Can God Create An Object Too Heavy For Him To Lift?

[luketbachelder]

Could God create a square circle? Of course not. This has nothing to do with a lack of power in God, it simply has to do with logical possibility. Square circles can't exist because squares can't be circular and circles can't be square.

Could God create a rock too heavy to him to lift? Of course not. This has nothing to do with a lack of power in God, it simply has to do with logical possibility. Rocks too heavy for God to lift can't exist because an infinite force can lift any rock regardless of its weight.

The idea of "a rock too heavy for God to lift" is a logical impossibility. Like a square circle, it's existence is logically impossible by definition.

I was about to write a post quasi-identical to this one. Only, I would not answer "Can God create a rock too big for him to move?" With yes. These kinds of questions have zero sense behind them. From a logical standpoint, we aren't even required to answer them. It raises awareness that linguistics are limited. But these are just straight up senseless.

 

[luketbachelder]

It goes a little deeper than just illogical or against our deeply seated intuitions. The point of the rock paradox is that either option you pick means God cannot done something; thus, the original, naive definition of omnipotence cannot hold because the very definition itself is incoherent and unattainable under its own rules.

No, it's pretty much all solved if we accredit God with logic amidst his nature. Either way, our God must be logical due to his counterfactuals that he named true in this world. For example, someone cannot be a married bachelor. God created a world in which His appropriate counterfactuals are true.

 

[quatona]

The problem with this question gets more obvious when we take God out of the equation and first ask the general question:
"Can an omnipotent being create a rock it cannot move?"

 

[luketbachelder]

The problem with this question gets more obvious when we take God out of the equation and first ask the general question:
"Can an omnipotent being create a rock it cannot move?"

Can an married man be a bachelor?. It's counterfactuals that just don't even qualify for necessary responses. This issue has been settled for a thousand years. Natures of objects quantifies what is and isn't possible, and what is even possible for rebuttes. The better question deals with God and evil.

 

[quatona]

Can an married man be a bachelor?

It´s always been my notion that we needn´t put up with theists´ claims of the "God is beyond logic", "Jesus was 100% human and 100% God" etc.
Consequently, I am not happy when fellow atheists toy with the logically impossible.

The better question deals with God and evil.

Personally, until the term "God" has been properly defined I don´t even see a need to ask any such questions or make attempts at refutations.

 

[luketbachelder]

It´s always been my notion that we needn´t put up with theists´ claims of the "God is beyond logic", "Jesus was 100% human and 100% God" etc.
Consequently, I am not happy when fellow atheists toy with the logically impossible.

Personally, until the term "God" has been properly defined I don´t even see a need to ask any such questions or make attempts at refutations.[/QU

Those are all perfectly attainable with a logical God.

 

[Chany]

No, it's pretty much all solved if we accredit God with logic amidst his nature. Either way, our God must be logical due to his counterfactuals that he named true in this world. For example, someone cannot be a married bachelor. God created a world in which His appropriate counterfactuals are true.

How does this contradict or reply to anything I said? If anything, it confirms it. Serious theistic thinkers never really define omnipotence naively, but come with a more robust one that places a caveat on God's abilities, like "God can do all things logically possible".

 

[quatona]

Those are all perfectly attainable with a logical God.

What does the "those...all" refer to?

 

[luketbachelder]

Oh it's no, "caveat" as in a hindrance sense. It is actually a greater attribute. I wasn't necessarily being contentious. I was attempting to clear the vague. Logical prohibition is a power that should be possessed by any maximally great being. Don't you agree?

How does this contradict or reply to anything I said? If anything, it confirms it. Serious theistic thinkers never really define omnipotence naively, but come with a more robust one that places a caveat on God's abilities, like "God can do all things logically possible".

 

[luketbachelder]

What does the "those...all" refer to?

I thought you were objecting on the seemingly illogical notion of the incarnation. Did I misread the post?

 

[Chicken Little]

Can an married man be a bachelor?. It's counterfactuals that just don't even qualify for necessary responses. This issue has been settled for a thousand years. Natures of objects quantifies what is and isn't possible, and what is even possible for rebuttes. The better question deals with God and evil.

or it appears that it is all about a kind of narcissistic kinds of
" logic " who likes to waist time chasing his own tail.
but it is really about making everyone else chase it too .
it demands the right to not just chase it own tail but to waste peoples lives chasing their tail too .
but it is NOT all about his own tail though it looks like it , it is all about control !
it is about usurping other rights to their own learning process, their own experiences .
because clearly the questions on these sites are mostly ignorant.
and no one who asks these goofy questions even wants an answer to the questions.
They only want the chance to control the conversations with their ignorant questions that have rules that they control. it is about control it is about making rules that make no sense and then pretending that these illogical questions are logical.
but I know for me they don't have the right to make the rules about what is and isn't logical. or the right to think they control logic.. . they haven't earned it and won't ever .

 

[luketbachelder]

or it appears that it is all about a kind of narcissistic kinds of
" logic " who likes to waist time chasing his own tail.
but it is really about making everyone else chase it too .
it demands the right to not just chase it own tail but to waste peoples lives chasing their tail too .
but it is NOT all about his own tail though it looks like it , it is all about control !
it is about usurping other rights to their own learning process, their own experiences .
because clearly the questions on these sites are mostly ignorant.
and no one who asks these goofy questions even wants an answer to the questions.
They only want the chance to control the conversations with their ignorant questions that have rules that they control. it is about control it is about making rules that make no sense and then pretending that these illogical questions are logical.
but I know for me they don't have the right to make the rules about what is and isn't logical. or the right to think they control logic.. . they haven't earned it and won't ever .

What I conclude from that: You're chasing this tail as well. haha, I'm just messing with you man. But, is it necessary to judge motives? Maybe these people don't understand that God must possess logic intrinsically.

 

[Chicken Little]

What I conclude from that: You're chasing this tail as well. haha, I'm just messing with you man. But, is it necessary to judge motives? Maybe these people don't understand that God must possess logic intrinsically.

NO I only followed it because I liked your comments.

but I was just sick already of even reading the new post pages on this site . they are all scared to death if someone thinks anything different than them about anything and everything . and they will never understand a God that doesn't have to have a huge pack brain dead zombies to be in control like our colleges do now .
it is just fear and control.

 

[luketbachelder]

NO I only followed it because I liked your comments.

but I was just sick already of even reading the new post pages on this site . they are all scared to death if someone thinks anything different than them about anything and everything . and they will never understand a God that doesn't have to have a huge pack brain dead zombies to be in control like our colleges do now .
it is just fear and control.

Thanks man. I appreciate that. There are people doing it right, though. You should check out my blogs.

 

[Chany]

Oh it's no, "caveat" as in a hindrance sense. It is actually a greater attribute. I wasn't necessarily being contentious. I was attempting to clear the vague. Logical prohibition is a power that should be possessed by any maximally great being. Don't you agree?

Define what you mean by logical prohibition, as I am not quite sure what you mean. Based upon the words "logical" and "prohibition", I will hold logical prohibition is not a power. It is not an ability. The only logical prohibition that occurs is when we place limits onto definitions and propositions. Logic is a system of discovering contradictions and incoherence within propositions and definitions within a system of axioms. Nothing more. To say one is bound by logic is to say one is bound by a coherence with a system of axioms.

When one defines omnipotence away from the naive form, it involves saying that there are limits to the power of an omnipotent being. In other words, there are things the omnipotent being cannot do. Even when we ignore the naive definition, omnipotence has to be very carefully defined; otherwise, problems will arise.

 

[luketbachelder]

Define what you mean by logical prohibition, as I am not quite sure what you mean. Based upon the words "logical" and "prohibition", I will hold logical prohibition is not a power. It is not an ability. The only logical prohibition that occurs is when we place limits onto definitions and propositions. Logic is a system of discovering contradictions and incoherence within propositions and definitions within a system of axioms. Nothing more. To say one is bound by logic is to say one is bound by a coherence with a system of axioms.

When one defines omnipotence away from the naive form, it involves saying that there are limits to the power of an omnipotent being. In other words, there are things the omnipotent being cannot do. Even when we ignore the naive definition, omnipotence has to be very carefully defined; otherwise, problems will arise.

i agree. It's not a matter of what can and can't be done. It's a matter of presenting a proposition within a syllogism that cannot be refuted. Which means, that proposition is attainable, and it must carry sense behind it. Which, antilogical things cannot fit into any argument or have any merit.

 

[quatona]

I thought you were objecting on the seemingly illogical notion of the incarnation. Did I misread the post?

I was talking about explicit appeals to illogicality in general. I gave two examples.

 

[Crowns&Laurels]

Can God Create An Object Too Heavy For Him To Lift?

Yes. And then He could change His mind, and lift it.

This is a solved paradox. His omnipotence cannot be broken, even by His own omnipotence.

 

[HitchSlap]

The Christian god can be only two of the "omnis," but not all three. This is why most theologians have jettisoned the god is "omnipotent" premise.

 

[Lavendar Frog]

It's like asking, can God create something he can't control?

The atheists attempt at mocking God. Fails every time.