I'm not quite sure to make of all this. The discussion idea came from PMs sent between myself and Secularone over the debate between Arcanus and Saerules. I made a post somewhere on the forum about how the "rock fallacy" (The question "Can God create a rock so heavy he cannot lift it?") was a stupid argument, and Secularone wrote to me arguing how it was a valid question.
We decided quickly that it would be best to put this in some kind of public discussion.
What I expected was some kind of discussion about the argument, perhaps the concept of omnipotence, etc. Instead I find him arguing that omnipotence cannot possibly be the ability to do anything without exception (and I agree, as does any philosopher). I find him then giving an example and making a strawman of my argument, and then going on some unrelated mini-biography about his life as a Christian.
So the first chunk I can ignore; I agree with him completely. If an omnipotent being had the ability to do anything without exception, and we count a state of being in that set (since "to be" is an action), then this being must both exist and not exist, a blatant contradiction, since if it didn't exist it wouldn't have the power of omnipotence in the first place.
The third chunk I can also ignore; not entirely sure why it was even there, but hey.
The second, and unfortunately smaller chunk of his post says this:
In other words, for every action in the set of logically possible things, an omnipotent being can do them.
Secularone's hypothetical God is powerless; it cannot do anything. So when presented with action x of the set of logically possible things, it cannot do it. Since it cannot do every one of these actions, it cannot be omnipotent.
I think the mistake Secularone is making is trying to personify the set of logically possible things. The set of logically possible things does not change depending on who is trying to do them. It stays the same, according to logic alone. A human might be able to do many of the logically possible things in the set, but if it cannot do them all, it is not omnipotent.
Onto the rock fallacy. The question "Can God create a rock so heavy he cannot lift it" is an obvious loaded question. It poses two questions into one, in hopes that a person will answer the question as a whole rather than the two inner questions separately. The two inner questions are polar opposites of omnipotence (one in favour, one opposed) so that both a yes or a no answer to the loaded question negates one of the inner questions, allowing the questioner to claim victory.
The two inner questions are:
X) Can God create a rock?
Y) Can God fail at lifting that rock?
The possible answers to these two questions (asked together but as separate questions) are as follows:
X: Yes, Y: Yes - Contradiction of omnipotence (since God can fail at lifting the rock).
X: No, Y: No - Contradiction of omnipotence (since God can't create the rock).
X: Yes, Y: No - No contradiction of omnipotence. God can both create the rock and not fail at lifting it (i.e. he can lift it).
X: No, Y: Yes - Contradiction of omnipotence (since God can't create the rock).
You do not need to separate out the questions to see the loaded question fallacy either. The question relies on someone replying either "yes" or "no", as do many loaded questions. A common example is "Have you stopped beating your wife?", where either a "yes" or a "no" will incriminate you in some way to wife beating (either in the past or the present). However the question can easily be answered "I have never beaten my wife", revealing the loaded question.
Likewise with the rock fallacy, if someone asks "Can God create a rock so heavy he cannot lift it?", a possible answer is "God can always lift the rocks he creates", again, revealing the loaded question.
We decided quickly that it would be best to put this in some kind of public discussion.
What I expected was some kind of discussion about the argument, perhaps the concept of omnipotence, etc. Instead I find him arguing that omnipotence cannot possibly be the ability to do anything without exception (and I agree, as does any philosopher). I find him then giving an example and making a strawman of my argument, and then going on some unrelated mini-biography about his life as a Christian.
So the first chunk I can ignore; I agree with him completely. If an omnipotent being had the ability to do anything without exception, and we count a state of being in that set (since "to be" is an action), then this being must both exist and not exist, a blatant contradiction, since if it didn't exist it wouldn't have the power of omnipotence in the first place.
The third chunk I can also ignore; not entirely sure why it was even there, but hey.
The second, and unfortunately smaller chunk of his post says this:
Quote:Despite the fact that it is not logically possible for my god to do anything, I claim “omnipotence” as an atribute of my god by simply choosing to use Adrian’s definition, which is essentially the same as definition #1. “A deity is able to do anything that is logically possible for it to do.”Well no, that's not correct at all. My definition is completely different from the first definition given. My definition is perhaps more in line with the 3rd definition, that an omnipotent being can do anything within it's nature. Further, I say that omnipotence is the ability to do the logically possible.
In other words, for every action in the set of logically possible things, an omnipotent being can do them.
Secularone's hypothetical God is powerless; it cannot do anything. So when presented with action x of the set of logically possible things, it cannot do it. Since it cannot do every one of these actions, it cannot be omnipotent.
I think the mistake Secularone is making is trying to personify the set of logically possible things. The set of logically possible things does not change depending on who is trying to do them. It stays the same, according to logic alone. A human might be able to do many of the logically possible things in the set, but if it cannot do them all, it is not omnipotent.
Onto the rock fallacy. The question "Can God create a rock so heavy he cannot lift it" is an obvious loaded question. It poses two questions into one, in hopes that a person will answer the question as a whole rather than the two inner questions separately. The two inner questions are polar opposites of omnipotence (one in favour, one opposed) so that both a yes or a no answer to the loaded question negates one of the inner questions, allowing the questioner to claim victory.
The two inner questions are:
X) Can God create a rock?
Y) Can God fail at lifting that rock?
The possible answers to these two questions (asked together but as separate questions) are as follows:
X: Yes, Y: Yes - Contradiction of omnipotence (since God can fail at lifting the rock).
X: No, Y: No - Contradiction of omnipotence (since God can't create the rock).
X: Yes, Y: No - No contradiction of omnipotence. God can both create the rock and not fail at lifting it (i.e. he can lift it).
X: No, Y: Yes - Contradiction of omnipotence (since God can't create the rock).
You do not need to separate out the questions to see the loaded question fallacy either. The question relies on someone replying either "yes" or "no", as do many loaded questions. A common example is "Have you stopped beating your wife?", where either a "yes" or a "no" will incriminate you in some way to wife beating (either in the past or the present). However the question can easily be answered "I have never beaten my wife", revealing the loaded question.
Likewise with the rock fallacy, if someone asks "Can God create a rock so heavy he cannot lift it?", a possible answer is "God can always lift the rocks he creates", again, revealing the loaded question.
