God

[D.G.W.T.H.]

If God was all powerful, could he create a rock so big that even he couldn't move it?

[alawibaz]

god is powerfull to have created this world. To him this world is like a small ping pong ball. A rock even the heaviest would be like a small ant to him. from that take a hint;

[Bsharp]

Aliwaz - thats not the point. The problem with the question is that if God cannot create a rock too heavy for him to move then there is something he canot do (ie create the rock), but if he can create it there is something he cannot do (move the rock). Either way there is something God cannot do and he therefore not all powerful.

[ludwig]

Yes he could. But as as he hasn't done it yet, there's still nothing he can't do. Therefore he is all powerful.

[alawibaz]

Bsharp god has created everything including the heaviest rock. To mankind we think that rock are heavy, But to God nothing is heavy. He can create a mountain the most heaviest on top of you, no man can remove it but the powerful one and i think you would not like that to happen would you? he has power to melt the mountains with lava from volcanoes so if that is not power then what is?

[tomd]

He couldn't create a rock too heavy for himself to lifty, and with a bit of concrete and water I could do that. That means I can do something God can't.

[wampuskat]

That kind of question comes from pure ignorance. God is God, and God can do anything He wants just because of the simple fact that He is God. There would be no point in making a rock too heavy. It's not like God is bored and has to test his strength. You obviously need to test your own strength IN God.

[el duerino]

you lost me wampuskat. is that a yes or a no?

[tomd]

I think he was agreeing with me.

[PunkyD20391]

God can do ANYTHING! there's the answer to your question.

[RevShirls]

Ooooh it's that old question! Have heard similar questions before and they are really a matter of semantics and definitions. It reminds me also of the Ontological Argument for the proof of God by Anselm. Anselm said: "God is that than which no greater can be conceived. That than which no greater can be conceived must exist, therefore God exists." It was one of those arguments that drove people crazy. They tried to disprove it (by replacing the term "unicorn" etc) - but couldn't. It is really a logical argument of words and definitions. As for your question, I have considered this type of question in the past. One answer that I have is that the concept of omnipotence is beyond our understanding. Another I have thought about �s that the very fact that an omnipotent God can not create a rock so big that he can't move it, is an indication of his omnipotence, rather than the opposite. Or arguing from the fuzzy realm of quantum physics, it could be said that God could create such a rock but when he tried to lift it he would be able to lift it. I know this sounds illogical - but quantum physicist should understand what I mean here. There are a lot of apparent contradictions in the world of quantum physics. One of the theories is that people/things/objects/particles/atoms/ always have options before them. It is only when they make the decision that the decision becomes fixed in time/space etc. It's very complicated and I'm not explaining it well - but by this theory, a god who is omnipotent could create something that he could not move, but when it came to lifting it he would then be faced by new options including the option to lift it. Phew! The type of problem you listed is fun to ponder over from time to time.

[el duerino]

if the end result is that god can lift the stone, then he cannot make one so heavy he cannot lift - its that simple. As for Anselm - this is one of the contradictions which the church, especially in more unenlightened times, used to confuse the average noble/peasant/king into submission. Personally, I find nothing in that argument. It merely defines our 'non-conception' of a power as god. If I haven't conceived it, it doesn't exist to me. Each time I conceive beyond my prior conception, I remove god from that place. god is forever running from my increasing conception. actually i rather like that :)

[RevShirls]

I've got to challenge you here, el duerino, much as I admire your discussions here. You say "it's that simple". That shows me that you are still stuck in empirical science whereas physics has moved into the realm of quantum theories. In the quantum realm, scientists would say that the emirical approach to science is too limiting and restrictive. Human imagination seems now to be the guideline when building up models of the universe and the world. Also, although I think Anselm just plays with words to come up with a theory/proof and I don't hold much with this, his argument is clever and you seem to be perverting the grounds of it here. He is saying that the greatest thing we can conceive of is God. If a rat was the greatest thing we could conceive of, then the rat would be God, according to Anselm's argument.

[el duerino]

I'm tempted to report your post just for disagreeing with me :) I have a slightly more advanced understanding of quantum physics than the man on the street - enough to knnow that even in quantum physics, something cannot be one thing AND another. Light, for example, is both energy packets and a continuous wave, but it is not a conflicting situation. It is not light AND darkness. Quantum physics will not enlighten us where the answer is 1 or 0. He can or he can't - perhaps it is your conception of time that is limiting you here rev. If he can, then he can, it will not matter if he can't in the future - do you see? If it is true even for a split second, the premise holds true. If he then came to lift it and lifted it - the reverse situation would be correct. I do not believe the answer to this particular philosophical problem lies in the still expanding world of quantum physics. As for Anselm - heaven forbid I pervert a 12th century word game :) Does this not merely suggest to you that god then is limited by the human mind - in effect, god comes from within not externally. If we cannot conceive him, he does not exist. If we can conceive him, he is limited by our conception. Hope I am making myself clear, easy to end up twisting yourself into knots in this kind of thing :)

[RevShirls]

Yield not to temptation, wise one :) Which man on the street would that be? (I jest) I can agree with your observations re the split second, but I hadn't realised the question was limited to the split second :) - and before you reply and say that the split second would mean that God is not omnipotent at all, I will give you my more serious answer about this question, which I hinted at briefly in my first posting. D.G.W.T.H.'s question is a logical impossibility. If God is omnipotent, then no rock exists that he cannot lift and to create one would be logically impossible - just like creating a round square. As for god (or rather our concept of god) being limited by the human mind, what isn't? If we cannot conceive him, he does not exist as far as we are concerned - that's true but does not necessarily mean he doesn't exist in reality. And it is definitely true that if we can conceive of him that he is limited by our understanding - everything does, that is logical. In knots here too - where's the whisky!

[Thomas]

Watch out disbelievers, its HOT down there....

[RevShirls]

hmm thanks for the tip, Thomas. It's always good to get info from people who have been there and have come back to tell the tale!

[el duerino]

Ah whisky, now thats my kind of saviour ;) Hmmmm - so is god bound by logic then? Again if this is the case then he is not omnipotent. I could then ask - can god make a round square? If you say yes, does this mean he has merely changed the laws of the universe so that a square is round, or that he has created a round square? One implies omnipotence the other does not imo. But anyway, I have yet to hear a satisfactory answer to the stone question yet. So, if we cannot conceive of god, then he cannot exist to us. But he can exist apart from us. However, if we conceive of him, then he is limited by our conception. But if he does not exist to us, is he then omnipotent? Is he really everywhere if we do not conceive him? Moreso, is a father who does not exist still a father? Can god really fulfill the role proclaimed to us by the church if we cannot conceive him. And if we can conceive him, can he really be the omnipotent being suggested? Better make mine a double :) P.s Thomas, I need to top up my tan anyway.

[jenstar]

I liked this site better when it didn't have these crazy Americans on it. I don't know what it is that Crystal Guides Ltd have done to promote this site to Americans, but the result is dozens of these silly questions about God and Creation and all that other nonsense. The site is sinking under the weight of all this kindergarten stuff.

[RevShirls]

please don't commit the unforgiveable sin here and call me an american, jenstar :) Scottish here!

[RevShirls]

I would say that if God is omnipotent, it seems that he has chosen to limit himself with logic. Difficult to say, really, since our thinking tends to be limited by logic. I tend to believe that God's inability to contradict his nature does not mean that he isn't omnipotent. What I meant by saying "If we cannot conceive him, he does not exist as far as we are concerned" is that God may exist but if an individual cannot conceive of him, then according to the individual's perspective, God does not exist. An example of this point could be that a remote tribe somewhere in the world (or even my granny), may not be able to conceive of a computer. That doesn't mean that computers don't exist - but that they don't exist in the perception of those who have no conception of them. El duerino, you have a knack of being able to get me to rise to the bait in such discussions. Distracts me from work...maybe that's not a bad thing :)