you limit an omnipotent agent's abilities to only those logically possible in p2?

That's the standard definition of omnipotence.

Jocephalopod · February 03, 2015, 04:38:50 PM

yea but.... Hitchens is dead

More Than Mortal · February 03, 2015, 04:40:44 PM

Quote from: Kupo on February 03, 2015, 04:32:03 PM

While we're on this subject, how do you feel about the watchmaker analogy?

Utter shit.

Anonymous (User Deleted) · February 03, 2015, 04:43:40 PM

Quote from: Meta Cognition on February 03, 2015, 04:40:44 PM

Quote from: Kupo on February 03, 2015, 04:32:03 PM
While we're on this subject, how do you feel about the watchmaker analogy?
Utter shit.

Agreed.

g💚jira · February 03, 2015, 04:44:01 PM

Quote

<omnipotence paradox>

I thought you'd have seen numerous counterarguments to this by now Meta!

Turkey · February 03, 2015, 04:46:43 PM

Quote

P4: It is logically possible to create a finite mass of rock that cannot be lifted by its own maker (from P3).

This is about as robust of an argument as saying, "it's logically possible to not be omnipotent, and omnipotence is the ability to do anything logically possible, therefore god cannot exist".

This is a delightful attempt at a logical process, but...c'mon, man.

rC · February 03, 2015, 04:47:05 PM

Quote from: Meta Cognition on February 03, 2015, 04:38:26 PM

Quote from: RC on February 03, 2015, 04:37:46 PM
Why do you limit an omnipotent agent's abilities to only those logically possible in p2?
That's the standard definition of omnipotence.

Is it? I'm under the impression that an omnipotent being is free to do whatever it wants to do, and that a being restricted by logic wouldn't actually be omnipotent at all.

Regardless of the word's meaning, your argument doesn't disprove god, just a god with the arbitrarily-imposed restriction of operating within logic.

More Than Mortal · February 03, 2015, 04:49:20 PM

Quote from: HurtfulTurkey on February 03, 2015, 04:46:43 PM

This is about as robust of an argument as saying, "it's logically possible to not be omnipotent, and omnipotence is the ability to do anything logically possible, therefore god cannot exist".

That's a robust argument.

Of course, deduction alone can't prove facts about the external world, so this isn't an attempt to disprove God per se. It's both an effort to show how A) deductive arguments can be misleading (especially when William Lane Craig uses them >.>) B) but also how our conception of omnipotence is logically flawed.

More Than Mortal · February 03, 2015, 04:50:10 PM

Quote from: RC on February 03, 2015, 04:47:05 PM

Regardless of the word's meaning, your argument doesn't disprove god, just a god with the arbitrarily-imposed restriction of operating within logic.

Duh. That's literally right there in the premises.

Don't blame me for confining omnipotence to that box either, that's literally the definition that has been used by theologians like Aquinas.

g💚jira · February 03, 2015, 04:52:03 PM

Quote from: HurtfulTurkey on February 03, 2015, 04:46:43 PM

Quote
P4: It is logically possible to create a finite mass of rock that cannot be lifted by its own maker (from P3).

This is about as robust of an argument as saying, "it's logically possible to not be omnipotent, and omnipotence is the ability to do anything logically possible, therefore god cannot exist".

This is a delightful attempt at a logical process, but...c'mon, man.

Spoiler

linguistics

I wonder how I managed to pull off that double like

rC · February 03, 2015, 04:52:19 PM

Quote from: Meta Cognition on February 03, 2015, 04:50:10 PM

Quote from: RC on February 03, 2015, 04:47:05 PM
Regardless of the word's meaning, your argument doesn't disprove god, just a god with the arbitrarily-imposed restriction of operating within logic.
Duh. That's literally right there in the premises.

dat thread title tho

More Than Mortal · February 03, 2015, 04:53:06 PM

Quote from: RC on February 03, 2015, 04:52:19 PM

Quote from: Meta Cognition on February 03, 2015, 04:50:10 PM
Quote from: RC on February 03, 2015, 04:47:05 PM
Regardless of the word's meaning, your argument doesn't disprove god, just a god with the arbitrarily-imposed restriction of operating within logic.
Duh. That's literally right there in the premises.

dat thread title tho

i kno ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

More Than Mortal · February 03, 2015, 05:11:45 PM

Quote from: HurtfulTurkey on February 03, 2015, 04:46:43 PM

Quote
P4: It is logically possible to create a finite mass of rock that cannot be lifted by its own maker (from P3).

This

Also, you're going to want to show why that's logically impossible if you want to defend the principle of omnipotence. Omnipotence necessarily relies on unrestricted comprehension, which is nonsensical. The list of what God can do can either be complete (assuming a capacity to perform all logical possibilities) or consistent--never both.

Turkey · February 03, 2015, 05:22:18 PM

Quote from: Meta Cognition on February 03, 2015, 05:11:45 PM

Quote from: HurtfulTurkey on February 03, 2015, 04:46:43 PM
Quote
P4: It is logically possible to create a finite mass of rock that cannot be lifted by its own maker (from P3).

This
Also, you're going to want to show why that's logically impossible if you want to defend the principle of omnipotence. Omnipotence necessarily relies on unrestricted comprehension, which is nonsensical. The list of what God can do can either by complete (assuming a capacity to perform all logical possibilities) or consistent--never both.

I think Newton's 3rd Law contradicts it nicely. I'm already not a huge fan of the terminology of 'rocks' and 'makers', but I get what you're saying. However, in order to [construct some object of mass], the maker(s) must have been able to exert as much force as necessary to do so. It's logically unsound to say that you can make an object heavier than you can lift. Just throw out ideas: a skyscraper? Clearly we have the means to put it in place, and unless you're asserting that that skyscraper could only be put by its makers in that specific spot, then it's logically possible to move that skyscraper somewhere else. Piece by piece, of course, but again we're running into an issue of the language of our proof.

I agree with your general idea of omnipotence: it's the unlimited power to enact change within the limits of the laws of logic and physics.

More Than Mortal · February 03, 2015, 05:25:19 PM

Quote from: HurtfulTurkey on February 03, 2015, 05:22:18 PM

I agree with your general idea of omnipotence: it's the unlimited power to enact change within the limits of the laws of logic and physics.

Then we needn't use the rocks; it still runs into the same problem which, generally, is Russell's Paradox. You need only list of all the logically possible actions to find that such a list would also be inconsistent. It is logically possible to both truthfully state your name is Yahweh and truthfully state your name is not Yahweh, and yet doing one clearly negates a capacity to do the other.

challengerX · February 03, 2015, 05:26:23 PM

This user has been blacklisted from posting on the forums. Until the blacklist is lifted, all posts made by this user have been hidden and require a Sep7agon^® SecondClass Premium Membership to view.

More Than Mortal · February 03, 2015, 05:27:04 PM

Quote from: challengerX on February 03, 2015, 05:26:23 PM

It's a shame Turkey and Gojira are religious. They're such smart dudes.

Goji isn't religious.

challengerX · February 03, 2015, 05:27:33 PM

This user has been blacklisted from posting on the forums. Until the blacklist is lifted, all posts made by this user have been hidden and require a Sep7agon^® SecondClass Premium Membership to view.

Turkey · February 03, 2015, 05:39:20 PM

Quote from: Meta Cognition on February 03, 2015, 05:25:19 PM

Quote from: HurtfulTurkey on February 03, 2015, 05:22:18 PM
I agree with your general idea of omnipotence: it's the unlimited power to enact change within the limits of the laws of logic and physics.
Then we needn't use the rocks; it still runs into the same problem which, generally, is Russell's Paradox. You need only list of all the logically possible actions to find that such a list would also be inconsistent. It is logically possible to both truthfully state your name is Yahweh and truthfully state your name is not Yahweh, and yet doing one clearly negates a capacity to do the other.

But it's not truthful for a single being to state it is two separate things (let's set aside the ensuing Trinity discussion). Omnipotence isn't the ability to do all things, and if it is, then God is not omnipotent by that definition. You don't see this definition of omnipotence used anywhere except in this paradox. There are many things God can't do, according to the source material.

Quote from: challengerX on February 03, 2015, 05:26:23 PM

It's a shame Turkey and Gojira are religious. They're such smart dudes.

This thread actually has very little to do with religion.

More Than Mortal · February 03, 2015, 05:43:26 PM

Quote from: HurtfulTurkey on February 03, 2015, 05:39:20 PM

But it's not truthful for a single being to state it is two separate things

I didn't claim that, nor am I using the absolutist definition of being able to do anything. There is no logical inconsistency in either proposition that it's possible to truthfully state one thing, which necessarily negates its counterfactual. Therefore, omnipotence as conceived as being able to do all that is logically possible is, in face, incoherent.

There are things which are logically possible (thus able to be performed by God) and at the same time contradictory. If God cannot both truthfully claim two statements which contradict each other (which are two logically possible actions) he cannot be omnipotent.

The idea of omnipotence as absolute action within logical possibility still falls at the same hurdle, it's just slightly more concealed. If you want to refute me, you have to show that the entire list of logically possible actions is actually consistent.

DAS B00T x2 · February 03, 2015, 05:45:00 PM

But doesn't this assume that gOD's strength is bound by the laws he created and additionally exists at a constant level?

challengerX · February 03, 2015, 05:45:14 PM

This user has been blacklisted from posting on the forums. Until the blacklist is lifted, all posts made by this user have been hidden and require a Sep7agon^® SecondClass Premium Membership to view.