Originally Posted by
Kalovale
How do you defend the self-contradictory definition of a "stone heavier than can be lifted"? And to put things into perspective, these are the relevant arguments:
1. If God is omnipotent, then he can make object A
2. He cannot make object A
3. Therefore he is not omnipotent
Classic modus tollens.
Counterargument: Object A doesn't even make sense, so it doesn't make any sense to talk about God being capable of creating it. As such, the premise of the argument is flawed in the way that it can't be entertained sensibly, not in the way that it is factually false. The argument is thus scrapped.
Bookmarks