the paradox of the stone

[xlxlauraxlx]

I was just wondering how people combat the argument of the 'paradox of the stone' in the debate of God's existance.

This is the one in which it is asked whether God can create a stone so heavy that even he cannot lift it. Because if he cannot create the stone then he cannot be all powerful, but equally if he can create but is not able to lift it then once again he is not all powerful.

I do believe in God. I just wondered what you thought of this argument and how you would explain it.

I know you guys probably think this is a simple question but if you want to take the time to explain it to me then please do. I have a few ideas which make sense in my head but do not really make sense on paper! If you know what i mean. Anyway yeah...

[Chester]

It's a silly argument, "the paradox of the stone" because, first of all, the universe doesn't blow apart if we assume a God who cannot do the logically impossible. I imagine He cannot make a square circle, either. So what?

Aside from that, one could argue that, far from showing a limited God, the paradox actually shows His infinite power. He makes a heavy stone. It's not heavy enough that He cannot lift it, so he makes a heavier stone. It's not heavy enough either, and so He makes an even heavier stone, and on and on ad infinitum. His power becomes showcased as boundless.

But even aside from that, try to stop thinking of God anthropomorphically for just a second. Try to stop ascribing human characteristics to the ineffable, the ultimate, the Creator of all that is. It's a ridiculously silly exercise and it has always seemed to me that the most that is shown, with the "paradox of the stone," is our limitations.

[JBI]

It is a mere sophism. All major thinkers do not value this argument, and simply dismiss it as a want-to-be-clever paradox. If god is all powerful, logically he is beyond logic, and can naturally figure out a way to solve the problem. How about that one?

Either way, it proves or disproves nothing. All those sophisms shot out by Dawkins, Hitchens, and their like these days seem to simply be refurbished real arguments used by real thinkers. They know nothing beyond a grade 10 level when it comes to these things, and anyone who credits this paradox as a proof is a fool.

A better argument is to ask where the proof of it is, and once the texts are devalued, an even better argument is to ask, "even if god exists, how can I truly know what to do and what not to do, and if he is omniscient, then everything I do is what he desires, therefore how can I go wrong."

If god, knowing everything created time that would make you do everything in a certain way, naturally he wanted you to do it. So in other words, if anything bad happens to you or anyone else, god is to blame. If your mother dies by being hit by a car, god. If someone you love gets cancer, god. If someone you hate wins the lottery, god. If someone you know gets raped, god.

It gets even better. If god exists, according to Christianity, he foresaw everything that he would do, so by creating the devil, he purposely brought sin into the world, and damned a large part of the population to eternal suffering in hell.

These are partly my own arguments, but you can clearly see they are better than this rock argument.

Either way, the sophists had it right, you cannot prove or disprove the existence of god (gods). You can only disprove specific gods. And even then by means of rhetoric, not fact.

[johann cruyff]

Either way, the sophists had it right, you cannot prove or disprove the existence of god (gods). You can only disprove specific gods. And even then by means of rhetoric, not fact.

Religion is based on the fact that God's existence can't be confuted,because He is shielded by the idea of our supposed lack of ability to comprehend - but that's the wrong way of going about it - for it to be a valid argument it has to be possible to prove something,and not cling to the idea that it's impossible to disprove it.Therefore,God is an illogical concept in the first place.

[Wintermute]

Either way, it proves or disproves nothing. All those sophisms shot out by Dawkins, Hitchens, and their like these days seem to simply be refurbished real arguments used by real thinkers. They know nothing beyond a grade 10 level when it comes to these things. . .

It strikes me as funny that we all seem to know more than the other person. And it reinforces my agnosticism. Personally I think Hitchens does a marvelous job explaining how man-made religions poison everything.

I do agree that there are more important questions that need to be answered than the rock paradox. Where did God come from (or who is Jesus' granddaddy) would be one. Or, specifically, what is heaven like--do we remember our friends and family from our time on earth? If this is so, and some of our loved ones don't make it to heaven, how can we be happy?

Peace,
Doug