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?
Sure it does; if you answer “yes” to the question, it indicates something that God cannot do.
“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.
Why? “Lift a stone” is NOT a string of random letters. It is not analagous to what you have written.
What’s deceptive about it?
The conundrum doesn’t prove that gods can’t exist; it only proves that a god with absolute, unqualified omnipotence cannot exist.
If you discard logic, there’s not really much point in discussing anything.
Not exactly. What you’re really saying is that absolute omnipotence is logically impossible. But that’s precisely what the conundrum is illustrating.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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:
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?
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.
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.
Actually, the contradiction is between God doing two different things, but otherwise, I’ll agree with you.
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?
