Instigator / Con
35
1574
rating
10
debates
80.0%
won
Topic
#378
Can The Judeo-Christian God Create a Stone That Is Too Heavy For Him to Lift?
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
After 5 votes and with 19 points ahead, the winner is...
PsychometricBrain
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 3
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Max argument characters
- 5,000
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Pro
16
1387
rating
34
debates
22.06%
won
Description
Pro is going to argue that the Judeo-Christian God can create a stone that is too heavy for Him to lift, whereas Con is going to argue against this resolution.
Round 1
Argument 1 – Misunderstanding
of God’s omnipotence:
God’s perfect nature (or as St. Anselm said: “God is a being than which nothing greater can be conceived.”) implies that God is, in fact, very
limited; God is not able to sin as his perfect nature entails moral perfection,
God can not create a being that is greater than himself as he is by definition
the greatest possible being and God can not have a false belief as that would
contradict his nature (being omniscient). God is furthermore limited by his own
perfect rationality, he can only ever carry out the most rational action. This
does however not imply that God is limited in any significant way, his
omnipotence is expressed in the fact that he can do whatever he wants to do,
God is only limited by his own nature, this is referred to as “divine self-limitation”
and is supported by biblical evidence such as:
“So God has given both his promise and his oath. These two things are unchangeable because it is impossible for God to lie. Therefore, we who have fled to him for refuge can have great confidence as we hold to the hope that lies before us.”-(Hebrews 6:13)
God can not lie as this goes against his nature of being the
greatest/most perfect being there is which entails moral perfection and
therefore perfect honesty.
“For example, there was God's promise to Abraham. Since there was no one greater to swear by, God took an oath in his own name, saying:” (Hebrews 6:18)
God can not swear by a being greater than Himself. This is
because he is the greatest being and it would be logically impossible for there
to be a greater being than God that God could swear by.
Argument 2 – Argument
from self-contradiction:
Logical paradoxes do not actually describe anything possible
and therefore do not describe anything at all. To argue that God can create a
square circle does not make any sense as there is nothing that corresponds to a
square circle. Suppose that our assumption about the health of your cat led us
to the conclusion that our cat was going to die next week but at the same time
it led us to the conclusion that our cat was not going to die next week, then
obviously we would conclude that our assumptions are flawed. In the same way,
if there is a logical inconsistency in a concept such as a square circle, we
have to reject it from the start as it implies an absurdity. Talking about a
stone that an omnipotent being can not lift implies an absurdity and therefore
does not actually describe anything which leads us to the conclusion that,
while an omnipotent being could not create a stone that an omnipotent being
could not lift, an omnipotent being would not lack any power regardless as the
power to create a stone that could not be lifted by an omnipotent being does
not describe any actual power.
Conclusion:
“Nonsense is still nonsense even when we speak it about God.” –C.S Lewis
Therefore, one can and must, in fact, reject the possibility
of an omnipotent being creating a stone that can not be lifted by an omnipotent
being, as it is inherently self-contradictory and therefore does not actually
describe a possible power and furthermore, the rejection of this does not
question the omnipotence of the Judeo-Christian God as “He” is still able to
perform any action that he wants to perform and is not limited by any external
source.
Pro will have to establish how an omnipotent being could create
a stone that could not be lifted by an omnipotent being.
Sources:
Argument 1: God can not lie so all he has to do is say he will no longer lift a rock he created and boom the rock is unliftable .
Argument 2: God can put himself in human for like he did with Jesus and all of a sudden he is weaker and can't lift really huge things.
I thank my opponent for the concession that follows
Round 2
Rebuttals:
My opponents kritik is disappointing and does not actually address the debate title:
"Can The Judeo-Christian God Create a Stone That Is Too Heavy For Him to Lift?"
If argument 1 was sound it would only lead to the conclusion that God would never lift the stone, it would not lead to the conclusion that the stone would be "too heavy" for Him to lift.
If argument 2 was sound it would only lead to the conclusion that if God in the form of a human could not lift the stone, it would not lead to the conclusion that it would be "too heavy" for Him to lift, as it would not be "too heavy" while God was not in human form.
Furthermore, both argument 1 and argument 2 are questionable as God can only ever carry out the most rational action (see my Round 1, Argument 1) and I fail to see a scenario where it'd be the most rational action for God to say that he would never lift the stone...
Additionally, Con's assumption that a stone would be too heavy to lift for God while God is in human form seems unjustified, as Jesus did many things that are not possible for "normal" humans, such as turning water into wine (John 2), walking on water (Mark 6; Matthew 14; John 6), resurrecting the dead (John 11; Luke 7).
All of my arguments from round 1 still stand and my opponent has thus far failed to address the debate resolution and showed poor conduct.
Forfeited
Round 3
My round 1 arguments still stand and my opponent has not made any relevant arguments regarding the debate resolution so far. Should my opponent choose to expand his arguments next round, I would like his forfeit to not be taken into account while voting.
If argument 1 was sound it would only lead to the conclusion that God would never lift the stone, it would not lead to the conclusion that the stone would be "too heavy" for Him to lift.
This is incorrect. In round one my opponent states the following.
“So God has given both his promise and his oath. These two things are unchangeable because it is impossible for God to lie.
If it is impossible for God to lie, than it is impossible for him to lift the stone once he says he can't lift. My opponent's argument is not that "GOD DOESN't LIE" It is that "IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR GOD TO LIE"
What my opponent is doing is moving the goal posts. Just alter it to God saying "After this point I can no longer lift this 1 million pound rock because it is too heavy".
My opponent made an error when saying God can't lie. Award the win to Wylted thanks
"What is gravity"
An attractive force caused by mass distorting space.
"2) What is air resistance?"
Drag forces acting opposite to oncoming flow velocity.
Sorry, i'm not being difficult or avoiding your questioning. I'm actually trying to make sure I understand your questions. And I will also be asking more questions-- I don't like to assume, so I usually like to ask the opposition so I am sure what they intend.
I'm sorry. I'm actually going to have to ask you to clarify and explain your questions a bit more before I attempt to answer:
1) What is gravity?
2) What is air resistance?
It may sound trivial and elementary, but it's the basis for your questioning. So i want to make sure you and I are both on the same page when it comes to "gravity" and "air resistance".
"Are you asking if God can make such device outside this known physical universe or within this known physical universe?"
Within.
"God, being all powerful....wouldn't it be possible for an all-powerful being to make themselves susceptible to such laws"
When this all powerful being makes themselves susceptible to such laws do they relinquish their power to infinitely remain not susceptible to anything.?
Explain how that works.
Help me understand your question.
Are you asking if God can make such device outside this known physical universe or within this known physical universe?
If you answer "Outside this physical universe", then I'm not so sure laws of gravity and aerodynamics apply outside the uinverse.
If it's inside this physical universe, then a few more questions are in order:
- God, being all powerful....wouldn't it be possible for an all-powerful being to make themselves susceptible to such laws, even if only to make Him more relatable to mere mortals like you (and me)?
- Would this ability to make Himself susceptible to such laws (and also able to revert back to not being susceptible) make him any less powerful? Au contraire, I would say having this power to do that makes him very powerful.
But alas, your attempting to create a paradox, using your (or man's) definitions, and then asking an all-powerful being to go against those definitions.
That would be like me saying "I'm defining a triangle to be a shape with only 3 sides......Ok, God....make a triangle that has 4 sides"...Imagine this scenario:
Me: "A triangle has 3 sides, no more no less. God, if you are so powerful, you should be able to make a triangle that has 4 sides"
God: "Um, even if I did, you wouldn't believe me. Because your very definition says it must have 3 sides. So even if I presented this shape that has 4 sides that's a triangle, you'd counter with "Nope, it's impossible!"
Regarding quantum phsyics, how can God lift a quantum particle? I'll be the 1st to admit quantum physics isn't my strong point, so I don't even know if that is even a plausible or logical question. I'm hoping you're not asking the illogical, like "God, if you are so smart, please tell me what color the number 3 is?"
"1)There is nothing that God can't make."
Can god therefore make a device to help him fly?
Humans can.
God cannot fly either.
Being that god is superior to both gravity and air resistance, god cannot be susceptible to either force.
Well, that's what the power to fly is.
To admit that god could fly, would be to admit his utter submission to the laws of gravity and aerodynamics and that he needs to maneuver around them to travel distance in the air.
"2) There is nothing that God can't lift."
How does god lift a quantum particle?
Before the Stone Paradox can be debated/discussed, a few questions must be answered. It's always good to agree on terms before engaging in debate (I've debated folks who think grilling hot dogs is called "BBQ"....um, no...no it's not.)
1) How would both sides define "God"
2) - Does "all-powerful" or "all-mighty" mean it can do anything?
a) DOes "all-Powerful" still mean bound by the laws of logic?
If you say "Yes", then I would say if something all-powerful must be bound by the laws of logic, then does it make sense to even ask if something bound by the laws of logic can do something that defies logic, like build a stone that he can't lift....that's kind of like asking "Can a triangle can be made with only 2 sides?"
If you say "No", then I would say well then, if something can be all powerful AND not boudn by logic, then yes, it is conceivable that someting not bound by logic can do the illogical, like a build a stone even he can't lift, but still lift it. Don't ask me to defend that statement. Because, I, not being all-powerful AM bound by logic, and so I must use logic. Whereas the all-powerful that is not bound by logic can defy logic.
So, in short, the answer to the debate question is, like the question itself, two-fold:
1) There is nothing that God can't make
2) THere is nothing that God can't lift.
You pretty much confirm that by saying God is too much of a weakling to lie
vote deleted. You should be able to revote now
I believe your reasoning is flawed and every single argument you've made has been refuted during the course of this debate, if you would like to continue this debate with you arguing that God (a maximally great being) could say "After this point I can no longer lift this 1 million pound rock because it is too heavy" and that this would lead to God subsequently not being able to lift the rock as it is too heavy, I would be willing to have another debate about this.
If you have a specific objection to anything I said, please specify what you think is wrong. If you’re unable or unwilling to do that, I will assume you’re just butthurt.
Note: I accidentally scored this as a tie, this should have gone to con, and I’m waiting to correct the vote.
@Wylted please do, I'll follow it on my vote. :)
The voting on this site is horrendous. I'm going to create a voting guide for you guys
Your reasoning is flawed Wylted, God could say that he will not lift the stone, but it follows from argument 1 and argument 2 (see round 1) that it would be logically inconsistent for God to say that there is a stone that is too heavy for him to lift:
Argument 2 (see round 1): "Talking about a stone that an omnipotent being can not lift implies an absurdity..." As it is logically impossible for a stone to be too heavy for an omnipotent being to lift, it follows that it would be logically impossible for an omnipotent being to honestly say that there is a stone that is too heavy for the omnipotent being to lift, which only leaves the possibility that God would have to lie about the stone being too heavy for him to lift which is however also logically impossible (argument 1) as God's perfection entails moral perfection from which perfect honestly follows (also see the Bible verse where it is said that it is logically impossible for God to lie).
Cheers for the debate, Wylted
I'll get a vote in, honestly.
virtuous, I didn't have to try, I won based on semantics
I know you like religious debates. Please give your honest opinion
Trap arguments are lousy arguments.
This infamous trap.
https://debate.uvm.edu/NFL/rostrumlib/cxkbennett0496.pdf
My argument is almost a kritik, or is one if the resolution assumes an omnipotent God as omnipotence is defined by morons who know not the true origon of the word
"Given that God of OT is actually Satan and that Lucifer is Jesus and later on is Allah" I know you're Pagan, so you have a different belief system, but I would not consider this to be accurate.
"Kritik" Who is he?
Given that God of OT is actually Satan and that Lucifer is Jesus and later on is Allah, I completely agree with your Kritik here but that is not allowed in this debate as it forces OT and NT to have the same God among other things.
What if God is exaggerating about his power? If humans can exaggerate about their traits, why can't God?
I think it'd be hard to argue that the Judeo-Christian God is not almighty, he is referred to as the almighty God dozens of time in the Bible.
E.g. "And when Abram was ninety years old and nine, the Lord appeared to Abram, and said unto him, I am the Almighty God; walk before me, and be thou perfect." (Genesis 17:1)
"Even by the God of thy father, who shall help thee; and by the Almighty, who shall bless thee with blessings of heaven above, blessings of the deep that lieth under, blessings of the breasts, and of the womb:" (Genesis 49:25)
What if God is not all powerful?