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.

[using reason]

Well, I guess that clears it all up. You can rationalize any statement and put a spin on it. However, it does not it make it mean anything different than what it says.

[Xueirdna]

You are exactly right when you say those verses do not mean anything different from what they say.

[seekinghokmah]

The original question (you know...the one about the rock? lol) Is flawed at the outset by a basic misconception regarding the finite and the infinite.

If God is infinite then He has no limits by definition, since the only difference between the infinite and finite is just that....limit. Limitations only apply within the finite universe which God, by definition transcends. The paradox actually operates in the opposite direction than most realize, it is not the infinite that is improbable but the finite.

How do we explain finite existence? You can break down matter to it's smallest component...but it will always leave you with another component to divide, where does it end? The paradox is that infinite finiteness is a logical impossibility. The fact is that when we break matter down to it's smallest component we end up with energy, which has no components...but this is a property of the infinite, no components. Infinity is not the lack of everything, but everything without limit...if you try to imagine the infinite you are already on the wrong track since your mind is finite.
So the problem is, what holds the finite together? There has to be something in between the infinite and the finite, the finite requires some "infinite stuff" to allow it to even exist, I'll leave it to you to decide what that "infinite stuff" is. The problem is qualitative, not quantitative.
So placing limits on an infinite being is silly, since limits exist only within the finite which shouldn't exist in the first place. Excuse me while I cease to exist.

[mrmufin]

To state that there are logical limits upon God is silly.

No, not really.

With respect to agnostic_pilgrim's comments ("This only shows that omnipotence is a self contradictory concept. " and "Knowing this, some theists tried redefining the term 'omnipotence' to make it (somewhat) compatible with reason and logic."), I'm willing to concede, even as an atheist, that omnipotence need not include logically impossible actions, such as making four-sided triangles ond writing unwriteable music. One of my reasons for making this allowance, which agnostic_pilgrim notes, is that theists often want the "redefinition." As with many things theistic, a unanimous opinion as to whether or not omnipotence has logical boundaries does not appear to have been reached. Frankly, if I was arguing for the other team, I would certainly want omnipotence to be bound by reason and logic.

The primary reason I'll allow for logical boundaries on omnipotence is that without it, any meaningful discourse is off. Logic is a tool of language which puts boundaries on statements. Whether the language is English, Hebrew, C, Perl, calculus, etc., its boundaries, cohesion and meaning are subject to and limited by logic, else we lose clarity, experience runtime errors, improperly integrate, etc. If an omnipotent being did operate outside the boundaries of logic (A may equal ~A, squares can be circular, immoveable objects could be moved, etc.), we're at a permenant impasse. The logical fallacy in the question, "Could God move an immoveable mountain?" exists when God is removed: if anything can move the mountain, it is not immoveable.

Further, omnipotence is often tempered by "free will", especially when it comes to human affairs. This typically amounts to a watered down, fuzzy, Omnipotence Lite(TM), which makes discerning the boundaries between the gods flexing and natural events sorta tricky. The difference is between possessing awesome power and using that power all of the time. Like many things theistic, how far the goalposts slide in the Adjustable Omnipotence(TM) model seems to vary quite a bit amongst individuals and the topic of discussion. For some reason, a particular god may get credited for sending Uncle Bernie's colon cancer into remission, but not be held accountable when Andrea Yates murdered her own children. I believe there's an adage along the lines of, "With power, comes responsibility."

You are correct, people define words for our understanding. But God is supposed to be outside of our perception and limitations.

I certainly agree that the gods are beyond our perception. It can be difficult trying to understand anything which eludes observation.

To claim that the entitly that created everything has limits is silly as stating that a person can redine reality. They are not intertwined.

I do not claim that any god created any thing.

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.

I do not consider logically impossible tasks as the Biggie Size version of physically impractical tasks. Logic and physics are two different games. For the sake of discussion, I'll grant the god concept in debate omnipotence concerning physical tasks, such as suspending the conservation of angular momentum or swapping the orbital paths of Saturn and Jupiter or maybe even making a talking serpent, but as soon as A = ~A, I suggest that we should both pass on pretending to know anything about that god's nature.

Incidentally, a god acting against its own nature is a logically impossible task.

Regards,
mrmufin

[seekinghokmah]

Logical impossibilities only exist within the finite, an omnipotent being would exist in the infinite, therefore the logical impossibilities do not apply.

The primary reason I'll allow for logical boundaries on omnipotence is that without it, any meaningful discourse is off. Logic is a tool of language which puts boundaries on statements.

Logical boundaries may allow us to discuss things logically, but they only limit the extent of our conversation so we can maintain logic...but the limit is not imposed on the infinite itself. By imposing logical boundaries we exclude the infinite and can't really discuss it in the first place, since the infinite (omnipotence) is not bound by logic. By limiting omnipotence to language we would only be discussing a flawed concept of the infinite. The point is we can apprehend the infinite but not comprehend it. The permanent impasse we reach...is the end of our intellect.

The logical fallacy in the question, "Could God move an immoveable mountain?" exists when God is removed: if anything can move the mountain, it is not immoveable.

Yes I agree, God is the part of the equation that removes the problem since He is not bound by logic and CAN move the immovable without contradiction.

[pl55]

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...."

That was pretty good, UR. I have to admit when I first saw this I had no viable answer. It appeared to be just as you said, a lie. But you know what? God cannot lie!
So I did some studying(this is why I haven't gotten back sooner, well, that and work) and found the answer. Here you go:
When God had delivered the Israelites out of Egypt He brought them to Mt. Sinai. It is there that He came down and spoke to them and said:

Exd 19:5 'Now then, if you will indeed obey My voice and keep My covenant, then you shall be My own possession among all the peoples, for all the earth is Mine;
Exd 19:6 and you shall be to Me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.' These are the words that you shall speak to the sons of Israel."

God is saying, 'if you obey Me and follow My covenant I will take care of you'.
And with one voice the people said:

Exd 19:8 All the people answered together and said, "All that the LORD has spoken we will do!" And Moses brought back the words of the people to the LORD.

This is why the ancient Israelites are known as a covenant people.
Now let's take a look back at Joshua Ch. 7
When Achan took those items that where under the ban, he sinned. Now, he was responsible for his sin before God, as an individual. But at the same time, he was responsible for his sin before God, as part of a covenant nation. That same nation that had collectively said 'we will obey!'.
For this reason; in Joshua 7:11 when we read where God is talking about His covenant being transgressed we see that He says 'they' and 'them', but He never says 'he' or 'him'.

That is the answer. Hope it helps. Let me know what you think.

[seekinghokmah]

I agree with pl55.
In the Hebrew mindset, collective responsibility is very significant. When one member falls, the community has failed in their responsibility to keep them from error. Another example is the golden calf event at mount Sinai. The oral tradition of the Jewish people records that it was a very small fraction (less than half a percent) of the Israelites that took part in worshiping the idol, yet the consequences were dire for the entire people. When studying any writings keeping things in context includes cultural and historical as well as literary factors if we want to arrive at a correct understanding of what is being communicated.

[mrmufin]

Logical impossibilities only exist within the finite, an omnipotent being would exist in the infinite, therefore the logical impossibilities do not apply.

An omnipotent being would "exist in the infinte" what? Reminder: impossible is equivelant to "did not, does not and can not exist or happen," just as possible is equivalent to "did, does or could exist or happen."

Logical boundaries may allow us to discuss things logically, but they only limit the extent of our conversation so we can maintain logic...but the limit is not imposed on the infinite itself.

What useful content and conclusions can be derived from a conversation that is devoid of logic? For that matter, what useful statements can be made from a language devoid of logical control structures?

By imposing logical boundaries we exclude the infinite and can't really discuss it in the first place [...]

Logical boundaries do not exclude the infinite. Mathematics is a logically bound system which is quite compatible with infinity, even though infinity itself remains undefined. Because we can discern that all infinities are not equal (the infinite set of prime numbers is always less than the infinite set of integers, for example) does not negate the logic of the statement, "∞ + 1 = ∞".

By limiting omnipotence to language we would only be discussing a flawed concept of the infinite. The point is we can apprehend the infinite but not comprehend it. The permanent impasse we reach...is the end of our intellect.

I'm not limiting omnipotence to language, nor am I limiting omnipotence to that which is physically plausible. The only limitations that I'm suggesting omnipotence may be subject to are logical impossibilities. If squares can be circular or immoveable objects can be moved via omnipotence, then "Thou shalt not kill" can be equivalent to "Thou shalt kill" via the same omnipotence. What I am suggesting is that if omnipotence does include logical impossibilities, then any means of extracting useful information about the omnipotent being is necessarily futile. In predicate English, the tools of logic are found in words like and, not, if, or, etc. Without these boundaries, statements lose their coherence whether or not their origins are divine, satanic, impotent, or omnipotent.

Yes I agree, God is the part of the equation that removes the problem since He is not bound by logic and CAN move the immovable without contradiction.

No, you appear to have missed my point. If an object can be moved by any means, it is not properly defined as immoveable, just as two lines with differing slopes would be improperly defined as parallel within the realm of Euclidean geometry.

Regards,
mrmufin

[pl55]

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.

God did tell the truth
Here's the answer
God cannot lie.

Jhn 17:17 Sanctify them in the truth; Your word is truth.

[Corvus]

The exultant revelations of Answers in Genesis are somewhat amusing. It's not technically eating (though I can see how the Hebrews would have thought the flickering tongue evidence of that) and it's not a curse. That's God blessing the serpent with a predatory advantage right after disobeying him, which does not make sense. Its a snake "smelling" with its tongue.

Remember also that there are also several different species of water snake. I suppose those mainly eat water and have somehow managed to evade God's curse. Sea snakes are often considerably more venomous than the land varieties and most kinds of sea snakes never go on land to "eat dust". Startlingly, there are no snakes in the world that can speak, or can be coaxed into speaking. It's quite possibly they only do this while unobserved, though, or perhaps we have lost the faculty of understanding snake language.

I will now go back to breathing dust.