Attempt at deconstructing the "rock too heavy" argument

[quatona]

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

Pardon me, but how do you know that the first hasn´t?
Both do not make sense in the language that they are expressed in. Both do not offer any alternative language that they may make sense in.

Only if you attach logic to it.

Oh, sorry, my bad.
(I guess I am helplessly unfamiliar with discussing stuff under the premise that using logic is a violation of the rules. Then again, "God can do the logically impossible" doesn´t mean he can´t do the logically possible. So using logic cannot be per se wrong.....But I am already invoking logic here again, sorry. )

Do you really not see where this leads? We are already in the midst of absurdity. The problem is not so much whether or not some entity can be this or that - the problem is that the language we use rests squarely on the acceptance of logic. At the point where "yes can possibly be no", and "black can possibly be white" and "three can possibly be five" the use of language has run its course. That which lends meaning to language (the application of logic) has left the building, and there is no more way to talk meaningfully.

On another note I fail to see how going from "God hardened Pharao´s heart. Pharao hardened Pharaos heart." to "Pharao hardened Pharaos heart" (which you did) is any more or less logical or illogical than going to "God hardened Pharaos heart" (what I did). Both aren´t even conclusions. They are mere affirmations of what (a part of) the original statement clearly said.

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

Hang on...this question sounds to me like you are appealing to logic, and that you expect a logical response from me. Exactly what you criticized me for in your previous sentence. So what are the rules here? I am confused.

Anyway, the "rock too heavy" argument postulates that God must be omnipotent and not omnipotent at the same time. I mean if God couldn´t be "not omnipotent" how would he be omnipotent?

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.

Yet, this is exactly what you did in your previous sentence:

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

So, I am supposed to be logical when dealing with the illogical, or am I supposed to suspend logic?
And what about you? Each of your sentences breathes the will to be logical.

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

Yes, I can. If exposed to a statement like "black = non-black" I feel entirely entitled to respond "Ok. Come back to me when you have found a medium in which that which you are trying to communicate can be communicated meaningfully. The formal system that you are using now renders your statement pure nonsense. As of now I don´t have the faintest clue what you are trying to say."

The problem with "the illogical is possible" is that it not only assumes something we don´t understand (as your sparrow analogy implies) - it asks me to overthrow the very basis of language - the very tool that this idea is expressed in. If "A = non A" we have to stop talking, because language has become meaningless.
Again, the problem is not whether an object is this or that, the problem is that language becomes meaningless and unusable.
It´s just like asking a mathematician to accept that 3 can be 5, and discuss this in terms of mathematics. The premise he is asked to accept is the very destruction of the formal system "mathematics", and there is no point whatsoever to employ mathematics any more. All he could get is nonsense, anyway.

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.

Well, the significant difference is that the sparrow isn´t asked to consider the very system invalid which he is at the same time implicitly asked to employ.

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

And this point is undisputed. I am, however, submitting (and hope I have shown it in this post) that asking me to accept a statement that is meaningless by virtue of the very formal system that it uses is a completely different animal than asking me to consider things possible that I don´t understand.

 

[Tiberius]

Pardon me, but how do you know that the first hasn´t?
Both do not make sense in the language that they are expressed in. Both do not offer any alternative language that they may make sense in.

The first hasn't because if I hear "Purple quickly to loud the entropy desk" I do not gain any greater understanding of the universe. But if I hear "Pharaoh hardened his own heart, even though it was God who did it" I know that Pharaoh hardened his own heart.

Oh, sorry, my bad.
(I guess I am helplessly unfamiliar with discussing stuff under the premise that using logic is a violation of the rules. Then again, "God can do the logically impossible" doesn´t mean he can´t do the logically possible. So using logic cannot be per se wrong.....But I am already invoking logic here again, sorry. )

Well, I'm not really saying that using logic is wrong. I'm just saying that we can't dismiss something as incorrect simply because it doesn't logically follow.

Do you really not see where this leads? We are already in the midst of absurdity. The problem is not so much whether or not some entity can be this or that - the problem is that the language we use rests squarely on the acceptance of logic. At the point where "yes can possibly be no", and "black can possibly be white" and "three can possibly be five" the use of language has run its course. That which lends meaning to language (the application of logic) has left the building, and there is no more way to talk meaningfully.

Only when language is being used solely to express logic. When we use it to express information, then it is still acceptable, even if that information is illogical.

On another note I fail to see how going from "God hardened Pharao´s heart. Pharao hardened Pharaos heart." to "Pharao hardened Pharaos heart" (which you did) is any more or less logical or illogical than going to "God hardened Pharaos heart" (what I did). Both aren´t even conclusions. They are mere affirmations of what (a part of) the original statement clearly said.

Like I said, it's more a case of expressing information rather than phrasing things as logical statements.

Hang on...this question sounds to me like you are appealing to logic, and that you expect a logical response from me. Exactly what you criticized me for in your previous sentence. So what are the rules here? I am confused.

lol, so am I, a little!

Anyway, the "rock too heavy" argument postulates that God must be omnipotent and not omnipotent at the same time. I mean if God couldn´t be "not omnipotent" how would he be omnipotent?

Illogically!

Yet, this is exactly what you did in your previous sentence:

So, I am supposed to be logical when dealing with the illogical, or am I supposed to suspend logic?
And what about you? Each of your sentences breathes the will to be logical.

I know, I'm still getting used to this idea myself.

Yes, I can. If exposed to a statement like "black = non-black" I feel entirely entitled to respond "Ok. Come back to me when you have found a medium in which that which you are trying to communicate can be communicated meaningfully. The formal system that you are using now renders your statement pure nonsense. As of now I don´t have the faintest clue what you are trying to say."

But that doesn't show that it is irrelevant. Black may very well be non-black.

The problem with "the illogical is possible" is that it not only assumes something we don´t understand (as your sparrow analogy implies) - it asks me to overthrow the very basis of language - the very tool that this idea is expressed in. If "A = non A" we have to stop talking, because language has become meaningless.

I tend to think of it as merely asking us to use language in a different way.

Again, the problem is not whether an object is this or that, the problem is that language becomes meaningless and unusable.
It´s just like asking a mathematician to accept that 3 can be 5, and discuss this in terms of mathematics. The premise he is asked to accept is the very destruction of the formal system "mathematics", and there is no point whatsoever to employ mathematics any more. All he could get is nonsense, anyway.

Or perhaps asking a physicist to accept that events can happen without cause, which is something quantum mechanics tells us happens. QM has put us in this situation already - asking us to accept things that seem illogical and even impossible to us.

Well, the significant difference is that the sparrow isn´t asked to consider the very system invalid which he is at the same time implicitly asked to employ.

Like I've said, language is only invalid here if you use it as only a tool for expressing logic. If it is used as a tool for expressing information, then it is not invalidated, since it can still express information.

And this point is undisputed. I am, however, submitting (and hope I have shown it in this post) that asking me to accept a statement that is meaningless by virtue of the very formal system that it uses is a completely different animal than asking me to consider things possible that I don´t understand.

Which is why we shouldn't use language as a tool to express logical concepts, because if I am right about God, such a tool is useless in any effort to understand him.

 

[SonOfTheWest]

Which is why we shouldn't use language as a tool to express logical concepts, because if I am right about God, such a tool is useless in any effort to understand him.

Generally, it's not a good idea to argue yourself into a corner. The self contradiction, self defeat and irony in the above statement is overwhelming.

 

[Cieza]

This is taken from this thread (I think it belongs in "Philosophy" rather than in "Physical and Life Sciences"):
http://www.christianforums.com/t7607122-23/#post59079264.
The relevant discussion starts around post #230.

I´d be glad to hear your critical opinions on my attempt at a refutation.

Here´s the argument, as presented by Naraoia (my attempt at a refutation is directed at this very presentation, but I think it is valid against the "rock too heavy" argument in general):



Here´s my response:

There's a very simple explanation to this. God creates the rock. God then strips himself of his omnipotence. God can then not lift the rock. Very simple.

 

[quatona]

There's a very simple explanation to this. God creates the rock. God then strips himself of his omnipotence. God can then not lift the rock. Very simple.

At the period in time when God has "stripped himself of his omnipotence" (whatever that might mean) - is God still omnipotent?

 

[quatona]

Black may very well be non-black.

No, not in this language you pretend to use. No way.

I don´t speak this language in which "black is non-black" can be a meaningful statement. If you want to talk to me in this language please teach it to me first. And next please make sure that with every sentence you write you pass the information which of the languages it is written in.

 

[Tiberius]

I'm trying to say that the language is the tool. If it is used to express logic, then "Black = non black" doesn't make sense. But only if it used to express logic. Get it?

 

[quatona]

I'm trying to say that the language is the tool. If it is used to express logic, then "Black = non black" doesn't make sense. But only if it used to express logic. Get it?

No, sorry. I merely expect it to communicate anything meaningful in this language - but it doesn´t.

 

[Tiberius]

It doesn't communicate anything logical, but if it says that Pharaoh hardened his own heart, then that is something meaningful.

besides, we cannot say what God is and isn't based on the limitations of our language.

 

[quatona]

It doesn't communicate anything logical, but if it says that Pharaoh hardened his own heart, then that is something meaningful.

The statement that God hardened his heart is also communicating something meaningful.
The statement that there is a rock that God can lift is meaningful. The statement that there is a rock that God can´t lift is meaningful also. The statement that there is a rock that God cannot lift but God can lift is not meaningful.

besides, we cannot say what God is and isn't based on the limitations of our language.

Ok, so when someone tells me "God is omnipotent" - whose language is he using?
And do I have to expect that in the next statement he might tell me that "God is omnipotent" can mean "God is not omnipotent" with reference to the assertion that God is not limited by language?

 

[Cieza]

At the period in time when God has "stripped himself of his omnipotence" (whatever that might mean) - is God still omnipotent?

The sequence is like this
1) An omnipotent being named God creates a rock
2) The omnipotent being named God strips itself of its omnipotence
3) The same being mentioned in 1 & 2 who is now less than omnipotent attempts to lift the rock created in #1 and cannot lift it.

 

[Tiberius]

The statement that God hardened his heart is also communicating something meaningful.
The statement that there is a rock that God can lift is meaningful. The statement that there is a rock that God can´t lift is meaningful also. The statement that there is a rock that God cannot lift but God can lift is not meaningful.

Only when you are bound by logic. if God is not bound by logic, then he doesn't have those problems.

Ok, so when someone tells me "God is omnipotent" - whose language is he using?
And do I have to expect that in the next statement he might tell me that "God is omnipotent" can mean "God is not omnipotent" with reference to the assertion that God is not limited by language?

I'm not talking about English as a language, I'm talking about logic as a language.

 

[quatona]

Only when you are bound by logic.

And I am, and so are you as well.
Btw. I don´t think that logic governs reality - logic governs language.

if God is not bound by logic, then he doesn't have those problems.

You are talking to me. I would like to know what you mean when you say such things.

I'm not talking about English as a language, I'm talking about logic as a language.

Then feel free to replace "language" by "logic" in my questions.
I think lögic and language are inseparable, btw.

 

[quatona]

The sequence is like this
1) An omnipotent being named God creates a rock
2) The omnipotent being named God strips itself of its omnipotence
3) The same being mentioned in 1 & 2 who is now less than omnipotent attempts to lift the rock created in #1 and cannot lift it.

So, was that the long version of a "no"?

 

[SonOfTheWest]

Only when you are bound by logic. if God is not bound by logic, then he doesn't have those problems.



I'm not talking about English as a language, I'm talking about logic as a language.

Your replies are meaningless. The entire reason for the question is because of the implications of what omniscience means and what omnipotence means. People could be talking about the theoretical omniscient and/or omnipotent duck. It really has nothing to do with God and everything to do with the issues uses of those two words entail.

 

[quatona]

I tend to think that the main issue here is:
You have to respect the rules of the formal system you are employing.
A is not non-A (just like non is not non-non) is the most basic rule on which the meaningful use of language and logic depend.

Since talking about language/logic comes with several problems (e.g. of self-reference) I will try to explain it by example of another formal system: mathematics.

Surely, if you say "God cannot be bound by logic since that would render him non-omnipotent" you will also say "God cannot be bound by mathematics since that would render him non-omnipotent".
Analogously to "black can be non-black" I will use the example "3 can be 5".
Imagine there being three apples on a table, and there being five apples on the table.
What would it practically mean for God to "not be bound by mathematics"? What does this statement even mean?
That God can not distinguish between those two scenarios?
That God can distinguish between them but doesn´t understand the terms by which we describe them?
That God can declare them identical by virtue of his power?
That God can make them identical by virtue of his power (in his own view)?
That God can make them identical in our view, as well?
Something else?

I repeat: "God is not bound by logic" is completely besides the point: not even reality "is bound by logic". Logic is a formal system - our language is bound by logic. That´s all. As soon as the constituting rules of a formal system are violated it breaks down. Reality (and for purposes of this discussion this includes God) is unaffected by the violation of the rules of a formal system (be it mathematics, logic or language).

The solution "there is a rock that God can´t lift but God can lift it anyway" is nothing but the attempt of the speaker to collapse logic.
Plus: Practically it doesn´t even add to the omnipotence of God.
God can create a rock of any size and weight.
God can lift a rock of any size and weight.
That´s as omnipotent as it can get when it comes to the creation and lifting of stones.
These two statements (which each for itself and both in conjunction do not violate any formal system employed) don´t leave any space for a rock that God can´t create or lift.
"A stone that God can lift and that God cannot lift" doesn´t allow for any stone of any size that isn´t covered by these statements, anyway.

 

[Tiberius]

Your replies are meaningless. The entire reason for the question is because of the implications of what omniscience means and what omnipotence means. People could be talking about the theoretical omniscient and/or omnipotent duck. It really has nothing to do with God and everything to do with the issues uses of those two words entail.

I'm just saying that God is not bound by logic.

 

[SonOfTheWest]

I'm just saying that God is not bound by logic.

A statement that means absolutely bupkis.