Such arguments are not logically invalid - they are perfect proofs that God cannot be omnipotent!! Therefore no omnipotent God can exist!
Oh dear. I think then we have very different ideas of what is valid logic. Maybe you would care to explain your idea of what logic is, and how it is used to show contradictions, as if we disagree on that then reasoned discussion becomes kinda pointless.
Meanwhile, I will try to explain why I consider this to be a nonsensical play on words, rather than a valid logical proof. My apologies if I am making this sound too simple, I haven't got a clue what sort of level to aim it at. (How much do you know about logic?)
When we have a system, which contain concepts of truth and falsehood, we can seek to show that the system is contradictory by taking true statements in that system, applying the rules of deduction, and showing that we can derive false.
We can build up more complex statements by assigning them variables and substituting them into other statements.
So in my system with we are starting with an omnipotent (this could require more careful definition later on, but for now we will define it as meaning that he can create a rock of of any size, and can lift a rock of any size) God. So we have the question:
"Can God make a rock big enough so that he cannot lift it?"
I would rephrase this as:
1) "Can God make a Z"
2) "Z is a rock big enough that he cannot lift it"
Z I would now argue is a meaningless concept. We have defined God being omnipotent as meaning he can lift a rock of any size, so the concept of a rock which he cannot lift is meaningless in this system. (If you don't find this bit convincing try expressing it to yourself formally in first-order predicate calculus. I would do so myself but typing the symbols would be problematic!)
So this definition of Z as as meaningless as saying that Z is a square circle, or Z is a strawberry flavoured electron.
(Note: the answer to "Can God make a strawberry flavoured electron?" or "Can God make a four sided triangle?" is not "Yes. God can do anything." but "Your question is meaningless."....of course God can make strange flavoured quarks)
So our question becomes "Can God make a (meaningless concept)?"
This question doesn't have a true, or false answer, it is nonsense, so then cannot be used in deduction.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
Re: This year's CICCU Main Event - DIRECTION
Date: 2005-02-06 11:04 pm (UTC)Oh dear. I think then we have very different ideas of what is valid logic. Maybe you would care to explain your idea of what logic is, and how it is used to show contradictions, as if we disagree on that then reasoned discussion becomes kinda pointless.
Meanwhile, I will try to explain why I consider this to be a nonsensical play on words, rather than a valid logical proof. My apologies if I am making this sound too simple, I haven't got a clue what sort of level to aim it at. (How much do you know about logic?)
When we have a system, which contain concepts of truth and falsehood, we can seek to show that the system is contradictory by taking true statements in that system, applying the rules of deduction, and showing that we can derive false.
We can build up more complex statements by assigning them variables and substituting them into other statements.
So in my system with we are starting with an omnipotent (this could require more careful definition later on, but for now we will define it as meaning that he can create a rock of of any size, and can lift a rock of any size) God.
So we have the question:
"Can God make a rock big enough so that he cannot lift it?"
I would rephrase this as:
1) "Can God make a Z"
2) "Z is a rock big enough that he cannot lift it"
Z I would now argue is a meaningless concept. We have defined God being omnipotent as meaning he can lift a rock of any size, so the concept of a rock which he cannot lift is meaningless in this system. (If you don't find this bit convincing try expressing it to yourself formally in first-order predicate calculus. I would do so myself but typing the symbols would be problematic!)
So this definition of Z as as meaningless as saying that Z is a square circle, or Z is a strawberry flavoured electron.
(Note: the answer to "Can God make a strawberry flavoured electron?" or "Can God make a four sided triangle?" is not "Yes. God can do anything." but "Your question is meaningless."....of course God can make strange flavoured quarks)
So our question becomes "Can God make a (meaningless concept)?"
This question doesn't have a true, or false answer, it is nonsense, so then cannot be used in deduction.