Let's Talk Paradoxes!

I'd like this thread to be a bit more of a discussion than a presentation, simply because paradoxes are all the same.

All you need to have a well functioning paradox is this:

- Acceptable premises
- The premises all follow from one another in agreement
- These premises all logically lead to an unacceptable conclusion

I have a bachelor's in philosophy and take the practice very seriously. This topic by far is the most intriguing to me, as it so peculiarly outlines our limitations of understanding the world around us. Not only that, but all paradoxes are of the same format! It's a beautiful equation that we simply can't argue out of.

Here's a popular one:

God is omnipotent.
As the creator of the universe and all things within it, it is all powerful.
With this, then, can god create a boulder large enough that it cannot lift the object?
If it can create a boulder large enough, it is not omnipotent.
If it cannot, then it again and ultimately is not all powerful.

Who can reason themselves out of this?



i'd like to read a few responses before throwing in my additional 2 cents!

What does ATS think this means about the way we understand our environment?

a reply to: facedye

It means that we cannot think in absolutes..and also that we must accept that there are exceptions to every rule.

a reply to: facedye

How about there is no God without us to acknowledge it?

Any boulder created can be moved with Him & US.

This is a 2 way street...so I have to disagree with your premise.

originally posted by: Caver78
a reply to: facedye

How about there is no God without us to acknowledge it?

Any boulder created can be moved with Him & US.

This is a 2 way street...so I have to disagree with your premise.

I think you might be misunderstanding a bit here - this is a thought experiment meant to analyze how our minds process logical information. i'm not actually speaking from a religious standpoint.

originally posted by: HarryJoy
a reply to: facedye

It means that we cannot think in absolutes..and also that we must accept that there are exceptions to every rule.

Yes Harry, but we always WANT to think in absolutes don't we?

And if there are exceptions to every rule as you say (which i totally agree with), then in my mind that just means that the most mystifying experience of all is conscious thought.

Based on this, everything can be called into doubt. Slippery slope indeed.

originally posted by: facedye

originally posted by: Caver78
a reply to: facedye

How about there is no God without us to acknowledge it?

Any boulder created can be moved with Him & US.

This is a 2 way street...so I have to disagree with your premise.

I think you might be misunderstanding a bit here - this is a thought experiment meant to analyze how our minds process logical information. i'm not actually speaking from a religious standpoint.

Honestly I wasn't either!!!
I was coming from a "woo" mindset and if creator made a boulder he couldn't move in my little corner of the 'verse" it makes sense that it would take 2.

I may have been a little too literal for your post?
oops!!!

a reply to: facedye
The "omnipotent God" paradox is created by the chosen definition of "omnipotent", which makes it artificial. If the word is re-defined to exclude whatever is not logically possible. the paradox disappears.

This can be illustrated by other examples. The famous paradox "What happens when an irresistable force meets an immovable object?" is created by offering up two definitions which are incompatible with each other. The only possible answer is "One of them is exposed as a fraud".

Or again, the "Cretan liar" paradox. The man who said "All Cretans are liars" was a Cretan himself, as Paul observed.
But this only becomes a paradox by using an artificial and abnormal definition of "liar", viz "someone who NEVER makes a true statement".
In more normal usage, a "liar" is merely somebody who makes untrue statements slightly more frequently than other people.

If you find a statement paradoxical, look first to the definitions.

originally posted by: Caver78

originally posted by: facedye

originally posted by: Caver78
a reply to: facedye

How about there is no God without us to acknowledge it?

Any boulder created can be moved with Him & US.

This is a 2 way street...so I have to disagree with your premise.

I think you might be misunderstanding a bit here - this is a thought experiment meant to analyze how our minds process logical information. i'm not actually speaking from a religious standpoint.

Honestly I wasn't either!!!
I was coming from a "woo" mindset and if creator made a boulder he couldn't move in my little corner of the 'verse" it makes sense that it would take 2.

I may have been a little too literal for your post?
oops!!!

in this sense, the creator cannot be all powerful. with respects to godliness, this opens up a huge can of worms.

originally posted by: DISRAELI
a reply to: facedye
The "omnipotent God" paradox is created by the chosen definition of "omnipotent", which makes it artificial. If the word is re-defined to exclude whatever is not logically possible. the paradox disappears.

This can be illustrated by other examples. The famous paradox "What happens when an irresistable force meets an immovable object?" is created by offering up two definitions which are incompatible with each other. The only possible answer is "One of them is exposed as a fraud".

Or again, the "Cretan liar" paradox. The man who said "All Cretans are liars" was a Cretan himself, as Paul observed.
But this only becomes a paradox by using an artificial and abnormal definiton of "liar", viz "someone who NEVER makes a true statement".
In more normal usage, a "liar" is merely somebody who makes untrue statements slightly more frequently than other people.

If you find a statement paradoxical, look first to the definitions.

Starred, great response!

however, i have trouble agreeing with it since it seems like you're choosing a semantic route to resolve the contradiction.

i agree that paradoxes can be made not so by different applications in the real world - Zeno's time paradox comes to mind. Theoretically the hare will never catch up to the tortoise if we believe in infinite divisibility, but any reasonable person would know a rabbit would beat a turtle in a race. however, this doesn't take away from the phenomenon of logical legitimacy constantly ending up in paradoxical states.

in my mind, this phenomenon is an essential element to what makes our universe the way it is. it's a building block of sorts.

a reply to: facedye


I'm not religious so I can only use my logic to try to explain the thesis you gave.

God is omnipotent.
As the creator of the universe and all things within it, it is all powerful.
With this, then, can god create a boulder large enough that it cannot lift the object?
If it can create a boulder large enough, it is not omnipotent.
If it cannot, then it again and ultimately is not all powerful.

If god is omnipotent he/she/it could create a small rock, then change himself/herself/itself to something that cannot lift that rock.

Pure scientifically I would say to create a boulder large enough to be unable to lift, there needs to be created an even bigger mass to lift it from as lifting would suggest defying gravity and because of that there needs to be a bigger mass to lift the unliftable boulder from.

a reply to: facedye
The semantic route was certainly relevant to the example in the OP, which was created by semantics.
If I were a mathematician, I might be able to find faulty definition at the root of Zeno's paradox as well (I own a copy of "Godel, Escher, Bach", but that doesn't mean I understand it).

a reply to: facedye

You have two jelly beans. One red one on a table and the other a yellow one on a table. You pick up the yellow one and switch it with the red one. How many jelly beans are on the table?

I guess more of riddle than a paradox.

Peace

KD

p.s. I am in insomnia mode again, wide awake, but maybe not fully charged. LOL

originally posted by: Darkinsider
a reply to: facedye

You have two jelly beans. I red on a table and the other a yellow one on a table. You pick up the yellow one and switch it with the red one. How many jelly beans are on the table?

I guess more of riddle than a paradox.

Peace

KD

p.s. I am in insomnia mode again, wide awake, but maybe not fully charged. LOL

LOL.... you have one jelly bean on the table.

hopefully my insomnia steers me in the right direction here. i love paradoxes, CAN'T STAND RIDDLES.

originally posted by: facedye

originally posted by: Darkinsider
a reply to: facedye

You have two jelly beans. I red on a table and the other a yellow one on a table. You pick up the yellow one and switch it with the red one. How many jelly beans are on the table?

I guess more of riddle than a paradox.

Peace

KD

p.s. I am in insomnia mode again, wide awake, but maybe not fully charged. LOL

LOL.... you have one jelly bean on the table.

hopefully my insomnia steers me in the right direction here. i love paradoxes, CAN'T STAND RIDDLES.

Smiling Out Loud. You are absolutely correct, because there were two tables with only one jelly on each. LOL

Oh well.....some fun I hope.

Peace

KD

originally posted by: DISRAELI
a reply to: facedye
The "omnipotent God" paradox is created by the chosen definition of "omnipotent", which makes it artificial. If the word is re-defined to exclude whatever is not logically possible. the paradox disappears.

This can be illustrated by other examples. The famous paradox "What happens when an irresistable force meets an immovable object?" is created by offering up two definitions which are incompatible with each other. The only possible answer is "One of them is exposed as a fraud".

Or again, the "Cretan liar" paradox. The man who said "All Cretans are liars" was a Cretan himself, as Paul observed.
But this only becomes a paradox by using an artificial and abnormal definiton of "liar", viz "someone who NEVER makes a true statement".
In more normal usage, a "liar" is merely somebody who makes untrue statements slightly more frequently than other people.

If you find a statement paradoxical, look first to the definitions.

Spot on. These paradoxes are artificially made just to screw with the mind and are quite illogical from my point of view.

originally posted by: DISRAELI
a reply to: facedye
The semantic route was certainly relevant to the example in the OP, which was created by semantics.
If I were a mathematician, I might be able to find faulty definition at the root of Zeno's paradox as well (I own a copy of "Godel, Escher, Bach", but that doesn't mean I understand it).

it's a solution made out of comfort, but it does not solve the paradox.

mathematician or not, these concepts toy with the mind considerably, and particularly because how much sense they don't make, makes sense!

I'll add on this tomorrow gentlemen. Cheers! Thanks for the chat

originally posted by: facedye
I'd like this thread to be a bit more of a discussion than a presentation, simply because paradoxes are all the same.

All you need to have a well functioning paradox is this:

- Acceptable premises
- The premises all follow from one another in agreement
- These premises all logically lead to an unacceptable conclusion

I have a bachelor's in philosophy and take the practice very seriously. This topic by far is the most intriguing to me, as it so peculiarly outlines our limitations of understanding the world around us. Not only that, but all paradoxes are of the same format! It's a beautiful equation that we simply can't argue out of.

Here's a popular one:

God is omnipotent.
As the creator of the universe and all things within it, it is all powerful.
With this, then, can god create a boulder large enough that it cannot lift the object?
If it can create a boulder large enough, it is not omnipotent.
If it cannot, then it again and ultimately is not all powerful.

Who can reason themselves out of this?

i'd like to read a few responses before throwing in my additional 2 cents!

What does ATS think this means about the way we understand our environment?

The size of the boulder is immaterial to its weight. Weight is a function of gravity, in zero gravity, a star is weightless. A small force would move it infinitessimally. If God wished, he could create other masses and move the boulder around at whim in any direction.

Failing that, were the boulder of greater than about 500 solar masses it would likely collapse into a gravitational singularity. One might argue that the fabric of spacetime would become flexible and render all concept of lifting or moving the mass, moot.

So, it would not be possible for God to create a boulder too big for him to lift. the whole conceptual framework is based upon concepts that are themselves limitations that do not, nor could not exist for a boundless God.

Not to mention the issue of God's motivation to try and do something beyond Gods capability?

a reply to: facedye

By your premise God is only all powerful within this universe. Then there must exist an exceeding power outside of the universe to contain it. Like water ripples.

A forever big boulder is too big to lift. As soon as it reaches infinite size we'll give her a go, though.

Trying to see from our persecutive in this dimension whats beyond 3D is like trying to describe the direction up to 2D flatlanders.

Just like from our perspective we can't see 'everywhere at once' (omnipresence). Over 'there' everyone is Omni.

originally posted by: facedye

originally posted by: DISRAELI
a reply to: facedye
The "omnipotent God" paradox is created by the chosen definition of "omnipotent", which makes it artificial. If the word is re-defined to exclude whatever is not logically possible. the paradox disappears.

This can be illustrated by other examples. The famous paradox "What happens when an irresistable force meets an immovable object?" is created by offering up two definitions which are incompatible with each other. The only possible answer is "One of them is exposed as a fraud".

Or again, the "Cretan liar" paradox. The man who said "All Cretans are liars" was a Cretan himself, as Paul observed.
But this only becomes a paradox by using an artificial and abnormal definiton of "liar", viz "someone who NEVER makes a true statement".
In more normal usage, a "liar" is merely somebody who makes untrue statements slightly more frequently than other people.

If you find a statement paradoxical, look first to the definitions.

Starred, great response!

however, i have trouble agreeing with it since it seems like you're choosing a semantic route to resolve the contradiction.

i agree that paradoxes can be made not so by different applications in the real world - Zeno's time paradox comes to mind. Theoretically the hare will never catch up to the tortoise if we believe in infinite divisibility, but any reasonable person would know a rabbit would beat a turtle in a race. however, this doesn't take away from the phenomenon of logical legitimacy constantly ending up in paradoxical states.

in my mind, this phenomenon is an essential element to what makes our universe the way it is. it's a building block of sorts.

Surely his answer can be applied at a more than semantic level. The paradox is phrased to suggest one limitation over another but applied to the limitless.

The 'possibility' of the scenario is at the heart of its solution. The paradoxical nature of the scenario evaporates when the impossibilities are removed, as stated. God could not be limited if God is unlimited.