Let me elaborate: I feel the question boils down to the definition of omnipotence. To ask if God can do anything is essentially saying He is not omnipotent. It’s a game. Here are two options – He can or He can’t, and either option denies he’s omnipotent. Does the question really matter?
I’m sure, Blowero, if I asked you, “The President is either the most charming or the most brilliant President we’ve ever had” I know your first instinct would be to say – he’s both – but that’s not an option. The mistake is believing there are only two answers.
They way I’ve always understood it is that we have non-physical qualities that are similar to God’s, i.e. we like to create things (wars, New York, the wheel, and so on.)
I don’t think the point is lost, I think many people just find it a facile argument. What does “non-corporeal” mean? How is that any different than saying “it’s magic”. It certainly gets you out of explaining any logical or physical inconsistencies, but it’s a rather unsatisfying explanation.
Asking if A is true is not equivalent to saying A is false. Where are you getting that idea?
I thought we were discussing whether the question was logically sound. Whether it matters seems outside the scope of this thread, and is entirely subjective. Any given thing may or may not matter to any given individual.
That example is not analogous to the question we are discussing. You have given an example of the fallacy of False Dichotomy. The question, “If God is omnipotent, can he create a rock so heavy he cannot lift it?” is NOT a false dichotomy. And the example questions you posted previously are also not analagous to the OP’s question.
Like several of us have said, you aren’t going to get very far attacking the logic of the conundrum. Your best bet is to go after the definition of omnipotence itself. What the conundrum is really pointing out is that it is impossible for the concept of absolute omnipotence to exist, given the laws of the universe as we understand them. The only way to get out of that bind is to qualify your definition of omnipotence.
:dubious: All? I mean, yes, absolute textual literalism to the point of absurdity does look like a phenomenon of Evangelical Christianity, but surely among the unscholarly common crowd there have been many Jews in the last 3K years who failed to “get” the allegory?
Actually, astro, as zev points out, mainstream Judeo-Christian scholars almost from the start have taught that “image and likeness” referred primarily to Man being made with such attributes as (the exact set depends on your sect’s doctrine): real existence, reason, free will, capacity for love, immortal (at least potentially) soul, etc.
My turnaround referred that when you have to write about the deity, you necessarily do it, as mentioned, by anthropomorphizing – and risk that the image of God or the gods that is formed in the minds of many readers would become actually an image of themselves, only multiplied by infinity.
I think that if God is omnipotent then the question is meaningless.
It’s like asking “Can God make a rock so gray you can’t hear it?” The question doesn’t make sense, because the grayness of a rock is unrelated to whether you can hear it.
Similarly, the heaviness of the rock is unrelated to whether God can lift it. Since God is omnipotent, he can lift any rock regardless of how heavy it is.
The only reason the question seems a bit less nonsensical than my above example is because there can be a rock so heavy that you or I can’t lift it. So we are accustomed to thinking that heaviness has some connection to whether a rock can be lifted. But that’s not true if God is the one doing the lifting.
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.
OK, OK (Gee, in a thread in which we’re talking about absolute textual literalism, I didn’t think you’d take my “all” absolutely literally )
I have no doubt that there may have been some individual Jews who may have been mistaken or held a belief to the contrary. But the mainstream position has always been that the verses are not meant to be taken literally.
So then the answer to the question, “Can God create a rock so heavy that he can’t lift it?” is no. Therefore, there is something God cannot do. Therefore, God is not omnipotent. That’s the conundrum.
Respectfully, I think you’re missing the point. Allow me to rephrase what others have said. The entity “a rock that god (the being which can lift anything) cannot lift” is a logically impossible entity, just like a square circle. So, the fact that an omnipotent god cannot create it is no more of a conundrum than the statement “god cannot create a square circle.” It would be a conundrum if most people’s definition of omnipotence meant the ability to do anything including the logically impossible, but that’s not what people mean when they call god omnipotent.
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. 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. 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. You might as well say “Can God asdflkjasldfkuqwopef?” Oh, he can’t asdflkjasldfkuqwopef? I guess he’s not all-powerful after all!
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.
Let’s suppose that for some strange reason we’ve decided that omnipotent means “Able to do anything, regardless of whether it’s self-contradictory or even nonsensical.” And let’s suppose that God satisfies this definition of omnipotence.
Then the answer to the question “Can God make a rock too big for him to lift” is yes.
“Ah ha!” you say. “That means God can’t lift the rock, so there is something he can’t do!”
“No,” I reply, “he can lift the rock.”
“But you just said he couldn’t!” you object.
“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 – it just changes the rules so that logical reasoning can no longer be applied to what God can and can’t do.
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. 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.)
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.
To summarize, the answer to “Can God make a rock too big for him to lift?” is either “No”, “Yes”, or “The question is meaningless” depending:
(A) On how you interpret the question
and
(B) On what you assume it means for God to be omnipotent.
But the answer is only “No” if you assume that omnipotence doesn’t include the ability to do things that produce logical contradictions. In which case, showing that God can’t do such a thing doesn’t prove he’s not omnipotent.
Likewise, the answer is only “Yes” if you assume that omnipotence does include the ability to do logically contradictory things. In which case, sure you get a logical contradiction, but that’s really begging the question.
Just for the sake of clarity - whe I said “Does the question matter?” I wasn’t commenting on the importance of the question. I think it’s a great question because it got a lot of brain juices working from specific members of the straight dope community.
And also, I guess if we used the term perfect insted of omnipotent, it would be easier to answer - yes. The sun is perfect, but it can’t make ice cream, the universe is perfect, but it can’t fit in a thimble, etc.
So, I guess it depends on what you mean by “omnipotence.” The dictionary defines it as “having unlimited or universal power, authority, or force; all-powerful.”
So, if we focus on God as having unlimited authority, then the creation of a rock is irrelevant. If you think that the inability to create a four-sided triange is a limition on power, then the term “omnipotence” will be a meaningless term for you.
The discussion is silly anyway. We’re trying to define or describe God in human terms, and that’s inherently not possible. As soon as you use a word like “lift a rock”, you’re thinking human terms. We use terms like “God wants you to do something different from what you’re doing,” but that’s silly; God, as all-powerful authority and creator, gets exactly what he wants.
Modern science understands that the physical universe (including the dimension of time) is far more fluid than we had thought. Thus, the statement that God exists outside of His own creation (time and the universe) makes more sense to us than it did a century ago. Zev’s comment is that God does not change, which is in line with Jewish thought (but not Christian theology, I presume) because He is outside of time altogether. So, there’s something else that God “cannot” do.
I prefer to think of this as God deliberately limits Himself in this way.
I have no idea. We haven’t been told the reason for the creation of the universe. But I wouldn’t phrase it as you did, I’d phrase it in terms of God limiting His own power so that we can obey Him and help accomplish His will… whatever it is. Jewish thought holds that God created humankind to be His partner in perfecting the imperfect world. I kinda like that thought; for one thing, it means that you don’t need to believe in God (or to understand Him), to work towards perfecting the world.
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.
)