Definitions:
1. If X is omnipotent, for every infinitive verb S, X can S
Axioms:
2. There is some X that is omnipotent
Therefore:
3. Since X is omnipotent, X can (create a rock whose nature is that X cannot lift it)
- Hence X cannot lift such a rock
4. Since X is omnipotent, X can (lift such a rock)
5. This is a contradiction
6. Hence an axiom must be false
Conclusion:
7. There is no X that is omnipotent
8. (ie. God cannot be omnipotent)
Now this is all good, but all it shows is that this particular definition of omnipotence is useless, since nothing can actually be omnipotent. Most religions, I would say, are more likely to define omnipotence in a more reasonable way (like the lucid dreamer who is capable of anything in the context of a dream, or the computer programmer "omnipotent" in the context of a simulation).
So the Unliftable Rock argument is pretty useless really for proving that God doesn't exist, because it can easily be circumvented just by defining omnipotence in a way that excludes contradictory acts.
EDIT: Also, my browser double-posts every time I post something. Waahh, why...
|
|
Bookmarks