PDA

View Full Version : Why God Paradoxes Might Be Meaningless

John Kilduff
11-07-2006, 10:19 AM
Example of a God Paradox:

"If God is all-powerful, can God create a rock so heavy he can't lift it? If he is all powerful he must be able to do so, but if he does that then he can't lift it, and if he can't lift it then he is not all-powerful."

Answer: If God is actually all-powerful then he ought to be able to supersede the laws of logic, space and time. How he might do this or whether we can understand it, is not the point. The point is that to be truly "all-powerful", God ought to be able to do seemingly impossible things. Heck throw out the "seemingly"--to be truly all-powerful, God ought to be able to do impossible things. Otherwise, God's power is limited by what is possible, so he couldn't rightly be called "all-powerful." But if we deem the "all-powerful" a given pre-condition, as the Paradox does, then nothing is impossible for God--not even the impossible. In fact the condition "impossible" would exist only at the whim or allowance of God (since the Paradox first deems God to be all-powerful). Once the Paradox deems God to be all-powerful, anything the Paradox later asks God to do, God must be able to do--even were it to require superseding the laws of mathematics.

One might well argue that there is no reason the term "all-powerful" should be given more weight than the term "impossible." But the Paradox first ascribes omnipotence to God and then proceeds from there.

Other God Paradoxes might be meaningless for similar reasons.

Is this a trite discussion? Maybe so, but if so, not more trite than the paradox itself.
thylacine
11-07-2006, 01:38 PM
What is the difference between a meaningless paradox, and a non-meaningless paradox? How do you tell them apart? Which kind is more paradoxical? And does the supposed subject matter of the paradox really come into it?

If you have two statements:

1. Statement 2 is false.

2. Statement 1 is true.

How do you determine whether one statement trumps the other, and if so, which one.
FortunaMaximus
11-07-2006, 01:49 PM
For pure statements, it seems like a paradox.

But the true-false duality would suggest #2 is correct, because #2 is correct in assuming that #1 assumes #2 is false, so whatever statement #2 states is always correct, even if it isn't true.

Dunno if that's helpful, obviously.
thylacine
11-07-2006, 02:43 PM
Okay. Consider this one.

Now you have three statements:

1. Statement 2 is false.

2. Statement 3 is false.

3. Statement 1 is false.
FortunaMaximus
11-07-2006, 02:46 PM
That's an example of an inviolable paraxdox. Any statement has an element of uncertainity, so at any given time, any or all statements will be correct, but they will not always be correct.
bunny
11-07-2006, 05:17 PM
I think all of these paradoxes assume that God is bound by logic. If not then it's probably not a meaningful paradox (as you suggest), but it's hard to say anything meaningful since contradictions about him can be true.
wacki
11-07-2006, 09:45 PM
http://www.cannabisculture.com/uploads/8-334085-towlie.jpg
CaseS87
11-07-2006, 10:07 PM
[ QUOTE ]
http://www.cannabisculture.com/uploads/8-334085-towlie.jpg

[/ QUOTE ]

qft
FortunaMaximus
11-07-2006, 10:50 PM
A self-aware towel that looks stoned.

Care to explain? I can't remember the last time I watched TV, much less South Park.
CaseS87
11-07-2006, 11:10 PM
[ QUOTE ]
A self-aware towel that looks stoned.

[/ QUOTE ]

eh, you pretty much hit the nail on the head.
FortunaMaximus
11-07-2006, 11:31 PM
Yeah, makes sense. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif
jogsxyz
11-08-2006, 01:47 AM
http://www.libertyunites.tv/article6718-...ml#readcomments (http://www.libertyunites.tv/article6718-elephants_pass_mirror_test_of_self_awareness.html# readcomments)

Elephants have self awareness. Do they also think God created elephants in His image?
CityFan
11-08-2006, 10:25 AM
So basically "all-powerful" in the strictest logical sense is an impossibility, becasue it leads to the contradictions/paradoxes you list.

But when God is described as "all-powerful" we can take it to mean that he has supreme power over the human world.
FortunaMaximus
11-08-2006, 11:28 AM
[ QUOTE ]
So basically "all-powerful" in the strictest logical sense is an impossibility, becasue it leads to the contradictions/paradoxes you list.

But when God is described as "all-powerful" we can take it to mean that he has supreme power over the human world.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, a factor doesn't have to be omnipotent to have complete power over Terra. Just be a century or two ahead of the curve, just enough.

Say an interstellar species comes on by, you have to think a species capable of travel between the stars understands converting mass into energy on large scales well enough to be able to make planetkillers out of pretty much most inert masses.

Yeah, and you thought you had to worry about China rattling N. Korea's swords. /images/graemlins/grin.gif
jogsxyz
11-08-2006, 05:15 PM
[ QUOTE ]

Say an interstellar species comes on by, you have to think a species capable of travel between the stars understands converting mass into energy on large scales well enough to be able to make planetkillers out of pretty much most inert masses.



[/ QUOTE ]

Threshold on Scifi. Alien, a triple helix entity, is capable of altering human's brain waves. Compared to man, this entity is all-powerful.
FortunaMaximus
11-08-2006, 05:36 PM
I dunno. Don't watch much TV. The true opiate of the masses. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

But, yeah, as far as the scale of capability goes, we aren't a wet cat's fart yet, never mind that we discovered how to split the atom.

We can't even tap our own sun optimally. But we'll get there one way or the other.