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

[luketbachelder]

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

What are you questioning?

 

[luketbachelder]

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.

What theologian has "jettisoned" this premise? The God of open theism maybe, but they hold to the terminology in a differently defined manner.

 

[HitchSlap]

What theologian has "jettisoned" this premise? The God of open theism maybe, but they hold to the terminology in a differently defined manner.

It's not a concept put forth by modern theologians any longer. This is a logical conundrum for which there is no satisfying answer for the Christian; either he can't lift it, or he can't make it, each proposition rendering god less than omnipotent.

 

[luketbachelder]

It's not a concept put forth by modern theologians any longer. This is a logical conundrum for which there is no satisfying answer for the Christian; either he can't lift it, or he can't make it, each proposition rendering god less than omnipotent.

Every theologian holds to God's omnipotence. Where does this come from?

D.A Carson, N.T. Wright, Willaim Lane Craig, Greggory Boyd, Paul Helseth, Michael Eaton, Paige Patterson, Russell Moore, and anyone else who is a top ranking theologian.

 

[HitchSlap]

Every theologian holds to God's omnipotence. Where does this come from?

D.A Carson, N.T. Wright, Willaim Lane Craig, Greggory Boyd, Paul Helseth, Michael Eaton, Paige Patterson, Russell Moore, and anyone else who is a top ranking theologian.

It comes from the idea that either: he can make a rock he can't lift, or he can't, but he can't do both.

 

[luketbachelder]

It comes from the idea that either: he can make a rock he can't lift, or he can't, but he can't do both.

Or the question is flawed fundamentally. My ability to (and not to) create a square circle has no correlation with power. Now, the limitations that deal with philosophy aren't real limitations. They arguable make God more powerful. He created a world in which a circle's nature and a square's nature cannot exist at the same time in the same sense. This is just a logical rule of non contradiction. Now, if God intrinsically possess logic amidst his nature, no power is taken away, but more power is given him.

The better question is:can God do evil? Can an all loving God fail to love? Can a God of mercy fail to be merciful? Can He be unjust? If logic is not amidst God's nature we have to answer these questions with:"yes he can."

As far as the theologians, who doesn't hold to God's omnipotence?

 

[katerinah1947]

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?

Hi,

For me, since God makes all things, and without Him nothing exists that exists, then for Him to make something greater than Himself is impossible, Biblically, as He is all that exists, apart from Creation.

The only way to say this can happen, seems to be, for there to be things that exist that are greater than God. That is not something anyone has ever heard of, except in the theories, in minds.

The most technical way to talk of this, is to say what God uses to Create and Make things. He uses Himself. Matter and Energy are neither created nor destroyed, they only change forms.

God, to make things used some of His own substance, apart from His Diety, apart from His Personality. God is composed of Energy and Diety, at least. He may be composed of other items also, such as a soul, but I don't know that. He is also the manipulator of energy, meaning He can use energy to make matter and then turn that matter back into energy.

Now, the last two paragraphs, are my own work., it is how I think of God and Creation.

LOVE,
...Mary., .... .

 

[luketbachelder]

The most technical way to talk of this, is to say what God uses to Create and Make things. He uses Himself. Matter and Energy are neither created nor destroyed, they only change forms.

Well, you kind of contradicted yourself when you stated the quoted post above and this one:

For me, since God makes all things, and without Him nothing exists that exists, then for Him to make something greater than Himself is impossible, Biblically, as He is all that exists, apart from Creation.

That's a dualism. Very scary theological premises. God created matter, space and time, in Gen 1. The phrase, "heavens and earth" as seen in Gen 1:1, is a phrase referring to the whole universe. Point and case is this: youre avoiding the question. The limitation is still there by saying "God can't." Apart from serving a logical God, there are no good theories.

 

[katerinah1947]

Well, you kind of contradicted yourself when you stated the quoted post above and this one:


That's a dualism. Very scary theological premises. God created matter, space and time, in Gen 1. The phrase, "heavens and earth" as seen in Gen 1:1, is a phrase referring to the whole universe. Point and case is this: youre avoiding the question. The limitation is still there by saying "God can't." Apart from serving a logical God, there are no good theories.

Hi,

You are being esoteric and pedantic accidentally, to me. One there is no contradiction in what I said, and two what the heck is dualism, and if you have to use those terms, you cannot with me, as I am not going to look up your words, as that is off the point.

So, if God is all that exists, at one time, that should be easy to handle.
The fact that in Genesis, God talks about making creation, should be easy to handle.
If God is all that exists, then he has only Himself to use to create.

Please respond unesoterically, and unpedantically, even if that was not your intention. This is a Philosophical forum. I just looked.

So, you could say that I don't belong here. Yet, do you really want to throw out, the answer, just because a non Philosopher has given it to you?

LOVE,
...Mary., .... .

 

[luketbachelder]

Hi,
You are being esoteric and pedantic accidentally, to me. One there is no contradiction in what I said, and two what the heck is dualism, and if you have to use those terms, you cannot with me, as I am not going to look up your words, as that is off the point.

So, if God is all that exists, at one time, that should be easy to handle.
The fact that in Genesis, God talks about making creation, should be easy to handle.
If God all that exists, then he has only Himself to use to create.

Please respond unesoterically, and unpedantically, even if that was not your intention. This is a Philosophical forum. I just looked.
So, you could say that I don't belong here. Yet, do you really want to throw out, the answer, just because a non Philosopher has given it to you?

LOVE,
...Mary., .... .

Yeah for sure, I'm sorry about that.

Dualism is insinuating the earth consists of two forces. Generally it is either good and evil and mostly it is matter/energy and God. You stated that "matter cannot be created or destroyed, then you said that God is all that existed at one time.

The problem is that it hinders God's sovereignty. From a linguistic side (philosophy of language) ideas that invoke negations have also existed in eternity past. (Nothing, no one, coldness, and also evil if defined as the negation or absence of God or goodness) Dualism says matter exist as a separate and distinct entity apart from God, which you can see is dangerous.

 

[katerinah1947]

Yeah for sure, I'm sorry about that.

Dualism is insinuating the earth consists of two forces. Generally it is either good and evil and mostly it is matter/energy and God. You stated that "matter cannot be created or destroyed, then you said that God is all that existed at one time.

The problem is that it hinders God's sovereignty. From a linguistic side (philosophy of language) ideas that invoke negations have also existed in eternity past. (Nothing, no one, coldness, and also evil if defined as the negation or absence of God or goodness) Dualism says matter exist as a separate and distinct entity apart from God, which you can see is dangerous.

Hi,

I should probably take longer to answer this, after reading your nice post. Dualism as you define it, was not in what I said.

Matter can change to energy, and energy can change to matter.

As far as for matter existing as a separate and distinct entity apart from God, you have called that dangerous, and I probably agree but, we can do without that hopefully. In the context of God, matter is a part of God, Which God allows to exist and He animates it with another part of Himself.

I am parcelling the understanding of God. Rather than saying all I know and all I think is true, I am limiting this, my work***, to energy, matter, and God being able to make that matter change from energy to matter and back again.

That concept is fundamental, to the understanding of God, and the question of, can God make something that He cannot lift. The answer seems to be no, however, it is a little too early to go there now, if this energy to matter and back to energy, is seen as something other than what it is to me.

To add, items such as Divinity of God, and Spirit of God into this now, without having any concept of the weight/mass/energy of Divinity, nor Spirit, is not possible for me, yet, or ever.

I can handle, energy, to mass, and mass to energy, in the entirety of God.

So, in my world of understanding, once God was all there was. Then a part of God's existence had an act that He performed. It is called Creation. And there is more, but I want to stay with this item right now.

And since God is energy also, He had to use Himself, parts of His Whole, to create. Whether He is diminished or not, is not important yet. It may not even be discoverable. What is important is whether or not this happened.

Did God use Himself, parts of Himself to make Creation, given all we have Biblically about Him? It looks like the answer is yes.

LOVE,
...Mary., .... .

 

[quatona]

What are you questioning?

Definitions or statements that allow for or demand something to be "beyond logic".

 

[luketbachelder]

Hi,

I should probably take longer to answer this, after reading your nice post. Dualism as you define it, was not in what I said.

Matter can change to energy, and energy can change to matter.

As far as for matter existing as a separate and distinct entity apart from God, you have called that dangerous, and I probably agree but, we can do without that hopefully. In the context of God, matter is a part of God, Which God allows to exist and He animates it with another part of Himself.

I am parcelling the understanding of God. Rather than saying all I know and all I think is true, I am limiting this, my work***, to energy, matter, and God being able to make that matter change from energy to matter and back again.

That concept is fundamental, to the understanding of God, and the question of, can God make something that He cannot lift. The answer seems to be no, however, it is a little too early to go there now, if this energy to matter and back to energy, is seen as something other than what it is to me.

To add, items such as Divinity of God, and Spirit of God into this now, without having any concept of the weight/mass/energy of Divinity, nor Spirit, is not possible for me, yet, or ever.

I can handle, energy, to mass, and mass to energy, in the entirety of God.

So, in my world of understanding, once God was all there was. Then a part of God's existence had an act that He performed. It is called Creation. And there is more, but I want to stay with this item right now.

And since God is energy also, He had to use Himself, parts of His Whole, to create. Whether He is diminished or not, is not important yet. It may not even be discoverable. What is important is whether or not this happened.

Did God use Himself, parts of Himself to make Creation, given all we have Biblically about Him? It looks like the answer is yes.

LOVE,
...Mary., .... .

It seems that your conception of the universe and God are far different than mine. I'm just going to take a shot in the dark that you are reformed of Calvinistic in basic tendencies.

Which means, you're quasi-panentheistic. Which means, (trying to define terms and trains of thought) God is in creation. That's also a hard position to hold. This makes eating meat difficult, killing insects, and even cutting down trees. The attempt to revamp the Green Party is almost mandatory. Regardless of anything, holding to your view of creation, which is not the traditional creation ex nihilo (out of nothing) is also flawed. The question that is unanswered: why didn't God create the world prior to him creating it? He's a timeless energy filled entity just...waiting?

The last problem with that theology of God eternally existing with energy and matters strikes as most important. For example, if matter were apart of God's nature then he would not be self sustaining, but he would be coerced, due to himself(?) to create. That defies his aseity. God must be just as content and glorified prior to creation as He is post creation.

Thanks for replying,
I know these posts come off as being blunt, but it's hard to express ethics and brotherly/sisterly love via media.

 

[luketbachelder]

Definitions or statements that allow for or demand something to be "beyond logic".

That's kinda the point, everything sensical is within logic. Nothing demands to be outside of logic. What definition or proposition can exist without logic? Logic is the backbone of human rationale.

 

[HitchSlap]

Or the question is flawed fundamentally. My ability to (and not to) create a square circle has no correlation with power. Now, the limitations that deal with philosophy aren't real limitations. They arguable make God more powerful. He created a world in which a circle's nature and a square's nature cannot exist at the same time in the same sense. This is just a logical rule of non contradiction. Now, if God intrinsically possess logic amidst his nature, no power is taken away, but more power is given him.

The better question is:can God do evil? Can an all loving God fail to love? Can a God of mercy fail to be merciful? Can He be unjust? If logic is not amidst God's nature we have to answer these questions with:"yes he can."

As far as the theologians, who doesn't hold to God's omnipotence?

Euthyphro's dilemma indeed.


“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”

― Epicurus

 

[quatona]

That's kinda the point, everything sensical is within logic.

Exactly.

Nothing demands to be outside of logic.

Well, yes, some people explicitly or implicitly do demand exceptions from logic.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Euthyphro's dilemma indeed.


“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”

― Epicurus

God could have saved Jerusalem in 70ad, so why didn't He? [The Jews felt their city and Temple were impregnable]
Anyone here read Josephus's account of that event? That appears to be a a type of "holocaust", with Hitler doing the same thing with the Jews as the Romans did with them in 70ad............History repeating itself?

Isaiah 26:4-5
"Trust in the LORD forever, For in GOD the LORD, we have an everlasting Rock.
"For He has brought low those who dwell on high, the unassailable City;
He lays it low, He lays it low to the ground, He casts it to the dust. [Luke 19:44/Revelation 14:8]

http://www.bible.ca/pre-destruction70AD-george-holford-1805AD.htm

"I consider the Prophecy relative to the destruction of the Jewish nation, if there were nothing else to support Christianity, as absolutely irresistible."(Mr. Erskine's Speech, at the Trial of Williams, for publishing Paine's Age of Reason)

............ The day on which Titus encompassed Jerusalem, was the feast of the Passover;............................
The City was at this time crowded with Jewish strangers, and foreigners from all parts, so that the whole nation may be considered as having been shut up in one prison, preparatory to the execution of the Divine vengeance ;................................

After this, Josephus, in the name of Titus, earnestly exhorted John and his adherents to surrender ; but the insolent rebel returned nothing but reproaches and imprecations, declaring his firm persuasion that Jerusalem, as it was GOD'S own City, could never be taken : thus literally fulfilling the declaration of Micah, that the Jews, in their extremity, notwithstanding their crimes, would presumptuously "lean upon the LORD, and say, 'Is not the LORD among us ? none evil can come upon us." (Micah iii. 11 ).................

..................In executing the command of Titus, relative to the demolition of Jerusalem, the Roman soldiers not only threw down the buildings, but even dug up their foundations, and so completely levelled the whole circuit of the city, that a stranger would scarcely have known that it had ever been inhabited by human beings. Thus was this great City, which only five months before, had been crowded with nearly two millions of people, who gloried in its impregnable strength, entirely depopulated, and levelled with the ground. And thus, also was our LORD'S prediction, that her enemies should "lay her even with the ground," and "should not leave in her one stone upon another, " (Luke xix. 44.) most strikingly and fully accomplished !.............

Luke 19:44
and they shall be leveling Thee and the offspring of Thee in Thee.
And not they shall be leaving stone upon stone in Thee stead which not thou knew the time of the visitation of Thee.

Reve 14:8
And a second Messenger follows saying "She falls, She falls, Babylon the Great,
the out of the wine of the fury of the fornication of her she has given to drink all the nations".
[Jeremiah 51:8/Luke 19:44]

 

[katerinah1947]

It seems that your conception of the universe and God are far different than mine.

What is your conception of God, mine is Trinitarian, and it is what I have seen, thus verifying the Christian position.
What is your conception of the universe, mine is primarily from the Bible and also what I have seen.

I'm just going to take a shot in the dark that you are reformed of Calvinistic in basic tendencies.

I am neither of those things.
What are you?

Which means, you're quasi-panentheistic. Which means, (trying to define terms and trains of thought) God is in creation. That's also a hard position to hold. This makes eating meat difficult, killing insects, and even cutting down trees. The attempt to revamp the Green Party is almost mandatory. Regardless of anything, holding to your view of creation, which is not the traditional creation ex nihilo (out of nothing) is also flawed.

Although not dualistic, nor a reformed Calvinist, nor hopefully with any basic tendencies, And, struggling still with your word definitions a little, I am also probably using your words not a traditionalist also, and think that also does not apply to me.

If you know something of this 'out of nothing position' of yours, this I would like to hear. However, if 'out of nothing' merely means, that in a place where nothing existed before, God placed His Creation, then I already know that.

If you position is that God used nothing to make something, then this I would like to hear.

For me, the idea of you, and me, and things like rocks existing, is hard to understand in the concept of God, deeply, for me and I would love to know more, if my view, from my own work, is wrong. And if my view is not wrong, that too I would like to know, but parts of my view are not negotiable, as they were given.

The question that is unanswered: why didn't God create the world prior to him creating it?

Really? You are asking this question? Let's hold this one off till later, as it seems totally out of place.

He's a timeless energy filled entity just...waiting?

Again, this is out of place here, and it reduces God to your view of Him based upon some of the limits put here, to discuss just one part of God, rather than the whole of God, that we know of.

To say God, is the manipulator of energy, does not define God.
Similarly to say your arm moves, that does not define you.

The only arm like feature of God that I am talking about here, is His ability, discerned. That ability is to be a mass to matter, and matter to mass manipulator. Will is not added yet. Nor is any other feature.

Can you not see God's substance as containing, energy?
I can change energy to ability, maybe in words.
I can change matter to ability accomplished, or something like that.
However, if the concept of God making matter, and then turning that matter back into energy at Will, is not understood, a little bit, then the other parts are maybe not needed now, but I am tired, for the depth needed here, to try and figure out what your position is here, on God and the unverse.

The last problem with that theology of God eternally existing with energy and matters strikes as most important. For example, if matter were apart of God's nature then he would not be self sustaining, but he would be coerced, due to himself(?) to create. That defies his aseity. God must be just as content and glorified prior to creation as He is post creation.

Again, that is not my position. I did not say, nor purport that God, exists with energy, nor that God exists with matter. That is unless we are stumbling over the definition of with, the word with.

And what do you mean by aseity?

Thanks for replying,
I know these posts come off as being blunt, but it's hard to express ethics and brotherly/sisterly love via media.

Hi,

Interesting and nice. Why do you keep guessing about me, first with dualist, and now with Calvinist? Do you think I have accepted someone's Theology, and not done my own work? Do you think I accept this person or that person as agreeing with my biased views of God, The Universe or life? Some people don't do that, but instead try to find out what is provably right, and then leave the rest as provably wrong, and provably 'us being incapable to know yet'. The last position is taken, even if our tools are not good enough, rather than the item is not testable and our proofs are failing do to lack of information, or lack of good tools, and sometimes the lack of a good proof.

I am Catholic, if that helps you. I am however a Gnostic Theist, according to people on this forum who know those words. If you need credentials or background, on me as you seem to be with your questions, the Gnostic Theist, Gnostic on the known and unknown universe, is who I am.

I am Agnostic on Heaven, but Hell or Purgatory, that I am probably Gnostic on.
What are you? Have you seen or been talked to by God personally, making you Gnostic? I do not want to go into that, and within my many past posts, most of that is contained somewhere, when not talking to gaslighters, or trolls, which are merely slang forms to me, of DSM IV, Pesonality Disorder. Yes, I know all these things, by nice people giving me words to things that I have worked with and on.

However, the question here is Can God make a box that He cannot lift? It is not about me. It is not about the verifications by others. It is about whether or not God can make a box that is heavier enough so that He cannot lift that box?

In order to do that, gravity has to be included. Later gravity has to be included. Gravity is from congealed energy, it is called mass. Gravity and time both come from that.

To discuss this concept though, gravity can be left out for now, and I am sure everyone here has already agreed to that position, else something greater than the box must exist, to give it weight, via gravity.

LOVE,
...Mary., .... .

 

[luketbachelder]

Exactly.

Well, yes, some people explicitly or implicitly do demand exceptions from logic.

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

 

[luketbachelder]

What is your conception of God, mine is Trinitarian, and it is what I have seen, thus verifying the Christian position.
What is your conception of the universe, mine is primarily from the Bible and also what I have seen. .

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

Although not dualistic, nor a reformed Calvinist, nor hopefully with any basic tendencies, And, struggling still with your word definitions a little, I am also probably using your words not a traditionalist also, and think that also does not apply to me. .

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?

If you know something of this 'out of nothing position' of yours, this I would like to hear. However, if 'out of nothing' merely means, that in a place where nothing existed before, God placed His Creation, then I already know that.

If you position is that God used nothing to make something, then this I would like to hear.

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.

For me, the idea of you, and me, and things like rocks existing, is hard to understand in the concept of God, deeply, for me and I would love to know more, if my view, from my own work, is wrong. And if my view is not wrong, that too I would like to know, but parts of my view are not negotiable, as they were given.



Really? You are asking this question? Let's hold this one off till later, as it seems totally out of place.

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.

Again, this is out of place here, and it reduces God to your view of Him based upon some of the limits put here, to discuss just one part of God, rather than the whole of God, that we know of.

To say God, is the manipulator of energy, does not define God.
Similarly to say your arm moves, that does not define you.

The only arm like feature of God that I am talking about here, is His ability, discerned. That ability is to be a mass to matter, and matter to mass manipulator. Will is not added yet. Nor is any other feature.

Can you not see God's substance as containing, energy?
I can change energy to ability, maybe in words.
I can change matter to ability accomplished, or something like that.
However, if the concept of God making matter, and then turning that matter back into energy at Will, is not understood, a little bit, then the other parts are maybe not needed now, but I am tired, for the depth needed here, to try and figure out what your position is here, on God and the universe.

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.

Again, that is not my position. I did not say, nor purport that God, exists with energy, nor that God exists with matter. That is unless we are stumbling over the definition of with, the word with.

And what do you mean by aseity?

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.

Hi,

Interesting and nice. Why do you keep guessing about me, first with dualist, and now with Calvinist? Do you think I have accepted someone's Theology, and not done my own work? Do you think I accept this person or that person as agreeing with my biased views of God, The Universe or life? Some people don't do that, but instead try to find out what is provably right, and then leave the rest as provably wrong, and provably 'us being incapable to know yet'. The last position is taken, even if our tools are not good enough, rather than the item is not testable and our proofs are failing do to lack of information, or lack of good tools, and sometimes the lack of a good proof.

I am Catholic, if that helps you. I am however a Gnostic Theist, according to people on this forum who know those words. If you need credentials or background, on me as you seem to be with your questions, the Gnostic Theist, Gnostic on the known and unknown universe, is who I am.

I am Agnostic on Heaven, but Hell or Purgatory, that I am probably Gnostic on.
What are you? Have you seen or been talked to by God personally, making you Gnostic? I do not want to go into that, and within my many past posts, most of that is contained somewhere, when not talking to gaslighters, or trolls, which are merely slang forms to me, of DSM IV, Pesonality Disorder. Yes, I know all these things, by nice people giving me words to things that I have worked with and on.

However, the question here is Can God make a box that He cannot lift? It is not about me. It is not about the verifications by others. It is about whether or not God can make a box that is heavier enough so that He cannot lift that box?

In order to do that, gravity has to be included. Later gravity has to be included. Gravity is from congealed energy, it is called mass. Gravity and time both come from that.

To discuss this concept though, gravity can be left out for now, and I am sure everyone here has already agreed to that position, else something greater than the box must exist, to give it weight, via gravity.

LOVE,
...Mary., .... .

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.

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.