# Can God create a rock so big...



## Greg

Well, I'm sure you know the rest of that age old question. How would you answer it though?


----------



## Semper Fidelis

I'd tell the man he needs to repent of his unbelief. These are usually the facile arguments that unbelievers concoct that they might supress the truth in unrighteousness. I probably would just not answer the fool according to his folly lest I be like him. Frankly, giving any validity to the objection is part of our problem somtimes.

The argument is based on a philosophical conception of God that, to be God, God has to be able to do anything. If God can create a rock so big He can't move it then His inability to move the rock is a limitation. If He can't create the rock then He is limited by His inability to create the rock.

I don't have a conception of God that He can do anything for He reveals that He cannot lie. He cannot deny Himself. He must punish sin.

And He cannot create a thing that would be greater than or equal to Himself. It might satisfy the unbeliever if you state that the question itself is like asking if God can create a round square and that it is a nonsense question but, again, the problem is unbelief and not syllogisms with these kinds of objections.


----------



## regener8ed

God cannot act contrary to His nature.


----------



## etexas

Greg said:


> Well, I'm sure you know the rest of that age old question. How would you answer it though?


I have been asked that before.........I REFUSE to answer it, the question is always asked by infidels, who want to weaken your faih and blaspheme God, I will not give the satisfaction of an "answer".


----------



## Don Kistler

God can do anything that is possible to be done. God cannot will Himself out of existence. God cannot cease to be. It is not possible for God to be and not to be at the same time. 

The question is, therefore, if the impossible is possible, which is a contradiction of terms.

Don Kistler


----------



## Greg

SemperFideles said:


> I'd tell the man he needs to repent of his unbelief. These are usually the facile arguments that unbelievers concoct that they might supress the truth in unrighteousness. I probably would just not answer the fool according to his folly lest I be like him. Frankly, giving any validity to the objection is part of our problem somtimes.
> 
> The argument is based on a philosophical conception of God that, to be God, God has to be able to do anything. If God can create a rock so big He can't move it then His inability to move the rock is a limitation. If He can't create the rock then He is limited by His inability to create the rock.
> 
> I don't have a conception of God that He can do anything for He reveals that He cannot lie. He cannot deny Himself. He must punish sin.
> 
> And He cannot create a thing that would be greater than or equal to Himself. It might satisfy the unbeliever if you state that the question itself is like asking if God can create a round square and that it is a nonsense question but, again, the problem is unbelief and not syllogisms with these kinds of objections.



Great point Rich. Thanks.


----------



## Davidius

The technical name for the fallacy is "complex question." Imagine if someone were to ask you: "have you stopped beating your wife yet?" It can't be answered in yes or no fashion, which is what the foolish unbeliever most likely wants because he knows that either answer would trip you up. Like everyone else has said, the question rests on a faulty understanding of God's nature. The person asking it assumes that we believe that being God means being able to do anything but this is not the case.


----------



## Civbert

Greg said:


> Well, I'm sure you know the rest of that age old question. How would you answer it though?



If you consider a rock that large, the definition of lift becomes meaningless. Objects move relative to other objects (motion is not absolute). Lifting is simply separating two objects of mass - the one so massive that due to inertia, it experiences no measurable acceleration relative to the other as they are forced apart. Consider progressively massive rocks on earth. At some point the rock either collapse into the earths crust, or it becomes a planet and the earth becomes the rock. This would apply to any other planet. If the rock is in space, there is no other rock to lift against. Objects so massive they can not be forced apart would not be identifiable as separate objects - it would be one object.

Also the question implies an internal contradiction of what God can do. Can an omnipotent being create something that an omnipotent being could not move, implies both an all-powerful being (capable of creating objects of unlimited mass), and a limited being (unable to move an object of some mass). 

The question is a good exercise of the mind (like Zeno's paradox), but it has no theological implications. I consider it good fun, like any riddle or a puzzle. It really has no application to God's nature - it is merely mental slight of hand.


----------



## Civbert

The best answer to the question I've read came from non-Christian on a chess website I frequent. I answered the question in the third and forth post on the thread, but bbarr's answer was the best (the initial post wasn't bad either). 

The thread was titled "My response to the unliftable rock" and is found on the Red Hot Pawn website here:
http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=22199


----------



## x.spasitel

I posed the question to a Muslim once (not in a mean fashion -- explaining that it was a question often asked Christians and I was curious what his response would be.) He said, "God is all-powerful. He can do anything He chooses to do. Hence, He would be able to create a rock so big that He could not lift it. God is all-powerful, and can do anything He chooses to. Instantaneously He would be able to lift that rock." I'm not sure how helpful that response is, but I found it interesting.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

x.spasitel said:


> I posed the question to a Muslim once (not in a mean fashion -- explaining that it was a question often asked Christians and I was curious what his response would be.) He said, "God is all-powerful. He can do anything He chooses to do. Hence, He would be able to create a rock so big that He could not lift it. God is all-powerful, and can do anything He chooses to. Instantaneously He would be able to lift that rock." I'm not sure how helpful that response is, but I found it interesting.



Of course you could ask your Muslim friend how he knows that. There idea of Allah is that he is so much higher than we that we cannot even conceive of how he is. I've seen one quote that states: "Whatever you think Allah is, he is not."

Thus, if your friend says that he conceives that Allah can create a rock that big, then he cannot do it.


----------



## Cheshire Cat

Yes

















...I mean No .


----------



## bookslover

I remember telling some folks at a church years ago that there were some things God can't do: He can't lie, He can't will Himself out of existence, He can't do things contrary to His nature, etc. They were willing to admit these things, but they seemed uncomfortable with the basic idea that there are things that God can't do.


----------



## BrianLanier

No.

God cannot create a stone which He cannot lift.

This is not a problem however, since this is just to say that if God can create a stone then He can lift it.

See C. Wade Savage's Article, "The Paradox of the Stone" in _The Philosophical Review_ 76 number 1 (1967): 74-79.

Savage makes this argument in detail.

He concludes by saying:

"[ . . . ]God's inablility to create a stone which He cannot lift is nothing more or less than a necessary consequence of two facets of His omnipotence. For is God is omnipotent, then He can create stones of any poundage and lift stones in any poundage. And "God can create stones of any poundage, and God can lift stones of any poundage" entails "God cannont create a stone which He cannot lift."

If anyone would like to view a copy of the article and don't have access to old copies of _The Philosophical Review_, just U2U me.

Hope this helps.


----------



## shackleton

Civbert said:


> If you consider a rock that large, the definition of lift becomes meaningless. Objects move relative to other objects (motion is not absolute). Lifting is simply separating two objects of mass - the one so massive that due to inertia, it experiences no measurable acceleration relative to the other as they are forced apart. Consider progressively massive rocks on earth. At some point the rock either collapse into the earths crust, or it becomes a planet and the earth becomes the rock. This would apply to any other planet. If the rock is in space, there is no other rock to lift against. Objects so massive they can not be forced apart would not be identifiable as separate objects - it would be one object..



That would be a really good way to answer it. After that they would go away scratching their head and sorry they even brought it up...never to return with other stupid questions.


----------



## BrianLanier

shackleton said:


> That would be a really good way to answer it. After that they would go away scratching their head and sorry they even brought it up...never to return with other stupid questions.



The only problem is that the question could be posed as a broadly logically possible problem.

Then someone could say that it is a contradiction (as Anthony did above) and therefore is not logically possible. However, it has been argued that it is not obviously a contradiction when the argument is laid out formally. (I'll try to do this later--I'm on my way to work.)


----------



## shackleton

I was just being sarcastic, since that is not how anyone would expect that question to be answered, making it about rocks and physics. The people who ask this question are usually not smart enough to comprehend an answer on this level, they are just being funny. At least that is my expereience. 
When I have been asked this question they were not seriously wanting an answer but just to cause problems. 
So I answerd like the above people saying that it is impossible for God to lie or do anything contrary to a Holy character, that ended the conversation because they were just making a joke.


----------



## Scott

Bahnsen answered this question no. He said that omnipotence is not defined in Christian theology as the ability to do anything. In Christian theology, omipotence means that God has the power to do all His holy will. As I recall he used this in the Gordon Stein debate and it flustered Stein. Anyway, it is a nice, simple answer that does not require several minutes of explanation.

First Catechism:


> 13. Q. Can God do all things?
> A. Yes – God can do all his holy will.


----------



## Brian Bosse

Hello Everyone,

Let me try and flesh out the formal argument against God implied by the question. I am using a _Reductio Ad Absurdum_ proof... 

Let A: The God of Christianity does not exist.
Let B: God is omnipotent.
Let C: God can create anything.
Let D: God can create a rock too heavy to lift.

*1. Prove:* A
*2. Assume:* ¬A (RAA Proof Form)
*3.* ¬A → B
*4.* B → C
*5.* C → D
*6.* ¬D (The Christian says, "No, God cannot create a rock too heavy to lift.)
*7.* ¬C (_Modus Tollens_ on steps 5 and 6) 
*8.* ¬B (_Modus Tollens_ on steps 4 and 7)
*9.* ¬¬A(_Modus Tollens_ on steps 3 and 8)
*10.* A (Law of negation)
*Q.E.D.*

This proof is valid. However, the Christian would argue that the proposition in step 4 is false, thereby making the proof unsound. As Scott pointed out, being omnipotent does not mean being able to do anything. Here is a definition for omnipotence...

*Definition:* Person A is _omnipotent_ if and only if person A can do what he wills. 

Once the definition is provided for omnipotence, then the sting is taken out of the question in relation to the property of being omnipotent. If I were an atheist, upon hearing this response I would ask: Can God will to create a rock too heavy to lift? Now, my reponse would be that God cannot will to create any object that has contradictory properties. The property of being a rock and the property of being "too heavy for God to lift" are not compatible. Again, if I were an atheist I would ask: Why are these two properties contradictory? 

Does anyone care to give this last question a go?

Brian


----------



## BobVigneault

Yes, Brian, I see what you did there. (Whispering - I haven't got a clue what he's talking about). I arrived at pretty much the same conclusion. Here is how I got there:


----------



## Civbert

Brian Bosse said:


> ...
> *Definition:* Person A is _omnipotent_ if and only if person A can do what he wills.
> ...
> Again, if I were an atheist I would ask: Why are these two properties contradictory?
> 
> Does anyone care to give this last question a go?
> 
> Brian



Excellent question. I think I have a more elegant solution than my first answer - which also answers your question.

First I would define _omnipotent _as being able to do whatever is logically possible. Thus an omnipotent being can not make a square circle. Now I can apply this to the rock. Is the rock in question logically possible?

Can a rock have a mass so great that no force can move it? 

All physical objects have a definite mass. The force to move it would be simply the mass times the acceleration caused by lift. No matter how great the mass, there is a calculable force that can move it. 

In the case of the rock, the force to move it would be the force necessary to overcome gravity - which is a function of the mass of the rock, and the mass of Earth (or whatever planet you wish). 

Force = G x ( mass_earth x mass_rock) / Distance_center_mass^2 

God can not make a rock so heavy that He can not lift it, because such a rock is itself a self-contradiction.


----------



## x.spasitel

Civbert said:


> First I would define _omnipotent _as being able to do whatever is logically possible. Thus an omnipotent being can not make a square circle.



I have rather a problem with that assertion. It places logic as the supreme ruler of the universe, a force which even God is subject to. God dwells beyond the bounds of human logic, and if He wanted to show our pathetically simple minds a square circle He could and would. The point is that a human mind cannot comprehend a square circle, not that God is beyond that ability, if that were His holy will. God, of course, cannot lie, so _within our human universe_ to do something contrary to the logic of _our universe_ would be contrary to His position as creator of _our universe._ But beyond what we know, there is nothing in human logic that constrains God.


----------



## Arch2k

Besides the fact that God cannot exercise anything contrary to his character, one could argue that the question is invalid due to the Creator/creature distinction. Created things have limitations, by definition, and therefore God cannot take all limitations off of created things. This is the same line of reasoning Rich was alluding to when he said that God cannot make another God. Certain attributes of God are incommunicable, and even the attributes that are, cannot be communicated to the degree that God possesses.


----------



## Cheshire Cat

Brian, please critique my argument. We’ll see if last quarters logic 101 has helped me any! p.s. I don't know how to insert those cool logic symbols . I think 'D' is biblical and thus the Christian view of God. 

Question: Is God’s creation of an object he can’t lift logically possible? 

Answer: I agree with Civbert’s definition that Omnipotence is the ability to do whatever is logically possible. 

A: God can do anything that is logically possible (i.e. God is Omnipotent). 
B: God’s creation of a rock that he can’t lift is logically possible.
C: God can create a rock that he can’t lift. 
D: God is in ‘absolute’ control of all creation as he determines and upholds it, etc.

1. A
2. B --> C 
3. D
4. C --> ~D
5. B --> ~D 1, 4, Hypothetical Syllogism) 
6. ~ ~D 3 (double negative rule) 
C: ~B 5, 6, MT


----------



## shackleton

It seems like omnipotence would constitute the ability of God to do what He _willed_, not what is logically impossible. Being omnipotent, He has the ability to fulfill His decrees. 
Then as God, and as a logical being, He would not do anything that would contradict Himself. Fulfilling His will and decree would take precedence over logic, but His decree would be founded _in_ logic and the law of contradiction. He would use logic in His plan, but it is not something He is subject to. As God, He would have created the laws of logic and contradiction, thereby making Him greater than them. In my humble opinion


----------



## BobVigneault

God is not governed by logic but man's comprehension, apprehension, understanding is CERTAINLY governed by logic. I'm tired of the anti-Clarkian line that Clarkians put logic above God. It's not true. God spoke the word, the logos, the expression, the rule of order and this "logos" brought order and reason. We we say that 'logos is God' we mean that the logos is not dependent on any created thing or mind other than God's mind. We cannot step out from under the logos to comprehend anything. 

Logic is such an component of creation that we cannot escape it for a moment.
The question in the OP is not a logical question.


----------



## Cheshire Cat

shackleton said:


> It almost sounds like you are saying that God is subject to logic. God would have been the _creator_ oflogic. We are able to think logically because God thinks logically, and we are created in His image. In my humble opinion


If God created logic, then yes, my position would subject God to his creation. But that’s not my position. My position is that logic is a part of God’s nature, and since he is bound by his nature, this presents no problem. Also see this thread: http://www.puritanboard.com/showthread.php?t=7048&page=3

If you want to debate these points, please start a new thread so as to not get this one sidetracked. Btw, I’m not sure what CT’s present viewpoint on the subject is.


----------



## shackleton

The answers that are being given in response to the original post have been based on logic. See Civbert. Thus making it a question _logically_ if God could create a rock so big that He could not lift it...Why does it matter? It is like sitting around thinking on, "What if cat really meant dog?" Like we used to do when we were kids. Or how many angels can dance on the head of a pin? I am not saying we should not think on such things, but what is it if it is not ultimately a philsophical and logical question? It is interesting to sit around and ponder but in the end why does it matter?


----------



## Cheshire Cat

Of course it is a philosophical and logical question. You say, "it is interesting to sit around and ponder but in the end why does it matter?". For a Christian, this is like saying, why even discuss theology? All theological questions are philosophical as well. I don't see how one can divorce the two. This is why it matters. 

How 'bout this question: "Does God exist"? Uh oh, I guess this is an interesting question to sit around and ponder, but in the end, why does it matter?!? 

This is the *philosophy* section after all!

Edit: Oh, I see its not in the philosophy section, hehe.


----------



## BobVigneault

One day a small boy was walking with his dad on a beach. They noticed that several hundred starfish had washed onto the beach and would die there. The little boy ran and picked up a starfish and it asked the boy, "Can God make a rock so big that even he can't lift it?" The little boy told him, "No, because the question itself is flawed with fallacious reasoning." He set the starfish back down on the beach. His father said, "Son, you can't make a difference to all these starfish who ponder the existence of God", and the boy replied, "No, I made a difference to THAT one".

(And the starfish died on the beach but it died a little more enlightened.)

Gosh, that story still brings a tear to my eye. (Sigh)


----------



## shackleton

> =If you want to debate these points, please start a new thread so as to not get this one sidetracked.



I was responding to this. If it is a philosphical debate then I was adding my two cents worth, and there is no need to start another thread. I am just as interested as the next guy to sit around and ponder these types of questions. I was trying to ascertain whether or not God uses logic, or whether God is subject to logic or if logic is so much a part of God's being that it is simply something that pervades from everything that He does. This has become a question of logic in order to answer the original post, so I am not detering from the original thread. Earlier it was stated that God is omnopotent enough to do what ever is _logically_ possible. I was also responding to that.  
I have Gordon Clark's book on the Logos of God but have as yet not read it. It is on my list to read by the end of the summer.


----------



## Cheshire Cat

Well, I apologize if I came off as harsh in my above post. I think the correct position is that logic is a part of God's nature. I haven't read much of Clark at all, so I can't help you there.


----------



## Brian Bosse

Hello Caleb,

Your argument is valid. In fact, I really enjoyed it. It was very thoughtful. Essentially, you are arguing that premises B and C are inconsistent with D. Your step 4 says as much. Step 4 (or any implication for that matter) is an argument in and of itself from the antecedent to the consequent using an unstated premise. Here is what I mean by this. Consider this implication: 

If you believe, then you will be saved. 

The antecedent is “you believe” and the consequent is “you will be saved.” There is a missing premise that gets us from the antecedent to the consequent, namely, “all who believe will be saved.” It goes something like this…

*Premise 1:* You believe.
*Premise 2:* All who believe will be saved.
*Conclusion:* You will be saved. 

Without this premise or something like it, the implication is false. Can you flesh out the implied argument for the implication in step 4?

Sincerely,

Brian


----------



## puritan lad

_"Our God is in the heavens; he does all that he pleases." _(Psalms 115:3)


----------



## Cheshire Cat

Thank you for the helpful comments Brian.

So, the step that needs support is 4: If God can create a rock that he can’t lift, then it is not the case that God is in ‘absolute’ control of all creation as he determines and upholds it, etc. 

C: God can (or has for the sake of argument) create(d) a rock that he can’t lift. 
D: God is in ‘absolute’ control of all creation as he determines and upholds it, etc.
Let ‘E’: All objects (e.g. a rock) that God cannot lift are objects that are not under God’s absolute control. 

P1: C 
P2: E
C: ~D 

Here is another little background argument: 

A: Rocks that God can create
B: Rocks that God cannot lift
C: Objects that are not under God’s absolute control. 

Some A are B
All B are C
Some A are C

Why ‘All B are C’? I think this is self-evident. The created rock cannot be controlled by God (at least in an ‘absolute’ way) if he cannot lift it. 

I believe this is an IAI-4 argument form and is thus valid.

What say thee Brian? .


----------



## Brian Bosse

Hello Caleb,

OK, a little Aristotelian Categorical Syllogistic argumentation, eh? Good job. I will continue playing the Devil's advocate. All of this rests on the assumption: God has absolute control over all creation. How far are you willing to go with this? For instance, does God have absolute control over the rapist in the very act of rape? Does God have absolute control over me? If not, then it is not the case that God has absolute control over all of creation. This would undermine the argument. If God does have absolute control, then in what sense is God in absolute control over my evil choices? 

Brian


----------



## BrianLanier

Brian Bosse said:


> Hello Everyone,
> 
> Let me try and flesh out the formal argument against God implied by the question. I am using a _Reductio Ad Absurdum_ proof...
> 
> Let A: The God of Christianity does not exist.
> Let B: God is omnipotent.
> Let C: God can create anything.
> Let D: God can create a rock too heavy to lift.
> 
> *1. Prove:* A
> *2. Assume:* ¬A (RAA Proof Form)
> *3.* ¬A → B
> *4.* B → C
> *5.* C → D
> *6.* ¬D (The Christian says, "No, God cannot create a rock too heavy to lift.)
> *7.* ¬C (_Modus Tollens_ on steps 5 and 6)
> *8.* ¬B (_Modus Tollens_ on steps 4 and 7)
> *9.* ¬¬A(_Modus Tollens_ on steps 3 and 8)
> *10.* A (Law of negation)
> *Q.E.D.*
> 
> This proof is valid. However, the Christian would argue that the proposition in step 4 is false, thereby making the proof unsound. As Scott pointed out, being omnipotent does not mean being able to do anything. Here is a definition for omnipotence...
> 
> *Definition:* Person A is _omnipotent_ if and only if person A can do what he wills.
> 
> Once the definition is provided for omnipotence, then the sting is taken out of the question in relation to the property of being omnipotent. If I were an atheist, upon hearing this response I would ask: Can God will to create a rock too heavy to lift? Now, my reponse would be that God cannot will to create any object that has contradictory properties. The *property of being a rock and the property of being "too heavy for God to lift" are not compatible. Again, if I were an atheist I would ask: Why are these two properties contradictory?*
> 
> Does anyone care to give this last question a go?
> 
> Brian



I would argue that they are not contradictory. Here is the argument by Savage (see above post for reference):

"(1) Either x can create a stone which x cannot lift, or x cannot create a stone which x cannot lift.
(2) If x can create a stone which x cannot lift, then, necessarily, there is at least one task which x cannot perform (namely, lift the stone in question).
(3) If x cannot create a stone which x cannot lift, then, necessarily, there is at least one task which x cannot perform (namely, create the stone in question).
(4) Hence, there is at least one task which x cannot perform.
(5) If x is an omnipotient being, then x can perform any task.
(6) Therefore, x is not omnipotent.

Since x is any being, this argument proves that the existence of an omnipotent being, God or any other, is logically impossible. . . . ince it does not contain the word "God," no critic can maintain that [the argument] assumes God is omnipotent. For the same reason, the point that "a stone which God cannot lift" is self-contradictory is simply irrelevant."

He argues that (3) (the second horn of the dilemma) is misleading. The statement, "'x cannot create a stone which x cannot lift' can only mean 'If x can create a stone, then x can lift it'. It is obvious that [this] statement does not entail that x is limited in power."


They are not obviously contradictory, but this is does not seem to be a problem. They are only contradictory if we assume that God exists and that God is omnipotent is a necessary truth. But if we assume those propositions in order to arrive at the contradiction, then we are guilty of begging the question, since the point of the argument is to establish that the existence of an omnipotent being is logically impossible.

Brian


----------



## BrianLanier

caleb_woodrow said:


> Brian, please critique my argument. We’ll see if last quarters logic 101 has helped me any! p.s. I don't know how to insert those cool logic symbols . I think 'D' is biblical and thus the Christian view of God.
> 
> Question: Is God’s creation of an object he can’t lift logically possible?
> 
> Answer: I agree with Civbert’s definition that Omnipotence is the ability to do whatever is logically possible.
> 
> A: God can do anything that is logically possible (i.e. God is Omnipotent).
> B: God’s creation of a rock that he can’t lift is logically possible.
> C: God can create a rock that he can’t lift.
> D: God is in ‘absolute’ control of all creation as he determines and upholds it, etc.
> 
> 1. A
> 2. B --> C
> 3. D
> 4. C --> ~D
> 5. B --> ~D 1, 4, Hypothetical Syllogism)
> 6. ~ ~D 3 (double negative rule)
> C: ~B 5, 6, MT



This does nothing to solve the problem--it just begs the question. This only works if we assume God exists and (A) and (D) are necessary truths. But isn't the point of the paradox to show how these will not go together?


----------



## Civbert

Hi Brian L. Great post. 



BrianLanier said:


> I would argue that they are not contradictory. Here is the argument by Savage (see above post for reference):
> 
> "(1) Either x can create a stone which x cannot lift, or x cannot create a stone which x cannot lift.
> (2) If x can create a stone which x cannot lift, then, necessarily, there is at least one task which x cannot perform (namely, lift the stone in question).
> (3) If x cannot create a stone which x cannot lift, then, necessarily, there is at least one task which x cannot perform (namely, create the stone in question).
> (4) Hence, there is at least one task which x cannot perform.
> (5) If x is an omnipotient being, then x can perform any task.
> (6) Therefore, x is not omnipotent.



Nicely put. That does lay it out clearly.



BrianLanier said:


> Since x is any being, this argument proves that the existence of an omnipotent being, God or any other, is logically impossible. . . . ince it does not contain the word "God," no critic can maintain that [the argument] assumes God is omnipotent. For the same reason, the point that "a stone which God cannot lift" is self-contradictory is simply irrelevant."


 
But here he is wrong. The point that the stone is a self-contradiction is the secret to this false paradox. You can put any self-contradictory object in it's place and the "paradox" appears: Can God create a round square? You see, as long as the object of God's omnipotence is itself a contradiction, it seems like an insoluble paradox. But the problem is not in the meaning of "omnipotence". I can also substitute any other predicate for "omnipotence" and the paradox remains. In fact, I can change the subject to anything and the paradox is still there: Can Anthony the musical draw a round square? No? Does the prove I am not musical? No. It is because a round square is a self contradiction.

Try it. 

Can (insert adjective) (insert subject) (insert verb) (insert self contradictory object).

Can a homeless cat produce a soundless bang. No. Ergo, a homeless cat is a paradox?

What is sneaky about the question of the omnipotent being is it appears the the meaning of omnipotent is the cause of the paradox - but any subject no matter what adjective you attach to it will suffer from the same problem. 




BrianLanier said:


> ... But if we assume those propositions in order to arrive at the contradiction, then we are guilty of begging the question, since the point of the argument is to establish that the existence of an omnipotent being is logically impossible.
> 
> Brian



What I think the question demonstrates is that the logically impossible is logically impossible. A stone so massive it can not be lifted by any power is a contradiction - and is logically impossible. Saying God is omnipotent does make contradictions into non-contradictions. 

Can an omniscient cow know A and not-A (at the same time and manner)? No? Then an omniscient cow does not know something? Therefore omniscient is a contradiction? No, A and not-A are a contradiction. 

I need to go to bed now so I don't have time to clean this up, but please think about it. It really does not matter what the subject of the question is, or what attributes it has - it can never cause, create, bring about, etc, anything that is a self-contradiction because the self-contradiction is meaningless in itself. Omnipotent, omniscient, omni(whatever) can not meaningfully do the meaningless. So not even omnipotent beings can do what is logically impossible (no more than the homeless cat can).

This works every time. What do you think?


----------



## BrianLanier

Hi Anthony,

There is nothing obviously self-contradictory in the way Savage laid out the argument. If you think there is--please show it.

He did the right thing by substituting x in the argument for God. Now we can ask the question about any being.

"Can x make something x cannot lift?" is not a self-contradictory statement. Now let's substitue x for Anthony: Can Anthony make a boat so big or heavy that Anthony cannot lift it? Again there is nothing self-contradictory in the statement it the no-matter what is substitued for x the logic will be the same.

For your analog to work, namely, "Can Anthony the musical draw a round square?", you would have to show how "x creating something so heavy that x cannot lift" is a _self-contradictory_ task. But obviously it is not.

As I said above the only the "self-contradictory" (George Mavrodes has probably the best example) refutation can work is if you assume that God exists and God-is-omnipotent is a necessary truth--but again, that is the point of the arguement, to show how omnipotence is logically impossible.

If I have time later, I'll spell out in detail how he "solves" the problem (I alluded to it earlier in a post above), which I think he does a *great* job.



Civbert said:


> Hi Brian L. Great post.
> 
> 
> 
> Nicely put. That does lay it out clearly.
> 
> 
> But here he is wrong. The point that the stone is a self-contradiction is the secret to this false paradox. You can put any self-contradictory object in it's place and the "paradox" appears: Can God create a round square? You see, as long as the object of God's omnipotence is itself a contradiction, it seems like an insoluble paradox. But the problem is not in the meaning of "omnipotence". I can also substitute any other predicate for "omnipotence" and the paradox remains. In fact, I can change the subject to anything and the paradox is still there: Can Anthony the musical draw a round square? No? Does the prove I am not musical? No. It is because a round square is a self contradiction.
> 
> Try it.
> 
> Can (insert adjective) (insert subject) (insert verb) (insert self contradictory object).
> 
> Can a homeless cat produce a soundless bang. No. Ergo, a homeless cat is a paradox?
> 
> What is sneaky about the question of the omnipotent being is it appears the the meaning of omnipotent is the cause of the paradox - but any subject no matter what adjective you attach to it will suffer from the same problem.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What I think the question demonstrates is that the logically impossible is logically impossible. A stone so massive it can not be lifted by any power is a contradiction - and is logically impossible. Saying God is omnipotent does make contradictions into non-contradictions.
> 
> Can an omniscient cow know A and not-A (at the same time and manner)? No? Then an omniscient cow does not know something? Therefore omniscient is a contradiction? No, A and not-A are a contradiction.
> 
> I need to go to bed now so I don't have time to clean this up, but please think about it. It really does not matter what the subject of the question is, or what attributes it has - it can never cause, create, bring about, etc, anything that is a self-contradiction because the self-contradiction is meaningless in itself. Omnipotent, omniscient, omni(whatever) can not meaningfully do the meaningless. So not even omnipotent beings can do what is logically impossible (no more than the homeless cat can).
> 
> This works every time. What do you think?


----------



## Cheshire Cat

Haha, a wrong Brian responded to my post as well! j/k. Anyways, 



BrianLanier said:


> This does nothing to solve the problem--it just begs the question. This only works if we assume God exists and (A) and (D) are necessary truths. But isn't the point of the paradox to show how these will not go together?


Sigh. The "problem" is an *internal critique*, so of course we assume the biblical view of God. I think you missed the main point of my argument anyway.


----------



## Cheshire Cat

Brian Bosse said:


> Hello Caleb,
> 
> OK, a little Aristotelian Categorical Syllogistic argumentation, eh? Good job. I will continue playing the Devil's advocate. All of this rests on the assumption: God has absolute control over all creation. How far are you willing to go with this? For instance, does God have absolute control over the rapist in the very act of rape? Does God have absolute control over me? If not, then it is not the case that God has absolute control over all of creation. This would undermine the argument. If God does have absolute control, then in what sense is God in absolute control over my evil choices?
> 
> Brian



Thanks. Good question. If absolute control entails that you are like a physical puppet that God controls, I don’t think God has absolute control (because I don't think that is the biblical view of God). I am a compatibilist with respect to free will btw. God has absolute control over the rapist in that it is *metaphysically possible for God to stop the rapist*. (But, God allows evil in this world for a morally sufficient reason. I take that by faith, and anyway, I think it is beyond our epistemic faculties to even comprehend...). As far as creating an object (like a rock) that God can’t lift, that would put Him into a situation where it is metaphysically *impossible* for God to control such an object. I think this is the relevant distinction between the rock example and the rapist.

One could also argue from second causes, but I do think there is a sense in which God is "responsible", but not blaimworthy, for our sin. I have to study Calvinism more. Only last year did I embrace the doctrines of grace, and I have much more to learn. But, I think all calvinists have this problem.

Edit: I guess one could say that if God foreordained that he *wouldn't* lift a stone that he created then he "couldn't", but I don't think that is the way 'couldn't lift' is being used in the argument. This is also a relevant difference between the rapist and the rock. R & R distinction .


----------



## BrianLanier

caleb_woodrow said:


> Haha, a wrong Brian responded to my post as well! j/k. Anyways,
> 
> 
> Sigh. The "problem" is an *internal critique*, so of course we assume the biblical view of God. I think you missed the main point of my argument anyway.



No, the "problem" is with the notion of omnipotence qua omnipotence (this could be for God or anyone else). So the argument could be (as the one by Savage was) formed *neutral* to the questions of 1) whether God exists, and 2) whether God-is-omnipotent is a necessary truth. It doesn't *have* to be an "internal (using Van Tillian language) critique" of the biblical view of God.

I don't think I missed the the main point of your argument, it's just that other philosophers have constructed better arguments (this is not meant with any offense or rudeness) that don't beg the question and still conclude *affirming* God's omnipotence.


----------



## No Longer A Libertine

This question always boiled down to what the undertone really meant.

"Can God make a rock so heavy He can't lift it?"
After a quick pagan translation:

"Is God an idiot?"

The answer is simply "no, he is not".


----------



## shackleton

Civbert said:


> In fact, I can change the subject to anything and the paradox is still there: Can Anthony the musical draw a round square? No? Does the prove I am not musical? No. It is because a round square is a self contradiction.
> 
> Try it.
> 
> Can (insert adjective) (insert subject) (insert verb) (insert self contradictory object).
> 
> Can a homeless cat produce a soundless bang. No. Ergo, a homeless cat is a paradox?
> 
> What is sneaky about the question of the omnipotent being is it appears the meaning of omnipotent is the cause of the paradox - but any subject no matter what adjective you attach to it will suffer from the same problem



This is good. It shows that the answer does nothing to reflect upon God and his attributes. The person who asks this is trying create a situation which proves that God is limited. 
If God can create a rock soo big he cannot lift it, he is limited. 
If God cannot create a rock soo big he cannot lift it, he is limited. 
This argument is asked to create doubt, but when logically it can be proved that it has nothing to do with God it proves irrelevant. The fact that God cannot do something that is logically impossible does not reflect upon him at all. 
Ultimately, why would God need to create a rock that big? He is not David Copperfield.


----------



## Brian Bosse

Hello Brian,



> I would argue that they [The property of being a rock and the property of being "too heavy for God to lift"] are not contradictory.



OK. Keep in mind that we have already defined omnipotence to be…

*Definition:* Person A is omnipotent if and only if person A can do what he wills.

That is to say, the context of all of this is now in light of the above definition for omnipotence. If you use a different definition, then you are no longer addressing the issue in light of the context.



> (5) If x is an omnipotient being, then x can perform any task.



Whoops. This proposition is using a different definition for ‘omnipotence’. 



> They are only contradictory if we assume that God exists and that God is omnipotent is a necessary truth.



The Christian position is that God exists, and that God is omnipotent (_as defined above_). So, it seems you are saying that the following propositions are contradictory…

*(1)* ‘X’ is a rock.
*(2)* ‘X’ is too heavy for God to lift.

So, can you explicitly show these two propositions are contradictory given that God exists and is omnipotent (_as defined above_)? This is the question.

Brian


----------



## Brian Bosse

Hello Caleb,

You are on the right track; so, don’t let the rabbit trail that has been introduced sidetrack you. 



> If absolute control entails that you are like a physical puppet that God controls, I don’t think God has absolute control (because I don't think that is the biblical view of God).



Fair enough. So, playing the role of a thoughtful atheist, I would point out that your use of “absolute control” is either mis-defined or at best ill-defined. That is to say, before we can move the argument forward we need to decide what it means for God to have absolute control over creation.



> God has absolute control over the rapist in that it is *metaphysically possible for God to stop the rapist*… As far as creating an object (like a rock) that God can’t lift, that would put Him into a situation where it is metaphysically *impossible* for God to control such an object. I think this is the relevant distinction between the rock example and the rapist.



OK, you are making a distinction between something being metaphysically possible and metaphysically impossible. You have given an example of each, but they are not exact parallels. Can you define metaphysical possibility?

Sincerely,

Brian


----------



## Cheshire Cat

BrianLanier said:


> No, the "problem" is with the notion of omnipotence qua omnipotence (this could be for God or anyone else). So the argument could be (as the one by Savage was) formed *neutral* to the questions of 1) whether God exists, and 2) whether God-is-omnipotent is a necessary truth. It doesn't *have* to be an "internal (using Van Tillian language) critique" of the biblical view of God.
> 
> I don't think I missed the the main point of your argument, it's just that other philosophers have constructed better arguments (this is not meant with any offense or rudeness) that don't beg the question and still conclude *affirming* God's omnipotence.


Of course the "problem" is about omnipotence, but the "problem" for the Christian is cashed out in terms of an internal critique. Hence Brian Bosse's initial reductio. Omnipotence is said to be an attribute of the Christian God, so if the atheist (or anybody for that matter) is defining it a certain way, then that argument directly relates to the Christian God. 

Besides, lets analyze the proposition that 'An omnipotent being is a being that can perform any task'. How about the ability to strip oneself of the attritbute of omnipotence? How about the ability to somehow make oneself less powerful (which is what my argument is partly attacking if you haven't noticed yet)? Omnipotence is somewhat like a parabola. When one has the ability to do too many things, like make oneself less powerful, make oneself cease to exist, create logical impossibilities, etc, one is not as powerful. 

You have yet to show that my argument begs the question.

p.s. internal critique is not just Van Tilian language.


----------



## shackleton

caleb_woodrow said:


> How about the ability to strip oneself of the attritbute of omnipotence? How about the ability to somehow make oneself less powerful (which is why my argument is attacking if you haven't noticed yet)? Omnipotence is somewhat like a parabola. When one has the ability to do to many things, like make oneself less powerful etc, one is not as powerful.



It is interesting you should bring this up. This an argument used by Norman Geisler. God in his omnipotence, limits it for the sack of man and his free will.


----------



## Cheshire Cat

I'm pretty sure Geisler's a libertarian. Brian Bosse, I'll have to think about your post. I'm still in the process of waking up!


----------



## Cheshire Cat

Brian Bosse said:


> Hello Caleb,
> Fair enough. So, playing the role of a thoughtful atheist, I would point out that your use of “absolute control” is either mis-defined or at best ill-defined. That is to say, before we can move the argument forward we need to decide what it means for God to have absolute control over creation.


In my defense, I initially put ‘’ around the word ‘(absolute)’. But you are correct, a better word is in order. Let’s call it *possibility* control. I will explain this below. 


Brian Bosse said:


> OK, you are making a distinction between something being metaphysically possible and metaphysically impossible. You have given an example of each, but they are not exact parallels. Can you define metaphysical possibility?


Keep in mind I have read only about 5 pages describing modal logic…With that in mind, here is my definition.
Metaphysical possibility: having the capability of existing in a logically possible world.
According to the Christian, The Christian God exists in all possible worlds. This includes all of God’s attributes, which includes his control over creation. There is a possible world in which the rapist doesn’t exist, or at least God has stopped the rapist from committing the crime. *But*, the ability to create an object/rock God cannot lift hits at the heart of his attributes, and thus the Christian God himself. Thus in order for it to be the case for God to be able to create a rock which he cannot lift, this would affect all possible worlds, for it would change God’s attributes. But God cannot change, for the Christian God (with all his attributes) exists in all possible worlds. Thus the ‘rock scenario’ is a metaphysical impossibility. God has possibility control over the rapist, but not over the rock. 

I am arguing that the rock scenario violates the creator/creature distinction, giving more “power” to the creation so to speak than the biblical view does.


----------



## shackleton

caleb_woodrow said:


> I'm pretty sure Geisler's a libertarian.



He still uses this as an argument against "Calvinistic" sovereignty in his book 
"Chosen but Free"


----------



## BrianLanier

Brian Bosse said:


> Hello Brian,
> 
> 
> 
> OK. Keep in mind that we have already defined omnipotence to be…
> 
> *Definition:* Person A is omnipotent if and only if person A can do what he wills.
> 
> That is to say, the context of all of this is now in light of the above definition for omnipotence. If you use a different definition, then you are no longer addressing the issue in light of the context.



I don't think this definition is entirely sufficient. I believe you also alluded to this when you said that the question would then be: "Can God will to create..." If person A is omnipotent iff person A can do what he will is true then a person would be omnipotent iff she only had a singular desire (will) and that of eating french fries when they are presented before her. I think a better def. would be that God possess all logically possible powers which is also *different* then saying that God can do anything logically possible (which BTW, was used by Caleb, and therefore not entirely outside the "light of the context"). 



> Whoops. This proposition is using a different definition for ‘omnipotence’.



Again, see above.



> The Christian position is that God exists, and that God is omnipotent (_as defined above_). So, it seems you are saying that the following propositions are contradictory…
> 
> *(1)* ‘X’ is a rock.
> *(2)* ‘X’ is too heavy for God to lift.
> 
> So, can you explicitly show these two propositions are contradictory given that God exists and is omnipotent (_as defined above_)? This is the question.
> 
> Brian



I am *not* arguing that the propositions *are* in fact contradictory. I am saying that they are *not* contradictory, especially when you subsititue x for God.

But, as I said earlier, this is not a problem for Christians, because the argument, as given by Savage above, just parses out to say that "if x can create a stone, then x can lift it" from "if x cannot create a stone which x cannot lift".

I am at work and don't have much time (or resourses)--and won't until I finish a final paper for school this weekend! I would really like to interact with you (and Caleb and Anthony) more when I get time. I really don't like these "drive-by" responses. Please forgive me.

Brian


----------



## shackleton

caleb_woodrow said:


> Metaphysical possibility: having the capability of existing in a logically possible world.
> According to the Christian, The Christian God exists in all possible worlds. This includes all of God’s attributes, which includes his control over creation. There is a possible world in which the rapist doesn’t exist, or at least God has stopped the rapist from committing the crime.



This sounds like Molinism. Where God chooses from the best of all possible worlds, but there is a world were everything that is possible happens. In sovereingnty, God decrees, based on logic, then acts to fulfill these decrees. Somehow the rapist fits in to the plan of God, but God is not responsible for the act of rape.


----------



## Civbert

An un-liftable object or an object of infinite mass is implied by the question, and both are incoherent by definition of object. 

Think about this: what are the minimum attributes of an object? What makes an object an object? 1) Volume. 2) Mass. 

For any given mass, there is a definable force that can lift that mass. 

What am I missing?


----------



## Cheshire Cat

shackleton said:


> This sounds like Molinism.


Naw, it is just possible worlds semantics. Molinism uses modal logic, but I'm not employing molinism.


----------



## BrianLanier

Civbert said:


> An un-liftable object or an object of infinite mass is implied by the question, and both are incoherent by definition of object.
> 
> Think about this: what are the minimum attributes of an object? What makes an object an object? 1) Volume. 2) Mass.
> 
> For any given mass, there is a definable force that can lift that mass.
> 
> What am I missing?



No one is saying that the object has to be of infinite mass, just enough so that God cannot lift it--in other words, there is no predefined "weight" assumed in the argument. Again, think outside the physically impossible and into the logically possible.

It seems that you're missing the fact that there is nothing *self-contradictory* about the such an object. (This is probably best illustrated by the fact that no philosopher of religion [at least that I know of] has argued such.)


----------



## cih1355

If God were capable of doing evil, would this involve a logical contradiction? Would sinning be a logical contradiction for God, but not for sinners?

What do you think of the idea that there is no discrete power to sin? Thomas Morris in his book, _Our Idea of God_, says, "There are many powers necessary for sinning in various ways, but there is no single, distinct power to sin exercised in addition to all other powers exercised on any and every occasion of the intentional doing of evil." Morris goes on the give the example of a person wrongfully punching another person and this action would be sin. A person has the power to wrongfully punch another person, but there is no additional power to sin. If a person wrongfully punches another person, does that mean he has two powers- the power to wrongfully punch another person and another power called "the power to sin"? Morris answers, "No".


----------



## Cheshire Cat

OK, in this post I will lay out where I agree with Brian Lanier.



BrianLanier said:


> No. God cannot create a stone which He cannot lift.
> 
> This is not a problem however, since this is just to say that if God can create a stone then He can lift it.


I agree with this. 



BrianLanier said:


> "(1) Either x can create a stone which x cannot lift, or x cannot create a stone which x cannot lift.
> (2) If x can create a stone which x cannot lift, then, necessarily, there is at least one task which x cannot perform (namely, lift the stone in question).
> (3) If x cannot create a stone which x cannot lift, then, necessarily, there is at least one task which x cannot perform (namely, create the stone in question).
> (4) Hence, there is at least one task which x cannot perform.
> (5) If x is an omnipotient being, then x can perform any task.
> (6) Therefore, x is not omnipotent.


Besides premise 3, another premise to attack is #5, which has been repeatedly done in this thread. 

Earlier I said that I agreed with Civbert’s definition that Omnipotence is the ability to do whatever is logically possible. 

Now I would have to ask myself, is it logically possible for God to commit an evil act?

Perhaps Brian Lanier is correct when he says that a better definition of omnipotence would be that God possesses all logically possible powers. Can you elaborate on this definition Brian? 



Brian Bosse said:


> As Scott pointed out, being omnipotent does not mean being able to do anything. Here is a definition for omnipotence...
> 
> Definition: Person A is omnipotent if and only if person A can do what he wills.
> 
> If I were an atheist, upon hearing this response I would ask: Can God will to create a rock too heavy to lift?
> 
> Now, my response would be that God cannot will to create any object that has contradictory properties.



My response would be to say that God cannot create any object that would diminish his omnipotence. Another way of saying this would be that If God were able to create a rock that he couldn’t lift, then he wouldn’t be as powerful as he would be if he couldn’t. If he was able, then he would have less control over creation, etc.

Edit, of course with this change of mine my original reply that the rock scenerio is logically impossible is not a sound argument. I'm okay with that though, because the main point of my argument stays intact.


----------



## Cheshire Cat

In this post I will lay out where I disagree with Brian Lanier.



BrianLanier said:


> Since it does not contain the word "God," no critic can maintain that [the argument] assumes God is omnipotent……
> 
> …….
> They are only contradictory if we assume that God exists and that God is omnipotent is a necessary truth. But if we assume those propositions in order to arrive at the contradiction, then we are guilty of begging the question, since the point of the argument is to establish that the existence of an omnipotent being is logically impossible.


There is no problem in assuming that God is omnipotent. It is called an internal critique. Specifically this is a case of Reductio Ad Absurdum if we insert ‘God’ in the place of X. It would not be a case of begging the question.


----------



## Civbert

BrianLanier said:


> No one is saying that the object has to be of infinite mass, just enough so that God cannot lift it--in other words, there is no predefined "weight" assumed in the argument. Again, think outside the physically impossible and into the logically possible.



You have brought the "actor" back into the picture, but it is the object in itself that is self-contradictory. It is the unliftable object. 

For an object to be logically meaningful, it must have a limited mass and volume. You have confirmed that the "rock" has a limited mass by using the phrase "just enough". 

The force required to lift any object is that which is greater than the "weight" of the object. (Weight is measured in units of force. If an object has a weight of X, then the force to lift it is any force greater than X.



BrianLanier said:


> It seems that you're missing the fact that there is nothing *self-contradictory* about the such an object. (This is probably best illustrated by the fact that no philosopher of religion [at least that I know of] has argued such.)



No, it is not a fact that I am missing. It is clear to me that an "unliftable" object is _logically _self-contradictory. This is not a matter of physically possibility, but by the very meaning of something being a physical object. Can you see what I am saying? It's not sufficient to say " ... no philosopher of religion [at least that I know of] has argued such." 

Consider what I wrote and try to understand what I'm saying: 

Do you agree that an object, to be logically meaningful, must have at least mass and volume?

And do you agree that, _by definition_, the force required to lift that object is any force greater than the weight of the object?

(Mass and weight are technically two different things having different fundamental units, but a weight can be determined for any given mass, and weight is not fixed for any given mass - weight on the moon for a given mass is less then the same mass on Earth.)

P.S. I may be read as being patronizing - that is not my intention. I just think that if careful consideration is given to what makes a object _logically _meaningful - that it must have mass and volume - then it is a matter of simple definition that it can be "lifted" by any force greater than it's weight. So an unliftable object is self-contradictory.

P.P.S. Brain Bosse - this would be a great topic for the Christian Logic Discussion Forum - don't ya think?  We should get a thread going on the subject there too.


----------



## etexas

This thread................ Big Time! Yawn! Blah Blah! Just my


----------



## Civbert

Fingolfin said:


> This thread................ Big Time! Yawn! Blah Blah! Just my


Do you want the change back on your ?


----------



## etexas

Civbert said:


> Do you want the change back on your ?


Chuckle.........only if you think my  is worth one cent!


----------



## shackleton

I am actually enjoying this a immensely. Even though I am not able to contribute any weight to the conversation, I am learning a lot just by reading. I hope all my stupid comments did not deter to much from the discussion.


----------



## Brian Bosse

Hello Caleb,

To bring context to our discussion, here is the essence of your argument: 

*Premise 1:* If God can create a rock that He cannot lift, then it is not the case that God is in absolute control of all creation.
*Premise 2:* God is in absolute control of all creation.
*Conclusion:* It is not the case that God can create a rock that He cannot lift.

You are trying to clarify what you mean by premise 2. More specifically you are trying to explain what it means for God to be in absolute control of all creation. You have stated that God does not have the same level of control over human beings that a puppet master has over his puppet; yet, God still has absolute control. 

*Problem One*

You say God’s control over the rapist can be said to be absolute because it is _metaphysically possible_ for God to stop the rapist. Seemingly, if it were not _metaphysically possible_ for God to stop the rapist, then He would not have absolute control. The problem with this is that there are many situations where it is _metaphysically possible_ for someone to stop a rapist, and yet it would not be appropriate to say that they have absolute control. 

*Problem Two*

Your use of the term ‘absolute’ seems inappropriate. Since it is possible for the puppet master to “stop” the puppet, then God’s control over the rapist is in some sense less than the puppet master’s control over the puppet. It does not seem appropriate to call God’s control to be absolute when it is less than the puppet master’s control over the puppet. 

*Problem Three*

It seems that it is _metaphysically possible_ for God to control me like a puppet. So, why is this disqualified? Are any of the rapist’s actions independent of God? If not, then what is the difference between a puppet dependent upon the puppet master and the rapist dependent upon God? If you say, that we make choices as rational beings, then are our choices independent of God? If not, then what is the difference? 



Caleb said:


> Metaphysical possibility: having the capability of existing in a logically possible world.



*Definition:* ‘X’ is _metaphysically possible_ if and only if ‘X’ exists in a logically possible world. 

I am not sure if this helps matters at all. You now have to define what constitutes a logically possible world. Plus, you are trying to define what it means for God to have absolute control. It is not clear how possible world semantics will help you to do this. 



> There is a possible world in which the rapist doesn’t exist, or at least God has stopped the rapist from committing the crime. *But*, the ability to create an object/rock God cannot lift hits at the heart of his attributes, and thus the Christian God himself. Thus in order for it to be the case for God to be able to create a rock which he cannot lift, this would affect all possible worlds, for it would change God’s attributes. But God cannot change, for the Christian God (with all his attributes) exists in all possible worlds. Thus the ‘rock scenario’ is a metaphysical impossibility. God has possibility control over the rapist, but not over the rock.



Here is the argument you are making…

*Premise 1:* If God creates a rock that He cannot lift, then God’s attributes will change.
*Premise 2:* It is not the case that God’s attributes can change.
*Conclusion:* It is not the case that God creates a rock that He cannot lift.

This does not move the argument forward at all. Why are God’s attributes affected by His creating a rock He cannot lift? Is absolute control over creation an attribute of God? I think the argument has sputtered at this point. I think you should go back to the term “absolute control” and define it. 

Sincerely,

Brian


----------



## Brian Bosse

Hello Civbert,



> An un-liftable object or an object of infinite mass is implied by the question, and both are incoherent by definition of object.
> 
> Think about this: what are the minimum attributes of an object? What makes an object an object? 1) Volume. 2) Mass.



First off, I like your approach, but there are some problems. Weight is a function of a number of things - one which is mass and another being gravity. Volume really does not have anything to do with it. 

An object is not defined by mass and volume. I would want to say that angels are objects, and these do not have weight or volume. How many angels can dance on the head of a pin? 

Lastly, there are many reasons why person 'A' cannot pick up object 'X' that really do not have anything to do with weight. For instance, the object might be chained down. Of course, this problem presupposes weight being the issue, and then I think your approach could be fruitful. Just remember that weight is a function of mass and gravity.

Brian


----------



## Brian Bosse

Hello Brian



> I don't think this definition is entirely sufficient...If person A is omnipotent iff person A can do what he will is true then a person would be omnipotent iff she only had a singular desire (will) and that of eating french fries when they are presented before her.



I see the point you are trying to make, but I think my definition still works. Using your illustration, it is not as simple as you make it. For instance, for me to be able to actually eat a french fry there are numerous things that must come before hand. 

1. There must be potatoes.
2. There must be a cook who knows how to make french fries.
3. There must be a grease frier.
4. There must be power for the grease frier.
5. There must be appropriate weather to grow the potatoe.

I could go on and on and on and on. Believe me that this list will go to the tens of thousands. Also, it will probably terminate at God. That is to say, God is a precondition for me being able to eat a french fry. The point is that my wanting (willing) to eat a French fry does not mean I can do it. There have been numberous times I have wanted something to eat, but could not have it. So, as interesting as your example is at first blush, it misses the mark because it misses the complexity involved in any want that we have. 

Now, you may say that I missed the point of the concerning the french fries being presented to her. Even then, the person cannot have a singluar desire. That person, in order to eat what is presented to her, must also have the means to do so. Once again, I could come up with a huge list of things needed prior to her actually being able to eat the fry. Again, the point is that things are never as simple as they seem. Really, we are talking about indepedence here. Maybe my definition would be better stated as...

*Definition:* Person 'A' is omnipotent if and only if person 'A' can independently do what he wills. 

Sincerely,

Brian


----------



## Civbert

Brian Bosse said:


> Hello Civbert,
> 
> First off, I like your approach, but there are some problems. Weight is a function of a number of things - one which is mass and another being gravity. Volume really does not have anything to do with it.



I agree, and weight is not an essential component of the kind of object that is being described by the question. A rock in outer space would have almost no weight. Weight is a function of mass, the mass of another object, the distance between them, the gravitational constant, etc. There is a lot assumed by the question.



Brian Bosse said:


> An object is not defined by mass and volume. I would want to say that angels are objects, and these do not have weight or volume. How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?



The question is about a rock - a physical object. Spiritual objects are not physical objects. The question involves a rock, and weight is implied so it's near another mass. 



Brian Bosse said:


> Lastly, there are many reasons why person 'A' cannot pick up object 'X' that really do not have anything to do with weight. For instance, the object might be chained down. Of course, this problem presupposes weight being the issue, and then I think your approach could be fruitful. Just remember that weight is a function of mass and gravity.



Yes, the weight of the rock is part of the issue, but who is doing the lifting is not the problem except indirectly. The question implies that *a rock that can not be lifted by any  magnitude of force* is meaningful. Do you agree?

The rock is a physical object.
It can not be lifted by any magnitude force.
One may object that the question specifically says it can not be lifted _by God_. But we also agree that no _omnipotent being_ can lift it. And an omnipotent being means "all powerful" and so the question implies that no magnitude of force can lift the rock. So the rock implied by the question is self-contradictory because an object so massive no force can lift it is self-contradictory.

The lesson of the question is that nothing can cause an contradiction to exist in reality. Nor can any action be logically performed on a self-contradictory object.


----------



## shackleton

What I have learned from this discussion. 
One of God's attributes is his omnipotence. 
What is the definition of omnipotence?
A) God can do anything that is possible. 
More specifically,
B) God can do anything that is _logically_ possible. 
God as God is not going to do something that is _logically_impossible; i.e make a square a circle. The fact that he cannot do this does not at all reflect on God or his omnipotence because a change of this kind is not possible. 

God is a logical being. Logic is not something he is subject to, it is a part of who he is, so everything he does is going to be founded upon logic. God in his omniscience, which is founded upon logic, came up with a plan. God, as omnipotent is capable of bringing his plan to fruition. Whether or not it is logically possible is irrelevant because God as a logical being would not devise a plan that defied logic. 
Therefore, God as omnipotent can fulfill his decrees, but at the same time is not performing a task that is logically impossible. (It would be contrary to his nature). 
Please bear with my comments, I am still in the learning process and I don't possess all the knowedge of everyone else. Writing this out helps me think.


----------



## Cheshire Cat

Brian, as far as problem 1 & 2 go, I did say this:


caleb_woodrow said:


> In my defense, I initially put ‘’ around the word ‘(absolute)’. But you are correct, a better word is in order. Let’s call it *possibility* control.


As for Problem 3, I’m going to drop the whole puppet thing. I don’t know why I put that in there in the first place. 
For what it's worth, *control* is the important word. At this point it must be questioned whether there is a difference in control with the rock scenario as compared to God’s control over creation. God determines and upholds all of creation. So if God determined that he would create a rock and then not lift it, then in that sense he “can’t lift that rock”, because according to his will he wouldn’t. I think this is an example of God’s control over creation--his will if you will . But the rock scenario seems to be saying more than that. And if it isn’t, then I don’t see a problem. 
Where does this put me? Pretty much I’m saying that God's biblical control (determination and upholding of creation, etc.) is what defines omnipotence, not just the ability to do anything. Why? I have argued that elsewhere in this thread. But as far as this particular problem is concerned, I could just fall back on Savage’s answer to the problem, which I agree with. 


Brian Bosse said:


> *Premise 1:* If God creates a rock that He cannot lift, then God’s attributes will change.
> *Premise 2:* It is not the case that God’s attributes can change.
> *Conclusion:* It is not the case that God creates a rock that He cannot lift.
> 
> This does not move the argument forward at all. Why are God’s attributes affected by His creating a rock He cannot lift?
> Sincerely,
> 
> Brian


He wouldn’t be omnipotent if that were the case. I can fall back on Savage’s argument for this claim. 

Has my argument changed a lot throughout this thread? Of course it has! I will drop and add things left and right as long as I think I am getting closer to the truth. .


----------



## Cheshire Cat

Its all good shackleton, but I don't think I would define Omnipotence as the ability to do anything logically possible. Is it logically possible for God to commit an evil act? If not so, what law of logic does it violate? I know this may seem confusing because I initially agreed with that definition, but my argument has changed much in this thread.


----------



## shackleton

By logically impossible I mean that, God as a logical being would not violate his being by doing what was logically impossible. By this I mean that it would be a contradiction, when taking into account God's attributes, for him to create a rock of that size. It would not enter into his mind because it would constitute a contradiction, and God would not contradict himself. 
This seems like more of a riddle than a question. The quest is not to find an answer, but to change the way one thinks. I wonder how a person steeped in Eastern Philosophy would answer this question. We are all coming at it from the western mindset. 
Caleb, you could read the book "God and Evil" by Gordon Clark it is good at answering the question of God and evil.


----------



## Civbert

caleb_woodrow said:


> Its all good shackleton, but I don't think I would define Omnipotence as the ability to do anything logically possible. Is it logically possible for God to commit an evil act? If so, what law of logic does it violate? I know this may seem confusing because I initially agreed with that definition, but my argument has changed much in this thread.



As usually, it depends on how you define "evil". If evil is a violation of God's law, then God cannot do evil. God's law is applicable to men only. God can not make laws restricting himself. 

We can also say that God's actions are good because God does them. So God can not do evil. 

Evil is defined in terms of God, his commands, his will. So it is logically impossible for God to commit evil acts.


----------



## cih1355

caleb_woodrow said:


> Its all good shackleton, but I don't think I would define Omnipotence as the ability to do anything logically possible. Is it logically possible for God to commit an evil act? If so, what law of logic does it violate? I know this may seem confusing because I initially agreed with that definition, but my argument has changed much in this thread.



Thomas Morris in his book, _Our Idea of God_, says that "a being is omnipotent if it has every power which it is logically possible to possess." If there is a special, discrete power to sin, then the definition of omnipotence can be defined more precisely by saying, "God has every power it is logically possible for a being perfect in every other respect to possess."

I have heard of two different ways one can answer the question, "Is it logically possible for God to commit an evil act?" One way of responding to this question would be to deny that there is a special, discrete power to sin. Thomas Morris advocates this view and I have summarized it in post #59.

Another way to answer that question would be to say that God by definition is holy. If God were to commit an evil act, then He would be unholy. God cannot be holy and unholy at the same time because that would be a logically contradiction.


----------



## Cheshire Cat

There are 5 links on Omnipotence in this post in Ch: 4 The Attributes of God: http://www.puritanboard.com/showthread.php?t=19573


----------



## CalvinandHodges

No - God cannot make a rock that He cannot lift.

There are many things that God cannot do: He cannot lie, He cannot steal, He cannot commit false worship, etc...

The question is setting one of God's attributes against God Himself, and that is not logical.

Blessings,

CH


----------



## Brian Bosse

Hello Everyone,

*Question:* Can God create a rock so heavy He cannot lift it?

I have yet to give my analysis of the issues raised with this question. There will be two main sections: (1) Consequences of a ‘yes’ answer; and (2) an Establishment of a ‘no’ answer.

*Answer:* Yes

There is lurking in the background a question regarding whether or nor the concept of ‘omnipotence’ is coherent. The skeptic will argue that it is not coherent, and as such any god who is considered omnipotent cannot exist. It is presumed that an omnipotent being can lift any rock. It is also presumed that an omnipotent being can create anything. 

*(1)* If ‘x’ is an omnipotent being, then ‘x’ can lift all rocks.
*(1-CP)* If ‘x’cannot lift some rock, then ‘x’ is not an omnipotent being. 

(1-CP) is the contraposition of (1). That is to say, it is an immediate inference from (1), and as such is true if (1) is true. 

*(2)* If ‘x’ is an omnipotent being, then ‘x’ can create a rock that ‘x’ cannot lift.
*(3)* If ‘x’ can create a rock that ‘x’ cannot lift, then ‘x’ cannot lift some rock.

So, if we take as true that God is omnipotent, then from (2) and (3) God can create a rock that He cannot lift. This means God cannot lift some rock. If God cannot lift some rock, then from (1-CP) God is not an omnipotent being. So, from this we have the following:

*Conclusion:* If God is an omnipotent being, then God is not an omnipotent being.

By force of logic this leads to the conclusion that God is not an omnipotent being. Essentially, this is how the argument would look:

*Given:* O → ¬O – (If God is an omnipotent being, then God is not an omnipotent being.)
*Step 1:* O → O – (Law of Identity)
*Step 2:* O → (O ∧ ¬O) – (Law of Absorption)
*Step 3:* ¬(O ∧ ¬O) – (Law of non-Contradiction)
*Step 4:* ¬O – (_Modus Tollens_)

So, what we have proved is that there cannot be a god who is omnipotent given (1), (2) and (3). (1) and (3) are true, and as such the Christian who wants to overcome this objection must deny (2) in some manner. 

*Answer:* No

To begin, we assert that God necessarily has absolute control over all creation. If God can create a rock too heavy too lift, then God can create an object that He does not have absolute control over. Therefore, God cannot create such a rock (because He necessarily has absolute control over all creation). Does this mean God is not omnipotent? Since I am denying (2), I need to define ‘omnipotence’ in such a way that it precludes (2). Here is one attempt: 

*Definition:* Person ‘x’ is omnipotent if and only if person ‘x’ is completely self-sufficient in doing whatever person ‘x’ wills.

This definition is helpful on a number of points, the main one being that this precludes all things God would not will to do. If God were able to create a rock so heavy that He could not lift it, then God would change – He would no longer exercise complete control over creation. However, it is God’s nature and hence His will to exercise such control (and it His nature and will that He does not change). Therefore, God does not will to create a rock too heavy to lift. Since God does not will to create a rock too heavy to lift, then His inability to do so does not impact His being omnipotent. 

*Conclusion*

What have we accomplished here? Well, with our definition for 'omnipotence' coupled with both God necessarily having absolute control over creation and God being immutable, we have created a situation by which we can answer ‘no’ to the skeptic’s question and still maintain God’s omnipotence. It should be noted that those who hold to some form of libertarian free will cannot use this argument. LFW asserts that there is something God created over which He does not have absolute control. The person holding to LFW must come up with a different defense. 

Sincerely,

Brian


----------



## Cheshire Cat

I like the new definition; especially the self-sufficient part. Of course I agree with the argument, although I need to read more literature on the subject. One of my motivations for the control part of that argument was that it would exlude libertarians from using it. I think libertarians could just use Savage's argument though. Do you agree with Savages argument Brian?


----------



## Brian Bosse

Hello Caleb,



> Do you agree with Savages argument Brian?



The answer is ‘no,’ which I will explain in a moment. Let me restate the Skeptic's argument as laid out by Brian quoting Savage...

*(1)* Either ‘x’ can create a stone which ‘x’ cannot lift, or ‘x’ cannot create a stone which ‘x’ cannot lift.
*(2)* If ‘x’ can create a stone which ‘x’ cannot lift, then, necessarily, there is at least one task which ‘x’ cannot perform (namely, lift the stone in question).
*(3)* If ‘x’ cannot create a stone which ‘x’ cannot lift, then, necessarily, there is at least one task which ‘x’ cannot perform (namely, create the stone in question).
*(4)* Hence, there is at least one task which ‘x’ cannot perform.
*(5)* If ‘x’ is an omnipotent being, then ‘x’ can perform any task.
*(6)* Therefore, ‘x’ is not omnipotent.

This proof is valid, and as such the only way to overcome the argument is to argue that one or more of the premises are false. Savage takes issue with premise 3, which completely misses the mark. In my previous post I argued that premise 5 was false. However, there is another premise that is false that I missed. It is premise (2). (2) only follows if ‘x’ actually creates the stone too heavy for ‘x’ to lift. If ‘x’ does not create the stone, then it is not the case that there is a stone which ‘x’ cannot lift. So, (2) is false making the argument unsound (even though it is still valid). We could revise (2) to be… 

*(2R)* If ‘x’ can create a stone which ‘x’ cannot lift, then “if ‘x’ creates a stone which ‘x’ cannot lift, then there is one task ‘x’ cannot perform.” 

I think (2R) is true, but this messes up the whole argument. It is no longer valid. So, the argument is overcome. But, this is not how Savage chose to deal with the argument. He said… 



> He [Savage] argues that (3) (the second horn of the dilemma) is misleading. The statement, "'x cannot create a stone which x cannot lift' can only mean 'If x can create a stone, then x can lift it'. It is obvious that [this] statement does not entail that x is limited in power."



This is to completely miss the point. He needs to be arguing against the truth of (3) and not whether or not "If 'x' can create a stone, then 'x' can lift it" limits the power of 'x'. In other words, whether or not "If 'x' can create a stone, then x can lift it" limits the power of 'x', it is irrelevant to the proof he is trying to refute. He has not provided a reason why (3) is false. Here is what (3) essentially asserts: If 'x' cannot perform task 't', then there is one task 'x' cannot perform. This seems obviously true. As such, Savage misses the key point – especially when one considers the arguments against steps (2) and (5), which in mind are devastating.

Sincerely,

Brian
P.S. It certainly is possible I missed Savage's point. If so, please explain it to me.


----------



## Civbert

Brian Bosse said:


> ... P.S. It certainly is possible I missed Savage's point. If so, please explain it to me.


P.P.S. Can someone provide a link to Savage's argument, or a citation of it's source?


----------



## BrianLanier

Civbert said:


> P.P.S. Can someone provide a link to Savage's argument, or a citation of it's source?





> Citation:
> See C. Wade Savage's Article, "The Paradox of the Stone" in The Philosophical Review 76 number 1 (1967): 74-79.



u2u me with your email if you want a copy.

Brian


----------

