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.

[hannahjoy]

bernee51 wrote:

hannahjoy wrote:

bernee51 wrote:

hannahjoy wrote:

Can God make a rock so big that He cannot lift it?

Yes - and then He can lift it.

Excellent - a definitive answer at last.
Can you explain the 'hows'? i.e. How you know. How god could do it.

No, I can't explain how He could do it.
How do I know He could do it?
Well, I start where the question starts. It presupposes God's omnipotence in order to disprove His omnipotence, so I start by presupposing God's omnipotence, and conclude that, if He is omnipotent, He can do both .
The problem is, the definition of omnipotence according to that conundrum is faulty. It assumes "God is omnipotent" = "the answer to any question that can be put in the form 'Can God _____' is 'yes'." That's too broad.
Omnipotent means "all-powerful". You might as well ask "Can a nuclear explosion make 1+1=3?" It's a question of logic, not power.

You appear to be saying that your god to not subject to logic. Is that correct?

No, I'm saying "Is God omnipotent?" and "Is God logical?" are two separate and unrelated questions. "Can God make a rock so big that He cannot lift it?" belongs under the second question. The answer could be "no" and God would still be omnipotent.

Hannah Joy

[The Happy Humanist]

bernee51 wrote:

hannahjoy wrote:

bernee51 wrote:

hannahjoy wrote:

Can God make a rock so big that He cannot lift it?

Yes - and then He can lift it.

Excellent - a definitive answer at last.
Can you explain the 'hows'? i.e. How you know. How god could do it.

No, I can't explain how He could do it.
How do I know He could do it?
Well, I start where the question starts. It presupposes God's omnipotence in order to disprove His omnipotence, so I start by presupposing God's omnipotence, and conclude that, if He is omnipotent, He can do both .
The problem is, the definition of omnipotence according to that conundrum is faulty. It assumes "God is omnipotent" = "the answer to any question that can be put in the form 'Can God _____' is 'yes'." That's too broad.
Omnipotent means "all-powerful". You might as well ask "Can a nuclear explosion make 1+1=3?" It's a question of logic, not power.

You appear to be saying that your god to not subject to logic. Is that correct?

No, I'm saying "Is God omnipotent?" and "Is God logical?" are two separate and unrelated questions. "Can God make a rock so big that He cannot lift it?" belongs under the second question. The answer could be "no" and God would still be omnipotent.

Hannah Joy

Just for the record, Murray gets around this problem quite easily. He creates the rock, tries to lift it and can't, then blasts the thing to smithereens with a snap of his fingers, and picks up the pieces.

"Neeners" -- Murray 8)

[bernee51]

bernee51 wrote:

hannahjoy wrote:

bernee51 wrote:

hannahjoy wrote:

Can God make a rock so big that He cannot lift it?

Yes - and then He can lift it.

Excellent - a definitive answer at last.
Can you explain the 'hows'? i.e. How you know. How god could do it.

No, I can't explain how He could do it.
How do I know He could do it?
Well, I start where the question starts. It presupposes God's omnipotence in order to disprove His omnipotence, so I start by presupposing God's omnipotence, and conclude that, if He is omnipotent, He can do both .
The problem is, the definition of omnipotence according to that conundrum is faulty. It assumes "God is omnipotent" = "the answer to any question that can be put in the form 'Can God _____' is 'yes'." That's too broad.
Omnipotent means "all-powerful". You might as well ask "Can a nuclear explosion make 1+1=3?" It's a question of logic, not power.

You appear to be saying that your god to not subject to logic. Is that correct?

No, I'm saying "Is God omnipotent?" and "Is God logical?" are two separate and unrelated questions. "Can God make a rock so big that He cannot lift it?" belongs under the second question. The answer could be "no" and God would still be omnipotent.

Hannah Joy

I think that this one has about run it's course Hannah Joy - what do you reckon?

If your god is illogical then anything that runs counter to logic is within the realms of possiblity.

[mrmufin]

As we, I think, have agreed, if the questioner had wanted to know if it was possible for god to accomplish this, then we could follow your very sound logic thread mrmuffin. But as the questioner has shown to be the one desirous of an answer., we have a duty to attempt to answer their question or at least explain to the questioner why we choose to answer a different question instead. To do otherwise would assume that the questioner was ignorant of the actual meaning of the words used to form the question. This may in fact be true as I was ignorant of the full meaning of the word possible. However to assume ignorance or some other intent would not be kind nor might it be accurate.

Hopefully, my statements were not interpreted as unkind.

I think that whether or not the original question presents a paradox is dependent upon how the concept of god is defined, as you've suggested in an earlier post. If the god is defined as all-powerful, the domain of power becomes a question (at least to me) because I make a distinction between physical and conceptual domains. Does all-powerful (or any of its pseudonyms) imply the ability to "transcend" (or "ignore" or "refute" or "contradict" or "falsify") logic and maintain usefulness?

Because the question begins with the words, "Can God" and not words that bound us to human understanding, observations or even the prediction of outcomes, we can not decide that the infinity of options is anything less than just that. We need not concern ourselves with your very valid concepts because those concepts are for answering a different question. For me to arrive at these conclusions is not to disregard reason. It is to embrace it and apply it to communicating to the questioner. Whether there is value or not is up to the questioner of course.

My response to the question [ Can God create a rock so big that he cannot lift it? ] respects the distinction that I make between physical capability and logical responsibility. The question, I assume, implies an omnipotent (all-capable, all-powerful, all-possible, whatever) god and is driven toward exposing the concept of omnipotence as self-refuting. However, I do not think that omnipotence is necessarily a self-refuting concept. I think that a decent argument can be made for an omnipotence concept that is logically responsible (X can not be both X and ~X; no circular squares; no lifting of the unliftable, etc.). Logical responsibility and coherence is what allows us to make meaningful (bounded) statements about anything, real or abstract.

If I was playing for the Home Team, my answer (and defense) to the original question [ Can God create a rock so big that he cannot lift it? ] would be, "No, because, God can not contradict himself. In the proposed question, demonstrating one ability is only accomplished by revealing an inability. Without logical coherence and consistency, making any meaningful statements about God becomes tricky. So, no, God can not create a rock so big that he cannot lift it; nor can he make A = ~A, nor can he make Fermat's Last Theorem false, nor can he make circular squares. In fact, our ability to understand God at all is dependent upon his logical consistency, not because God is bound by our logical systems, but because we are. And God knows that. "

Since I'm not playing for the Home Team, my answer goes something like, "It depends upon whether or not omnipotence includes the ability to be self-contradictory. If God can contradict himself, then yes, he can lift the unliftable. But if that's the case, then how can you make any meaningful statements about God once the tool of logic is abandoned?"

So while I'm not trying to limit the question to the bounds of human knowledge, understanding, or capacity to predict, I do confess that human knowledge and understanding is all that I am capable of. If those means are insufficient toward understanding the real or abstract capabilities of God, then all of us humans are pretty much in the same boat, regardless of our beliefs.

Regards,
mrmufin

[hannahjoy]

I think that this one has about run it's course Hannah Joy - what do you reckon?

I tend to agree with you there.

If your god is illogical then anything that runs counter to logic is within the realms of possiblity.

I don't know that God is illogical. It may be that He is above our understanding of logic, or it may be that logic is part of His nature - in which case the answer to the original question would be "no".

[H Barca]

This was very interesting mrmuffin. Thanks. As is said in the corporate world far to often these days, "I think we are on the same page." Really enjoyed it.

[dangerdan]

Nice post Muffin. You must have been feeling particularly lucid.

Since I'm not playing for the Home Team, my answer goes something like, "It depends upon whether or not omnipotence includes the ability to be self-contradictory. If God can contradict himself, then yes, he can lift the unliftable. But if that's the case, then how can you make any meaningful statements about God once the tool of logic is abandoned?"

As an interesting side note, the theological question of whether God is bound by logic can play a part in determining whether ones belief system is best described as an atheist or agnostic. Here ST88 was arguing that because he feels the concept of God is meant to be illogical, a judgment on God’s existence is irrelevant (correct me if I’m wrong here ST88).

[Xanadu Moo]

One cannot demonstrate that the idea of an omnipotent being is self-refuting by using a self-refuting premise to arrive there. The original question itself is invalid. It carries with it the implicit assumption that it is possible to do something that is impossible, which has absolutely no basis in logic whatsoever. At most, it's word trickey, but in substance there's nothing to it at all. The idea is so monumentally ludicrous that apparently it almost seems to not be so.

Basically the question is really asking:
"If both A=B and A<>B, then does A still equal B?"

It's an invalid question and has no foundation in physics, mathematics, or logic.

The entire question defeats itself. It's a null statement, giving no evidence of anything one way or the other.

It might just as well say:
"Can A be both greater than B and less than B?"

Same stretch of the imagination.

Hannahjoy, I liked your take on other ways to approach the question. To answer the question of "Can God make a rock so big that he can't lift it?" with the response of "Yes, and then he can lift it" is every bit as logically sound as the question itself, allowing for that same generous latitude of reasoning. And thus it conveys beautifully the absurdity of the original question. And you're absolutely right... it is a question of logic, not power. Don't you love how the emphasis somehow gets shifted? Language is a wonderful thing, isn't it? Sometimes we as humans let it take over the meaning behind the words, and that's when problems like this arise.

Some points that the question demands having answered:
--Why exactly wouldn't God be able to lift the rock?
--Where does that assumption come from?
--Why is that a presupposition anyway?

Let's translate the argument into its bare bones:
"Can God make a rock so big that he can't lift it?"

translation:
"Can an omnipotent God make something and then at the same time not be omnipotent?"

Makes just as much sense as the original question, and says exactly the same thing. A totally senseless question. I'm surprised at all the fervor over the efficacy of the question. When you put it into its logical formula, it falls flat on its face. I suggest looking at it purely in mathematical terms to even judge whether the question can be asked, let alone try to answer it. If my A, B statements don't suffice, try some of your own and see what you come up with.

[Nyril]

To summarize the last several responses to your specific response Xanadu Moo:

Isn't god then bound by logic? A god bound by logic cannot do everything, and thus is not worthy of the <omni> flag.

[harvey1]

To summarize the last several responses to your specific response Xanadu Moo:

Isn't god then bound by logic? A god bound by logic cannot do everything, and thus is not worthy of the <omni> flag.

I hope you don't mind if I interject, however God is not necessarily bound by our notions of logic. Nevertheless, in order to construct a meaningful proposition, it should conform to some logical standards, otherwise there's no meaning in it. Here's an example:

Alice: Can God wiestiwie and at the same can God iexiex?

Bob: I have no idea what wiestiwie and iexiex mean...

Alice: So you are saying that God is limited to what is meaningful? That would mean that God "is not worthy of the <omni> flag" since God is bound by human meaning?

Bob: Not necessarily, but as a human I can only understand and communicate properties of God that are meaningful to me as a human. If you don't tell me what those words (phrases, propositions, etc.) mean, then I have no way of expressing to you that God has those properties. What I'm saying by the "omni <flag>" is that God has meaningful properties that that term signifies.

Alice: Oh, I see. You are right. Foiled again! Rats! I'll think of something else for you and your little dog too...