# What is the answer to the old "Can God make a rock too big for him to lift" question? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 5, 2005, 2:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-answer-to-the-old-can-god-make-a-rock-too-big-for-him-to-lift-question/283197 "2005-01-05T14:41:35Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![blowero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/41988e/32.png) [@blowero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blowero)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2005, 8:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-answer-to-the-old-can-god-make-a-rock-too-big-for-him-to-lift-question/283197/81 "2005-01-07T20:00:52Z")
> [@tim314](#): > > No no no, the answer to the question is that the question is meaningless. You might as well ask if God can create a person so tall that his name is Floyd. Tallness has nothing to do with being named Floyd, and heaviness has nothing to do with whether God can lift something. I don’t see the similarity there. There is a direct relationship between mass and the amount of force needed to pull that mass away from another center of gravity. How can you say one has nothing to do with the other? > [@](#): > > It’s not that God can’t do it, it’s that it doesn’t make any sense. The fact that I can’t answer “yes” to the question doesn’t indicate any limitation on God’s power. Sure it does; if you answer “yes” to the question, it indicates something that God cannot do. > [@](#): > > No one can reasonably say that the statement “God is omnipotent” means that the answer to any question of the form “Can God do BLANK” has to be yes, regardless of whether BLANK is a nonsensical statement. “Omnipotent” literally means, “can do anything”. “Lift a stone” is NOT a nonsensical action. I can lift a stone; it’s a real thing that can be done. > [@](#): > > You might as well say “Can God asdflkjasldfkuqwopef?” Oh, he can’t asdflkjasldfkuqwopef? I guess he’s not all-powerful after all! Why? “Lift a stone” is NOT a string of random letters. It is not analagous to what you have written. > [@](#): > > Just to reiterate, the only reason “a rock so big God can’t lift it” seems meaningful is because “a rock so big **tim314** can’t lift it” or “a rock so big **blowero** ” can’t lift it are meaningful. But this is deceptive. What’s deceptive about it? > [@](#): > > “So what? God is omnipotent, and (by this definition) that means he can do self-contradictory things.” > > My point is that even choosing this kind of ridiculously strict definition for what omnipotence means doesn’t in any way prove God can’t exist The conundrum doesn’t prove that gods can’t exist; it only proves that a god with _absolute, unqualified omnipotence_ cannot exist. > [@](#): > > – it just changes the rules so that logical reasoning can no longer be applied to what God can and can’t do. If you discard logic, there’s not really much point in discussing _anything_. > [@](#): > > Just to clarify, I suppose if you interpret “Can God make a rock so big he can’t lift it?” to mean “Can God make a rock which can’t be lifted by him do to its size?” In that case, the answer is No, for the reason people have said – namely that omnipotence doesn’t include the ability to do logically self-contradictory things. Not exactly. What you’re really saying is that absolute omnipotence is logically impossible. But that’s precisely what the conundrum is illustrating. > [@](#): > > But in that case, pointing out that God can’t do a self-contradictory thing doesn’t prove he’s not omnipotent. (And as I said in my previous post, even if you do assume God can do self-contradictory things, it doesn’t really get you anywhere.) Like I said, the only way to attack the conundrum is to alter your definition of “omnipotence”, which is exactly what you have done. You have _qualified_ the definition of omnipotence. You didn’t impugn the logic itself. > [@](#): > > However, I interpreted the question “Can God make a rock so big he can’t lift it?” to mean something more like “Can God make a rock of the size that is required to make it unliftable by God?” In which case, as I said, the question is meaningless – after all, “the size that is required to make it unliftable by God” doesn’t specify any size, since things of all sizes are unliftable by God. You might as well say “Can God make a rock that ways salamander pounds?” Salamander isn’t a number, so it doesn’t mean anything. Again, I disagree with your analysis. You keep treating the conundrum as though it were a nonsensical string of words. But it is not. “Lifting” is an action that is quite possible. It is not a random string of words or letters. ---
**Author:** ![Gangster\_Octopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/a8b319/32.png) [@Gangster\_Octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gangster_Octopus)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2005, 8:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-answer-to-the-old-can-god-make-a-rock-too-big-for-him-to-lift-question/283197/82 "2005-01-07T20:25:28Z")
Can this be the SDMB I grew up with? We are on page two and we still haven’t gotten the obligatory Simpsons reference: Homer: Could God microwave a burrito so hot that he himself could not eat it? ---
**Author:** ![astro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9dc877/32.png) [@astro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/astro)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2005, 10:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-answer-to-the-old-can-god-make-a-rock-too-big-for-him-to-lift-question/283197/83 "2005-01-07T22:22:21Z")
> [@Gangster Octopus](#): > > Can this be the SDMB I grew up with? We are on page two and we still haven’t gotten the obligatory Simpsons reference: > > Homer: Could God microwave a burrito so hot that he himself could not eat it? It was done. Robertliguori has already addressed the too hot burrito corollary. > [@](#): > > God (as defined for this discussion) is omnipotent. He can lift any rock, eat any burrito, tear down any wall, etc. > > As such, a rock too big, burrito too hot, or wall too long for God to lift, eat, or demolish not only cannot exist, but is an undefined term. God can not merquizzle, either. The inability to do things that aren’t does not mean that you can’t do everything that is. As such, this paradox is not a disproof of God’s omnipotence . ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2005, 1:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-answer-to-the-old-can-god-make-a-rock-too-big-for-him-to-lift-question/283197/84 "2005-01-08T01:04:49Z")
> [@C K Dexter Haven](#): > > BTW, I’ve just figured out that there’s an easy answer for Christians: God the Father/Creator can certainly create a rock that’s too large for Jesus (the human incarnation) to lift. QED. Nope, not so easy. We were always taught that Jesus always had the capacity to do whatever he wanted, but voluntarily did not (e.g., Jesus could have ascended to heaven and avoided his horrible death merely by willing it–but he didn’t). So, the conundrum is as real or false for Christians (at least for Catholics of my ilk) as for anyone else. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2005, 8:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-answer-to-the-old-can-god-make-a-rock-too-big-for-him-to-lift-question/283197/85 "2005-01-08T08:21:55Z")
I’m pretty sure it answers a lot of the questions you are still posing. ---
**Author:** ![Othersider](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/cab0a1/32.png) [@Othersider](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Othersider)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2005, 8:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-answer-to-the-old-can-god-make-a-rock-too-big-for-him-to-lift-question/283197/86 "2005-01-09T08:02:52Z")
In a nutshell, then: So the answer is probably “no”, because if God is omnipotent, then there is no rock he cannot lift. Also, the word ‘omnipotent’ doesn’t mean “able to do anything”, but “able to do anything that can be done”. We can assume that a rock so big that even an omnipotent being couldn’t lift it is a self-contradiction. Dr. Peter Kreeft (as quoted in _The Case for Faith_ by Lee Strobel) brings up some things God can’t do. He says God can’t do non-sensical things, like create a round square (or the aforementioned infinitely large rock). He also says God can’t make himself cease to exist, or make good evil. Also, he says, he can’t make mistakes (only imperfect beings can make mistakes). Interesting, eh? ---
**Author:** ![blowero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/41988e/32.png) [@blowero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blowero)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2005, 8:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-answer-to-the-old-can-god-make-a-rock-too-big-for-him-to-lift-question/283197/87 "2005-01-09T08:41:41Z")
> [@Zhao Daoli](#): > > Blowero, did you even read my post? Yes. Yes I did. I don’t think you understood my point, or you wouldn’t have said what you did. ---
**Author:** ![blowero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/41988e/32.png) [@blowero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blowero)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2005, 9:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-answer-to-the-old-can-god-make-a-rock-too-big-for-him-to-lift-question/283197/88 "2005-01-09T09:12:07Z")
> [@Othersider](#): > > In a nutshell, then: > > So the answer is probably “no”, because if God is omnipotent, then there is no rock he cannot lift. Also, the word ‘omnipotent’ doesn’t mean “able to do anything”, but “able to do anything that can be done”. We can assume that a rock so big that even an omnipotent being couldn’t lift it is a self-contradiction. > > Dr. Peter Kreeft (as quoted in _The Case for Faith_ by Lee Strobel) brings up some things God can’t do. He says God can’t do non-sensical things, like create a round square (or the aforementioned infinitely large rock). He also says God can’t make himself cease to exist, or make good evil. Also, he says, he can’t make mistakes (only imperfect beings can make mistakes). > > Interesting, eh? But “infinitely large rock” is not non-sensical in the sense that “round square” is nonsensical. It may well be _impossible_ to create in infinitely large rock, but it isn’t non-sensical. That’s the distinction I’ve been trying to make, and that several of you don’t seem to be getting. “Round square” is nonsensical by definition; only because a square is _defined_ as a thing that is not round. It’s like saying “cold heat”, or “feline dog”, or “light darkness”. Those are things that are _non-sensical_, as opposed to things that are merely impossible, like “liquid water at zero degrees kelvin” or “mass moving faster than the speed of light”. It’s not the same thing. “A stone so heavy that He can’t lift it” is a contradiction - it is a contradiction that demonstrates true omnipotence is impossible. If everyone agrees to _exclude_ from the definition of omnipotence that which is contradictory, then we’re o.k., but that’s not the same as saying that the conundrum is non-sensical. ---
**Author:** ![Othersider](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/cab0a1/32.png) [@Othersider](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Othersider)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2005, 9:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-answer-to-the-old-can-god-make-a-rock-too-big-for-him-to-lift-question/283197/89 "2005-01-09T09:18:57Z")
> [@blowero](#): > > But “infinitely large rock” is not non-sensical in the sense that “round square” is nonsensical. It may well be _impossible_ to create in infinitely large rock, but it isn’t non-sensical. That’s the distinction I’ve been trying to make, and that several of you don’t seem to be getting. “Round square” is nonsensical by definition; only because a square is _defined_ as a thing that is not round. It’s like saying “cold heat”, or “feline dog”, or “light darkness”. Those are things that are _non-sensical_, as opposed to things that are merely impossible, like “liquid water at zero degrees kelvin” or “mass moving faster than the speed of light”. It’s not the same thing. > > “A stone so heavy that He can’t lift it” is a contradiction - it is a contradiction that demonstrates true omnipotence is impossible. If everyone agrees to _exclude_ from the definition of omnipotence that which is contradictory, then we’re o.k., but that’s not the same as saying that the conundrum is non-sensical. I’m sorry, I said “infinitely large rock” when I when I was referring to the “stone so large (or heavy) that no one could lift it”…when they’re not actually the same thing. My bad. :smack: ---
**Author:** ![blowero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/41988e/32.png) [@blowero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blowero)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2005, 9:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-answer-to-the-old-can-god-make-a-rock-too-big-for-him-to-lift-question/283197/90 "2005-01-09T09:30:10Z")
Oh, yeah - I see what you mean. But I think my point stands. I still think there’s a difference between nonsensical things and physically contradictory things. ---
**Author:** ![Othersider](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/cab0a1/32.png) [@Othersider](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Othersider)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2005, 9:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-answer-to-the-old-can-god-make-a-rock-too-big-for-him-to-lift-question/283197/91 "2005-01-09T09:32:05Z")
> [@blowero](#): > > Oh, yeah - I see what you mean. But I think my point stands. I still think there’s a difference between nonsensical things and physically contradictory things. I agree, there is. An omnipotent being can’t do either of them, but there is a difference. ---
**Author:** ![Coin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/779978/32.png) [@Coin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Coin)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2005, 9:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-answer-to-the-old-can-god-make-a-rock-too-big-for-him-to-lift-question/283197/92 "2005-01-09T09:45:01Z")
Certainly, God can create a rock that he cannot lift. However, God can lift a rock that he cannot lift. (No, that is not a typo.) ---
**Author:** ![Othersider](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/cab0a1/32.png) [@Othersider](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Othersider)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2005, 10:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-answer-to-the-old-can-god-make-a-rock-too-big-for-him-to-lift-question/283197/93 "2005-01-09T10:22:48Z")
> [@Coin](#): > > Certainly, God can create a rock that he cannot lift. > > However, God can lift a rock that he cannot lift. > > (No, that is not a typo.) Welp, you’ve confused me. :smack: ---
**Author:** ![jawdirk](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/df705f/32.png) [@jawdirk](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jawdirk)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2005, 3:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-answer-to-the-old-can-god-make-a-rock-too-big-for-him-to-lift-question/283197/94 "2005-01-10T03:45:34Z")
There is an even stronger answer to the question, “Can God make a rock too big for him to lift.” The answer is yes, God is omnipotent, and can do anything, including lifting the rock that is too big for him to lift. However, God chooses not do such things; He has chosen to create logic. He is not merely omniscient, but also perfect, and so He has chosen to not create such paradoxes in the world. God creates everything, including logic, by choice. God is free. If He allowed such paradoxes in the world, the world would be meaningless to us, and it would impinge upon our freedom. God, being perfect, only makes choices that impart freedom to us, for good is making the choice that imparts freedom to another. That God only chooses good does not mean that He could not choose evil. That is His choice: to be perfect. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2005, 9:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-answer-to-the-old-can-god-make-a-rock-too-big-for-him-to-lift-question/283197/95 "2005-01-10T09:35:22Z")
> [@blower/](#): > > But “infinitely large rock” is not non-sensical in the sense that “round square” is nonsensical. It may well be impossible to create in infinitely large rock, but it isn’t non-sensical. That’s the distinction I’ve been trying to make, and that several of you don’t seem to be getting. “Round square” is nonsensical by definition; only because a square is defined as a thing that is not round. It’s like saying “cold heat”, or “feline dog”, or “light darkness”. Those are things that are non-sensical, as opposed to things that are merely impossible, like “liquid water at zero degrees kelvin” or “mass moving faster than the speed of light”. It’s not the same thing. The distinction you draw in this post is between logical impossibility and physical impossibility. There is nothing logically contradictory about liquid water at zero degrees kelvin (that I’m aware of). It is just a fact of our particular physical universe that this is impossible. The impossibility of the existence of a rock so heavy that god cannot lift it is not of this “physical type.” It is impossible in any logical universe. It is the same as the impossibility of a round square. God cannot create such a stone because it’s existence is logically contradictory to God’s own. This is why the paradox seems different in kind from God creating a round square; the contradiction is between properties of God and properties of the object, not between two properties of the object. Nevertheless, it is still a logical impossibility, in both cases. For people that are better at explaining this than me, see: [Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnipotence_paradox) [Bill Ramey](http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/billramey/omni.htm) ---
**Author:** ![Othersider](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/cab0a1/32.png) [@Othersider](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Othersider)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2005, 10:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-answer-to-the-old-can-god-make-a-rock-too-big-for-him-to-lift-question/283197/96 "2005-01-10T10:16:53Z")
> [@jawdirk](#): > > There is an even stronger answer to the question, “Can God make a rock too big for him to lift.” > > The answer is yes, God is omnipotent, and can do anything, including lifting the rock that is too big for him to lift. However, God chooses not do such things; He has chosen to create logic. He is not merely omniscient, but also perfect, and so He has chosen to not create such paradoxes in the world. God creates everything, including logic, by choice. I’m not so sure I buy that. God may have created logic, but is he bound by it? Can he do things that are impossible? Many people say “yes”. I know there’s a verse that says that things that aren’t possible with men are possible with God. However, I’m not sure about that. There are things that men cannot do, but can still be done (because they are not logically and/or physically impossible)…like, for example, flying without aiding instruments, surviving for long periods of time without food and water, and so on. If God is omnipotent, then He can do those things. I’m not convinced He can do things that are logically or physically impossible, like creating round squares or making a rock so heavy He himself couldn’t lift it. Dr. Peter Kreeft mentions this in Lee Strobel’s book _The Case for Faith_. He further says that God can’t make mistakes. Does that make you wonder? 😉 ---
**Author:** ![jawdirk](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/df705f/32.png) [@jawdirk](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jawdirk)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2005, 6:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-answer-to-the-old-can-god-make-a-rock-too-big-for-him-to-lift-question/283197/97 "2005-01-10T18:32:18Z")
> [@Othersider](#): > > I’m not convinced He can do things that are logically or physically impossible, like creating round squares or making a rock so heavy He himself couldn’t lift it. Well, you can’t worship two gods at once. If God created logic, then assumably He could uncreate it too. Otherwise, why shouldn’t we worship logic? The reason of course, is that some day you may find that God has destroyed logic, and then you will have worshipped the wrong god. Speaking of round squares, how about particle-waves? Certainly, God can make round squares. But you, being imperfect, will have trouble seeing both aspects at once. ---
**Author:** ![blowero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/41988e/32.png) [@blowero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blowero)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2005, 7:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-answer-to-the-old-can-god-make-a-rock-too-big-for-him-to-lift-question/283197/98 "2005-01-10T19:00:40Z")
> [@Zhao Daoli](#): > > The impossibility of the existence of a rock so heavy that god cannot lift it is not of this “physical type.” Gotta disagree with you there. Lifting a stone is indeed a physical act. The contradiction is between two _actions_ that cannot both be carried out by the same entity. Each action is properly defined, however. That is NOT the same as “round square”, which is nonsensical by definition. > [@](#): > > ``` > God cannot create such a stone because it's existence is logically contradictory to God's own. This is why the paradox seems different in kind from God creating a round square; the contradiction is between properties of God and properties of the object, not between two properties of the object. > > ``` Actually, the contradiction is between God doing two different things, but otherwise, I’ll agree with you. > [@](#): > > Nevertheless, it is still a logical impossibility, in both cases. I agree with what you’re saying, so I certainly don’t want to quibble over what “logical impossibility” means. The point is, creating a stone that can’t be lifted is not logically contradictory. If God created a stone that _someone else_ could not lift, there would be no conflict. It is only contradictory because it is the _same entity_ doing both the creating and the _lifting_. And that’s the whole _point_ of the conundrum; that it’s impossible. I think you’re confusing the _conclusion_ with the structure of the logic itself. It’s perfectly acceptable to demonstrate that a given proposition is not true by showing that a contradiction would occur _if the proposition were true_. And that’s what the conundrum does. Perhaps the poetic wording throws you off. We could word it differently: God cannot create a stone too heavy to be lifted AND lift that same stone. Therefore, there is at least one thing God cannot do. Therefore, by definition, God is not omnipotent. That says essentially the same thing. Is it logically contradictory? ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2005, 7:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-answer-to-the-old-can-god-make-a-rock-too-big-for-him-to-lift-question/283197/99 "2005-01-10T19:11:50Z")
> [@](#): > > Speaking of round squares, how about particle-waves? Certainly, God can make round squares. But you, being imperfect, will have trouble seeing both aspects at once. ``` Actually, the reason the particle-wave description was so frustrating was that it seemed to be logically impossible. ``` That’s why we got rid of it: > [@](#): > > The modern quantum theory describes nature > in a consistent way. No wave-particle dualism is needed, and physical > entities like “elementary particles” or “electromagnetic waves” are neither > particles or waves in the classical sense but described by an abstract > mathematical formalism as “quanta”. From here: [smarty-pants physics guy](http://www.lns.cornell.edu/spr/2003-08/msg0053405.html) As an aside, is there something about my posts that makes them so people don’t read them? ☹ ---
**Author:** ![blowero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/41988e/32.png) [@blowero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blowero)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2005, 7:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-answer-to-the-old-can-god-make-a-rock-too-big-for-him-to-lift-question/283197/100 "2005-01-10T19:21:01Z")
> [@Zhao Daoli](#): > > As an aside, is there something about my posts that makes them so people don’t read them? > ☹ All whining should be taken to The Pit. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-answer-to-the-old-can-god-make-a-rock-too-big-for-him-to-lift-question/283197.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-answer-to-the-old-can-god-make-a-rock-too-big-for-him-to-lift-question/283197.md?page=6)