Travis Calvert

Username: Additional_Goose_556

​

Redditor: Redditor2

​

Subreddit: DebateAnAtheist

​

​

------------------------------------------------------------

Preface: I discuss shortcomings of the popular theological "stone argument" with one if its supporting Redditors.

​

​

​

------------------------------------------------------------

Redditor2:

The stone argument. This argument debunks any omnipotent gods

​

Can god create a stone he cannot lift

​

Yes- he is not omnipotent because he is unable to lift the stone

​

No- he is not omnipotent because he cannot create the stone

​

He just wouldn’t do it- the question is can he or can’t he, not will he or won’t he; this answer also implies that he could make the stone, which leads down the answer of yes

​

There is no way for any omnipotent god to “outlogic” this argument and despite being thousands of years old, is one of the best arguments for debunking gods, but I almost never hear it

​

​

------------------------------------------------------------

Additional_Goose_556:

The stone argument. This argument debunks any omnipotent gods

​

How do you define "omnipotence" here?

​

​

------------------------------------------------------------

Redditor2:

Dictionary definition of being able to do anything with unlimited power

​

​

------------------------------------------------------------

Additional_Goose_556:

Dictionary definition of being able to do anything with unlimited power

​

Thank you for the definition. In light of the stone argument, I will throw a stone of my own.

​

You say that this argument debunks all omnipotent gods, but it doesn't debunk the logical omnipotent God.

​

Without logic, of course omnipotence would be an illogical attribute. Then God would be able to be not God, which would mean He was never God to begin with. So omnipotence without logic is stupid.

​

But with logic, it is a logical attribute. He is able to use His infinite power to do anything in accordance with logic.

​

Since your stone would be unmovable, it would require absence of omnipotence in order to exist. If the premise is that omnipotence exists, then what follows is logical impossibility for the stone to exist. God cannot create a stone that He cannot lift, precisely because He is God.

​

The stone argument is no threat to the God of logic and all power. It amounts to, "God cannot be non-God, therefore God doesn't exist". But God cannot be non-God precisely because He is God. It doesn't disprove His existence, but it disproves foolish ideas of illogically omnipotent gods.

​

Consider the focus of your argument further. Omnipotence is not subject to gravity. God doesn't lift objects as if there is some sort of struggle to overcome a downward force. He simply moves objects and controls all resistance including downward forces.

​

Can you correct me?

​

​

------------------------------------------------------------

Redditor2:

I’d like to give an answer, but I’m sorry to say i didn’t understand much of your argument;although, it sounds as though it holds some merit. Would you mind dumbing it down for me?

​

​

------------------------------------------------------------

Additional_Goose_556:

I’d like to give an answer, but I’m sorry to say i didn’t understand much of your argument;although, it sounds as though it holds some merit. Would you mind dumbing it down for me?

​

Yes, I appreciate your cordial demeanor.

​

I'm a Christian. I'm affirming that God is all power, and He can do anything in accordance with logic. We can call this 'logical omnipotence'.

​

My point is that the stone argument doesn't address my God, because the focus of the stone argument is to debunk ideas of illogical gods.

​

That is, the stone argument amounts to, "God can do anything, even apart from logic. If He can be non-God, then He is not God. But if he cannot be non-God, then there is something He cannot do. Therefore, He must not exist".

​

It uses logic to disprove an illogical god, but does not use logic to disprove the logical God. It only attacks the idea of a god who can do things that are even apart from logic.

​

But God isn't apart from logic, logic is an attribute of His. The premise of the stone argument doesn't address my God.

​

​

------------------------------------------------------------

Redditor2:

I think I understand. You are saying that since the Christian god has not only created the logic we understand, but is logic itself and therefore should be able to manipulate it because if he couldn’t, that would be ungod-like, as he should be able to anything. But if this is true, then it debunks Yahweh anyway. Yahweh has said that he does not change his mind (I’m not sure, but this may have been said when he was angry at a king for not slaughtering all of the animals in certain kingdom all at once), my point being, if Yahweh were to bend logic as we know it, he would have to change his mind about the way logic is built. So even if he could debunk my argument, he would debunk himself in the process. If you say that this is irrelevant because different dimensions he has created (Hell) have different laws of logic, and would debunk me in a place where logic works to his advantage, I could change the argument to “could god create a stone he could not lift while in our dimension.”

​

​

------------------------------------------------------------

Additional_Goose_556:

I think I understand. You are saying that since the Christian god has not only created the logic we understand, but is logic itself and therefore should be able to manipulate it because if he couldn’t, that would be ungod-like, as he should be able to anything. But if this is true...

 

No, that is not what I am saying. Where did you see that I said God should be able to manipulate logic?

​

Consider three basic laws of logic: law of identity, law of contradiction, and law of excluded middle.

​

That is, respectively, A equals A, A does not equal non-A, and something either equals A or non-A, not both nor neither.

​

These laws are attributes of God, thus the stone argument doesn't address nor debunk Him, and God cannot change nor bend these laws (logic), thus your most recent argument doesn't address nor debunk Him either.

​

If He could change or bend the laws of logic, then He would not be Himself, since logic is an attribute of Himself. Like the stone, it is a logical impossibility.

​

​

------------------------------------------------------------

Redditor2:

Then are you saying the og argument is wrong because Yahweh is logical and would not do something that would prove him to be illogical? If that is the case then your answer would be “he just would not do it” which was explained why it also disproves omnipotent gods. If this is not what you meant, I’m sorry for misunderstanding your argument; I am not strawmanning

​

​

------------------------------------------------------------

Additional_Goose_556:

Then are you saying the og argument is wrong because Yahweh is logical and would not do something that would prove him to be illogical? If that is the case...

 

You ignored me. Do you not want to answer my question?

​

That is, "where did you see that I said God should be able to manipulate logic?"

​

​

------------------------------------------------------------

Redditor2:

“It uses logic to disprove an illogical god, but does not use logic to disprove the logical God. It only attacks the idea of a god who can do things that are even apart from logic.

​

But God isn't apart from logic, logic is an attribute of His. The premise of the stone argument doesn't address my God.”

​

I thought this was implying Yahweh could manipulate logic and therefore this argument was irrelevant. I didn’t answer your question before because I thought it was rhetorical

​

​

------------------------------------------------------------

Additional_Goose_556:

“It uses logic to disprove an illogical god, but does not use logic to disprove the logical God. It only attacks the idea of a god who can do things that are even apart from logic.

​

But God isn't apart from logic, logic is an attribute of His. The premise of the stone argument doesn't address my God.”

​

I thought this was implying Yahweh could manipulate logic and therefore this argument was irrelevant. I didn’t answer your question before because I thought it was rhetorical

 

I see. Thank you for answering.

​

You asked:

​

Then are you saying the og argument is wrong because Yahweh is logical and would not do something that would prove him to be illogical?

​

No, that isn't what I'm saying.

​

I said, "God cannot create a stone that He cannot lift precisely because He is god".

​

This clearly points to your second example, but I have made a case on how it doesn't debunk my God.

​

Do you think the stone argument debunks the God that can do anything according to logic?

​

​

------------------------------------------------------------

[Redditor2 left the chat]

​

​

------------------------------------------------------------

Previous: [001] Hammering Uncertainty

 

Next: [003] Empty Accusation of Meaninglessness

​

Enter: Additional Writings