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.

[dangerdan]

Another thing that God is unable to do is violate something that He said. For example if He said "Tomorrow the sun wont rise" then he would have to stop the sun from rising because He is bound by His Word, He is the most Honest and Holy Being that exists.

Hey, another interesting side of this debate is an argument that goes like this –

“Is God able to make everything that is now deemed a ‘sin’ to be classified as ‘good’, and everything that is currently classified as ‘good’ to be a ‘sin’ “

fascinating argument. I first came across it at a brilliant website

http://www.philosophers.co.uk/

Under the games entitled “philosophic health check” or something similar. Very interesting stuff.

[Xanadu Moo]

The original question contains a purely hypothetical premise which cannot be established through logic, thereby making it an invalid question. You have to establish the validity of each premise before proceeding further. The whole point is moot. You might as well construct an argument which presumes that you simultaneously exist and don't exist.

Utlimately, the only thing the original question establishes is that we are incapable of fully comprehending the nature of an omnipotent being. It provides no insight into what properties an omnipotent being would or wouldn't possess. It's like a first grader saying, "I can't read that long word, so therefore it can't be a real word, and I hereby deem it a typo."

I enjoy the references to the dictionary definitions of omnipotent -- as if lexicographers could somehow be the authority on the laws of the universe, with the ability to capture the properties of the supernatural. Scripture need not defer to any dictionary for its deeper meanings. Simplistic representation of profound matters only trivializes the arguments.

Taken further... as if language itself were capable of providing us with answers to life's mysteries. It's all just circular. Secularism should quit these semantic gymnastics attempts. Manipulating words only serves to show how precarious one's position is.

George Orwell was right. It often becomes a war of terminology instead of focusing on the issue at hand. The establishment feels if it can conquer the arena of words that it can set the agenda for what constitutes what. An unwitting society unfortunately might fall prey to such techniques. Political correctness already has its foot in the door. They tell us what we really meant to say when we make innocent statements, thus revealing our bad intentions. If they can back their way into being offended by whatever they choose, they can thereby adjust social policy. So let's not be disingenuous by going down that road. It insults those who know better and is a cruel attack on those who don't realize it yet.

[dangerdan]

The original question contains a purely hypothetical premise which cannot be established through logic, thereby making it an invalid question. You have to establish the validity of each premise before proceeding further. The whole point is moot. You might as well construct an argument which presumes that you simultaneously exist and don't exist.

Of course we are starting from a hypothetical premise. We are saying – “assuming God exists, and assuming he is omnipotent, can he da de dah de da.” What is wrong with that? We are just seeing if the concept is internally consistent. Ie, logical.

Utlimately, the only thing the original question establishes is that we are incapable of fully comprehending the nature of an omnipotent being. It provides no insight into what properties an omnipotent being would or wouldn't possess. It's like a first grader saying, "I can't read that long word, so therefore it can't be a real word, and I hereby deem it a typo."

Very convenient. It seems you are taking the premise that God is omnipotent as unquestionable fact. How do you know this?

This is taking a very negative view on how much knowledge humans can posses. If said first grader said “when I add one apple to another apple, I don’t get three apples, I only get two, I figured this out myself”. This is a valid argument, and a display of reasoning, no matter what the age.
I enjoy the references to the dictionary definitions of omnipotent -- as if lexicographers could somehow be the authority on the laws of the universe, with the ability to capture the properties of the supernatural. Scripture need not defer to any dictionary for its deeper meanings. Simplistic representation of profound matters only trivializes the arguments.

But when we make utterances, we naturally assign different meanings to the utterance, otherwise we couldn’t communicate at all! This is all we are doing. Now if you would like to change the definition of the utterance “omnipotent”, then perhaps you could write a letter to the publishers.

Taken further... as if language itself were capable of providing us with answers to life's mysteries. It's all just circular. Secularism should quit these semantic gymnastics attempts. Manipulating words only serves to show how precarious one's position is.

So we should just throw our hands in the air and spend no more time trying to understand the world around us? If you are downgrading the capabilities of language, I hope you also apply this to the bible.

George Orwell was right. It often becomes a war of terminology instead of focusing on the issue at hand. The establishment feels if it can conquer the arena of words that it can set the agenda for what constitutes what. An unwitting society unfortunately might fall prey to such techniques. Political correctness already has its foot in the door. They tell us what we really meant to say when we make innocent statements, thus revealing our bad intentions. If they can back their way into being offended by whatever they choose, they can thereby adjust social policy. So let's not be disingenuous by going down that road. It insults those who know better and is a cruel attack on those who don't realize it yet.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but the major point of 1984 was to show that a society where descent is disallowed is the worst. We should criticize and question, etc, etc. It seems like you are trying to ban descent on some issues surrounding religion, as you have said above, secular people should “quit” this linguistic gymnastics, etc, etc.

[dangerdan]

whoops, i stuffed up a quote thing above, sorry, i hope it's still reasonably clear what i'm meaning.

[Xanadu Moo]

The question has a hypothetical premise used as a given, which only makes the conclusion hypothetical as well. A hypothetical conclusion is no more sound than any of its hypothetical premises -- in other words, it's no more than a premise itself.

A premise stating "if 1 + 1 equals 3,593" is invalid. On the other hand, a premise stating "if God exists" is plausible. Not all hypotheticals are legitimate. Throwing in a false hypothetical lends no credibility to an argument. You see it all the time with references to unicorns, invisible pigs, Santa Claus, etc. This kind of irrational reasoning makes me wonder how well atheists have thought out their argument.

Bottom line:
There is no such condition in physics, or in mathematics, which describes the premise of the creation of an object that an unlimited force could not lift. Whatever law is referenced to establish such a condition must be outside the realm of the sciences, which makes the whole argument self-defeating.

My quote:
Utlimately, the only thing the original question establishes is that we are incapable of fully comprehending the nature of an omnipotent being. It provides no insight into what properties an omnipotent being would or wouldn't possess. It's like a first grader saying, "I can't read that long word, so therefore it can't be a real word, and I hereby deem it a typo."

dangerdan:
Very convenient. It seems you are taking the premise that God is omnipotent as unquestionable fact. How do you know this?

I don't know what part of my statement you derive this conclusion from. I didn't state it definitively. My entire implication was along the lines of "if an omnipotent being were to exist."

dangerdan:
But when we make utterances, we naturally assign different meanings to the utterance, otherwise we couldn’t communicate at all! This is all we are doing. Now if you would like to change the definition of the utterance “omnipotent”, then perhaps you could write a letter to the publishers. ..

Dictionaries do not carry absolute interpretations of language, nor could they. There is no such thing. There is no universal agreement on which definitions apply. Language conveys meaning, but it's only the messenger. Language has no intrinsic philosophical value.

So we should just throw our hands in the air and spend no more time trying to understand the world around us? If you are downgrading the capabilities of language, I hope you also apply this to the bible.

I'm saying the writers of dictionaries are limited to a secular definition. Their definitions provide no real insight into the true meaning of a potential supernatural entity. In other words, we can't really expect to find philosophical, metaphysical, or spiritual answers in a dictionary. Dictionaries do not form arguments, but merely tell the intent of what is being communicated. Dictionaries have no context in that regard. After all, who would say Noah Webster is the authority on wisdom?

When words become more important than the ideas they represent, that's when I believe we're going backward as a society. Euphemistic license should never be taken when exploring matters of what constitutes ultimate truth. Words can always be manipulated, but it proves nothing absent any substance behind the style.

I guess I opened up a can of worms with regard to etymologies, and I can see how that can be taken on many levels, but my basic point was that dictionaries can't teach us anything that isn't already known. A dictionary commonly gives vague definitions to profound concepts. Summarizing a concept in one or two sentences is valuable for conveying basic meanings, but it is too simplistic to be viewed as an authoritative voice. I can't think of many instances where using a dictionary definition clarifies a philosophical question, and yet it can sure cloud it up. You must have context, and you can't get that in a couple sentences.

[Icarus]

The never ending God/stone debate.
I myself have no problem with God having [certain] limits. I understand that omnipotence is a "word best described" for man. (isn't there some philosophical word for it like anamorphism or something like that that means "for man"?)

If Gravity is so strong, why am I standing up?


Yet I don't see discussions about the use of the term Strongest Force applied to Gravity.

[dangerdan]

The question has a hypothetical premise used as a given, which only makes the conclusion hypothetical as well. A hypothetical conclusion is no more sound than any of its hypothetical premises -- in other words, it's no more than a premise itself.

I in part agree with you. If we are starting from assumptions, sure, we can extrapolate from this and see how far we can get. This is aaaaaallll good. It is of course possible that the original assumptions are flawed. Of course. Again, we are just saying, “Assuming this God type dude exists” and “assuming that this God type dude is all powerful” there seems to be huge inconsistencies. We are just checking if these original concepts are internally consistent.

A premise stating "if 1 + 1 equals 3,593" is invalid.

Is that because when we delve into it we find it’s internally inconsistent?

On the other hand, a premise stating "if God exists" is plausible.

Why don’t we assume that all premises (or assumptions or hypothesis or whatever) are correct for the sake of extrapolating out and seeing what we can see. If we find inconsistencies, lets be honest and say so. I agree that the existence of God is a “plausible” premise, until we start to delve into it, much like delving into the “1+1=3” premise.

Throwing in a false hypothetical lends no credibility to an argument. You see it all the time with references to unicorns, invisible pigs, Santa Claus, etc. This kind of irrational reasoning makes me wonder how well atheists have thought out their argument.

"False hypothetical"? I don’t really know what this is supposed to mean. If we start assuming we already know that any given hypothetical premise is already correct before we start investigating, then we will easily fall into the trap of rationalization.

Are you saying that someone believing in Santa Clause is a little primitive and childish? Is this because it seems a little silly? Or is it because the concept is internally inconsistent? I am just curious.

I don't know what part of my statement you derive this conclusion from. I didn't state it definitively. My entire implication was along the lines of "if an omnipotent being were to exist."

Ok, that’s cool. We are on the same page then. I am glad i was wrong.

Language has no intrinsic philosophical value.

I think Wittgenstein would disagree with you

In other words, we can't really expect to find philosophical, metaphysical, or spiritual answers in a dictionary. Dictionaries do not form arguments, but merely tell the intent of what is being communicated. Dictionaries have no context in that regard.

Look, I sort of agree with you here. Lets simplify this a little shall we. Is there any problem with the dictionary definition of the word “omnipotent” which generally states that this utterance means “all powerful”. Are we in agreement here?

[ENIGMA]

The never ending God/stone debate.
I myself have no problem with God having [certain] limits. I understand that omnipotence is a "word best described" for man. (isn't there some philosophical word for it like anamorphism or something like that that means "for man"?)

So in other words, just really, really, powerful?

If Gravity is so strong, why am I standing up?

Yet I don't see discussions about the use of the term Strongest Force applied to Gravity.

Ironically, gravity is the weakest of the four fundamental forces.

For the strongest force it's the strong nuclear force, which doesn't really do much past some absurdly small distance (<10^-20 meters).

[Xanadu Moo]

Is there any problem with the dictionary definition of the word “omnipotent” which generally states that this utterance means “all powerful”. Are we in agreement here?

Yes, because it does have faulty connotations. The incorrect extrapolation of the dictionary definition is that contradictory conditions can simultaneously exist. I don't see how such a scenario can be established. I would call the literal meaning of the dictionary explanation of omnipotence an extreme definition, which is practical for nothing. The definition needs some caveats, namely that contradictory situations cannot be inclusive of one another.

For the argument of an omnipotent God being capable of defying logic, and the laws of mathematics, and others, the following nonsensical conditions would all have to be doable by that God:

1. Being able to annihilate all matter (including himself) and anti-matter, and then re-create it all back from nothing.
2. Being able to change the value of pi to be equal to 89, -3.142, and googolplex all at the same time.
3. Being able to make all objects in the universe have zero mass and infinite mass simultaneously.
4. Being able to not be God while being God.
5. Being able to go back infinitely to the beginning of "time" and erasing all of history, making nothing to have ever happened -- not just the memory of it, but the fact that it ever occurred at all.
6. Being able to do something while he's not doing it.
7. Being able to simultaneously be 4 gods and 29 gods and 1 god and 753,000 gods.

Do you see how senseless this is? In order for God to exist, according to proponents of the argument, all those conditions would need to be satisfied.

My point is that it's an irrational premise. You can't get anywhere from an irrational premise. It's invalid. It's unsound. It's self-contradictory. It defies logic. It has no basis in any known laws.

Why don’t we assume that all premises (or assumptions or hypothesis or whatever) are correct for the sake of extrapolating out and seeing what we can see? If we find inconsistencies, lets be honest and say so. I agree that the existence of God is a “plausible” premise, until we start to delve into it, much like delving into the “1+1=3” premise.

I think you're yanking my chain here, or maybe not intentionally. We know already that 1+1=3 is an invalid premise. Anything else that relies on that premise cannot be established, let alone be true. A different premise must be used, and that one thrown out.

Here's a statement I found at philosophypages.com:
"...logicians designate the combination of true premises and a valid inference as a sound argument; it is a piece of reasoning whose conclusion must be true. The trouble with every other case is that it gets us nowhere, since either at least one of the premises is false, or the inference is invalid, or both. The conclusions of such arguments may be either true or false, so they are entirely useless in any effort to gain new information..."

Thus, if anyone can demonstrate how all of the 7 sample premises I listed above could be true, along with hundreds of other similarly bizarre scenarios, then we can proceed to the next part of the omnipotent argument. Otherwise, it's all just fancy wordplay. No more than a clever riddle built on style but no substance.

[dangerdan]

1. Being able to annihilate all matter (including himself) and anti-matter, and then re-create it all back from nothing.
2. Being able to change the value of pi to be equal to 89, -3.142, and googolplex all at the same time.
3. Being able to make all objects in the universe have zero mass and infinite mass simultaneously.
4. Being able to not be God while being God.
5. Being able to go back infinitely to the beginning of "time" and erasing all of history, making nothing to have ever happened -- not just the memory of it, but the fact that it ever occurred at all.
6. Being able to do something while he's not doing it.
7. Being able to simultaneously be 4 gods and 29 gods and 1 god and 753,000 gods.

Do you see how senseless this is? In order for God to exist, according to proponents of the argument, all those conditions would need to be satisfied.

You know what Xanadu, I think we are in agreement more than we like to admit.

We seem to both be saying &#8220;an omnipotent thing existing is much like 1+1=3, or having a square circle, etc, etc.&#8221;