Attempt at deconstructing the "rock too heavy" argument

[GrowingSmaller]

What standard of "meaning" are you using, Mark? Are you saying the the so-called "words" in Anselm's argument had no recognised usage, or that rules of grammar or syntax were broken, or what? Or are you stipulating a new meaning for the term "meaining" itself?

 

[Eudaimonist]

What standard of "meaning" are you using? Are you saying the the "words" in the argument had no recognised usage, or that rules of grammar or syntax were broken, or what? Or areyou stipulating a new meaning for the term "meaining"?

I mean that Anselm's argument accomplishes so little it might as well be considered word games. Meaning in this sense roughly equates to "pointless, a waste of time".


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[CTD]

No matter how dead the idea was in the past, Newtonian physics pulverized it. A butterfly touching down moves the entire world. No, not far, not far enough to measure. So what? Motion is motion. So "too big to lift" is simply out, for there is no such thing as too big to lift.

It's good for minds to explore just how wrong this silly idea is, as well as others which desperate minds and hearts cling to. It gives one a perspective on the destructive potential of sin.

 

[razeontherock]

Why not?

It would be helpful if you expanded on your reasons when you make a claim, Raze...

Sorry, I thought it was obvious

 

[GrowingSmaller]

I am not sure if this is specific to me, but I get the sense that deriding philsophy as "meaningless word games" is associated with Wittgenstein's concept of "language games". Then in one fell swoop the whole of analytic stlye philsophy (which I think utilises modern approaches to logic and meaning and applies them to philosophy, and was even itself perhaps the mother of the trend for the perjorative label "meaningless" with the Logical Positivists and their verification principle), might be brushed off as meaningless word games itself.

Guilt though some kind of association, especially when - and perhaps only when - it suits the interlocutor.

 

[CTD]

Sorry, I thought it was obvious

It was. We'd need to see the straw ontological argument, of course, before we could fully appreciate whatever's imagined.

 

[CTD]

I am not sure if this is specific to me, but I get the sense that deriding philsophy as "meaningless word games" is associated with Wittgenstein's concept of "language games". Then in one fell swoop the whole of analytic stlye philsophy (which I think utilises modern approaches to logic and meaning and applies them to philosophy, and was even itself perhaps the mother of the trend for the perjorative label "meaningless" with the Logical Positivists and their verification principle), might be brushed off as meaningless word games itself.

Guilt though some kind of association, especially when - and perhaps only when - it suits the interlocutor.

Philosophy's bad reputation is self-inflicted. The names they make a fuss over were all full of nonsense.

Hegel
Nietzsche
Spinoza
Kant
Hume

No, that's not just "the popularly known ones" either. These are discussed and studied in college courses.

Real philosophy? Everyone's born a philosopher.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

Maybe on a tangent, but couldn't you turn the ontological argument on its head and "prove" that since we can conceive of a rock so heavy that god can't lift it that such a maximally heavy rock must exist?

No.

I agree, you can't. The reasons may be tad surprising though. You could play the game with a maximally heavy rock*, no worries. But if you tried to have the rock also be too heavy for such-and-such, you'd run into problems and the 'argument' would not 'work' anymore. And it only gets worse if such-and-such is incoherent.


* Rocks that exist both in reality and in the mind are heavier than rocks that just exist in the mind.

 

[quatona]

I never meant to imply that you were. I never thought you were, at any rate.

However, if we start saying such things, then they are meaningless, and there's not much point in saying them. So we might as well not.



But as said before, if the claim carries no meaning, then there's no point in making it.

Ok, I think now I see the distinction you are trying to communicate.
I don´t agree, though. Rather, I submit that a e.g. a logical self-contradiction doesn´t carry any intelligible meaning.

So we can say, "Purple quickly to loud the entropy desk" to make some claim about God, and who knows, it might even be true. But since it tells us nothing of any use, such a claim makes no difference to us at all.

Again, I see the distinction you are trying to make. However, since the axiomatic and inevitable framework and limitation of my thinking is the logical possible, the logically impossible doesn´t tell me anything of any use.

But saying, "Jesus took seven loaves, and gave two each to his twelve disciples, and not one was left over, and all were used, and more were not wanted," then we can accept it as being something which is possible for Jesus to do, even though it is not possible for us to do it.

Ok, but - as you concede further down - this is not a problem of logic. It´s merely clashing with our experience with physicality.

We could say that even though God hardened Pharaoh's heart, the hardening of the heart was caused by Pharaoh, not God. God is causing something, but at the same time, he is not the cause of it.

Now, this is an example of illogicality.
Feel free to call me close-minded or lacking in power of imagination , but I can´t make sense of this statement and even less it seems to be of any use to me. It doesn´t carry any meaning. Just like "Purple quickly to loud the entropy desk" I might allow for it to be meaningful in God´s eyes - but it certainly is meaningless to me.

But let´s, for argument sake carry that a bit further: If we say "God can cause something and at the same time not cause it", we certainly can also say "God is omnipotent and not omnipotent at the same time", and the entire question for God´s omnipotence would be pointless, anyway.
We simply have left the realm where we can reason. Now, everyone can do so if they wish - but I don´t understand why they pretend to reason, nonetheless. Why even start to consider anything pertaining God by means of reason when the unreasonable will trump reason in the end?
"God is omnipotent". Why even tackle of defend this claim? Even if it could be demonstrated that God is not omnipotent, He still could be omnipotent although not being omnipotent.

Then we are getting to the point where we discount logical impossibilities as being possible for God simply because we don't want to deal with them.

I think that´s close, but not quite correct: Just like "Purple quickly to loud the entropy desk" may carry meaning in another realm or another language, logical contradictions (like A = not A) may carry meaning elsewhere, but not to me. Hence I won´t go there.

The entire "possible for God" is - in my opinion - just an evasion. The actual meaning of "God can do the logically impossible" is "I want to make illogical claims about God, yet be taken seriously." Why the heck would I allow anyone that exceptional prerogative when it comes to the topic of his choice? Why do people even have the guts to claim something to be beyond logic? What keeps me from postulating that e.g. mechanics are beyond logic and therefore I can make illogical claims about mechanics yet be taken seriously?

The only reasonable response (as far as I am concerned) to "I want the prerogative to make illogical claims and want you to consider them to be meaningful and valid arguments, nonetheless" is "No, rejected. This is beyond the scope of that which I am capable of." Even if the person asking for this right would allow me the same right in return.

Even less I would invite theists to engage in this kind of absurdity by demanding their God to do the logically impossible.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

We say it is a rule object can not be "A" and "not-A" at the same time. But we say that it can be "A" at one time, and then "not-A" at another. Why do we make this concession? Why not just deny the endurance of objects, in theory at least?

 

[quatona]

We say it is a rule object can not be "A" and "not-A" at the same time. But we say that it can be "A" at one time, and then "not-A" at another. Why do we make this concession? Why not just deny the endurance of objects, in theory at least?

I am all for denying the endurance of objects (I am even all for denying the existence of objects in theory), but where would that leave theists who appeal to an unchanging eternal God?

 

[GrowingSmaller]

I am all for denying the endurance of objects (I am even all for denying the existence of objects in theory), but where would that leave theists who appeal to an unchanging eternal God?

dharmakaya?

 

[crimsonleaf]

If God can operate outside of logical constructs then presumably he could draw a square circle. Anyone got any ideas what it might look like?

William Lane Craig, among others, would hold that God cannot work with logical contradictions, a married bachelor being another one. So, if he cannot work with logical contradictions does that mean he's not omnipotent? Few would argue that, because a logical contradiction cannot exist.

However, creating something from nothing looks like a logical contradiction, and He did that.

So we can only conclude that logical contradictions are within God's powers but we can't hope to explain how.

Having said that, the stone argument fails because it pre-supposes that God has physical human attributes, which we all agree he hasn't.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Having said that, the stone argument fails because it pre-supposes that God has physical human attributes, which we all agree he hasn't.

Of course we agree that God doesn't have arms, but one can lift a stone without arms if one has the power to do so. One could use the awesome power of divine will to levitate the rock. Child's play for God, right?


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[crimsonleaf]

Ok, I concede that, so we come back to my original thinking, which was in line with Craig's, that God can't create a logical contradiction. This must mean that creation isn't a logical impossibility, something both theists and non-theists must agree upon, because under the most widely accepted scientific theory there was a situation before time and space when nothing existed, and then it did.

So what does a square circle look like?

 

[KCfromNC]

It is perhaps the "perfect rock" for atheists to talk about. But that may well be meaningless word games, eh?

No, obviously trying to prove that there exists a rock so heavy that it can't be lifted by god is the most pressing concern of our existence. Duh. Who couldn't possibly realize this?

 

[Eudaimonist]

So what does a square circle look like?

Perfectly round with sharp corners.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Tiberius]

Ok, I think now I see the distinction you are trying to communicate.
I don´t agree, though. Rather, I submit that a e.g. a logical self-contradiction doesn´t carry any intelligible meaning.

If we have a conclusion that doesn't follow from the premises, it's still a conclusion.

Again, I see the distinction you are trying to make. However, since the axiomatic and inevitable framework and limitation of my thinking is the logical possible, the logically impossible doesn´t tell me anything of any use.

But there's a differenece between saying "Purple quickly to loud the entropy desk" and saying "Pharaoh hardened his own heart, even though it was God who did it."

Now, this is an example of illogicality.
Feel free to call me close-minded or lacking in power of imagination , but I can´t make sense of this statement and even less it seems to be of any use to me. It doesn´t carry any meaning. Just like "Purple quickly to loud the entropy desk" I might allow for it to be meaningful in God´s eyes - but it certainly is meaningless to me.

But it does tell us who hardened Pharaoh's heart - Pharaoh himself!

But let´s, for argument sake carry that a bit further: If we say "God can cause something and at the same time not cause it", we certainly can also say "God is omnipotent and not omnipotent at the same time", and the entire question for God´s omnipotence would be pointless, anyway.

Perhaps, but wouldn't God need to be omnipotent in order to do that?

We simply have left the realm where we can reason. Now, everyone can do so if they wish - but I don´t understand why they pretend to reason, nonetheless. Why even start to consider anything pertaining God by means of reason when the unreasonable will trump reason in the end?
"God is omnipotent". Why even tackle of defend this claim? Even if it could be demonstrated that God is not omnipotent, He still could be omnipotent although not being omnipotent.

True, but if that's just the way God is, then we can't refuse to accept it on the grounds that we don't understand it.

I think that´s close, but not quite correct: Just like "Purple quickly to loud the entropy desk" may carry meaning in another realm or another language, logical contradictions (like A = not A) may carry meaning elsewhere, but not to me. Hence I won´t go there.

But if they carry meaning for God, then that's the important thing.

The entire "possible for God" is - in my opinion - just an evasion. The actual meaning of "God can do the logically impossible" is "I want to make illogical claims about God, yet be taken seriously." Why the heck would I allow anyone that exceptional prerogative when it comes to the topic of his choice? Why do people even have the guts to claim something to be beyond logic? What keeps me from postulating that e.g. mechanics are beyond logic and therefore I can make illogical claims about mechanics yet be taken seriously?

I do agree with you there. This whole thing does have the potential to be misused.

The only reasonable response (as far as I am concerned) to "I want the prerogative to make illogical claims and want you to consider them to be meaningful and valid arguments, nonetheless" is "No, rejected. This is beyond the scope of that which I am capable of." Even if the person asking for this right would allow me the same right in return.

Again, true, but then again, a sparrow would likely say the same thing about quantum mechanics.

Even less I would invite theists to engage in this kind of absurdity by demanding their God to do the logically impossible.

But if we take the Bible at face value, then it is likely that God already has.

 

[quatona]

If we have a conclusion that doesn't follow from the premises, it's still a conclusion.

I beg to differ. "Conclusion" is a term that has a particular meaning derived from logic. The very criticism of statements that don´t follow from their premises is that they aren´t conclusions (they are non sequiturs, they don´t follow).
Just because the form implies a conclusion doesn´t make it so. If I change your example into "Purple quick to loud because the entropy desk" this doesn´t make it a conclusion (although the "because" suggests it is).

But there's a differenece between saying "Purple quickly to loud the entropy desk" and saying "Pharaoh hardened his own heart, even though it was God who did it."

Of course I will concede that there is a difference between them (as is between any two different statements) - I´m just not seeing how the latter is any more meaningful than the first.

But it does tell us who hardened Pharaoh's heart - Pharaoh himself!

No, it tells us it was God.

Perhaps, but wouldn't God need to be omnipotent in order to do that?

God would have to be omnipotent in order to be not omnipotent (while being omnipotent at the same time)? No, he would have to be not omnipotent - as is clearly stated by the premise.
(That´s the very problem: All you get is word salad and category errors, once you allow for illogical statements).

True, but if that's just the way God is, then we can't refuse to accept it on the grounds that we don't understand it.

So do I get that right: I just need to declare something to be beyond logic, and you will be hard-pressed to accept this premise?

But if they carry meaning for God, then that's the important thing.

Maybe to God, but not to me. My conceptualization is bound by logic.
"The most basic axiom of Fairies is that 'Purple quickly to loud the entropy desk'". - so does that render this statement meaningful to me? No.
Am I under any obligation to accept any of the preassumptions. No.
Just because someone requests me to accept nonsense as sense doesn´t put any burden whatsoever on me.
At least I would ask for the same right. That might make for a nice surreal and absurd conversation and be fun as long as it lasts...add some drugs, and we could have some real fun.

I do agree with you there. This whole thing does have the potential to be misused.

I am not sure where you draw the line between legitimate use and abuse here.

Again, true, but then again, a sparrow would likely say the same thing about quantum mechanics.

Yes, that´s why we don´t hear sparrows praising the benefits of quantum mechanics - and rightly so: We would know (by virtue of your very premise that they don´t even have any clue what they are talking about. Yet, we hear humans praising the benefits and superiority of illogicality.
Your analogy has some serious flaws, don´t you think?
Actually, we are talking about a sparrow who tells his fellow sparrows that quantum mechanics is the best thing since sliced bread ("but please don´t ask me what intelligible statements it makes, or how it makes any sense"). In fact, we are talking about a sparrow who propagates that "Purple quick to loud because the entropy desk" is the ultimate wisdom ("but don´t ask me what that´s supposed to mean").
Personally, I would encourage every sparrow to rigorously refuse to discuss quantum mechanics.

But if we take the Bible at face value, then it is likely that God already has.

I see no reason to take the Bible at face value, in the first place.
Even more so, I don´t think that "illogicality" and "face value" belong in the same sentence.

I don´t think it´s much of a concession, but: When utter nonsense and alleged ultimate "truth" become indistinguishable, I´ll just refuse to play.

 

[Tiberius]

Of course I will concede that there is a difference between them (as is between any two different statements) - I´m just not seeing how the latter is any more meaningful than the first.

Because the second has the potential to tell us something about reality.

No, it tells us it was God.

Only if you attach logic to it.

God would have to be omnipotent in order to be not omnipotent (while being omnipotent at the same time)? No, he would have to be not omnipotent - as is clearly stated by the premise.
(That´s the very problem: All you get is word salad and category errors, once you allow for illogical statements).

If he wasn't omnipotent, how could he do the logically impossible?

So do I get that right: I just need to declare something to be beyond logic, and you will be hard-pressed to accept this premise?

Not quite. If we are dealing with a being that is not bound by logic, we cannot say that this being must be so-and-so simply because it is the only logical option.

Maybe to God, but not to me. My conceptualization is bound by logic.
"The most basic axiom of Fairies is that 'Purple quickly to loud the entropy desk'". - so does that render this statement meaningful to me? No.
Am I under any obligation to accept any of the preassumptions. No.
Just because someone requests me to accept nonsense as sense doesn´t put any burden whatsoever on me.
At least I would ask for the same right. That might make for a nice surreal and absurd conversation and be fun as long as it lasts...add some drugs, and we could have some real fun.

I see what you mean, but we can't dismiss as irrelevant a thing just because we don't understand how it could be.

I am not sure where you draw the line between legitimate use and abuse here.

Honestly, neither do I. Perhaps it is the difference between someone who is trying to understand God and someone who is trying to use it to justify a position that will push their own agenda.

Yes, that´s why we don´t hear sparrows praising the benefits of quantum mechanics - and rightly so: We would know (by virtue of your very premise that they don´t even have any clue what they are talking about. Yet, we hear humans praising the benefits and superiority of illogicality.
Your analogy has some serious flaws, don´t you think?

A sparrow can look at things and say, "X mist be correct." The sparrow can do that about quantum mechanics. Brownian motion, for example. The sparrow can prove that brownian motion is correct, even if he has no idea what causes it.

Likewise, I can say that God must be unbound by logic, even if I cannot understand how it could be possible.

Actually, we are talking about a sparrow who tells his fellow sparrows that quantum mechanics is the best thing since sliced bread ("but please don´t ask me what intelligible statements it makes, or how it makes any sense"). In fact, we are talking about a sparrow who propagates that "Purple quick to loud because the entropy desk" is the ultimate wisdom ("but don´t ask me what that´s supposed to mean").
Personally, I would encourage every sparrow to rigorously refuse to discuss quantum mechanics.

My point was that a particular thing can be true, even if some being doesn't understand it.

Whether the being is a sparrow and the thing it doesn't understand is quantum mechanics, or whether the being is a person and the thing it doesn't understand is how God can do the logically impossible.

I see no reason to take the Bible at face value, in the first place.

Neither do I.

I don´t think it´s much of a concession, but: When utter nonsense and alleged ultimate "truth" become indistinguishable, I´ll just refuse to play.

And that's why Sparrows don't understand the secrets of the universe.