When I was 2nd year into my highschool the class I was in had a new math teacher. On the class where she introduced herself, she also described an argument about how God isn't omnipotent. She said, "Can God create a rock so heavy that He Himself cannot lift? If He could, then He couldn't lift that rock He created; if He couldn't, then He couldn't perform that particular creation; either way, He's not omnipotent." I said that the argument is invalid because she can't just introduce the concept of God not being omnipotent back into the argument like that.

# God is omnipotent
F1:  forall A: thing, CanDo(God, A)
# Logically exists the creation of a certain rock that renders God not omnipotent
F2:  exists X: thing, [ CanDo(God, X) --> exists Y: thing, NOT CanDo(God, Y) ]

F2:  exists X: thing, [ CanDo(God, X) --> exists Y: thing, NOT CanDo(God, Y) ]
    {{ definition of implication: A --> B ==> NOT A OR B }}
exists X: thing, [ NOT CanDo(God, X) OR exists Y: thing, NOT CanDo(God, Y) ]
    {{ conversion of `exists`: exists A, NOT P(A) ==> NOT forall A, P(A) }}
exists X: thing, [ NOT CanDo(God, X) OR NOT forall Y: thing, CanDo(God, Y) ]
    {{ distribution: NOT A OR NOT B ==> NOT (A AND B) }}
exists X: thing, [ NOT [ CanDo(God, X) AND forall Y: thing, CanDo(God, Y) ] ]
    {{ conversion of `exists`: exists A, NOT P(A) ==> NOT forall A, P(A) }}
NOT forall X: thing, [ CanDo(God, X) AND forall Y: thing, CanDo(God, Y) ]
    {{ distribution of forall: forall A, P(A) AND Q(A) ==> forall A, P(A) AND forall A, Q(A) }}
NOT [ forall X: thing, CanDo(God, X) AND forall (X: thing; Y: thing), CanDo(God, Y) ]
    {{ remove unused quantification }}
NOT [ forall X: thing, CanDo(God, X) AND forall (Y: thing), CanDo(God, Y) ]
    {{ alpha-conversion }}
NOT [ forall A: thing, CanDo(God, A) AND forall (A: thing), CanDo(God, A) ]
    {{ tautology: A AND A ==> A }}
NOT [ forall A: thing, CanDo(God, A) ]

F1 and F2 thus contradicts.

I couldn't convince her since I did not quite understand what exactly was the problem back then, but note that this (logically fallible) argument has been very widespread, so there are things about this that everybody should be vigilant about; especially the casual inclusion of the contradicting statement in the disguise of an assumption, which is exceptionally vile.

We Become What We Behold is a short browser game developed by Nicky Case. In this game, you play the role of a photographer for a certain media; to bring more people to consume from your media outlet, you opt for taking pictures that incite fear and hate, which eventually plunges the whole society into a sea of hatred. Throughout the years since the publishing of the game, it has always been lauded as a "deep" and "thought-provoking" piece. The problem is, there wasn't anything deep about the game, and the game explored nothing. Why? Because it is simply a propaganda piece. Why is it a propaganda piece? Because in this game, you're soft-prohibited from not intentionally inciting hate: unless you take pictures of hate and social discomfort, the game refuses to proceed. Propaganda for what? For the opinion (or "narrative", should you decide to be more unforgiving) the author wishes to push upon the game's recipients. I'm glad that someone shares the same sentiment as me when I was looking for possibly-existing criticisms for the game:

Eh, the narrative they try to force on you is that the media ("big media" and social media alike) shape the story through bias. This game seems to only drive home one side of that point. That the current media thrives on violence and getting people riled up. You have no freedom to shape the story differently. For instance, if I wanted to get everyone mad at each other then start taking pics of people getting along, I could start shaping the news as such.

I get what the creator was going for on this one but I feel the message could be put out while still providing a more interesting game.

People must understand that any game that's not a simulation of neutral, abstract models is inherently telling a story in the way its creators intend people to listen in. This is not a criticism of the game's creator or her intentions; it's just that I believe it's vital to point out that by pushing this one opinion the game itself has in a way become the very thing it was meant to advocate against: has it ever occurred to the game's author that the fact that by telling people they were blinded by the media's deliberate action the game has also been deliberately blinding its players (since the game itself, too, was a piece of media) is an irony in and of itself?

Back

Last update: 2025.1.10