Discussion on 'If God is omnipotent can He create something so heavy ...?'

(5) On July 22, 2008 at 6:14 pm Traz [83] said:

Moved from the main page:

IN REFERENCE TO THE PREVIOUS ANSWER

Fair enough, what you're saying is that because i said 'move the universe' it was the universe that moved and not the rock. But what im saying is that it was the universe that moved AND the rock.

If the universe was moved around the rock, from which perspective exactly would the rock have not moved? There is no observer or being or entity capable of experience that could deny that the rock has moved within space (ie the universe which has just shifted positon) If every single thing experiences (experience being the boundary of even the concerns of existentialism) the rock to be moving, then it has moved.

In fairness, the real criticism of my argument is that 'everything else in the universe' would have to be moved around the one object, and it would be everything else in the universe that had moved and not the rock. However, i still argue the point that within the boundaries of existance, experience and indeed existencialism and all possible applications of anything the rock has still moved. By definition it has moved because it has changed its position within space which is a component of 'everything else in the universe' Movement is all relative, for example we percieve an object lying on the floor as still, however it is attached to a lump of rock hurtling through the universe at a collosal speed.

It's like, 'If a tree falls in a forest and no-one is there to hear it, does it make a noise?', i don't know if it made a noise, but it definately changed position or 'moved' and you can go back and check afterwards and it will still have moved.

I argue that the question is not a paradox in that a paradox is 'a statement that contradicts itself' . If you were to rephrase the question as a statement 'God created an object so heavy that he could not move it' while not necessarily a true statement it is also not a paradox because it doesn't contradict itself. It doesn't contradict itself because it's possible. It's perfectly feasible that this rock does exist. So where is the contradiction? To say "I always lie" is a paradox because thats impossible and the statement contradicts itself.

I didn't try to change or spin the question i simply paraphrased it into specific terms so that it could be clinically answered.

As for your answer to part two, you clearly have no understanding of the concept of infinity, adding something infinate (bigger than existance) to something else infinate still leaves you with the same thing. Even if 'another universe was created and another god created within that universe', infinity is still bigger than both universes and the same rules apply and the idea of a god being being created 'within' a universe defies the whole concept of 'divine architect'.

>>>> God by definition is an UNCREATED being. To ask why God cannot Create another God is the same as asking someone to draw a Triangle with Four sides. It is a Self-Contradictory question. A created being would always be Less than God because to be Created means that there is a Greater being who is the Creator. Thus the Created being Cannot be God.

>>>> DEFINE what you mean by God, and the apparent Paradox disappears. If anyone believes that he has proven something against God's existence by this Fallacious question shows that his knowlege of Logic is NIL.

>>>> For a fuller discussion of this question please visit http://truth-defined.com/24-GodAndBigRocks.htm --------- You will not find a better answer to this problem on the web.

By asking this question, we are already putting God or the Divine Being under a limit. We cannot simply pick up the Divine like a piece of a puzzle and view it from all sides. He is too big for that. Simply by asking the question, we are limiting his unlimited power. The Divine Being created the time and space scale, and so he has seen from the very start any problem we may attempt to present to him. We are in the time and space scale, and so we cannot with our mortal eyes see all that the Divine Being can see. The Divine Being is obviously a God of order, not of chaos. He has and order of things, but he is not within the law; the law is within him. He is above any such question, and he knew that we would ask it. However, the scale of "heaviness" cannot limit him, because He limits it.

(4) On July 22, 2008 at 6:12 pm Traz [83] said:

Moved from the main page:

A viewpoint from someone that doesn't contradict themselves:

All of the above sophistry aside...The rock question is a suitable question for displaying the inherent flaws of Christianity's dogmas. Either way you answer the question God ends up losing. The fact is that God's omnipotence gets him in a lot of trouble philosophically, as does his perfectness. Christianity has heard all of these arguments and has gone to great lengths to come up with ways of disproving all questions about God's existence with a kind of anti-philosophy that uses whatever kind of argument they think sticks in combating these inquiries. These often include:

• Referencing the Holy Bible as a factual source that supersedes any other written text on the subject. The fact is that this book is hardly created by God. It was written by men who were "inspired by God" when they wrote it. But there were tons more chapters that were left out of the Holy Bible when the definitive edition was set forth several hundred years ago. These "apocryphal" books were supposedly inspired by God as well, according to their authors. So hopefully the guys that chose the books we read today were also inspired by God to remove all the books that were apparently written by the minions of Old Scratch. But all that aside, the Bible contradicts itself in many places...just Google it to see for yourself. So how can this "flawless reference" still be so flawed? The Christian would say that any inconsistencies would be because of either; human error or because the flaw occurred in a parable or somesuch that wasn't meant to be taken literally. If it was human error that wrote that flaw then the book can not be considered a perfect reference. If the flaw was because of the use of a parables...then maybe the whole book is a parable and as such should not be taken literally, which again makes it a horrible reference.

• They try to talk around the question and start talking about how wrong it is without actually saying why it's wrong (as the above poster that is trying to push his website does in several places). Like when they said that we (people) cannot conceive of infinity and therefore cannot grasp how cool God is and therefore cannot grasp why the question does not work. However, I assert that I can conceive the notion of infinity. Just because I can't count higher than it doesn't prove that I have no grasp of it. We have a word for "infinity", we know some of the rules of infinity (like it's really hard to count higher than it), and we are starting to formulate some more abstract concepts regarding infinity like with modern physics and string theory...I'd say we have at least a minimal understand of infinity and likewise have a basis to judge God and his power.

• Another favorite is making statements that do not in fact refute the question at hand, but try to make them SOUND like they do. In addition they'll change the question a little bit and pretend like that helps refute the unmodified question. I'll use excerpts from the above to illustriate:

1. "the architect could just move the universe around it, which would mean that object still fulfills the prequisites of movement and 'God' is still omnipotent." No it wouldn't, it was the universe that moved, not the rock.

2. If he is God, he could make and do anything. How could you create the world but have a problem picking up a rock or anything else for that matter. You are in fact just restating the origional question and trying to "spin" it to look like it's self explanatory...which it is not

3. This is often referred to as the '''omnipotence paradox.''' Others consider this a logical fallacy. Thanks for reporting what "others" think, but that doesn't advance the answer much.

4. Without the force of gravity involved I think I could lift the rock for God. But the force of gravity IS involved, so why bother saying this?

I could continue to pick apart the above answer, but at this point it's overkill I think. I don't pretend to know whether or not God exists, although it does certainly seem unlikely.

So, in conclusion I'll just answer your question. Part 1: According to God's book and followers, no God can't create a rock that he can't pick up since he could move anything in the universe. Part 2: I don't see why God can't create another God...he should certainly be able to use his omnipotence to create another equally omnipotent being...I can't see why he couldn't anyway, unless he just hates competition.

(3) On July 18, 2008 at 8:28 pm Emdrgreg [671] said:

Look at the volume of silliness that this kind of question can generate! Some people really gave themselves a kind of intellectual work-out attempting to bring to light an unassailable argument in support of their positions. One difficulty that may not have been covered in any of the responses is possibly the greatest one. Our human systems of thought, logic and analysis are automatically assumed by us to be rigorous enough (or complete enough) to tackle any possible problem thrown at it. The apparently contradictory nature of the question may in fact say more about mathematical/logical systems than it could ever possibly say about God. I am way outside of my league when I presume to discuss mathematics at the level of 'completeness', but I can speculate that logic itself cannot be a 'complete system', since logic incorporates all of the postulates of arithmetic. Arithmetic is an 'incomplete system'. This will sound like nonsense to some and it is too complex to try to explain here. My understanding is that arithmetic is incomplete because it is possible to make an arithmetic argument or theorem that itself contains more information than all of the postulates of arithmetic put together. This is not a critique of arithmetic, but a testament to its never ending wonder. As an incomplete system, logic can and does run into these problematic statements that tantalize us with the possibility that there is perhaps a very basic postulate that is being violated, or that there is a truth beyond the postulates that we do not yet understand. I'm talking about the structure of logic, not the theological trappings of the question. These illogical statements could be expressions of the need for a deeper grasp of reality, not proof of some theological position.

(2) On June 02, 2008 at 00:06 am Mig15 [1] said:

Note: Mig15 changed "If God is omnipotent can He create something so heavy even He couldn't pick it up or can God create Himself?" to "Well if he wanted to I supose he could do that. Duh.If God is omnipotent can He create something so heavy even He couldn't pick it up or can God create Himself?".

See the Discussion for \"Well if he wanted to I supose he could do that. Duh.If God is omnipotent can He create something so heavy even He couldn't pick it up or can God create Himself?\"

(1) On March 18, 2008 at 01:03 am Nornoc [46] said:

Note: Nornoc changed "If God is so powerful can He create something so heavy even He couldn't pick it up or can God create Himself?" to "If God is omnipotent can He create something so heavy even He couldn't pick it up or can God create Himself?".

See the Discussion for \"If God is so powerful can He create something so heavy even He couldn't pick it up or can God create Himself?\"

Sign in to add your own comment. (This only takes a few seconds.)