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

[outsidethecamp]

If God who is uncreated (assumption) can create another God (clone), then the created God would never be as powerful as the original God because by nature he is created (the creation) and the Creator always has power over His creation.

So, an omnipotent God (who also cannot sin), cannot create a rock too heavy for Him to lift.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

If God who is uncreated (assumption) can create another God (clone), then the created God would never be as powerful as the original God because by nature he is created (the creation) and the Creator always has power over His creation.

So, an omnipotent God (who also cannot sin), cannot create a rock too heavy for Him to lift.

Hang on, who says that "the creator always has power over his creation"? I see no reason to accept that as some sort of universal metaphysical truth.

 

[outsidethecamp]

Hang on, who says that "the creator always has power over his creation"? I see no reason to accept that as some sort of universal metaphysical truth.

It's the old Pot and Potter analogy.

Jer_18:6 O house of Israel, cannot I do with you as this potter? saith the LORD. Behold, as the clay is in the potter's hand, so are ye in mine hand, O house of Israel.

 

[outsidethecamp]

God could never make a rock he couldn't lift?

Rock is only the creation. Creator is always greater than His creation.

 

[outsidethecamp]

Hang on, who says that "the creator always has power over his creation"? I see no reason to accept that as some sort of universal metaphysical truth.

That's fine. You don't have to.

 

[Near]

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.

You presented two different definitions for omnipotence. I believe the first one defined as the ability to do all that is logically possible.
As for "the ability to do anything thinkable", the human mind is capable of thinking up combinations of words and mentally applying the categorization that what they think of is a logically possible thing. Ex. square-circle. However that's not a thing which can exist, it's a logical impossibility.
The belief that God can do "logically impossible" things is silly.
If God can do logically impossible things then...drum roll please...
If God can do logically impossible things, he can make a rock too heavy for him to lift, and lift it while it's too heavy for him to lift!
But wait! That's illogical!
Well, in that case we'd be dealing with an entity that can break the rules of logic.

 

[xpower]

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.

The Trinity is not "One being that is at the same time three beings" the Trinity is "One being that are three persons"
person and being do not mean the same thing. A being is "WHAT you are" a person is WHO you are"

 

[elopez]

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

Mhmm, yet that question presupposes there is such a rock, or that such a rock could be a true possibility. Though, there can be no such rock, and it is not a genuine possibility.

Again, and to which you ignored, if you first ask the question, "Does there exist a rock too heavy for God to lift?" anyone would naturally answer "no." Since there is no such rock, either in existence or posed as a genuine possibility, asking if God can lift it becomes nonsensical. It becomes a loaded question.

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

Still doesn't follow. Think about it.

Your argument is that because nothing is more powerful or equally powerful as God, He is not omnipotent... yet it is actually because nothing is more or equally powrful that He is omnipotent..

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.

Such questions are fallacious. That's not a loaded question as it doesnt display the two main components of a loaded question - a false presupposition and how one's response traps him either way he answers. The rock question consists of both of those, indeed making it a loaded question.

 

[outsidethecamp]

You presented two different definitions for omnipotence. I believe the first one defined as the ability to do all that is logically possible.
As for "the ability to do anything thinkable", the human mind is capable of thinking up combinations of words and mentally applying the categorization that what they think of is a logically possible thing. Ex. square-circle. However that's not a thing which can exist, it's a logical impossibility.
The belief that God can do "logically impossible" things is silly.
If God can do logically impossible things then...drum roll please...
If God can do logically impossible things, he can make a rock too heavy for him to lift, and lift it while it's too heavy for him to lift!
But wait! That's illogical!
Well, in that case we'd be dealing with an entity that can break the rules of logic.

Was it logical for God to die for man as a substitute?

Was it logical to rub mud on a man's eyes to cure his blindness.

If God is any God at all then he must also be the God of that which seems illogical to the finite mind.

 

[Dave-W]

The Trinity is not "One being that is at the same time three beings" the Trinity is "One being that are three persons"
person and being do not mean the same thing. A being is "WHAT you are" a person is WHO you are"

Nope. You are being too Greek-logic analytical of this. Trying to break it down any further than "three in one" will only get you into heresy and trouble. I stand by how I said it.

If that does not make sense to you - that is fine. God is way beyond our logic.

 

[pshun2404]

Hang on, who says that "the creator always has power over his creation"? I see no reason to accept that as some sort of universal metaphysical truth.

It isn't but go back and read post 64...

 

[Davian]

Was it logical for God to die for man as a substitute?

Was it logical to run mud on a man's eyes to cure his blindness.

If God is any God at all then he must also be the God of that which seems illogical to the finite mind.

Could God lift a paperclip?

 

[zippy2006]

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

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.

 

[outsidethecamp]

Could God lift a paperclip?

Can God create an atom, neutron or proton.

 

[Davian]

Can God create an atom, neutron or proton.

Why? Is a paperclip too much? How a about small piece of paper? Could God lift a small piece of paper?

Not high, just an inch or so over my desk.

Anyone?

 

[Chany]

You presented two different definitions for omnipotence. I believe the first one defined as the ability to do all that is logically possible.
As for "the ability to do anything thinkable", the human mind is capable of thinking up combinations of words and mentally applying the categorization that what they think of is a logically possible thing. Ex. square-circle. However that's not a thing which can exist, it's a logical impossibility.
The belief that God can do "logically impossible" things is silly.
If God can do logically impossible things then...drum roll please...
If God can do logically impossible things, he can make a rock too heavy for him to lift, and lift it while it's too heavy for him to lift!
But wait! That's illogical!
Well, in that case we'd be dealing with an entity that can break the rules of logic.

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.

 

[outsidethecamp]

Why? Is a paperclip too much? How a about small piece of paper? Could God lift a small piece of paper?

Not high, just an inch or so over my desk.

Anyone?

Nah, He probably can't. Can you?

 

[Davian]

Nah, He probably can't.

Not so powerful, then.

Can you?

Sure. Why do you ask?

 

[outsidethecamp]

Not so powerful, then.

Sure. Why do you ask?

Yep, guess you can have the next to final word on that.

 

[Davian]

Yep, guess you can have the next to final word on that.