An unanswerable question?

[debgab]

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

 

[Bob_Crowley]

I’ve seen atheists post this question on a number of occasions. It’s not a case of whether God is ‘omnipotent’ but a question of semantics. What does ‘omnipotent’ mean?

First of all, God is an *intelligent *being. Ask your son why He would want to make a boulder “too big to move”? It is a nonsensical request.

I extracted this from Wikipedia …

"In recent times, C. S. Lewis has adopted a scholastic position in the course of his work The Problem of Pain. Lewis follows Aquinas’ view on contradiction:

*His Omnipotence means power to do all that is intrinsically possible, not to do the intrinsically impossible. You may attribute miracles to him, but not nonsense. This is no limit to his power. If you choose to say ‘God can give a creature free will and at the same time withhold free will from it,’ you have not succeeded in saying anything about God: meaningless combinations of words do not suddenly acquire meaning simply because we prefix to them the two other words ‘God can.’… It is no more possible for God than for the weakest of his creatures to carry out both of two mutually exclusive alternatives; not because his power meets an obstacle, *but because nonsense remains nonsense even when we talk it about God."

 

[lemondiesel]

IFirst of all, God is an *intelligent *being. Ask your son why He would want to make a boulder “too big to move”? It is a nonsensical request.

A common Atheist reply to this question would be to prove his perfectness. Meaning if he is perfect, He should have the power to do so.

This is a difficult question to ask in religion and I think many theists should stay away from answering such questions.

It is like, if God is absolutely perfect, can he create something better, because if he is perfect, there is no limit to his power.

 

[Zatzat]

It is like, if God is absolutely perfect, can he create something better, because if he is perfect, there is no limit to his power.

…and that is not nonsensical.

For example, God would literally have had the foreknowledge to have created trillions of different earths inhabited by his children, yet he chose to create a world that he had the foreknowledge to know that it would be fallen, broken, filled with sin and that he’d have to fix it with a his own blood sacrifice…

…and he did it anyway, instead of choosing one of the more perfect versions of earth.

 

[tjm190]

God can’t make a triangular square, a flat sphere, or a boulder too big for God to move because those things are self contradictions- they can not exist by their own definitions.

 

[DysonSphere]

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

I don’t think this question would have any baring on your son being agnostic. God could exist and be limited. Even an “unlimited” god is typically expected to be free from self-contradiction.

I could be wrong in my assessment of your son’s position; you know him far better than I do.

Agnosticism is “justified”, at least in my mind, because of a lack of justification. I am agnostic because it seems impossible to assign a probability to God’s existence, and because I have no pragmatic reason to accept the existence of such a being.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

…and that is not nonsensical.

For example, God would literally have had the foreknowledge to have created trillions of different earths inhabited by his children, yet he chose to create a world that he had the foreknowledge to know that it would be fallen, broken, filled with sin and that he’d have to fix it with a his own blood sacrifice…

…and he did it anyway, instead of choosing one of the more perfect versions of earth.

How do you know that we don’t live on the best possible world?

God can do all things that are logical. He cannot do nonsense. Creating a being greater than perfection is nonsense. Anyway, even if he could, why would he?

 

[lemondiesel]

How do you know that we don’t live on the best possible world?

God can do all things that are logical. He cannot do nonsense. Creating a being greater than perfection is nonsense. Anyway, even if he could, why would he?

So your saying God can’t have an imagination?

We have imagination therefore God can “imagine”, not in a “conscious” way that we think of. Saying God can’t do nonsense (imagination) implies that imagination, along with our conscious, is special to only us.

 

[tjm190]

So your saying God can’t have an imagination?

We have imagination therefore God can “imagine”, not in a “conscious” way that we think of. Saying God can’t do nonsense (imagination) implies that imagination, along with our conscious, is special to only us.

I believe “Do nonsense” referred to creating things that are self contradictory. E.g. if we assume God is ‘greatest of all things’ then a thing that is greater than God is a self contradiction- you can not be greater than the greatest.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

I believe “Do nonsense” referred to creating things that are self contradictory. E.g. if we assume God is ‘greatest of all things’ then a thing that is greater than God is a self contradiction- you can not be greater than the greatest.

Yes, thank you.

 

[buffalo]

Catholics understand God to be almighty. He does what He sets out to do.

There are a number of things God cannot do:

He cannot sin
He cannot deceive
He cannot be unjust
He cannot contradict His own nature.

 

[buffalo]

…and that is not nonsensical.

For example, God would literally have had the foreknowledge to have created trillions of different earths inhabited by his children, yet he chose to create a world that he had the foreknowledge to know that it would be fallen, broken, filled with sin and that he’d have to fix it with a his own blood sacrifice…

…and he did it anyway, instead of choosing one of the more perfect versions of earth.

God created the universe good.

As a father you know the decisions your child will make beforehand. So you can lock him in a room so he cannot act on that decision or you set him free. A father will counsel his child against particular actions because he loves him. But a wise father knows that the child he loves has to learn somethings on his own.

Would you rather live in a perfect world where by definition you cannot choose? God could have created robots.

 

[R_Daneel]

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 trouble is that the so-called omnimax attributes are meaningless.

The omnipotence used to be taken as “God can do anything” - literally anything. Of course, this meaning has been abandoned, once people realized that “anything” also includes creating a logical contradiction. So, omnipotence has been “reduced” to “maxipotence”, which is “God can do anything, that can be done”. Then this was also reduced. Allegedly God cannot do a number of things, for example, God cannot lie, cannot do evil, cannot act against his own nature, etc… (which is in dire contradiction with the Bible, but that is another story) This is also problematic, since now we, humans can do things, which are impossible for God. Now, it is asserted that “God can do anything and everything, that God can do”. Needless to say, this is just a meaningless tautology.

Therefore the whole concept of “omnipotence” or “maxipotence” is just a nicely sounding word, without any meaning whatsoever. Yet, believers are reluctant to admit it. I wonder why?

 

[JohnDamian]

Therefore the whole concept of “omnipotence” or “maxipotence” is just a nicely sounding word, without any meaning whatsoever. Yet, believers are reluctant to admit it. I wonder why?

This is an error of thinking on your behalf, I shall explain;

Omnipotency, nessecarily entails all of that within the definition of pracitcal potency, viz. all things pertaining to potency, or all things in the totality of power.

Therein, if we are applying potency within the context of reality, not abstraction, we can see that to entail a practical “omnipotency” would mean that all things causable in reality, by potency are the potential consequences of a praxis of omnipotency.

As, making a circle a square is outside of the context of real potency, it is in no way a contradiction to the declaration of God’s omnipotence, likewise for creating an object too large to lift etc.

So God can be omnipotent and still not be able to create a rock too heavy to lift. because to do so is outside the realm of potency, and thus not a contradiction to omni-potence.

 

[R_Daneel]

This is an error of thinking on your behalf, I shall explain;

Omnipotency, nessecarily entails all of that within the definition of pracitcal potency, viz. all things pertaining to potency, or all things in the totality of power.

Therein, if we are applying potency within the context of reality, not abstraction, we can see that to entail a practical “omnipotency” would mean that all things causable in reality, by potency are the potential consequences of a praxis of omnipotency.

As, making a circle a square is outside of the context of real potency, it is in no way a contradiction to the declaration of God’s omnipotence, likewise for creating an object too large to lift etc.

So God can be omnipotent and still not be able to create a rock too heavy to lift. because to do so is outside the realm of potency, and thus not a contradiction to omni-potence.

Since I explained that omnipotence cannot mean to create logically contradictory events, I see no point in your post. The reality you speak of is allegedly contingent upon God, who can violate the laws of nature (according to theists). Moreover, we are talking about the abstract concept of “omnipotence”, not the reality of it. And if something is nonsensical when contemplated in an abstract fashion, it will not become practical when applying to reality. A meaningless concept cannot be translated into reality.

 

[JohnDamian]

Since I explained that omnipotence cannot mean to create logically contradictory events, I see no point in your post. The reality you speak of is allegedly contingent upon God, who can violate the laws of nature (according to theists). Moreover, we are talking about the abstract concept of “omnipotence”, not the reality of it. And if something is nonsensical when contemplated in an abstract fashion, it will not become practical when applying to reality. A meaningless concept cannot be translated into reality.

Potency exists in reality,
There is a finite totality of potential potent acts,
This totality per se, is the extent of the claim of, and the reality of omnipotence,

There is no need for abstraction, as the essence of omnipotence is prior to its praxis, and if the essence is thus constrained by itself and its definition as the totality of potential acts in the genus of potency, therein it is itself containing all of potency, and thus - omnipotent.

I hardly think abstract speculation is nessecary for any such bickering; omnipotence is itself the claim that the totality of potential potencies can be enacted (by God). When you are trying to extend the nature of omni-potency outside of potency you are missing the point. It would be the same as misidentifying omni-benevolence etc. and trying to apply that (benevolence) to potency abstractions; which in general is absurd.

 

[Brendan]

God can’t make a triangular square, a flat sphere, or a boulder too big for God to move because those things are self contradictions- they can not exist by their own definitions.

Correct, God can do anything, but a self-contradiction is not a thing, therefore not part of ‘anything’

 

[lemondiesel]

Catholics understand God to be almighty. He does what He sets out to do.

There are a number of things God cannot do:

He cannot sin
He cannot deceive
He cannot be unjust
He cannot contradict His own nature.

Question. If God created evil, is that not already a sin in itself?

 

[buffalo]

Question. If God created evil, is that not already a sin in itself?

No - God is perfect - His creation is by definition not as perfect as Him. It is good.

So, God is perfectly good and there are beings that are not sets the stage for a choice to be made that is the opposite of good.

I do not see how we could have a dynamic universe and free will without some level of evil being an option. Again, God could restrict His beings from making a choice but then we would be robotic or simply instinctual. That would prevent us from the full experience of God in the beatific vision.

 

[Kilo1Mike21]

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 questions put God into the context of man’s limitations…God is not man thus these secular rules do not apply to Him.