Trick question. This is not a true paradox, instead its a sneaky, multi-level bait-and-switch.
firstly, the 'paradox' invites you think in terms of logic, so lets re-write it in subject/predicate form:
The predicate won't work though. "create a stone h/s/i cannot carry" is completely arbitrary. You could replace it with almost anything and not change the question. How about: "...cook a burrito so hot even h/s/i could not eat it", or "...take a Polaroid that comes out fuzzy", or even "...create a shrub that is also a cow."
The real question is "Can an omnipotent God break the rules of logic?"
There. That makes things more clear.
So, in S/P form:
Subject: 'Omnipotent God'
Predicate: 'Can break the rules of logic.'
Conclusion: ?
One trick here is that you probably take it for granted that the paradox rests on the controversial concept of our 'omnipotent God.' This is probably a result of the unique Western cultural norms that hold that the existence and nature of god is the ultimate mystery of all time...but also completely a waste of time to try to 'prove,' one way or the other. Whatever your thoughts are about God, its very likely to be both a very personal, and very passionately held belief, so you are likely to answer the wrong question: 'is there a god?'
But this paradox-esque puzzle takes care of all those problems for you. In this context, the existence of an 'omnipotent God' is a given. H/S/I necessarily exists in the world referred to by the puzzle, regardless of how you may feel about the subject in the real world, where God may or may not necessarily exist. (Sorry, appeal to religious points of view are completely irrelevant.)
Nope, the 'paradox' is straight forward. The question is about the nature of logic. Like any science, when you call logic by name you're referring to one of two very different things:
1. Logic with a Big L: an undefined and idyllic, all-encompassing system, perfect in every way (which so far is beyond human understanding).
or 2. Logic with a little L: a set of beliefs held by certain people at certain times (which is subjective and personal).
In the long and tumultuous history of logic there are only two themes. Logic (little l) does not contradict itself in basic terms, and it can be understood by mankind, because mankind invents it. However, (Big L) Logic is a different story altogether. We can't even assume that it holds to either of these two tenants. To even discuss it in an abstract sense you'd have to design a conceptual model to refer to it with. What would it do? How would it function? What is there in the lexicon of human knowledge or theory that we could possibly use as even a metaphor to refer to it?
So, essentially, we know the subject, 'Omnipotent God' does exist by definition and non-contradiction. However, the distinction of logic is unclear, and both must be examined specifically.
I think the real issue is coming clear. Just to put the simple one to bed we'll work out the problem using logic with a little l. We'll just replace the word with the definition:
Can an omnipotent God break mankind's steadily improving conceptions of the ordering of the universe?
Yep, you bet.
Alright. Too easy? Replace God with 'this guy named Frank' and the question would still be fundamentally the same.
Can this guy named Frank break the steadily improving conceptions of the ordering of the universe?
Yep. You bet.
Aristotle did it, Galileo did it, Newton did it. Stephen Hawking did it just a little while ago. Its called the Advancement of Human Knowledge. No reason to rule out the possibility that Frank can't too.
Alright, now that we've ruled out all other possibilities, lets look at the ACTUAL problem
True, we could have jumped straight here by just saying that the inclusion of 'an omnipotent God' gives the concept of logic a transcendental quality it does not in reality posses.' But no one would have accepted that. If that was evident, no one, including myself, would waste any time on putting it in words.
but now that we're all here...
What about Frank and the all-encompassing system of logic? Well, I'm sorry. Even if you COULD imagine Frank being able to interact with a perfected and all-encompassing system that you can't by definition describe or even refer to, he probably wouldn't have much luck breaking its rules. But that's okay, because you would never have put him up to those standards.
But God...? When you discuss the omnipotent being in terms of logic, it is an automatic reaction to confuse the two logics, and substitute logic with a little l for the Big L logic. The mistake comes in when you forget the difference between Big L and little l logic. But this bias in not automatically evident. Why? I'll suggest two reasons, but I'm not a psychologist.
1. The other option is an easy answer, and is instinctually ignored because it is, as is so commonly stated, "too obvious."
2. The taboo inherent to the cultural context of the suggested paradox it too hard to pass up. You're pitting your personal beliefs against what is arguably the greatest standoff of all time--God vs. Science. Faith vs. Reason. How can you discuss that dispassionately?
So, we have the double mistake. We confuse Big L for little, and don't realize it because we're too preoccupied with the question of whether God exists.
No wonder its so controversial...
Alright, our final analysis...God goes up against logic with a Big L.
Um...What does that even mean? What is an all-encompassing system of truth proofing?
What would an omniscient being even DO with an all-encompassing system of truth proofing?
according to the definitions, Wouldn't tension between the two be completely redundant?
Can you see where this is headed? I could go on forever like this. (Actually, I had another page of the most ridiculous garbage but figured that even the most patient of readers would have slit my throat with Occam's Razor after what I was about to go into.
Anyway this is the multi-level bait and switch. First the question hits you, and than anyone seriously trying to analyses the problem hits you too. I'd say that more than half of this argument is logically sound, and the rest was for effect.
Alright. My real answer:
Well, it has no answer, we know that. but it is NOT a paradox. The trick relies on cultural taboo-breaking (picking God over science or vise/versa) and Western Pre-disposition (God's controversy is not controversial), and once you see that it has substituted human logic for the logic of reality, well...you're just talking to a wall at that point. Its just subjective nonsense, about wishful concepts we can only define by reference to how pallid our abilities seem when placed in 'their' world. The only response IS the fantastic.
Anyway, would love responses. This is my first posting, and I'm also writting a term paper utilizing the same argument for the same paradox. Wadda-ya think?
|
|
Posted by Paul
on 2004-04-13 15:30:27 |
A solution/critique
