Can God create a rock so big that he cannot lift it?

[otseng]

This question and other similar ones have been brought up, so I'm going to create a topic to address it.

This question has some other variations:
Could God create a universe in which He never has existed?
Is God almighty enough to do anything He wants including acts that violate his own character?
Can God create another God that is superior to himself?
Can God make a triangle that is round?

The atheists state that since God cannot do these things, therefore God is not all powerful and cannot exist.

However, the problem is not a lack of answers, but the validity of the questions. By asking a question that is inherently impossible, a valid answer cannot be reached. By starting off with an illogical question, you cannot deduce any logical conclusions.

Omnipotence is not the fact that he can do anything (including defying truths) but that he is all powerful within the limits of truth.

[cattious]

(Before I begin I would just like to note that I am an atheist((as none of you have seen me before)) and any references to God's actions are purely made under the assumption that there is a God, though there might not be such an entity.)

I have a friend who says she's god, just for the heck of it, and b'cause it amuses her and us. But when we confront her with the problem of the immovable rock, she says "Well, I could make a rock so big that I couldn't move it, but then I'd just move it." I thought that was worth noting.

And as for whether or not God plays by rules; If he does exist, I think that the rules he plays by are self-imposed ones. He doesn't have to play by them, but it makes things more interesting for him if he does. Or easier or something like that. I do the same thing, sort of. I don't exactly have a religion, and thus I'm not forced into choices except by laws. But I give myself my morals. For example, I try not to lust after things or people if I can. And I try to be as generous as I can. And I think God works the same way; nothing is controlling him, but he feels like he has to do certain things anyway.

[agnostic_pilgrim]

Can God create a rock so big that he cannot lift it?

om·nip·o·tence (m-np-tnt) adj.

having unlimited power



No he can't. This only shows that omnipotence is a self contradictory concept.

Knowing this, some theists tried redefining the term "omnipotence" to make it (somewhat) compatible with reason and logic.

If there is a god, he may be extremely powerful but not omnipotent.

[mrmufin]

The atheists state that since God cannot do these things, therefore God is not all powerful and cannot exist.

This atheist never made that assertion. I have no problem ruling out logical impossibilities from the set of actions that an all-powerful being should be capable of performing.

However, the problem is not a lack of answers, but the validity of the questions. By asking a question that is inherently impossible, a valid answer cannot be reached. By starting off with an illogical question, you cannot deduce any logical conclusions.

Once logical impossibilities are ruled out of the set of possible actions of an all-powerful deity, there are still plenty of actions left over.

Omnipotence is not the fact that he can do anything (including defying truths) but that he is all powerful within the limits of truth.

Would convincing skeptics of his existence in unambiguous terms involve defying truth? I don't think so.

Regards,
mrmufin

[using reason]

What many people here want to make as a central piece of the argument is that God cannot work outside of his nature, comparing him to a knife is rather strange.

God is not bound by the laws of the universe. He cannot be and still accomplish what is attributed to him. So, to claim that he is limited to rather silly.

Can God create a rock so big that even he cannot pick it up. Of course. and of course not. Again the argument falls back to does God exist? If he does, he can change the laws of physics whenever it suits him. If he does not exist, then the argument is moot.

[mrmufin]

What many people here want to make as a central piece of the argument is that God cannot work outside of his nature, comparing him to a knife is rather strange.

Nor can I work outside of my nature. The nature of anything --tarantulas, thorium decay, celestial mechanics, whatever-- is determined by observation. I can claim to understand the nature of the very lovely msmufin after many years of close observation, though some of Her actions still confound me. Without any observational data of msmufin, I would be rendered unqualified to comment on or corroborate claims about Her nature. Some skeptics might suggest that the gods have been a bit camera shy lately, making their nature difficult to evaluate.

Can God create a rock so big that even he cannot pick it up. Of course. and of course not. Again the argument falls back to does God exist?

Actually, I see the argument falling back to, "Could an omnipotent being perform logically impossible actions, e.g. create square circles, move immovable objects, etc.?" Personally, I don't think that omnipotence would necessarily imply the ability to perform logical impossibilities.

If he does, he can change the laws of physics whenever it suits him.

Some skeptics might suggest that the gods don't appear to have much interest in altering the laws of physics. Things like the consistency of the speed of light in a strong vacuum and the predictable effects of the Earth's gravity might also suggest that the gods are uninterested in tweaking the physical properties of the universe.

However, I do not regard logical impossibilities and the suspension of (or change in) physical laws as equivalent capabilities. Hypothetical immoveable objects are immoveable by definition. If anything, including the gods, could move the object, then our definition of the object is incorrect. Logical axioms are mental constructs which allow us to grant precision in language. Thus removing God from the original question about moving an object defined as immoveable does not resolve its logical contradiction, which may be rephrased as either, "Could an object which can only be moved by a single means be defined as immoveable?" or "Would the inability to perform logically impossible actions mean that a particular god can not be omnipotent?" In either case, I would say, "No."

If we exclude logically impossible tasks from the realm of capabilities of an omnipotent being, the ability to manipulate the Universe in ways which conflict with our current knowledge of physics must remain in tact. The difference is that physics is used to describe and predict natural events. If an omnipotent god got in a huff, for example, it should be able to send Jupiter careening out if its orbit like a drunken teenager or repeal the Second Law of Thermodynamics in Baltimore, MD late this afternoon. While either event would wreak havoc on current physics, it should be achievable by an all-powerful deity without impacting any logical axioms. The oberved data is consistent with an elusive, omnipotent god which elects non-interference, an elusive impotent god which is precluded from interfering as well as no gods at all.

Regards,
mrmufin

[using reason]

You are reducing God to the role of a scientist conducting an experiment. To state that there are logical limits upon God is silly. You are correct, people define words for our understanding. But God is supposed to be outside of our perception and limitations. To claim that the entitly that created everything has limits is silly as stating that a person can redine reality. They are not intertwined.

Now if God sent a planet out of its orbit, he has changed the laws of physics. The degree of the change is irrelevant. If he can change a small piece, he should be equally able to change a large piece.

[pl55]

The question "Can God create a rock so big that He can not lift it?" has nothing to do with His omnipotence, nor the size of the rock. What this question is trying to get you to see (or will see) is His faithfulness to His word.

Take your hand and make a fist, imagine this is the size of the rock. Now God looks at the rock lying there and says "I promise I will never lift this rock."
God cannot lie. Many people in this world think there is nothing that God can't do. Wrong. This is just one.

Num 23:19 "God is not a man, that He should lie, Nor a son of man, that He should repent; Has He said, and will He not do it? Or has He spoken, and will He not make it good?

[Xueirdna]

So, basically, God can only do what He wills and says He will do. In Genesis 17:1, God addresses Himself as "almighty." The transliterated Hebrew word for "almighty" is "shadday" which is defined to mean "most powerful."

In Matthew 28:18, Jesus states, "All power is given unto me in heaven and earth." In that case, He must mean that all power that one is capable of having, He has.

"God can do all things," is rightly understood to mean that God can do all things that are possible; and for this reason He is said to be omnipotent.

The above quote was taken from http://www.newadvent.org/summa/102503.htm

If omnipotence means power that lacks limitations, I suppose a person could ask, "If God created logic, could He then surpass this creation?"

[using reason]

To make a claim that God cannot lie is intriguing. How do you know that God cannot lie? If it is based on the bible, it is a flawed statement. If it is outside the context of the bible, what do you base the statement on?

Here are several statements which shows that the god of the bible lies.

HE LIES: Joshua 7:1 says, "The people of Israel broke faith in regard to the devoted things; for Achan...took some of the devoted things; and the anger of the Lord burned against the people of Israel" and God responds by saying in the 11th verse, "Israel has sinned, and they have also transgressed my covenant...." Yet, God did not tell the truth. Only Achan sinned, not all Israel, and Achan admits as much in the 20th verse by saying, "Indeed I have sinned against the Lord God of Israel...."

"He (David--Ed.) shall build a house for my name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever" (2 Sam. 7:13) and to David God says, "thine house and thy kingdom shall be established forever: thy throne shall be established for ever" (2 Sam. 7:16). God's prophecy failed. He didn't tell the truth. The Davidic line ended with Zedekiah and there was no Davidic king for 450 years when the Maccabeans established a dynasty, the first king being Aristobulus. Since the end of the Maccabean dynasty there has never been a king of the Jews. Second Kings 24:14 proves as much by saying, "He carried away all Jerusalem, and all the princes, and all the mighty men of valour, even ten thousand captives, and all the craftsmen and smiths. None remained, save the poorest sort of the people of the land."

If viewed together the following verses also show God engaged in prevarication. "...of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eat thereof thou shalt surely die" (Gen. 2:17), "God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die" (Gen. 3:3), "the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die" (Gen. 3:4), and "all the days that Adam lived were 930 years and he died" (Gen. 5:5). God said Adam and Eve would die on the day they ate of the tree and the devil said they would not. They ate of it and Adam lived to be 930 years old. In other words, God lied and the devil told the truth. Yet, according to Titus 1:2 "God never lies."

And finally, in Gen. 3:14 God said to the serpent, "...upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life...." Serpents do not now and never have eaten dust. If the serpent represents the Devil, he does not eat dust either; so, in either case God did not tell the truth.

So, if it a matter of faith, then where is the support?

[Xueirdna]

HE LIES: Joshua 7:1 says, "The people of Israel broke faith in regard to the devoted things; for Achan...took some of the devoted things; and the anger of the Lord burned against the people of Israel" and God responds by saying in the 11th verse, "Israel has sinned, and they have also transgressed my covenant...." Yet, God did not tell the truth. Only Achan sinned, not all Israel, and Achan admits as much in the 20th verse by saying, "Indeed I have sinned against the Lord God of Israel...."

Not all the people of Israel broke faith, this is true; however, God made it very clear in chapter six that the Israelites were to abstain from taking the "accursed things" (i.e. silver, gold, bronze) otherwise the camp of Israel would become "a curse" (Joshua 6:18). It took only one man to break God's command, thus God did not lie when He said that the people of Israel broke faith because, indeed, a person did.

"He (David--Ed.) shall build a house for my name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever" (2 Sam. 7:13) and to David God says, "thine house and thy kingdom shall be established forever: thy throne shall be established for ever" (2 Sam. 7:16). God's prophecy failed. He didn't tell the truth. The Davidic line ended with Zedekiah and there was no Davidic king for 450 years when the Maccabeans established a dynasty, the first king being Aristobulus. Since the end of the Maccabean dynasty there has never been a king of the Jews. Second Kings 24:14 proves as much by saying, "He carried away all Jerusalem, and all the princes, and all the mighty men of valour, even ten thousand captives, and all the craftsmen and smiths. None remained, save the poorest sort of the people of the land."

2 Samuel 7:13 refers to the temple that David's son, Solomon, would build; however, God did not lie when He said that He will establish the throne of that kingdom forever. Verse sixteen states, "Your house and your kingdom shall endure before Me forever; your throne shall be established forever." This throne will be established forever through Jesus Christ who, being God according to the doctrine of Christianity, exists and thus will reign forever. So, your statement has yet to be proven.

If viewed together the following verses also show God engaged in prevarication. "...of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eat thereof thou shalt surely die" (Gen. 2:17), "God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die" (Gen. 3:3), "the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die" (Gen. 3:4), and "all the days that Adam lived were 930 years and he died" (Gen. 5:5). God said Adam and Eve would die on the day they ate of the tree and the devil said they would not. They ate of it and Adam lived to be 930 years old. In other words, God lied and the devil told the truth. Yet, according to Titus 1:2 "God never lies."

Death is a result of the fall of man, thus God did not lie when he said Adam would die. Here's a note:

By death he means the separation of man from God, who
is our life and chief happiness: and also that our
disobedience is the cause of it.

I found this quote on http://www.gotothebible.com/Geneva/Genesis/2.html

Also...

Gen 2:17

FOR WHEN = These words indicate that through His foreknowledge God knew Adam and Eve would disobey Him and eat of the tree. These words also are a strong warning that they would certainly die "when" they ate. The Hebrew verb tense indicates God literally told Adam and Eve "dying you shall die." In other words, while the death process would not be instantaneous, it was absolutely certain. By eating from the tree, Adam and Eve immediately died spiritually, and become abject sinners under the sentence of eternal death (Ephesians 2:1-3). Later, they both died physically (Genesis 5:5). Thus God's warning was exactly fulfilled.

YOU WILL SURELY DIE = Free choice involves (1) knowledge of the facts; (2) responsibility to apply the facts according to God's will; (3) accountability for our decisions and actions. Sin is the result of deliberately disobeying God's command(s) (Exodus 20:1-17). Compare with 1 John 3:4; James 4:17; Romans 6:23. Also see commentary on Genesis 2:16.

The fact Adam and Eve did not immediately die and continued to live for nearly a thousand years indicates that God’s definition of death encompasses more than just the physical: “Death refers to the destructive consequences of the entrance of sin into humankind. This consequence is spiritual alienation or separation from God (Genesis 2:17). As a result of sin humans also experience physical death, a visible and universal reminder of the ongoing effects of sin. Scripture also points to a ‘second death’ (Revelation 2:11; 20:6, 14; 21:8) which is the final separation of the wicked from God’s glorious presence for all eternity.” -- Pocket Dictionary of Theological Terms, by Grenz, Guretzki, Nordling, p. 35

Found on http://www.christiancommunitychurch.us/ ... Gen02.html

And finally, in Gen. 3:14 God said to the serpent, "...upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life...." Serpents do not now and never have eaten dust. If the serpent represents the Devil, he does not eat dust either; so, in either case God did not tell the truth.

In all honesty, I think even God is capable of using figures of speech as far as the serpent eating dust. But...if you want explanation...here's another quote:

It would not 'eat dust' in a literal sense, of course, except in the sense that its prey would have to be consumed directly off the ground in front of it. The expression is mainly a graphic figure of speech indicating its humiliating judgment and fall.

From http://www.biblestudymanuals.net/gen3v19.htm

I hope that clears up any confusion.