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

[quatona]

I don't understand what you're trying to argue. Are you agreeing? I'm so confused, sorry.

At the beginning of our conversation stood a post of mine to which you replied - in a manner that suggested to me you were disagreeing with something in it. May it would be a good idea to go back and reread it?
I´m not arguing anything - I just try to keep explaining (actually, more like: repeating) what I said in that post.

 

[katerinah1947]

Trinitarian as well. I draw my observations from scripture as well, or at least I thought I did.

You left an idea dangling. What did you mean by I thought I did?
So, we both are Trinitarian, mine from believing, but later seeing The Essence of God, so our views will not clash there, which to me means, you might have already passed the test, that is given of all people, honesty, your commitment to it.

You either believe matter and energy were created with the rest of creation, it intrinsically exists within his nature, which would make him not self independent, but rather dependent upon his creation, or you believe that matter and energy are eternal and exist outside God's nature. This is where the real problem lies, which of these do you hold?

Most of my work on God is outside the concept of belief, so you and I will have trouble communicating here.

Your logic above totaly escapes me, so far. Let me try the next part, guessing:

I think yes, God is Energy and Spirit and Diety and Person and Light and Love, it is only about soul, whether or not God has a soul or is a soul also, this I do not know yet. For I do not understand soul, as it applies to Jesus, Who is said, still has one.

Absolutely, he breathed things into existence. There are two options, matter existed and God depended upon matter to create, or he created matter, space, and time at the creation moment.

So what is the weight of his breadth? What is the energy of His breath? Is the breadth of Him, something, thus being something and thus maybe with some component of God in it, or not? Something has characteristics. It could be spirtual, or love or light or mass or energy, thus it could all or some part of God.

You say two options, and no more is implied by you. One is matter existed. Well at one point yes, matter existed. In the context of God Biblicaly, at one point matter did not exist also.
The other is God created what he created, but matter is not discussed, it is inferred. And it is so. Matter creates space, and it creates time, so this discussion can now go to where did matter come from.
Matter came from God, it seems. How it came from God is the focus of this discussion now.

The only thing we know on earth now, but not before it was discovered and proved is matter is really congealed energy, which cannot be created nor destroyed, but only change forms. Is it posssible this is wrong when we get to God? I don't know yet. However using it as fact, that energy and matter can neither be created nor destroyed, which is a position God asked us to find out in Genesis 1:28, it is therefore possible, to guess that God might in fact have an energy component to Him, that He also uses to create mass.

It is in the trying to prove that God, as a component of His being, does NOT have energy as one of those components that might indeed reveal that there is a high probability that He does, if it cannot be proved that energy is not a component of God.

How is this out of place? We are discussing creation. Why didn't God, who possessed all the necessary qualities to create, create sooner or later? Why wait so long? If matter and energy exist, temporal becoming is possible.

In general why is not answerable. Why is God. Why is an electron? Why is you, or why are you. Why is an earthworm? Why is a neutron, and so on and so forth.
It is in whats, that answers exist, not in whys. What is God is answerable. What is an eletron is answerable. What are you is answerable. What is an earthworm is answerable. What is a neutron is answerable.
Why is Creation is not. Why sooner is not. Why later is not. Why are you using time, in an arena that time is normally not thought of in terms of earth time, thus sooner in your mind, nor later in your mind, is also interesting to me. In your view should God have done creation at all? Since it is here, why do you think it was done too late? What was done before Creation, that you say is not needed compared to creation?
You have said, why wait so long, if. That says, He made a mistake, Job, and you wish to call him on that mistake, or is it you are merely saying God would have done creation sooner, if matter and energy existed always, which is not what I have said.
I have noticed that you keep returning to these concepts of pre existing matter. I don't know why.
Simply, if God is what God is, and He is; then to have the capabilities, does not mean He has to do anything, sooner, or later, or at all.
I have capabilities. They do not force me to act now, or later, or even at all. Rather in my life, I actually let God direct me, either Biblically, or personally. Yes, I can refuse. The reasons for refusing God are Biblical, but for me, I other than laziness, use none of those, and even with laziness, He gets His Way, with me.

If God relies on energy, once again, he is not independent. If he possess it as a part of his nature, then he is an energy filled entity. Energy seems to be an element that is tangible, which is opposite of God's attributes. It's just a weird assertion. No one really thinks that. And most Gnostics think matter is eternal and they do not think it is possessed by God.

You keep throwing in words where none seem to be needed. It is now 'relies'. If God is energy also, then what He does with energy, is also what He does with Himself. You put that word here, and it does not fit in the context of God. That is a human word. I rely on things like God, my car, the air, my body, but I am none of those things.
With God to say, that God relies on God, makes sense but an entirely different sense then for me. I don't rely on me. God can rely on God and be God, because God is God. For me, I can rely on me, but all things in me are dependent upon God thus what I am can change from time to time depending upon what God has put into me, so I cannot say accurately that, I can rely in me, and be me, because me is me. I can't, because part of me, in the least is the breath of God as you said,, and God can withdraw his Spirit from me, as He has done to some poeple Biblically, thus causing their deaths, which then removes their reliance on their own selves.
I am not Gnostic. I was using someone else's words for this concept. I though gnostic meant also one who knows, and not one who belongs to the Gnostic Religion.

I know God because 'I' proved the Bible is Real, scientifically, and it talks about God. So, God is real, by scientific proof, but an esotreric and long one. The 'I' is there, because no one can do that, apart from God actually doing the work, and not me. It just seems like me to some others. It is not.

I know of the unknown and the unknown universe's existence, and casing but not entirely how that casing is created. All of this has been corroborated by The Roman Catholic Church.

I have used the words of others, for this, in talking. I am not a Gnostic, rather I have been given this information and rather pleasantly and more than nicely, in day time events, in broad daylight.

That is what I meant by gnostic theist. I know God is Real, and Trinitarian, by sight, and interactions with that power, plus was led to believe that if I used those words, you and others would understand, making this longer explanation, not needed.

What are you proposing? Matter either exists as God, or beside and dualisticly beside God.
Aseity is God's self-dependence. He relies on only himself. God is self-sufficient and uncaused.

I am proposing that God is capable to produce matter, and change that matter back to energy at will. God is capable. God has power, if you will.

Okay. Firstly, it's fun to guess. You show tendencies of dualism, and your idea that creation has God within it is somewhat Calvinistic. Also, it's odd that a gnostic views the material world as Spiritual. That is quiet opposite of Gnosticism.

If you still want to call me a gnostic, fine. Yet, I don't see how. In essence, I see God as God, and take totally the Biblical view that God is Spirit, thus maybe that means that within Spirit is contained all that God is, uncluding power, light, love, and energy maybe, but not matter. Nor maybe is energy contained withing God per se. Maybe all these things of which we are speaking of, is merely subsets of Spirit, but a Subset of His Spirit, not ours, nor yours nor mine, which Jesus warned his Apostles of using theirs, so I would say mine is similarly flawed compared to God.

According to logic, God is never forced into that hypothetical dilimia. The very notion that God can and cannot do something defies logic, thus qualifying for non answers. Those questions pull no weight. They aren't even worth thinking about. The logical condition presupposes God's lack of ability, which is flawed fundamentally.

I'm honestly not trying to offend you in any way, form, or fashion.

Hi,
Can God hurt God? Can God destroy God? Can God be hurt by us? Does God have personhood? If personhood, can God have needs and want? Who is it that decided that God, cannot do something? Is it a human? Does it not say, Biblically God can not do evil? Or maybe it says Biblically God cannot lie?

Hi,

Maybe I will switch to using no Theological, nor Philosophical Words. I am thinking about doing that because others told me that because I know as opposed to believe, that is called gnostic, and not Gnosticism.

I am no Gnostic in the sense of agreeing with their views, as what I have heard of them so far, never seems to be Biblical enough, nor Trinitarian.

I used to do Semiconductor Research, and repair their equipment, and now a days, watch The Big Bang Theory trying to convince myself that no, I am not like Sheldon there. Yet, I fail at that, as in lots of ways, I am him and he is me.

I love your statement that energy could be created also. That is a possibliity, but if it is, then the use of that still fits with what I have said, and Scientists have confirmed by following the Genesis 1:28, ...subdue the earth... that section of the blessing by God was to do science, in Command format.

Also I do not say God is within creation as his entirety, rather it at this point in time, is hard to say that anything God makes does not have portion of Him in it, unless to use your words, Breath is nothing, but since nothing can only do nothing, and God's Breadth animated us, the breadth is something, and might have not only mass but energy.

Where does the idea that God is dependent upon nothing come from? Argh! This is getting out of control as I can't remember all your complex points. I am going above and talk there now.......
LOVE,
...Mary., .... .

 

[luketbachelder]

At the beginning of our conversation stood a post of mine to which you replied - in a manner that suggested to me you were disagreeing with something in it. May it would be a good idea to go back and reread it?
I´m not arguing anything - I just try to keep explaining (actually, more like: repeating) what I said in that post.

What demands to be outside logic? Who demands to be outside logic? The incarnation?

 

[quatona]

What demands to be outside logic? Who demands to be outside logic?

I have given examples. Do you want me to repeat them?

The incarnation?

The incarnation doesn´t demand anything.

 

[Cearbhall]

From a Christian standpoint, for me personally, I haven't been much experienced with controversy in a huge debate and this definitely stumped me. But as a Christian, if you were asked this, how would you respond in a manner that doesn't refute God in any way?

Can God create an object too heavy for Him to lift?

I've never understood this type of argument. The question itself is simple enough, but the intention is illogical. If he can't do this, then all it means is that he can lift an object of any weight. It does not mean that he can't create an object with an infinite weight. It only means that he can both create it and lift it. Therefore, it does not reveal any limitation on his power.

 

[Neochristian]

Yes. This is actually interesting. The question begins as a focus on contradiction. Can God contradict Himself. Many would claim that holding that He could based on absolutely nothing is actually totally legit. I might not know how, but it is possible. However, in this instance, we are lucky. We are given a specific way in which it might be possible. There is a slightly different way of considering the situation that still technically satisfies the terms of the question. God could create a rock too heavy for Him by decreasing His strength, instead of increasing the heaviness of the rock. Now God remains omnipotent, because He can regain His strength at will, and He seems to somehow have pulled off another miracle.

 

[Tina W]

He already did. I'm sure there's lots of things that baby Jesus could not lift and He was God, but God the Father could still lift it. So God couldn't lift it and could lift it at the same time. God can do anything He chooses.

 

[SkyWriting]

From a Christian standpoint, for me personally, I haven't been much experienced with controversy in a huge debate and this definitely stumped me. But as a Christian, if you were asked this, how would you respond in a manner that doesn't refute God in any way?
Can God create an object too heavy for Him to lift?

You are mixing the natural with the supernatural, so there is conflict within the question.

The two realms have separate rules.

 

[SkyWriting]

So, he could never make a rock so big, he couldn't move it?

The two realms have separate rules.

It's like asking if God could make a rock so big, that it would have no mass.

 

[HitchSlap]

He already did. I'm sure there's lots of things that baby Jesus could not lift and He was God, but God the Father could still lift it. So God couldn't lift it and could lift it at the same time. God can do anything He chooses.

Why do you think he's never chosen to heal an amputee?

 

[Ratjaws]

From a Christian standpoint, for me personally, I haven't been much experienced with controversy in a huge debate and this definitely stumped me. But as a Christian, if you were asked this, how would you respond in a manner that doesn't refute God in any way?

Can God create an object too heavy for Him to lift?

Certainly, this question is easily answered by paying attention to God's nature. It's been asked in another way that may make this question clearer: "Can God square a circle?"

The answer involves recognizing that God is a rational being (if He were not He could not create other beings that are rational like men and angels... in other words the effect must be in the cause). Therefore it is not reasonable that a square be circle at the same time. More generally a being cannot be two different things at once. Nor is it reasonable that a being exist and not exist at the same time.

Those are statements like the one you pose that violate the nature of God which is to be reasonable. God being omnipotent can do whatever He wants but only in keeping with His nature. God is rational and therefore consistent, since reasonableness implies consistency. He can create something heavier and heavier but not to the point where He could not lift it since this implies an inconsistency in God (an effect greater than it's cause). Put another way, while God is an infinite being capable of an infinite number of things, He cannot contradict His nature which is to be reasonable, and thus all His acts must fit reason. It is irrational to cause something you cannot cause... to create something heavier than you can lift. TCB 011616

 

[Ratjaws]

Delphiki said: ↑
Omnipotence: the ability to do anything, without any constraints. All-powerful

Omniscience: knowing everything, past, present, future, near, and far. All-knowing

If you don't believe that the deity you worship doesn't have these qualities, then perhaps this topic isn't for you. For the same of simplicity, we'll use the placeholder name "God" to refer to this deity. Most believers in the Abrahamic faiths, and many other theists assign omnipotence and omniscience as characteristics of God.

Consider this:

If I am omniscient, I would even know what I will have for dinner tomorrow, correct? Let's say it's a hamburger.

If I'm omniscient, I would at least be able to change what I will eat tomorrow. Let's say I'd rather have spaghetti instead.

If I change what I eat tomorrow, then did I really know it was going to be a hamburger? Even if I would have known I was going to change my mind, then how could I actually know I was going to eat a hamburger tomorrow.

In order for me to know what I was going to eat tomorrow, I can't have the ability to change what it is.

I think this helps to illustrate that omniscience and omnipotence are incompatible attributes. Much like the immovable object and unstoppable force, they can't both exist, as the existence of one would negate the other. They are locigal incompatibilities -- the "round square", so to speak.

Would anyone be willing to consider that God knows a lot and/or can do a lot as opposed to being all-knowing and all-powerful?

Delphiki,
No, God is omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent in the strict sense of those words precisely he is God. None of these characteristics contradict each other if they are properly understood. Part of your problem is you define omnipotence incorrectly when you say "without constraints." God is constrained by His own nature and an aspect you overlook is His rationality. God cannot violate reason any more than He could his other characteristics including being all powerful.

Another problem with what you propose is that God is not changeable therefore He does not change His mind. In theological circles we use philosophy to explain this by saying God is pure act. Human beings on the other hand are potency and act. That is we move from potency to act, to rest, to potency again. Christian scripture bears this out when it says God always existed and that He is the Alpha and Omega, the Beginning an the End. In other words God is self-sufficient, His existence is in Himself and not caused from another being. All this adds up to say God is pure act and has no potency in Him. This simply means that God has no past or future but rather everything is present to Him. Here you should see a hint of His omniscience, that God is pure act and cannot change. Precisely because God cannot change implies His power is also unchangeable.

So now put these facts together about God's innate character with the fact that your analogy is anthropomorphic in nature... that is you speak of God eating and you should see it is you who limit God. You limit Him by your analogy in humaninzing Him, carrying with this all our human limits. But God by definition is not limited to what we are rather He is omnipotent in the sense He is all-powerful, without violating reason. God is also all-knowing without any change in Him, that is as pure act, He knows what He knows all at once. God exists outside time unlike us and in fact is the cause of time, or as we say in philosophy, God created us not in time but with time.

So bottom line there is not discrepency between omnipotence and omniscience. The problem lies in the analogy you chose which is good to convey something of these truths but cannot be taken so far as we forget that God is not human, but God.

 

[Ratjaws]

I would just answer, God can make any size rock, with any weight conceivable. He can life any type of rock of any size and weight.
The trap is answering in a way in which God is unable to do something such as lift an object, or either create an object. The atheist may then point out that God can't do something. The question itself is setup in a way as to provide grounds for saying God isn't omnipotent.
If you answer it in a way that it makes it so God can create any size object with any weight, and he can lift such an object, you avoid the trap.

Endure,
You are close to the answer, as other people here like the pastor's wife are; she also gave a part of the answer. Some might consider it a trick question on the part of athiests but I disagree, it is an honest philosophical question.

We have to keep in mind here that God is a pure spirit and has created matter, energy, and all the laws of nature that science encounters including motion itself. Another thing we need to realize is that space and time are not entities (real beings), instead they are concepts in our mind (beings of reason) that are related to beings that do exist (or to God who is the cause of all these other beings).

With this in mind we also need to realize that God exists as what we call in metaphysics... in pure act. God exists outside of time and as I said above is the creator of time, which is by the way, a mental measure of changing being. Space itself is another mental concept necessary because all being in our material world has the property of extension (res extensia or extended being). There is no potency in God. As a being of pure act God exists as all that He is, knowing all that has happened past, present and future. Even to say God exists in one moment is inaccurate because He is not in time. We better say God is all that He is in one act.

Now on the other hand we human beings, created and finite, exist as potency and act. We move from potential being to actual being, moment by moment so to speak. This movement in our being is our changeableness and is why we live with a concept of time. That we are always potency moving toward act also implies extension of our being. Another way of describing potency and act is to say we are always evolving... that is our being is in flux, becoming what is only in potential. One could say this is a true sense of evolution in that we unfold like a flower that blossoms. Our being initially contains all that we can be and unfolds and is thus expressed in time and space. Notice here I said, our being contains all that we can be, meaning, there is something in us immutable. If this were not so one could never point to our being because it would be in a pure state of flux. The truth is we have both a substantial aspect to our nature (our spiritual component), that which does not change, and a mutable aspect (our material component). This latter aspect is what empirical science studies. The former aspect is within the purview of metaphysical knowledge.

All this to try to say that God who is our Cause is not like us, constantly moving from potency to actualization, but is all that He can be in one act. As such God being all that He can ever be, could not create what is not already in His mind. When something comes into existence, when God creates, He merely wills it into being. So there are a lot more ideas in God's mind that are do not exist than actually exist, and they remain so until He makes an act of his will.

When it comes to God creating something to heavy to lift it is impossible because God is completely reasonable. God is the Source of all rational being, if God were not then no rational being could exist. So this idea of God being the cause of something that weighs more than He can lift is an concept that goes against reason and therefore God would never think of it. We as finite creatures do think of such things and would dismiss such ideas as unreasonable if we were not fallen.

Anyhow the fact that God is a pure spirit also should stop us from going further with such unreasonable ideas because weight and movement all apply to material beings... not those that are spiritual. In philosophy we say that angels can move with the speed of thought because they don't have a body to resist movement. This same idea has even been applied to the glorified body we will recieve after the resurrection because it we be more spiritualized than the one we possess now (yet it will remain a material body). If we speak of the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity, Christ, as some have brought up in context here, in relation to His human nature which He assumed, we still find the idea of an infinite created weight absurd, or at least out of place, because human beings are limited by nature. We don't find any being in the created world as infinite. We can have ideas of infinity but as I suggested before they are beings of reason and not real existent entities.

I should end by saying that the only existing infinite being is God. He is why we can have ideas of infinity (mathematical infinity or ontological infinity) even though we are finite in every aspect, except... in our mind. We don't possess knowledge of everything, like God, yet we do have an infinite capacity for knowledge... which by the way, is a stamp on our nature that shows us to be created "in his image and likeness." We also have an infinite capacity for love, to receive and give love, which again mirrors God's nature.

 

[Hieronymus]

From a Christian standpoint, for me personally, I haven't been much experienced with controversy in a huge debate and this definitely stumped me. But as a Christian, if you were asked this, how would you respond in a manner that doesn't refute God in any way?

Can God create an object too heavy for Him to lift?

Easy.
Of course He can create an object too heavy for Him to lift.
He can make it disappear too.

But it's a rather pointless point, because lifting implies physical premises that are irrelevant to God, like physical power, a floor (that can support the unliftable object) and of course gravity.

 

[juvenissun]

From a Christian standpoint, for me personally, I haven't been much experienced with controversy in a huge debate and this definitely stumped me. But as a Christian, if you were asked this, how would you respond in a manner that doesn't refute God in any way?

Can God create an object too heavy for Him to lift?

It is a kind of question with hidden logic errors.
Other examples are easy to make:

Can God create an object too dark for Him to see?
Can God create an object too small for Him to find?
etc.

The key to break it is: Define the God first. For example: God is one Who can lift up anything. Then whatever argument followed can not violate this definition. Otherwise, the argument is not about God in the definition.

A simple way to see the logic error is:

God is A.
and
God is not A.

 

[SkyWriting]

Why do you think he's never chosen to heal an amputee?

Because healing the blind is more difficult.
The scriptures don't cover acne solutions either.
No.... I guess Job had skin problems.

 

[SkyWriting]

The question was; God could never create a rock he couldn't lift?

It a flaw in the question.
Like "Could God make something so green that it was yellow?"

 

[Colter]

From a Christian standpoint, for me personally, I haven't been much experienced with controversy in a huge debate and this definitely stumped me. But as a Christian, if you were asked this, how would you respond in a manner that doesn't refute God in any way?

Can God create an object too heavy for Him to lift?

Well, Gravity is from God.

But in the spirit of the question the answer is no, God cannot do the ungodlike thing. God cannot create square circles because a circle and a square originate from the Law of God.

 

[Davian]

Why do you think he's never chosen to heal an amputee?

I wonder if he is powerful enough to move a spoon on my table?

 

[durangodawood]

Interesting. Creator God is impotent. Is the rock?

Thank you kindly.

Um... what????