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.

maybe my understanding of a logical phallacy is wrong, but doing something to a inherent quality to an object doesn't make it a phallacy. a rock has mass. how much? could be 1 gram, could be 1 kilogram, could be enough to be called a planet. making the mass infinite would mean taking it's mass and adding 1 enternally. why can't that be done? and we're not talking about a rock of infinite mass. we're talking about a rock that's just big/heavy enough that god can't lift it. like a body builder who can lift 300 lbs, but not 305 lbs. an all powerful creature can eitehr create it or he can't. if he can, but can't move it, then he's not all powerful. if he can't make it, he's not all powerful.

a square has 4 sides. a circle none. they are to distinctly different objects, with different qualities.
-to make a square circle would be to change those qualities so that it is neither a square nor a circle, which s why that would be a logical phallacy.
-a box with no volume would not be a box by the definintion of a box.
-i'm not understanding the point in space thing, how is that an example of anything?
-since -3 is an imaginary number, there can be no real square that yeilds it. you're trying to take apples and get a kumkwat (sp, i know, but i like the way it looks).

rocks have mass. to give a rock a mass of "x" amount is not a phallacy. whether or not "god" can do that, and then lift it, is not a phallacy as far as i can see. explain it to me. explain it to me as if you w explaining it to the dumbest person on the planet (i'd like to think i'm not, but who knows, i haven't met everyone). don't say, it's a phallacy, like these other examples where you then try to give properties of one object to a different one and still call it the first. explain exactly why it's a phallacy.

oh, and why can't god create a baby adult? that's what he did when he created adam, if you were to listen to the story. a baby is defined by its age, not by its size, and other than in legal terms, an adult is usaually a fully mature organism. why couldn't god create a fully mature adult?

Okay, so your saying that adam was, in fact, a baby? I'm not talking about a person who is young yet looks old. I'm talking about imbuing an object with a property it can not have because it is defined as having properties specifically different from said property.
I think we can all agree that god can lift anything with mass. A boulder has mass. It stands to reason that a boulder cannot exist that is too heavy for god to lift. If you want to argue that god can negate god's own omnipotence than than just remember:

Everything i say is a lie.


btw -3 is a real number. The square root of negative three is an imaginary number.

asaram, nano: Being omnipotent and deciding to make yourself not omnipotent is not a paradox.

Is it a paradox to be living and then make yourself dead?

i'm not saying that dam was a baby baby, but if he was born a fully formed man, then technically, he was a baby. if a pregnant lady gave birth to a fully mature human, that person would physically be an adult, while still being a baby. but i guess that was just a bad example. the other ones mentioned were where an object was having a property it can't hve imbued to it, like a circular square, and those are impossible. but since a rock has mass, that would not make impossible.

i personally don't agree with the idea taht god can move anything ith mass (probably because i don't believe in god), but i think that would be a good answer to the question. i would think that it could be said that snce god is on a diff. plane of existence, beyond thephysical, that mass has no bearing (baring?) on him or his powers. but if god is subject to the laws of the universe that he created (assuming the laws are there because he was subject to them at creation, laws that affect all reality on all levels) then the questoin would of the rock would be valid, i think.

good call onthe -3. it's been too long sine i've taken any advanced math classes.

Couldn't god create a universe that is a single rock, therefore rendering it incapable of motion, for there is no place for it to move?

Death is a function of life. Limitation is not a function of omnipotence. Better analogy would be an immortal dying.

A condition of being omnipotent is the consistance of omnipotence. Either you are omnipotent and you can never leave that state or you were never truly omnipotent in the first place.

The living / dead thing is a false analogy as others have pointed-out.

The long post of mine clearly stated why this is a Fallacy, please at least give it a once over before arguing the rock question isn't a fallacy.

hannukah harry,

As illustrated before we can either have rocks that no being can lift or a being that can lift any rock. Either one or the other but never both. If one exists it automatically cancels out the existence of the other.

You say that we are just talking about mass and strength, that there is nothing complicated about these qualities. Well there is nothing complicated about a square and a circle but no shape can poses both qualities. Omnipotence and immovability are not qualities of a god or a rock, but rather qualities of the universe. The universe either has omnipotent beings or immovable rocks; it can never possess both for it would be a contradiction.

that's the point of the question. they are a contradiction, therefore they don't exist. i don't think that there really is a logical phallacy in the question, i think it's that the answers that are possible given logical reasoning make the answers impossible.

anyways, i'm gonna bow out now, i don't see the logical phallacy in the question... and i guess i never will because i of my own mental block or because it's not there. either way. g'night all!

nanofever, asaram: that's where I disagreewith both of you. Perhaps it's simply a matter of definition. To me, there's nothing inherent in the definition of "omnipotence" that suggests that it must be continual--omnipotence is the state of having absolute power. Your definition seems to be that omnipotence is the state of having absolute power for eternity. If you use that definition, I agree with everything you say.

However, as "omni" means all, and "potence" is power, I don't see anything in the definition that suggests that it has to be forever.

I would agree God has to remain omnipotent. However, for different reasons. It does not contradict his omnipotence for him to cease to be omnipotent (i.e., there's nothing contradictory about an omnipotent being qua omnipotent ceasing to be omnipotent.) It does, however, contradict his nature. God is necessarily omnipotent, and so for him to cease to be omnipotent would mean he would cease to be God.

asaris: that's true--a universe with a god would suddenly turn into a universe without a god. theists would all have to turn athiest.

but very interesting: then you would agree with my point that an omnipotent being could create a rock that he couldn't lift (by virtue of limiting his omnipotence), even though God couldn't do the same thing (because he has to remain omnipotent forever)?

i should say, the omnipotent being could make a rock that he couldn't lift by creating a new law of physics that limits his omnipotence (ie, he's not really changing himself, he's changing his environment such that such a rock could exist). small point, but just to clear up potential confusion.

Now that I think about it hannukah harry is right. A logical fallacy can only occur in an argument not in a question. We can ask the question, which is perfectly valid but the question leads to a response that is a fallacy. Therefore it is not the question but our answer that is causing problems.

For example if I ask: “Can you have a cube and a cylinder fill a square hole?” there would be no problem with asking such a question. The answer is “no”. Only a cube can fill a square hole, a cylinder will not, by its definition. So we came up with the answer “no” because it was logically sound while saying “yes” would lead to a fallacy.

So when we ask “Can God (an omnipotent being) create a rock he cannot lift?” does saying “yes” lead to a logical fallacy? The answer is, it depends.

Maybe I was on to something in the first place. It is true that we cannot have irresistible force and immovable objects in the same world. Yet as I was saying before the definition of omnipotence remains a problem. If we define omnipotence as: the ability to do anything(definition a), then technically an omnipotent being should be able to break the laws of logic and reason. An omnipotent being should be able to make a square-circle. Though such a concept is absurd and we must conclude that omnipotence should be re-defined as: the ability to do anything that is logically possible (definition b) (as nanofever put it).

If we change the definition of omnipotence from (a) to (b) then an omnipotent being can create a rock that it cannot lift. Because if the universe has the ability to poses immovable objects, then irresistible force is logically impossible. Therefore an omnipotent being does not have to possess the quality of infinite strength to be omnipotent, if it did, its existence would be logically impossible.

Going back to my answer to the question. It depends on how we define omnipotence; if we define as definition (a) then the answer is “yes”, God can make such a rock. If the definition is modified to (b) then it depends on whether immovable objects exist or not. If immovable objects exist then “yes” God can create a rock it cannot lift. If immovable objects do not exist then “no” God cannot create a rock it cannot lift.




So where does this leave omnipotence? If we use the revised definition (b) wont a human being qualify as omnipotent? After all we can do everything that is logically possible for us to do.

We can modify the definition again and say that omnipotence is: the ability to do anything logically possible greater then anything/anyone in existence (definition c). Though with such a definition omnipotence would simply become a synonym for “supremacy”. As the above is also the definition for a Supreme Being.

Therefore I must conclude that omnipotence is either a term used to describe something absurd (the ability to do anything), a term that describe pretty much anything that does “work” (the ability to do anything logically possible), or just a synonym for supremacy (the ability to do anything logically possible greater then anything/anyone else in existence).


BTW, I think that rsl12 is on to something here, with his introduction of time into the question. Though I am not ready to respond yet.

Mantus -- in general, a nice post, but you misunderstand the idea of 'logical possibility'. It's different than what we might call 'natural possibility'. It's a matter of natural possibility that I cannot fly unaided. As a matter of fact, no human can fly unaided. But it's a matter of logical possibilty that I cannot draw a square circle. No matter what the powers of humans were, they would not be able to draw a round square.

You're also mistaken about the point that the question is logically fallacious. Certainly you're right that only an argument can be logically fallacious, but that doesn't mean that all questions are valid questions. As I argued above, the object 'a rock so big God cannot lift it' falls into the same category as a square circle; something logically impossible.

Finally, a brief point that might be worth taking into account. We've been arguing that God cannot create a rock so big he cannot lift it (because that's nonsensical). But I don't think any of us wants to say that God cannot create a rock that he won't lift.

asaris: i would argue that the term "forever omnipotent" is the logical fallacy since, as described above, the omnipotent being can do something that the forever omnipotent person can't (i.e., change him/herslef to be not omnipotent anymore).

Not only was a word invented in this thread, but it's a freaking awesome word.

Phallacy. Hahahahah. awesome. I'm not kidding.

Phallus? Fallacy? No, phallacy.

Back on topic: This thread should have been over with nanofever's post. To ask God to create a rock bigger than he can lift is a logical contradiction.

Let me try this again, maybe it will be easier to understand.

Either it is possible that a being which can lift any rock exists or a rock that cannot be lifted to exists. Either one or the other, both cannot exist in the same universe.

Concept 1.

- Objects that cannot be lifted are possible.
- A being that can lift any object is impossible.
- God is omnipotent and can do anything logically possible.
- God can create anything logically possible.
- It is logically impossible for God to lift a rock that cannot be lifted.
- It is logically possible for God to create a rock that cannot be lifted.
- Therefore it is logically possible for god to create a rock that he cannot lift and remain omnipotent.

Concept 2.

- A being that can lift any object is possible.
- Objects that cannot be lifted are impossible.
- God is omnipotent and can do anything logically possible.
- God can create anything logically possible.
- It is logically possible for God to lift any rock.
- It is logically impossible for God to create a rock that cannot be lifted.
- Therefore it is logically impossible for God to create a rock that he cannot lift.

As you see the outcome of the answer depends on whether the universe contains beings that can lift any object or objects that no being can lift.


Asaris,

I don’t believe there is any difference between what you call “naturally possible” and logically possible. Anything that is actually possible is also logically possible. If you cannot do something naturally (actually) you cannot do it then logically as well.

For example, I cannot fly at this moment. It would be impossible to conceive of an argument, which proves that I can indeed fly at this moment without running into a fallacy. That is unless there is some knowledge we are not aware off which would indeed make me able to fly at this moment. In such a case the act becomes both naturally and logically possible.

Further, the only way that an invalid question can occur is if its results somehow became unwanted. For example, you took a survey and the wording in one question lead you to answer in a certain way. If the people doing the survey were looking for impartial answers then they would render you answer and the question invalid.

Nano, I think you're begging the question.

Where did logic come from? Did God create logic? Was it always there? Is it fundamental to the structure of the universe? Didn't God create the universe? Is logic prior to God, does it have power over GOD's will? Why? You can't just assume that!

How can something like logic have power over GOD? And how would you prove that logic is prior to God without using logic (you couldn't use logic to prove the primacy of logic!). That's probably a greater paradox. You just can't answer the original question - that's the point. That's why the paradox has such power - as much power as, say, "If a tree fell in the woods and there was nobody around . . . ". It makes you see the limits of our understanding/our implicit assumptions.

But, back to the question: Can't God's WILL overcome logic? If HE is omnipotent, why shouldn't that be the case?

Why give something as mundane as logic power over GOD's WILL? Can you just assume such a thing?

I think that's the real question being asked in the original thread:

Is GOD a slave to logic?

I'm no expert on Theology, but I think Logic has traditionally been taken to be God's mind, or God's reason. So, can God's will supercede HIS reason/mind? The question of logical phallasy only comes (HA - phallus comes!) up if you assume that God's will is subject to the rules of logic - a GIGANTIC assumption.

you're all onto something here: what kind of powers should be associated with being omnipotent? if you can create atoms just by thinking about them, you're violating a big fat law of physics, and aren't the laws of physics the logical laws of the universe? how is that any different from violating the logic of a syllogism? who says that a syllogism has to be valid outside this universe?

so there can't be an omnipotent being unless they have the ability to play with logic in the first place. therefore an omnipotent being is beyond the laws of logic.

Yeah, but the "Rock" argument is saying just that: God shouldn't have to be bound by any "logical" reasoning. If It can't perform outside of reality, could it create an illogical "reality".

Ouch. 'Nuff thinking for now.

I win!
 

Ok, I win....

The real solution is that god would change the defintion of omnipotent from:

Having unlimited or universal power, authority, or force; all-powerful.

To:

Having unlimited or universal power, authority, or force; all-powerful. Except when createing something with the stipulation of the said item causeing a end of having unlimited power.



-Peace Be With You. =)

Let me just go into this: Your question is a typical example of Gödel's incompleteness theorem in action. This theorem states that every nontrivial formal language contains statements which are neither provable nor refutable. I.e., they are undecidable. Here the axiom "God is omnipotent" is applied to the paradox "Omnipotent enough to not be omnipotent".

So you see this is not a decidable question. It is not even a sensible question to ask. It's like the barber who shaves every person that doesn't shave themself. It also goes to show that philosophers and the religious have a tendency to go off on issues which are redundant by science.

In a sense I'm paraphrasing rsl12. But my view of "truth" is the notion of "expert's agreement". And we only have our fellow humans to converse with and ask to be our co-experts at the moment. So we're bound to logic.

So if the "rock so big he can't lift it" argument is a logical fallacy doesn't that make the notion of an all-powerful and all-knowing being false as well? That means were left with two choices, a) God doesn't exist, or at least not in the form we have come to believe, or b) God created a universe which he is not master of.
Think about that.

I would agree, Tman144.

Tman. Read the thread. We've been discussing precisely that question the whole time. What the argument amounts to is this: God can't violate the laws of logic because it doesn't make sense to claim that God can violate the laws of logic. Saying God can create a rock so big he can't lift it is like saying God can sgoahgoew.

I think there is a difference between the laws of physics and the laws of logic. The laws of physics, as we know them, are based on the rules of logic. That being said, our definition of logic is highly specialized for human existence and therefore may not be the best judge of what is logical for other beings.

The laws of physics are interpreted for humanity by science and as such are only accurate interpretations as far as we can tell.
That is to say that the physics at one point claimed that atoms took a form similar to plum pudding. If god, at that time, decided to act based on the nuclear model it wouldn't negate the laws of physics, it would just mean that our interpretations of the laws of physics weren't entirely accurate. Indeed, by definition it is not possible to violate the laws of physics, it is only possible to disprove theories describing laws of physics.

It is easy to write off a violation of physical law as not a true violation, but a reflection of our innaccurate interpretations of said laws.

It is also very possible, indeed likely that our conception of what it means to be logical isn't entirely accurate either in comparison to the logic of a deity. Certainly humans may be the most rational beings we know, but we are far from "rational". We're far from vulcans.

So i'm changing my position. I think that it might be possible for god to create a boulder so heavy that god could not lift it. I think the actual answer, at least at this point, is unknowable.

Asaris: I agree that it does not make sense to US that God can violate the laws of logic, since we are slaves to logic and our thought is structured by logic. But why do you assume that what God can do is knowable to us. Why must God's actions be logical just because our thought is logical? Why is logic prior to God. You may presume that logic is prior to everything. I presume that GOD is prior to everything, including logic - and that logic came from somewhere, namely God's mind. If God is prior to logic, then God's will should be able to transcend the laws of logic.

As filtherton said above, the answer to the question of the rock is unknowable to us, since we can only think within the bounds of logic - but just because its unknowable, doesn't mean it's beyond the bounds of what God can do. How can you assume that God can only do what we can make sense of?

Oh, I never said it was impossible that God be above the laws of logic. I said the claim that he was is meaningless, for the reasons you give. I know it's kind of a thin line, but it works for me. :)

I'm sitting here with a fellow christian and the first thing he said "What kind of question is that?" My thoughts exactly

The question really boils down to can God give up his omnipitancy. Which the answer I would guess is yes.

The problem is having a rock that is so big it cannot be moved and having someone that can move anything reguardless of size are two mutually exclusive events. Meaning A cannot be true if B is true. So can God create a rock so big that he cannot move it? Yes but in doing so he would be giving up his omnipitancy but only when dealing with this rock.

Another thing he could do is create the rock and just say I will never move it. He may have power over it but never exert the power over the rock.

Or another answer to this question is yes but how we have no idea. It is beyond our comprension but to god all things are possible. Including things we cannot understand.

So ask yourself first, can you understand how a rock could exist that cannot be moved along with a being that exists that can move anything? If you cannot see how something like that can even exist then why ask the question because you cannot comprehend the answer even it it existed.

Nanofever. Excellent excellent analysis of the issue. However, there is a passage in the New Testament in which Jesus compares the difficulty of a rich man getting into heaven with a camel passing through the eye of a needle, then going on to say that all things are possible to God.

I was always amused by this little passage as it opens up the whole argument that the Christian god is capable of handling logical impossibilities, as ridiculous as that is.

The phrase "eye of the needle" is seriously misunderstood.

The Eye of the needle was a gate in Jerusalem, that was rather narrow. The law was that if a camel could not pass though the gate because it carried too many goods then they had to be removed until it could pass. Any goods that had to be removed had to be handed over to the King.

So the phrase refers to those who are striving to achieve salvation while holding on to their excess baggage. Such as greed for example.

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

I just feel the need to point out that He already did make a rock he couldn't lift. That rock is called free will.