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.

[Nyril]

I hope you don't mind if I interject, however God is not necessarily bound by our notions of logic.

That's fine, I can live with that.

Nevertheless, in order to construct a meaningful proposition, it should conform to some logical standards, otherwise there's no meaning in it.

For your example to be relevant, you would need to show a relationship between it and the actual conversation at hand. Instead, you built up a strawman, defeated it, and declared victory.

If you don't tell me what those words (phrases, propositions, etc.) mean, then I have no way of expressing to you that God has those properties. What I'm saying by the "omni <flag>" is that God has meaningful properties that that term signifies.

wiestiwie = create something large enough he cannot move it

[Nyril]

I hope you don't mind if I interject, however God is not necessarily bound by our notions of logic.

That's fine, I can live with that.

Nevertheless, in order to construct a meaningful proposition, it should conform to some logical standards, otherwise there's no meaning in it.

For your example to be relevant, you would need to show a relationship between it and the actual conversation at hand. Instead, you built up a strawman, defeated it, and declared victory.

If you don't tell me what those words (phrases, propositions, etc.) mean, then I have no way of expressing to you that God has those properties. What I'm saying by the "omni <flag>" is that God has meaningful properties that that term signifies.

Alice:
wiestiwie = create something large enough he cannot move it
iexiex = move anything, no matter how large.

Alice: I answered your question, now answer mine.

[harvey1]

Alice:
wiestiwie = create something large enough he cannot move it
iexiex = move anything, no matter how large.

Alice: I answered your question, now answer mine.

Alice, go back to quantum communication theory where you belong! Oh, don't mind me...

To answer you here, I simply refer back to Xan-Moo's statement:

"If both A=B and A<>B, then does A still equal B?"

Does that proposition make any sense? Give me a situation where that proposition could be satisfied and then we can first establish if it is even meaningful to ask such a thing. If you can't make it into a meaningful proposition, then the proposition itself has no meaning and it is not a valid question.

[Nyril]

"If both A=B and A<>B, then does A still equal B?"

Does that proposition make any sense?

A bit, yes.

Give me a situation where that proposition could be satisfied and then we can first establish if it is even meaningful to ask such a thing. If you can't make it into a meaningful proposition, then the proposition itself has no meaning and it is not a valid question.

Certainly. A = infinity. B = infinity.

[harvey1]

"If both A=B and A<>B, then does A still equal B?"

Does that proposition make any sense?

A bit, yes... Certainly. A = infinity. B = infinity.

So, A has a higher cardinality than B?

[Curious]

This question and other similar ones have been brought up, so I'm going to create a topic to address it.

I replied to this this in the original thread so I apologise for repeating myself.

Of course God could make a stone he couldn't lift by making the stone contain the universe so any movement would be, from all observable positions, relatively zero. Of course God could also promise someone he wouldn't lift it and so could not do it in all good conscience in the same way that someone could say they can't work on the sabbath.

[/quote]

This question has some other variations:

Could God create a universe in which He never has existed?

If a universe was started from time zero He never would have existed in it.

Is God almighty enough to do anything He wants including acts that
violate his own character?

Well I think the old testament has already answered this one.How many of us have at some time performed an act that violates their character( or is it just me?).

Can God create another God that is superior to himself?

That depends on what you mean by superior. But yes He could by diminishing Himself.

Can God make a triangle that is round?

I think Euclid has shown that this is possible.Try drawing a large triangle on a football.

The atheists state that since God cannot do these things, therefore God is not all powerful and cannot exist.

Since God could do these things will the atheists state that he might exist?

[Curious]

One of the definitions I came across for omnipotence:

2 : an agency or force of unlimited power

(I have added the emphasis)

That any alleged omnipotent being cannot create an impossible situation for itself reveals the very concept of omnipotence to be a flawed, illogical one. So while the question of the rock may not exclude the possible existence of some deific creator of this planet or the universe, it does exclude the claim that such a being is omnipotent.

What makes you so sure that it is the concept of omnipotence that is flawed and not the idea of impossiblity?

[Curious]

I couldnt find the original post but I think all the quotes are Xanadu's except for the last one

1. Being able to annihilate all matter (including himself) and anti-matter, and then re-create it all back from nothing.

So you mean to say you think this is the first time the big bang has happened? If not then I think this has already happened.

2. Being able to change the value of pi to be equal to 89, -3.142, and googolplex all at the same time.

Change the base systems of 3 different observers eg.base 28.32958035360 etc. base -1 and base googolplex/3.14159 etc

3. Being able to make all objects in the universe have zero mass and infinite mass simultaneously.

Add an infinite quantity of mass plus an equal amount of anti(negative)mass (net total = 0)

4. Being able to not be God while being God.

I have my God. He is not your god or His own 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.

The very act of going back in time would necessitate the other conditions.

6. Being able to do something while he's not doing it.

Walking clockwise to people who are above and below him

7. Being able to simultaneously be 4 gods and 29 gods and 1 god and 753,000 gods.

Isn't that Hinduism?

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 “an omnipotent thing existing is much like 1+1=3, or having a square circle, etc, etc.”

1 lot of nothing plus 1 lot of nothing still equals 1 lot of nothing so 1 plus 1 doesnt necessarily have to only equal 2 it is just as valid to say it is equal to 3 lots of nothing.
Sophistry is not the exclusive domain of the atheist
Oh yes and Euclid works on a square too which could make a round square and a square circle could be measured as a square externally having 4 equal sides of the same lengthwith 4 corners at 90 degrees each and as a circle by bending the internal space so that all parts of all edges are the same measurable distance from the centre.

[Jenchol]

the question was simply made up to comfort athiests.

[McCulloch]

I believe that that point of the thread is to ask if God's omnipotents means that God is capable of doing anything or does is mean that God is capable of doing anything which is logically possible. So finding a way of making seemingly logical impossibilities in to logical possibilities somewhat defeats the purpose of the debate. But, as you say, Sophistry is not the exclusive domain of the atheist.

2. Being able to change the value of pi to be equal to 89, -3.142, and googolplex all at the same time.

Change the base systems of 3 different observers eg.base 28.32958035360 etc. base -1 and base googolplex/3.14159 etc

Changing the base does not change the value. God cannot change the value of pi.

4. Being able to not be God while being God.

I have my God. He is not your god or His own god.

God is a relationship not a being? Can God be not God?

6. Being able to do something while he's not doing it.

Walking clockwise to people who are above and below him.

This is just a difference in perspective. God cannot do something while not doing it.

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

1 lot of nothing plus 1 lot of nothing still equals 1 lot of nothing so 1 plus 1 doesnt necessarily have to only equal 2 it is just as valid to say it is equal to 3 lots of nothing.

The math is weak in your proof.

(1 × 0) + (1 × 0) = 0
divide both sides by zero then,
1 + 1 = 0
therefore,
1 + 1 &#8800; 2.

However, division by zero is not allowed, therefore your proof is invalid.

The question remains, "Can God do the impossible?"

Can God make an immovable object? Can God make an irresistible force? What happens when the irresistible force meets the immovable object? Can God divide by zero? Can God identify two different rational numbers with no irrational numbers between them?

No. If God could do any of these things, then they would not be impossible.