Philosophy Now Forum

Gee wrote:

Greylorn Ell wrote: However, they may provide plenty of fodder for those seeking to extract meaning from horseshit.

Greylorn

No. No. Horseshit does not give us meaning; it gives us tomatoes. Grandma always said that cow manure was alright, but horseshit was better, and she grew some lovely tomatoes. Sweet and huge tomatoes. Damned, I miss her.

Gee

Gee,

Seems like Grandma will remain with you. She's still around, probably playing the same game with a different piece in a new place, if my theories are even in the same forest as the deer I shot at ran into. You've likely affected her life as well. Isn't it so much better to miss her than to have forgotten her?

Back in Wisconsin our family of five grew our own wonderful veggies on a 2000 sq.ft. garden with the help of chicken shit, spread over the garden atop the winter snow, giving it time to age. IMO even better than horse shit. I've had my hands in all kinds of shit, thanks to some plumbing repairs. Perfect training for a philosophy forum, where participants, myself included, oft mistake cow manure for bullshit, and either form for "truth."

Greylorn

This is the first thread I read when coming to this forum?

I sure hope I find the next thread I read to be more tolerable.

HexHammer wrote:

Aero wrote:

yogisuba wrote:Can an all powerful God create an unliftable rock?

The problem with this question, is that it's a leading question.

For example:

It's like me asking have you stopped killing kittens in your free time. Whether you answer yes or no, it implies something negative about you and paints you as a loser. This question implies that "God" is not all powerful, whether it's answered yes or no.

If the question itself is a fail, we will get a fail answer.

No, pure nonsense!
The rock question doesn't in any way imply that he can or can't, when the kitty question does imply a terrible action.

Big difference!

The rock question does indeed imply that he can't. Observe the question: "Can an all powerful God create an unliftable rock?". If we answer YES, then 'God' isn't all powerful because he can't lift said rock. If we answer NO, then 'God' still isn't all powerful because he can't create said rock.

Either way, it paints 'God' as not all powerful due to the way the question was presented. He's not all powerful if he can't do something, such as lift or create a rock. Otherwise he'd be all powerful. You were arguing about the implications of positives vs negatives in my kitten example, which is a separate conversation in this matter. My original objection to this thread was that it was a leading question.

Not sure how I invited verbal happyslapping Hexhammer – if I did – it was not intentional. I do like to challenge others, but not slashing and vulgarly attacking their ideas without giving reasons for doing so. For instance, Aero's kitty comment. It seems to be a weak/questionable analogy to my initial argument, but I wonder, what if I am a kitty killer and what if I live in a culture where kittens are taking over, where it is actually an honor to kill them because of their pestilence? I'm able to change the angle of that question, why can we not change the angle of the Unliftable Rock Question?

Which brings us back to my initial question, if God is part of everything, why can't God create something on one level and not be able to lift it on another? Why would that not be a reasonable answer to the question?

If we were to use the Christian God as our All-powerful agent, would it not be conceivable to say, God the Father created this huge rock, and Jesus, a claimed aspect of God, could not have lifted it while on earth. Would that not be a reasonable response? Of course, my original stance comes more from the Eastern Traditions, but all the same, there is some value in looking at it from the Christian perspective as well.

Aero wrote:The rock question does indeed imply that he can't. Observe the question: "Can an all powerful God create an unliftable rock?". If we answer YES, then 'God' isn't all powerful because he can't lift said rock. If we answer NO, then 'God' still isn't all powerful because he can't create said rock.

Either way, it paints 'God' as not all powerful due to the way the question was presented. He's not all powerful if he can't do something, such as lift or create a rock. Otherwise he'd be all powerful. You were arguing about the implications of positives vs negatives in my kitten example, which is a separate conversation in this matter. My original objection to this thread was that it was a leading question.

..yearh ........IF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ..the question is still undecided, when the kitten question IS DECIDED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You don't comprehend very basic reasoning and logic.

yogisuba

Why would an all powerful being do the dirty work himself? ..he has servants to do it, thus the question in itself is irrelevant.

Changing angles on something is a good way to look at things from different perspectives, but the problem with this is that it can be counter changed to the opposite.

For example:

yogisuba wrote:For instance, Aero's kitty comment. It seems to be a weak/questionable analogy to my initial argument, but I wonder, what if I am a kitty killer and what if I live in a culture where kittens are taking over, where it is actually an honor to kill them because of their pestilence? I'm able to change the angle of that question, why can we not change the angle of the Unliftable Rock Question?

And we can also say that 'what if' we live in culture where kittens are an endangered species, where it is actually dishonorable to kill them because of their scarcity? But regardless of the scenario, it's still implied that you're a kitten killer. Whether that's honorable or not, is secondary discussion. We, too, can also change the angle of this scenario, but it still doesn't change the initial claim of my objection that it's still a leading question. Again, the kitten example was just to illustrate what I meant by leading question about "God and Unliftable Rock".

Changing the angles of a scope pointed at the Great Sphinx of Giza is definitely a wonder to see, but no matter what angle we're at, we're still going to be looking at a statue body of a lion with the head of a man that has a missing nose.

HexHammer wrote:

Aero wrote:The rock question does indeed imply that he can't. Observe the question: "Can an all powerful God create an unliftable rock?". If we answer YES, then 'God' isn't all powerful because he can't lift said rock. If we answer NO, then 'God' still isn't all powerful because he can't create said rock.

Either way, it paints 'God' as not all powerful due to the way the question was presented. He's not all powerful if he can't do something, such as lift or create a rock. Otherwise he'd be all powerful. You were arguing about the implications of positives vs negatives in my kitten example, which is a separate conversation in this matter. My original objection to this thread was that it was a leading question.

..yearh ........IF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ..the question is still undecided, when the kitten question IS DECIDED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You don't comprehend very basic reasoning and logic.

Instead of holding down the exclamatory mark key to end your sentences like periods, why don't you offer something substantial behind your objections? I actually read a lot of your posts, as entertaining as they are. But as I was saying before we went off on an adolescent tangent, the kitten example was a demonstration of a leading question. And it can be decided.

For example:

Aero wrote:If we answer YES, then 'God' isn't all powerful because he can't lift said rock. If we answer NO, then 'God' still isn't all powerful because he can't create said rock.

Let's replace "if" with "we can".

"We can answer YES, so 'God' isn't all powerful because he can't lift said rock. We can answer NO, so 'God' still isn't all powerful because he can't create said rock."

At the end of the day, it's still a leading question.

Aero

I think you lack basic intellect, you can't understand simple reasoning, which makes me question what kind of job one such as you has?

Corinthos wrote:This is the first thread I read when coming to this forum?

I sure hope I find the next thread I read to be more tolerable.

Apparently you do not even know if this is the first thread you read. Maybe you should sober up before returning.

Whatever, pick and choose. Experiment. Try my threads if you are here looking to get pissed off. Otherwise, guess. If you have ideas to express, do so. That will show you something about your relationship to others who post here. If you don't have ideas, get some. They are available on the internet for free.

We won't know if you are better than the rest of us unless you express some of your thoughts and ideas. So far, you're just another whiner. Just what the planet needs. Do you live with your parents?

And yes, you chose a thread full of people with whom you do not agree, perhaps on their path to enlightenment, or maybe not so much. Welcome to the human race.

Greylorn

Logical paradoxes often involve self-reference:

Liar paradox refers to the speaker itself: Cretan says: All Cretans are liars.
Another form of the liar paradox refers back to the sentence itself: This sentence is false.

The third man argument says: All particulars get their character X by participating in the universal, X. But, if the universal, X is also X, then there must be another universal X by which the first universal is x - and so on. Instantiated, it becomes - all large things are large in virtue of the universal 'largeness.' But if 'largeness is also large, then there must be a further universal by which 'largeness' itself is large. The problem only occurs when the universal is referred back to itself.

Russell's paradox is: The set of all sets that is not a member of itself must be a member of itself. Problematic when the definition of the set refers not to its members, but to itself.

They all seem to create problems only when the parameters or definitions involved apply (refer) back to the origin.

Similarly, the paradox of the OP is problematic only when the lifting of the rock is referred back to the all-powerful creator - i.e. 'He' is the one doing the lifting.

Wyman wrote:Logical paradoxes often involve self-reference:

Liar paradox refers to the speaker itself: Cretan says: All Cretans are liars.
Another form of the liar paradox refers back to the sentence itself: This sentence is false.

The third man argument says: All particulars get their character X by participating in the universal, X. But, if the universal, X is also X, then there must be another universal X by which the first universal is x - and so on. Instantiated, it becomes - all large things are large in virtue of the universal 'largeness.' But if 'largeness is also large, then there must be a further universal by which 'largeness' itself is large. The problem only occurs when the universal is referred back to itself.

Russell's paradox is: The set of all sets that is not a member of itself must be a member of itself. Problematic when the definition of the set refers not to its members, but to itself.

They all seem to create problems only when the parameters or definitions involved apply (refer) back to the origin.

Similarly, the paradox of the OP is problematic only when the lifting of the rock is referred back to the all-powerful creator - i.e. 'He' is the one doing the lifting.

Excellent summation.

Thank you. I used to think that these paradoxes were silly and meaningless. I would note, however, that logicians like Russell and Tarski, as well as philosophers like Kant,Plato, Aristotle - and I guess all the way back to Zeno - spend a lot of time trying to tackle them.

Thanks Wyman for sharing these paradoxes and explaining them so simply.