The Rock

[A Deo et Rege]

I found this somewhat interesting and was wondering what you thought.

Can God create a rock so heavy that he cannot lift it?

- This question is often used as evidence against the existence of God. The argument goes like this:

•If God can create a rock too heavy to lift, then he is not omnipotent because he cannot lift a certain rock.

•If God cannot create a rock too heavy to lift, then he is not omnipotent because he is unable to create a certain rock.

Either way, he is not omnipotent, and therefore cannot exist, or at least can no longer be called God.

Superficially, this seems like a pretty damning argument against the existence of God, who is invariably described as omnipotent - nothing is beyond his power.

Nothing, that is, except the logically impossible. And I think that is where this argument falls down. It is asking whether or not God can do the logically impossible, which is a totally meaningless question, and therefore of no use one way or another.

For example, consider these similar questions :

•Can God make a vehicle which moves so fast that he cannot catch it?
•Can God draw a picture so small that he cannot see it?
•Can God bake a cake so large that he cannot eat it?
•Can God make a star so bright that he cannot look at it?

These could easily be used in place of the Heavy Rock question, but are unfortunately just as meaningless. Apart from the basic problem of where God would stand in order to lift the rock, or what the rock would itself stand on, the question amounts to "Can God do something that God cannot do?" or "Can God find the limits of his unlimited abilities?" which are logically incoherent. This is called a fallacy of Contradictory Premises, as one statement contradicts the other ("God's abilities are unlimited" vs. "God's abilities are limited").

You may as well ask

•Can God make a circular triangle?
•Can God create a colour that he cannot s***l?
•Can God formulate a proof of his own non-existence?
•Can God outrun himself?
•Can God cauliflower?

These questions can be asked, but just because a question can be asked does not mean that it has any value, or is deserving of any sort of response.

•What flavour is Thursday?

•Why do bananas enjoy driving tractors?

You can string a bunch of words together to make a syntactically valid question, but if the question is meaningless then what use is it? That, I think, is the case with the Heavy Rock dilemma - it is based on a logical impossibility ("Can God do what God cannot do?") and just becomes so much pointless word-play.

Even slightly more sophisticated examples like
Can God create a being equal to himself?
fall into the same trap. This one sounds good at first, but the problem here is that God is, allegedly, un-created. He has always existed. How could God create a being that has not been created? It appears valid at first, but God not being able to do something that cannot be done and is logically impossible is hardly evidence against God.

Another way of looking at it is like this:

1.Can God do the impossible?
~~~~~Yes (if you are referring to things that are simply impossible for nonomnipotent beings like us, like holding a picnic inside the sun).

2.Can God do the possible?
~~~~~Of course (although beings like us may not be able to).

3.Can God do the logically impossible?
~~~~~No, because they are not "there" to be done. Circular triangles and so on. The question itself is unlikely to make much sense.

The Heavy Rock question may work as an attention-getter, and waken the theist to the fact that people ask awkward questions about their deity. They may believe "With God, all things are possible", but you may make them understand that this does not include the logically impossible, and simply saying "God can do anything he wants to" doesn't cut the mustard. However, as a convincing proof against a God it fails pretty quickly. Atheists should realise the problems with it before relying on it in an argument, otherwise they are likely to be shot down in flames by any reasonably savvy opponent. There are far stronger and more coherent logical arguments against the existence of Gods (free will vs. omniscience, gratuitous evil vs. omnibenevolence, and so on).

Those who enter into "battle" with a Christian, wielding the Rock argument as their only weapon, are going to be about as successful as the naive young evangelist who thinks all he need do is say "Jesus loves you", and atheists will convert and rush to the nearest church like lemmings.

It's probably unusual for an atheist to criticise a commonly-used argument against God, but I really don't think the Rock problem is a valuable addition to our arsenal except maybe as a counter to the "God can do whatever the heck he likes" assertion.

If an omnipotent God exists, then it can do anything, as long as that action is logically possible.

What are your thoughts on this?

..)/\(
<Deo>
..)\/(

[Viva la Guevara]

i think alot of things are wrong about God that the church tells us.
For example i do not think God knows what happens in the future, only every thing that happens in the past. So i think he may be able to make a rock he cannot lift. I beleive God is a person, but with powers that we do not poses.
Sorta like a superhero...
but i love asking priests that question and watch them get worked up about it

[Whodododoman18]

see when i think about whether there is a god or not. i think mainstream religon and atheist both have it wrong. now there may be a god. but people definitely just didnt appear. evolution is real. if u dont believe it u should be killed. but that doesnt mean that the earth couldnt have been kickstarted along by some sort of superficial being. now with the rock statement. why in the first place would god create a rock to heavy to lift. now even if he can. wat does that do for us. why should i care whether or not gods ripped. see the problem with these questions is why? why? do u take the time out of day to come up with such nonsense. u know wat. if u can prove to me god can make a rock to heavy to lift then maybe i'd care. but to prove that. u would also have to find god.(who in an atheist's opinion doesnt exist). so pretty much u are contradicting urself even by askin the question. cause if there is a god. u cant belive in him to find out whether or not he could lift the so-called unliftable rock.

[Viva la Guevara]

if he could make a rock heavy enough he cant lift it i'd still be sure hes God
because he just made a fuckin rock appear.....

[Whodododoman18]

lol yea thats also true. or david copperfield. jk but seriously to ask a question such as that. wouldnt u have to believe in god just enough to know wat ur talking about. if there is no god. there is no rock he cant lift

[a2thae]

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.

Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.

Is he both able, and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?

Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God.

~Epicurus~ (around 33 A.D.)

[Viva la Guevara]

its free will remember??
were the ones doing evil and its our fault
and i dont beleive in the creation stroy but i think we still have free will
I dont think that God knows that when he made man he knew that in 2008 some guy is going to rape and kill a famiy of peoplethat does make him omnipotent but i beleive he still had some help in making man

[Whodododoman18]

see i dont really think he helped to much in the making of man in the way our bodys are. but more of the way we think. i think that we cant see or communicate with god directly because we havent evovled enough mentally to understand the knowledge he could give. imagine if edison was born with the same idea in the 1600"s he would probably be killed for blasphemy or witchcraft.

[Viva la Guevara]

i think he help in the creation of the universe
then we evolved and became a race and he relized what we become

[Whodododoman18]

yea that makes more sense

[crazyassmetalhead]

atheist arguments can be as childish and silly as a religious person's.
i have the attitude now that if there is a god it doesn't change shit, the world still sucks and the existence of a god doesn't matter to me in the day to day sense. if there isn't a god then nothing changes still.

arguing with a religious person you will see that they will cling to whatever they were taught no matter how logically you tear it down because they have "faith". and the atheist will continue because they are insistent on things being "logical". making the religious person look stupid will only make their ignorant faith stronger, and as they continue to argue with the religious person the atheist's logic proves to be truer. but neither will give in which is why such discussions are usually so pointless to begin with.

[a2thae]

atheist arguments can be as childish and silly as a religious person's.
i have the attitude now that if there is a god it doesn't change shit, the world still sucks and the existence of a god doesn't matter to me in the day to day sense. if there isn't a god then nothing changes still.

arguing with a religious person you will see that they will cling to whatever they were taught no matter how logically you tear it down because they have "faith". and the atheist will continue because they are insistent on things being "logical". making the religious person look stupid will only make their ignorant faith stronger, and as they continue to argue with the religious person the atheist's logic proves to be truer. but neither will give in which is why such discussions are usually so pointless to begin with.

There is a word for that. Your agnostic. Oh, and you seem a little pessimistic. or maybe just sadistic. Actually you seem apathetic.

anyway im gonna go sleep now.

[crazyassmetalhead]

nihilist seems to fit better

[Whodododoman18]

so wat ur saying is that u have no belief in morals, like right and wrong.

[A Deo et Rege]

Now I would like to add a little twist to the debate in order make things a little more interesting. :D

One possible objection to this line of reasoning is "God is not bound by the rules of logic, as he created logic, therefore he can do the logically impossible as they are only logically impossible from our point of view". If this were the case, however, it would seem to be impossible for anyone to ever know anything about God at all, or attempt to understand him using reason and logic. It would make no sense for any theist to attempt to describe the character of their god as, for instance "good, merciful and loving" because there would be no reason to think that this could be true. You could not say, for example, that God is good because he has healed a person, as an illogical God could just as easily have done it for any reason at all other than goodness - by our standards it might appear to be "good", but that would be no reason to assume that it was good as far as God was concerned.

That should make the debate a bit more interesting.......

..)/\(
<Deo>
..)\/(

[crazyassmetalhead]

i have more or less a personal code. but i also think right and wrong are whatever we make them.

[Whodododoman18]

so pretty much wat ur saying is that god could have only healed a person to drag out their suffering later on. so it would make god look good for the most part. but really god could be a sadistic asshole?

alright i got wat u mean crazy.

[crazyassmetalhead]

well if you ever read the bible gods a real dick in most of it. he gets pissed and kills people and he sounds like an insecure control freak. and does a lot of sadistic shit to test the faith of his followers and such. why would an all powerful being really give a fuck, and why would he give free will if that's not really what he wants. idk last time i opened a bible was for rolling paper.

but i should read up a bit considering a lot of it is contradictory bullshit that can hurt any nagging christian's arguement. but then again i can put a knife to their throat and ask them if god loves them then why would he let me kill them like this. but that's mean. and illegal.

[Whodododoman18]

its only illegal if u get caught. and maybe he only cares cause hes honestly got nothin better to do.lol and why not test ur peoples. if they pass then u still have some wat of a reason not to destroy them all

[crazyassmetalhead]

it seems like his "chosen people" are the ones who get ass fucked by the world on a somewhat regular basis (by the bablyonians, egyptians, romans, nazis, muslims)

but then again every religion is the chosen religion, everyone's god is the right one (or gods) and you're wrong if you disagree

idk where im going with this.

[Whodododoman18]

no it totally makes sense wat u mean. everyone thinks they are gods chosen people. when in fact god most likely doesnt have a chosen people. look at the jews. they've been fucked over since the beginning but arent they gods people. i think its more of a "whose day should i make great today?" type shit

[numerator-91]

faith and religion are mans way of explaining what science hasn't caught up to.
however i do like this one thought. 'free will' is not really free will. how can man choose his own way when his only options are 'eternal bliss and enlightenment' or 'eternal damnation' not much of a choice if you ask me. if you are a true christian than any sin you commit (and there are alot) that you do not repent for.....your fucked. i'm fairly certain that there are plenty of people who have sinned and not confessed or may have simply forgot. so our omnipotent enlightened being sends them all to hell. it can only be considered free will if gods not fuckin with our choices one way or another.

[exial]

Can God create a rock so heavy that he cannot lift it?- deo

i disagree with deos argument. simply becuz:
god being the impossible master can create a rock to heavy for him to move. but you are thinking physical, in gods realm there is no physical. so the question is really irrelevant i think. I mean why would a master of all creation live in a physical world. and that question is ying yang dude. its a quest for a impossible deed. BUT what really makes this argument not worth the time, is the fact that we are drawing conclusions of what and what not god is possible of achieveing. the problem with this argument is that its one sided, im pritty sure deo if u had a conversation with god bout this whole rock argument, he would give u a reason why and why not it is possible for HIM. otherwise the whole rock argument is one sided. and isnt even a legit argument.

[Viva la Guevara]

well if you ever read the bible gods a real dick in most of it. he gets pissed and kills people and he sounds like an insecure control freak. and does a lot of sadistic shit to test the faith of his followers and such. why would an all powerful being really give a fuck, and why would he give free will if that's not really what he wants. idk last time i opened a bible was for rolling paper.

but i should read up a bit considering a lot of it is contradictory bullshit that can hurt any nagging christian's arguement. but then again i can put a knife to their throat and ask them if god loves them then why would he let me kill them like this. but that's mean. and illegal.

the creation story says we made free will but that story is not logical at the least.
Jesus was god only he was half human.
he never harmed or sacrificed anyone and he was still God

[A Deo et Rege]

Can God create a rock so heavy that he cannot lift it?- deo

i disagree with deos argument. simply becuz:
god being the impossible master can create a rock to heavy for him to move. but you are thinking physical, in gods realm there is no physical. so the question is really irrelevant i think. I mean why would a master of all creation live in a physical world. and that question is ying yang dude. its a quest for a impossible deed. BUT what really makes this argument not worth the time, is the fact that we are drawing conclusions of what and what not god is possible of achieveing. the problem with this argument is that its one sided, im pritty sure deo if u had a conversation with god bout this whole rock argument, he would give u a reason why and why not it is possible for HIM. otherwise the whole rock argument is one sided. and isnt even a legit argument.

I have one question; did you even read the entire first post? If you had read the first post you would know that I had already made the statement that the rock question is illogical and thus a meaningless question. I even went as far as to compare the question of "Can God create a rock so heavy that he cannot lift it?" to the question "What flavour is Thursday?"; both of these questions are syntactically valid question, but both are illogical and thus should not even be dignified with a response--to ask them is a waste of time.


..)/\(
<Deo>
..)\/(

[exial]

then why ask?

[iZen]

When it comes to God, be it the Judeo-Christian God or any other God. I look at God as kind of like a parent figure. Yes, God is the creator, but God does not have to be omipotent or have limitless power. God is the creator of all, but God cannot neccisarily control every aspect of the things created. A parent can create a child, but they can only control the child as long as the child is willing to be controlled.

[A Deo et Rege]

then why ask?

Exactly, I never asked the question--per se. I was just trying to point out why the illogical question was only a question in syntax, and was not a valid question deserving of a response.

..)/\(
<Deo>
..)\/(

[numerator-91]

i asked one of the hardcore bible thumping teachers today and they had nothing, it was mildly amusing.

[exial]

Exactly, I never asked the question--per se. I was just trying to point out why the illogical question was only a question in syntax, and was not a valid question deserving of a response.

..)/\(
<Deo>
..)\/(

yea alright. it is a interesting question though..

[ramalamafafafa]

Well, before i say anything, i should point out that i do NOT belive in the existance of a supreme being (ie:God), And therefore, in my eyes, all Bibles and religious texts are a load of shit.

Anyway, The "heavy rock" question creates a parodox, well, it highlights a parodox which exists in most religions. As we all know, paradoxes do not exist in science, therefore, any scientific person would dismiss the existance of god. I think the "heavy rock" question serves to poke a rather large gaping hole in Christianity's core belief (An all powerfull god). But you need to have a "back-up" arguement, or a christian with brains (highly unlikly) will find a way out of you're loop. Most of em will just get real pissed, which is amusing.

P.S When I was at school, The Arseholes handed out a bunch of Minature bibles.............turns out the paper in 'em is a rather good thickness for a spliff............................................ ........

[exial]

lol..no mercy this guy

[Viva la Guevara]

why do we give a fuck if god can lift a heavy rock?

[CHEETZzz]

i asked one of the hardcore bible thumping teachers today and they had nothing, it was mildly amusing.

lol in every thread there's like one post that's hilarious.

I'm an agnostic so i choose to not associate myself with or care about most of this... it's an interesting read, but i don't think it'll ever go anywhere...

I think it was crazyassmetalhead who said he just sticks to his own code of morals? I also do this. If I think something has no reason to be considered wrong, then why should it be?

I'm not going to change my beliefs to fit or follow a system of someone else's....

However, when I find something relevant or thought-provoking, I may adopt it or add my own interpretation of it to my own ideas. Such as when i read Deo's posts, lol :D

[ramalamafafafa]

why do we give a fuck if god can lift a heavy rock?

Because it can be used to confuse asshole "moral majority" types.

[Viva la Guevara]

/V\(^(oo)^)/V\
piggy!!
and ok then
can god microwave a burrito so hot that himself can not consume it?
mwahahahahaaa

[ramalamafafafa]

Nah, hes probably got one of those cool microwaves that sences the heat of the food....i wonder what brand god eats.....Old El Paso???????

[A Deo et Rege]

Well, before i say anything, i should point out that i do NOT belive in the existance of a supreme being (ie:God), And therefore, in my eyes, all Bibles and religious texts are a load of shit.

Anyway, The "heavy rock" question creates a parodox, well, it highlights a parodox which exists in most religions. As we all know, paradoxes do not exist in science, therefore, any scientific person would dismiss the existance of god. I think the "heavy rock" question serves to poke a rather large gaping hole in Christianity's core belief (An all powerfull god). But you need to have a "back-up" arguement, or a christian with brains (highly unlikly) will find a way out of you're loop. Most of em will just get real pissed, which is amusing.

P.S When I was at school, The Arseholes handed out a bunch of Minature bibles.............turns out the paper in 'em is a rather good thickness for a spliff............................................ ........

I beg to differ; I present to you a scientific paradox:

There are an infinite number of positions defined by any finite movement.
Let movement from one position to the next be called an 'act'.
An infinite number of acts cannot be completed in a finite amount of time.
An infinite number of acts cannot even be started.
Thus movement cannot be started or completed.
Movement is an illusion.

..)/\(
<Deo>
..)\/(

[numerator-91]

I beg to differ; I present to you a scientific paradox:

There are an infinite number of positions defined by any finite movement.
Let movement from one position to the next be called an 'act'.
An infinite number of acts cannot be completed in a finite amount of time.
An infinite number of acts cannot even be started.
Thus movement cannot be started or completed.
Movement is an illusion.

..)/\(
<Deo>
..)\/(

thats why from the beginning of all existence everything has been moving. and everything will continue to move until until the end of time.

by everything i mean all matter.

[Kasnia]

I just read through this for the first time, and I must say that you impressed me Deo. I agree with how you stated things, and thanks telling people that you can't do things that are logically impossible. I'd heard about the rock thing ages ago, and it's really just silly that people say such things. Like I said, you impressed me Deo. I can't say anything you haven't already said.

[a2thae]

thats why from the beginning of all existence everything has been moving. and everything will continue to move until until the end of time.

by everything i mean all matter.

If you are agreeing with Deo's paradox everything is an illusion. But does that apply to antimatter? (Err is antimatter stationary?)

[numerator-91]

sort of. .

[exial]

I beg to differ; I present to you a scientific paradox:

There are an infinite number of positions defined by any finite movement.
Let movement from one position to the next be called an 'act'.
An infinite number of acts cannot be completed in a finite amount of time.
An infinite number of acts cannot even be started.
Thus movement cannot be started or completed.
Movement is an illusion.

..)/\(
<Deo>
..)\/(


WAT!?
An illusion...so we are in sort of illusionary world? or is the world there but the movements/acts done by it are illusion?

[Viva la Guevara]

Nah, hes probably got one of those cool microwaves that sences the heat of the food....i wonder what brand god eats.....Old El Paso???????

lmfao

fuck, maybe were just all an illusion
which means none of you exist....im all alone

[straightedgepunk123]

Yes we all know that when you leave your room it disappears, and that we are all a dream of some demon somewhere (I think that was D'Carte), but here's an argument I use often (It's an atheistic one). God serves the purpose of a creator, because he always existed so he was there to create everything, right? Well in that case, you have to state that it is indeed possible for something (god) to have always existed. Therefor there is no need of a creator because then the universe could have always existed, and it is more logical for something to have always existed than to have this middle man "creator" that always existed to be there to create the universe.

[numerator-91]

Yes we all know that when you leave your room it disappears, and that we are all a dream of some demon somewhere (I think that was D'Carte), but here's an argument I use often (It's an atheistic one). God serves the purpose of a creator, because he always existed so he was there to create everything, right? Well in that case, you have to state that it is indeed possible for something (god) to have always existed. Therefor there is no need of a creator because then the universe could have always existed, and it is more logical for something to have always existed than to have this middle man "creator" that always existed to be there to create the universe.

i said something along those lines at school and was moved to the remedial religion class. it was the funnest class i ever had............i miss school

[Viva la Guevara]

Yes we all know that when you leave your room it disappears, and that we are all a dream of some demon somewhere (I think that was D'Carte), but here's an argument I use often (It's an atheistic one). God serves the purpose of a creator, because he always existed so he was there to create everything, right? Well in that case, you have to state that it is indeed possible for something (god) to have always existed. Therefor there is no need of a creator because then the universe could have always existed, and it is more logical for something to have always existed than to have this middle man "creator" that always existed to be there to create the universe.

not defending christianity (much)
but maybe god just didnt create the universe untill a certain time
there could of been a time were there wasnt a universe...

[straightedgepunk123]

maybe god just didnt create the universe untill a certain time there could of been a time were there wasnt a universe...

What would be "god's" incentive to wait to create the universe? It is more logical to have the universe always exist, because in the past, when a supernatural explanation was weighed against a natural one, the natural one has a much better track record of being true.

Edit: One more thing before I leave for three days. If god can operate outside logic, then why would he create us with the logic intuition?

[A Deo et Rege]

The majority of scientist agree that there was a point before the universe began in which there was absolutely nothing--a point at which time did not exist. In other words the universe as we know it was just an empty void.


..)/\(
<Deo>
..)\/(

[numerator-91]

that shit hurts the brain

[superflysuperwhite]

not really its actually pretty easy to understand i mean the universe is expanding, if it allways existed it ould be just a solid state universe (theres an actual name for it but i forget, instine was a big supporter of the theory) but when you revrse the expansion you eventually come to where the universe began.


this, i beileve can quite possible support a "god" think of it like this.

a fireworks maker, makes the fire work right, now he has a pretty good idea of what its gonna look like when it explodes because of how he put it together. Now he does personally go and move all those lights and stuff when it does explode. he baiscally just lights the fuse.

so i kind of see it as "god" made a little firework but with "gods" amazing :god" powers that thing blew the fuck up.

[BASSic]

no thats some crafty thinking =] i like it.
what happens if an unstoppable object hits an unmovable object

[straightedgepunk123]

not really its actually pretty easy to understand i mean the universe is expanding, if it allways existed it ould be just a solid state universe (theres an actual name for it but i forget, instine was a big supporter of the theory) but when you revrse the expansion you eventually come to where the universe began.


this, i beileve can quite possible support a "god" think of it like this.

a fireworks maker, makes the fire work right, now he has a pretty good idea of what its gonna look like when it explodes because of how he put it together. Now he does personally go and move all those lights and stuff when it does explode. he baiscally just lights the fuse.

so i kind of see it as "god" made a little firework but with "gods" amazing :god" powers that thing blew the fuck up.


I think that qualifies you as a deist (many of the American founding fathers, including Ben Franklin, were deists), which is something I can actually respect. Why would an omnipotent "god" be so absorbed in the activities in this little world anyways?

[superflysuperwhite]

I think that qualifies you as a deist (many of the American founding fathers, including Ben Franklin, were deists), which is something I can actually respect. Why would an omnipotent "god" be so absorbed in the activities in this little world anyways?

exactly i believ in "God" just not religion.

[a2thae]

Deists believed that god's only gift was the gift of reason... And it was our job to maintain order in our lives. I'll support deism over christianity anyday though. I think superflysuperwhite is sort of a deist I wouldn't really classify him as that though, there is probably a more specific term.

[straightedgepunk123]

Deists believed that god's only gift was the gift of reason... And it was our job to maintain order in our lives. I'll support deism over christianity anyday though. I think superflysuperwhite is sort of a deist I wouldn't really classify him as that though, there is probably a more specific term.

I thought that deists believed that a "god" made the universe, then retired. I still don't believe this, but it does make loads more sense than the more theological alternative.