Let's Talk Paradoxes!

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?

That's already been solved. When God considers that he can't lift the rock, he can't. But the moment he considers that he can, he can. "Paradox" solved.

a reply to: Aristotelian1

ah! that seems plausible.

a reply to: Aristotelian1

How is this paradox solved?

if god is omnipotent (all knowing and all powerful), then god can do anything.

if god can create a rock it cannot lift, how can it be all powerful?

if god cannot create a rock it can't lift, how is it all knowing?

originally posted by: facedye
a reply to: Aristotelian1

How is this paradox solved?

if god is omnipotent (all knowing and all powerful), then god can do anything.

if god can create a rock it cannot lift, how can it be all powerful?

if god cannot create a rock it can't lift, how is it all knowing?

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”

- Epicurus

a reply to: TzarChasm

Epicurus just so happens to be my favorite philosopher!

however, this doesn't get you out of the logical entanglement.

why do you believe that it does?

I joined I realized a paradox I wanted to share that has been melting my brain. I realized it when I was looking up a word's meaning in a dictionary and noticed the same words to describe meaning are listed as synonyms, and those synonyms use the same words for their own meaning and the definition of synonym itself is same or similar meanings between words.

Are dictionaries by their own definition logically impossible?

What about compound words who's synonyms are based on opposing concepts?

Example: Feminism is defined as the doctrine advocating social, political, and all other rights of women equal to those of men.

The words used to define "woman" have synonyms which are listed as the antonyms for for equality. It's inherently contradictory! Which is my conclusion. If dictionaries not only fail to define words but create new ones with contradicting compounds, is the purpose what I suspect it to be? I'm really soured by the old cliche "Knowledge is power" because now I know they really mean the opposite, "Knowledge is what power decides it to be".

a reply to: feelingnothing

Cool post! Welcome to ATS!

a reply to: facedye

To lift the Boulder does God have to Exist in a Physical form ?
Can God lift the Boulder with just the Power of a Disembodied Conscious Thought ?
If God is Omnipotent , he could do Anything , All would be Possible including lifting a Boulder with Infinite Mass considering we assume he Created the Universe the Boulder exists in .

originally posted by: facedye
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

A paradox is evidence that your 'accepted premise' is a fallacy.
Paradox means error, usually the premise.
For instance, when 'time travel' is sufficiently examined, all avenues of exploration end in paradox.
This tells us that 'time travel', as is commonly thought in movies and literature, is not possible.
That's what paradox means.
When the notion of 'free will/choice' is thoroughly examined, all avenues of inquiry end in paradox.
Thus, actual 'free-will/choice' is impossible (other than as an illusion/vain belief).

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?

That has so many fallacies and impossibilities, and has already been thoroughly been refuted, many times!

Can God Make a Rock So Big He Cannot Lift It?

apologeticjunkie.blogspot.com...


This is one of my favorite questions that comes up from time to time. Indeed, many atheists and skeptics have posed this question in an attempt to stump Christians and somehow disprove the omnipotence (and existence) of God. Maybe you've been there. What is so ironic about a question of this type is that rather than prove any sort of deficiency in the character or nature of God, this question actually shows a lack of clear thinking and logic on the part of the skeptic! In other words, the question itself is flawed and fallacious in several ways and, unfortunately, the person raising the question has not taken the time to truly think this problem through.

Problem #1: this question commits the fallacy known as a loaded question. Imagine if I were to ask you, "Have you stopped beating your spouse yet?" If you answer yes, that means you were beating your spouse but you have since stopped. And if you answer no, that means you're still beating them! Either way you answer the question, you automatically concede that you beat your spouse! This is a no win situation because the question itself starts with a false assumption and is therefore a "loaded" question. Likewise, the question "Can God make a rock so big He cannot life it?" also starts with a false assumption, i.e., that God is not omnipotent. If you answer "Yes" to the question, that means that God is not omnipotent since He can make the rock but isn't powerful enough to lift it. But if you answer "No," that also means that God is not omnipotent since He couldn't make a rock so big He cannot lift it! In other words, the question itself is dishonest, a pseudo-question, since it begs the question by assuming God is not omnipotent.

Problem #2: this question commits a categorical fallacy. The question itself is incoherent and meaningless. Suppose I were to ask you, "What does the color blue smell like?" or "How much does the number seven weigh?" These are category mistakes because colors don't smell and numbers don't weigh anything. They are logical impossibilities. In the same manner, asking the question "Can God make a rock so big He cannot lift it?" is essentially to ask "Can God's power defeat His own power?" This is nonsensical and a category error since the question is being incorrectly applied. Greg Koukl has stated, "The question is nonsense because it treats God as if He were two instead of one. The phrase 'stronger than' can only be used when two subjects are in view...Since God is only one...it makes no sense to ask if He is stronger than Himself."

Problem #3: this question commits a straw man fallacy. The goal of the skeptic who asks this question is to somehow undermine the Christian concept of an omnipotent God. It is thought that if it can be shown there are some things God cannot do, this would prove that God could not be omnipotent and thus could not exist as Christians have traditionally portrayed Him. However, this line of reasoning is attacking a distorted concept of Biblical omnipotence and is therefore guilty of the straw man fallacy.

So what does it mean then that God is omnipotent? Omnipotence doesn't mean that God can do anything. There are actually quite a few things that God cannot do. He cannot make squared circles. He cannot make a one-ended stick. He cannot sin. He cannot improve His morality. So God is limited in a sense. But not one of these "limitations" has to do with power, rather, they are logical contradictions. Also, notice that His "limitations" are not due to any defects in His character or power but rather they are the result of His perfection and rational nature! As Norman Geisler has stated, "He is only 'limited' by His unlimited perfection." To say that God is omnipotent then is to say that God can do anything so long as it is logically possible and consistent with His nature. God's omnipotence does not mean that He can do what is impossible but only that He can do whatever is actually possible.

Conclusion: So what then is the answer? Can God make a rock so big He cannot lift it? My comments above put aside, I still like the way one particular 7-year-old responded: "I can't give you a smart answer to a dumb question."

*************************************************

The old "willing or able" diatribe asked countless times here by those who never search it and somehow always think they are original! Chris Tiegreen answers you this way..."He is both willing and able! The problem is not with God's power and it's not with his love, it is with our faith. When God doesn't resolve a situation to our liking, especially in which the suffering is great, we are tempted to accuse Him of either impotence or negligence. Jesus' response tells us to look within...unanswered prayer is a call to come closer, look deeper, know God better, and seek His will further. It's a call to be transformed as a disciple and to be conformed to the image of Christ. By such the Father separates those who desire to test Him from those who desire to know Him."

The one that drove me crazy was the one about math.

It starts as a finite conclusion. For example: 1! Thats it. The all. No more.
Yet math persist infinitely, though, each one is finite.
It ends at one. What god can imagine such a spook...???

Despite all numerical calculations and the infinite possibilities.... I'm done with one.

My point is....
One god... one paradox.

a reply to: Pinocchio

I think I understand what you mean. If there are unlimited methods to arrive at 1 or divide 1, then the only meaningful number in relation to 1 is 0. Computer language

a reply to: feelingnothing

N!=1*2*3...*n. I think he meant 1*1*1*1... ad infinitum=1. Also look into conditionally convergent series.

a reply to: VP740

If all numbers divided by 1 are equal to themselves, doesn't that mean 1 is all numbers? Isn't 1/1=1 just another expression of 1+0=1, because 0 cannot equal 1?

If I'm coming off as a complete idiot I apologize, I'm not claiming to understand. I'll look into what you mentioned. I regret never caring much for math because now I'm starting to realize it's significance is more to do with numbers, I never thought I'd have the excitement I felt as a child when everything was unknown again. Happy to be here.

a reply to: facedye

size and time are abstract concepts, they wondered how the Egyptians built the pyramids and for me the craziest theory could well be the one that is truth, a load of them got together and concentrated their minds on asking each brick to move onto the perfect place for them, and they did, because if you can speak the language of the atoms you can speak the language of God cause they are one and the same, or what if God is Gravity and things only have weight because of God, i dont know but i love a good ponder, nice post.

a reply to: namelesss

i dont think i have ever believed that JC was a walking talking human, and the other night i noticed the origin of the christ story imo, the crux star formation in the sky, it is actually the first time i have noticed this because it is quite faint but you could see how the ancients would have made a great story from this shape, and with the three wise men also close by on this gigantic page of a story we call the sky. I may not believe that JC was a real dude however i do believe in Christ consciousness, Buddah consciousness etc, because i believe that anything the masses have concentrated on exists and nothing is more powerful that that has been created with hope and faith, so for me imagination created the Universe so is imagination God..... and how much does it weigh.

originally posted by: Davg80
a reply to: namelesss
... i do believe in Christ consciousness, Buddah consciousness etc, because i believe that anything the masses have concentrated on exists

Everything exists.
Thoughts exist.
The content of thought, therefore, exists.
Pink unicorns exist, even if only a single Perspective in the entire Universe perceives it!

... imagination created the Universe so is imagination God..... and how much does it weigh.

"Consciousness is the ground of all being!" - Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics
One Universal Consciousness!

The Universe weighs everything, and not anything!
If you take a chunk of iron, or lead, or wood, or toe-nails, or thoughts, or dreams, or goldfish, or anything else in the Universe and focus down past the 'appearances', all is 'constructed of the exact same thing; "quantum information waves"!
Mind.
Thought.
Consciousness.
How much does the mirage in the desert weigh?
You might imagine it quite heavy until you delve deeply enough into it's basic nature/'substance'.
So, yeah, I'm sure the Earth is quite 'heavy' if weighed on the Earth, at sea level.
Isn't the planet weightless while blowing through space?
"Doesn't everything float when it gets down here?" - Pennywise

God doesn't 'have' an imagination/Mind, God IS Mind/Consciousness (and the apparent content of thought called Universe/God/Reality/Truth...), and the only way that the Universe can Know OurSelf is by Consciousness having all of us unique Perspectives of Our OneSelf!

a reply to: namelesss

yes but are we part of an omniscient universal unconscious, do we go there when we sleep or die and are we independent consciousness when we leave the whole or are we only independent of the whole or unaware of it while we are in these human body's...

a reply to: Davg80
The illusion is that you are in a human body. 'You' are not in anything. Everything that appears is in 'you'.
'You' are what is seeing and knowing what appears to be seen or known - including the appearance of a body and thoughts (mind).
'You' are the witness of every apparent appearance - what 'you' are never actually appears.
Can the seer be seen?

a reply to: Itisnowagain

nice link, now can the seer of the seer be seen, that is the question, but what if we are all independent seers of a consciousness that is part of a Universal unconscious, and although we are independently expressing ourselves as the self, what if the unconscious part of us is still part of the whole, that would mean we are all experiencing everything that each and everyone of us is experiencing on an unconscious level. and everything that we are experiencing at a conscious level, is getting instantly getting uploaded into the unconscious (cloud).

a reply to: facedye

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

Ugh......ehm I think it is an expose of the inequalities of the social class system of our current day society blah bleh.