Scholasticism - It Will Make Your Head Hurt

Here is a simple question that has puzzled so many scholars over the years:

Can God create a rock/object he cannot move?



Assuming God is an omnipotent being, but remember that this is not a discussion of the existence of God. In this problem God is assumed to exist and has all power over everything.


Discuss.

 

If god were an omnipotent being as you put it, the deity would have unlimited powers. Well, since we are already considering god as an omnipotent being, wouldn't you think this would negate the fact that there is something god cannot move or do? The power would be endless and something we could never understand, the question seems like it leads you in a giant circle.

 

I think Clive Staples Lewis was right when he said that it was like asking if God could draw a square circle. Personally don't even consider this to be a question.

 

Ah, the stone paradox.

This is popularly used as an argument to disprove the existence of god.
Either God can create such a stone or he can’t.
If he can’t, then there is something that he cannot do, namely create the stone, and therefore he is not omnipotent.
If he can, it continues, then there is also something that he cannot do, namely lift the stone, and therefore he is not omnipotent.
Either way, then, God is not omnipotent. A being that is not omnipotent, though, is not God. God, therefore, does not exist.

What do I believe?
Well, no, I believe that no being can be truly omnipotent.

 

The question itself asks for the illogical, as Gurt said, asking God to draw a square circle too would bring the same result.

The question establishes that God is bound by logic, and, as such disproves Gods omnipotency. For those persistent that say God can do both, it means that God is truly not bound by logic as he has done the illogical. By default then, a debate cannot ensue as the only alternative is evidence.

The question itself is a valid question, omit either part and people are happy to answer it. Combine them, and that's when chaos ensues.

 

I just love thought experiments, and as you guys have said you cannot prove something that isn't logical in the first place. Come on and bring up some more cool thought experiments.

 

Well it's a fairly simple answer: No.

First, you are going off the idea that God is omnipotent I'm assuming. Well then you have to simply take that god cannot do anything that is outside the realm of possibility.

Now I see why people have a problem with this question, the think to hard about it when all it is, is a negation statement to the original premise. Saying someone can do anything and then giving them a situation outside of the realms of possibility doesn't disprove that they can do anything.

Its the same as saying: "Mr. Jackson can solve any math problem, but can he make 1+1=3?" The answer to this is no, its not because he necessarily can't make 1+1=3 its because that idea does not exist in the premise of our mathematical structure.

While I am an atheist and understand there are more flaws in religion that are more obvious, this one atleast can be supported with some basic understanding.

 

It's not really the same at all:

If God is omnipotent, then can he create a stone so heavy that he cannot lift?

Omnipotence is the ability to do anything. Creating a stone is doing something, as is lifting it. If he cannot do one, then he is not omnipotent. We can conclude we have challenged the premise and it has failed.

For example:

Bill can do everything.
Can Bill fly?
No, Bill cannot fly.
Therefore Bill can't do everything.

If "Mr. Jackson can solve any math problem", "then can he make 1+1=3"?

Well, there are simple ways around this:

Mr. Jackson can't solve any math problem - no logical contradiction.
1+1 = 3 is not within the bounds of his capability - 1+1 = 3 is not a maths problem to be solved.
1+1 = 3 is not a maths problem - no logical contradiction.


With your scenario, there is no logical contradiction, but, with the omnipotence paradox, there. The distinction is the premise of an omnipotent God can be challenged. It has been challenged within the bounds of his premise, there is no caveat on an omnipotent being, they have the power to do everything.

 

The requested action is logically sound (e.g., any person could construct an object that they're unable to lift). It seems most peculiar that a mere mortal could perform an act that the almighty is prohibited from, does it not?

 

Actually they both are very similiar.

1+1=3 --> (1+1) This is basic, 2 very real constants that are used for this mathematical structure. (=3) Now this is the problem, simply putting this makes this wrong, but telling someone to make 1+1=3 is where the problem arises. Mr. Jackson can solve any math problem, within the bounds of the mathematical design.

Now apply this to an omnipotent being:

Creating a stone + Lifting a stone, these are 2 real things that an omnipotent being can obviously do. Now there is no problem until you simply ask that omnipotent being to create a stone he cannot lift, this is because trying to ask this being to do something outside the realm of reality. If they were truly omnipotent then the end result would be that he can create a stone he cannot lift, but at the same time can lift it. Thus negating the idea of an answer meaning a definite conclusion would be outside the possibility of this reality.

 

You're not asking him to do something outside the realm of reality. Creating something you cannot lift is perfectly possible. The only problem is because the being is omnipotent. This is a premise that can be challenged. A simple problem has been constructed, creating an object so heavy that one cannot lift. Anyone can create a building and be unable to lift it, why can't the omnipotent being?


Also, is there a definition for maths problem? When you give someone "1x5=5" and say 'solve this' how would they start? Rearranging, or 'solving' for 1+1=3 is from what we know impossible. Creating an object you cannot lift, is not impossible. It only seems possible for an omnipotent being to do so, as, the task contradicts his omnipotent nature. Suffice to say, an omnipotent being therefore cannot exist.

How about a scenario.

Bob asks Bill, 'hey bro, can you create something that you can't lift'?
Bill says, 'sure, lemme just put some weights in a box'.
* Bill tries but fails to move the box filled with weights.
Bill says, 'told you'.
Bob says to Bret, 'yo, can you do me a favor, I need someone strong'.
Bret says, 'sure, what do you need? I can do everything (I'm omnipotent).
Bob says, 'can you create something that you can't lift'?
Bret says, "this is outside the bounds of reality".
Bob says, 'no it's not, Bill just did it'.

This puerile scenario elucidates the point that creating something that you cannot lift is possible. I also hope the word 'create' doesn't get picked on semantically.

 

^^^
What if the omnipotent being changes the way reality works?
What if the omnipotent being splits into two, with one having the power to lift the rock, and the other not having that power?

 

The purpose of the omnipotence paradox is to show that an omnipotent being cannot exist.

Even if there were some super powerful being that could do the aforementioned, we would presumably be able to observe a change in reality. Namely, the laws of logic would not work anymore, and, science and mathematical laws would be re written due to new observations. Given that none of this has taken place, it's reasonable to assume that if there was an omnipotent being he hasn't done it yet, this hypothetical exercise already assumes the existence of such a being as a 'game' so to extend a 'game' to reality is tangent of the original point.

As for the second example, the question asks for a yes or no answer.

This paradox assumes the existence of an entity, otherwise, it would be moot. However, if we were to debate realistically, I'd ask for evidence of the existence of an omnipotent being. There isn't any. Asking what if to a hypothetical is the equivalent of saying if life doesn't exist, then what are we? The 'game' being life not existing, and the 'what if' being 'then what are we', that is the same to the 'game' being an omnipotent being existing, and 'what if' [insert hypothetical].

 

The thought experiment disproves omnipotence, one of the main characteristics of God.

Omnipotence leads to contradiction therefore it is false. Saying that God is not bound by logic is completely bullshit because if God is not bound by logic then you have no means to make that assessment. How can you use logic to figure out that God doesn't obey logic?

 

Creating something you cannot lift is only possible when you are not omnipotent. Because they can do anything, that would mean suggesting they do something that is caused outside of the realms of reality as I have stated.

I think a better situation for my explanation would be this:

Bob can lift the weight of everything within the universe but nothing more. (The universe will be a metaphor for the realm of reality). Now, Bob would not be able to lift it if you added even one more pound but because nothing (That we know of hence why this is a flawed situation because I don't necessarily 'know' we will assume the universe is everything) exists outside of the universe, that fact is pointless. He still in essence can lift any weight.

Now if you apply this to an omnipotent god, then you wouldn't be able to have him create something so heavy he can't even lift it because the fact he is omnipotent will override this statement every time. Because he is omnipotent he is unable to negate that fact meaning creating something he cannot lift would be outside the realms of reality and possibility. Unless ofcourse you were to make the argument the said 'god' was to make a human version of himself that was weak and couldn't lift anything....hm....oh well a topic for another date.

The only problem with your scenario that I can find is that your comparing a human (limited) to someone who is omnipotent (limitless) within the same idea.

 

You're really good at circular reasoning. Oh, not to mention the fact that you're using logic to deduce that God doesn't obey logic.

 

Since God is omnipotent then he can do everything, even if some things he does negates other things he does. Like when someone said can God draw a square circle. Yes he can even if you cant comprehend it, that doesn't mean he cant do it. If you say that he cant do something then you're automatically wrong because the topic has a given that sets boundaries to your answer.

 

So get me right, you're claiming knowledge on the incomprehensible?

 

Assuming God is Omnipotent, then he would be able to do anything, even if it defies logic, because with omnipotent power, one could change logic, one could eliminate the binary options of yes and no entirely, omnipotence means one can do ANYTHING, and therefore the answer to the question would be yes, even if it has to exist in some other universe that was created solely for the purpose of making the answer yes.

 

So here is the point I was trying to make with this post:

One cannot make a logical argument on something that defies logic, if you believe in an omnipotent God or not. The fact of the matter is, as someone put it, this simply isn't a question.