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

[outsidethecamp]

Jeremiah 32:17 Ah Lord GOD! behold, thou hast made the heaven and the earth by thy great power and stretched out arm, and there is nothing too hard for thee:

 

[elopez]

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

I think people gloss over a certain point that easily answers the question. That is, this question is fallacious, specifically it is a loaded question.

Loaded questions are meant to trap one who answers a question no matter which answer, yes or no, they respond with. To trap the person answering, a false assumption has to be made and implemented into the question. That is where the fallacy comes in.

The question of discussion is a prime example of a loaded question as one, it traps the one who answers into a position they do not hold, and two, it bears a false assumption in order to ensure the trap. So obviously if we answer yes, we admit God cannot lift said rock, and if we say no, we admit God cannot creat said rock. Both answers lead to the same conclusion that God is not omnipotent. The false assumption in the question is that there would exist something more powerful than God. Yet if God is all - powerful, nothing exists that is more powerful than He.

There literally could be no such rock that exists. It is not a genuine possibility, and to say it could be is nonsensical in the first place.

 

[Chany]

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?

The answer, from a modern philosophical perspective, is no. I can think of only two professional philosophers who, at some point in time, claimed God could do anything, and one of them is Decartes, so I do not really think highly of the position.

The rock paradox is just one of many paradoxes that arise when you have an infinite set of things. The point is that when you have an infinite set of things God can supposedly do, it becomes really contradictory really quick.

The rock situation goes like this:

1) God can make something too powerful for him to move; therefore, he cannot do something- move the object.

2) God cannot make something too powerful for him to move; therefore, he cannot do something- make the object.

In other words, in both options, there is something God cannot do. Either option you pick leads to the current idea of omnipotence as "anything at all" contradicting itself. Therefore, unless one wants to throw out basic logic and cease to think coherently, then one has to refine the definition of omnipotence into something else that is not contradictory.

 

[Near]

The rock situation goes like this:

1) God can make something too powerful for him to move; therefore, he cannot do something- move the object.

2) God cannot make something too powerful for him to move; therefore, he cannot do something- make the object.

In other words, in both options, there is something God cannot do.

As with a "square-circle", "something too powerful for God to move" is not something possible, it's a logical contradiction; an incoherent combination of words. So the question is meaningless as some here have said.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

The false assumption in the question is that there would exist something more powerful than God. Yet if God is all - powerful, nothing exists that is more powerful than He.

That's not an assumption; that's the point of the question: if God is all-powerful, is he capable of creating something of equivalent or greater power.

 

[Near]

That's not an assumption; that's the point of the question: if God is all-powerful, is he capable of creating something of equivalent or greater power.

By necessity, God is omnipotent, and something other than God being as powerful or more powerful than him is logically impossible.

Essentially such questions ask, is God capable of doing the logically impossible?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

By necessity, God is omnipotent, and something other than God being as powerful or more powerful than him is logically impossible.

Essentially such questions ask, is God capable of doing the logically impossible?

You're just adding more words to the problem: if God is all-powerful, by necessity, is he capable of creating something of equivalent or greater power? Adding the "by necessity" really doesn't change the nature of the question.

 

[Near]

You're just adding more words to the problem: if God is all-powerful, by necessity, is he capable of creating something of equivalent or greater power? Adding the "by necessity" really doesn't change the nature of the question.

I think you understood that I believe God is necessarily omnipotent, but you didn't seem to respond at all to any of the following:

and something other than God being as powerful or more powerful than him is logically impossible.

Essentially such questions ask, is God capable of doing the logically impossible?

The question is meaningless since you're referring to a logical impossibility.

 

[steve moyers]

This another question of splitting God in two. "Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD:

 

[quatona]

Maybe the concept "trinity" can be employed to resolve this? Something like God-father can create a rock too heavy for Jesus to lift?

 

[J. Bleize]

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?

He can create a rock, but nothing is "too heavy" for God, unless He has to do something evil, which He can not do.
If He decided "I'm going to make a rock that I can't lift.", He wouldn't be God anyway, because only man would do such stupid things.
God is omnipotent, not omnipointless like the word omnipotent.

 

[Dave-W]

Furthermore, God is omnipotent. He cannot make himself completely non-omnipotent.

Actually, He did that already:

Philippians 2:6 who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped,
7 but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men.
8 Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.

In His incarnation, He stripped himself of all his divine powers and was only able to do what any other man could do. That is the ONLY way He could be a proper example to us in how to overcome sin and do the miracles He did. He had to rely on the Holy Spirit in the same way we do.

 

[Dave-W]

Essentially such questions ask, is God capable of doing the logically impossible?

Absolutely the answer has to be yes.

Even the Trinity itself is a "logical impossibility." One being that is at the same time three beings (and to go further - seven spirits) So God's very essence gives us the answer. So He not only can DO the logically impossible; He IS the logically impossible.

Part of the problem is you are using only one type of logic: one that is based on Greek paganism and philosophy. That consists of mathematics, induction and deduction. I categorically refuse to limit God to a polytheistic pagan philosophy.

The bible itself shows a different type of logic; sometimes called Hebraic Block logic or adductive logic. It CAN hold 2 things that induction or deduction would claim are logically inconsistent, as simultaneously true in certain situations.

 

[Dave-W]

This another question of splitting God in two. "Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD:

In Hebrew: Sh'ma Yisrael Adonai Elohenu Adonai echad. The great statement of God's unity. Except it alludes to the Trinity.
The last 4 words have God being referenced 3 times, followed by the word echad - "one." Hebrew has 2 words for "one," echad and yachad.

Echad is also used to describe husband and wife in Genesis 2.24: "...they shall become one [echad] flesh." So it is NOT an absolute singularity.

 

[elopez]

That's not an assumption; that's the point of the question: if God is all-powerful, is he capable of creating something of equivalent or greater power.

Well, it is an assumption.

For one, it is not yet proved in any sense that there exists such a rock. And two, under the impression that God is omnipotent, it follows that nothing can be more powerful than He.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Well, it is an assumption.

For one, it is not yet proved in any sense that there exists such a rock. And two, under the impression that God is omnipotent, it follows that nothing can be more powerful than He.

The rock is just a metaphor. It's not assumed that any such rock exists. The question is whether such a "rock" could be brought into being by an omnipotent entity; that is, could an omnipotent entity create another entity that possesses equivalent power. If it can't, then it isn't truly omnipotent, or omnipotence as a concept needs to be refined. If it can, then other interesting questions are raised, like whether it could overpower or destroy such an entity. If it couldn't, then what would that mean for its omnipotence? Personally, I don't think it's that interesting a question to muse over. But it's just one of those questions that arises when one posits a being of ostensibly limitless power. Similar questions arise with respect to omniscience. Even more complicated questions arise when one considers the combination of omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence, and omnibenevolence.

 

[Chany]

As with a "square-circle", "something too powerful for God to move" is not something possible, it's a logical contradiction; an incoherent combination of words. So the question is meaningless as some here have said.

That's the point: omnipotence is often defined as "the ability to do all that is logically possible". The rock paradox did exactly what it is supposed to do- the definition of omnipotence presented as "the ability to do anything thinkable" is faulty. It is not meaningless because I have talked to multiple theists (and some atheists) who firmly believed God could do logically contradictory things if he is to be omnipotent. The rock paradox does exactly what it is supposed to do: it forces people who hold onto the naive version of omnipotence to give up their definition and make a new one.

 

[elopez]

The rock is just a metaphor. It's not assumed that any such rock exists.

Metaphor? So it is not a literal, genuine rock that is being inquired of? If it is not assumed any such rock exists, there is really no need to further ask the rock question.

"Does there exist a rock too heavy for God to lift?"

"No."

The rock question therefore becomes invalid. Asking it then would be nonsensical, and fallacious.

The question is whether such a "rock" could be brought into being by an omnipotent entity; that is, could an omnipotent entity create another entity that possesses equivalent power.

However, that question is already answered. And it doesn't require that one be asked the rock question, yet the question posed above. God is all - powerful. Nothing is more powerful than God. Thus, there could exist no such rock.

If it can't, then it isn't truly omnipotent, or omnipotence as a concept needs to be refined. If it can, then other interesting questions are raised, like whether it could overpower or destroy such an entity. If it couldn't, then what would that mean for its omnipotence?

Again, all of this is meaningless, and only reiterates the traping answers that consists of a loaded question.

Personally, I don't think it's that interesting a question to muse over. But it's just one of those questions that arises when one posits a being of ostensibly limitless power. Similar questions arise with respect to omniscience. Even more complicated questions arise when one considers the combination of omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence, and omnibenevolence.

Well, those attributes are another discussion. It is not an interesting question as it is just dense.

 

[outsidethecamp]

This another question of splitting God in two. "Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD:

LET US, make man in OUR image. Yes, the three are ONE.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Metaphor? So it is not a literal, genuine rock that is being inquired of? If it is not assumed any such rock exists, there is really no need to further ask the rock question.

"Does there exist a rock too heavy for God to lift?"

"No."

The rock question therefore becomes invalid. Asking it then would be nonsensical, and fallacious.

No, the question is whether God can create a rock too heavy for him to lift, not whether any such rock is currently extant.

However, that question is already answered. And it doesn't require that one be asked the rock question, yet the question posed above. God is all - powerful. Nothing is more powerful than God. Thus, there could exist no such rock.

So God's power is limited. There is something he cannot do; namely, create an entity of equivalent power.

Again, all of this is meaningless, and only reiterates the traping answers that consists of a loaded question.

Hey, if you're going to propose that an entity of unlimited power exists, then such a question naturally arises. It's no more loaded than asking what unlimited power would actually look like.