The title’s been corrected:
Can God create a rock which is too heavy for himself to lift up?
Mods, I’m sorry if this is the wrong forum. I have a great deal of difficulty if this thread is worth being in Great Debates. Silly me.
gvozd. Theological questions go in Great Debates, regardless of size or weight.
Also, you need a mod to fix a thread title – so I fixed that for you as well.
twickster, MPSIMS moderator
Of course He can! An omnipotent God is not bound by the rules of logic.
Yes or no. Depends on His mood.
Can God create a poster who can asks this question and who doesn’t have a join date in the same month the thread was created?
Our God is a rockin’ God, amen.
If you assume God isn’t omnipotent, there’s no reason it isn’t possible. If you assume God is omnipotent, the question becomes nonsensical.
I believe St. Augustine pronounced that it is sin to suppose God is any the less omnipotent because he cannot do
logically impossible things, like dividing something into three equal halves.
I believe St. Augustine was full of shit.
Cvazn Gvozd cvrezate vaz rvozck whvizch vizs tvozo hvezavy fvozr hvizmself tvoz lvizft vuzp?
Can we assume a rock so big it takes God six whole days to make the thing, at which point He rests instead of picking it up?
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”; that it is not logically coherent in terms of power to think that omnipotence includes the power to do the logically impossible. 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. This is justified by observing that in order for the omnipotent agent to create such a stone, the omnipotent agent must already be more powerful than itself: such a stone is too heavy for the omnipotent agent to lift, but the omnipotent agent already can create such a stone; If an omnipotent agent already is more powerful than itself, then it already is just that powerful. Which means that its power to create a stone that’s too heavy for it to lift is identical to its power to lift that very stone. While this doesn’t quite make complete sense, Lewis wished to stress its implicit point: that even within the attempt to prove that the concept of omnipotence is immediately incoherent, one admits that it is immediately coherent, and that the only difference is that this attempt if forced to admit this despite that the attempt is constituted by a perfectly irrational route to its own unwilling end, with a perfectly irrational set of ‘things’ included in that end. In other words, that the ‘limit’ on what omnipotence ‘can’ do is not a limit on its actual agency, but an epistemological boundary without which omnipotence could not be identified (paradoxically or otherwise) in the first place. In fact, this process is merely a fancier form of the classic Liar ParadoxA: If I say, “I am a liar”, then how can it be true if I am telling the truth therewith, and, if I am telling the truth therewith, then how can I be a liar? So, to think that omnipotence is an epistemological paradox is like failing to recognize that, when taking the statement, ‘I am a liar’ self-referentially, the statement is reduced to an actual failure to lie. In other words, if one maintains the supposedly ‘initial’ position that the necessary conception of omnipotence includes the ‘power’ to compromise both itself and all other identity, and if one concludes from this position that omnipotence is epistemologically incoherent, then one implicitly is asserting that one’s own ‘initial’ position is incoherent. 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.
Only if God chooses not be able to lift it.
God is the rock.
I thought Peter was the rock.
Fight my ignorance, but square circles are impossible in Euclidean space, but if space is curved enough, seems a square would be rather round.
Likewise an invisible pink unicorn could be an ordinary pink unicorn in the dark, or behind a someone else’s problem field or something. or something.
I guess what I’m saying is we need to throw off the shackles Euclidean space, and prohibitions against mad science narwhal-equine genetic engineering. We could be gods I tell you! Fools I’ll destroy you all!
Take a page from Erwin Schrödinger.
Create rock in secluded location nobody else can reach or observe.
(Attempt to) lift rock.
Refuse to tell anyone whether the attempt was successful.