Re: The God Paradox
- From: "John Jones" <jonescardiff@xxxxxxx>
- Date: 14 Jul 2006 12:45:30 -0700
indoarsman@xxxxxxxx wrote:
The God Paradox is stated as:
"Can God create a stone so heavy He can't lift it?"
It is postulated that God is omnipotent, so we deduce that He can: (1)
create a stone of any weight, (2) lift a stone of any weight, and, by
interpreting the paradoxical statement, (3) create a stone He cannot
lift.
But deductions 2 and 3 are logically inconsistent, since they suggest
that God is both able to lift a stone and not able to lift the same
stone.
Since we have an apparent logical paradox, let's examine the logical
structure of the paradoxical statement, which contains two propositions
(p1 . p2):
God can create a stone of any weight?
and
God can lift any stone He creates?
But the second proposition is presented negatively, so the statement
should be represented as (p1 . ~p2):
God can create a stone of any weight?
and
God can not lift any stone He creates?
From deduction 1, p1 is true, and from deduction 2 we further deducethat p2 is false, so we conclude that
p1 . ~p2 = F
without logical contradiction.
Indoarsman
This is an example of formalism being undermined by concept and idea.
We can immediately resolve this, before putting out to sea, by noting
that logic always uses familiar objects, if not conceptually, then
directly in the movements of its symbols.
The point is, is that for this example we have no familiar objects.
Logic cannot present the idea of a stone that cannot be lifted simply
because it is not one of our familiar objects. We simply do not know
what sort of thing we are referring to when we postulate that 'matter'
cannot be moved. This sort of 'matter' is simply matter by name only.
Quote source if used
.
- References:
- The God Paradox
- From: indoarsman
- The God Paradox
- Prev by Date: Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe
- Next by Date: Re: The God Paradox
- Previous by thread: The God Paradox
- Next by thread: Re: The God Paradox
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|