The burrito problem

[KEvb0]

burrito - A flour tortilla wrapped around a filling, as of beef, beans, or cheese.

Could God make a burrito so hot that he could not eat it?
This is one of the fundamental problems with omnipotence and absolute power.


ok so it's really the problem of the stone, but Homer Simpson said it better...

Logic follows that God is not omnipotent from this argument.

If God can create the burrito, than he cannot eat it so he is not omnipotent.

If God cannot create the burrito, than he is not omnipotent by default.

Both hinge on the fact that there is something he cannot do.

Kevb0 on the other hand has created such a burrito.
I chewed it quickly but was still burned. So yes, my power is limited...

[Yaw]

Adrian Barnett, who has an atheist website, has an excellent response to this little dilemma. What you might find surprising is that he argues against it. As a little teaser...

Superficially, this seems like a pretty damning argument against the existence of God, who is invariably described as omnipotent - nothing is beyond his power.

Nothing, that is, except the logically impossible. And I think that is where this argument falls down. It is asking whether or not God can do the logically impossible, which is a totally meaningless question, and therefore of no use one way or another.

[KEvb0]

I dunno, I take it that the whole point of the argument is to show that there is a limitation to God. I don't see why testing omnipotence should be limited to the logically possible when the idea of God in itself is ridiculous and baseless. Is the ability to go to heaven after you die logically possible? Barnett would be assuming that the idea of a 4 sided triangle is more fantastic than that of a place where souls go after a human body dies, when there is no evidence whatsoever that this is possible or logical.

[tamara]

Adrian makes a good case. I have heard that there are a few theists (some Chassid sects) who do believe that God can do the logically impossible, and I imagine they cop the "it's a mystery" plea.

Myself, I believe that God is bound by the laws of her creation... once logic is created, then God is bound by it too. Does that mean that God is not omnipotent? If omnipotence is defined as snapping one's fingers and being able to do anything imagination conjures, then no, in that sense God is not omnipotent.

Which does not make it an argument against God's existence. It is a discussion of the various possible attributes of God.

[Maverick]

It is interesting to take note of the following from the same page that Yaw quoted:

Adrian Barnett

[ Note: One possible objection to this line of reasoning is "God is not bound by the rules of logic, as he created logic, therefore he can do the logically impossible as they are only logically impossible from our point of view". If this were the case, however, it would seem to be impossible for anyone to ever know anything about God at all, or attempt to understand him using reason and logic.

In this short note, Adrian seems to invalidate his conclusion that the rock question is meaningless. Theists often claim that God can do that which is logically impossible. But when faced with a question where the logical impossibility proposes a limitation to God's power - theists will often use Adrian's line of reasoning and claim that God cannot do the logically impossible.

But believers can't have it both ways: either God can do the logically impossible or he cannot. Which one is it?

[tamara]

Theists often claim that God can do that which is logically impossible.

In my experience, this is not true. They claim that God can do naturally impossible things, but most will say that God cannot create a married bachelor.

[Maverick]

tamara said:

In my experience, this is not true. They claim that God can do naturally impossible things, but most will say that God cannot create a married bachelor.

How often, in your experience, have you asked other theists whether he can create a married bachelor (or perform another logical impossibility)?

I suspect that, if asked, most theists would say that God is the source of logic. But if God is the source of logic, how can he be bound by its rules?

[tamara]

Well, actually, I asked someone again only a week or so ago. He seems a staunch Clavinist. He too admitted that God cannot create a married bachelor.

I've been talking with other theists for many years now, and never have I met anyone who takes the opposite view.

I think some would say that once God chose to be limited by logic once it was created. Others would argue that God cannot do logical impossibilities because they are not there to do. They are non-existent. I think both arguments have merit.

[Yaw]

On looking back at this, I think Adrian's wording is off a touch. What he should have said is that there is a question about whether or not God can do the logically incoherent, rather than the logically impossible. To explain...

KEvb0

Barnett would be assuming that the idea of a 4 sided triangle is more fantastic than that of a place where souls go after a human body dies, when there is no evidence whatsoever that this is possible or logical.

The essential difference here is that a 4-sided triangle is not a logically coherent concept. It is self-contradictory. Heaven/Hell are not concepts consistent with our physical understanding of the world, but they are at least logically coherent concepts. You actually need to expend some intelligence to debunk them by comparing them to our concepts of morality, physics, etc. The reason heaven/hell don't make sense isn't self-evident from their definition.

Adrian Barnett

Note: One possible objection to this line of reasoning is "God is not bound by the rules of logic, as he created logic, therefore he can do the logically impossible as they are only logically impossible from our point of view". If this were the case, however, it would seem to be impossible for anyone to ever know anything about God at all, or attempt to understand him using reason and logic.

Maverick

In this short note, Adrian seems to invalidate his conclusion that the rock question is meaningless. Theists often claim that God can do that which is logically impossible. But when faced with a question where the logical impossibility proposes a limitation to God's power - theists will often use Adrian's line of reasoning and claim that God cannot do the logically impossible.

Again, I think my clarification applies. Theists don't claim that God can do the logically coherent. Any that actually do, of course, are subject to the conclusion that then it would be impossible to know anything about God, but that is contingent on accepting God's ability to do the logically incoherent.

At any rate, there are much better arguments regarding God's existence or lack thereof than this one. At least the other arguments claim to use logic. This one has always seemed rather goofy.

[pieisgood]

Can someone please explain to me why those are similar arguments? It seems like the "married bachelor" can't happen because of the way we define bachelor. He can't create one because our defenition; not our logic; of bachelor doesn't size up, just like the 4 sided triangle. Those are problems with definitions, but the burrito is indeed a problem of logic. (By defenition, what's wrong with a really hot burrito?) So KEvb0, you have proved a point that god cannot do the logically imposible; which does mean that he's not 100% omnipotent.

-pieisgood

PS: HAPPY NEW YEAR, EVERYBODY!!!

[Anarchat]

Let us not forget that there are two types of paradoxes. The first kind is the type that appears to be contradictory or absurd at first, but end up being true. Take the old proverb "We must sometimes be cruel in order to be kind" as an example.

The second type of paradox is the type that is truely contradictory, but follows from logically sound premises. The burrito question is of this second type. It is a contradiction that cannot logically be true (since a consequence of formal logic is that a proposition can't be both true and false at the same time). So there's really only two answers to this question. The first is that God cannot exist (or at least not as defined). The second answer is to say that the question is not meaningful(which is what the theists would say by stating that God can accomplish the illogical and the impossible).

With the Christian (and Jewish and Islamic) God, there isn't a lot of grey with this question. And no matter how easily theists dismiss this question, I think it's important to at least give some thought to it as an exercise in logic.

My only problem with the site linked above is that it still appears to be contradictory. After all, for the actions of God to fall within the logically possible is still to limit the power of something that should be omnipotent. This may just be a problem with definition not agreeing with formal logic (the way Christians and the Bible implicitly define God - omnipotence, miracles and divine intervention, etc...) or something. I don't know. Mostly I agree with the conclusion that it's not a very meaningful question.

[pieisgood]

"Nothing, that is, except the logically impossible."

this hit me randomly in school today.

wait, God can't do the logically impossible. You mean, like... someone born of a virgin?

[Jewel]

Mmmm, burritos... Of course, they make my husband gassy & it's impossible to be around him at that point. So I'm not sure burritos are for ALL of us. Either that, or I'm putting some Beano in his burrito...

JM