Thread: Can god create a rock so big...

Or what you bellieve to be illogic. You still haven't proved it's flaws, and you never will any more than I can prove them. You'll argue to the ends of the earth. If your desperate enough, you'll argue past the boundaries of logical science(Ive seen it happen. People can get really protective of what they believe.) fact is, no one here who has made up their mind on the issue is going to change it.

Originally Posted by FortressForever

I googled this question a long time ago to find out what people thought of it and found what I believe to be a very good answer. Just to be clear, i did not write this. The author is Gregory Koukl. Here is a link to where i found it.
http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5160


This is known as a pseudo-question. It’s like asking, “Can God win an arm wrestling match against Himself?” or, “If God beat Himself up, who would win?” or, “Can God’s power defeat His own power?”

The question is nonsense because it treats God as if He were two instead of one. The phrase “stronger than” can only be used when two subjects are in view, for example, Bill is stronger than Bob, my left arm is stronger than my right arm, etc. Since God is only one, and since He has no parts, it makes no sense to ask if He is stronger than Himself. That’s why this is a pseudo-question. It proves nothing about any deficiency in God because the question itself is incoherent.

This pits one aspect of God’s ability against another--in this case, His creative ability against His ability to lift. The goal is to show that there are some things God can’t do, thus undermining the Christian concept of an omnipotent Creator. This illustration, however, miscasts the biblical notion of omnipotence, and is therefore guilty of the straw man fallacy.

Omnipotence doesn’t mean that God can do anything. The concept of omnipotence has to do with power, not ability per se. In fact, there are many things God can’t do. He can’t make square circles. He can’t create a morally free creature who couldn’t choose evil. He can’t instantly create a sixty-year-old man (not one that looks sixty, but one that is sixty). None of these, though, have to do with power. Instead, they are logically contradictory, and therefore contrary to God’s rational nature. The “Can God make a rock so big He can’t lift it?” challenge is no threat to Christian theism

Well said. It is a meaningless question, mistaking what both God and Omnipotence are from the beginning. I've been over this "puzzle" before...

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

We never say how? I think you need to take another look at my post you quoted, for one thing. If God is infinitely powerful, then HE CAN... DO ANYTHING.

God is Omnipotent because He influences and propagates all existence throughout all time and space, forever. He cannot be destroyed, because God is the Absolute Reality. Since God Created all Existence He therefore contextualizes it under His own influence, that nothing happens except for what needs to.

If God, in his Omnipotence, Created Earth and its Gravity, it doesn't mean that "God can make" the Earth shrink into a weightless ping-pong ball on a whim. This is coming from the human imagination, not from God. Whatever is impossible simply is not Real, and has no momentum to be (that which is even potentially impossible).

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Therefore, he can... make a rock so heavy he cannot lift it. Do you see what I am saying? He can... come in the form of a body that is not limited. He can... make the rock so heavy he cannot lift it. He can... lift that same rock. He can... DO ANYTHING. Are you with me so far? Okay, did you catch the contradiction? He can... create a rock so heavy he cannot lift it AND lift the rock. That is a contradiction, and it is what is involved in infinite power. Therefore, the concept of infinite power contradicts itself.

Infinite Power is intrinsic to the Infinite Reality - Reality cannot become non-Reality, as God cannot become Non-God. The Infinite Reality cannot contradict itself and be something it isn't. It's stupidly simple.

Originally Posted by Noogah

Okay. Let me try once more. Two physical bodies. One cannot. One can. God can do anything, but canalso reduce himself in the physical realm so he can't. So technically, in this single
scenario, for a limited amount of time, the physical body that God created is unable to do so. Yes. But does that mean that he is now disabled for eternity? No. You have enough flour to bake anything. Take away to much, and you can't bake anything. Put it back, and you can. It isn't a perfect analogy, but it's the closest I can come up with while drowsily lying in my bed at 1:54 A.M

I don't think this connects with the OP question. God alone is Omnipotent, and that excludes limitation of human bodies and rock-lifting. God has no human characteristic. Rock-lifting itself is already a limitation, and it doesn't need to be done. Omnipotence is existential and nonlinear, there's no way to prove it because proof itself is out of the question. Real Power really just stands on its own without any need whatsoever.

He doesn't need to lift it, he is the rock.

But he could probably make a rock so big it could blot out the entire universe and there would be no up or down, so lifting would be irrelevant. You can only have movement relative to something else, so if the rock eclipses the entire universe, there is nowhere for it to move. Not even god could move it without first creating a second rock as a reference point.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Firt of all, the scenario illustrates the illogic of the concept of infinite power.

There you go, you just answered it yourself. If the concept of infinite power is illogical, then no logical person would believe it. If that is the case, then clearly when someone said God is all powerful, they meant that he was the most powerful being in the world and can do anything but contradict himself.

You are simply assuming that the person writing the bible, was illogical and so picked the illogical definition. Which is why you are making such silly arguments.

Assume for the sake of this argument that the person writing the bible was logical. If they say that god is all powerful, and all powerful could mean he is either A. the most powerful being in the world, or B. has infinite power and self contradicting power, and B is illogical, then clearly they meant A.


The bible doesn't mention any limits, because for all practical and real purposes, he has no limits. As you just said, only an illogical person would believe that god could create a rock so big even he can not pick it up. If no logical person would believe it, then there is no reason to write it. It is clear, to all logical people that he can do anything, but illogical things.

Originally Posted by really

Whatever is impossible simply is not Real, and has no momentum to be (that which is even potentially impossible).

Then there are things he cannot do. The Bible says there is nothing he cannot do. Do you see the contradiction?

Originally Posted by Alric

If the concept of infinite power is illogical, then no logical person would believe it.

Stop insulting Christians.

Originally Posted by Alric

The bible doesn't mention any limits, because for all practical and real purposes, he has no limits. As you just said, only an illogical person would believe that god could create a rock so big even he can not pick it up. If no logical person would believe it, then there is no reason to write it. It is clear, to all logical people that he can do anything, but illogical things.

Is practicality mentioned in those verses? I don't recall reading anything about it.

You are just being dense on purpose. You know full well what the bible meant, and you are choosing to ignore it just so you can argue.

If I were to write down a story like this. Bob bent over and his pants ripped down the seam. Bob turned red, then ran away.

Now that sentence could have two meanings. Bob either turned the color red, as in to blush. Or that he turned red as in a republican.

Everyone here is arguing that Bob turned the color red. You are arguing that Bob became a republican. You know that it doesn't make any sense but you are still arguing it. So I have to ask, why are you arguing what you know is wrong?

But it SAYS he turned red. It SAYS he is a republican. No it doesn't say that. It says he turned red, but it doesn't say he turned republican.

If all you can do it shout really loud, that it SAYS he turned republican, then you are an idiot or you are just being a jerk.

There is two definitions of the word and even though everyone here is using the one definition, you are claiming our definition doesn't exist, even though its by far the most common definition. And stating only your definition exist, even though it makes no sense and you admit it makes no sense.

You are so hellbent on trying to prove yourself right, you can't even realize that you are arguing something that makes no sense. Everything you are saying is just gibberish.

No, this is not some guessing game about something ambiguous. Which of the following does what I quoted from the Bible say?

A. There is nothing God cannot do.
B. There is nothing within the laws of logic God cannot do.
C. There is nothing that can be done that God cannot do.
D. There is nothing God cannot do that is practical.

The correct answer is A.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Then there are things he cannot do. The Bible says there is nothing he cannot do. Do you see the contradiction?

No there isn't. Show me what God cannot do. If you resort to the hypothetical argument again, it is invalid. Impossibilities are outside Reality.

Originally Posted by really

No there isn't. Show me what God cannot do. If you resort to the hypothetical argument again, it is invalid. Impossibilities are outside Reality.

You just answered your own question.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

No, this is not some guessing game about something ambiguous. Which of the following does what I quoted from the Bible say?

A. There is nothing God cannot do.
B. There is nothing within the laws of logic God cannot do.
C. There is nothing that can be done that God cannot do.
D. There is nothing God cannot do that is practical.

The correct answer is A.

You have that text/verse inaccurate and we've went over this in the other thread.
That is in a questionable format. The writer imposes a question(?) regarding God's power. Is there nothing to difficult for the Lord? See when it's taken in it's correct meaning it becomes entirely different.

No it isn't. All four meanings were conveyed in that sentence. That is especially true since it was a quote of someone speaking.

Answer me this. Why would anyone speaking about god, to another person say B,C or D, when A works just as fine and everyone understands it?

It was a quote of a everyday person speaking of god, to another person. It makes no sense that they would say the others, even if they meant them.

Here is a really good example. If Bob is the best runner in the school and a person says, "Bob is the greatest runner there is." The clear meaning isn't that he is the best runner on the entire planet. It might say that, but it is clearly not what is being conveyed in the sentence. They are stating that Bob is the greatest runner that person has met.

To make the claim that it is impossible that the person meant that bob was the greatest runner he has ever meet, because he said he was "The greatest runner there is" is silly. So why are you doing the same thing here.

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

You have that text/verse inaccurate and we've went over this in the other thread.
That is in a questionable format. The writer imposes a question(?) regarding God's power. Is there nothing to difficult for the Lord? See when it's taken in it's correct meaning it becomes entirely different.

You must be talking about an, "Oh, shit, we better change that verse," interpretation you found somewhere. They did the same thing with the verse about how it's okay to beat your slaves to death as long as it takes them more than two days to die.

Originally Posted by Alric

No it isn't. All four meanings were conveyed in that sentence. That is especially true since it was a quote of someone speaking.

Answer me this. Why would anyone speaking about god, to another person say B,C or D, when A works just as fine and everyone understands it?

It was a quote of a everyday person speaking of god, to another person. It makes no sense that they would say the others, even if they meant them.

Here is a really good example. If Bob is the best runner in the school and a person says, "Bob is the greatest runner there is." The clear meaning isn't that he is the best runner on the entire planet. It might say that, but it is clearly not what is being conveyed in the sentence. They are stating that Bob is the greatest runner that person has met.

To make the claim that it is impossible that the person meant that bob was the greatest runner he has ever meet, because he said he was "The greatest runner there is" is silly. So why are you doing the same thing here.

They have four different meanings. The last three impose limitation. The first one does not.

No they are not different. They are all saying the same thing in different ways.

Originally Posted by Alric

No they are not different. They are all saying the same thing in different ways.

So the things God cannot do don't qualify as things he cannot do?

Who created the laws of logic?

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

So the things God cannot do don't qualify as things he cannot do?

That is correct. Since the things he can not do are illogical and make no sense. It might help if you look at it this way. Before the universe was created, there was nothing but god. When god gave the universe a form that exist, he created the laws of the universe. He could of created it in any form he wanted but he decided on a substantial universe where laws exist.

He could have made 2+2=5 but that only would of worked in an insubstantial and chaotic world, where things do not exist like they do in our own world.

It is entirely possible he can still do that stuff, but in the scope of our world, he can not, because it is illogical and makes no sense. It simply can not exist, ever.

Originally Posted by Alric

That is correct. Since the things he can not do are illogical and make no sense. It might help if you look at it this way. Before the universe was created, there was nothing but god. When god gave the universe a form that exist, he created the laws of the universe. He could of created it in any form he wanted but he decided on a substantial universe where laws exist.

He could have made 2+2=5 but that only would of worked in an insubstantial and chaotic world, where things do not exist like they do in our own world.

It is entirely possible he can still do that stuff, but in the scope of our world, he can not, because it is illogical and makes no sense. It simply can not exist, ever.

OMG! That is a freaking Brilliant Statement!

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

You just answered your own question.

You beg to show that nothing is impossible, yet you use the logic that would have your own argument falter. You may as well ask: "How can nothing be impossible if it cannot simultaneously be impossible?" These contradictory arguments are childish.

[By the way] You didn't answer my question. Please re-read it and try again.

Let me connect the dots anyhow:

No there isn't. -> Show me what God cannot do. -> If you resort to the hypothetical argument again, it is invalid. (Impossibilities are outside Reality.)

Spoiler for Nonexistence argument again?:

If impossibilities are outside Reality, they are hypothetical. If they are hypothetical, God automatically "does" everything that is possible by the very nature of Divine Reality.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

So the things God cannot do don't qualify as things he cannot do?

Originally Posted by Alric

That is correct.

Your notion violates what is possibly the most fundamental law of logic. A thing equals itself. Reflexive Property of Equality.

Originally Posted by Alric

Since the things he can not do are illogical and make no sense. It might help if you look at it this way. Before the universe was created, there was nothing but god. When god gave the universe a form that exist, he created the laws of the universe. He could of created it in any form he wanted but he decided on a substantial universe where laws exist.

He could have made 2+2=5 but that only would of worked in an insubstantial and chaotic world, where things do not exist like they do in our own world.

It is entirely possible he can still do that stuff, but in the scope of our world, he can not, because it is illogical and makes no sense. It simply can not exist, ever.

Can God still make 2 + 2 = 5 and arrange the other laws of logic to where the universe is not chaotic as a result?

Originally Posted by really

You beg to show that nothing is impossible, yet you use the logic that would have your own argument falter. You may as well ask: "How can nothing be impossible if it cannot simultaneously be impossible?" These contradictory arguments are childish.

What in the world are you talking about? Your posts are approaching dadaism. I can only respond to what I guess your post to mean.... I know that the concept of infinite power contradicts itself. You are preaching to the atheist choir. I am talking about a Biblical concept, not one that I agree with. Get it?

The Bible does not say there is nothing God cannot do that is possible. It says there is nothing God cannot do.... [That's it. Nothing after that. No limitations whatsoever mentioned.] There is no way around that.

You said, "Show me what God cannot do." Then you said what he cannot do. Get it?

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Your notion violates what is possibly the most fundamental law of logic. A thing equals itself. Reflexive Property of Equality.

It might be you who has forgotten that. Does "do" mean "do not?"

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

What in the world are you talking about? Your posts are approaching dadaism. I can only respond to what I guess your post to mean.... I know that the concept of infinite power contradicts itself. You are preaching to the atheist choir. I am talking about a Biblical concept, not one that I agree with. Get it?

It's irrelevant whether you agree or not, but please don't contaminate your posts with inconsistency.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

The Bible does not say there is nothing God cannot do that is possible. It says there is nothing God cannot do.... [That's it. Nothing after that. No limitations whatsoever mentioned.] There is no way around that.

You said, "Show me what God cannot do." Then you said what he cannot do. Get it?

Yes it is very simple and haven't bothered to count how many times we've been over it together. You're being ignorant, and you're probably missing the fundamental point of this thread.

"What God cannot do" is hypothetical, do YOU get it??

Originally Posted by really

It might be you who has forgotten that. Does "do" mean "do not?"

Read again. I said "cannot do" in both instances.

Originally Posted by really

It's irrelevant whether you agree or not, but please don't contaminate your posts with inconsistency.

Don't make empty comments about inconsistency. Say what you are talking about.

Originally Posted by really

Yes it is very simple and haven't bothered to count how many times we've been over it together. You're being ignorant, and you're probably missing the fundamental point of this thread.

Wow, more emptiness. That must be really convenient for you. You said there are things God cannot do after saying there is nothing God cannot do. A five year old would understand the contradiction in that. Try being intellectually honest now. Do you think you can do it? I don't.

Originally Posted by really

"What God cannot do" is hypothetical, do YOU get it??

Hypothetical? Oh, so there aren't actually things God cannot do?

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Read again. I said "cannot do" in both instances.

You did in your response to Alric, but essentially that's not your problem.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Hypothetical? Oh, so there aren't actually things God cannot do?

Who is to say what is not possible? To negate what is possible for God? It is all imaginary. Do you know what "hypothetical" means? Basically, something that is hypothetical only exists inside your head.

Originally Posted by really

You did in your response to Alric, but essentially that's not your problem.

Then what was your point?

Originally Posted by really

Who is to say what is not possible?

You, Alric, and Ne-yo seem to think you are.

Originally Posted by really

To negate what is possible for God? It is all imaginary.

Then why do you keep doing it?

Originally Posted by really

Do you know what "hypothetical" means? Basically, something that is hypothetical only exists inside your head.

In other words, some things are impossible for God because they are only hypothetical.

Luke 1:37
Nothing is impossible for God.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Then what was your point?

I was referring to your self-contradictory argument, which concerns God not being able to do "not-doingness", yet He is supposed to be able to do anything.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

You, Alric, and Ne-yo seem to think you are.

Then why do you keep doing it?

I have been affirming that God is Omnipotent because impossibilities are outside Reality - which is the Absolute, whereas you are denying God's Omnipotence because God's Omnipotence cannot contradict itself.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

In other words, some things are impossible for God because they are only hypothetical.

Luke 1:37
Nothing is impossible for God.

Impossibility is hypothetical, and "nothing" is hypothetical, just like the Omnipotence that *should be able to* destroy itself.

The words written in the bible are up to anybody's interpretation. Just like any other religous scripture.
Some people interpret everything in the bible literally.
Some people interpret everything symbolicly.
And I know some people who interpret some parts of the bible literally, and some of it symbolicly.
It all depends on how you interpret it.
"God can do anything" and "there is nothing that God cannot do", can mean totally different things depending on how you interpret them.