From: fc03@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (Frederick W. Chapman)
Newsgroups: sci.math
Subject: Re: Proof of God's Existence
Date: 4 Sep 92 01:45:19 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University

In article <1992Sep1.213206.18901@griffin.itc.gu.edu.au>, jchen@tomahawk.me.gu.edu.au (Jinghong CHEN) writes:

[...]

>Proof of God's inexistence:
>God can do anything.
>So he can make a stone which he cannot lift.
>So he cannot lift that stone.
>So "God can do anything" is wrong.

Well, if God is going to create a stone so heavy that He cannot lift
it, He better decide BEFOREHAND where He wants to put it (so that He
doesn't create a never-ending Clash in the Cosmic Decor).  By the way,
if God can do ANYTHING, then he can defy Aristotelian logic; i.e., He
can lift a stone that He cannot lift.  AND, He can create "the set of
all sets that do not contain themselves" -- out of pipe cleaners!

Yes indeed, folks, it looks like the immovable objection has finally
met the irresistable farce.  :-)

...........................................................................

Kidding aside, I think the "Can God make a stone so heavy that He
can't lift it?"  question is just a variation on the "What happens
when an immovable object meets an irresistable force?" paradox.  It's
more to the point to ask "Can God create that which cannot exist?" or
"Can God do that which cannot be done?"

Actually, to show that God CANNOT do everything, one need look no
further than to theology itself; that God has certain limitations is
an important article of faith in some religions (e.g., Christianity).
For example, from the notion of the intrinsic moral purity of God, it
follows that God is incapable of committing evil.  So there you have
it, direct from the theologian's mouth -- something that God cannot
do.  In fact, according to (Christian) theology, there are lot's of
things God cannot do: God cannot lie, cannot break His promises,
cannot fail to exact justice, cannot contradict Himself, and cannot
alter His own essential characteristics.

When theologians speak of God's omnipotence, they do not mean that God
can do ANYTHING WHATSOEVER, but that God can do anything that is
LOGICALLY CONSISTENT WITH HIS OTHER INTRINSIC QUALITIES (e.g.,
righteousness, truthfulness, faithfulness, justness, self-consistency,
constancy, etc.) and CONSISTENT WITH LOGIC ITSELF (but not necessarily
consistent with the laws of the physical universe as we understand
them; i.e., God CAN manifest Himself via miracles).  It seems to me
that logical consistency is essentially an article of faith and serves
to define what we mean by "omnipotence"; i.e., logical consistency is
really an axiom of this theological belief system, and helps us
delimit our understanding of the scope of God's abilities by ruling
out paradoxes such as those posed above.

The notion of unqualified omnipotence clearly -- and necessarily --
results in paradoxes, but no theologian uses omnipotence in this
sense; certain qualifications to the meaning of "omnipotence" are
tacitly assumed, as described above.  "Unqualified omnipotence" is not
a well-formed concept -- in the same way that the "set of all sets
that do not contain themselves" is not a well-formed concept.  (I have
a funny feeling that the two are related in some way, but I can't
quite make the connection precise.)

And now, back to our regularly scheduled silliness.

...........................................................................

"I can't change the laws of physics!"
  -Lt. Commander Montgomery Scott (Chief Engineer, Starship Enterprise)

"I can."
  -God (Chief Architect, the Universe)

...........................................................................

ASCII VERSION OF A FAMOUS RELIGIOUS PAINTING:


   ##              #
  #               ###
 #                 #
 #       #####
 #                 #
  #               ###
   ##              #

##
  ##
    ##
      ##
        ##
          ##
             o
              \
           :-) + -- < ==
                \


For extra credit:

1) What is the name of this painting?
2) Who painted the painting?
3) Is the man in the painting facing the proper direction?

-- 

o ------------------------------------------------------------------------- o
|  Frederick W. Chapman, User Services, Computing Center, Lehigh University |
|    Campus Phone:  8-3218     Preferred E-mail Address:  fc03@Lehigh.Edu   | 
|         "The day after yesterday is the second-to-last day before         |
|               the rest of your life the day after tomorrow."              |
o ------------------------------------------------------------------------- o
Newsgroups: sci.math