If God were truly all-powerful...?

[Nois Forme]

So....logic is required....

I tend to think so, yes. It appears many (most?) religious students I've debated with and theologians I've read or listened to tend to think so as well. Though I did have at least one admit that he didn't necessarily think that god needed to operate within logical bounds, but in order to engage in debate at all, he had to go ahead and assume it was so (and that his prof suggested he approach it that way).

What if God is not altogether logical?

In my estimation? Theists would be in a world of hurt when it comes to attempting to argue rationally for their god.
Consider one possible conclusion we could arrive at if god does not operate within logical bounds; It is entirely possible for such a being to both exist, and not exist, simultaneously (something I don't think many theists want to grapple with).

I believe at least one argument for a logical god, was that all that we perceive about us, and within ourselves, seem to adhere to logic without exception, and that from this we should conclude a logical creator. I don't know that that necessarily follows, but that's the idea anyway.

What if this life and living is just one big joke.....
and some people just don't get it?

That is my conclusion at the end of most days. It's all rather absurd.

 

[Thief]

Touching on that notion of existence.....

To say 'I am'.....before the creation would be a bit of a.....trick?....
for lack of a better 'word'.

Having done so....creating that is....
Would He not be alone?....in a universe...'one word'....
that responds to His touch....
but does not really respond.

Would not the creating of 'individuals', be the next logical step?

 

[Nois Forme]

To say 'I am'.....before the creation would be a bit of a.....trick?....for lack of a better 'word'.

Indeed. The best trick ever performed, no doubt.

Having done so....creating that is....Would He not be alone?

I think you presume much - sentience for one. We witness various 'creation' sans sentience on a daily basis, as a blade of grass up through a crack in the concrete for example (unless you are some sort of animist of course). Why would this initial creation necessitate sentience?

...that responds to His touch....but does not really respond.

Fair enough I suppose (assuming its sentience for a moment), as (he) would be the only thing truly existing at that point. No response.

Would not the creating of 'individuals', be the next logical step?

Logical step? I'm not sure its existence would logically necessitate creation(?). Are you implying this deity at that point was...incomplete in some way? Perhaps even lonely?

But I feel we're on the verge of hijacking this thread.

 

[ellenjanuary]

Lifting assumes gravity and assumes a change in momentum. If all there is, is god and rock; then the change in momentum is to separate god from rock. Logically, in consideration of science, this doesn't happen. The gravitational field of one will attract the other. Unless, of course, god turns off gravity...

The only omni in the "rock dilemma," is omnisenselessness.

 

[PolyHedral]

Lifting assumes gravity and assumes a change in momentum. If all there is, is god and rock; then the change in momentum is to separate god from rock. Logically, in consideration of science, this doesn't happen. The gravitational field of one will attract the other. Unless, of course, god turns off gravity...

The only omni in the "rock dilemma," is omnisenselessness.

Why would God have a gravitational field?

 

[Civil Shephard]

Why would God have a gravitational field?

Gods gravitational field is that which draws all of us to get to know our Creator better. Jesus was lifted up to draw all humanity unto God not through awesome almighty power but through what most consider the very least effective motivator... sacrifice. And the gravity of that is sometimes more than we can bear or believe.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I like that... but you seem to have turned it around. Is the limit expressed what is limitless? or the power?

If I get the meaning of your question, it's both: the power of God to create a rock is the power when considering his ability to create rocks, but it's also the limit when considering his ability to resist the lifting of rocks.

Mathematically, we could look at the argument like this:

- take two values, A and B, both presumed infinite.
- is A > B?
- if yes, then B is not actually infinite.
- if no, then A is not actually infinite.

This doesn't make sense. If A is infinite, then B can be less than A and still be infinite. An infinite number minus a finite number is still an infinite number.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Lifting assumes gravity and assumes a change in momentum. If all there is, is god and rock; then the change in momentum is to separate god from rock. Logically, in consideration of science, this doesn't happen. The gravitational field of one will attract the other. Unless, of course, god turns off gravity...

Good point.

The question assumes that we're in a context where heaviness implies resistance to lifting (as well as a direction "up", since lifting is upward movement). If this relationship doesn't hold, then the whole question becomes as nonsensical as "can God create a rock so pink he can't stop it from growing feathers?"

 

[Willamena]

If I get the meaning of your question, it's both: the power of God to create a rock is the power when considering his ability to create rocks, but it's also the limit when considering his ability to resist the lifting of rocks.

Mathematically, we could look at the argument like this:

- take two values, A and B, both presumed infinite.
- is A > B?
- if yes, then B is not actually infinite.
- if no, then A is not actually infinite.

This doesn't make sense. If A is infinite, then B can be less than A and still be infinite. An infinite number minus a finite number is still an infinite number.

Look at it this way: a limit does, by definition, draw a boundary beyond which something cannot extend (is finite). We agree that a limitless limit is meaningless; but if I follow you correctly, it is not a limit that is actually at issue, but an ability. A power. The power to resist.

What you seemed to be saying, to me, is that the rock dilemma poses no real contradiction because resistence/counteracting is in itself a power. That's what I liked about it. I only took issue with the wording "a limitless limit isn't really a limit."

 

[Willamena]

Gods gravitational field is that which draws all of us to get to know our Creator better. Jesus was lifted up to draw all humanity unto God not through awesome almighty power but through what most consider the very least effective motivator... sacrifice. And the gravity of that is sometimes more than we can bear or believe.

Nice metaphor.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I only took issue with the wording "a limitless limit isn't really a limit."

What I meant by that is that a "limit" that's infinitely large doesn't actually limit you.

Say there's a brick wall across your path an infinite distance ahead of you. This means that you will run forever and then hit the wall... but "forever and then..." is meaningless; if you can run forever, then in any real sense, there is no limit to how far you can run.

 

[Willamena]

What I meant by that is that a "limit" that's infinitely large doesn't actually limit you.

Say there's a brick wall across your path an infinite distance ahead of you. This means that you will run forever and then hit the wall... but "forever and then..." is meaningless; if you can run forever, then in any real sense, there is no limit to how far you can run.

Okay, putting aside for the moment the definitional contradiction of an "infinitely large limit," this means you will run forever and never hit the wall.

You're talking about no limit, which, from another angle, can be seen to be not talking about a limit.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Okay, putting aside for the moment the definitional contradiction of an "infinitely large limit," this means you will run forever and never hit the wall.

You're talking about no limit, which, from another angle, can be seen to be not talking about a limit.

Yes, that's my point. This is like the "rock" dilemma:

- can you lift an infinitely heavy rock? Whether you can or can't, this doesn't imply a limit to your strength.
- can you create a rock unliftable by an infinitely powerful lifter? Whether you can or can't, this doesn't imply a limit to your rock creation ability.

 

[PolyHedral]

If I get the meaning of your question, it's both: the power of God to create a rock is the power when considering his ability to create rocks, but it's also the limit when considering his ability to resist the lifting of rocks.

Mathematically, we could look at the argument like this:

- take two values, A and B, both presumed infinite.
- is A > B?
- if yes, then B is not actually infinite.
- if no, then A is not actually infinite.

This doesn't make sense. If A is infinite, then B can be less than A and still be infinite. An infinite number minus a finite number is still an infinite number.

What about set theory? After all, if we consider the set of "everything an omnipotent God can do" as containing all possible actions, and every possible subset of those, then we run into a logical problem immediately: there is no set of actions God cannot do, including nothing at all, because every possible set of actions is doable.

 

[slowbreath]

I know this is an old and kind of silly paradox, but really think about it. It's a good question. If your god truly were all-powerful, could he create a rock he cannot lift? If not, he is not all powerful, and if he cannot lift it he is also not all-powerful.

what`s this now..........where is this rock that this god made that he cant lift? :sarcastic

 

[Dan4reason]

So why do you call it impossible when it can be done? You say it create a rock...then add 'which it can't move'? Aren't you already stripping it of it's omnipotence by adding 'which it cant move'?

The question is not assuming that a rock God can't move exists, it is simply asking whether God can make it. The question is whether God CAN make something that strips him of his omnipotence. It is not saying that there is indeed a rock which does strip him of his omnipotence.

Through reasoning and understanding of what omnipotence is, rather than stripping God of his omnipotence by assuming that such a rock exist, we realize that this rock is impossible. This is why I call the rock impossible. This is why this question is really asking whether the omnipotent and the impossible can coexist in reality.

If it can do all things, then wouldn't something it can't do be nothing? Meaning there is nothing it can't do? Or nothing is impossible?

If God can do all things then nothing should be on the list of things he can't do. This is why I say that either the omnipotent doesn't exist or the impossible doesn't exist. However, contrary to the idea that nothing is impossible, we face an impossible act when it comes to making a rock God can't move. Another impossible act according to many Christians is making humans in such a way that they are perfectly moral yet at the same time allowing them free will.

 

[ellenjanuary]

Why would God have a gravitational field?

All real, massy things have gravity. And if god is gonna put on a show, he's gonna be all big and stuff, no?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

What about set theory? After all, if we consider the set of "everything an omnipotent God can do" as containing all possible actions, and every possible subset of those, then we run into a logical problem immediately: there is no set of actions God cannot do, including nothing at all, because every possible set of actions is doable.

I think this just pushes the big question back one step. Is "God creates a rock so heavy he can't lift it" a member of the set of all possible actions?

Also, I think that looking at God's ability through set theory creates other strange issues, kinda like the problem of the catalog that lists all catalogs that don't list themselves. For instance, does the set of "actions God can do" include the negation of omnipotence? Can God fail? Can God render himself non-omnipotent?

 

[Dan4reason]

That's the definitional problem I referred to...

The question proves an example of the impossible (rock God can't move). The question is whether an omnipotent being can do the impossible. Either we strip the idea of a rock God can't move of its impossibility but then God would be stripped of his omnipotence, or you simply state that there is no such things as the omnipotent. The problem is not with the question but with the idea of the omnipotent.

Something that can be done is possible, therefore we'd not be agreeing that the impossible is possible, but rather that the possible is possible. But (by your definitions) for a being for whom there is nothing he can't do to bring about the circumstance of something he can't do is, by definition, the impossible. Contradiction occurs; logic stops here.

Your argument might be right but I can't quite see it. In my view there is only this contradiction between the omnipotent and the impossible if we assume that both exist. By logical necessity we must abandon one of the ideas. An act defying omnipotence is itself impossible so we know that the impossible exists and the omnipotent doesn't. The problem is not with logic itself but with the logic of an omnipotent being.

:tsk: Contradiction.

Well said. I will revise. If God is omnipotent then he can do everything and so the impossible doesn't exist.

Well, it's a priori, it can't actually prove... But fair enough.

I know that problems can arise with a priori arguments if they make hidden implicit assumptions like with the ontological argument but in this case the rock argument makes it case very well in my opinion.

A priori arguments in my opinion have the best change of proving anything. For example, all bachelors are unmarried men. This proves on its own point.

 

[Dan4reason]

There a plenty of rocks He cannot move......

the stubborn hearts of non-believers.

See you have just proven the impossible. Therefore an omnipotent being cannot exist.