If God Is All Powerful, Can He Make A Rock So Big, That Even He Cannot

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' timestamp='1308166860' post='2254121']
so we have knight on record as saying 'no'.
God has a limit... he cannot make a rock so big that he cannot lift it.
i do appreciate his wise words.
[/quote]

Correction. It's not a limit that He cannot create it. It would be a limit if He did create it. Just as it is not a limit that God cannot lie, but it would be a limit if God did lie.

Edited June 15, 2011 by KnightofChrist

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote name='Mr.CatholicCat' timestamp='1308109652' post='2253909']
[center][img]http://www.irreligion.org/wp-content/uploads/2007/12/occamsrazorbu0.jpg[/img][/center]
[/quote]

there are variations within atheism, but no where as complex as christianity.
soft and hard athesits, as some call them. 'i absolutely do not believe in God or the possiblity thereof'. ' i tend not to believe' 'on a scale of 1 to ten...' "i wouldn't rule out hte possiblity...'
but that's about it.

[Mr.Cat]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' timestamp='1308166860' post='2254121']so we have knight on record as saying 'no'.
God has a limit... he cannot make a rock so big that he cannot lift it. [/quote]He replied as I said some wise apologists have in the past trying to address this matter, but the problem that the answer creates is that it does in fact setup some provisos to the all-powerful god problem, there are other answers but I wanted to see if someone was smart enough to go look it up themselves... so far, not yet.

Because I would argue the bible god has been [url="http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/god_lie.html"]indirectly deceptive[/url], by the bible's own admission.[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' timestamp='1308167358' post='2254129']there are variations within atheism, but no where as complex as christianity.
soft and hard athesits, as some call them. 'i absolutely do not believe in God or the possiblity thereof'. ' i tend not to believe' 'on a scale of 1 to ten...' "i wouldn't rule out hte possiblity...'
but that's about it.[/quote]I don't know if you have ever hung out with an atheist crowd, but the variations between atheism if it could be called that, do not cause disagreement or problems. Also these variations are much narrower than the broad spectrum of world religions or christian religions. Because ultimately, atheists lack belief, and that is the only philosophical position of atheism that is relevant. It requires less and simpler explanation... Occam's Razor for the win.

Edited June 15, 2011 by Mr.CatholicCat

[dairygirl4u2c]

so is your answer to the question, yes, or no?
i think it's still no.... 'God could limit himself, but he wouldn't, and if he did then it'd be a contradiction... '. are we saying God could contradict himself, but that he wouldn't? i suppose that could make sense. but then, are we also able to say that God could make a square circle? is the God issue we're talking about directly enough anaologus that it'd extend to that stuff too?
maybe not 'no'.... it almost sounds like what others have said in less articulated ways... 'God can make that rock if he wanted to... but then he could decide otherwise' etc etc. i

Edited June 15, 2011 by dairygirl4u2c

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Mr.CatholicCat' timestamp='1308166932' post='2254122']
For someone who doesn't understand philosophy or sarcasm, I'm not sure if I should dignify this with a reply. But to be generous; you are correct, that is why the argument was made, and that is why I made the comment.
[/quote]
Way to go on the contempt level, buddy. That's quite nearly a new record for ya, isn't it?
I'm no philosopher, but I have studied it at the post-secondary level.

[dairygirl4u2c]

Proposed answers

A common response is that since God is supposedly omnipotent, the phrase "could not lift" doesn't make sense and the paradox is meaningless.[12][13] An alternative version would be to assume that a non-corporeal God cannot lift anything, but can raise it (a linguistic pedantry) - or to use the beliefs of Christians and Hindus (that there is one God, who can be manifest as several different beings) that whilst it is possible for God to do all things, it is not possible for all his incarnations to do them. As such, God could create a stone so heavy that, in one incarnation, he was unable to lift it - but would be able to do something that an incarnation that could lift it couldn't.

Thomas Aquinas asserts that the paradox arises from a misunderstanding of omnipotence. He maintains that inherent contradictions and logical impossibilities do not fall under the omnipotence of God.[14] J. L Cowan sees this paradox as a reason to reject the concept of absolute omnipotence,[15] while others, such as Rene Descartes, argue that God is absolutely omnipotent, despite the problem.[9]

C. S. Lewis argues that when talking about omnipotence, referencing "a rock so heavy that God cannot lift it" is nonsense just as much as referencing "a square circle." So asking "Can God create a rock so heavy that even he cannot lift it?" is just as much nonsense as asking "Can God draw a square circle?" The logical contradiction here being God's simultaneous ability and disability in lifting the rock (the statement "God can lift this rock" must have a truth value of either true or false, it cannot possess both). Therefore the question (and therefore the perceived paradox) is meaningless. Nonsense does not suddenly acquire sense and meaning with the addition of the two words, "God can" before it. [12]

One can also attempt to resolve the paradox by asserting a kind of omnipotence that does not demand that a being must be able to do all things at all times. According to this line of reasoning, the being can create a stone which it cannot lift at the moment of creation. Being omnipotent, however, the being can always alter the stone (or itself) later so that it can lift it. Therefore the being is still, perhaps, in some sense omnipotent. But if you consider the fact that if the being alters the stone it is no longer the same stone, and if it makes itself stronger, that is proof enough it was not previously omnipotent, and will never be truly omnipotent, not within the realm of logic.

This is roughly the view espoused by Matthew Harrison Brady, a character in the 1955 play Inherit the Wind loosely based upon William Jennings Bryan. In the climactic scene of the 1960 movie version, Brady argues, "Natural law was born in the mind of the Creator. He can change it—cancel it—use it as he pleases!" But this solution merely pushes the problem back a step; one may ask whether an omnipotent being can create a stone so immutable that the being itself cannot later alter it. But a similar response can be offered to respond to this and any further steps.

In a 1955 article published in the philosophy journal Mind, J. L. Mackie attempted to resolve the paradox by distinguishing between first-order omnipotence (unlimited power to act) and second-order omnipotence (unlimited power to determine what powers to act things shall have).[16] An omnipotent being with both first and second-order omnipotence at a particular time might restrict its own power to act and, henceforth, cease to be omnipotent in either sense. There has been considerable philosophical dispute since Mackie, as to the best way to formulate the paradox of omnipotence in formal logic.[17]

Another common response to the omnipotence paradox is to try to define omnipotence to mean something weaker than absolute omnipotence, such as definition 3 or 4 above. The paradox can be resolved by simply stipulating that omnipotence does not require the being to have abilities which are logically impossible, but only to be able to do anything which conforms to the laws of logic. A good example of a modern defender of this line of reasoning is George Mavrodes.[5] Essentially, Mavrodes argues that it is no limitation on a being's omnipotence to say that it cannot make a round square. Such a "task" is termed by him a "pseudo-task" as it is self-contradictory and inherently nonsense. Harry Frankfurt—following from Descartes—has responded to this solution with a proposal of his own: that God can create a stone impossible to lift and also lift said stone

For why should God not be able to perform the task in question? To be sure, it is a task—the task of lifting a stone which He cannot lift—whose description is self-contradictory. But if God is supposed capable of performing one task whose description is self-contradictory—that of creating the problematic stone in the first place—why should He not be supposed capable of performing another—that of lifting the stone? After all, is there any greater trick in performing two logically impossible tasks than there is in performing one?[18]

If a being is accidentally omnipotent, then it can resolve the paradox by creating a stone which it cannot lift and thereby becoming non-omnipotent. Unlike essentially omnipotent entities, it is possible for an accidentally omnipotent being to be non-omnipotent. This raises the question, however, of whether or not the being was ever truly omnipotent, or just capable of great power.[8] On the other hand, the ability to voluntarily give up great power is often thought of as central to the notion of the Christian Incarnation.[19]

If a being is essentially omnipotent, then it can also resolve the paradox (as long as we take omnipotence not to require absolute omnipotence). The omnipotent being is essentially omnipotent, and therefore it is impossible for it to be non-omnipotent. Further, the omnipotent being cannot do what is logically impossible. The creation of a stone which the omnipotent being cannot lift would be an impossibility. The omnipotent being cannot create such a stone, but nevertheless retains its omnipotence. This solution works even with definition 2, as long as we also know the being is essentially omnipotent rather than accidentally so. However, a reduction of ones' own power is possible for non-omnipotent beings, so one would have the paradoxical situation that non-omnipotent beings can do something which an essentially omnipotent being can not accomplish.

This was essentially the position taken by Augustine of Hippo in his The City of God:
“ For He is called omnipotent on account of His doing what He wills, not on account of His suffering what He wills not; for if that should befall Him, He would by no means be omnipotent. Wherefore, He cannot do some things for the very reason that He is omnipotent.[20] ”

Thus Augustine argued that God could not do anything or create any situation that would in effect make God not God.

Some philosophers maintain that the paradox can be resolved if the definition of omnipotence includes Descartes' view that an omnipotent being can do the logically impossible. In this scenario, the omnipotent being could create a stone which it cannot lift, but could also then lift the stone anyway. Presumably, such a being could also make the sum 2 + 2 = 5 become mathematically possible or create a square triangle. This attempt to resolve the paradox is problematic in that the definition itself forgoes logical consistency. The paradox may be solved, but at the expense of making the logic a paraconsistent logic. This might not seem like a problem if one is already committed to dialetheism or some other form of logical transcendence.

St Augustine's definition of omnipotence, i.e. that God can do and does everything that God wishes, resolves all possible paradoxes, because God, being perfectly rational, never wishes to do something that is paradoxical.

If God can do absolutely anything, then God can remove His own omnipotence. If God can remove His own omnipotence, then God can create an enormous stone, remove His own omnipotence, then not be able to lift the stone. This preserves the belief that God is omnipotent because God can create a stone that He couldn't lift. Therefore, in this theory, God would not be omnipotent while not being able to lift the stone. This is a trivial solution because, for example, an omnipotent being could create a boulder that the strongest human could not lift (it needn't do that anyway since such boulders exist) and then give itself the potency of an average human; it would then not be able to lift the stone. This solves nothing as the entity that is unable to lift the stone is not "God" as understood by the paradox, but a very average being with the same potency as a human. The solution only produces a reduced-potency "God"; it does not deal with the matter at hand: God maintaining omnipotence even while performing a task, the success or failure of which seems to imply impotence.

David Hemlock has proposed an incarnational resolution: "On one small planet, lying in a manger, one incarnate babe could not lift the rocks He had made. All the rocks of all of the starfields in Him consist, with their whirling atoms; by Him were and ever-are all things lifted up (Col 1:17; Phil 2:5-8)." [21]

The Atheist solution to the paradox is that omnipotence, and hence God, doesn't exist.

[Mr.Cat]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1308168116' post='2254143']Way to go on the contempt level, buddy. That's quite nearly a new record for ya, isn't it?
I'm no philosopher, but I have studied it at the post-secondary level.[/quote]Nihil Obstat, you never have apologized for privately and publicly, repeatedly and defensively, arguing that I was a waste of space. But I still don't think you understand philosophy. It' was a classic joke... The fact that you took it seriously suggests either you failed to understand the philosophy or sarcasm. If you call that contempt, I would be interested to know what you did was...

I don't have time for your petty games, if you have an argument to demonstrate you're god's existence or relevance, do it quickly.

Edited June 15, 2011 by Mr.CatholicCat

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Mr.CatholicCat' timestamp='1308168441' post='2254146']
Nihil Obstat, you never have apologized for privately and publicly, repeatedly and defensively, arguing that I was a waste of space. But I still don't think you understand philosophy, it's a classic joke... The fact that you took it seriously suggests either you failed to understand the philosophy or sarcasm. If you call that contempt, I would be interested to know what you did was...

I don't have time for your petty games, if you have an argument to make to demonstrate you're god's existence or relevance, do it quickly.
[/quote]
I'm sorry for calling you a waste of space.
How do you know that I took seriously your comment about the perfect island? Yet you accuse me of not understanding sarcasm? Pots and kettles and such.

[Mr.Cat]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1308168599' post='2254155']I'm sorry for calling you a waste of space.
How do you know that I took seriously your comment about the perfect island? Yet you accuse me of not understanding sarcasm? Pots and kettles and such.[/quote]Because the argument of a perfect island when it was first presented was not a serious argument, it was a parody to show why it didn't make sense. So to jump in with that you think it was a worse argument... did you realize it was supposed to be? Or did you feel like stating the obvious? It's a fair assumption, but also why I was generous enough to give answer. Which you decided to take that generosity as contempt. Which isnt surprising from you.

As an ironic note, an argument about Gaunilo's island, which was basically mocking Anselm, has inspired someone to argue contempt.

Edited June 15, 2011 by Mr.CatholicCat

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Mr.CatholicCat' timestamp='1308168952' post='2254161']
Because the argument of a perfect island when it was first presented was not a serious argument, it was a parody to show why it didn't make sense. So to jump in with that you think it was a worse argument... did you realize it was supposed to be? Or did you feel like stating the obvious? It's a fair assumption, but also why I was generous enough to give answer. Which you decided to take that generosity as contempt. Which isnt surprising from you.
[/quote]
Look, I understand both the ontological argument and Guanilo's objection. That's not what this is about.
However this: "For someone who doesn't understand philosophy or sarcasm, I'm not sure if I should dignify this with a reply", is pretty easy to interpret as contempt.

[Mr.Cat]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1308169173' post='2254166']Look, I understand both the ontological argument and Guanilo's objection. That's not what this is about.
However this: "For someone who doesn't understand philosophy or sarcasm, I'm not sure if I should dignify this with a reply", is pretty easy to interpret as contempt.[/quote] I don't confirm delusions.

[Nihil Obstat]

[img]http://media.giantbomb.com/uploads/2/21733/755776-lol_que_large.jpg[/img]

[Mr.Cat]

I remember a certain someone who called a similar situation as this, who was doc dumping for pages, was asked why they were spamming... their reply was a strong "off topic". I wonder if they will be consistent enough to realize the own contempt of their words or baseless accusations... or more importantly, that this too is off topic and futile. As they haven't answered my questions.

Theists are such curious and silly creatures...

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Mr.CatholicCat' timestamp='1308169500' post='2254177']
I remember a certain someone who called a similar situation as this, who was doc dumping for pages, was asked why they were spamming... their reply was a strong "off topic". I wonder if they will be consistent enough to realize the own contempt of their words or baseless accusations... or more importantly, that this too is off topic and futile. As they haven't answered my questions.

Theists are such curious and silly creatures...
[/quote]
Remember that time I thanked you for not entering the seminary? I don't take that one back.

[Mr.Cat]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1308169550' post='2254178']Remember that time I thanked you for not entering the seminary? I don't take that one back.[/quote] I do too, it would of been a waste of time and energy, such as you're silliness is now. But I was never offended by that comment, as it was a shot in the foot at you're own supposed traditionalism.

Come to think of it... were you not the one who said that you were glad you left Phatmass and would never return... How irony strikes.

Edited June 15, 2011 by Mr.CatholicCat