Can God make a rock that He cannot lift?

Originally posted by googlefudge
Omnipotence is illogical.

There are an infinite list of things you can list the show omnipotence to be illogical and thus impossible.

Anything on the form of...
"Can the [omnipotent being of choice] do/make something that then prevents them from doing something."

If they can't do or make the thing then they can't do something and thus are not o ...[text shortened]... ife,
we have no souls, and there are no gods.

Anything else is just sloppy thinking.

As a supernatural being, I doubt God cares much for your "logic".

Originally posted by Suzianne
I was just going to say, "what does God need with a microwave?"

Microwavable Tupperware...

Originally posted by Suzianne
As a supernatural being, I doubt God cares much for your "logic".

If you throw out the laws of logic then you can't communicate because all language is
based on the laws of logic.
You can't know anything because truth is not just un-knowable but non-existent.

If anything and everything can be both true and not true at the same time and any and
all rules have been thrown out the window then there is nothing you can say about anything.

Logic is the absolute you can never do without.


However as a non-existent being I doubt god cares very much about logic either.

Originally posted by Suzianne
As a supernatural being, I doubt God cares much for your "logic".

This putative God of whom we speak shows the highest respect for logic, perhaps even love, as He know that He can't do without it and can't change it without destroying it and returning this universe to the chaos from which it came.

After all, one of the earliest revisions of the emerging western Judeo-Christian God concept was from "God can do anything" to "God can do anything that is logically possible for Him to do."

Originally posted by JS357
This putative God of whom we speak shows the highest respect for logic, perhaps even love, as He know that He can't do without it and can't change it without destroying it and returning this universe to the chaos from which it came.

After all, one of the earliest revisions of the emerging western Judeo-Christian God concept was from "God can do anything" to "God can do anything that is logically possible for Him to do."

Does that show god respects logic or that his followers decided that they would look stupid if they didn't?

Originally posted by googlefudge
Does that show god respects logic or that his followers decided that they would look stupid if they didn't?

Both, where God (not god so much) is a concept being under constant reconsideration.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Omnipotence is illogical.

There are an infinite list of things you can list the show omnipotence to be illogical and thus impossible.

Anything on the form of...
"Can the [omnipotent being of choice] do/make something that then prevents them from doing something."

If they can't do or make the thing then they can't do something and thus are not o ...[text shortened]... ife,
we have no souls, and there are no gods.

Anything else is just sloppy thinking.

Just define 'omnipotent' as 'can do anything that is logically possible'. Problem solved.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
Just define 'omnipotent' as 'can do anything that is logically possible'. Problem solved.

So, could god prove 1+1=3?

Originally posted by sonhouse
So, could god prove 1+1=3?

No, because that isn't logically possible. That's the point.

Originally posted by checkbaiter
I was once asked this question. Can God make a rock/stone so big He could not lift it?
Your thoughts? This actually will lead to another very big question.

I think arguments centered on the paradox of the stone are unsound. For instance, the argument could be delivered in the following way:

(1) Either it is the case that X can create a stone X cannot lift or it is not the case that X can create a stone X cannot lift.
(2) If it is the case that X can create a stone X cannot lift, then X cannot be omnipotent (because X's power would be limited: in particular, X cannot lift the stone in question).
(3) If it is not the case that X can create a stone X cannot lift, then X cannot be omnipotent (because X's power would be limited: in particular, X cannot create the stone in question).
(4) So, X cannot be omnipotent.

In this argument, I think (2) is true (this is the horn of the supposed dilemma that I think actually cuts), but I think (3) is false. I like an article written by C. Wade Savage on this (entitled I believe Paradox of the Stone), in which he does a thought experiment....He says, look, consider you have some entity E1 and some entity E2. E1 can create stones of any poundage or size or shape, etc, and E2 can lift stones of any poundage or size or shape, etc. So, E2 can lift any stone that E1 creates. So it is not the case that E1 can create a stone that E2 cannot lift. But, surely this fact should not really count against the stone-creating power of E1. Now, imagine that E1 and E2 are the same entity.

Or the argument could be delivered in this way:
Objector: "Okay, let's suppose, as you claim, that G is omnipotent. Now, could G create a stone He Himself cannot lift?" (with intent to usher in a dilemma.)

But there is no actual dilemma: the theist can simply respond "No" on the basis that such a stone is a logically impossible object and that he is not committed to a view of omnipotence that entails the power to bring about logically impossible objects (If, on the other hand he is committed to such a view, then I think his view of omnipotence has major incoherency problems anyway).

-------------------------------------------------------------------

For full disclosure, the above, word for word, was already posted by me a while ago in the following thread that I started on the subject of omnipotence:

Thread 134210.

That thread I started was not about the rock question, per se, but I brought up the rock question to make a different point regarding the potential difficulty of coming up with a satisfactory notion of 'omnipotence'. I honestly still have little idea how to come up with a formal rendering of 'omnipotence' that I would find satisfactory. Formulations like "omnipotence is the ability to do anything that is logically possible" get by under many discussions; but these formulations seem to fail under deeper scrutiny.

Originally posted by checkbaiter
The site has merit, but I can build something I could not lift, so does not the question still apply? They also miss the point God cannot lie.
The bigger question is this....Is God in total control of every thing that happens?

but I can build something I could not lift, so does not the question still apply?

Good point. This is one reason why it is difficult to formulate 'omnipotence'. To create something that has the property that its creator cannot lift it is a task that has a logically possible description, per se. You can do it; but a formulation of 'omnipotence' should not entail that an omnipotent being can do it.

But, regardless of how we formulate 'omnipotence' formally, obviously the notion will entail that an omnipotent being's lifting powers are maximal. Bottom line, the answer to the rock question (aimed of course at the theist who hold that God is omnipotent) is "No." And there's no problem here for the theist; and no paradox here.

Originally posted by LemonJello
[b]but I can build something I could not lift, so does not the question still apply?

Good point. This is one reason why it is difficult to formulate 'omnipotence'. To create something that has the property that its creator cannot lift it is a task that has a logically possible description, per se. You can do it; but a formulation of 'omnipotence ...[text shortened]... omnipotent) is "No." And there's no problem here for the theist; and no paradox here.[/b]

Thank you, that was a very sound and reasonable post. You understand the concept better than myself. I knew the question was silly, but what I was looking for was the bigger question, "Is God in total control of every thing that happens?"
Most theist's say yes, to which I disagree...because then God gets blamed for every thing, good or bad...and the scripture is contradicted..

Originally posted by checkbaiter
Thank you, that was a very sound and reasonable post. You understand the concept better than myself. I knew the question was silly, but what I was looking for was the bigger question, "Is God in total control of every thing that happens?"
Most theist's say yes, to which I disagree...because then God gets blamed for every thing, good or bad...and the scripture is contradicted..

And that would be because this 'god' is entirely man made, a figment of billions of imaginations.

All started thousands of years ago to control men and subjugate women. Worked rather well I must say. Now thousands of years later, billions of people are still duped by all that crap.

Originally posted by LemonJello
I think arguments centered on the paradox of the stone are unsound. For instance, the argument could be delivered in the following way:

(1) Either it is the case that X can create a stone X cannot lift or it is not the case that X can create a stone X cannot lift.
(2) If it is the case that X can create a stone X cannot lift, then X cannot be omnipo ...[text shortened]... under many discussions; but these formulations seem to fail under deeper scrutiny.

In the spirit of laziness, I will ask a question here instead of searching your thread on omnipotence. But feel free to refer me to it.

What about the act of omnipotent X limiting (in some way) X's own omnipotence, such that, in the specified way, X's ability to act is limited; X lacks full potency in that way? Is this impossible?

The question can have two versions. (1) Can X limit X's potency "for the time being" or conditionally, such that X can cancel the limitation or state a condition which will cancel it? (2) Can X irrevocably limit X's potency, meaning can X make it so that X cannot do something, unconditionally?

Certain rationalizations of the bestowal of free will upon humans bring up this question.

Also think about X's general "inability" to do anything that is logically impossible to do -- did X "make it so" that this is the case? Or did X have no say in the matter? I am thinking that a decision to bring order out of chaos and create a world, could entail a decision that some things will be logically impossible to do.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
Just define 'omnipotent' as 'can do anything that is logically possible'. Problem solved.

Would'nt we be in mortal danger of becoming Gods.