Question for Fun

[PeteZaHut]

I heard this question as an example of how students tried to distract a religion teacher.

Can God make a rock so heavy that He Himself cannot move it.

 

[Pieman333272]

I heard this question as an example of how students tried to distract a religion teacher.

Can God make a rock so heavy that He Himself cannot move it.

No. He can make a rock infinitely heavy, so heavy, in fact, it gets heavier just by being in existence, but there is no such thing as a rock God can’t lift.

 

[BlueShadow123]

I heard this question as an example of how students tried to distract a religion teacher.

Can God make a rock so heavy that He Himself cannot move it.

Your username is funny.
And to answer your question, no.
But personally I think your question was a joke.

 

[Julian0404]

Questions of that nature, intentionally require the debate to start from the position that GOD is not “a” god, but is rather a “man” like creature that can, like man limit himself.

You cannot debate the merit of such questions, as it begs the answer that GOD is not god. Questions of this nature are intended to capture the weak of mind, who immediately forget that GOD cannot be limited as man can, and most importantly that man cannot ever fully “know” GOD until we have passed into HIS salvation.

So, with our very limited knowledge, the weak of mind jump to the conclusion that they know all there is to know about GOD, and therefore GOD must be limited and therefore, not god.

Sadly, it captures way to many.

 

[coolduude]

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 though 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.

existence-of-god.com/paradox-of-the-stone.html

I think that should nail the question