An unanswerable question?

[CSJ]

My son whose 21 lead me to a discussion forum that posted this question. I would appreciate anyone that can give me an answer or illuminate the question better. This is the question: If God is omnipotent can he create a boulder that is too big to move?

My son is I believe agnostic and any guidance on this site would be most appreciative
to me.

To me the question is asking; Can God cause himself to fail? But I’m not sure thats it either.
I know this is sort of a silly thing, but it’s important to me because my son is asking me for advice and I’d like to lead him into the direction of Truth.

Thanks in advance,
Debbie

The question is not unanswerable, it is a paradox by it’s very nature. Your son is attempting to quantify infinity and therefore the question answers itself. In a word, the answer is “no”. If God is the source of all creation and infinite power, how can he create something greater than himself? If God were to create a boulder equal to himself, He would be the boulder.

Can Truth be a lie? If the answer is yes, than it is not Truth.

The real question to ask your son is “Can your son create a heart that can not be moved?” If his answer is yes, does that make him greater than God? Let him ponder that awhile.

CSJ

 

[dostoyevskyfan]

“33Oh, the depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God!
How unsearchable his judgments,
and his paths beyond tracing out!
34"Who has known the mind of the Lord?
Or who has been his counselor?”
35"Who has ever given to God,
that God should repay him?"
36For from him and through him and to him are all things.
To him be the glory forever! Amen."
-Romans 11:33-36

By definition a finite mind cannot fully comprehend an infinite, perfect, maximally excellent mind. To even attempt to do so fully would be logical folly.

The mind changing “paradox” is being popularized by richard dawkins and can be found in the god delusion. It actually isn’t that much different from the “unstoppable force meets unmovable object”, “trees falling in forests”, and “stone” problems.

The proposition is covertly asking, “Can God simultaneously be God and not God?” or “Can God do something he cannot do?” or we can go further and substitute a property of God for the word “God”. Then we have the question, “Can a being that can do anything do something that he cannot?” But we can go further and extrapolate the term “anything”. The term must be distinguished from its negation, which would be “nothing” or non-existent actions or entities. Such actions would include logically contradictory concept such as square circles. Such things have no existence or even possible existence. Here we can see that by God not being able to do nothing (logically impossible actions), there is **no actual deficiency in his ability. **

If you define “x” as "something God cannot do, the term “x” is by default, empty, non-existent, and devoid of any real meaning. Smuggling in a contradiction in terms, while shrewd, is only vacuous.

In the case of “Can God change his mind?”, the “problem” has a similar structure, but the attack is directed at omniscience, not omnipotence. Can a being who knows all things, know something that he does not know? No.

To go further we must inquire into the nature of the act of mind changing. Can we fully understand the finite consciousness of others, their thought processes, and the reasons behind their actions let alone God’s, an infinite consciousness? Why do people change thier minds?

We could take a concrete example of an atheist who decides to get baptized into the church established by Jesus Christ, the Roman Catholic Church. In this case, the atheist changed her mind due to a lack of knowledge, or put simply, because of ignorance. We could say that she was ignorant of Catholic philosophy and 2,000 years of thought, ignorant of early church history and the writings of Eusebius, ignorant of the fact that 11 of the 12 apostles sealed the foundation of the church in their own blood, in some cases enduring extreme agony for no earthly gain whatsoever, ignorant of church teaching and the danger of interpreting scripture own their own, outside the authority of the church, ignorant of the lives of the saints, ignorant of historicity of Jesus Christ, ignorant of His mention in the works of Josephus, ignorant of the pagan historican, Thallus, who witnessed and recorded the darkness at the time of the crucifixion, attributing it erroneously to an eclipse, ignorant of the doctrine of transubstantiation, which was recorded in the apology of Justin Martyr in the 66th chapter of his apology and was the belief of the early church, ignorant of Constantines mystical vision of a cross in the sky which read “in this name conquer”, ignorant of Joan of Arc, ignorant of the miracles and apparaitions of the blessed Virgin Mary at Fatima, ignorant of the unexplainable healings at Lourdes, ignorant of the stigmata of St.Francis and St. Padre Pio. In short we can just say she was ignorant about a lot of things.

A person may also change their mind for arbitrary reasons. For example, Jim may one day decide that his favorite color isn’t orange anymore, it is now red.

A person may change their mind for emotional reasons or because they have a “new feeling”, as in the case of friendship or romantic engagements.

There are in fact a multitude of reasons a finite being changes her mind, but it all ultimately boils down to a lack of knowledge about the *self. * Or a lack of understanding concerning individual identity. This, as I see it, all ultimately leads to despair, as Kierkegaard explained it in the sickness unto death. As he would say, the most common dwelling place of despair is in the consciousness of one who does not believe that he is in despair at all.

Is God in despair? No. Does God lack knowledge about himself, being omniscient? No. As I have demonstrated, the act of mind changing is performed by imperfect beings because it is the consequence of an imperfect quality; a lack of knowledge. We are in error to ascribe impefect qualities to a being who is defined as the epitome of all perfection. Since God exists as a sort of “pure mind” or “pure intellectual being” a change of his mind directly implies a change in himself, i.e. being something other than perfection or maximal, infinite, greatness. It is because of this that God has traditionally been understood, in a Judeo-Christian context, as immutable.

 

[Moonstruck888]

I don’t see why that constitutes a contradiction.

You said that you don’t think it wise or necessary to assume that God exists outside time, and yet by definition, in order to have created time and space you’d have to assume he exists outside time and space.

 

[Moonstruck888]

Is God in despair? No. Does God lack knowledge about himself, being omniscient? No. As I have demonstrated, the act of mind changing is performed by imperfect beings because it is the consequence of an imperfect quality; a lack of knowledge. We are in error to ascribe impefect qualities to a being who is defined as the epitome of all perfection. Since God exists as a sort of “pure mind” or “pure intellectual being” a change of his mind directly implies a change in himself, i.e. being something other than perfection or maximal, infinite, greatness. It is because of this that God has traditionally been understood, in a Judeo-Christian context, as immutable.

Which brings us back to the theodicity paradox.

 

[JohnDamian]

You said that you don’t think it wise or necessary to assume that God exists outside time, and yet by definition, in order to have created time and space you’d have to assume he exists outside time and space.

You make another assumption here… I do not think it is nessecary for time and space to have been created - I see no reason for that belief exept some pseudoscience hocus pocus about “spacetime” which is only basely verified in empiricism, a low form of determining reality.

 

[Moonstruck888]

You make another assumption here… I do not think it is nessecary for time and space to have been created - I see no reason for that belief exept some pseudoscience hocus pocus about “spacetime” which is only basely verified in empiricism, a low form of determining reality.

Ah yes, I forgot about your solipsism, the perfect antidote to my empiricism.

 

[JohnDamian]

Ah yes, I forgot about your solipsism, the perfect antidote to my empiricism.

You also forgot Nominalism, Conceptualism and Idealism - all three of which offer a solid counterargument against empiricism in this context. And I am not a solipsist; I am a realist - but in this context am applying Kantian Idealism to spice the time depate up somewhat.

 

[Moonstruck888]

You also forgot Nominalism, Conceptualism and Idealism - all three of which offer a solid counterargument against empiricism in this context. And I am not a solipsist; I am a realist - but in this context am applying Kantian Idealism to spice the time depate up somewhat.

I think you probably should actually go to University and study philosophy, because I don’t think you really know what you are. There’s more to life than just stringing a few buzzwords together.

Since you’re not being sincere, I’m out.

 

[JohnDamian]

I think you probably should actually go to University and study philosophy, because I don’t think you really know what you are. There’s more to life than just stringing a few buzzwords together.

Since you’re not being sincere, I’m out.

Whatever happened to objective approaches?

Mindlessly and doggedly following my own belief in the matter of time is neither helpful nor objective nor by any means logical, sensible or scientific…

Perhaps you should go to University, or take advantage of a library at least before you go mistaking idealism for solipsism

 

[Moonstruck888]

Whatever happened to objective approaches?

Mindlessly and doggedly following my own belief in the matter of time is neither helpful nor objective nor by any means logical, sensible or scientific…

Perhaps you should go to University, or take advantage of a library at least before you go mistaking idealism for solipsism

I have no wish to debate with Kant. If I did, I’d have to dig him up.

 

[Zatzat]

You also forgot Nominalism, Conceptualism and Idealism - all three of which offer a solid counterargument against empiricism in this context. And I am not a solipsist; I am a realist - but in this context am applying Kantian Idealism to spice the time depate up somewhat.

Yep, you’ve actually said nothing…but you did string a lot of fancy words together.

 

[AntiTheist]

The question reveals that the idea of omnipotence is inherently contradictory and cannot exist.

If someone wishes to redefine “omnipotence” to mean “the ability to do anything that is not logically contradictory,” then you’ve stated that your god is subject to the laws of logic.

If he created the laws of logic, then he should not be subject to them. If he did not create them, then those laws exist all by themselves and are more powerful than god.

Some theists like to argue, “Well, the laws of logic are just god’s nature.” Great – more word games. Ok, so did god create his own nature? If he created and chose what his nature was, then he’s not subject to it and he can violate it; if he didn’t create and choose his own nature, then he’s not totally free – he’s bound by something that he didn’t create.

Choose your poison – either way, the idea of omnipotence is inherently contradictory and cannot exist.

 

[Leela]

The question reveals that the idea of omnipotence is inherently contradictory and cannot exist.

If someone wishes to redefine “omnipotence” to mean “the ability to do anything that is not logically contradictory,” then you’ve stated that your god is subject to the laws of logic.

If he created the laws of logic, then he should not be subject to them. If he did not create them, then those laws exist all by themselves and are more powerful than god.

Some theists like to argue, “Well, the laws of logic are just god’s nature.” Great – more word games. Ok, so did god create his own nature? If he created and chose what his nature was, then he’s not subject to it and he can violate it; if he didn’t create and choose his own nature, then he’s not totally free – he’s bound by something that he didn’t create.

Choose your poison – either way, the idea of omnipotence is inherently contradictory and cannot exist.

Wow. Well said.

 

[buffalo]

Omnipotence

(Latin omnipotentia, from omnia and potens, able to do all things).
Omnipotence is the power of God to effect whatever is not intrinsically impossible. These last words of the definition do not imply any imperfection, since a power that extends to every possibility must be perfect. The universality of the object of the Divine power is not merely relative but absolute, so that the true nature of omnipotence is not clearly expressed by saying that God can do all things that are possible to Him; it requires the further statement that all things are possible to God. The intrinsically impossible is the self-contradictory, and its mutually exclusive elements could result only in nothingness. “Hence,” says Thomas (Summa I, Q. xxv, a. 3), “it is more exact to say that the intrinsically impossible is incapable of production, than to say that God cannot produce it.” To include the contradictory within the range of omnipotence, as does the Calvinist Vorstius, is to acknowledge the absurd as an object of the Divine intellect, and nothingness as an object of the Divine will and power. “God can do all things the accomplishment of which is a manifestation of power,” says Hugh of St. Victor, “and He is almighty because He cannot be powerless” (De sacram., I, ii, 22).
As intrinsically impossible must be classed:

1. 
   *]Any action on the part of God which would be out of harmony with His nature and attributes;
   *]Any action that would simultaneously connote mutually repellent elements, e.g. a square circle, an infinite creature, etc.
   
   Actions out of harmony with God’s nature and attributes
   
   more…

 

[Matthew78550]

Philisophical questions always through me for a loop. Like, is it morallly okay to shout, “Movie!” in a crowded Firehouse?

For me, God is love, God is hope and God is every miracle and moment of life.

I did enjoy reading this thread, though. Kudos to the over-thinkers of the world!

I’m still trying to figure out how you can “preheat” an oven.

 

[StevenFrancis]

This reminded me of bit from George Carlin’s AM/FM where he’s in ccd and asks “If God is all powerful, can he create a rock so big that he himself can’t lift it”.

I’m a step below a novice on this inhaling of knowledge from the great theological philosophers. I’ve learned enough to tell you that the short answer is ‘no, but…’, It’s a LONG story. And you’re not going to have a short conversation with someone who’s testing your faith with conundrums that’s going to yield either of you much of anything. I’d suggest you reccommend the Summa Theologica by St. Thomas Aquinas to your son. Let him chew on that stuff for about 2 or 3 years, and then have him come back, and I’m willing to bet he will have modified his question somewhat, if not his mind set and way of viewing the mind and spirit of man, as well as the I AM, which is our limitless God. (Who’s not a guy who lifts rocks, by the way, he makes the rocks, and we lift them).

He exists apart from the constructs of time and physical law. A creator must be beyond his creation, and while there are rules that the creator creates, they don’t necessarily apply to the creator in his omnipotent state, however we know that when experiencing temporal life as the Son, his body operates within most of the phisical parameters created by the Father. He doesn’t HAVE to. It is a limitation of ‘choice’? (Not sure that’s the right word). The creator’s free will? It would just be plain pointless for the Son to communicate with the creatures experiencing temproral existence without sharing the human limits of existence with them. Though He does operate outside our physical laws entirely in the person of the Father and Holy Ghost. He is only the physical son of human form in 1st century Judea, and in the fullness of time, as we are (or shall be, speaking in terms of time), when we are in our fulfilled, judged and purgated state of renewal and interred in our eternal bodies.

Even then, we will be subject to some modified physics, but not God, except as the Son.

See…I shouldn’t even go there. I’m describing this awfully, though I feel I understand it passably. Very few have the gift of description.

Peace, and good luck.

Steven

 

[buffalo]

T

He exists apart from the constructs of time and physical law. A creator must be beyond his creation, and while there are rules that the creator creates, they don’t necessarily apply to the creator in his omnipotent state, however we know that when experiencing temporal life as the Son, his body operates within most of the phisical parameters created by the Father.

Steven

Yup! :yup: I would add creatures cannot fully comprehend His logic.

 

[coolduude]

Forgive me if this question has been answered, but I saw this thread and I have an answer. Sorry if I’m covering old material

This is what I’m getting my answer from: existence-of-god.com/paradox-of-the-stone.html

"Although this simple argument may appear compelling at first glance, there are some fundamental problems with it. Before identifying these problems, however, it is necessary to make clear what is meant by “omnipotence”.

Christian philosophers have understood omnipotence in different ways. René Descartes thought of omnipotence as the ability to do absolutely anything. According to Descartes, God can do the logically impossible; he can make square circles, and he can make 2 + 2 = 5.

Thomas Aquinas had a narrower conception of omnipotence. According to Aquinas, God is able to do anything possible; he can part the red sea, and he can restore the dead to life, but he cannot violate the laws of logic and mathematics in the way that Descartes thought that he could.

If Descartes’ conception of omnipotence is correct, then any attempt to disprove God’s existence using logic is hopeless. If God can do the logically impossible, then he can both create a stone so heavy that he cannot lift it, and lift it, and so can do all things. Yes, there’s a contradiction in this, but so what? God can, on this understanding of omnipotence, make contradictions true.

Descartes’ understanding of omnipotence therefore doesn’t seem to be vulnerable to the paradox of the stone. Descartes can answer the question “Yes” without compromising divine omnipotence.

Aquinas’ understanding of omnipotence, which is more popular than that of Descartes, also survives the paradox of the stone. For if God exists then he is a being that can lift all stones. A stone that is so heavy that God cannot lift it is therefore an impossible object. According to Aquinas’ understanding of omnipotence, remember, God is able to do anything possible, but not anything impossible, and creating a stone that God cannot lift is something impossible.

Aquinas can therefore answer the question “No” without compromising divine omnipotence.

The paradox of the stone, then, can be resolved; it fails to show that there is an incoherence in the theistic conception of God, and so fails to demonstrate that God does not exist."

 

[Gloria1]

God is omnipotent because He has the power to do all things MEANINGFUL. It doesn’t make sense to cause yourself to fail so God wouldn’t do it! but that doesn’t make God less than “omnipotent”. God is omnipotent and He Can do all things meaningful.

 

[R_Daneel]

Forgive me if this question has been answered, but I saw this thread and I have an answer. Sorry if I’m covering old material

This is what I’m getting my answer from: existence-of-god.com/paradox-of-the-stone.html

"Although this simple argument may appear compelling at first glance, there are some fundamental problems with it. Before identifying these problems, however, it is necessary to make clear what is meant by “omnipotence”.

Christian philosophers have understood omnipotence in different ways. René Descartes thought of omnipotence as the ability to do absolutely anything. According to Descartes, God can do the logically impossible; he can make square circles, and he can make 2 + 2 = 5.

Thomas Aquinas had a narrower conception of omnipotence. According to Aquinas, God is able to do anything possible; he can part the red sea, and he can restore the dead to life, but he cannot violate the laws of logic and mathematics in the way that Descartes thought that he could.

If Descartes’ conception of omnipotence is correct, then any attempt to disprove God’s existence using logic is hopeless. If God can do the logically impossible, then he can both create a stone so heavy that he cannot lift it, and lift it, and so can do all things. Yes, there’s a contradiction in this, but so what? God can, on this understanding of omnipotence, make contradictions true.

Descartes’ understanding of omnipotence therefore doesn’t seem to be vulnerable to the paradox of the stone. Descartes can answer the question “Yes” without compromising divine omnipotence.

Aquinas’ understanding of omnipotence, which is more popular than that of Descartes, also survives the paradox of the stone. For if God exists then he is a being that can lift all stones. A stone that is so heavy that God cannot lift it is therefore an impossible object. According to Aquinas’ understanding of omnipotence, remember, God is able to do anything possible, but not anything impossible, and creating a stone that God cannot lift is something impossible.

Aquinas can therefore answer the question “No” without compromising divine omnipotence.

The paradox of the stone, then, can be resolved; it fails to show that there is an incoherence in the theistic conception of God, and so fails to demonstrate that God does not exist."

Good summary. Not even the Christian philosophers can agree just what is the meaning of “omnipotence”. You just did not draw the final conclusion: the concept of omnipotence is meaningless.