The Stone God Couldn't Lift: A Paradox

[Chris35]

Can an all-powerful God create a stone so heavy that even He cannot lift it? At first glance, it's a logic trap. If God can create such a stone, He cannot lift it—and is therefore not all-powerful. If He cannot create it, then He is also not all-powerful. The paradox seems unbreakable.

What if the answer has already been lived—in the person of Jesus?

A Paradox with Flesh and Blood​

Christian theology asserts something radically unique: that God voluntarily limited Himself and became fully human in the person of Jesus. This concept, called the Incarnation, is not just a doctrine of faith but a potential resolution to the omnipotence paradox.

In Jesus, God took on weakness. He got tired. He suffered. He died. These are not symbols or metaphors; they are core to the claim. The infinite became finite. The omnipotent allowed Himself to be bound.

And yet, Christians also believe that Jesus was still God during this limitation. That means God chose to become someone who could bleed. Someone who could fall. Someone who could be crushed by a stone He Himself created.

Self-Limitation Is Not Weakness—It Is Power​

What makes this answer profound is that it redefines what true power looks like. Power is not merely the ability to do anything at any time. Real power includes the ability to choose restraint.

God did not cease to be all-powerful by becoming man. He exercised His omnipotence by limiting Himself, for a purpose. This is not a contradiction. It is a richer form of strength—one that can hold back, one that can suffer willingly, one that can enter into the weakness of creation and still redeem it.

Can God Create a Stone He Cannot Lift?​

Yes.

But only because He chooses to. And only for as long as He chooses to. That stone was the weight of mortality, of suffering, of death itself. In Jesus, God carried it. He let it crush Him. And then, by His own will, He rose again—lifting not only the stone but the whole of creation with Him.

The paradox is not a flaw in logic. It's a glimpse into divine love.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Can an all-powerful God create a stone so heavy that even He cannot lift it? At first glance, it's a logic trap. If God can create such a stone, He cannot lift it—and is therefore not all-powerful. If He cannot create it, then He is also not all-powerful. The paradox seems unbreakable.

What if the answer has already been lived—in the person of Jesus?

A Paradox with Flesh and Blood​

Christian theology asserts something radically unique: that God voluntarily limited Himself and became fully human in the person of Jesus. This concept, called the Incarnation, is not just a doctrine of faith but a potential resolution to the omnipotence paradox.

In Jesus, God took on weakness. He got tired. He suffered. He died. These are not symbols or metaphors; they are core to the claim. The infinite became finite. The omnipotent allowed Himself to be bound.

And yet, Christians also believe that Jesus was still God during this limitation. That means God chose to become someone who could bleed. Someone who could fall. Someone who could be crushed by a stone He Himself created.

Self-Limitation Is Not Weakness—It Is Power​

What makes this answer profound is that it redefines what true power looks like. Power is not merely the ability to do anything at any time. Real power includes the ability to choose restraint.

God did not cease to be all-powerful by becoming man. He exercised His omnipotence by limiting Himself, for a purpose. This is not a contradiction. It is a richer form of strength—one that can hold back, one that can suffer willingly, one that can enter into the weakness of creation and still redeem it.

Can God Create a Stone He Cannot Lift?​

Yes.

But only because He chooses to. And only for as long as He chooses to. That stone was the weight of mortality, of suffering, of death itself. In Jesus, God carried it. He let it crush Him. And then, by His own will, He rose again—lifting not only the stone but the whole of creation with Him.

The paradox is not a flaw in logic. It's a glimpse into divine love.

Philosophically speaking, I like your answer. But keep in mind that the inherent semantic qualities of "Can God create a rock too heavy to lift?" are different than, "Can God become a limited human being?" They're not addressing the same conceptual problem.

But just so we're clear on that, I like your alternative answer. Because Jesus is always the answer!

 

[Gregory Thompson]

There was a stone sealing the tomb of Jesus, and angel was sent to lift the stone.

Was God unable to do it Himself? He totally could, but there-are-rules.

 

[SavedByGrace3]

This is like the statement "If God can do anything, then why can't He lie?"
It is very simple. It is because God calls forth things that are not as if they were. The moment He lied, the lie would become reality, and so no lie.


There is no cow here.
God lies and says, "There is, in fact, a cow here."
A cow manifests.
That which was not came forth by the power of His creative faith.

Mark 11:23 ISV
23 I tell you with certainty, if anyone says to this mountain, 'Be lifted up and thrown into the sea,' if he doesn't doubt in his heart but believes that what he says will happen, it will be done for him.

 

[Jipsah]

Can God can create a stone so heavy He can't lift it?

No. It's essentially similar to asking if God can do something that's linguistically and logically nonsense. So God can't make a rock He can't lift, He can't make a 4 sided triangle, He can't outrun Himself, He can't pellycabula, He can't be surprised, or anything else where the concept is ridiculous.

 

[Jipsah]

This is like the statement "If God can do anything, then why can't He lie?"

Obviously God can lie. He simply doesn't.

It is very simple. It is because God calls forth things that are not as if they were.

Which is not to say that He cannot do otherwise.

 

[David Lamb]

Obviously God can lie. He simply doesn't.

Which is not to say that He cannot do otherwise.

If God lied, He would have to go against His own nature. Lying is a sin, and sin is disobedience of God. How can God disobey God? It's not a matter of lack of power or ability.

 

[SavedByGrace3]

Obviously God can lie. He simply doesn't.

Which is not to say that He cannot do otherwise.

This is a debate we have had with atheists.
Hebrews 6:18 KJV
18 That by two immutable things, in which it was impossible for God to lie, we might have a strong consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay hold upon the hope set before us:

Not even possible. It is not in His nature. Also, when we acquire His nature, or "seed," we cannot lie either!

1 John 3:9 KJV
9 Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.

As a born-again believer, we cannot sin from our born-again spirit, which is His seed in us.

It does not say our spirit "can sin, but we simply choose not to." It states that, by virtue of our inherent divine nature, we cannot sin, just as God cannot sin.

We do have a flesh to contend with, so it happens because of the flesh. But God has no flesh, so there is no sin in Him.
So there is no sin in God or darkness in God of any kind or nature. It is called the divine nature.

1 John 1:5 KJV
5 This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all.

None.... zero darkness IN Him at all. Just pure light. It is not that "there is a little darkness in there and He could sin if He chooses to." No. There is no darkness whatsoever, None to be even tempted with.

2 Peter 1:3-4 KJV
3 According as his divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue:
4 Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.

Again, it is not that His divine nature has sin and darkness in it, but He chooses not to follow it. There is simply no darkness there to follow. We, as born-again believers, have escaped it when we walk in the power of that divine nature. We have been given all that pertains to life and godliness because we share in His divine nature. That divine nature is light, and has no darkness in it at all.

This is His nature.

James 1:17 KJV
17 Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning.

God cannot even be tempted.
James 1:13 ISV
13 When someone is tempted, he should not say, "I am being tempted by God," because God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone.

The Greek indicates He is incapable of being tempted.

Vincent:
"Cannot be tempted (ἀπείραστος ἐστι)
Literally, is incapable of being tempted."

A.T. Robertson uses:
"untemptable”

The idea being is that since He does not have the "lust of the flesh, the lust of the eye, and the pride of life," there is nothing there to attract or tempt Him.

1 John 2:16 KJV
16 For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world.

God does not possess these weaknesses; they are not of Him at all. He cannot sin, nor is He tempted. He is Holy, not merely by choice, but by nature.

Peace.

 

[SavedByGrace3]

If God lied, He would have to go against His own nature. Lying is a sin, and sin is disobedience of God. How can God disobey God? It's not a matter of lack of power or ability.

I think the notion that "God can sin, but chooses not to" springs from a prevailing belief that sin (as well as righteousness) is a matter of free will, rather than divine nature. He does not sin, as you state, because it is not in His nature. Some see this as a weakness; that is, to say God "cannot" do something is a slighting of His sovereignty. It is more important to them that God be capable of sin but chooses (free will) not to, because "sovereignty" has overwhelmed their theology to the point that sovereignty is more important than the very nature of God. Some might say this stems from the error that in modern theology, the soulical overshadows the spiritual. Choice and free will are of the soul, and that is where their "faith" exists. The divine nature exists in the spirit, and therefore, the divine nature completely omits even the choice to sin. There is no choice because there is no temptation to prompt it.
Peace.

 

[Fervent]

The question plays on an important misunderstanding about what God's omnipotence means. It doesn't mean that He is better( or more powerful) than all other beings, as a matter of strength. It is that He governs the possible, anything that isn't possible is entirely dependent upon Him. Unlike beings who are limited in their capabilities, God defines His own limits.

 

[com7fy8]

God is our solid Rock, and He is everywhere; so He can not lift Himself to where He isn't.

 

[HBP]

The question is meant to show that God cannot perform logical impossibilities, this and nothing more. No, God cannot create a rock so heavy he can't lift it. If a triangle by definition is a three-sided figure, God cannot create a four-sided triangle. The impossibility of doing the logically impossible is not a limitation on God's omnipotence.

A more interesting question sometimes posed by serious philosophers is, "Can God ride a bicycle?" Think about it.

The question "Could God lie?" is different. It does not involve a logical impossibility. The answer is that God cannot act in a manner contrary to his very nature, and his very nature is Perfect Truth.

 

[truthuprootsevil]

Can an all-powerful God create a stone so heavy that even He cannot lift it? At first glance, it's a logic trap. If God can create such a stone, He cannot lift it—and is therefore not all-powerful. If He cannot create it, then He is also not all-powerful. The paradox seems unbreakable.

What if the answer has already been lived—in the person of Jesus?

A Paradox with Flesh and Blood​

Christian theology asserts something radically unique: that God voluntarily limited Himself and became fully human in the person of Jesus. This concept, called the Incarnation, is not just a doctrine of faith but a potential resolution to the omnipotence paradox.

In Jesus, God took on weakness. He got tired. He suffered. He died. These are not symbols or metaphors; they are core to the claim. The infinite became finite. The omnipotent allowed Himself to be bound.

And yet, Christians also believe that Jesus was still God during this limitation. That means God chose to become someone who could bleed. Someone who could fall. Someone who could be crushed by a stone He Himself created.

Self-Limitation Is Not Weakness—It Is Power​

What makes this answer profound is that it redefines what true power looks like. Power is not merely the ability to do anything at any time. Real power includes the ability to choose restraint.

God did not cease to be all-powerful by becoming man. He exercised His omnipotence by limiting Himself, for a purpose. This is not a contradiction. It is a richer form of strength—one that can hold back, one that can suffer willingly, one that can enter into the weakness of creation and still redeem it.

Can God Create a Stone He Cannot Lift?​

Yes.

But only because He chooses to. And only for as long as He chooses to. That stone was the weight of mortality, of suffering, of death itself. In Jesus, God carried it. He let it crush Him. And then, by His own will, He rose again—lifting not only the stone but the whole of creation with Him.

The paradox is not a flaw in logic. It's a glimpse into divine love.

I've heard that before it didn't make sense then and it doesn't make sense now. God doesn't use physical strength like a human.

 

[HBP]

I've heard that before it didn't make sense then and it doesn't make sense now. God doesn't use physical strength like a human.

It actually isn't a question about physical strength but about logical impossibilities. The physical strength question is the one I referenced that is sometimes posed by serious philosophers: "Can God ride a bicycle?" If he's spirit, how does he turn the pedals? If he can't ride a bicycle, is he really omnipotent? It eventually just becomes silly, with believers insisting he could materialize legs and feet if he wished. Many of the "omni" attributes do become logical quagmires when you think about them.

 

[truthuprootsevil]

It actually isn't a question about physical strength but about logical impossibilities. The physical strength question is the one I referenced that is sometimes posed by serious philosophers: "Can God ride a bicycle?" If he's spirit, how does he turn the pedals? If he can't ride a bicycle, is he really omnipotent? It eventually just becomes silly, with believers insisting he could materialize legs and feet if he wished. Many of the "omni" attributes do become logical quagmires when you think about them

I know the question is about logic from those who make the effort to disprove the existence of the entity referred to as God. But one cannot leave out the physical strength part it entails, since it is said if he can't lift it, to lift requires action, requires strength, requires a physical form, from the human point of view. People ignore the mental capabilities of God, oh that's right he doesn't exist to them.


If God cannot ride a bicycle he's not omnipotent doesn't make sense either. That's still trying to put human limits on one who can do anything. All I can do is smile at those attempts. If he can appear as a man, eat and talk and walk with men, he could ride a bicycle, while in a physical form. Jesus rode the donkey. Again people seem to reject or forget about his mental capabilities.

It's hard for me to believe that Christians would actually say God can grow hand and feet just to ride a bicycle / sounds like the science of evolution where the fish grows arms and legs, heads and tails, just think humans and every animal that exist or existed was once a fish that grew all the things that all animals have. Oh well

I understand you

 

[St_Worm2]

The question is meant to show that God cannot perform logical impossibilities, this and nothing more. No, God cannot create a rock so heavy he can't lift it. If a triangle by definition is a three-sided figure, God cannot create a four-sided triangle. The impossibility of doing the logically impossible is not a limitation on God's omnipotence.

Hello HBP, I agree with you, God is able to do anything that can be done, but He cannot do what cannot be done (e.g. make a square triangle, have 2 + 2 = 5, etc.).

God bless you!!

--David

 

[Fervent]

Hello HBP, I agree with you, God is able to do anything that can be done, but He cannot do what cannot be done (e.g. make a square triangle, have 2 + 2 = 5, etc.).

God bless you!!

--David

Putting it that way makes it seem like logic limits God, but it is God that set the parameters for what is possible. God's omni properties are best understood apophatically rather than prescriptively.

 

[St_Worm2]

.........it is God that set the parameters for what is possible.

Agreed

 

[Bob Crowley]

Nonsense remains nonsense. The question about the stone is nothing more than word play.

Omnipotence paradox - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

George I. Mavrodes responded to this paradox by arguing that the question itself is self-contradictory. He wrote:

"On the assumption that God is omnipotent, the phrase "a stone too heavy for God to lift" becomes self-contradictory. For it becomes "a stone which cannot be lifted by Him whose power is sufficient for lifting anything."... ...it is the very omnipotence of God which makes the existence of such a stone absolutely impossible, while it is the fact that I am finite in power that makes it possible for me to make a boat too heavy for me to lift."[19]

Additionally, he also points out how the question is sophistry. Suppose the objector insists that it's a coherent question, then we reply by affirming that God can create such a stone. It may seem that this reply will force us into the original dilemma. But it does not. For now the objector can draw no damaging conclusion from this answer. And the reason is that he has just now contended that such a stone is compatible with the omnipotence of God. Therefore, from the possibility of God's creating such a stone it cannot be concluded that God is not omnipotent. The objector cannot have it both ways. The conclusion which the objector wishes to draw from an affirmative answer to the original question is itself the required proof that the descriptive phrase which appears there is self-contradictory.

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?"

 

[HBP]

Putting it that way makes it seem like logic limits God, but it is God that set the parameters for what is possible. God's omni properties are best understood apophatically rather than prescriptively.

No, you're missing the point. It isn't a matter of what is "possible." It is indeed a matter of logic. Can God make a four-sided three-sided figure? No, he cannot, because three-sided figures don't have four sides. "A rock so heavy an omnipotent God can't lift it" is simply semantic nonsense. Even God can't say "I am now going to make a rock so heavy I can't lift it" because then his omnipotence would go poof.