Re: Microsoft and memcpy?

In article <u_6dnZDi4I9564zXnZ2dnUVZ8uCdnZ2d@xxxxxx>,
Richard Heathfield <rjh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Lewis's argument, very briefly, is that there is an important
distinction (and I'm not paraphrasing, more sort of paradescribing,
his argument) between "impossible for an X" and "intrinsically
impossible". Taking your rock thing, given sufficient cement and
the requisite skill I can make a "rock" so heavy that no human can
lift it. And then Smartalec the Builder comes along with his crane,
and lifts it easily. What is impossible for me is not impossible
for a man with a crane. Thus, what is "impossible for an X", for
various values of X, is not necessarily impossible for a Y (for
various values of Y), provided that it is not "intrinsically
impossible".

Intrinsic impossibility is simply a violation of logic. For example,
it is impossible for any entity, no matter how powerful,
simultaneously both to exist and not to exist. The fact that a
given, supposedly "omnipotent" entity cannot do this seems - and
*is* - contradictory unless we restrict the definition of the word
"omnipotence" to eliminate the reqwuirement to be able to do things
that are intrinsically impossible.

How does this distinction address the problem? Let me see if I
can make it out...

"X can make a rock that X cannot lift" is a perfectly reasonable
predicate that is true for some X and not for others. It's not an
"intrinsically impossibility". But when X is an omnipotent being, it
can be neither true nor false.

Presumably you (or Lewis) will prefer the alternative formulation
"X can make a rock that an omnipotent being cannot lift", and say
that this is an intrinsic impossibility, so it is not required for
an omnipotent being to be able to do it. Is that right?

If so, then Lewis could have come up with a much snappier answer.
"Can your god make a rock that he can't lift?" "No, omnipotence
doesn't cover that sort of thing."

-- Richard
--
Please remember to mention me / in tapes you leave behind.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: The logic of atheism
    ... totally relevant when you claim that god can't do X ... impossibility, something that an omnipotent being simply can't do. ... > Again with the meaningless statements. ...
    (talk.atheism)
  • Re: Petersons Death Sentence
    ... If God is omnipotent he can give up his omnipotence. ... that rock he gives up his power to lift it. ...
    (sci.electronics.design)
  • Re: Petersons Death Sentence
    ... If God is omnipotent he can give up his omnipotence. ... that rock he gives up his power to lift it. ...
    (comp.os.linux.networking)
  • Re: Microsoft and memcpy?
    ... "X can make a rock that an omnipotent being cannot lift", ... where superstition, religion, and similar stuff doesn't belong at ...
    (comp.lang.c)
  • Re: Microsoft and memcpy?
    ... It depends, believe it or not, on what you mean by "omnipotence". ... Can you make a rock so heavy you can't lift it? ... Intrinsic impossibility is simply a violation of logic. ...
    (comp.lang.c)