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

[Near]

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.

 

[Moral Orel]

The trick to the question is that you are supposed to either say there is a limit to the amount of matter God can create, or there is a limit to the amount of force God can exert on said matter. But if you consider the idea that God is supposed to be limitless then you can see the solution to the paradox.

If God makes a rock that weighs 10 tons, he can exert 10 tons of force on that rock.
If God makes a rock that weighs 1,000 tons, he can exert 1,000 tons of force on that rock.
If God makes a rock that weighs 1,000,000 tons, he can exert 1,000,000 tons of force on that rock.
And so on.
God can make a rock that is infinitely large, but he can also exert an infinite amount of force on that rock as well. So he can't make a rock too big for him to lift, but not because he is limited.

I'm not really a Christian, but I'll give that one to you guys. The better paradoxes come from omniscience anyways, not omnipotence.

 

[Dave RP]

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 would have thought that if you believe in one of the available gods, then most, if not all of them can do anything they want. I mean creating a universe so huge that it would take billions of years to cross, and creating black holes millions of time the mass of the sun means that the Christian, Jewish and Islamic God (i think it's the same one) would be able to move (which I think is a better word than lift), anything he wants.

I'm not sure if the other deities have the same powers, but maybe they do?

 

[quatona]

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?

Unless on other occasions you yourself have argued for God´s existence by claiming that he "is beyond logic" (or something else to this effect) I don´t see why you would have to accept "being able to do the logically impossible" being included in the definition of "omnipotence".

On another note, even if this were a successful argument for showing that God is not omnipotent, it wouldn´t "refute God". It would just refute the concept of an omnipotent God.

 

[The Cadet]

Would anyone care to define the term "Omnipotent"? Because the various definitions I often seen thrown around are either inherently flawed ("Able to do anything") or so vague as to be meaningless ("All-powerful").

Consider the definition of the word "lift," here.

From Merriam-Webster:

"lift"
transitive verb
1
a : to raise from a lower to a higher position : elevate

To cause something to go "higher," one must have a fixed frame of reference. But God cannot be put in a box, so there is no way for God to "lift" anything, from his perspective. He can move things so that they seem "lifted" to us, but to Him, it's just movement. Jesus was taken into Heaven from our perspective, but from God's perspective, was placed back on the throne at his right hand. So, I would argue that the question is pretty nonsensical. Nothing is bigger or stronger than God, by definition.

This fundamentally misses the point of the argument through semantic word games. Just change "lift" to "move", and it works regardless of the frame of reference.

No matter how old it is still one of the stupidest rhetorical questions ever ask again and again and again..
God transcends all matter so it is goofiness to try and and-swerve this ..
So he could make a rock to big for him to lift but then he could turn it into something he can lift because he is outside of matter .

This similarly does nothing to address the problem. The issue is not "can god change that rock, then lift it", the issue is simply "can god create a rock so big he cannot move it". Inserting additional steps does not somehow solve the problem; you no longer have the rock so big he cannot move it.

No, it's not possible for God to do something that by definition is impossible.

There's no problem with these kinds of questions.

By definition impossible? I can build a finite object that I cannot lift. Why is this suddenly impossible when you give this task to someone with infinitely more power than me? I think you need to get your definition of "omnipotent" in order. "Can do anything that is not logically impossible for that being"? By that definition, I am omnipotent, as I can do anything that is not logically impossible for me as a human. Sure, the list of things that are logically impossible for me as a human is fairly long, but at least I can make something I can't move.

Also, while we're at it, can god accurately tell me whether a program which only halts if he predicts that it won't will halt?

 

[quatona]

Hi Cadet,
I am among those atheists who agree that this is a stupid argument (well, actually that depends on what it is meant to prove or disprove). It employs the kind of logic wizardry and semantics games that we typically in arguments for God. I am not comfortable with carrying our arguments to that level.

Would anyone care to define the term "Omnipotent"? Because the various definitions I often seen thrown around are either inherently flawed ("Able to do anything") or so vague as to be meaningless ("All-powerful").

And that´s the very problem. If you define "omnipotence" as being able to do the logically impossible (and that´s what this argument implicitly does), it´s no surprise you´ll end up with nonsense. GIGO.

I agree that we can demand from an omnipotent being that it can create a rock of any size/weight.
I agree that we can demand from an omnipotent being that it can lift a rock of any size/weight.
If we demand each these two things, demanding that being able to do both is demanding the logically impossible.

What the argument actually does is defining "omnipotent" in a way that renders "omnipotence" (in that definition) as logically impossible.

By definition impossible? I can build a finite object that I cannot lift. Why is this suddenly impossible when you give this task to someone with infinitely more power than me?

Yes, by definition. Because the demanded ability is not a simple ability, it is composed of three demands that can´t be met, logically. Not by you, me, God or anyone, anything.They create the very logical contradiction in the implicit definition of "omnipotence".

I think you need to get your definition of "omnipotent" in order. "Can do anything that is not logically impossible for that being"? By that definition, I am omnipotent, as I can do anything that is not logically impossible for me as a human.

That´s not a logical limitation, it´s a physical limitation.

Sure, the list of things that are logically impossible for me as a human is fairly long, but at least I can make something I can't move.

The three things that are demanded here from "omnipotence" can´t be met by anybody/anything. Because if combined, they create a logical impossibility.
It´s basically not any better than postulating that an omnipotent entity must be able to exist, not exist and both simultaneously.

 

[Chicken Little]

This similarly does nothing to address the problem.

no your the one with the problem I have a God who can do all things including move you.
this question is bogus because it doesn't understand a God who is outside of matter. that is an atheist problem not mine.

 

[Albion]

By definition impossible? I can build a finite object that I cannot lift.

I'll bet that's right. The question was about God, however, not you.

Why is this suddenly impossible when you give this task to someone with infinitely more power than me?

Because the question itself stipulates that God cannot lift it. If the question had been, "Can an omnipotent God create a ten-pound rock that he cannot lift?" you could have expected a different answer.

 

[Wryetui]

I think it leads to sin to think like this, now, before I start sounding like a puritan, let me explain myself. According to our Holy Orthodox Theology and our archaic and old Church Tradition, cleansing (ascetic practice) goes before knowledge, so, in order to know something about God, we must, like St. John of the Ladder, St. Symeon the New Theologian, St. Gregory Palamas and so on, in order to actually know something about God we must be like He wants, pure, cleansed of sin and living in a continuous state of prayer, only then the divine light will shine before us, only then we will get enlightened.

So, according to what I said, why the answer in this post cannot be fully answered? Because of the worst sin of them all, pride. This mere answer plants in us the seed of pride, the pride that we believe we can know such mysteries about God, the pride that we are actually smarter than God, the pride of considering God something our mind can grasp and rejecting the idea of God if our petty human rationality can't grasp God. The non-believers sin of pride everytime they throw this kind of questions because they consider themselves and their own logic to be superior than the christian logic, superior than the idea of God and they automatically put themselves out of the grace of God. The believers sin of pride everytime they answer these questions because they consider themselves worthy of actually answering something so accurate about God, they sin of pride because they think they actually understand what God is, because they think their minds can actually grasp God and that Him and His Holy Name may be used among their arguments in order to justify their faith. Anyway, pride blocks God's enlightening grace, the grace that flows from the unknown essence of God and that involves everything in the Creation, like a barrage blocks a watercourse and loose themselves among their own ideas, both thinking they are right, and nobody having the right answer after all.

So, which one would be the answer to this questions? We don't know. We have to accept our inferior status, we have to accept that the wonders of God cannot be grasped through the intellect of our minds and we have to humble ourselves in order for His grace to dumbfound us.

 

[Sophrosyne]

The answer to this question is simple in that either God can figure out a solution by circumventing the natural laws of this universe or it is a paradox that cannot be solved essentially pitting God against himself.
One could essentially consider the old movie "Wargames" where in the end the computer decided the best solution was "not to play".

 

[The Cadet]

Because the question itself stipulates that God cannot lift it. If the question had been, "Can an omnipotent God create a ten-pound rock that he cannot lift?" you could have expected a different answer.

Actually, fair point. Can an omnipotent God create a ten-pound rock that he cannot lift? What happens when he starts arm-wrestling himself? Can he fashion an equally powerful or greater being, and if so, what happens when they fight? Again, I'm left with these questions primarily because I have no idea how we are defining "omnipotence". The word is not well-defined, and I don't know what believers mean when they say "God is omnipotent" any more than I would know what they mean when they say "God is superman".

I think it leads to sin to think like this, now, before I start sounding like a puritan, let me explain myself. According to our Holy Orthodox Theology and our archaic and old Church Tradition, cleansing (ascetic practice) goes before knowledge, so, in order to know something about God, we must, like St. John of the Ladder, St. Symeon the New Theologian, St. Gregory Palamas and so on, in order to actually know something about God we must be like He wants, pure, cleansed of sin and living in a continuous state of prayer, only then the divine light will shine before us, only then we will get enlightened.

So, according to what I said, why the answer in this post cannot be fully answered? Because of the worst sin of them all, pride. This mere answer plants in us the seed of pride, the pride that we believe we can know such mysteries about God, the pride that we are actually smarter than God, the pride of considering God something our mind can grasp and rejecting the idea of God if our petty human rationality can't grasp God. The non-believers sin of pride everytime they throw this kind of questions because they consider themselves and their own logic to be superior than the christian logic, superior than the idea of God and they automatically put themselves out of the grace of God. The believers sin of pride everytime they answer these questions because they consider themselves worthy of actually answering something so accurate about God, they sin of pride because they think they actually understand what God is, because they think their minds can actually grasp God and that Him and His Holy Name may be used among their arguments in order to justify their faith. Anyway, pride blocks God's enlightening grace, the grace that flows from the unknown essence of God and that involves everything in the Creation, like a barrage blocks a watercourse and loose themselves among their own ideas, both thinking they are right, and nobody having the right answer after all.

So, which one would be the answer to this questions? We don't know. We have to accept our inferior status, we have to accept that the wonders of God cannot be grasped through the intellect of our minds and we have to humble ourselves in order for His grace to dumbfound us.

What disturbing anti-intellectualism.

It's not a sign of unreasonable pride to challenge concepts that appear to be incoherent, so long as one has at least some fundamental grasp on it. It's not a sign of unreasonable pride to attempt to gain a fundamental grasp on it. It's certainly not prideful to demand to understand something, at least in part, before placing belief in it - indeed, how could one place belief in an entity whose qualities completely elude one?

If I cannot find a way to make a concept logically coherent, I will reject that concept. If a concept is ill-defined to the point that I cannot get a clear answer on what it is supposed to mean, I will reject that concept. This is not some sign of pride. This is not some unreasonable, haughty demand. Can you think of any other aspect of your life where you would be willing to accept a concept that people cannot even define or show is logically coherent? If I told you I had a square circle, would you think it fair of me to call you "prideful" for not believing me? What if I told you that squeegleglobax is watching over us (and couldn't tell you what that is)? Is it "prideful" to demand I explain what a squeegleglobax is?

 

[Albion]

I think what they mean by saying God is all-powerful or omnipotent is that he can do anything. However, there is no presumption in that of him doing something that is not possible, like making the proverbial square circle. That's not an actual question that goes to the issue of his power but basically nothing more than a trick with words.

 

[The Cadet]

I think what they mean by saying God is all-powerful or omnipotent is that he can do anything. However, there is no presumption in that of him doing something that is not possible, like making the proverbial square circle. That's not an actual question that goes to the issue of his power but basically nothing more than a trick with words.

But I can do anything that is possible as well. It's just that what is considered "possible" for me is considerably limited. I cannot fly by flapping my arms, but it is impossible for me to do so, so it's not a knock against my "omnipotence".

 

[Albion]

But I can do anything that is possible as well. It's just that what is considered "possible" for me is considerably limited.

I didn't say "possible FOR YOU." I said "possible."

 

[brinny]

It means God can maybe momentarily limit His awesome power to but a fraction of His infinite potential. He doesn't have to be all-powerful, all the time....

Well that is an interesting thought....kinda' reminds of how He limits or stops Himself from immediately just zappin' us to kingdom come the minute we sin, and chooses grace instead.....like He "holds Himself back" from doing to us what we deserve....cuz He COULD just go ahead n' ZAP us if He wanted to, but doesn't.....

Thanks, that's actually quite deep what you posted there, GoldenBoy

 

[The Cadet]

I didn't say "possible FOR YOU." I said "possible."

Okay, that makes sense. And we define certain things as logically impossible, such as "an object an omnipotent being cannot move". Okay. This at least gives us some coherent concept, and by your definition, the paradox in the OP is certainly resolved.

 

[Albion]

Well that is an interesting thought....kinda' reminds of how He limits or stops Himself from immediately just zappin' us to kingdom come the minute we sin, and chooses grace instead.....like He "holds Himself back" from doing to us what we deserve....cuz He COULD just go ahead n' ZAP us if He wanted to, but doesn't.....

Thanks, that's actually quite deep what you posted there, GoldenBoy

Limiting himself is not a matter of him being incapable of doing something (which was the question). If he does such a thing, it's an example of his power in action, not the opposite.

 

[brinny]

Limiting himself is not a matter of him being incapable of doing something (which was the question). If he does such a thing, it's an example of his power in action, not the opposite.

Well yes, my thinking is along those same lines. And as i think on it, that is sorta' what HE's doing when it comes to immediately "judging" us for sin, as in the "judging", there would be the immediate "zapping" us because well, we ARE guilty of the sin. Yet, there is His grace that comes into the picture and through His inexplicable grace, He "stops" Himself from carrying out that immediate judgement which we so surely deserve, and He "spares" us.

This is deeep....just thinkin' out loud here....

Awesome thoughts...thank you for sharing yours.

 

[Chriliman]

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?

No because it is not in His will to do so. God can only do what is in His will, He cannot contradict Himself.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Consider the definition of the word "lift," here.

From Merriam-Webster:

"lift"
transitive verb
1
a : to raise from a lower to a higher position : elevate

To cause something to go "higher," one must have a fixed frame of reference. But God cannot be put in a box, so there is no way for God to "lift" anything, from his perspective.

I agree, in theory.

If the cosmos is everything, and movement is relative (one thing moves IN RELATION TO ANOTHER) then the universe itself cannot be lifted or moved, because there is no other thing to move is in relation to. This is all to do with the relativistic definitions of space and time, opposing the absolute space of the Newtonian view.