Can God construct a rock so heavy that he can't lift it?
This is a paradox one might come across if they consider God's omnipotence. If the answer is yes, then there is one thing he can't do (lift a heavy enough rock), which contradicts the definition of omnipotence (being able to do anything). The same applies if the answer is no. How would you solve this paradox?
Comments (128)
In theology there is an answer, all wisdom comes from God and people cannot fathom the wisdom higher than that of God.
I could quote some verses about this wisdom to back up this, but basically the answer is that we cannot fathom the wisdom of God.
I never took that as a serious concrete example. I don't think it's meant to be taken literally. It is rather a mere illustration, a figuration or symbol, that there might be limitations to God's omnipotence.
Because how should this example look more accurate? One needs a spatio-temporal world, gravity, a planet and stones on this planet. Should God now be outside or inside the universe? If inside, he also needs a corresponding physical design or manifestation.
If God increases the gravity between stone and planet more and more, then he destroys both at some point and the demonstration fails and is over.
The example assumes somehow that God can have resistances. But if He cancels the gravitation from the transcendence and then says it is infinite for the human being, then He cheats.
A slightly more intriguing one is - if god is omnipotent can he make a square circle? Again - you could argue god can't do what is logically impossible, so this is also a meaningless question. Can god make a married bachelor would be another... Some might argue that god can do it because he is omnipotent and of course we are left to imagine just how this could be done for eternity, given god isn't rushing to demonstrate anything to anyone...
This changes the paradox this way: does God have the power to make an explanation of his mysteries easy to understand for us? Ultimately, the paradox can be reduced to the fundamental problem of theodicy: does God have the power to destroy all evil now, immediately?
Nice, therefore God making stone so heavy it cannot be lifted again is logically impossible because similar question is:
can God limit himself? (limit his power)
And I think the answer to both questions is, what would be the reason for God to do it? ...
Quoting Angelo Cannata
... Therefore yes, it can but there is a reason why it doesn't, but we don't the reason because we can't fathom God's wisdom.
It's not a paradòx. A paradox can be solved. A paradox seems contra intuitive at first met, and at closer inspection there's nothing wrong. The stone example can't be solved.
Being unable to fathom God's wisdom is evil, so it leaves us with the same question: why doesn't he delete the evil of our inability to fathom his will?
The emphasised part is a non sequitur. That he can create such a rock isn't that he does create such a rock.
You might as well ask "can a two-armed man cut off one arm?" and answer with "if he can then he'll only have one arm and so therefore isn't a two-armed man which is a contradiction" and so conclude that a two-armed man can't cut off one arm, which is of course false; I have two arms and am quite capable of cutting one off.
So an answer to your question is; yes, he can create such a rock, but because he doesn't there's nothing he can't do.
Or, in other words, my god isn't limited by logic.
That, for me, is the ultimate conversation stopper. Because, if you don't accept reason, why should I reason with you?
Draw your conclusions...
I just see it as a category mistake. Category A are physical objects and Category B are theoretical concepts. Within A, you have actual tangible things that can be measured, using words like 100 feet, 5,065 pounds, and 345 ounces. In B, you have theoretical intangible entities, that are described using words like biggest, strongest, and highest.
Rocks are within A. God is within B.
Can God create a rock he cannot lift? Because he's within B, we don't suggest God can lift a specific number of pounds. We just say he's the strongest and there is nothing within A he can't lift. If we suggest there is a rock he cannot lift, we'd need to know the weight of that rock and ask why that weight is more the most, which makes no sense (such is the category mistake).
This is to say rocks are real things that can be put on scales and weighed. Asking if God can create a rock he can't lift is to apply the B standard (the heaviest) to the A standard (an actual weight). You can't what is higher than infinity.
Here's some more meaningless questions to go with yours:
Quoting unenlightened
I agree. This is an example of what is so annoying about a lot of the discussions here on the forum. People build boxes with words and then can't get out.
I don't follow why this question is meaningless.
The question is often asked if God is all powerful and good, then why is there is evil in the world. That seems a reasonable question.
Good point. I went back and forth about whether to include that.
Good gracious lord....
I suspect so too. Furthermore, we defy logic on a daily basis, even toddlers (re solvitur ambulando).
Quoting Cidat
I can't solve it as a paradox, but I can as a sophism! :smile:
Because it is not a real paradox, but a "pseudo-paradox" as I call these sophisms. Here's why: They are based on false and/or arbitrary assumptions/premises, which are then refuted in a logical and acceptable way, and this is how people are misled! There are indeed a lot of them about God. Guess why. Exactly, they are based on an arbitrary assumption/premise that God exists. Then, they continue with more arbitrary assumptions/premises regarding e.g. God's qualities, such as omnipotence.
There are some that introduce several of them in the same "paradox", such as "omniscience" and "omnibenevolence", like the so-called "Epicurus God Paradox" in which the "sophist" refutes them one after the other!
See what's happening here? I introduce arbitrary, imaginary inexistent elements as given and then I refute them one by one as inexistent! How more lame that could be? :smile:
if we fathom God, that is, God's wisdom, it would make us gods because we would have all the knowledge God has, making us omniscient.
Therefore why do you consider evil to fathom God? because it would not make us Gods or something else?
Quoting ArmChairPhilosopher
I accept reason but do you know logic can be wrong?
https://thebestschools.org/magazine/15-logical-fallacies-know/
It’s an interesting question. Here are some ways I’ve thought about it. When the question was traditionally asked, I think it was implied that the question was “can God create a rock so heavy that He cannot lift it.” Obviously, this would be a strange statement, because if you believe God is omnipotent, then there is no limit to his strength; I.e. by his omnipotence it is impossible for there to be a rock that is so heavy that someone omnipotent cannot lift. Furthermore, since God is assumed to be outside of the physical world, maybe anything he creates in the physical world cannot contradict his omnipotence.
However, I’d we change the question a bit, we end up with some interesting formulations. Can God create something that he cannot move? Can God create something that contradicts his omnipotence? Can God create something that can destroy him?
Here’s an interesting analogy. Say I am a programmer, and I program a game engine for a video game. As a programmer, can I create an object I cannot move? Sure; I could create an object and “lock” it so I can’t move it. But then I also have the ability to “unlock” or “delete” the object if I choose. Can I create an object that can’t be deleted? Not necessarily, because I can always reset the simulation or delete the entire program. Even though I am omnipotent in the simulation, this omnipotence has its own constraints as to what I “cannot” do. Can I create something in the game that can kill me in real life? No.
Omnipotence has some interesting definitions, but many of the contradictions come down to “if you can do anything, can you do something that keeps you from being able to do anything.” In this way, if you are all-powerful, I think there are indeed a few things you *cannot* do, namely, things that would contradict your omnipotence.
Logic isn't wrong, but you can make errors when trying to apply it. But dismissing an argument without explaining the fault in the logic is not a logical error, it is simply dismissing logic. And that is what you do when you dismiss the argument of the stone. An omnipotent entity can not logically exist. Some theists, like Aquinas have realized that. His god is not omnipotent but only maximally potent, thus avoiding an illogical god. Others are stomping their foot and insist on an illogical god but no-one with a working brain takes them serious.
I think T Clark gave perfect example of what this argument of stone is:
Quoting T Clark
In other words, it's an illogical question, nonsense question which forces illogical answer.
Where exactly do you see the fault in the logic? I don't see it.
What’s the problem with making us Gods? After all, at least according to the Christian doctrine, they are already three persons in the Trinity, and they all love each other; what’s the problem with making everybody God? We would be all happy, all loving each other, maybe even all being one God, like the Trinity is considered. So the paradox becomes: has God the power to make all of us Gods as well? Or, in terms of theodicy: if making all of us Gods would make a perfect world, with all people loving each other, in absolute perfection, no evil, no suffering, where is the problem?
The problem is the fact that we are no gods. We, the creatures of the universe, and the universe itself, are a material reflection of the life as it is in heaven. That's why we are able to investigate about the gods and the heaven they life in.
How is this supposed to answer the question “Why didn’t God make us Gods, since he has power to do it and absolutely no problem would have been raised by doing it?”.
Quoting unenlightened
:clap:
Quoting T Clark
:up:
Quoting unenlightened
:lol:
Quoting Michael
I think "the paradox" really comes down to: Can an omnipotent entity limit its own omnipotence? If it can but does not, it remains omnipotent; if it can and does so, it was omnipotent before it did and is not omnipotent after it did.
Quoting ArmChairPhilosopher
I thought I knew 'my Aquinas' but somehow I've missed or forgotten this "maximally potent" distinction. Thanks, I'll go research it. :cool:
If gods created life in their image, then the image, by definition, wouldn't be the same as the gods. Life acts like gods, talks like gods, hunts like gods, makes love like gods, flies, crawls, and cries like gods, procreates like gods, fantasizes like gods, theorizes like gods, dives, drills, or stinks like gods, writes, paints, sculpts, gathers, or eats like gods, etcetera. The only thing gods don't do is investigate a material universe and gather knowledge about it, as the material universe was the invention of theirs to create a universe in order to mirror the eternal heavenly life.
I am not asking God to make me as an image of him. I am asking God to make me 100% God as well. Why doesn’t he do it?
If they did, they would have given you the power of creation. Things would have gone out of hand. They only needed a mirrored version. Acting like them without the happening occurring that gave rise to the need of a mirror version in the first place.
What’s the problem with giving me the power of creation? Why things would have gone out of hand? Isn’t it assumed as working very well with the three persons of the Trinity? What’s the problem with having some billions of persons, let’s say “the Billionity”, rather than just three, or just one? Why should we impose limits to the ability of God to make Gods all of us?
It would be similar to making all of us owners of this forum, with the difference that, since all of us would be perfect Gods, we would act in total love, total harmony, total perfection. Where is the problem?
Well, "God" is the ur-"incoherent concept" (i.e. empty name), no?
:lol:
Sei un buffone! :smile:
Suppose they did. That would undermine the reason they created life for. The virus in heaven wants to look at viral acting as it was before, like the heavenly tree, monkey, whale, fish, bird, snake, etc. Seeing the happening that caused them to create the universe in the first place is not what's intended.
If you demonstrate this then you demonstrate logically and conclusively that God does not exist. Not easily done. But you can demonstrate quite easily that an omnipotent God does not exist: such a quality cannot be instantiated.
Says who?
Can god cook a burrito so hot that he can not eat it?
I assume you don’t know that this Italian expression is quite offensive, in Italian it has never a friendly meaning.
Possiamo farlo gentile! E facile! Siamo Dio! Billione di volte! Scusami.
They called me that in Italy for fun!
Ok, I see you are not familiar with the Italian language, maybe you just used Google translate. That's fine, I see it was not your intention.
Says the kinds of contradictions pointed out in the op.
My father is Italian! Casamicciola, Ischia! Senza traduttore!
Is buffone really bad?
Yes, don't use it with Italian people, even when you are joking. It's not like saying "you are ridiculous, you are funny"; it expresses an explicit intention to stop joking and offend seriously, it's like saying "you have no dignity, you don't deserve respect".
Like a buffoon in English? Anyhow, no bad intention meant. I thought it meant someone who makes things bigger, like from "trinity" to "billionty", which sounds rather funny.
Maybe god is in a superposition of being able to create the rock and lift it - until you make a measurement (= start to think about it). But unlike with quantum measurements, a conscious observer is necessary to collapse the wave function.
And since the faithful have stoped being rational, they have stopped doing philosophy.
You seem to think that if someone is able to do something, then they've done it or that their doing it must leave them unaffected. Quite why you'd think such things I do not know.
Can a bachelor get married? Yes. They won't be a bachelor afterwards, but they have the ability to marry.
Can an omnipotent being create a rock too heavy for him to lift? Yes. They won't be omnipotent afterwards. But so what?
Quoting Banno
:100: :fire:
...no, you don't; you merely assert.
To accept a contradiction is to forfeit rationality and hence to cease to argue.
Only the "undefined, vague" ... Define "gods" in such a way that distinguishes them by their predicates as existing from not existing, then apply such a definition and observe what it entails for facts of the matter which are irrational to deny.
One who accepts a contradiction has forfeited reason.
Genuflect and give praise, little lamb. :pray:
This one:
Quoting whollyrolling
Assume (p & ~p); anything follows.
Logic, and rationality, are rendered null, further discussion is void.
But still, the posts continue.
No, it's true because from a contradiction anything follows.
But you have not grasped this core piece of logic.
Quoting Banno
Oh, yes I have. The point is that if this is what you think, then you can conjure anything from your arguments. They cease to be reasonable; they cease to serve to say what can or cannot be.
You have stoped reasoning and are now dependent only on faith. You have stoped doing philosophy.
You have breached the line demarcating philosophy from nonsense.
Here:
Principle of explosion
Dialetheism
Omnipotence
Paraconsistent Logic
Go do a bit of reading.
See you when you have misunderstood enough of this stuff to think you know what you are talking about.
Trinity is one and same God (one sprit) revealed in 3 persons, but we each represent our self and we are all individual spirits. (many spirits)
Quoting Angelo Cannata
That's indeed paradox but already solved one, do you know Jesus said "you are Gods"? :wink:
Only to the willfully, incorrigibly, ignorant like yourself.
The question of heavy stone demands God to degrade it's power:
1. God is superior being.
2. Superior being means there is no grater or more powerful being.
3. If God degrades it's power (with heavy stone) this would make him inferior being.
4. If God is inferior being this means it's not God, instead true God is some other God that is superior to God that degrade it's power.
5. If there is superior God to God that degrade it's power then the question is directed toward wrong God.
6. If question is directed toward wrong God this begs the question "Who is God"?
7. God is according to definition a being that is omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent and omnibenevolent.
8. If God is omnibenevolent then God doesn't harm anyone including itself.
9. If God doesn't harm itself then it would not degrade it's power.
10. Therefore God would not make such a stone because it's contradictory to it's nature.
This obviously doesn't make God not omnipotent because God isn't only about omnipotence, all properties of a God must be taken into account for correct answer.
Nope. It only questions the ability to degrade it's power. And, according to your attempt at logic, god doesn't have that ability. Thus it isn't omnipotent.
Am I omnipotent when I refuse to make a stone so heavy I can't lift it?
Am I omniscient when I refuse to let you in to my superior knowledge?
Quoting SpaceDweller
You know that adding properties does make your god even more impossible? The impossibility of an omnipotent, omni benevolent god has been show 2300 years ago:
“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”
? Epicurus
:up:
:rofl: :up:
Epicurus's quote does nothing to suggest an omnipotent, omni benevolent god (or a God as in the Abrahamic religions) couldn't logically exist. Especially the 3rd point, where there have been thousands of years of theodicity since then.
Suppose God can create a stone He can't lift, is God omnipotent or not? Since if He couldn't the argument claims He is not omnipotent, that He can implies He is omnipotent. The tale doesn't end there though as now because God can't lift the stone, He's now labeled not omnipotent. You can't have it both ways - the person who came up with the omnipotence argument is being self-contradictory (Ominpotent if God can create such a stone and not ominpotent because he now can't lift the stone He created).
No, that's not the logic I was presenting.
Here is an example:
1. I'm able to kill myself
2. I love myself therefore I will not kill myself
3. Does that make me unable to kill myself?
A:) No it doesn't, I'm still able to kill myself, I hold that power.
Now apply same logic to God degrading it's power.
Omnibenevolence doesn't mean reduction or lack of omnipotence.
Your formula does not apply:
(Virtual particles pop into existence & ~Virtual particles pop out of existence) = virtual particles do not exist = false
What can we do?
Assume an unfaithful interlocutor and put them on ignore immediately?
That goes against Hanlon's Razor.
So we try to teach them logic 101, trace our arguments back to first principles before we are sure that we have a malicious interlocutor or are sure that they won't understand logic ever.
Then we put them on ignore.
Either He can or He cannot.
If He cannot, He's not omnipotent.
That means if He can, He is omnipotent[sup]1[/sup].
But then the argument goes,
He can implies He is not omnipotent[sup]2[/sup] (He can't lift the stone).
Vide 1 & 2. A contradiction.
There's the alternative response of laughing at them and walking away.
The sad thing is that there would be an excellent thread in the topic. The SEP article I cited above has some interesting variations on the rock: Might an omnipotent being bring it about that Parmenides lectures for the first time? That Plato freely decides to write a dialogue?
I don't think @whollyrolling an unfaithful interlocutor, just ignorant and ill-equiped. A competent thinker might have thrown dialetheism back at me without hesitation.
:up:
ahahah :grin:
funny but true.
:up:
No problem, that's the point I'm trying to make.
You think using philosophical terminology on a philosophy forum is "elitist"?
You have never studied anything nor have you learned a trade it seems. May I ask how old you are?
That's the wrong question. Ask what his IQ is.
I didn't have to. Read his non answer, he tells it all.
:snicker:
:fire:
I think the answer is #2:
"Is he both able and willing"
So the question is "Then where does evil come from?"
Cannot argue with that.
Why is it so hard to give up on the arbitrarily invented traits of an imagined entity, even, or especially, when they have been shown to be impossible? It's not even in your book.
Giving up is not satisfactory solution.
AFAIK, there is no argument showing God impossible.
If you want to know where does evil come from, I suggest following book:
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/35168559-the-mystery-of-evil
Perhaps. But who guides their life by what is not impossible?
So you are just a sore loser?
Not all that is not impossible projects moral guide.
Quoting ArmChairPhilosopher
looser eh :meh:
I'm not looser, I seek answers you're afraid of.
And I give answers you are afraid of.
Agreed. I think what convinced me of this was a version of Plantinga’s free will defense, which follows in the lines of Augustine and Aquinas.
In fact, I think atheists and theists alike would do well reading Mackie and Plantinga.
You said I'm sore looser, how is that an answer to the answer I proposed?
If your sole goal is to insult then go ahead and insult as much as you wish, I'm fine with that, but please don't confuse insults for answers, maybe I'm indeed looser but I'm not that stupid.
Well, and I'm sure there's a fancy term for this but something created with omnipotence is outside of "everything", at least everything created. You can go back and forth but compare it to a computer game. You can just keep creating or "uncreating" a thing or non-thing because.. you can. It is a major tenet of most religions that there is a supreme being that can do something you cannot, typically, anything or just about. A logician would call this "moving goal posts" and not a philosophical discussion.
The Father will create the stone.
The Son will lift it!
There's no contradiction because The Father [math]\neq[/math] The Son!
The Holy Ghost is simply an extra hand. You know, just in case!
Didn't Vatican II ascertain (so let it be written! so let it be done!) that the Holy Ghost has no hands?
You have to pay attention to details. The Holy Ghost is a one-armed cripple! :joke:
Oh, but I thought they are God! :chin:
And when you try to diverge and say that "The Father is God" and "The Son is God" then, by the law of identity, "The Father is The Son".
And when you insist that "The Father is not The Son" then you have left rationality and no thinking being will take you serious.
Yeah, that did cross my mind. The Sancta Trinitas is a contradiction in and of itself! Ex falso quodlibet (the principle of explosion): A logic bomb meant to blast through walls ideas seem to erect around themselves, a meme trap, imprisoning our minds! However, it feels a bit excessive, I would've preferred a controlled demolition (selective) instead of a thermonuclear warhead (indiscriminate). I once likened the Holy Trinity to a Zen Koan. The objective: Cause a mind crash! You could compare it to malware (viruses, worms) - malicious payloads but deployed with good intentions!
From pulling so much bullshit out of its ass?...
Enema? Constipation? :chin:
"Man is quite insane. He wouldn't know how to create a maggot, and he creates gods by the dozen." - Michel de Montaigne
Someone can claim that "God" is omnipotent, omniscient, and/or omini-whatever else they can think of but does that really mean that that is what "God" is. At times it may seem like fun to try and guess what God may be like, but it is a given that a man can not understand what "God" might be any more than an ant could understand what a man may be like. In most cultures where people are not indoctrinated with Abrahamic religions (which pretend to know what "God" is and wants), it is taboo to speak of such things because it often just descends into madness. It is also taboo/heresy in cultures with Abrahamic religions to talk about such things that are not part of the "official" doctrine since such beliefs more often than not conflict with existing beliefs.
In truth, what "God" is most likely (or what we can know) is merely the super-ego part of our mind telling us what to do or not do. To understand how this is, or why it even exist I suggest you read up on Julian Jaynes's "The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind" on how early man didn't quite have a consciousness or what we think of "ego" in today's world and only something like the primitive animal like "Id" and the "super-ego" ( a subconscious collection of social rules morals, ideals, etc.) to guide primitive man in his day to day survival.
The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Origin_of_Consciousness_in_the_Breakdown_of_the_Bicameral_Mind
If you REALLY want to see how "God" and your super-ego actually work, I suggest you try to talk to "God" at least once if not several times a day about whatever you feel like. My guess it usually takes anywhere between 6 months to around two years before you will start getting answers in your head from either "God" or your super-ego. From what little I know about the theory and whatever explains how this works, primitive man usually didn't have to spend years trying to talking to "God" before he answered because almost as soon as they became semi-mature they would naturally start trying to talk to gods or "God" without really even being aware of it.
And one last thing, it likely helps if you actually believe in "God", super-ego, or whatever it is that you are trying to talk to. Be aware that whatever conversations you have, "God"/ super-ego/or whatever it is you talk to you may not like what it is they have to say. Also as far as I know, Abrahamic teachings often frown on this way on trying to understand "God" (verses trying to understand from their books and teachings) since one's own super-ego/"God" says to them can obviously tell them things then what their books say and when that happens they say you are talking to devils or demons and not "God". Just consider it if you are someone that tries to follow one of the Abrahamic systems of beliefs. If you don't then I guess you really don't have too much to worry about.
Miracles are invariably attributed to god(s). Mircales are, as per Hume, improbable events. Surely (?), if god(s) are as great as we think they are, they should be able to do the impossible!!!
The paradox: The argument is backwards in terms of the concept of a fortiori. It should've been if god(s) can do the impossible, for certain they can work miracles (improbabilities).
Anyone have any idea how to resolve this for me!
God can not do what is logically impossible, such as making 1 + 1 = 3
:snicker: