Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Omnipotence

2017-10-15T13:26:01Z

Birdman DSL: Reply to content addition

Why does this entry contain a random anecdote/aside about a rock? It feels out of place. This entry would be better served focusing on the objective viewpoint on omnipotence, and not a random story. --[[User:WOVcenter|WOVcenter]] 18:21, 10 March 2007 (EST)

"The problem with the argument is that it is a nonsense request, akin to asking if God can create a green smile or a fast tree. There simply is no such thing."

Couldn't God, in his unlimited power, create such a thing? That was always my understanding... [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 01:40, 15 May 2008 (EDT)
: Create ''what'' "such a thing". The point you are responding to says that there simply is no such thing. So you're claiming that God, in his unlimited power, could create such a non-thing! Huh? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:53, 15 May 2008 (EDT)
:: Well, wielding unlimited power, he most certainly could create such a thing or "non-thing", don't you agree? [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 05:56, 15 May 2008 (EDT)
::: No. When you create, you create ''something''. When you create a "non-thing", you are creating ''nothing''. That is, you are ''not creating''. So you're basically saying that a Being with unlimited power is capable of creating ''nothing''. Well sure, we are all capable of creating ''nothing''!
::: To put it another way, to create a house requires a certain amount of power (and other things). To create a skyscraper requires more. To create a universe requires almost unlimited power. But creating a green smile doesn't require ''more power'', it requires suspension of meaning of words. So it doesn't matter how much ''power'' a being has, because ''power'' is not what is required to create a green smile.
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:17, 15 May 2008 (EDT)
:::: Ah, I see. I misunderstood your usage of "non-thing". I still believe it is quite possible for God to create a green smile or a fast tree, insofar as he has infinite power. They also most certainly are things, insofar as they are recognizable nouns described by adjectives. Just because we could not conceive them in imagination or reality doesn't mean that God could not create them. To say otherwise would imply a limit to God's power. [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 23:15, 15 May 2008 (EDT)
::::: Being "recognizable nouns described by adjectives" doesn't mean that they are things. That is, if the adjectives are not applicable to those nouns, then the ''combination'' is nonsense, not something. It's nothing to do with a limited imagination; it's to do with the meaning of words. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:31, 15 May 2008 (EDT)
:::::: They are not things yet, but they could be things, unless you are going to argue that is not within God's power, which considering where we are, I heavily doubt. God could ''make'' those adjectives applicable to those nouns. He could also alter the meaning of words if He so chose to. [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 23:44, 15 May 2008 (EDT)
::::::: I've already argued that power is not the issue. Yes, God could alter the meaning of words, but then so can we. Just suppose that we alter the meaning of "green smile" to refer to a "40-page book" (if you are going to alter the meaning of words, they don't have to bear any resemblance to the original meanings). Then yes, God could create a 40-page book, which we've decided to label a "green smile". But again, ''we'' could also do that: it's not something that requires ''power'', all it requires is changing the meaning of words. So He hasn't really created a "green smile" at all. Rather, He's created a "40-page book", which He or we have decided to label a "green smile". In other words, we've not just changed the meaning of words, we've change the original claim. So we could also change the meaning of "rock so large he could not lift it" to mean "pizza", and therefore ask "Can God create a pizza"? In the case the answer is yes, but we've completely discarded the point of the original question. That is, we haven't answered the question, we've changed the question by changing the meaning of words. The problem with the original question is that it is nonsense. You can't deny that it's nonsense by changing it to something that is not nonsense. If anything, by doing so you've implicitly confirmed that the original question ''was'' nonsense. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:29, 16 May 2008 (EDT)
:::::::: So the only way God could create a "green smile" is if he changes the meaning of the words? That seems a bit odd and limiting for an omnipotent being. [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 13:47, 16 May 2008 (EDT)
::::::::: Your response is an "argument from incredulity", and not an answer, which it seems that you don't have. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:53, 16 May 2008 (EDT)
:::::::::: Oh, the answer is quite simple. God could create a rock so heavy He could not lift it, and He could still lift it. This is part of the wonder of God, that His power and His capability extend far beyond anything we can assign logic to or even comprehend. I'm surprised the article doesn't observe the same. [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 23:59, 16 May 2008 (EDT)
::::::::::: So it's "part of the wonder of God" that he is illogical and self-contradictory? Sorry, I don't accept that, and contrary to biblical teaching that God is consistent. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:48, 17 May 2008 (EDT)
:::::::::::: I never said he was either of those things. You're putting words in my mouth, and they taste quite poorly. [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 15:15, 17 May 2008 (EDT)
::::::::::::: You didn't say it explicitly, but that is the consequence of what you said. If God can create a rock that is too heavy for Him to lift, but He can lift it—that's self-contradictory. The "solution" is not to blindly argue that God can do anything so therefore He must be able to do it. The solution is to point out that the proposal is nonsense masquerading as a serious proposal. I'll change the subject a little and ask you some questions: Can God lie? Can God do evil? Can God contradict Himself? If you answer "no" to any of these questions, you are being inconsistent with your earlier comments. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:10, 17 May 2008 (EDT)
:::::::::::::: If God has omnipotent power, He most certainly has the ability to contradict Himself - after all, we do it all the time. And yes, if God has omnipotent power, He certainly can lie, do evil or contradict Himself. Obviously, He said He will not, but to claim He has omnipotence yet cannot do those things is rather ridiculous. I hope you aren't making said claim. [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 23:23, 17 May 2008 (EDT)
::::::::::::::: Again, it is not power that allows one to contradict oneself. Yes, I am making that claim, if for no other reason than the Bible makes it! See also [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/5566 here] and a lengthy discussion on this topic [[Debate:Could God create a rock so heavy that he himself could not lift it?|here]]. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:48, 18 May 2008 (EDT)
:::::::::::::::: So how does a being who does not have the power to lie, do evil or contradict itself have omnipotent power? That's a pretty gaping flaw in your argument, even if you created the point of your argument through interpretation of the Bible. Additionally, since contradiction is an action, I'm not really sure how you can say that power has nothing to do with it? All beings are defined at least in part by their power to take certain actions. [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 16:20, 18 May 2008 (EDT)
::::::::::::::::: That reply seems to indicate that you didn't actually read the links, because at least some of that is answered there. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:47, 18 May 2008 (EDT)
:::::::::::::::::: Regarding whether God cannot lie due to being the embodiment of truth, correct me if I'm mistaken, but didn't he already know that there weren't even 10 innocents in Sodom and Gomorrah long before he was even confronted with the decision to destroy it, yet he STILL had an investigation occur at Abraham's request? That sounds a lot like God outright lied to him. Long story short, if he actually couldn't lie, he'd outright tell him there weren't any innocents there besides Lot and his family, making even attempting to barter with God downright impossible precisely because, being omniscient, not to mention omnipotent, he'd KNOW there weren't any and would refuse to make any statements contradicting this stance, not even to ease Abraham's mind, and if anything mind-rape him into submission showing him exactly how there weren't any innocents beyond Lot's family. So, not only CAN God lie, he actually DID in the Bible (last I checked, willfully misrepresenting facts is the definition of lying, anti-Truth in other words), ESPECIALLY if we're going to claim he's omniscient and omnipotent. [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 05:22, 21 July 2017 (EDT)
:::::::::::::::::Pokeria I hope this finds you well. Maybe something that God is trying to tell Abraham is that up to the time of Judgment, it's never too late to repent. And instead of looking at the situation as a consequence of Fate, he and his household afterwards should remember to confront like situations as opportunities to turn back from their sins, not to be carried along with them. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) 08:14, 21 July 2017 (EDT)
If God is omnipotent, then he should be able to create another omnipotent being. If God and his creation were to have an arm-wrestle, each trying to win, who would? [[User:JimAB|JimAB]] 19:18, 27 May 2011 (EDT)
:In physics, biology, math, logic, epistemology, etc., the only way for a primary to result in another primary is if there is no such thing as a primary: anything mistaken as 'primary' can result in another 'primary'. But, if, in epistemology there is no primary, then there is nothing, not even a primary object of knowledge (i.e., God) [[User:PatternOfPersona|PatternOfPersona]] 22:40, 30 June 2011 (EDT)

== Adding a Link to the Omnipotence Page ==

I have a website titled [http://stoneparadox.org stoneparadox.org] that deals with the Omnipotence Paradox (specifically the ''Stone Paradox'') which offers a counter-paradoxical resolution to the original paradox. It takes the twisted use of paradoxical logic that the Stone Paradox uses to eliminate omnipotence and ironically turns it around to eliminate the Stone Paradox. The only logical conclusion that can be drawn is that a paradox is unable to establish the existence (or non-existence) of anything at all. 
It's called the "Circular God Counter-paradox" and is the #1 answer to the [https://www.quora.com/Can-god-make-a-rock-so-heavy-that-he-couldn%E2%80%99t-lift-it/answer/Darryl-Lankford?srid=uqDtf Paradox of the Stone] on Quora.com out of 365 answers offered since 2010. It also holds a copyright via the U.S Copyright Office. There is a [https://youtu.be/YDTsYYGNAMY video series] that fully explains how the CGCP resolution works to defeat the Stone Paradox and is the leading video search result on a [https://www.google.com/search?safe=off&source=hp&q=stone+paradox+solution&oq=stone+paradox+solution&gs_l=psy-ab.3..35i39k1.1554.7935.0.8308.29.27.1.0.0.0.203.3202.3j22j1.26.0....0...1.1.64.psy-ab..2.27.3205.0..0j0i131k1j0i20i264k1j0i10k1j0i22i10i30k1j0i22i30k1j33i160k1j0i8i13i30k1.0.O9YdBScYWN4 "stone paradox solution"] Google search. 
I would like to add a link for the stoneparadox.org website on this conservapedia.com page which deals with "Omnipotence" as I think it is relevant to the subject.

I didn't want to just add the link on conservapedia.com's "Omnipotence" page without first getting some feedback from others on this matter. I'm also not sure where it could be added? I was thinking a "Links" section could be added right above the "References" section and then the link could be added there (along with other links of interest). ...Thoughts?--[[User:Birdman DSL|Birdman DSL]] ([[User talk:Birdman DSL|talk]]) 10:00, 14 October 2017 (EDT)
:I added a link to your website in an external links section.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 13:13, 14 October 2017 (EDT)
::Thank you very much! You would not believe what I ran into over on the RationalWiki website. I had no idea that it was an agenda-driven website designed for promoting Atheism. I was shocked at the bitterness I was handed, and then I realized what I had walked into. The strange part is that none of this has anything to do with Christianity or any religious aspects at all. It's merely using the definition of omnipotence to battle a paradox that challenges omnipotence. It's more like just trying to work a metaphysical puzzle using paradoxical logic than anything else.--[[User:Birdman DSL|Birdman DSL]] ([[User talk:Birdman DSL|talk]]) 09:26, 15 October 2017 (EDT)

Talk:Omnipotence

2017-10-14T14:57:57Z

Birdman DSL:

Why does this entry contain a random anecdote/aside about a rock? It feels out of place. This entry would be better served focusing on the objective viewpoint on omnipotence, and not a random story. --[[User:WOVcenter|WOVcenter]] 18:21, 10 March 2007 (EST)

"The problem with the argument is that it is a nonsense request, akin to asking if God can create a green smile or a fast tree. There simply is no such thing."

Couldn't God, in his unlimited power, create such a thing? That was always my understanding... [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 01:40, 15 May 2008 (EDT)
: Create ''what'' "such a thing". The point you are responding to says that there simply is no such thing. So you're claiming that God, in his unlimited power, could create such a non-thing! Huh? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:53, 15 May 2008 (EDT)
:: Well, wielding unlimited power, he most certainly could create such a thing or "non-thing", don't you agree? [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 05:56, 15 May 2008 (EDT)
::: No. When you create, you create ''something''. When you create a "non-thing", you are creating ''nothing''. That is, you are ''not creating''. So you're basically saying that a Being with unlimited power is capable of creating ''nothing''. Well sure, we are all capable of creating ''nothing''!
::: To put it another way, to create a house requires a certain amount of power (and other things). To create a skyscraper requires more. To create a universe requires almost unlimited power. But creating a green smile doesn't require ''more power'', it requires suspension of meaning of words. So it doesn't matter how much ''power'' a being has, because ''power'' is not what is required to create a green smile.
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:17, 15 May 2008 (EDT)
:::: Ah, I see. I misunderstood your usage of "non-thing". I still believe it is quite possible for God to create a green smile or a fast tree, insofar as he has infinite power. They also most certainly are things, insofar as they are recognizable nouns described by adjectives. Just because we could not conceive them in imagination or reality doesn't mean that God could not create them. To say otherwise would imply a limit to God's power. [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 23:15, 15 May 2008 (EDT)
::::: Being "recognizable nouns described by adjectives" doesn't mean that they are things. That is, if the adjectives are not applicable to those nouns, then the ''combination'' is nonsense, not something. It's nothing to do with a limited imagination; it's to do with the meaning of words. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:31, 15 May 2008 (EDT)
:::::: They are not things yet, but they could be things, unless you are going to argue that is not within God's power, which considering where we are, I heavily doubt. God could ''make'' those adjectives applicable to those nouns. He could also alter the meaning of words if He so chose to. [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 23:44, 15 May 2008 (EDT)
::::::: I've already argued that power is not the issue. Yes, God could alter the meaning of words, but then so can we. Just suppose that we alter the meaning of "green smile" to refer to a "40-page book" (if you are going to alter the meaning of words, they don't have to bear any resemblance to the original meanings). Then yes, God could create a 40-page book, which we've decided to label a "green smile". But again, ''we'' could also do that: it's not something that requires ''power'', all it requires is changing the meaning of words. So He hasn't really created a "green smile" at all. Rather, He's created a "40-page book", which He or we have decided to label a "green smile". In other words, we've not just changed the meaning of words, we've change the original claim. So we could also change the meaning of "rock so large he could not lift it" to mean "pizza", and therefore ask "Can God create a pizza"? In the case the answer is yes, but we've completely discarded the point of the original question. That is, we haven't answered the question, we've changed the question by changing the meaning of words. The problem with the original question is that it is nonsense. You can't deny that it's nonsense by changing it to something that is not nonsense. If anything, by doing so you've implicitly confirmed that the original question ''was'' nonsense. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:29, 16 May 2008 (EDT)
:::::::: So the only way God could create a "green smile" is if he changes the meaning of the words? That seems a bit odd and limiting for an omnipotent being. [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 13:47, 16 May 2008 (EDT)
::::::::: Your response is an "argument from incredulity", and not an answer, which it seems that you don't have. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:53, 16 May 2008 (EDT)
:::::::::: Oh, the answer is quite simple. God could create a rock so heavy He could not lift it, and He could still lift it. This is part of the wonder of God, that His power and His capability extend far beyond anything we can assign logic to or even comprehend. I'm surprised the article doesn't observe the same. [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 23:59, 16 May 2008 (EDT)
::::::::::: So it's "part of the wonder of God" that he is illogical and self-contradictory? Sorry, I don't accept that, and contrary to biblical teaching that God is consistent. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:48, 17 May 2008 (EDT)
:::::::::::: I never said he was either of those things. You're putting words in my mouth, and they taste quite poorly. [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 15:15, 17 May 2008 (EDT)
::::::::::::: You didn't say it explicitly, but that is the consequence of what you said. If God can create a rock that is too heavy for Him to lift, but He can lift it—that's self-contradictory. The "solution" is not to blindly argue that God can do anything so therefore He must be able to do it. The solution is to point out that the proposal is nonsense masquerading as a serious proposal. I'll change the subject a little and ask you some questions: Can God lie? Can God do evil? Can God contradict Himself? If you answer "no" to any of these questions, you are being inconsistent with your earlier comments. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:10, 17 May 2008 (EDT)
:::::::::::::: If God has omnipotent power, He most certainly has the ability to contradict Himself - after all, we do it all the time. And yes, if God has omnipotent power, He certainly can lie, do evil or contradict Himself. Obviously, He said He will not, but to claim He has omnipotence yet cannot do those things is rather ridiculous. I hope you aren't making said claim. [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 23:23, 17 May 2008 (EDT)
::::::::::::::: Again, it is not power that allows one to contradict oneself. Yes, I am making that claim, if for no other reason than the Bible makes it! See also [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/5566 here] and a lengthy discussion on this topic [[Debate:Could God create a rock so heavy that he himself could not lift it?|here]]. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:48, 18 May 2008 (EDT)
:::::::::::::::: So how does a being who does not have the power to lie, do evil or contradict itself have omnipotent power? That's a pretty gaping flaw in your argument, even if you created the point of your argument through interpretation of the Bible. Additionally, since contradiction is an action, I'm not really sure how you can say that power has nothing to do with it? All beings are defined at least in part by their power to take certain actions. [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 16:20, 18 May 2008 (EDT)
::::::::::::::::: That reply seems to indicate that you didn't actually read the links, because at least some of that is answered there. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:47, 18 May 2008 (EDT)
:::::::::::::::::: Regarding whether God cannot lie due to being the embodiment of truth, correct me if I'm mistaken, but didn't he already know that there weren't even 10 innocents in Sodom and Gomorrah long before he was even confronted with the decision to destroy it, yet he STILL had an investigation occur at Abraham's request? That sounds a lot like God outright lied to him. Long story short, if he actually couldn't lie, he'd outright tell him there weren't any innocents there besides Lot and his family, making even attempting to barter with God downright impossible precisely because, being omniscient, not to mention omnipotent, he'd KNOW there weren't any and would refuse to make any statements contradicting this stance, not even to ease Abraham's mind, and if anything mind-rape him into submission showing him exactly how there weren't any innocents beyond Lot's family. So, not only CAN God lie, he actually DID in the Bible (last I checked, willfully misrepresenting facts is the definition of lying, anti-Truth in other words), ESPECIALLY if we're going to claim he's omniscient and omnipotent. [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 05:22, 21 July 2017 (EDT)
:::::::::::::::::Pokeria I hope this finds you well. Maybe something that God is trying to tell Abraham is that up to the time of Judgment, it's never too late to repent. And instead of looking at the situation as a consequence of Fate, he and his household afterwards should remember to confront like situations as opportunities to turn back from their sins, not to be carried along with them. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) 08:14, 21 July 2017 (EDT)
If God is omnipotent, then he should be able to create another omnipotent being. If God and his creation were to have an arm-wrestle, each trying to win, who would? [[User:JimAB|JimAB]] 19:18, 27 May 2011 (EDT)
:In physics, biology, math, logic, epistemology, etc., the only way for a primary to result in another primary is if there is no such thing as a primary: anything mistaken as 'primary' can result in another 'primary'. But, if, in epistemology there is no primary, then there is nothing, not even a primary object of knowledge (i.e., God) [[User:PatternOfPersona|PatternOfPersona]] 22:40, 30 June 2011 (EDT)

== Adding a Link to the Omnipotence Page ==

I have a website titled [http://stoneparadox.org stoneparadox.org] that deals with the Omnipotence Paradox (specifically the ''Stone Paradox'') which offers a counter-paradoxical resolution to the original paradox. It takes the twisted use of paradoxical logic that the Stone Paradox uses to eliminate omnipotence and ironically turns it around to eliminate the Stone Paradox. The only logical conclusion that can be drawn is that a paradox is unable to establish the existence (or non-existence) of anything at all. 
It's called the "Circular God Counter-paradox" and is the #1 answer to the [https://www.quora.com/Can-god-make-a-rock-so-heavy-that-he-couldn%E2%80%99t-lift-it/answer/Darryl-Lankford?srid=uqDtf Paradox of the Stone] on Quora.com out of 365 answers offered since 2010. It also holds a copyright via the U.S Copyright Office. There is a [https://youtu.be/YDTsYYGNAMY video series] that fully explains how the CGCP resolution works to defeat the Stone Paradox and is the leading video search result on a [https://www.google.com/search?safe=off&source=hp&q=stone+paradox+solution&oq=stone+paradox+solution&gs_l=psy-ab.3..35i39k1.1554.7935.0.8308.29.27.1.0.0.0.203.3202.3j22j1.26.0....0...1.1.64.psy-ab..2.27.3205.0..0j0i131k1j0i20i264k1j0i10k1j0i22i10i30k1j0i22i30k1j33i160k1j0i8i13i30k1.0.O9YdBScYWN4 "stone paradox solution"] Google search. 
I would like to add a link for the stoneparadox.org website on this conservapedia.com page which deals with "Omnipotence" as I think it is relevant to the subject. I made the unfortunate mistake of trying to add this link to the RationalWiki page that deals with the [https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Omnipotence_paradox Omnipotence Paradox], but I was surprisingly mocked and ridiculed. Nobody offered any valid arguments against the CGCP resolution at all (which confused me) but then I did some research on RationalWiki and discovered it is a "skeptics website" which advocates/promotes Atheism. Apparently anything that challenges the Stone Paradox is not welcome there. This is sad, because this CGCP resolution has nothing to do with God or Atheism at all. It's just a counter-paradox. 
I didn't want to just add the link on conservapedia.com's "Omnipotence" page without first getting some feedback from others on this matter. I'm also not sure where it could be added? I was thinking a "Links" section could be added right above the "References" section and then the link could be added there (along with other links of interest). ...Thoughts?--[[User:Birdman DSL|Birdman DSL]] ([[User talk:Birdman DSL|talk]]) 10:00, 14 October 2017 (EDT)

Talk:Omnipotence

2017-10-14T14:00:03Z

Birdman DSL: Proposition for a link addition made to the "Omnipotence" page.

Why does this entry contain a random anecdote/aside about a rock? It feels out of place. This entry would be better served focusing on the objective viewpoint on omnipotence, and not a random story. --[[User:WOVcenter|WOVcenter]] 18:21, 10 March 2007 (EST)

"The problem with the argument is that it is a nonsense request, akin to asking if God can create a green smile or a fast tree. There simply is no such thing."

Couldn't God, in his unlimited power, create such a thing? That was always my understanding... [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 01:40, 15 May 2008 (EDT)
: Create ''what'' "such a thing". The point you are responding to says that there simply is no such thing. So you're claiming that God, in his unlimited power, could create such a non-thing! Huh? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:53, 15 May 2008 (EDT)
:: Well, wielding unlimited power, he most certainly could create such a thing or "non-thing", don't you agree? [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 05:56, 15 May 2008 (EDT)
::: No. When you create, you create ''something''. When you create a "non-thing", you are creating ''nothing''. That is, you are ''not creating''. So you're basically saying that a Being with unlimited power is capable of creating ''nothing''. Well sure, we are all capable of creating ''nothing''!
::: To put it another way, to create a house requires a certain amount of power (and other things). To create a skyscraper requires more. To create a universe requires almost unlimited power. But creating a green smile doesn't require ''more power'', it requires suspension of meaning of words. So it doesn't matter how much ''power'' a being has, because ''power'' is not what is required to create a green smile.
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:17, 15 May 2008 (EDT)
:::: Ah, I see. I misunderstood your usage of "non-thing". I still believe it is quite possible for God to create a green smile or a fast tree, insofar as he has infinite power. They also most certainly are things, insofar as they are recognizable nouns described by adjectives. Just because we could not conceive them in imagination or reality doesn't mean that God could not create them. To say otherwise would imply a limit to God's power. [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 23:15, 15 May 2008 (EDT)
::::: Being "recognizable nouns described by adjectives" doesn't mean that they are things. That is, if the adjectives are not applicable to those nouns, then the ''combination'' is nonsense, not something. It's nothing to do with a limited imagination; it's to do with the meaning of words. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:31, 15 May 2008 (EDT)
:::::: They are not things yet, but they could be things, unless you are going to argue that is not within God's power, which considering where we are, I heavily doubt. God could ''make'' those adjectives applicable to those nouns. He could also alter the meaning of words if He so chose to. [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 23:44, 15 May 2008 (EDT)
::::::: I've already argued that power is not the issue. Yes, God could alter the meaning of words, but then so can we. Just suppose that we alter the meaning of "green smile" to refer to a "40-page book" (if you are going to alter the meaning of words, they don't have to bear any resemblance to the original meanings). Then yes, God could create a 40-page book, which we've decided to label a "green smile". But again, ''we'' could also do that: it's not something that requires ''power'', all it requires is changing the meaning of words. So He hasn't really created a "green smile" at all. Rather, He's created a "40-page book", which He or we have decided to label a "green smile". In other words, we've not just changed the meaning of words, we've change the original claim. So we could also change the meaning of "rock so large he could not lift it" to mean "pizza", and therefore ask "Can God create a pizza"? In the case the answer is yes, but we've completely discarded the point of the original question. That is, we haven't answered the question, we've changed the question by changing the meaning of words. The problem with the original question is that it is nonsense. You can't deny that it's nonsense by changing it to something that is not nonsense. If anything, by doing so you've implicitly confirmed that the original question ''was'' nonsense. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:29, 16 May 2008 (EDT)
:::::::: So the only way God could create a "green smile" is if he changes the meaning of the words? That seems a bit odd and limiting for an omnipotent being. [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 13:47, 16 May 2008 (EDT)
::::::::: Your response is an "argument from incredulity", and not an answer, which it seems that you don't have. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:53, 16 May 2008 (EDT)
:::::::::: Oh, the answer is quite simple. God could create a rock so heavy He could not lift it, and He could still lift it. This is part of the wonder of God, that His power and His capability extend far beyond anything we can assign logic to or even comprehend. I'm surprised the article doesn't observe the same. [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 23:59, 16 May 2008 (EDT)
::::::::::: So it's "part of the wonder of God" that he is illogical and self-contradictory? Sorry, I don't accept that, and contrary to biblical teaching that God is consistent. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:48, 17 May 2008 (EDT)
:::::::::::: I never said he was either of those things. You're putting words in my mouth, and they taste quite poorly. [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 15:15, 17 May 2008 (EDT)
::::::::::::: You didn't say it explicitly, but that is the consequence of what you said. If God can create a rock that is too heavy for Him to lift, but He can lift it—that's self-contradictory. The "solution" is not to blindly argue that God can do anything so therefore He must be able to do it. The solution is to point out that the proposal is nonsense masquerading as a serious proposal. I'll change the subject a little and ask you some questions: Can God lie? Can God do evil? Can God contradict Himself? If you answer "no" to any of these questions, you are being inconsistent with your earlier comments. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:10, 17 May 2008 (EDT)
:::::::::::::: If God has omnipotent power, He most certainly has the ability to contradict Himself - after all, we do it all the time. And yes, if God has omnipotent power, He certainly can lie, do evil or contradict Himself. Obviously, He said He will not, but to claim He has omnipotence yet cannot do those things is rather ridiculous. I hope you aren't making said claim. [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 23:23, 17 May 2008 (EDT)
::::::::::::::: Again, it is not power that allows one to contradict oneself. Yes, I am making that claim, if for no other reason than the Bible makes it! See also [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/5566 here] and a lengthy discussion on this topic [[Debate:Could God create a rock so heavy that he himself could not lift it?|here]]. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:48, 18 May 2008 (EDT)
:::::::::::::::: So how does a being who does not have the power to lie, do evil or contradict itself have omnipotent power? That's a pretty gaping flaw in your argument, even if you created the point of your argument through interpretation of the Bible. Additionally, since contradiction is an action, I'm not really sure how you can say that power has nothing to do with it? All beings are defined at least in part by their power to take certain actions. [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 16:20, 18 May 2008 (EDT)
::::::::::::::::: That reply seems to indicate that you didn't actually read the links, because at least some of that is answered there. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:47, 18 May 2008 (EDT)
:::::::::::::::::: Regarding whether God cannot lie due to being the embodiment of truth, correct me if I'm mistaken, but didn't he already know that there weren't even 10 innocents in Sodom and Gomorrah long before he was even confronted with the decision to destroy it, yet he STILL had an investigation occur at Abraham's request? That sounds a lot like God outright lied to him. Long story short, if he actually couldn't lie, he'd outright tell him there weren't any innocents there besides Lot and his family, making even attempting to barter with God downright impossible precisely because, being omniscient, not to mention omnipotent, he'd KNOW there weren't any and would refuse to make any statements contradicting this stance, not even to ease Abraham's mind, and if anything mind-rape him into submission showing him exactly how there weren't any innocents beyond Lot's family. So, not only CAN God lie, he actually DID in the Bible (last I checked, willfully misrepresenting facts is the definition of lying, anti-Truth in other words), ESPECIALLY if we're going to claim he's omniscient and omnipotent. [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 05:22, 21 July 2017 (EDT)
:::::::::::::::::Pokeria I hope this finds you well. Maybe something that God is trying to tell Abraham is that up to the time of Judgment, it's never too late to repent. And instead of looking at the situation as a consequence of Fate, he and his household afterwards should remember to confront like situations as opportunities to turn back from their sins, not to be carried along with them. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) 08:14, 21 July 2017 (EDT)
If God is omnipotent, then he should be able to create another omnipotent being. If God and his creation were to have an arm-wrestle, each trying to win, who would? [[User:JimAB|JimAB]] 19:18, 27 May 2011 (EDT)
:In physics, biology, math, logic, epistemology, etc., the only way for a primary to result in another primary is if there is no such thing as a primary: anything mistaken as 'primary' can result in another 'primary'. But, if, in epistemology there is no primary, then there is nothing, not even a primary object of knowledge (i.e., God) [[User:PatternOfPersona|PatternOfPersona]] 22:40, 30 June 2011 (EDT)

== Adding a Link to the Omnipotence Page ==

I have a website titled [[stoneparadox.org]] that deals with the Omnipotence Paradox (specifically the ''Stone Paradox'') which offers a counter-paradoxical resolution to the original paradox. It takes the twisted use of paradoxical logic that the Stone Paradox uses to eliminate omnipotence and ironically turns it around to eliminate the Stone Paradox. The only logical conclusion that can be drawn is that a paradox is unable to establish the existence (or non-existence) of anything at all. 
It's called the "Circular God Counter-paradox" and is the #1 answer to the [https://www.quora.com/Can-god-make-a-rock-so-heavy-that-he-couldn%E2%80%99t-lift-it/answer/Darryl-Lankford?srid=uqDtf Paradox of the Stone] on Quora.com out of 365 answers offered since 2010. It also holds a copyright via the U.S Copyright Office. There is a [https://youtu.be/YDTsYYGNAMY video series] that fully explains how the CGCP resolution works to defeat the Stone Paradox and is the leading video search result on a [https://www.google.com/search?safe=off&source=hp&q=stone+paradox+solution&oq=stone+paradox+solution&gs_l=psy-ab.3..35i39k1.1554.7935.0.8308.29.27.1.0.0.0.203.3202.3j22j1.26.0....0...1.1.64.psy-ab..2.27.3205.0..0j0i131k1j0i20i264k1j0i10k1j0i22i10i30k1j0i22i30k1j33i160k1j0i8i13i30k1.0.O9YdBScYWN4 "stone paradox solution"] Google search. 
I would like to add a link for the stoneparadox.org website on this conservapedia.com page which deals with "Omnipotence" as I think it is relevant to the subject. I made the unfortunate mistake of trying to add this link to the RationalWiki page that deals with the [https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Omnipotence_paradox Omnipotence Paradox], but I was surprisingly mocked and ridiculed. Nobody offered any valid arguments against the CGCP resolution at all (which confused me) but then I did some research on RationalWiki and discovered it is a "skeptics website" which advocates/promotes Atheism. Apparently anything that challenges the Stone Paradox is not welcome there. This is sad, because this CGCP resolution has nothing to do with God or Atheism at all. It's just a counter-paradox. 
I didn't want to just add the link on conservapedia.com's "Omnipotence" page without first getting some feedback from others on this matter. I'm also not sure where it could be added? I was thinking a "Links" section could be added right above the "References" section and then the link could be added there (along with other links of interest). ...Thoughts?--[[User:Birdman DSL|Birdman DSL]] ([[User talk:Birdman DSL|talk]]) 10:00, 14 October 2017 (EDT)

Debate:Could God create a rock so heavy that he himself could not lift it?

2017-04-25T14:35:34Z

Birdman DSL: A Counter-Paradoxical Solution to the Stone Paradox Question.

{{debate-religion}}

Could God create a rock so heavy that he himself could not lift it?
Discuss--[[User:Sm355|Sm355]] 18:08, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
:Does [[omnipotence]] include the power to create an even greater power than itself? That's what that rock is: a greater power than omnipotence. Only agents of limited power can "create" things which are, in some ways, more powerful than them, by the means of contriving complex objects which already exist which are in some ways more powerful than them. Unfortunately, the ultimate complex object which we limited agents can contrive is a conflation of real logic and semantics.[[User:PatternOfPersona|PatternOfPersona]] 21:33, 5 July 2011 (EDT)

The answer is NO He cannot "do" that. Note that there is no limit however to the size of a rock that He can create, and there is no limit to the size of a rock that He can lift. Thus the question - answered in the negative - involves no limitation on God's prerogatives; if answered in the positive however does. The whole thing is a play on words as is explained more or less in various ways below. It's negation does not mean God is not omnipotent - it means that omnipotence is not properly tested as implied by this question. [[User:Qwestor|Qwestor]] 14:54, 28 December 2007 (EDT)

This old one... its supposed to be a paradox showing the omnipotence is impossible: If God can create the rock, He must not be all-powerful because He cannot lift it. If He cant create the rock, then He still isn't all powerful. Either way, no all-powerful being. Personally, I think God just has no reason to create such a rock, so why would He? - BornAgainBrit

Because he wants to disprove his own existence. --[[User:Huey gunna getcha|Huey gunna getcha]] 18:17, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

But you can't assume that God is temporally limited like us mere mortals. He can create the rock so heavy he can't lift it one minute, then, the next minute, he lifts it. Just because we can't conceive of it, doesn't mean God can't lift it. -mittromney

:He'd get YOU to lift it. --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 18:51, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

::No! No matter how heavy the rock would be, God would still be able to lift it because he is the Almighty.
:::"He only is my rock and my salvation: he is my defence; I shall not be moved." (Psalm 62:6)
::[[User:JC|JC]] 09:44, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

==Yes He Can==
God can command a rock to come into existence with the command "Let there be a rock that I cannot lift". When this rock comes into existence it won't allow God to be able to lift it. however, it may be small enough for everyone else to lift it. God is outside of all of the laws we live in and that includes the laws of possibility. Thus God has the power to choose if something is or isn't impossible to him. [[User:LostFox|LostFox]]

==Traditional Paradox of God==
God is omnipotent Therefore he can But since he is omnipotent He can lift the rock he cannot lift Therefore God is a paradox and cannot exist

[[User:Helios|Helios]] loves the creator of this page and will worship him as though he were a paradoxical God.

The part that people miss is assuming that God is picking the rock up with a pair of arms like a human. God isn't a human. God doesn't have a physical body. God can't lift rocks. God makes the rock lift itself.
:Doesn't "lifting" assume an "up"? What is an omnipresent being standing on when lifting a rock? I think this question is broken. [[User:Totnesmartin|Totnesmartin]] 16:55, 16 May 2007
(EDT)

Alright, then can he make a rock so large he cannot make it move? And another thing disproving that he exists; it says in Genesis it took him six days to create the universe. A perfect, all-powerful god would have created it instantly. And some say that maybe he took his time, etc. That doesn't work either, because if he was perfect, everything he did would be as efficient as possible, and that would mean instantly. And, on top of that, he had to rest from the effort. Now, granted, creating a universe in only six days, and only resting for one is still pretty impressive, but that doesn't mean omnipotence.- Bob Sanchez

::Did it ever occur to anyone that it might take time to create imperfection from perfection? JM ([[user:Meyje|Meyje]])
:::What "imperfection from perfection"? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:29, 23 October 2007 (EDT)

:As far as the rock is concerned, that has been answered below, I believe. God can do anything ''that can be done''. Creating a rock too big for Him to move is not something that can be done.
:You are incorrect in claiming that a "perfect, all-powerful god would have created [the universe] instantly". The correct statement would be that He ''could'' create it instantly, not that He ''would''.
:By claiming that He would not have taken longer because that would be less efficient is (a) not obviously true (sometimes it is more efficient to take longer), and (b) presumes that efficiency is the prime goal. Rather, it would appear from Exodus 20:11 that God chose to take six days in order to set the pattern for the week.
:Similarly, you misunderstand the reference to resting. The Bible doesn't say that God was tired and needed to recuperate. The Hebrew word translated "rest" simply means to take a break, to stop from working. Again, this would have been in order to set the pattern for the week: work six days and take the seventh day off.
:In summary, then, you have basically tried picking holes with the account by saying that if God was truly omnipotent, He would have done things the way that you think He would have done them, which overlooks that perhaps there are reasons that He ''chose'' to do them the way He did that you hadn't considered.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:02, 17 July 2007 (EDT)
God is almighty, it'll be dumb if He created a rock to the point where He Himself can not lift it. God created the Heavens and the Earth, God can lift any rock. Now if HE did created such a rock, He do have the powers to make it easier fro Him to lift it. Didn't anyone think of that? I like what Philip J. Rayment said there, it is true, He did make the patterns of the week. That's why every time God created something, the BIBLE said that it was the 1st or 2nd or 3rd day.

if god is perfect, then what reason would he have to bother with existence? Surely he would do anything he would ever need or want to do in an infinitely small time, and then simply pop out of existence. If he was all-knowing, he would know it was all he could ever want to do, and if he was capable of anything, he could stop existing.
(Rowan)
: That argument presupposes that God exists in time, which He doesn't, as "time" is part of His creation. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:20, 10 December 2007 (EST)

== Absurd ==

This question is absurd and this revolves around the question of what omnipotence is. If you use the definition of "omnipotence is the ability to do anything" then you hit this problem. If you use the definition of "omnipotence is the ability to do anything that may be done" then the problem does not exist.

Lets take an alternative form of this argument:
# If God is omnipotent, then God can create a square circle
# God cannot create a square circle
# Therefore, God is not omnipotent

This is of the form
#p -> q
#~q
#therefore ~p
which is a valid argument form known as modus tollens. To attack this argument it is necessary to look at the premises. The second premise is fair so the first must be examined. This can be broken down into:
##God is omnipotent
##Therefore God can create or do anything
##A square circle is a thing
##Therefore God can create a square circle

Theistic scholar/philosophers do not claim the omnipotence of God, but rather that God is the maximally powerful being. That God can do anything that can be done. With the modified argument:
##God the maximally powerful being
##Therefore God can create or do anything
##A square circle is a thing
##Therefore God can create a square circle
It falls apart and the first premise of the argument fails. Ultimately, this does not limit God's power - He can do anything that can be done and create anything that can exist.

This can then be summed up in:
* God is the maximally powerful being.
* That which cannot exist, cannot be created.
There is no paradox here, and any claim otherwise rests on absurdity.
--[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 18:25, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Let's apply this argument by logical constraint to a few other Christian doctrines, then, shall we?

Example 1:
## For a woman to beome pregnant, she must be inseminated.
## Virgins have not been inseminated
## Mary was a virgin
## Therefore, Mary was not pregnant.

Example 2:
## Everything that exists has a cause outside of itself. (Premise)
## The universe exists. (Premise)
## Therefore, the universe has a cause outside of itself.
## We call that cause God (cosmological argument).
## God exits (Premise)
## Therefore, God has a cause outside of itself.

So - God is too weak to create a squared circle. I get that - but what about the rock?

"Any claim otherwise rests on absurdity"? You seem fairly confident that by using a lot of logical jargon and organizing your post in a way that intimates you know what you're talking about, you can circumvent the inherent logical fallacy that you're assuming you can conceptualize what can exist and what can be created. If you claim to know what can and what cannot be created, such as, for example, a rock that God can't lift, shouldn't that be in the entry for hubris? -mittromney
: I am simply stating the solution to the paradox of omnipotence that was given back as an answer in one of the religious studies classes I took at a Catholic highschool and again in a university class on "Philosophy and Religion." At best, the paradox of omnipotence is a strawman argument. [http://www.philosophyofreligion.info/impossiblerock.html] [http://www.philosophyofreligion.info/omnipotence.html] [http://www.skepticwiki.org/wiki/index.php/Omnipotence_Paradox] [http://www.greatplay.net/uselessia/articles/omnipyparadox.html] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnipotence_paradox] Thomas Aquinas said it well "Since the principles of certain sciences, such as logic, geometry and arithmetic are taken only from the formal principles of things, on which the essence of the thing depends, it follows that God could not make things contrary to these principles. For example, that a genus was not predicable of the species, or that lines drawn from the center to the circumference were not equal, or that a triangle did not have three angles equal to two right angles." - granted this is founded on euclidean space, but it goes back to the question of can God break the laws of the universe that He created. Alternatively, you can go to Augustine of Hippo and read "For He is called omnipotent on account of His doing what He wills, not on account of His suffering what He wills not; for if that should befall Him, He would by no means be omnipotent. Wherefore, He cannot do some things for the very reason that He is omnipotent." [http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf102.iv.V.10.html] --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 18:54, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Isn't the fact that your quote from Aquinas included a notion that was later proved to be totally incorrect by Einstein absolutely damning for your argument that humans can adequately perceive and evaluate logical concepts? I guess I'm curious how any of what you say deals properly with the idea that God is totally superior in every way, and therefore to say He can or can't do something is pointless hubris a fortiori? -mittromney
: It depends if you take it literally or what he was trying to say. The question is can God do something that is against the rules of logic? If you don't like the triangle example that Aquinas gave, then use four sided triangles or square circles in place of them. Read the first sentence again and you will see that these are perfectly valid substitutions - "Since the principles of certain sciences, such as logic, geometry and arithmetic are taken only from the formal principles of things, on which the essence of the thing depends, it follows that God could not make things contrary to these principles." --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 19:01, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
::So you're saying that we should just choose a new facially contradictory idea, and go ahead with that, while my whole point was that we're totally incapable of evaluating what's consistent and what's contradictory? I'm not sure how choosing new examples of things we assume to be not true helps you at all... -mittromney
::: You are suggesting that Aquinas is proven wrong because he used a definition of a triangle that only worked in euclidean space. This false-paradox is a straw man for an atheistic world view that is based on a particular definition of omnipotence - it is just as bad as creationists giving straw man arguments that are counter evolution (do note, I am not a creationist). If you wish to argue that a logical impossibility is not beyond omnipotence, then you can work from the Cartesian viewpoint of the trickster god or demon that allows 2+2=5, though that is more a question of belief and knowledge than omnipotence. If you wish to argue about omnipotence with a theistic philosopher, then it is necessary to work from that definition of omnipotence. I am presenting that definition and showing how the rest of the question falls to absurdity when this definition is used - which does not limit omnipotence. Simply said, God can do anything that can be done. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 19:15, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Again, I don't think you properly respond to what I'm saying. I claim the idea of a logical impossibility is a hobgoblin of mediocre minds: We have no idea what's logically possible or impossible. To say we do, and subsequently to claim that somehow human logic limits the omnipotence of god, is [[foolhardy]]. What I was suggesting with your Aquinas example is that things which may at one point in time appear to be facially and obviously contradictory can, in the future, be shown to actually be possible, and the original belief was therefore just an incorrect human assumption and not "logic". How that argument is a false-paradox straw man is beyond me: It appears you just throw those terms around to try to demonstrate that you're familiar with logical jargon in the hopes that the other side will assume you know better than they do. When you argue through implicit authority (not to even bring up the Descartes reference), you sound like a liberal who belongs at wiki... -mittromney

:I would urge you to ask your priest or minister the question of the rock so heavy. You will likely get a similar answer to mine (and that of Aquinas and Augustine of Hippo). Omnipotence is a human definition with words that are constrained by our language. Head to the seminary and you will find half a dozen different definitions of omnipotence and various theologians arguing for and against each one being the correct interpretation of the word. You will even find Judaism (which also asserts the omnipotent God) claims that God works through persuasion rather than action - the creation of possibility rather than miracles or violations of natural law - that His omnipotence is shown through that means. Other branches of Christianity use "God cannot make you sin" as part of its philosophy, that if God was to make you sin then you would not have free will and thus would not be sinning. The only reason to pose the paradox of omnipotence is to try to assert that God does not have such power. My take on it (and I agree with those sources I have linked above) is that the proper definition of omnipotence is "to have any power that can be had" or to be the maximally powerful being and as such the question of the rock or a square circle or a four sided triangle becomes a silly question - that which cannot exist cannot be created. If you wish to assert a different definition and solution to this question, then by all means do so. However, I have not seen any reasonable argument against this position from you yet. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 20:41, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

"Maximally powerful" doesn't mean "all-powerful". Your arguement implies that the Bible was incorrect in naming God as omnipotent, which completely destroys the foundation for faith in Christianity: The belief that the Bible is without error. - Bob Sanchez

Where does the Bible say that God is omnipotent? That word appears once in the KJV, and once in the NKJV, and nowhere else. When it appears, it describes the shouts of a crowd, and so may not be accurate. The Bible clearly gives the impression that God is more powerful than all the other beings in the universe combined, but nowhere says he is omnipotent, insofar as omnipotent is defined as "able to do anything, regardless of whether it is logically possible or not." As far as Mary is concerned, it is not logically impossible for God to create a baby inside her womb, but it would be logically impossible for God to create a baby that was not a baby. See the difference? God must conform to first-order logic, but he is not limited beyond that.[[User:Lordofthemarsh|Lordofthemarsh]] 00:42, 30 May 2008 (EDT)
----

Can God predict the future? [[User:kchittur|kchittur]]

How heavy do you think the rock that god can't lift would be? --[[User:Huey gunna getcha|Huey gunna getcha]] 18:48, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Maybe 1*10^abs(1/0) kg.--[[User:Sm355|Sm355]] 18:49, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:Shhhhh, you supposed to use lbs.! --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 19:06, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Guys, you are debating the wrong question which is really only a red herring. The real question that each must answer is this: "Will a man become so filled with pride and enamored with thoughts of his own intellectual superiority as to use a silly logical argument as an excuse to close his mind and his heart to the truth of the Gospel and thus reject his only hope of salvation?" --[[User:HSDad|HSDad]] 10:34, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:Or perhaps the real question is, "Why do so many people blindly follow religious stories and texts with nothing to go on but faith with out any facts?". But that's another question for another debate. Lets just stick to the original question.--[[User:Sm355|Sm355]] 12:38, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Aaaaagh you just disprooved god[[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 15:37, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

God can make the rock, but every time He tries to lift it the planet he's standing on crumbles under His feet. [[User:Teresita|Teresita]] 00:22, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

Well then, that is basically saying that god can't create a strong enough planet to stand on. or just some infinite unbreakable plain with really strong gravity that exists solely for him to stand on so he can try to lift this unliftable rock.[[User:Revengeancer|Revengeancer]] 17:34, 29 October 2008 (EDT)

If we assume that God does exist, I'm gonna have to go with Thomas Aquinas on this one. In his ''Summa Theologica'', he wrote:
<blockquote>Therefore, everything that does not imply a contradiction in terms, is
numbered amongst those possible things, in respect of which God is
called omnipotent: whereas whatever implies contradiction does not
come within the scope of divine omnipotence, because it cannot have
the aspect of possibility. Hence it is better to say that such things
cannot be done, than that God cannot do them.</blockquote>
That is, if God exists, he can do all that is logically possible, and nothing that is not. So, because there is a contradiction whether God can or cannot create the rock, it cannot be done. [[User:Masterbratac|Masterbratac]] 19:43, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

:God is powerful, I like that square circle example. He can creat anything he want to created. Now why would God creat such a rock that even Himself can't lift. If the rock was heavy than God can just use His powers to make it easier to lift duhh. God is too strong to creat a rock too heavy for Him to lift. [[User:Amphibious|Amphibious]] 02:14, 27 October 2007 (EDT)

[added~]

haha. its kind of funny arguing about this kind of thing...because personally, i dont believe in higher beings like god. its only a figment of your mind; god holds only as much power as you give him. there is the concept of god for those who want a pillar of support around and them and i realize that there are those who truly would like to believe. and im fine with that. however, for someone like me who believes it is impractical, impossible, and downright strange to have an "omnipotent" being watching over us in such a way, i say heck sure he could. if he existed. but if we're going to put this in the context of fiction, anything is possible. but to me, if the root of this argumnet, god, does not exist, then i consider the possiblity of him creating a rock that he cant lift as invalid. {{unsigned|KuR0K4R4}}

:So what reason do you provide for God's non-existence? None! You don't believe He does—but that doesn't mean He doesn't—yet you provide absolutely no reason whatsoever for your subjective opinion. Many people have provided very good arguments supporting the view that God does exist, but you are obviously unaware of them or simply choose to ignore them, because you've made no attempt whatsoever to answer them. Instead, you simply type some throwaway lines about your personal views and expect that to count as some sort of argument (this ''is'' a ''debate'' page). [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:50, 4 December 2007 (EST)

=== "Everything that exists has a cause outside of itself." ===
Not sure who, they didn't sign their post properly, but they made this statement. There is a problem here... that is not the premise that Christians make. The statement should go like this...
:'''Everything that ''begins to'' exist has a cause.'''
* Notice that I added "begins to". For example, when a baby is born, it has a beginning, therefore it has a cause. God is the exception to the rule. Since He is the highest/most supreme Being in existence, out of necessity He always exists.
*# Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
*# God does not have a beginning.
*# Therefore God does not have a cause.
* How do we know God doesn't have a beginning or ending? Psalm 90:2 "...Even from everlasting to everlasting, You are God." (NASB)
* A side note... "outside of itself" is not necessary in the statement. It's obvious that something cannot be the cause of itself, if it does not exist. That would be illogical. So it can be safely assumed in the statement without saying it. At least I am assuming it.
--[[User:Ymmotrojam|Ymmotrojam]] 21:33, 4 December 2007 (EST)
:Oh, I don't know. When you've got people believing that the universe formed out of nothing for no reason, perhaps some of these obvious things need to be spelt out. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:37, 5 December 2007 (EST)
::I don't think Big Bang cosmology implies that the universe formed out of nothing for no reason. The theory states that we can trace the expansion of space back to a singularity, that is to say a point beyond which we cannot probe. The theory doesn't state that nothing existed prior to the singularity (indeed the singularity itself must have existed for an indeterminate time prior to its expansion into the universe we know and love). [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 20:27, 10 December 2007 (EST)
::: Discover magazine in 2002 described the views of Alan Guth, one of the originators of the inflation theory of the Big Bang thus: {{QuoteBox|The universe burst into something from absolutely nothing—zero, nada. And as it got bigger, it became filled with even more stuff that came from absolutely nowhere.[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2507/]}} I think that supports what I said quite nicely. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:08, 10 December 2007 (EST)

:::Then he created a terrible strawman for the Big Bang theory, it has since been refined by Hawking among others. Whilst paradoxes remain as they always will, they seem as equally paradoxical as God; although the implications of such a being in turn create yet more paradoxes. -Barnes
:::: I assume that you are referring to Alan Guth creating a strawman. A strawman argument is an argument that claims that ''someone else'' proposes something, which you then proceed to demolish. But Guth was not claiming that ''someone else'' proposed this: he is one of the Big Bang experts, and ''he'' was proposing this. So no, it's not a strawman argument at all. Further, this dates from six years ago; I'm not sure that you are correct that Hawking has "since" refined it. And what paradoxes are implied by the existence of God? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:20, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

:::Perhaps not a strawman, but regardless of his standing this explanation of the Big Bang is laughable. General relativity shows time not to be a passive background to events but a dynamic entity which is warped my matter and energy inside it. At a point of infinite energy density time does not progress, and thus whilst we are left with the paradox of why there was a bang we do not need to answer where the energy came from.

:::The paradox of God is his realm of his existence, and his interaction in the world. It also begs the question of why he waited an infinite time before he created the universe (if this is even possible). Then of course there is the good old problem of evil, though of course his attributes are subjective interpretations derived from 'experience'. -Barnes
::::I see lots of pins and dancing angels. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 18:39, 7 April 2008 (EDT)

:::: "''this explanation of the Big Bang is laughable''": True, but then the whole idea of the Big Bang is laughable. Regardless of Guth's particular description, the Big Bang is basically "nothing exploded and became everything".
:::: Why don't we need to answer where the energy came from? I don't follow your explanation of that.
:::: "''The paradox of God is his realm of his existence, and his interaction in the world.''": Sorry, but that's not explaining the alleged paradox.
:::: "''It also begs the question of why he waited an infinite time before he created the universe...''": No, your argument is a loaded one, presuming something that is not claimed, and not true. Part of God's creation (the space/time/matter universe) is ''time''. That means that God ''created time''. That means that God ''does not exist IN time''. Therefore, it is not true to argue that God "waited an infinite time", because "time" didn't exist.
:::: "''... (if this is even possible).''": Why would it not be possible for an all-powerful Creator to create the universe?
:::: "''Then of course there is the good old problem of evil...''": The "good old problem of evil" is the good old bibliosceptic argument that's been long answered over and over. It's old, but it's not good.
:::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:11, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

The Big Bang does not say anything about nothing. That is a misconception not because of what carefully selected scientists have to say about the theory but because you are taking a Newtonian approach to time. 'Nothing' never existed, as i explained before because time is not merely a background to events but it is shaped by the density of matter and energy inside of it. If you have a point of infinite density then time will not progress, it will stay still. So whilst you can leave God to fill the paradox of what caused the expansion itself and therefore the progression of time, it would be wrong to think of something appearing out of nothing. Therefore, if the energy had always existed then it need not have come from anywhere.

The realm of God's existence is of course paradoxical, because the word supernatural is an oxymoron. Here is a little paste from an article about this paradox:

"Now that we have the definition of Nature and Supernatural we see a very conflicting view: One is the entirety of all the laws which govern existence as we know it, and the other is a term for those activities that can happen outside the laws of nature. That is an impossibility. If Nature is Everything, then Something cannot exist outside of Everything unless Everything is only a Something; in which case Nature therefore is incorrect in it's definition and cannot be called the laws which govern all of life, only a portion of laws that govern life. So either Nature is incorrect, or Supernatural is incorrect, they cannot be existing together logically."

Time is a paradox for God because it is only through time that anything progresses. If time were stationary for God then nothing would progress for him or us; it is through chronological progression that causality can exist. If God is infinite in time, then how could he not have been waiting around for an infinite amount of time before the Big Bang? And if He is finite in time, then how was he created? If He is neither finite nor infinite, then He is exempt from time and therefore causality itself.

As for the problem of evil, it is only problematic if you assume the attribute of benevolence and the degree to which you hold him responsible for our situation and therefore the situation of others. I deny free will both on empirical, metaphysical and even divine grounds, therefore we cannot be held responsible for our actions or the suffering of others. -Barnes

:Which article? I would like to read the whole thing at some point. o_0 [[User:Kektklik|Fuzzy|AFD]] 19:00, 9 April 2008 (EDT)

http://forum.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=messageboard.viewThread&groupID=100096596&page=0&EntryID=30321825

:That nothing existed before the Big Bang is not just based on a quote from one Big Bang expert. Paul Davies, for example, said "According to modern physics, the big bang represented the origin of space and time, as well as of matter and energy."
: If your scenario is correct, and time stood still because of infinite density, and assuming God didn't trigger the Big Bang, then why isn't time still standing still? What caused the Big Bang? Any change that triggered the Big Bang would require something to be happening in time.
: The quote from the article only works because it switches meanings. From the section (in your link) just before your quote, "Nature" is defined as referring the "the material world" and "the physical world", yet the writer then bases his argument on "nature" meaning "everything". No, according to the definitions he himself supplied, it does ''not'' mean "everything". And without that, the argument collapses: there is no paradox.
: You say that time is a paradox for God because it is only through time that anything progresses, but this is something that you cannot know. What would be more accurate to say is that it is only through time that anything ''natural'' progresses, but as God is ''supernatural'', that doesn’t necessarily hold (and ''doesn't'' hold if God is the creator of time)
: If you have no free will, then even your thoughts are the unavoidable outcomes of chemical processes in your brain, which means that everything you said above you were in effect forced to say, rather than it having any basis in evidence, logic, or reason. So if you have no free will, I'm free (assuming I do have free will) to ignore everything you say. Of course, to be consistent, I have no free will either, which means that my cranial mental processes are nothing more than chemical reactions, which means that my unavoidable chemical reactions are arguing for something different than your unavoidable chemical reactions, which means that those chemical reactions do not produce consistent results, which means they are not to be trusted. Which again means that I've got no reason to take any notice of you or your arguments.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:18, 9 April 2008 (EDT)

Im not arguing that the Big Bang theory is not prone to paradoxes, for the progression of time is undoubtedly a paradox. Though whether such a theory requires the untestable and highly complex hypothesis of a God to cause it who is himself paradoxical, im not so sure. Transcending time is a logical impossibility, or rather a copout. If something is beyond our realm of comprehension to the extent that it isnt even a speculative concept, then it is a dissatisfying 'cause' to the universe. It is just as paradoxical as the progression of time, although infinitely more complex and therefore not preferable.

The definitions lead me to believe that nature is everything we see around us. "The forces and processes that produce and control all the phenomena of the material world: the laws of nature". Thus if God does interact with the world, it is only through the laws of nature that he could, and being only a something external to the empirical universe he would be not be everything but merely a something and thus limited. -[http://www.myspace.com/barnes_ Barnes]
: Most of your post was argument by incredulity and personal opinion. God is supposed to be all-knowing, all-powerful, etc. but one characteristic ''not'' used of him is "everything". So He is not "everything", but that doesn't mean that He is therefore limited. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:59, 10 April 2008 (EDT)

==Logical fallacy==
It is illogical to apply physical attributes to a non-physical being. Also, it is illogical to question whether something can be created to be mightier than He who is Almighty. That God cannot create something more powerful than Himself does not mean God is not all-powerful. The definition of all-powerful is that there is nothing more powerful! Furthermore, this is pitting God against Himself; His abilities against His own abilities. That makes no sense! Look at it this way: can you defeat yourself at wrestling? Of course not.

Additionally, God cannot create square circles because squares are squares and circles are circles. It's like asking God to make 1 equal 0 or to make bthe color blue the color red. Of course, I suppose God could do some M.C. Escher thing and make square circles.

Anyway, the only thing questions like these prove is how intellectually bankrupt neo-atheists are. They so want God to not exist that they will ignore their own illogic. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 20:56, 10 December 2007 (EST)

: A good response to this type of question has just been posted on the Creation Ministries International website[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/5566]. It is consistent with other comments above, including Jinxmchue's comment (complete with an M. C. Escher picture!), but is explained very clearly, in my opinion.
: There are actually several answers:
:* 'A rock too heavy for a being who can lift anything' is a self-contradictory statement, and a self-contradictory statement is a ''nothing'', so "Can God create a rock too heavy for Him to lift?" really amounts to "Can God create a nothing?", which is clearly absurd.
:* Can God create a square circle? An all-powerful being can do anything that takes ''power'' to do. How much power does it take to create a square circle? It's not ''power'' that is required (again, because it's an illogical impossibility), so that's no argument against God's omnipotence either.
:* Yes, God ''can'' create a rock too heavy for God to lift! That is, God (the Father) can create a rock too heavy for God (the Son) to lift—because God the Son (Jesus) voluntarily gave up some of His divine powers!
: The article also relates [[C. S. Lewis]]' thoughts on the matter.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:32, 12 January 2008 (EST)

::"God (the Father) can create a rock too heavy for God (the Son) to lift" lol! I like that one. I'll have to remember to use it next time I see this argument presented by someone who thinks they're the first person to ever present it. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 09:40, 26 January 2008 (EST)

In addition, the Bible states that God is by nature good; as He cannot do anything contrary to His nature and because creating such an object would render logic illogic, one is inclined to conclude that this argument has no bearing on His undeniable existence. {{unsigned|VoteGOP21}}

==I'VE SOLVED IT!==
Yes, God ''can'' make a rock so big that He can't lift it. But He can also shrink it again to a size small enough that he can lift it too again. Crisis averted, argument over. --[[User:Cranky Joe|Cranky Joe]] 20:35, 7 January 2008 (EST)
:That's not an aversion, that's ignoring the problem. If you simply add "and cannot be changed by him", the "crisis" remains, because it's a contradiction to his existence (with the quality of omnipotence).
: <grin> [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:34, 8 January 2008 (EST)
:The heaviest thing in the universe may only be one cubic millimetre. [[User:Jallen|Jallen]] 08:35, 12 January 2008 (EST)
::Hooray for incredibly dense objects. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 19:52, 24 January 2008 (EST)
:::Your ''mom's'' an incredibly dense object. :D Seriously though, this is a linguistic paradox more than a philosophical one. [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 19:43, 11 February 2008 (EST)
learn english, the key word is "heavy" not "big."

==Oh my==

God creates a rock he can't lift himself, but then the rock becomes liftable if he so wishes. He is so powerful he gets to chose his limitations. {{unsigned|Reallyforeign}}

==Yes==
of course he could, if he is able to create the known universe then he would be able to make a rock to heavy to lift even by himself[[User:Greenmeanie|Greenmeanie]] 15:39, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

==Here's why the question is wrong==
Weight isn't a factor in whether God can lift the rock or not - it's just as easy for Him to lift a small rock as a big one (like, er, Yoda). This question is like asking 'Could He make a rock so blue He couldn't lift it?' - it's a nonsense.

==No==
*For the purpose of this argument, assume God exists and is omnipotent (subject to the restrictions of logic).
:*If God is omnipotent, surely he can lift any rock.
:*A rock which God cannot lift, therefore, cannot possibly exist. Its existence would contradict God's omnipotence.
:*Because, in this argument, God is constrained by logic, God cannot create something that cannot exist.
:*Because a rock God cannot create cannot exist, God cannot create one.
:Note that, by "subject to the restrictions of logic," I mean that God would be unable to do anything that is logically impossible.
:For example, a square circle cannot logically exist; a square has four sides, while a circle has only one, and clearly
:nothing can have four sides and one side. Therefore, a God subject to the restrictions of logic would be unable to create one.
:-[[User:CSGuy|CSGuy]] 17:54, 29 October 2008 (EDT)

==Wrong assumptions give the question its curious attraction.==
Omnipotence does not mean infinite irrational, magical, meaningless, purposeless, nonsensical ability. Gravity, one of the most powerful forces in the universe, exists precisely because of the self-limiting nature of the power itself. You can say that the effect of gravity is infinite, but its powers and properties are actually determined by natural laws. Gravity obeys its own laws. God obeys his own laws. According to multi-verse theory, the answer would have to be "Yes, there must be a universe somewhere in which something as irrational as this actually happens." But in this universe, the answer must be that the Creator is not expected to contradict himself, and that this does not limit him in any meaningful way. The juxtaposition of an immovable object with an irrestible force is a hypothetical abstraction with no meaningful resolution and makes no contribution to knowledge in any context. What we should be looking for is a useful concept of omnipotence. That would be a much more interesting discussion. If you have to have a definition of omnipotence that includes infinity, then the multi-verse is for you. But in a fine-tuned, well designed universe, with clearly defined laws, properties and purpose, all of the power that exists would be that of the Creator. "Omnipotence", to me at least, means "all of the power that is" not all of the power I can imagine. It did not take infinite power to make this universe. And yet who can conceive of the difference between the abstract concept of infinite power and the forces that appear to exist? In this case Plato is wrong. You cannot determine all truth from abstractions. But science cannot save us either, because the original question is non-falsifiable, and therefore cannot tell us anything about God. For those who think the existence of such a question is evidence against God, the ability of mankind to ask such a question is a miracle in itself. RCW

==No==

God cannot limit His own power. However, He could create a rock of whatever size He wanted. He could even create a rock of infinite size if He liked, but He would still be capable of lifting it. Just because God canot limit His own power does not mean He is not all powerful. [[User:Dford|Dford]] 14:45, 29 May 2010 (EDT)

==Answer==

This is a metaphorical rock. It represents the weight upon my soul that is crushing me. I cry out to God, "Lord, there has been a weight created upon my soul that is so heavy I cannot lift it. It is such an enormous burden that I am afraid you cannot lift it, either." God replies, "No, my son. There is no weight or heavy burden that is too great for me to overcome. I will lift this weight off your soul." I have been restored. --[[User:Tmike|Tmike]] ([[User talk:Tmike|talk]]) 09:19, 8 March 2017 (EST)

==YES! Utilizing a Counter-paradoxical Response.==

The Stone paradox is specifically designed to utilize a logical trap (a paradox) while offering only limited information within the question. Its goal is to nullify the existence of omnipotence and likewise, the existence of God. The Stone Paradox assumes that there are only ''two possible responses'' to the question, ("Yes" and "No."). In this particular case there exists a third response where God can '''lift the stone''' and at the exact same moment '''not lift the stone'''.

Omnipresence, Omniscience and Omnipotence are all directly linked together into a single unified power possessed by God. In the case of the Stone Paradox, the power of Omnipresence can be utilized to fulfill the required task and not compromise God's Omnipotence in the process. The result is a counter-paradoxical situation which competes on equal terms with the Stone Paradox question. This is called the [https://www.quora.com/Can-god-make-a-rock-so-heavy-that-he-couldn%E2%80%99t-lift-it/answer/Darryl-Lankford?srid=uqDtf Circular God Counter-paradox]

[https://youtu.be/YDTsYYGNAMY Video tutorial on the Circular God Counter-paradox]

From this point forward, whenever the Stone Paradox question is asked, the '''Circular God Counter-paradox''' can be offered in response. By way of this counter-paradoxical response, there exists a philosophical stalemate regarding the existence of Omnipotence. Instead of Omnipotence being nullified, the original Stone Paradox question has been nullified. --[[User:Birdman DSL|Birdman DSL]] ([[User talk:Birdman DSL|talk]]) 10:29, 25 April 2017 (EDT)

Debate:Could God create a rock so heavy that he himself could not lift it?

2017-04-25T14:29:14Z

Birdman DSL: /* YES! Utilizing a Counter-paradoxical Response. */

{{debate-religion}}

Could God create a rock so heavy that he himself could not lift it?
Discuss--[[User:Sm355|Sm355]] 18:08, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
:Does [[omnipotence]] include the power to create an even greater power than itself? That's what that rock is: a greater power than omnipotence. Only agents of limited power can "create" things which are, in some ways, more powerful than them, by the means of contriving complex objects which already exist which are in some ways more powerful than them. Unfortunately, the ultimate complex object which we limited agents can contrive is a conflation of real logic and semantics.[[User:PatternOfPersona|PatternOfPersona]] 21:33, 5 July 2011 (EDT)

The answer is NO He cannot "do" that. Note that there is no limit however to the size of a rock that He can create, and there is no limit to the size of a rock that He can lift. Thus the question - answered in the negative - involves no limitation on God's prerogatives; if answered in the positive however does. The whole thing is a play on words as is explained more or less in various ways below. It's negation does not mean God is not omnipotent - it means that omnipotence is not properly tested as implied by this question. [[User:Qwestor|Qwestor]] 14:54, 28 December 2007 (EDT)

This old one... its supposed to be a paradox showing the omnipotence is impossible: If God can create the rock, He must not be all-powerful because He cannot lift it. If He cant create the rock, then He still isn't all powerful. Either way, no all-powerful being. Personally, I think God just has no reason to create such a rock, so why would He? - BornAgainBrit

Because he wants to disprove his own existence. --[[User:Huey gunna getcha|Huey gunna getcha]] 18:17, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

But you can't assume that God is temporally limited like us mere mortals. He can create the rock so heavy he can't lift it one minute, then, the next minute, he lifts it. Just because we can't conceive of it, doesn't mean God can't lift it. -mittromney

:He'd get YOU to lift it. --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 18:51, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

::No! No matter how heavy the rock would be, God would still be able to lift it because he is the Almighty.
:::"He only is my rock and my salvation: he is my defence; I shall not be moved." (Psalm 62:6)
::[[User:JC|JC]] 09:44, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

==Yes He Can==
God can command a rock to come into existence with the command "Let there be a rock that I cannot lift". When this rock comes into existence it won't allow God to be able to lift it. however, it may be small enough for everyone else to lift it. God is outside of all of the laws we live in and that includes the laws of possibility. Thus God has the power to choose if something is or isn't impossible to him. [[User:LostFox|LostFox]]

==Traditional Paradox of God==
God is omnipotent Therefore he can But since he is omnipotent He can lift the rock he cannot lift Therefore God is a paradox and cannot exist

[[User:Helios|Helios]] loves the creator of this page and will worship him as though he were a paradoxical God.

The part that people miss is assuming that God is picking the rock up with a pair of arms like a human. God isn't a human. God doesn't have a physical body. God can't lift rocks. God makes the rock lift itself.
:Doesn't "lifting" assume an "up"? What is an omnipresent being standing on when lifting a rock? I think this question is broken. [[User:Totnesmartin|Totnesmartin]] 16:55, 16 May 2007
(EDT)

Alright, then can he make a rock so large he cannot make it move? And another thing disproving that he exists; it says in Genesis it took him six days to create the universe. A perfect, all-powerful god would have created it instantly. And some say that maybe he took his time, etc. That doesn't work either, because if he was perfect, everything he did would be as efficient as possible, and that would mean instantly. And, on top of that, he had to rest from the effort. Now, granted, creating a universe in only six days, and only resting for one is still pretty impressive, but that doesn't mean omnipotence.- Bob Sanchez

::Did it ever occur to anyone that it might take time to create imperfection from perfection? JM ([[user:Meyje|Meyje]])
:::What "imperfection from perfection"? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:29, 23 October 2007 (EDT)

:As far as the rock is concerned, that has been answered below, I believe. God can do anything ''that can be done''. Creating a rock too big for Him to move is not something that can be done.
:You are incorrect in claiming that a "perfect, all-powerful god would have created [the universe] instantly". The correct statement would be that He ''could'' create it instantly, not that He ''would''.
:By claiming that He would not have taken longer because that would be less efficient is (a) not obviously true (sometimes it is more efficient to take longer), and (b) presumes that efficiency is the prime goal. Rather, it would appear from Exodus 20:11 that God chose to take six days in order to set the pattern for the week.
:Similarly, you misunderstand the reference to resting. The Bible doesn't say that God was tired and needed to recuperate. The Hebrew word translated "rest" simply means to take a break, to stop from working. Again, this would have been in order to set the pattern for the week: work six days and take the seventh day off.
:In summary, then, you have basically tried picking holes with the account by saying that if God was truly omnipotent, He would have done things the way that you think He would have done them, which overlooks that perhaps there are reasons that He ''chose'' to do them the way He did that you hadn't considered.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:02, 17 July 2007 (EDT)
God is almighty, it'll be dumb if He created a rock to the point where He Himself can not lift it. God created the Heavens and the Earth, God can lift any rock. Now if HE did created such a rock, He do have the powers to make it easier fro Him to lift it. Didn't anyone think of that? I like what Philip J. Rayment said there, it is true, He did make the patterns of the week. That's why every time God created something, the BIBLE said that it was the 1st or 2nd or 3rd day.

if god is perfect, then what reason would he have to bother with existence? Surely he would do anything he would ever need or want to do in an infinitely small time, and then simply pop out of existence. If he was all-knowing, he would know it was all he could ever want to do, and if he was capable of anything, he could stop existing.
(Rowan)
: That argument presupposes that God exists in time, which He doesn't, as "time" is part of His creation. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:20, 10 December 2007 (EST)

== Absurd ==

This question is absurd and this revolves around the question of what omnipotence is. If you use the definition of "omnipotence is the ability to do anything" then you hit this problem. If you use the definition of "omnipotence is the ability to do anything that may be done" then the problem does not exist.

Lets take an alternative form of this argument:
# If God is omnipotent, then God can create a square circle
# God cannot create a square circle
# Therefore, God is not omnipotent

This is of the form
#p -> q
#~q
#therefore ~p
which is a valid argument form known as modus tollens. To attack this argument it is necessary to look at the premises. The second premise is fair so the first must be examined. This can be broken down into:
##God is omnipotent
##Therefore God can create or do anything
##A square circle is a thing
##Therefore God can create a square circle

Theistic scholar/philosophers do not claim the omnipotence of God, but rather that God is the maximally powerful being. That God can do anything that can be done. With the modified argument:
##God the maximally powerful being
##Therefore God can create or do anything
##A square circle is a thing
##Therefore God can create a square circle
It falls apart and the first premise of the argument fails. Ultimately, this does not limit God's power - He can do anything that can be done and create anything that can exist.

This can then be summed up in:
* God is the maximally powerful being.
* That which cannot exist, cannot be created.
There is no paradox here, and any claim otherwise rests on absurdity.
--[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 18:25, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Let's apply this argument by logical constraint to a few other Christian doctrines, then, shall we?

Example 1:
## For a woman to beome pregnant, she must be inseminated.
## Virgins have not been inseminated
## Mary was a virgin
## Therefore, Mary was not pregnant.

Example 2:
## Everything that exists has a cause outside of itself. (Premise)
## The universe exists. (Premise)
## Therefore, the universe has a cause outside of itself.
## We call that cause God (cosmological argument).
## God exits (Premise)
## Therefore, God has a cause outside of itself.

So - God is too weak to create a squared circle. I get that - but what about the rock?

"Any claim otherwise rests on absurdity"? You seem fairly confident that by using a lot of logical jargon and organizing your post in a way that intimates you know what you're talking about, you can circumvent the inherent logical fallacy that you're assuming you can conceptualize what can exist and what can be created. If you claim to know what can and what cannot be created, such as, for example, a rock that God can't lift, shouldn't that be in the entry for hubris? -mittromney
: I am simply stating the solution to the paradox of omnipotence that was given back as an answer in one of the religious studies classes I took at a Catholic highschool and again in a university class on "Philosophy and Religion." At best, the paradox of omnipotence is a strawman argument. [http://www.philosophyofreligion.info/impossiblerock.html] [http://www.philosophyofreligion.info/omnipotence.html] [http://www.skepticwiki.org/wiki/index.php/Omnipotence_Paradox] [http://www.greatplay.net/uselessia/articles/omnipyparadox.html] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnipotence_paradox] Thomas Aquinas said it well "Since the principles of certain sciences, such as logic, geometry and arithmetic are taken only from the formal principles of things, on which the essence of the thing depends, it follows that God could not make things contrary to these principles. For example, that a genus was not predicable of the species, or that lines drawn from the center to the circumference were not equal, or that a triangle did not have three angles equal to two right angles." - granted this is founded on euclidean space, but it goes back to the question of can God break the laws of the universe that He created. Alternatively, you can go to Augustine of Hippo and read "For He is called omnipotent on account of His doing what He wills, not on account of His suffering what He wills not; for if that should befall Him, He would by no means be omnipotent. Wherefore, He cannot do some things for the very reason that He is omnipotent." [http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf102.iv.V.10.html] --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 18:54, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Isn't the fact that your quote from Aquinas included a notion that was later proved to be totally incorrect by Einstein absolutely damning for your argument that humans can adequately perceive and evaluate logical concepts? I guess I'm curious how any of what you say deals properly with the idea that God is totally superior in every way, and therefore to say He can or can't do something is pointless hubris a fortiori? -mittromney
: It depends if you take it literally or what he was trying to say. The question is can God do something that is against the rules of logic? If you don't like the triangle example that Aquinas gave, then use four sided triangles or square circles in place of them. Read the first sentence again and you will see that these are perfectly valid substitutions - "Since the principles of certain sciences, such as logic, geometry and arithmetic are taken only from the formal principles of things, on which the essence of the thing depends, it follows that God could not make things contrary to these principles." --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 19:01, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
::So you're saying that we should just choose a new facially contradictory idea, and go ahead with that, while my whole point was that we're totally incapable of evaluating what's consistent and what's contradictory? I'm not sure how choosing new examples of things we assume to be not true helps you at all... -mittromney
::: You are suggesting that Aquinas is proven wrong because he used a definition of a triangle that only worked in euclidean space. This false-paradox is a straw man for an atheistic world view that is based on a particular definition of omnipotence - it is just as bad as creationists giving straw man arguments that are counter evolution (do note, I am not a creationist). If you wish to argue that a logical impossibility is not beyond omnipotence, then you can work from the Cartesian viewpoint of the trickster god or demon that allows 2+2=5, though that is more a question of belief and knowledge than omnipotence. If you wish to argue about omnipotence with a theistic philosopher, then it is necessary to work from that definition of omnipotence. I am presenting that definition and showing how the rest of the question falls to absurdity when this definition is used - which does not limit omnipotence. Simply said, God can do anything that can be done. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 19:15, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Again, I don't think you properly respond to what I'm saying. I claim the idea of a logical impossibility is a hobgoblin of mediocre minds: We have no idea what's logically possible or impossible. To say we do, and subsequently to claim that somehow human logic limits the omnipotence of god, is [[foolhardy]]. What I was suggesting with your Aquinas example is that things which may at one point in time appear to be facially and obviously contradictory can, in the future, be shown to actually be possible, and the original belief was therefore just an incorrect human assumption and not "logic". How that argument is a false-paradox straw man is beyond me: It appears you just throw those terms around to try to demonstrate that you're familiar with logical jargon in the hopes that the other side will assume you know better than they do. When you argue through implicit authority (not to even bring up the Descartes reference), you sound like a liberal who belongs at wiki... -mittromney

:I would urge you to ask your priest or minister the question of the rock so heavy. You will likely get a similar answer to mine (and that of Aquinas and Augustine of Hippo). Omnipotence is a human definition with words that are constrained by our language. Head to the seminary and you will find half a dozen different definitions of omnipotence and various theologians arguing for and against each one being the correct interpretation of the word. You will even find Judaism (which also asserts the omnipotent God) claims that God works through persuasion rather than action - the creation of possibility rather than miracles or violations of natural law - that His omnipotence is shown through that means. Other branches of Christianity use "God cannot make you sin" as part of its philosophy, that if God was to make you sin then you would not have free will and thus would not be sinning. The only reason to pose the paradox of omnipotence is to try to assert that God does not have such power. My take on it (and I agree with those sources I have linked above) is that the proper definition of omnipotence is "to have any power that can be had" or to be the maximally powerful being and as such the question of the rock or a square circle or a four sided triangle becomes a silly question - that which cannot exist cannot be created. If you wish to assert a different definition and solution to this question, then by all means do so. However, I have not seen any reasonable argument against this position from you yet. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 20:41, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

"Maximally powerful" doesn't mean "all-powerful". Your arguement implies that the Bible was incorrect in naming God as omnipotent, which completely destroys the foundation for faith in Christianity: The belief that the Bible is without error. - Bob Sanchez

Where does the Bible say that God is omnipotent? That word appears once in the KJV, and once in the NKJV, and nowhere else. When it appears, it describes the shouts of a crowd, and so may not be accurate. The Bible clearly gives the impression that God is more powerful than all the other beings in the universe combined, but nowhere says he is omnipotent, insofar as omnipotent is defined as "able to do anything, regardless of whether it is logically possible or not." As far as Mary is concerned, it is not logically impossible for God to create a baby inside her womb, but it would be logically impossible for God to create a baby that was not a baby. See the difference? God must conform to first-order logic, but he is not limited beyond that.[[User:Lordofthemarsh|Lordofthemarsh]] 00:42, 30 May 2008 (EDT)
----

Can God predict the future? [[User:kchittur|kchittur]]

How heavy do you think the rock that god can't lift would be? --[[User:Huey gunna getcha|Huey gunna getcha]] 18:48, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Maybe 1*10^abs(1/0) kg.--[[User:Sm355|Sm355]] 18:49, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:Shhhhh, you supposed to use lbs.! --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 19:06, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Guys, you are debating the wrong question which is really only a red herring. The real question that each must answer is this: "Will a man become so filled with pride and enamored with thoughts of his own intellectual superiority as to use a silly logical argument as an excuse to close his mind and his heart to the truth of the Gospel and thus reject his only hope of salvation?" --[[User:HSDad|HSDad]] 10:34, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:Or perhaps the real question is, "Why do so many people blindly follow religious stories and texts with nothing to go on but faith with out any facts?". But that's another question for another debate. Lets just stick to the original question.--[[User:Sm355|Sm355]] 12:38, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Aaaaagh you just disprooved god[[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 15:37, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

God can make the rock, but every time He tries to lift it the planet he's standing on crumbles under His feet. [[User:Teresita|Teresita]] 00:22, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

Well then, that is basically saying that god can't create a strong enough planet to stand on. or just some infinite unbreakable plain with really strong gravity that exists solely for him to stand on so he can try to lift this unliftable rock.[[User:Revengeancer|Revengeancer]] 17:34, 29 October 2008 (EDT)

If we assume that God does exist, I'm gonna have to go with Thomas Aquinas on this one. In his ''Summa Theologica'', he wrote:
<blockquote>Therefore, everything that does not imply a contradiction in terms, is
numbered amongst those possible things, in respect of which God is
called omnipotent: whereas whatever implies contradiction does not
come within the scope of divine omnipotence, because it cannot have
the aspect of possibility. Hence it is better to say that such things
cannot be done, than that God cannot do them.</blockquote>
That is, if God exists, he can do all that is logically possible, and nothing that is not. So, because there is a contradiction whether God can or cannot create the rock, it cannot be done. [[User:Masterbratac|Masterbratac]] 19:43, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

:God is powerful, I like that square circle example. He can creat anything he want to created. Now why would God creat such a rock that even Himself can't lift. If the rock was heavy than God can just use His powers to make it easier to lift duhh. God is too strong to creat a rock too heavy for Him to lift. [[User:Amphibious|Amphibious]] 02:14, 27 October 2007 (EDT)

[added~]

haha. its kind of funny arguing about this kind of thing...because personally, i dont believe in higher beings like god. its only a figment of your mind; god holds only as much power as you give him. there is the concept of god for those who want a pillar of support around and them and i realize that there are those who truly would like to believe. and im fine with that. however, for someone like me who believes it is impractical, impossible, and downright strange to have an "omnipotent" being watching over us in such a way, i say heck sure he could. if he existed. but if we're going to put this in the context of fiction, anything is possible. but to me, if the root of this argumnet, god, does not exist, then i consider the possiblity of him creating a rock that he cant lift as invalid. {{unsigned|KuR0K4R4}}

:So what reason do you provide for God's non-existence? None! You don't believe He does—but that doesn't mean He doesn't—yet you provide absolutely no reason whatsoever for your subjective opinion. Many people have provided very good arguments supporting the view that God does exist, but you are obviously unaware of them or simply choose to ignore them, because you've made no attempt whatsoever to answer them. Instead, you simply type some throwaway lines about your personal views and expect that to count as some sort of argument (this ''is'' a ''debate'' page). [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:50, 4 December 2007 (EST)

=== "Everything that exists has a cause outside of itself." ===
Not sure who, they didn't sign their post properly, but they made this statement. There is a problem here... that is not the premise that Christians make. The statement should go like this...
:'''Everything that ''begins to'' exist has a cause.'''
* Notice that I added "begins to". For example, when a baby is born, it has a beginning, therefore it has a cause. God is the exception to the rule. Since He is the highest/most supreme Being in existence, out of necessity He always exists.
*# Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
*# God does not have a beginning.
*# Therefore God does not have a cause.
* How do we know God doesn't have a beginning or ending? Psalm 90:2 "...Even from everlasting to everlasting, You are God." (NASB)
* A side note... "outside of itself" is not necessary in the statement. It's obvious that something cannot be the cause of itself, if it does not exist. That would be illogical. So it can be safely assumed in the statement without saying it. At least I am assuming it.
--[[User:Ymmotrojam|Ymmotrojam]] 21:33, 4 December 2007 (EST)
:Oh, I don't know. When you've got people believing that the universe formed out of nothing for no reason, perhaps some of these obvious things need to be spelt out. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:37, 5 December 2007 (EST)
::I don't think Big Bang cosmology implies that the universe formed out of nothing for no reason. The theory states that we can trace the expansion of space back to a singularity, that is to say a point beyond which we cannot probe. The theory doesn't state that nothing existed prior to the singularity (indeed the singularity itself must have existed for an indeterminate time prior to its expansion into the universe we know and love). [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 20:27, 10 December 2007 (EST)
::: Discover magazine in 2002 described the views of Alan Guth, one of the originators of the inflation theory of the Big Bang thus: {{QuoteBox|The universe burst into something from absolutely nothing—zero, nada. And as it got bigger, it became filled with even more stuff that came from absolutely nowhere.[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2507/]}} I think that supports what I said quite nicely. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:08, 10 December 2007 (EST)

:::Then he created a terrible strawman for the Big Bang theory, it has since been refined by Hawking among others. Whilst paradoxes remain as they always will, they seem as equally paradoxical as God; although the implications of such a being in turn create yet more paradoxes. -Barnes
:::: I assume that you are referring to Alan Guth creating a strawman. A strawman argument is an argument that claims that ''someone else'' proposes something, which you then proceed to demolish. But Guth was not claiming that ''someone else'' proposed this: he is one of the Big Bang experts, and ''he'' was proposing this. So no, it's not a strawman argument at all. Further, this dates from six years ago; I'm not sure that you are correct that Hawking has "since" refined it. And what paradoxes are implied by the existence of God? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:20, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

:::Perhaps not a strawman, but regardless of his standing this explanation of the Big Bang is laughable. General relativity shows time not to be a passive background to events but a dynamic entity which is warped my matter and energy inside it. At a point of infinite energy density time does not progress, and thus whilst we are left with the paradox of why there was a bang we do not need to answer where the energy came from.

:::The paradox of God is his realm of his existence, and his interaction in the world. It also begs the question of why he waited an infinite time before he created the universe (if this is even possible). Then of course there is the good old problem of evil, though of course his attributes are subjective interpretations derived from 'experience'. -Barnes
::::I see lots of pins and dancing angels. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 18:39, 7 April 2008 (EDT)

:::: "''this explanation of the Big Bang is laughable''": True, but then the whole idea of the Big Bang is laughable. Regardless of Guth's particular description, the Big Bang is basically "nothing exploded and became everything".
:::: Why don't we need to answer where the energy came from? I don't follow your explanation of that.
:::: "''The paradox of God is his realm of his existence, and his interaction in the world.''": Sorry, but that's not explaining the alleged paradox.
:::: "''It also begs the question of why he waited an infinite time before he created the universe...''": No, your argument is a loaded one, presuming something that is not claimed, and not true. Part of God's creation (the space/time/matter universe) is ''time''. That means that God ''created time''. That means that God ''does not exist IN time''. Therefore, it is not true to argue that God "waited an infinite time", because "time" didn't exist.
:::: "''... (if this is even possible).''": Why would it not be possible for an all-powerful Creator to create the universe?
:::: "''Then of course there is the good old problem of evil...''": The "good old problem of evil" is the good old bibliosceptic argument that's been long answered over and over. It's old, but it's not good.
:::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:11, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

The Big Bang does not say anything about nothing. That is a misconception not because of what carefully selected scientists have to say about the theory but because you are taking a Newtonian approach to time. 'Nothing' never existed, as i explained before because time is not merely a background to events but it is shaped by the density of matter and energy inside of it. If you have a point of infinite density then time will not progress, it will stay still. So whilst you can leave God to fill the paradox of what caused the expansion itself and therefore the progression of time, it would be wrong to think of something appearing out of nothing. Therefore, if the energy had always existed then it need not have come from anywhere.

The realm of God's existence is of course paradoxical, because the word supernatural is an oxymoron. Here is a little paste from an article about this paradox:

"Now that we have the definition of Nature and Supernatural we see a very conflicting view: One is the entirety of all the laws which govern existence as we know it, and the other is a term for those activities that can happen outside the laws of nature. That is an impossibility. If Nature is Everything, then Something cannot exist outside of Everything unless Everything is only a Something; in which case Nature therefore is incorrect in it's definition and cannot be called the laws which govern all of life, only a portion of laws that govern life. So either Nature is incorrect, or Supernatural is incorrect, they cannot be existing together logically."

Time is a paradox for God because it is only through time that anything progresses. If time were stationary for God then nothing would progress for him or us; it is through chronological progression that causality can exist. If God is infinite in time, then how could he not have been waiting around for an infinite amount of time before the Big Bang? And if He is finite in time, then how was he created? If He is neither finite nor infinite, then He is exempt from time and therefore causality itself.

As for the problem of evil, it is only problematic if you assume the attribute of benevolence and the degree to which you hold him responsible for our situation and therefore the situation of others. I deny free will both on empirical, metaphysical and even divine grounds, therefore we cannot be held responsible for our actions or the suffering of others. -Barnes

:Which article? I would like to read the whole thing at some point. o_0 [[User:Kektklik|Fuzzy|AFD]] 19:00, 9 April 2008 (EDT)

http://forum.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=messageboard.viewThread&groupID=100096596&page=0&EntryID=30321825

:That nothing existed before the Big Bang is not just based on a quote from one Big Bang expert. Paul Davies, for example, said "According to modern physics, the big bang represented the origin of space and time, as well as of matter and energy."
: If your scenario is correct, and time stood still because of infinite density, and assuming God didn't trigger the Big Bang, then why isn't time still standing still? What caused the Big Bang? Any change that triggered the Big Bang would require something to be happening in time.
: The quote from the article only works because it switches meanings. From the section (in your link) just before your quote, "Nature" is defined as referring the "the material world" and "the physical world", yet the writer then bases his argument on "nature" meaning "everything". No, according to the definitions he himself supplied, it does ''not'' mean "everything". And without that, the argument collapses: there is no paradox.
: You say that time is a paradox for God because it is only through time that anything progresses, but this is something that you cannot know. What would be more accurate to say is that it is only through time that anything ''natural'' progresses, but as God is ''supernatural'', that doesn’t necessarily hold (and ''doesn't'' hold if God is the creator of time)
: If you have no free will, then even your thoughts are the unavoidable outcomes of chemical processes in your brain, which means that everything you said above you were in effect forced to say, rather than it having any basis in evidence, logic, or reason. So if you have no free will, I'm free (assuming I do have free will) to ignore everything you say. Of course, to be consistent, I have no free will either, which means that my cranial mental processes are nothing more than chemical reactions, which means that my unavoidable chemical reactions are arguing for something different than your unavoidable chemical reactions, which means that those chemical reactions do not produce consistent results, which means they are not to be trusted. Which again means that I've got no reason to take any notice of you or your arguments.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:18, 9 April 2008 (EDT)

Im not arguing that the Big Bang theory is not prone to paradoxes, for the progression of time is undoubtedly a paradox. Though whether such a theory requires the untestable and highly complex hypothesis of a God to cause it who is himself paradoxical, im not so sure. Transcending time is a logical impossibility, or rather a copout. If something is beyond our realm of comprehension to the extent that it isnt even a speculative concept, then it is a dissatisfying 'cause' to the universe. It is just as paradoxical as the progression of time, although infinitely more complex and therefore not preferable.

The definitions lead me to believe that nature is everything we see around us. "The forces and processes that produce and control all the phenomena of the material world: the laws of nature". Thus if God does interact with the world, it is only through the laws of nature that he could, and being only a something external to the empirical universe he would be not be everything but merely a something and thus limited. -[http://www.myspace.com/barnes_ Barnes]
: Most of your post was argument by incredulity and personal opinion. God is supposed to be all-knowing, all-powerful, etc. but one characteristic ''not'' used of him is "everything". So He is not "everything", but that doesn't mean that He is therefore limited. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:59, 10 April 2008 (EDT)

==Logical fallacy==
It is illogical to apply physical attributes to a non-physical being. Also, it is illogical to question whether something can be created to be mightier than He who is Almighty. That God cannot create something more powerful than Himself does not mean God is not all-powerful. The definition of all-powerful is that there is nothing more powerful! Furthermore, this is pitting God against Himself; His abilities against His own abilities. That makes no sense! Look at it this way: can you defeat yourself at wrestling? Of course not.

Additionally, God cannot create square circles because squares are squares and circles are circles. It's like asking God to make 1 equal 0 or to make bthe color blue the color red. Of course, I suppose God could do some M.C. Escher thing and make square circles.

Anyway, the only thing questions like these prove is how intellectually bankrupt neo-atheists are. They so want God to not exist that they will ignore their own illogic. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 20:56, 10 December 2007 (EST)

: A good response to this type of question has just been posted on the Creation Ministries International website[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/5566]. It is consistent with other comments above, including Jinxmchue's comment (complete with an M. C. Escher picture!), but is explained very clearly, in my opinion.
: There are actually several answers:
:* 'A rock too heavy for a being who can lift anything' is a self-contradictory statement, and a self-contradictory statement is a ''nothing'', so "Can God create a rock too heavy for Him to lift?" really amounts to "Can God create a nothing?", which is clearly absurd.
:* Can God create a square circle? An all-powerful being can do anything that takes ''power'' to do. How much power does it take to create a square circle? It's not ''power'' that is required (again, because it's an illogical impossibility), so that's no argument against God's omnipotence either.
:* Yes, God ''can'' create a rock too heavy for God to lift! That is, God (the Father) can create a rock too heavy for God (the Son) to lift—because God the Son (Jesus) voluntarily gave up some of His divine powers!
: The article also relates [[C. S. Lewis]]' thoughts on the matter.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:32, 12 January 2008 (EST)

::"God (the Father) can create a rock too heavy for God (the Son) to lift" lol! I like that one. I'll have to remember to use it next time I see this argument presented by someone who thinks they're the first person to ever present it. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 09:40, 26 January 2008 (EST)

In addition, the Bible states that God is by nature good; as He cannot do anything contrary to His nature and because creating such an object would render logic illogic, one is inclined to conclude that this argument has no bearing on His undeniable existence. {{unsigned|VoteGOP21}}

==I'VE SOLVED IT!==
Yes, God ''can'' make a rock so big that He can't lift it. But He can also shrink it again to a size small enough that he can lift it too again. Crisis averted, argument over. --[[User:Cranky Joe|Cranky Joe]] 20:35, 7 January 2008 (EST)
:That's not an aversion, that's ignoring the problem. If you simply add "and cannot be changed by him", the "crisis" remains, because it's a contradiction to his existence (with the quality of omnipotence).
: <grin> [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:34, 8 January 2008 (EST)
:The heaviest thing in the universe may only be one cubic millimetre. [[User:Jallen|Jallen]] 08:35, 12 January 2008 (EST)
::Hooray for incredibly dense objects. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 19:52, 24 January 2008 (EST)
:::Your ''mom's'' an incredibly dense object. :D Seriously though, this is a linguistic paradox more than a philosophical one. [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 19:43, 11 February 2008 (EST)
learn english, the key word is "heavy" not "big."

==Oh my==

God creates a rock he can't lift himself, but then the rock becomes liftable if he so wishes. He is so powerful he gets to chose his limitations. {{unsigned|Reallyforeign}}

==Yes==
of course he could, if he is able to create the known universe then he would be able to make a rock to heavy to lift even by himself[[User:Greenmeanie|Greenmeanie]] 15:39, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

==Here's why the question is wrong==
Weight isn't a factor in whether God can lift the rock or not - it's just as easy for Him to lift a small rock as a big one (like, er, Yoda). This question is like asking 'Could He make a rock so blue He couldn't lift it?' - it's a nonsense.

==No==
*For the purpose of this argument, assume God exists and is omnipotent (subject to the restrictions of logic).
:*If God is omnipotent, surely he can lift any rock.
:*A rock which God cannot lift, therefore, cannot possibly exist. Its existence would contradict God's omnipotence.
:*Because, in this argument, God is constrained by logic, God cannot create something that cannot exist.
:*Because a rock God cannot create cannot exist, God cannot create one.
:Note that, by "subject to the restrictions of logic," I mean that God would be unable to do anything that is logically impossible.
:For example, a square circle cannot logically exist; a square has four sides, while a circle has only one, and clearly
:nothing can have four sides and one side. Therefore, a God subject to the restrictions of logic would be unable to create one.
:-[[User:CSGuy|CSGuy]] 17:54, 29 October 2008 (EDT)

==Wrong assumptions give the question its curious attraction.==
Omnipotence does not mean infinite irrational, magical, meaningless, purposeless, nonsensical ability. Gravity, one of the most powerful forces in the universe, exists precisely because of the self-limiting nature of the power itself. You can say that the effect of gravity is infinite, but its powers and properties are actually determined by natural laws. Gravity obeys its own laws. God obeys his own laws. According to multi-verse theory, the answer would have to be "Yes, there must be a universe somewhere in which something as irrational as this actually happens." But in this universe, the answer must be that the Creator is not expected to contradict himself, and that this does not limit him in any meaningful way. The juxtaposition of an immovable object with an irrestible force is a hypothetical abstraction with no meaningful resolution and makes no contribution to knowledge in any context. What we should be looking for is a useful concept of omnipotence. That would be a much more interesting discussion. If you have to have a definition of omnipotence that includes infinity, then the multi-verse is for you. But in a fine-tuned, well designed universe, with clearly defined laws, properties and purpose, all of the power that exists would be that of the Creator. "Omnipotence", to me at least, means "all of the power that is" not all of the power I can imagine. It did not take infinite power to make this universe. And yet who can conceive of the difference between the abstract concept of infinite power and the forces that appear to exist? In this case Plato is wrong. You cannot determine all truth from abstractions. But science cannot save us either, because the original question is non-falsifiable, and therefore cannot tell us anything about God. For those who think the existence of such a question is evidence against God, the ability of mankind to ask such a question is a miracle in itself. RCW

==No==

God cannot limit His own power. However, He could create a rock of whatever size He wanted. He could even create a rock of infinite size if He liked, but He would still be capable of lifting it. Just because God canot limit His own power does not mean He is not all powerful. [[User:Dford|Dford]] 14:45, 29 May 2010 (EDT)

==Answer==

This is a metaphorical rock. It represents the weight upon my soul that is crushing me. I cry out to God, "Lord, there has been a weight created upon my soul that is so heavy I cannot lift it. It is such an enormous burden that I am afraid you cannot lift it, either." God replies, "No, my son. There is no weight or heavy burden that is too great for me to overcome. I will lift this weight off your soul." I have been restored. --[[User:Tmike|Tmike]] ([[User talk:Tmike|talk]]) 09:19, 8 March 2017 (EST)

==YES! Utilizing a Counter-paradoxical Response.==

The Stone paradox is specifically designed to utilize a logical trap (a paradox) while offering only limited information within the question. Its goal is to nullify the existence of omnipotence and likewise, the existence of God. The Stone Paradox assumes that there are only ''two possible responses'' to the question, ("Yes" and "No."). In this particular case there exists a third response where God can '''lift the stone''' and at the exact same moment '''not lift the stone'''.

Omnipresence, Omniscience and Omnipotence are all directly linked together into a single unified power possessed by God. In the case of the Stone Paradox, the power of Omnipresence can be utilized to fulfill the required task and not compromise God's Omnipotence in the process. The result is a counter-paradoxical situation which competes on equal terms with the Stone Paradox question. This is called the [https://www.quora.com/Can-god-make-a-rock-so-heavy-that-he-couldn%E2%80%99t-lift-it/answer/Darryl-Lankford?srid=uqDtf Circular God Counter-paradox]

[https://youtu.be/YDTsYYGNAMY Video tutorial on the Circular God Counter-paradox]

From this point forward, whenever the Stone Paradox question is asked, the '''Circular God Counter-paradox''' can be offered in response. By way of this counter-paradoxical response, there exists a philosophical stalemate regarding the existence of Omnipotence. Instead of Omnipotence being nullified, the original Stone paradox question has been nullified. --[[User:Birdman DSL|Birdman DSL]] ([[User talk:Birdman DSL|talk]]) 10:29, 25 April 2017 (EDT)

Debate:Could God create a rock so heavy that he himself could not lift it?

2017-04-25T14:25:38Z

Birdman DSL: /* YES! Utilizing a Counter-paradoxical Response. */

Debate:Could God create a rock so heavy that he himself could not lift it?

2017-04-25T14:23:23Z

Birdman DSL: A Counter-paradoxical Solution to the Stone Paradox Question.

{{debate-religion}}

Could God create a rock so heavy that he himself could not lift it?
Discuss--[[User:Sm355|Sm355]] 18:08, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
:Does [[omnipotence]] include the power to create an even greater power than itself? That's what that rock is: a greater power than omnipotence. Only agents of limited power can "create" things which are, in some ways, more powerful than them, by the means of contriving complex objects which already exist which are in some ways more powerful than them. Unfortunately, the ultimate complex object which we limited agents can contrive is a conflation of real logic and semantics.[[User:PatternOfPersona|PatternOfPersona]] 21:33, 5 July 2011 (EDT)

The answer is NO He cannot "do" that. Note that there is no limit however to the size of a rock that He can create, and there is no limit to the size of a rock that He can lift. Thus the question - answered in the negative - involves no limitation on God's prerogatives; if answered in the positive however does. The whole thing is a play on words as is explained more or less in various ways below. It's negation does not mean God is not omnipotent - it means that omnipotence is not properly tested as implied by this question. [[User:Qwestor|Qwestor]] 14:54, 28 December 2007 (EDT)

This old one... its supposed to be a paradox showing the omnipotence is impossible: If God can create the rock, He must not be all-powerful because He cannot lift it. If He cant create the rock, then He still isn't all powerful. Either way, no all-powerful being. Personally, I think God just has no reason to create such a rock, so why would He? - BornAgainBrit

Because he wants to disprove his own existence. --[[User:Huey gunna getcha|Huey gunna getcha]] 18:17, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

But you can't assume that God is temporally limited like us mere mortals. He can create the rock so heavy he can't lift it one minute, then, the next minute, he lifts it. Just because we can't conceive of it, doesn't mean God can't lift it. -mittromney

:He'd get YOU to lift it. --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 18:51, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

::No! No matter how heavy the rock would be, God would still be able to lift it because he is the Almighty.
:::"He only is my rock and my salvation: he is my defence; I shall not be moved." (Psalm 62:6)
::[[User:JC|JC]] 09:44, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

==Yes He Can==
God can command a rock to come into existence with the command "Let there be a rock that I cannot lift". When this rock comes into existence it won't allow God to be able to lift it. however, it may be small enough for everyone else to lift it. God is outside of all of the laws we live in and that includes the laws of possibility. Thus God has the power to choose if something is or isn't impossible to him. [[User:LostFox|LostFox]]

==Traditional Paradox of God==
God is omnipotent Therefore he can But since he is omnipotent He can lift the rock he cannot lift Therefore God is a paradox and cannot exist

[[User:Helios|Helios]] loves the creator of this page and will worship him as though he were a paradoxical God.

The part that people miss is assuming that God is picking the rock up with a pair of arms like a human. God isn't a human. God doesn't have a physical body. God can't lift rocks. God makes the rock lift itself.
:Doesn't "lifting" assume an "up"? What is an omnipresent being standing on when lifting a rock? I think this question is broken. [[User:Totnesmartin|Totnesmartin]] 16:55, 16 May 2007
(EDT)

Alright, then can he make a rock so large he cannot make it move? And another thing disproving that he exists; it says in Genesis it took him six days to create the universe. A perfect, all-powerful god would have created it instantly. And some say that maybe he took his time, etc. That doesn't work either, because if he was perfect, everything he did would be as efficient as possible, and that would mean instantly. And, on top of that, he had to rest from the effort. Now, granted, creating a universe in only six days, and only resting for one is still pretty impressive, but that doesn't mean omnipotence.- Bob Sanchez

::Did it ever occur to anyone that it might take time to create imperfection from perfection? JM ([[user:Meyje|Meyje]])
:::What "imperfection from perfection"? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:29, 23 October 2007 (EDT)

:As far as the rock is concerned, that has been answered below, I believe. God can do anything ''that can be done''. Creating a rock too big for Him to move is not something that can be done.
:You are incorrect in claiming that a "perfect, all-powerful god would have created [the universe] instantly". The correct statement would be that He ''could'' create it instantly, not that He ''would''.
:By claiming that He would not have taken longer because that would be less efficient is (a) not obviously true (sometimes it is more efficient to take longer), and (b) presumes that efficiency is the prime goal. Rather, it would appear from Exodus 20:11 that God chose to take six days in order to set the pattern for the week.
:Similarly, you misunderstand the reference to resting. The Bible doesn't say that God was tired and needed to recuperate. The Hebrew word translated "rest" simply means to take a break, to stop from working. Again, this would have been in order to set the pattern for the week: work six days and take the seventh day off.
:In summary, then, you have basically tried picking holes with the account by saying that if God was truly omnipotent, He would have done things the way that you think He would have done them, which overlooks that perhaps there are reasons that He ''chose'' to do them the way He did that you hadn't considered.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:02, 17 July 2007 (EDT)
God is almighty, it'll be dumb if He created a rock to the point where He Himself can not lift it. God created the Heavens and the Earth, God can lift any rock. Now if HE did created such a rock, He do have the powers to make it easier fro Him to lift it. Didn't anyone think of that? I like what Philip J. Rayment said there, it is true, He did make the patterns of the week. That's why every time God created something, the BIBLE said that it was the 1st or 2nd or 3rd day.

if god is perfect, then what reason would he have to bother with existence? Surely he would do anything he would ever need or want to do in an infinitely small time, and then simply pop out of existence. If he was all-knowing, he would know it was all he could ever want to do, and if he was capable of anything, he could stop existing.
(Rowan)
: That argument presupposes that God exists in time, which He doesn't, as "time" is part of His creation. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:20, 10 December 2007 (EST)

== Absurd ==

This question is absurd and this revolves around the question of what omnipotence is. If you use the definition of "omnipotence is the ability to do anything" then you hit this problem. If you use the definition of "omnipotence is the ability to do anything that may be done" then the problem does not exist.

Lets take an alternative form of this argument:
# If God is omnipotent, then God can create a square circle
# God cannot create a square circle
# Therefore, God is not omnipotent

This is of the form
#p -> q
#~q
#therefore ~p
which is a valid argument form known as modus tollens. To attack this argument it is necessary to look at the premises. The second premise is fair so the first must be examined. This can be broken down into:
##God is omnipotent
##Therefore God can create or do anything
##A square circle is a thing
##Therefore God can create a square circle

Theistic scholar/philosophers do not claim the omnipotence of God, but rather that God is the maximally powerful being. That God can do anything that can be done. With the modified argument:
##God the maximally powerful being
##Therefore God can create or do anything
##A square circle is a thing
##Therefore God can create a square circle
It falls apart and the first premise of the argument fails. Ultimately, this does not limit God's power - He can do anything that can be done and create anything that can exist.

This can then be summed up in:
* God is the maximally powerful being.
* That which cannot exist, cannot be created.
There is no paradox here, and any claim otherwise rests on absurdity.
--[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 18:25, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Let's apply this argument by logical constraint to a few other Christian doctrines, then, shall we?

Example 1:
## For a woman to beome pregnant, she must be inseminated.
## Virgins have not been inseminated
## Mary was a virgin
## Therefore, Mary was not pregnant.

Example 2:
## Everything that exists has a cause outside of itself. (Premise)
## The universe exists. (Premise)
## Therefore, the universe has a cause outside of itself.
## We call that cause God (cosmological argument).
## God exits (Premise)
## Therefore, God has a cause outside of itself.

So - God is too weak to create a squared circle. I get that - but what about the rock?

"Any claim otherwise rests on absurdity"? You seem fairly confident that by using a lot of logical jargon and organizing your post in a way that intimates you know what you're talking about, you can circumvent the inherent logical fallacy that you're assuming you can conceptualize what can exist and what can be created. If you claim to know what can and what cannot be created, such as, for example, a rock that God can't lift, shouldn't that be in the entry for hubris? -mittromney
: I am simply stating the solution to the paradox of omnipotence that was given back as an answer in one of the religious studies classes I took at a Catholic highschool and again in a university class on "Philosophy and Religion." At best, the paradox of omnipotence is a strawman argument. [http://www.philosophyofreligion.info/impossiblerock.html] [http://www.philosophyofreligion.info/omnipotence.html] [http://www.skepticwiki.org/wiki/index.php/Omnipotence_Paradox] [http://www.greatplay.net/uselessia/articles/omnipyparadox.html] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnipotence_paradox] Thomas Aquinas said it well "Since the principles of certain sciences, such as logic, geometry and arithmetic are taken only from the formal principles of things, on which the essence of the thing depends, it follows that God could not make things contrary to these principles. For example, that a genus was not predicable of the species, or that lines drawn from the center to the circumference were not equal, or that a triangle did not have three angles equal to two right angles." - granted this is founded on euclidean space, but it goes back to the question of can God break the laws of the universe that He created. Alternatively, you can go to Augustine of Hippo and read "For He is called omnipotent on account of His doing what He wills, not on account of His suffering what He wills not; for if that should befall Him, He would by no means be omnipotent. Wherefore, He cannot do some things for the very reason that He is omnipotent." [http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf102.iv.V.10.html] --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 18:54, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Isn't the fact that your quote from Aquinas included a notion that was later proved to be totally incorrect by Einstein absolutely damning for your argument that humans can adequately perceive and evaluate logical concepts? I guess I'm curious how any of what you say deals properly with the idea that God is totally superior in every way, and therefore to say He can or can't do something is pointless hubris a fortiori? -mittromney
: It depends if you take it literally or what he was trying to say. The question is can God do something that is against the rules of logic? If you don't like the triangle example that Aquinas gave, then use four sided triangles or square circles in place of them. Read the first sentence again and you will see that these are perfectly valid substitutions - "Since the principles of certain sciences, such as logic, geometry and arithmetic are taken only from the formal principles of things, on which the essence of the thing depends, it follows that God could not make things contrary to these principles." --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 19:01, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
::So you're saying that we should just choose a new facially contradictory idea, and go ahead with that, while my whole point was that we're totally incapable of evaluating what's consistent and what's contradictory? I'm not sure how choosing new examples of things we assume to be not true helps you at all... -mittromney
::: You are suggesting that Aquinas is proven wrong because he used a definition of a triangle that only worked in euclidean space. This false-paradox is a straw man for an atheistic world view that is based on a particular definition of omnipotence - it is just as bad as creationists giving straw man arguments that are counter evolution (do note, I am not a creationist). If you wish to argue that a logical impossibility is not beyond omnipotence, then you can work from the Cartesian viewpoint of the trickster god or demon that allows 2+2=5, though that is more a question of belief and knowledge than omnipotence. If you wish to argue about omnipotence with a theistic philosopher, then it is necessary to work from that definition of omnipotence. I am presenting that definition and showing how the rest of the question falls to absurdity when this definition is used - which does not limit omnipotence. Simply said, God can do anything that can be done. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 19:15, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Again, I don't think you properly respond to what I'm saying. I claim the idea of a logical impossibility is a hobgoblin of mediocre minds: We have no idea what's logically possible or impossible. To say we do, and subsequently to claim that somehow human logic limits the omnipotence of god, is [[foolhardy]]. What I was suggesting with your Aquinas example is that things which may at one point in time appear to be facially and obviously contradictory can, in the future, be shown to actually be possible, and the original belief was therefore just an incorrect human assumption and not "logic". How that argument is a false-paradox straw man is beyond me: It appears you just throw those terms around to try to demonstrate that you're familiar with logical jargon in the hopes that the other side will assume you know better than they do. When you argue through implicit authority (not to even bring up the Descartes reference), you sound like a liberal who belongs at wiki... -mittromney

:I would urge you to ask your priest or minister the question of the rock so heavy. You will likely get a similar answer to mine (and that of Aquinas and Augustine of Hippo). Omnipotence is a human definition with words that are constrained by our language. Head to the seminary and you will find half a dozen different definitions of omnipotence and various theologians arguing for and against each one being the correct interpretation of the word. You will even find Judaism (which also asserts the omnipotent God) claims that God works through persuasion rather than action - the creation of possibility rather than miracles or violations of natural law - that His omnipotence is shown through that means. Other branches of Christianity use "God cannot make you sin" as part of its philosophy, that if God was to make you sin then you would not have free will and thus would not be sinning. The only reason to pose the paradox of omnipotence is to try to assert that God does not have such power. My take on it (and I agree with those sources I have linked above) is that the proper definition of omnipotence is "to have any power that can be had" or to be the maximally powerful being and as such the question of the rock or a square circle or a four sided triangle becomes a silly question - that which cannot exist cannot be created. If you wish to assert a different definition and solution to this question, then by all means do so. However, I have not seen any reasonable argument against this position from you yet. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 20:41, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

"Maximally powerful" doesn't mean "all-powerful". Your arguement implies that the Bible was incorrect in naming God as omnipotent, which completely destroys the foundation for faith in Christianity: The belief that the Bible is without error. - Bob Sanchez

Where does the Bible say that God is omnipotent? That word appears once in the KJV, and once in the NKJV, and nowhere else. When it appears, it describes the shouts of a crowd, and so may not be accurate. The Bible clearly gives the impression that God is more powerful than all the other beings in the universe combined, but nowhere says he is omnipotent, insofar as omnipotent is defined as "able to do anything, regardless of whether it is logically possible or not." As far as Mary is concerned, it is not logically impossible for God to create a baby inside her womb, but it would be logically impossible for God to create a baby that was not a baby. See the difference? God must conform to first-order logic, but he is not limited beyond that.[[User:Lordofthemarsh|Lordofthemarsh]] 00:42, 30 May 2008 (EDT)
----

Can God predict the future? [[User:kchittur|kchittur]]

How heavy do you think the rock that god can't lift would be? --[[User:Huey gunna getcha|Huey gunna getcha]] 18:48, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Maybe 1*10^abs(1/0) kg.--[[User:Sm355|Sm355]] 18:49, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:Shhhhh, you supposed to use lbs.! --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 19:06, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Guys, you are debating the wrong question which is really only a red herring. The real question that each must answer is this: "Will a man become so filled with pride and enamored with thoughts of his own intellectual superiority as to use a silly logical argument as an excuse to close his mind and his heart to the truth of the Gospel and thus reject his only hope of salvation?" --[[User:HSDad|HSDad]] 10:34, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:Or perhaps the real question is, "Why do so many people blindly follow religious stories and texts with nothing to go on but faith with out any facts?". But that's another question for another debate. Lets just stick to the original question.--[[User:Sm355|Sm355]] 12:38, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Aaaaagh you just disprooved god[[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 15:37, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

God can make the rock, but every time He tries to lift it the planet he's standing on crumbles under His feet. [[User:Teresita|Teresita]] 00:22, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

Well then, that is basically saying that god can't create a strong enough planet to stand on. or just some infinite unbreakable plain with really strong gravity that exists solely for him to stand on so he can try to lift this unliftable rock.[[User:Revengeancer|Revengeancer]] 17:34, 29 October 2008 (EDT)

If we assume that God does exist, I'm gonna have to go with Thomas Aquinas on this one. In his ''Summa Theologica'', he wrote:
<blockquote>Therefore, everything that does not imply a contradiction in terms, is
numbered amongst those possible things, in respect of which God is
called omnipotent: whereas whatever implies contradiction does not
come within the scope of divine omnipotence, because it cannot have
the aspect of possibility. Hence it is better to say that such things
cannot be done, than that God cannot do them.</blockquote>
That is, if God exists, he can do all that is logically possible, and nothing that is not. So, because there is a contradiction whether God can or cannot create the rock, it cannot be done. [[User:Masterbratac|Masterbratac]] 19:43, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

:God is powerful, I like that square circle example. He can creat anything he want to created. Now why would God creat such a rock that even Himself can't lift. If the rock was heavy than God can just use His powers to make it easier to lift duhh. God is too strong to creat a rock too heavy for Him to lift. [[User:Amphibious|Amphibious]] 02:14, 27 October 2007 (EDT)

[added~]

haha. its kind of funny arguing about this kind of thing...because personally, i dont believe in higher beings like god. its only a figment of your mind; god holds only as much power as you give him. there is the concept of god for those who want a pillar of support around and them and i realize that there are those who truly would like to believe. and im fine with that. however, for someone like me who believes it is impractical, impossible, and downright strange to have an "omnipotent" being watching over us in such a way, i say heck sure he could. if he existed. but if we're going to put this in the context of fiction, anything is possible. but to me, if the root of this argumnet, god, does not exist, then i consider the possiblity of him creating a rock that he cant lift as invalid. {{unsigned|KuR0K4R4}}

:So what reason do you provide for God's non-existence? None! You don't believe He does—but that doesn't mean He doesn't—yet you provide absolutely no reason whatsoever for your subjective opinion. Many people have provided very good arguments supporting the view that God does exist, but you are obviously unaware of them or simply choose to ignore them, because you've made no attempt whatsoever to answer them. Instead, you simply type some throwaway lines about your personal views and expect that to count as some sort of argument (this ''is'' a ''debate'' page). [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:50, 4 December 2007 (EST)

=== "Everything that exists has a cause outside of itself." ===
Not sure who, they didn't sign their post properly, but they made this statement. There is a problem here... that is not the premise that Christians make. The statement should go like this...
:'''Everything that ''begins to'' exist has a cause.'''
* Notice that I added "begins to". For example, when a baby is born, it has a beginning, therefore it has a cause. God is the exception to the rule. Since He is the highest/most supreme Being in existence, out of necessity He always exists.
*# Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
*# God does not have a beginning.
*# Therefore God does not have a cause.
* How do we know God doesn't have a beginning or ending? Psalm 90:2 "...Even from everlasting to everlasting, You are God." (NASB)
* A side note... "outside of itself" is not necessary in the statement. It's obvious that something cannot be the cause of itself, if it does not exist. That would be illogical. So it can be safely assumed in the statement without saying it. At least I am assuming it.
--[[User:Ymmotrojam|Ymmotrojam]] 21:33, 4 December 2007 (EST)
:Oh, I don't know. When you've got people believing that the universe formed out of nothing for no reason, perhaps some of these obvious things need to be spelt out. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:37, 5 December 2007 (EST)
::I don't think Big Bang cosmology implies that the universe formed out of nothing for no reason. The theory states that we can trace the expansion of space back to a singularity, that is to say a point beyond which we cannot probe. The theory doesn't state that nothing existed prior to the singularity (indeed the singularity itself must have existed for an indeterminate time prior to its expansion into the universe we know and love). [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 20:27, 10 December 2007 (EST)
::: Discover magazine in 2002 described the views of Alan Guth, one of the originators of the inflation theory of the Big Bang thus: {{QuoteBox|The universe burst into something from absolutely nothing—zero, nada. And as it got bigger, it became filled with even more stuff that came from absolutely nowhere.[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2507/]}} I think that supports what I said quite nicely. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:08, 10 December 2007 (EST)

:::Then he created a terrible strawman for the Big Bang theory, it has since been refined by Hawking among others. Whilst paradoxes remain as they always will, they seem as equally paradoxical as God; although the implications of such a being in turn create yet more paradoxes. -Barnes
:::: I assume that you are referring to Alan Guth creating a strawman. A strawman argument is an argument that claims that ''someone else'' proposes something, which you then proceed to demolish. But Guth was not claiming that ''someone else'' proposed this: he is one of the Big Bang experts, and ''he'' was proposing this. So no, it's not a strawman argument at all. Further, this dates from six years ago; I'm not sure that you are correct that Hawking has "since" refined it. And what paradoxes are implied by the existence of God? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:20, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

:::Perhaps not a strawman, but regardless of his standing this explanation of the Big Bang is laughable. General relativity shows time not to be a passive background to events but a dynamic entity which is warped my matter and energy inside it. At a point of infinite energy density time does not progress, and thus whilst we are left with the paradox of why there was a bang we do not need to answer where the energy came from.

:::The paradox of God is his realm of his existence, and his interaction in the world. It also begs the question of why he waited an infinite time before he created the universe (if this is even possible). Then of course there is the good old problem of evil, though of course his attributes are subjective interpretations derived from 'experience'. -Barnes
::::I see lots of pins and dancing angels. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 18:39, 7 April 2008 (EDT)

:::: "''this explanation of the Big Bang is laughable''": True, but then the whole idea of the Big Bang is laughable. Regardless of Guth's particular description, the Big Bang is basically "nothing exploded and became everything".
:::: Why don't we need to answer where the energy came from? I don't follow your explanation of that.
:::: "''The paradox of God is his realm of his existence, and his interaction in the world.''": Sorry, but that's not explaining the alleged paradox.
:::: "''It also begs the question of why he waited an infinite time before he created the universe...''": No, your argument is a loaded one, presuming something that is not claimed, and not true. Part of God's creation (the space/time/matter universe) is ''time''. That means that God ''created time''. That means that God ''does not exist IN time''. Therefore, it is not true to argue that God "waited an infinite time", because "time" didn't exist.
:::: "''... (if this is even possible).''": Why would it not be possible for an all-powerful Creator to create the universe?
:::: "''Then of course there is the good old problem of evil...''": The "good old problem of evil" is the good old bibliosceptic argument that's been long answered over and over. It's old, but it's not good.
:::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:11, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

The Big Bang does not say anything about nothing. That is a misconception not because of what carefully selected scientists have to say about the theory but because you are taking a Newtonian approach to time. 'Nothing' never existed, as i explained before because time is not merely a background to events but it is shaped by the density of matter and energy inside of it. If you have a point of infinite density then time will not progress, it will stay still. So whilst you can leave God to fill the paradox of what caused the expansion itself and therefore the progression of time, it would be wrong to think of something appearing out of nothing. Therefore, if the energy had always existed then it need not have come from anywhere.

The realm of God's existence is of course paradoxical, because the word supernatural is an oxymoron. Here is a little paste from an article about this paradox:

"Now that we have the definition of Nature and Supernatural we see a very conflicting view: One is the entirety of all the laws which govern existence as we know it, and the other is a term for those activities that can happen outside the laws of nature. That is an impossibility. If Nature is Everything, then Something cannot exist outside of Everything unless Everything is only a Something; in which case Nature therefore is incorrect in it's definition and cannot be called the laws which govern all of life, only a portion of laws that govern life. So either Nature is incorrect, or Supernatural is incorrect, they cannot be existing together logically."

Time is a paradox for God because it is only through time that anything progresses. If time were stationary for God then nothing would progress for him or us; it is through chronological progression that causality can exist. If God is infinite in time, then how could he not have been waiting around for an infinite amount of time before the Big Bang? And if He is finite in time, then how was he created? If He is neither finite nor infinite, then He is exempt from time and therefore causality itself.

As for the problem of evil, it is only problematic if you assume the attribute of benevolence and the degree to which you hold him responsible for our situation and therefore the situation of others. I deny free will both on empirical, metaphysical and even divine grounds, therefore we cannot be held responsible for our actions or the suffering of others. -Barnes

:Which article? I would like to read the whole thing at some point. o_0 [[User:Kektklik|Fuzzy|AFD]] 19:00, 9 April 2008 (EDT)

http://forum.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=messageboard.viewThread&groupID=100096596&page=0&EntryID=30321825

:That nothing existed before the Big Bang is not just based on a quote from one Big Bang expert. Paul Davies, for example, said "According to modern physics, the big bang represented the origin of space and time, as well as of matter and energy."
: If your scenario is correct, and time stood still because of infinite density, and assuming God didn't trigger the Big Bang, then why isn't time still standing still? What caused the Big Bang? Any change that triggered the Big Bang would require something to be happening in time.
: The quote from the article only works because it switches meanings. From the section (in your link) just before your quote, "Nature" is defined as referring the "the material world" and "the physical world", yet the writer then bases his argument on "nature" meaning "everything". No, according to the definitions he himself supplied, it does ''not'' mean "everything". And without that, the argument collapses: there is no paradox.
: You say that time is a paradox for God because it is only through time that anything progresses, but this is something that you cannot know. What would be more accurate to say is that it is only through time that anything ''natural'' progresses, but as God is ''supernatural'', that doesn’t necessarily hold (and ''doesn't'' hold if God is the creator of time)
: If you have no free will, then even your thoughts are the unavoidable outcomes of chemical processes in your brain, which means that everything you said above you were in effect forced to say, rather than it having any basis in evidence, logic, or reason. So if you have no free will, I'm free (assuming I do have free will) to ignore everything you say. Of course, to be consistent, I have no free will either, which means that my cranial mental processes are nothing more than chemical reactions, which means that my unavoidable chemical reactions are arguing for something different than your unavoidable chemical reactions, which means that those chemical reactions do not produce consistent results, which means they are not to be trusted. Which again means that I've got no reason to take any notice of you or your arguments.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:18, 9 April 2008 (EDT)

Im not arguing that the Big Bang theory is not prone to paradoxes, for the progression of time is undoubtedly a paradox. Though whether such a theory requires the untestable and highly complex hypothesis of a God to cause it who is himself paradoxical, im not so sure. Transcending time is a logical impossibility, or rather a copout. If something is beyond our realm of comprehension to the extent that it isnt even a speculative concept, then it is a dissatisfying 'cause' to the universe. It is just as paradoxical as the progression of time, although infinitely more complex and therefore not preferable.

The definitions lead me to believe that nature is everything we see around us. "The forces and processes that produce and control all the phenomena of the material world: the laws of nature". Thus if God does interact with the world, it is only through the laws of nature that he could, and being only a something external to the empirical universe he would be not be everything but merely a something and thus limited. -[http://www.myspace.com/barnes_ Barnes]
: Most of your post was argument by incredulity and personal opinion. God is supposed to be all-knowing, all-powerful, etc. but one characteristic ''not'' used of him is "everything". So He is not "everything", but that doesn't mean that He is therefore limited. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:59, 10 April 2008 (EDT)

==Logical fallacy==
It is illogical to apply physical attributes to a non-physical being. Also, it is illogical to question whether something can be created to be mightier than He who is Almighty. That God cannot create something more powerful than Himself does not mean God is not all-powerful. The definition of all-powerful is that there is nothing more powerful! Furthermore, this is pitting God against Himself; His abilities against His own abilities. That makes no sense! Look at it this way: can you defeat yourself at wrestling? Of course not.

Additionally, God cannot create square circles because squares are squares and circles are circles. It's like asking God to make 1 equal 0 or to make bthe color blue the color red. Of course, I suppose God could do some M.C. Escher thing and make square circles.

Anyway, the only thing questions like these prove is how intellectually bankrupt neo-atheists are. They so want God to not exist that they will ignore their own illogic. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 20:56, 10 December 2007 (EST)

: A good response to this type of question has just been posted on the Creation Ministries International website[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/5566]. It is consistent with other comments above, including Jinxmchue's comment (complete with an M. C. Escher picture!), but is explained very clearly, in my opinion.
: There are actually several answers:
:* 'A rock too heavy for a being who can lift anything' is a self-contradictory statement, and a self-contradictory statement is a ''nothing'', so "Can God create a rock too heavy for Him to lift?" really amounts to "Can God create a nothing?", which is clearly absurd.
:* Can God create a square circle? An all-powerful being can do anything that takes ''power'' to do. How much power does it take to create a square circle? It's not ''power'' that is required (again, because it's an illogical impossibility), so that's no argument against God's omnipotence either.
:* Yes, God ''can'' create a rock too heavy for God to lift! That is, God (the Father) can create a rock too heavy for God (the Son) to lift—because God the Son (Jesus) voluntarily gave up some of His divine powers!
: The article also relates [[C. S. Lewis]]' thoughts on the matter.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:32, 12 January 2008 (EST)

::"God (the Father) can create a rock too heavy for God (the Son) to lift" lol! I like that one. I'll have to remember to use it next time I see this argument presented by someone who thinks they're the first person to ever present it. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 09:40, 26 January 2008 (EST)

In addition, the Bible states that God is by nature good; as He cannot do anything contrary to His nature and because creating such an object would render logic illogic, one is inclined to conclude that this argument has no bearing on His undeniable existence. {{unsigned|VoteGOP21}}

==I'VE SOLVED IT!==
Yes, God ''can'' make a rock so big that He can't lift it. But He can also shrink it again to a size small enough that he can lift it too again. Crisis averted, argument over. --[[User:Cranky Joe|Cranky Joe]] 20:35, 7 January 2008 (EST)
:That's not an aversion, that's ignoring the problem. If you simply add "and cannot be changed by him", the "crisis" remains, because it's a contradiction to his existence (with the quality of omnipotence).
: <grin> [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:34, 8 January 2008 (EST)
:The heaviest thing in the universe may only be one cubic millimetre. [[User:Jallen|Jallen]] 08:35, 12 January 2008 (EST)
::Hooray for incredibly dense objects. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 19:52, 24 January 2008 (EST)
:::Your ''mom's'' an incredibly dense object. :D Seriously though, this is a linguistic paradox more than a philosophical one. [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 19:43, 11 February 2008 (EST)
learn english, the key word is "heavy" not "big."

==Oh my==

God creates a rock he can't lift himself, but then the rock becomes liftable if he so wishes. He is so powerful he gets to chose his limitations. {{unsigned|Reallyforeign}}

==Yes==
of course he could, if he is able to create the known universe then he would be able to make a rock to heavy to lift even by himself[[User:Greenmeanie|Greenmeanie]] 15:39, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

==Here's why the question is wrong==
Weight isn't a factor in whether God can lift the rock or not - it's just as easy for Him to lift a small rock as a big one (like, er, Yoda). This question is like asking 'Could He make a rock so blue He couldn't lift it?' - it's a nonsense.

==No==
*For the purpose of this argument, assume God exists and is omnipotent (subject to the restrictions of logic).
:*If God is omnipotent, surely he can lift any rock.
:*A rock which God cannot lift, therefore, cannot possibly exist. Its existence would contradict God's omnipotence.
:*Because, in this argument, God is constrained by logic, God cannot create something that cannot exist.
:*Because a rock God cannot create cannot exist, God cannot create one.
:Note that, by "subject to the restrictions of logic," I mean that God would be unable to do anything that is logically impossible.
:For example, a square circle cannot logically exist; a square has four sides, while a circle has only one, and clearly
:nothing can have four sides and one side. Therefore, a God subject to the restrictions of logic would be unable to create one.
:-[[User:CSGuy|CSGuy]] 17:54, 29 October 2008 (EDT)

==Wrong assumptions give the question its curious attraction.==
Omnipotence does not mean infinite irrational, magical, meaningless, purposeless, nonsensical ability. Gravity, one of the most powerful forces in the universe, exists precisely because of the self-limiting nature of the power itself. You can say that the effect of gravity is infinite, but its powers and properties are actually determined by natural laws. Gravity obeys its own laws. God obeys his own laws. According to multi-verse theory, the answer would have to be "Yes, there must be a universe somewhere in which something as irrational as this actually happens." But in this universe, the answer must be that the Creator is not expected to contradict himself, and that this does not limit him in any meaningful way. The juxtaposition of an immovable object with an irrestible force is a hypothetical abstraction with no meaningful resolution and makes no contribution to knowledge in any context. What we should be looking for is a useful concept of omnipotence. That would be a much more interesting discussion. If you have to have a definition of omnipotence that includes infinity, then the multi-verse is for you. But in a fine-tuned, well designed universe, with clearly defined laws, properties and purpose, all of the power that exists would be that of the Creator. "Omnipotence", to me at least, means "all of the power that is" not all of the power I can imagine. It did not take infinite power to make this universe. And yet who can conceive of the difference between the abstract concept of infinite power and the forces that appear to exist? In this case Plato is wrong. You cannot determine all truth from abstractions. But science cannot save us either, because the original question is non-falsifiable, and therefore cannot tell us anything about God. For those who think the existence of such a question is evidence against God, the ability of mankind to ask such a question is a miracle in itself. RCW

==No==

God cannot limit His own power. However, He could create a rock of whatever size He wanted. He could even create a rock of infinite size if He liked, but He would still be capable of lifting it. Just because God canot limit His own power does not mean He is not all powerful. [[User:Dford|Dford]] 14:45, 29 May 2010 (EDT)

==Answer==

This is a metaphorical rock. It represents the weight upon my soul that is crushing me. I cry out to God, "Lord, there has been a weight created upon my soul that is so heavy I cannot lift it. It is such an enormous burden that I am afraid you cannot lift it, either." God replies, "No, my son. There is no weight or heavy burden that is too great for me to overcome. I will lift this weight off your soul." I have been restored. --[[User:Tmike|Tmike]] ([[User talk:Tmike|talk]]) 09:19, 8 March 2017 (EST)

==YES! Utilizing a Counter-paradoxical Response.==

The Stone paradox is specifically designed to utilize a logical trap (a paradox) while offering only limited information within the question. Its goal is to nullify the existence of omnipotence and likewise, the existence of God. The Stone Paradox assumes that there are only ''two possible responses'' to the question, ("Yes" and "No."). In this particular case there exists a third response where God can '''lift the stone''' and at the exact same moment '''not lift the stone'''.

Omnipresence, Omniscience and Omnipotence are all directly linked together into a single unified power possessed by God. In the case of the Stone Paradox, the power of Omnipresence can be utilized to fulfill the required task and not compromise God's Omnipotence in the process. The result is a counter-paradoxical situation which competes on equal terms with the Stone Paradox question. This is called the [https://www.quora.com/Can-god-make-a-rock-so-heavy-that-he-couldn%E2%80%99t-lift-it/answer/Darryl-Lankford?srid=uqDtf Circular God Counter-paradox]

[https://youtu.be/YDTsYYGNAMY Video tutorial on the Circular God Counter-paradox]

From this point forward, whenever the Stone Paradox question is asked, the Circular '''God Counter-paradox''' can be offered in response. By way of this counter-paradoxical response, there exists a philosophical stalemate regarding the existence of Omnipotence. Instead of Omnipotence being nullified, the original Stone paradox question has been nullified.