Can God make a rock big enough so that he cannot move it?
 

A question someone asked me today, I think I've heard it before but when I did I was young and didn't quite get it. It is an interesting question though, because a lot of time people will say god can do anything and that he is all powerful and the question kind of shows that he couldn't do that. So I guess even ominopotent gods have a limit, right?

I would tend to think not.

But if they have limitations, they're not omnipotent, right?

I'd say its possible that he can do both, Make a rock big enough that he can't move it, then actually move the rock. Since God is both omnipotent and omniscience, he must have known how to solve this pretty darn easy.

But if he ended up finding a way to move the rock wouldn't that mean he failed at making a rock that big. Which would mean, he indeed couldn't create a rock that big which would also beg the question, "Is God really completely omnipotent."

I don't know, this question makes my head hurt.

I guess this kinda proves that even gods have their limitations even if those limitations are against themselves.

It is a logical fallacy.

"This question is often used as evidence against the existence of God. The argument goes like this:

* If God can create a rock too heavy to lift, then he is not omnipotent because he cannot lift a certain rock.
* If God cannot create a rock too heavy to lift, then he is not omnipotent because he is unable to create a certain rock.

Either way, he is not omnipotent, and therefore cannot exist, or at least can no longer be called God.

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.

For example, consider these similar questions :

* Can God make a vehicle which moves so fast that he cannot catch it?
* Can God draw a picture so small that he cannot see it?
* Can God bake a cake so large that he cannot eat it?
* Can God make a star so bright that he cannot look at it?

These could easily be used in place of the Heavy Rock question, but are unfortunately just as meaningless. Apart from the basic problem of where God would stand in order to lift the rock, or what the rock would itself stand on, the question amounts to "Can God do something that God cannot do?" or "Can God find the limits of his unlimited abilities?" which are logically incoherent. This is called a fallacy of Contradictory Premises, as one statement contradicts the other ("God's abilities are unlimited" vs. "God's abilities are limited").

You may as well ask

* Can God make a circular triangle?
* Can God create a colour that he cannot smell?
* Can God formulate a proof of his own non-existence?
* Can God outrun himself?
* Can God cauliflower?

These questions can be asked, but just because a question can be asked does not mean that it has any value, or is deserving of any sort of response.

What flavour is Thursday?

Why do bananas enjoy driving tractors?

You can string a bunch of words together to make a syntactically valid question, but if the question is meaningless then what use is it? That, I think, is the case with the Heavy Rock dilemma - it is based on a logical impossibility ("Can God do what God cannot do?") and just becomes so much pointless word-play.

Even slightly more sophisticated examples like
Can God create a being equal to himself?
fall into the same trap. This one sounds good at first, but the problem here is that God is, allegedly, un-created. He has always existed. How could God create a being that has not been created? It appears valid at first, but God not being able to do something that cannot be done and is logically impossible is hardly evidence against God.

Another way of looking at it is like this:

1. Can God do the impossible?
Yes (if you are referring to things that are simply impossible for non-omnipotent beings like us, like holding a picnic inside the sun).
2. Can God do the possible?
Of course (although beings like us may not be able to).
3. Can God do the logically impossible?
No, because they are not "there" to be done. Circular triangles and so on. The question itself is unlikely to make much sense.

The Heavy Rock question may work as an attention-getter, and waken the theist to the fact that people ask awkward questions about their deity. They may believe "With God, all things are possible", but you may make them understand that this does not include the logically impossible, and simply saying "God can do anything he wants to" doesn't cut the mustard. However, as a convincing proof against a God it fails pretty quickly. Atheists should realise the problems with it before relying on it in an argument, otherwise they are likely to be shot down in flames by any reasonably savvy opponent. There are far stronger and more coherent logical arguments against the existence of Gods (free will vs. omniscience, gratuitous evil vs. omnibenevolence, and so on).

Those who enter into "battle" with a Christian, wielding the Rock argument as their only weapon, are going to about as successful as the naive young evangelist who thinks all he need do is say "Jesus loves you", and atheists will convert and rush to the nearest church like lemmings.

It's probably unusual for an atheist to criticise a commonly-used argument against God, but I really don't think the Rock problem is a valuable addition to our arsenal except maybe as a counter to the "God can do whatever the heck he likes" assertion.

If an omnipotent God exists, then it can do anything, as long as that action is logically possible"

http://www.abarnett.demon.co.uk/atheism/rock.html

Yep, the Stone argument is nothing more than trickery. I've already responded to this in the unanswerable questions thread in Tilted Knowledge. What I don't get is why people continue to use it, despite its obvious unsound premises.

nanofever, thank you for that piece.
:)

Could Jesus microwave a burrito so hot that he himself could not eat it?

A more poignant question.

"Why do bananas enjoy driving tractors?"

hehe, that made me giggle, but uhh..
yea.. that's a crazy question.. i 'll think on it while i sleep! g'night :o

can some one please explain to me exactly how this is an illogical question? seems pretty valid to me, and so do the examples that are first given. once you get to the circular triangle, i see the how they are, giving things properties that they don't have and all... but if you were to change the question to: can an engineer make a car so fast he cannot catch it or a lightbulb so bright he can't look at it? those seem pretty logical. just because god, unlike the engineer, is supposed to be omnipotent, i don't see how it loses it's logicaliness. (i think i made that word up).

one word to describe this thread: ridiculous

I'd like to bring to bear another two reasons that makes these questions out to be the silliness they are. First off, the Creator, no matter what religion you come from, as far as I know, is non-physical, though he can create avatars of various forms. Being non-physical, it is to silly if he can do physical things. That is like asking, say, can ghosts hiccough? Secondly, I'd like to return once more to my God as an Author parable. When you write a book, though in this case we believe that the book writes itself at this point, you make all the rules; you know all the secrets, and you can do pretty much whatever you darn well please. In this way, the Creator is omnipotent. It is not just that he can do anything, it is more that he can make anything happen and guide the plot.

G

Harry,

If one were to ignore this fact and assume that it was a logically meaningful statement, the answer is still no.

If you say no, this seems to suggest that god is no longer omnipotent. however, once you look into this, it is clear that in fact yeilding to this suggestion does not have any effect upon God's power. Saying that God cannot do this simply means that God cannot exceed his ability to lift rocks when he creates them. god's ability to lift rocks remains infinite, and as a corrolary, so does his ability to make them heavier and heavier, so long as he can lift them. Thus, God's omnipotence remains untouched by such an admission.

Nanofever: the answer you gave is very complete, however, it's not necessary to use the "square circle" analogy. Here's my one sentence answer. For all you kids out there, memorize this and repeat it whenever this hypothetical arises:

Can God create a rock so heavy he can't lift it?

No. It's metaphysically impossible for such a rock to exist.

The question is not a logical fallacy.

The assumption is made that God is omnipotent.
Omnipotence is the ability to do anything.

So if god can do anything, can he create a rock that he cannot lift? That is a perfectly sensible question. When we ask it, we run into a paradox, which does not mean the question is logically flawed. It means that the concept of omnipotence is flawed.

It shows that while we can create the idea of an omnipotence being, the concept cannot be applied to the world as we understand it. Just like we can create the idea of a circular triangle yet we will never find one in this world.

So in a sense saying that god is omnipotent is like saying that god has a circular triangle head.

An excellent description of a logical fallacy, nanofever!

God makes the rock, it is indeed too heavy for god to lift.
God decides to be stronger , god lifts the rock.

God made a rock too heavy for it to lift.
God made itself capable of lifting the rock.

Entirely acceptable if this "god" thing is omnipotent.

i'm with you tecoyah partly. if god wants to make the freaking rock, he's concurrently wishing not to be omnipotent. it's like wishing to take a gun and blow your brains out. unless you're mentally insane, you concurrently want to kill yourself at the same time. if god really wants to make a rock that he can't lift, he's essentially saying, "i want something to exist over which I don't have absolute power." So he makes the rock, and from then on he doesn't have absolute power. there's no paradox, is there?

the problem comes if you expect god is eternally omnipotent. but if he is up there and plans to continue being omnipotent, then he had better never decide to lose his omnipotence.

if you want to argue that god is insane, then that's a whole nother barrel of monkeys.

the other argument tecoyah makes, that god can will himself to be stronger, i don't think holds water. then you could just ask the question, can god make a rock so heavy he can't lift it, even if he wills himself to be stronger?

Sure it's logically flawed. Look at it this way (not sure this will help, but hey, it's fun). Consider the nature of rocks. For all rocks, that rock has weight x, where x belongs to the set of real numbers. Now, for every object of weight x, God can lift that object. So God can lift all rocks. So he can't create a rock so big he can't lift it. Why? There's no such rock, just like there are no circular squares.

I see this question as trying to apply a definition to infinity. If God's power (omnipotence) is infinite, is it possible to have infinite + 1 power? The question makes no sense because our base and simplistic human vocabulary cannot accuratley describe omnipotence, or infinity for that matter.

It makes me wonder what other words we commonly use that really have no well defined meaning. I'm sure all the omni's are included...

There is no logical flaw in the question itself.

An average man can create a cement block that he cannot lift. He poses the power to create the block with specific properties yet does not have the power to lift it.

An infinitely strong man would be able to lift any rock created yet he could never create a rock that he could not lift.

As you see both men are limited in their abilities because of their condition. One can do what the other cannot and vice versa yet neither is omnipotent.

Now an omnipotent being is a being that has the capabilities to perform any action. It has unbound power. Hence, by definition, there is nothing that an omnipotent being could not do and it should be able to both create a rock it cannot lift yet lift it at the same time - a paradox that arises not from the question, but our definition of omnipotence.

So the question has no logical flaw, but exposes the flaw in the concept of omnipotence.

The issue of a circular square is interesting. Let me ask a similar question. Can god could make 1+1 = 3? If you ask me, the answer is yes, because he has all sorts of methods at his disposal (changing the history of arabic writing so that "3" represents two objects, changing the definition of the plus sign, etc etc.)

but wanting 1 + 1 = 3 is a very abstract wish. if you ask me, he just can't say, "i want 1 + 1 =3." He has to say," I want the symbol "3" to mean 2." if god decides to "make all the world to live in harmony", do you think that wish should come true? if you ask me, it shouldn't, because god needs to be more specific about what he wants exactly (ie, plutonium to have a shorter half life, people to stop producing adrenalin, people and animals to become dumb and drugged, etc, etc). being able to wish for unspecific things, like a circular square, seems a cop out, simply because the wish is not specific enough. after all, you can easily make a circular square in a non-euclidean space (and, by the way, a lot of people theorize that the universe is a non-euclidean space).

however, i think that the "rock too heavy to lift" is plenty specific. and therefore a more reasonable question to consider.

and I believe that the rock issue is not a paradox. it's only paradox if you expect that omnipotence must be a power you keep forever, and you can't will your omnipotence away. one might as well ask, "if you're omnipotent, can you make yourself not omnipotent?" if you can't do it, that means there's something you can't do and you're not omnipotent. if you can do it, then as soon as you do it you are no longer omnipotent, and there is no contradiction. therefore, you can do it. no paradox.

the paradoxial question is "if you're ETERNALLY omnipotent, can you make yourself not omnipotent?"

so as someone was saying above, the contradiction is in the definition. Not in the definition of omnipotence, but in the definition of ETERNAL omnipotence.

i'd like to note: superman gave up his powers in superman 2. remember?

Again, one sentence:

Such a rock cannot metaphysically exist.

please, explain why. not trolling, i just don't see why it couldn't? explain why you think it can't... i don't know a whole lot about metaphysics.

it just seems to me that since the size of a rock is a quality of it, and he's god, he should be able to make anything. you can't make a circular triangle (although waht someone above posted maybe true, i don't know) because your comparing apples to orange. to make a triangle circular would be for it to stop being a triangle. to make a rock really big, well, it would still be a rock.

my belief is simple:

God could create the rock. Then the rock would move.

God is omnipotent in such a way that the rock would simply move.

kinda weird answer I know, but it's hard to explain.

I don't want to be an ass but why is this conversation still going on. The explaination that I posted went into great detail explaining why the rock question is a logical fallacy.

An omnipontent god can do the impossible but nothing, not even an omnipontent god, can do the logically impossible.

Can you say.... Paradox?

Just goes to show that we try to overthink things. Also, we try to make things fit into our reality. Thus, the problem I have with most organized religions.

I see what you were trying to do but this questions has no real merit. Sort of a chicken or egg thing.

Harry,

You admit then that a triangular circle is a logical impossibility.

Nano's analogy is not comparing apples to oranges.

The essential nature of a square is that it has four sides, all angles are 90 degrees etc. A triangle has only three sides, therefore a triangular square cannot exist since it would not fulfill the essential requirements of being either a square or a triangle.

God is omipotent, therefore there is nothing too heavy for God to lift.

You are asking if God could create a stone which is too heavy for God (for whom there is nothing too heavy to lift). Therefore the stone contradicts the nature of God's omnipotence.

It is more accurate to say that such a stone cannot exist rather than God cannot create it.

but, as you said, god is omnipotent, and created the universe and can create anything because of his omnipotence. therefore for him to be omnipotent he should be able to create anything. so you're saying that because of his omnipotence, the question is invalid because it's impossible for an omnipotent being to create something. this something is a stone that is super large. size is a quantity of a stone. changing the size does not change the essense of the stone (as in teh square triangle).

this isn't a logical impossibility. you're choosing which side of the equation to disregard. you're seeing it as
god = stone * size (oops, size not possible).

the real equation should be
stone * size = no god or god logical impossiblity.

maybe everyone's had it wrong since the beginning... maybe god isn't omnipotent, maybe he's just impotent. kinda like that joke... hehe... celebrate....

Harry, as far as I understand it, your argument runs as follows:

1. If God is omnipotent, God can create any thing.
2. A rock so big God cannot move it is a thing.
3. Therefore, if God is omnipotent, God can create a rock so big he cannot move it.

Whereas the response of Kostya/Nano/myself is "There is no such thing as a rock so big God cannot move it." There is no possible rock that is so big God cannot move it. Why? Well, all possible rocks have a finite mass. And God can move anything with a finite mass. So there is no possible rock that God cannot move.

Or, to make it simpler, let me quote C. S. Lewis. "Nonsense does not become sense by putting 'God can' in front of it."

Nanofever,

I wasn’t thinking right. You are correct, the argument is a fallacy.

who says a rock has to have finite mass? if god wants to make a rock that he can't move, he creates a new element, called "immovabilium" and makes a rock out of this stuff. this stuff is permanently stitched into a particular place in the time-space fabric and can't be moved by anyone or anything--mass is not an issue--it is not subject to any of the traditional forces (gravity, electromagnetic, etc etc).

What's to prevent god from making something like that?

Going back to my point--it's analogous to god saying "I wish that I were not omnipotent." He should be able to wish such a thing, shouldn't he? One moment he's omnipotent, the next he's not. no paradox.

(alternatively, if you want to play semantics--if the question is if God can make a rock "so big that he can't move it", then you make it so that immobilium obeys all the normal laws of physics until it reaches a critical mass (like chandasekhar's mass for black holes) at which time it stitches itself to the space-time fabric etc etc.)

so your argument is that an all powerful omnipotent god cannot create a rock with finite mass that is too big for him to move. makes a lot of sense.

/sarcasm.

Well, let's try it again, since you obviously don't understand what I'm saying. What does omnipotence mean? It means having all power. (from 'omni' meaning all, and 'potence' meaning power). So God can do anything power can do. But power cannot perform logical contradictions. Therefore, God cannot perform logical contradictions.

And rsl12 -- there's no such thing as the space-time fabric. It's a heuristic device.

asaris: if you're omnipotent, can you wish not to be omnipotent?

and yes, i know space-time fabric is not real, but you don't see the POINT or am i going to have to wiggle through all the semantic hoops for you?

Contradictory Premise, you can't both be all-powerful and not all-powerful, omnipotence is a binary kind of thing.

so what your saying is, that something that has all power cannot create something that has is bigger than it. that to me means that it is not all powerful. it is "x" powerful, since it can't make something larger than "x."

I think you misunderstand what omnipotence really is.

How about this, god can make a rock of infinite mass and weight. God can still left this rock. Because god is omnipotent. Omnipotence doesn't mean that god can create something that is by definition a logical phallacy. God couldn't create a baby adult either.
Let's list some other things that god can't do:
Make a square circle.
Make a box so small that it has no volume.
Ever get to a point in space despite the fact that god may be moving half the distance closer to said point every second.
Find a real number that, when squared, is equal to negative three.

I really don't think any of these facts negate a god's omnipotence.