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.

[Xanadu Moo]

We seem to both be saying “an omnipotent thing existing is much like 1+1=3, or having a square circle, etc, etc.”

Well, not exactly, dangerdan...

A.
Would you mind constructing an argument that leads to such a conclusion -- without using a false 1+1=3 premise?

B.
I didn't see any repudiation of my seven examples. They are key to this issue. Why are any of those any different than the idea that one could create an object too heavy for one to lift? They follow the same principle, and they are all likewise invalid premises to use in any argument.

C.
Under what conditions would it be possible to do something that's impossible? If you can't name one, then you must concede that it's an invalid premise to be making with the initial question.

I was a little disappointed that many of the other posters haven't gotten beyond the wordplay of the question. However, that also is an indication of the untenable nature of taking that side of the argument, and how desperate atheists can sometimes be to make their point, when they don't even have one. It's like they're grasping at straw men... If one really had a solid argument, they would engage in the issue itself instead of dancing around it. I'm not saying this about you, dangerdan, but just in general. Away from the civility of this board, it's rather common for atheists to hurl invectives in lieu of any substance to their argument. If I were an atheist, to have that type of company on my side would be troubling to me, and cause me to ponder why many atheists feel the necessity to engage in such methods. I think for some it has to do with insecurity, where they have to build themselves up above simple-minded religious fanatics in order to feel good about themselves. As a group, I think those who are dedicated to religion are more at peace with who they are, and are less threatened by opposing views. It's just too bad in the real world that both views can't be expressed in a respectful manner. Isn't it ironic that in our society those who are always promoting tolerance are the least tolerant of those who have different opinions? Hopefully I didn't digress too much, but I think it all ties in.

[dangerdan]

A.
Would you mind constructing an argument that leads to such a conclusion -- without using a false 1+1=3 premise?

Which conclusion? The 1+1=3 conclusion? Ummm, if that’s the conclusion, I can construct plenty of arguments that lead to this conclusion, just non of them will be terribly credible.

B.
I didn't see any repudiation of my seven examples. They are key to this issue. Why are any of those any different than the idea that one could create an object too heavy for one to lift? They follow the same principle, and they are all likewise invalid premises to use in any argument.

The 7 are not so different. That’s the point. The conceptually important issue here is that they are not “premises”, they are the conclusions from the initial premise of “assuming an omnipotent being exists…”. Thus, the “invalid premise” would be the notion of something omnipotent existing. Therefore nothing can exist that is truly omnipotent.

C.
Under what conditions would it be possible to do something that's impossible? If you can't name one, then you must concede that it's an invalid premise to be making with the initial question.

Exactly. The conclusions make no since. Therefore the premise is wrong (read - illogical)!

Premise – “assuming an omnipotent being exists, what can she do?”
Conclusion – “she can build a rock so big she can’t lift it.”

You can’t say “well the conclusions are all wrong so the point must be moot.” There is, as you say, something illogical about the premise. But you seem to be mistaken about exactly what the premise is.

I was a little disappointed that many of the other posters haven't gotten beyond the wordplay of the question. However, that also is an indication of the untenable nature of taking that side of the argument, and how desperate atheists can sometimes be to make their point, when they don't even have one.

Xanadu, I’m not trying to desperately rationalize a dogmatic view. I’m just honestly thinking about these questions and pointing out how the notion of an omnipotent being existing is illogical. Either she exists and isn’t omnipotent, or she is “omnipotent”, and doesn’t exist, much like an abstract concept of an elf or something.

It's like they're grasping at straw men... If one really had a solid argument, they would engage in the issue itself instead of dancing around it.

What issue am I (or we) dancing around?

Away from the civility of this board, it's rather common for atheists to hurl invectives in lieu of any substance to their argument. If I were an atheist, to have that type of company on my side would be troubling to me, and cause me to ponder why many atheists feel the necessity to engage in such methods.

I haven’t met any atheists that are openly hostile to people because of their belief system, obviously you’ve had a bad personal experience with an atheist, this doesn’t mean we all are like that. Most atheists I’ve met or read have quite enjoyed good natured debate. Are you saying that “most” atheists are overly dogmatic?

I think for some it has to do with insecurity, where they have to build themselves up above simple-minded religious fanatics in order to feel good about themselves. As a group, I think those who are dedicated to religion are more at peace with who they are, and are less threatened by opposing views.

Look, that’s a really big generalization. Most atheists I’ve seen have been quite calm and humble and open minded and even tempered. I’m being honest here. But I suppose this is equally as big a generalization.

If you are worried about arrogance, I think the following statement is outrageously arrogant. “I’m right because God said so!”. That is supremely arrogant, in my opinion, totally lacking in humility and a tentative, scientific temperament. (I’m not saying that you have this view Xanadu)

I’ll stop now lest I write even more of a novel. Sorry for the length guys.

[concerro]

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.

I think your point is that Dan's post is illogical because he is using examples that are known to be impossible, but Dan's point is that if he can list even ne thing that is impossible then no being is omnipotent.

If omnipotent means being able to do anything then Dan is correct, God is not omnipotent, but if omnipotent means being able to do anything that is possible then you could be correct unless someone can find something that can be done that God can't do

[intelectual1]

Answer: To the Person who set this Topic.

Gods Power has no Begining and No End , why do you Picture yourself

Lifting the Big rock ! do you think Gods Strength is as Equal as yours?

[concerro]

Answer: To the Person who set this Topic.

Gods Power has no Begining and No End , why do you Picture yourself

Lifting the Big rock ! do you think Gods Strength is as Equal as yours?

In the rock example God's power was being used against him "making a rock so big he cant lift it". Either way he loses. If God lifts the rock then he made a rock so big he cant lift it, and if he cant lift it then that is one thing he cant do. Dan never once insisted he could lift the rock,becos Dan's limitless power is not the source of debate here

[intelectual1]

I still Don't see your Point to your Response !

Forget the Rock for a Second ! How about a Mountain or a Planet , That is

Much Larger and Dramaticly weighs more then the Rock, as used in the

Example!!! You are Still visualizing a Human that cannot lift an Object so

Huge ! Your Problem is , Your Mixing the Attribute of a Creation ! with the

Attribute of a Creator ! Anything that Stops or Moves , Stops or Moves in

Gods Permission ! Size is Irrelevant .

'' What ever you Imagine in your Mind , God is Differ then what you Have

Imagined ''

[bernee51]

I still Don't see your Point to your Response !

Forget the Rock for a Second ! How about a Mountain or a Planet , That is

Much Larger and Dramaticly weighs more then the Rock, as used in the

Example!!! You are Still visualizing a Human that cannot lift an Object so

Huge ! Your Problem is , Your Mixing the Attribute of a Creation ! with the

Attribute of a Creator ! Anything that Stops or Moves , Stops or Moves in

Gods Permission ! Size is Irrelevant .

'' What ever you Imagine in your Mind , God is Differ then what you Have

Imagined ''

Perhaps if I speak slowly....

The question is "Can god make a rock so big that he cannot lift it?" You are right - size does not matter - forget size.

Your god is all powerful OK? So he can make a rock OK? He can make a rock of any size he likes OK? He can make a rock he can lift - OK? Can he make a rock he cannot lift? If he cannot make such a rock he is not all powerful OK?

I hope that makes it clearer.

BTW, who gave you your nick?

[intelectual1]

[quote]If he cannot make such a rock he is not all powerful OK?

Who Said he did not Make such a Rock ?

Btw , Who Created the Ground that you Walk on ? Was it you ? was it

Evoultion ? or was it aliens ? , Perhaps let me Let me Talk very very

slowly Here let me Show you the Clear Picture !

Your a Design like any Other Object , That was Created From Non

Exsistence to Exsistence ! Any Shape or Form had to Have a Designer !

Example : your House , your Car , your Computer had to have a

Designer , A book Cannot be Written without a Writer or a Printer !

The Ground that you Walk and the World that you live in ! Cannot be

Created without a Creator !

Advice: look at your self in the Mirror and Ask your Self who Designed you


<---Asking myself why would an Athiest Use a Rock Thats made out

Of Dust Using it as an Example in a Religous Debate ! I think Its Weak !

Maybe You Can Try to Use Something Stronger Next time !

[bernee51]

Who Said he did not Make such a Rock ?

Btw , Who Created the Ground that you Walk on ?

Nobody said he didn't make such a rock - it is a logical impossibility.

BTW, nobody 'created' it.

Was it you ? was it Evoultion ?

Like I said, I don't believe it was created.

or was it aliens ? ,

I don't know any - do you?

Your a Design like any Other Object , That was Created From Non

Exsistence to Exsistence ! Any Shape or Form had to Have a Designer !

On what do you base this assumption?

The Ground that you Walk and the World that you live in ! Cannot be

Created without a Creator !

That would be true - if it was created? Why do you assume it was created?

Advice: look at your self in the Mirror and Ask your Self who Designed you

let me have a look....no not designed.

If I was there are some pretty major design faults - eating, breathing and talking from the same orifice. All the major organs, which don't self regenerate in a very vulnerable position - to name just two.

<---Asking myself why would an Athiest Use a Rock Thats made out

Of Dust Using it as an Example in a Religous Debate !

You still don't get it do you?

I think Its Weak !

Why do you think that?

Maybe You Can Try to Use Something Stronger Next time !

Show me you understand, I mean really understand, the logical impossibility the question suggests and then I'll offer a 'stronger' one.

Say the Argument from Non-Belief.

Is it a deal?

[concerro]

I still Don't see your Point to your Response !

Forget the Rock for a Second ! How about a Mountain or a Planet , That is

Much Larger and Dramaticly weighs more then the Rock, as used in the

Example!!! You are Still visualizing a Human that cannot lift an Object so

Huge ! Your Problem is , Your Mixing the Attribute of a Creation ! with the

Attribute of a Creator ! Anything that Stops or Moves , Stops or Moves in

Gods Permission ! Size is Irrelevant .

'' What ever you Imagine in your Mind , God is Differ then what you Have

Imagined ''

Can God create rocks of any size--->supposedly yes
Can God move/lift anything---> supposedly yes
Can he create a rock so big that he can not move it--->?
It is a simple yes or no question, why are you talking around it