# Ever asked your minister the "rock question"? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 18, 2003, 4:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ever-asked-your-minister-the-rock-question/213918 "2003-11-18T16:22:36Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Sinungaling](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/838e76/32.png) [@Sinungaling](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sinungaling)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2003, 1:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ever-asked-your-minister-the-rock-question/213918/41 "2003-11-21T01:52:29Z")
So the answer is yes, God can create a rock that would be too heavy for him to lift, while at the same time being able to lift that too-heavy rock. ---
**Author:** ![Tinker\_Grey](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tinker_grey/32/8136_2.png) [@Tinker\_Grey](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tinker_Grey)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2003, 3:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ever-asked-your-minister-the-rock-question/213918/42 "2003-11-21T03:25:28Z")
Requiring the word omnipotence to include the concept of doing the logically impossible or contradictory is arbitrary. ---
**Author:** ![Larry\_Borgia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/larry_borgia/32/156_2.png) [@Larry\_Borgia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Larry_Borgia)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2003, 3:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ever-asked-your-minister-the-rock-question/213918/43 "2003-11-21T03:59:10Z")
But I already solved your problems 🙂 1.) any rock would have to have a finite mass. A rock with infinite mass would either have infinite volume or infinite density. the former wouldn’t fit in the universe, the latter would collapse into a black hole. So the rock has to be finite. If god has supreme power he should be able to accelerate any finite mass. Therefore the answer to the question is no. God cannot create a rock too heavy to lift. 2.) Questions about omnipotence are irrelevant and lead to absurd paradoxes like this rock pseudo-problem. All that is required of God is that he be powerful enough to create the Universe and do whatever it is that your particular religion requires him (her, it?) to do. ---
**Author:** ![MyOld85MG](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/439d5e/32.png) [@MyOld85MG](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MyOld85MG)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2003, 4:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ever-asked-your-minister-the-rock-question/213918/44 "2003-11-21T04:35:09Z")
I know that “real” theologians think Harold Kushner is a little flaky, but his logical interpretation of Job seems relevant here. If I recall correctly, Kushner looked at the Book of Job and decided that an all-loving and all-merciful God would not have allowed all those terrible things to happen, if He could have. But since He did, we have a choice of believing (1) God is not such a loving being after all or (2) God is not all-powerful and therefore was incapable of preventing Job’s suffering. Kushner prefers to believe that God is not omnipotent, but very powerful and benevolent. So, outside of the Book of Job, is there any contradiction between the godly attributes of omnipotence and benevolence? ---
**Author:** ![The\_Ryan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7feea3/32.png) [@The\_Ryan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Ryan)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2003, 7:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ever-asked-your-minister-the-rock-question/213918/45 "2003-11-22T07:34:10Z")
Pleonast > [@](#): > > This is a false binary decision. There are other choices. For example, some parts of God’s nature may be knowable, other parts of his nature may be unknowable. No, there is nothing false about this dictotomy. Either it is possible for humans to comprehend God, or it isn’t. If there is any part of God which we are incapable of comprehending, then we are incapable of comprehending God in general. > [@](#): > > This is not necessarily true. The logically equivalent contrapositive is “If God is not bound by logic, then no statements about God are meaningful”. A counterexample to this is the statement “God is not bound by logic”. This is a meaningful statement, and thus the quote is not true. Not really, because the statement “God is not bound by logic” cannot be used to arrive at any further conclusion. It does not allow us to conclude anything about God _pers se_, only about what can be concluded about God. And really, once you reject logic, you can’t say for certain that TVAA’s statement is false, even if you **do** find a counterexample, because the principle that counterexamples disprove statements is a logical principle, and is dependent on the validity of logic. robertliguori > [@](#): > > Subnote: If one defines omnipotence as being able to do everything possible, then the problem goes away. But if we define omnipotence as being able to do everything which is possible for one to do, then “omnipotence” is meaningless. Tinker Grey > [@](#): > > Perhaps a tighter construction would be that omnipotence is the ability to do all things not-illogical. Except that it is ambiguous. If we denote “God can lift every rock” as A, and “For each being, God can create a rock which that being cannot lift” as B, then your definition would preclude both A and B from being true, but it would create the ambiguity of which is false. “All thing not-illogical” is no more a well defined term than is “the set of all integers not sharing any prime factors”. hansel > [@](#): > > It doesn’t require a heavy-hitter, it’s a paradoxical question. It’s semantically meaningless, even if it’s syntactically sensible. “Is there a circle which is not a circle?” is not meaningless. By your logic, every yes/no question in Math must be answered “yes”, otherwise it’s meaningless. For instance, “Is there a non-compact closed subset of a compact set?” would be meaningless. owlofcreamcheese > [@](#): > > if god is all powerful the way people are [using] the word, then the answer to all the questions would have to be yes. No, omnipotence means being able to perform every action. What you listed were not actions. ---
**Author:** ![Ben\_Hicks](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/bbce88/32.png) [@Ben\_Hicks](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ben_Hicks)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2003, 7:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ever-asked-your-minister-the-rock-question/213918/46 "2003-11-22T07:41:08Z")
**Dogface** > [@](#): > > Originally posted by Dogface > Please demonstrate that God MUST be bound by the rules of human logic. If he wasn’t then he would not be worth worshipping. If he was not bound by logic then he could do the wholly logical impossible. He could perform any feat our minds could conceive and then some. A God not bound by logic would be able to eradicate any and all evil from the world while still managing to ensure humans retained complete free will. If he could do that but didn’t he would be some sort of monster. ---
**Author:** ![eli\_the\_fanatic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/ccd318/32.png) [@eli\_the\_fanatic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eli_the_fanatic)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2003, 7:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ever-asked-your-minister-the-rock-question/213918/47 "2003-11-22T07:47:48Z")
Could God create a logic puzzle so baffling even He couldn’t solve it? ---
**Author:** ![ExecutiveJesus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/a6a055/32.png) [@ExecutiveJesus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ExecutiveJesus)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2003, 8:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ever-asked-your-minister-the-rock-question/213918/48 "2003-11-22T08:24:32Z")
This is essentially asking if something that is all powerful can make itself become “not” all powerful. I think it’s a simple question to answer. Obviously, this entity can do such a thing. I’m sure God could make himself lesser. ---
**Author:** ![t-keela](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/a3d4f5/32.png) [@t-keela](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/t-keela)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2003, 8:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ever-asked-your-minister-the-rock-question/213918/49 "2003-11-22T08:48:54Z")
Kinda like saying there are NO absolutes. huh? You say ask my preacher the “rock question.” No need to, if there is an omnipotent GOD, then I’m sure he/she’d solve the riddle in some mysterious way. Doesn’t mean that WE humans would/could understand it though. That’s the way GOD works isn’t it? The last question a preacher got right for me was when I asked him to pull my finger. ---
**Author:** ![Sergio](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b77776/32.png) [@Sergio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sergio)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2003, 2:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ever-asked-your-minister-the-rock-question/213918/50 "2003-11-22T14:27:09Z")
This is only another way of enouncing the paradox of the existence of an irresistible force and an immovable object. In an Universe where there exists an irresistible force there cannot axist an immovable object and vice-versa. Since omnipotence means that God can create both simultaneously makes pmnipotence paradoxical. The only possible answer is: There is no omnipotence. ---
**Author:** ![TVAA](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c57346/32.png) [@TVAA](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TVAA)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2003, 3:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ever-asked-your-minister-the-rock-question/213918/51 "2003-11-22T15:20:20Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Pleonast \* > \*\*My point is that some properties of God could be known while others are inherently unknowable. \*\* Not really. The interaction of the “knowable” properties with the “unknowable” properties would make God’s behavior unknowable overall. > [@](#): > > \*\*This is not necessarily true. The logically equivalent contrapositive is “If God is not bound by logic, then no statements about God are meaningful”. A counterexample to this is the statement “God is not bound by logic”. This is a meaningful statement, and thus the quote is not true. \*\* But we can’t say that God is not bound by logic, because that statement only has meaning within a logical system. > [@](#): > > \*\*Can you prove that our universe is logically consistent (every-where and -when)? \*\* What a stupid question. If the universe wasn’t logically consistent, it wouldn’t _be_. ---
**Author:** ![TVAA](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c57346/32.png) [@TVAA](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TVAA)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2003, 3:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ever-asked-your-minister-the-rock-question/213918/52 "2003-11-22T15:22:14Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Sinungaling \* > \*\*I don’t generally like to participate in these discussions, but what the hell. **TVAA** , you are assuming that God is an inhabitant of this universe when you say that But, God, as creator of the universe (we assume for this discussion), exists outside of that universe. \*\* Then God can’t interact with this universe, even to create it. Thus, God does not exist – being part of the universe is what we mean by ‘existence’. ---
**Author:** ![ExecutiveJesus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/a6a055/32.png) [@ExecutiveJesus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ExecutiveJesus)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2003, 4:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ever-asked-your-minister-the-rock-question/213918/53 "2003-11-22T16:28:11Z")
It’s very simple. In order for a rock to be created that God cannot lift, there must exist a power to do so - otherwise, the example is null. But the idea is logically sound. Since God possesses all power, this is encompassed. Therefore, logically, he can. ---
**Author:** ![Sinungaling](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/838e76/32.png) [@Sinungaling](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sinungaling)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2003, 6:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ever-asked-your-minister-the-rock-question/213918/54 "2003-11-22T18:04:02Z")
**TVAA** , why would God need to be part of the universe to interact with it? A sculptor isn’t part of his creations, but he can still manipulate them. And yes, theologically speaking, God does not “exist.” ---
**Author:** ![ExecutiveJesus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/a6a055/32.png) [@ExecutiveJesus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ExecutiveJesus)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2003, 7:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ever-asked-your-minister-the-rock-question/213918/55 "2003-11-22T19:44:02Z")
I concur with **Sinungaling** a bit here. _Exists_ does not necessarily mean _exists in the universe_. In order for what **TVAA** submits to be true, then one would have to sumbit that the universe itself doesn’t exist - being that is is encompassed by _non-existence_. If this case is true, then _non-existence_ has boundries, and borders - thereby rendering it thru physical value. If God is in this realm of _non-existence_, then He too would, by this means, exist. Explaining the substance of those properties is the hard part. Therefore, “exists” is not an accurate word to use in this discussion. What we do _know_ about God, is that he is omnipotent. Therefore, we must conclude that he can produce an instance that he is not. It does not completely sound logical, but it is. Very sound. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Great\_Unwashed](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_great_unwashed/32/4791_2.png) [@The\_Great\_Unwashed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Great_Unwashed)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2003, 5:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ever-asked-your-minister-the-rock-question/213918/56 "2003-11-23T17:34:47Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by ExecutiveJesus \* > \*\*I concur with **Sinungaling** a bit here. > > _Exists_ does not necessarily mean _exists in the universe_. > \*\* Erm, if I had to hazard a guess, I’d say, yes it does. Of course if you choose some bizarro definition of “the universe”, then you might be right; generally speaking, the universe is taken to mean _everything_ (and that itself is shorthand for “everything that exists”). > [@](#): > > \*\*In order for what **TVAA** submits to be true, then one would have to sumbit that the universe itself doesn’t exist - being that is is encompassed by _non-existence_. If this case is true, then _non-existence_ has boundries, and borders - thereby rendering it thru physical value. > > If God is in this realm of _non-existence_, then He too would, by this means, exist. > > Explaining the substance of those properties is the hard part. > > Therefore, “exists” is not an accurate word to use in this discussion.\*\* I don’t see how any of this follows. Actually, you lost me completely when you said that “non-existence has boundaries”, because non-existent things have no properties (that kind of follows directly from what is meant by “non-existence”), and that includes “boundaries”. > [@](#): > > **What we do _know_ about God, is that he is omnipotent.** Eek! We _know_ no such thing. We don’t even know that if a god exists that it takes the name “God”. > [@](#): > > \*\*Therefore, we must conclude that he can produce an instance that he is not. > > It does not completely sound logical, but it is.\*\* It doesn’t sound logical in the least, because it isn’t. > [@](#): > > \*\*Very sound. \*\* Do you mean “just noise”? ---
**Author:** ![TVAA](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c57346/32.png) [@TVAA](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TVAA)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2003, 1:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ever-asked-your-minister-the-rock-question/213918/57 "2003-11-24T13:38:28Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Sinungaling \* > \*\ ***TVAA** , why would God need to be part of the universe to interact with it? A sculptor isn’t part of his creations, but he can still manipulate them. \*\* But the sculptor and the sculptures are part of a greater system in which they both exist. We define ‘universe’ by interaction; if God interacts with something we agree is within the universe, then God is part of the universe. ---
**Author:** ![Sinungaling](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/838e76/32.png) [@Sinungaling](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sinungaling)\ **Post date:** [November 25, 2003, 5:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ever-asked-your-minister-the-rock-question/213918/58 "2003-11-25T05:25:22Z")
Yes, the sculptor and his sculptures are part of a greater system, but they are not part of each other. Besides, you could say that God, being omnipotent, actually _is_ the greater system. So it’s possible for God to not be a part of the universe at all, but interacting with it. But it’s at this point that the sculptor analogy breaks down. And I don’t get what you mean by the statement that we define “universe” by interaction. ---
**Author:** ![robertliguori](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/46a35a/32.png) [@robertliguori](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/robertliguori)\ **Post date:** [November 25, 2003, 3:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ever-asked-your-minister-the-rock-question/213918/59 "2003-11-25T15:41:02Z")
> [@](#): > > What a stupid question. If the universe wasn’t logically consistent, it wouldn’t be. Prove it. That is, demonstrate that things can be demonstrated, and that demonstrations are valid. Neat trick here, folks. If you posit a rational universe (and you kind of have to to know anything), you’re making an assumption that cannot by definition be proven. Oddly, TVAA and co. seem to take undue exception to others’ assumptions. ---
**Author:** ![Zahava424](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/76d3ee/32.png) [@Zahava424](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zahava424)\ **Post date:** [November 26, 2003, 1:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ever-asked-your-minister-the-rock-question/213918/60 "2003-11-26T01:31:02Z")
God’s ability to lift something has nothing to do with its size. It’s not like the heavier something, the more divine power is required to lift it. G-d expends just as much energy lifting a 1 oz. stone as He (she, it, whatever-- there should just be a different pronoun) expended relocating the wall of Jericho-- none. G-d’s actions do not require effort. Therefore, the two parts of this question fo not correspond. The rock’s size has nothing to do with G-d’s abiliy to lift it. This question is like, Could I peel an orange so large that it would make me sneeze? The orange’s size does not affect my nasal reaction. It’s the same. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ever-asked-your-minister-the-rock-question/213918.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ever-asked-your-minister-the-rock-question/213918.md?page=4)