If God Is All Powerful, Can He Make A Rock So Big, That Even He Cannot

[Aloysius]

yes, the term "all-powerful" in human language is inherently self-contradictory. but that's because human language is limited, which is why this is a linguistic trick.

the concept of being all-powerful, however, is NOT self-contradictory. God cannot contradict His own nature, because to contradict His own nature would limit His power. being able to do that would make Him less powerful. just because I used the term "cannot" doesn't mean I'm contradicting omnipotence.

there are millions of better arguments against God. this is a linguistic trick, by taking the definition of "all-powerful" ad absurdum, by pretending that a destructive reflexive activity (the all-powerful being making itself not all-powerful) is a power, and that unless the all-powerful being is capable of doing that, it is not all-powerful.

again, I must emphasize, your contradiction is LINGUISTIC in nature. not philosophical.

let's try this:
if Quantum Mechanics can explain everything in the universe (or multiverse), why can't it explain a universe in which Quantum Mechanics does not work?

that's the same exact type of statement. it's ridiculous from the standpoint of a theoretical physicist, just like this particular question is ridiculous from the standpoint of a theoretical theologian. they're things we can say with language that don't actually make much sense in reality.

[Aloysius]

another way to look at it:

say God did create a "rock so big that God cannot lift it", but he was still the all-powerful God. So because He is still omnipotent, He is capable of making that rock able to be lifted again. so effectively, He was always still able to lift it, because He was always able to make it able to be lifted.

the point is that there is no such thing as a rock that cannot be lifted by an all-powerful being. the definition of the term all-powerful precludes the existence of such a rock.

[Mr.Cat]

[quote name='Aloysius' timestamp='1308200759' post='2254454']yes, the term "all-powerful" in human language is inherently self-contradictory. but that's because human language is limited, which is why this is a linguistic trick.[/quote]A linguistic trick would be more like... resting makes me restless. I assure you, this is not the case.[quote name='Aloysius' timestamp='1308200759' post='2254454']the concept of being all-powerful, however, is NOT self-contradictory. God cannot contradict His own nature, because to contradict His own nature would limit His power. being able to do that would make Him less powerful. just because I used the term "cannot" doesn't mean I'm contradicting omnipotence.[/quote]Yes, it is contradictory. [quote name='Aloysius' timestamp='1308200759' post='2254454']there are millions of better arguments against God. this is a linguistic trick, by taking the definition of "all-powerful" ad absurdum, by pretending that a destructive reflexive activity (the all-powerful being making itself not all-powerful) is a power, and that unless the all-powerful being is capable of doing that, it is not all-powerful.[/quote]No, it merely requires a change of definition that admits limits. [quote name='Aloysius' timestamp='1308200759' post='2254454']again, I must emphasize, your contradiction is LINGUISTIC in nature. not philosophical.[/quote]Respectfully disagreed. I'm a bit surprised you would claim it has no relation to philosophy, when in fact in philosophy we do study language. [quote name='Aloysius' timestamp='1308200759' post='2254454']let's try this:
if Quantum Mechanics can explain everything in the universe (or multiverse), why can't it explain a universe in which Quantum Mechanics does not work?[/quote]How is this relevant?[quote name='Aloysius' timestamp='1308200759' post='2254454']that's the same exact type of statement. it's ridiculous from the standpoint of a theoretical physicist, just like this particular question is ridiculous from the standpoint of a theoretical theologian. they're things we can say with language that don't actually make much sense in reality.[/quote]No... I don't see a relationship at all. Maybe a similar comparison would be... How can a psychiatrist claim that human behavior is nearly impossible to predict but yet claim to be an expert on predicting human behavior? Which the answer is simple, there are limitations...

The problem is you're theology and dogmatic faith doesn't let you make the rational judgments necessary when regarding you're definitions of god.

[Aloysius]

this has nothing to do with dogmatic faith. I not here arguing whether there is or is not a God. I am perfectly willing to admit in this argument the possibility of there not being a God. let us talk of this as if it were a piece of fiction that we are fans of, and ask whether the in-universe rules of this fiction make any sense.

in this fiction, such a God would NOT be contradictory by concept by being incapable of doing things that are simply ridiculous. if an all-powerful being existed, it would be impossible for anything to exist that He could not do. Even if He placed a limit, were He all powerful, He could just as easily remove that limit and because He was capable of removing that limit and doing that thing the whole time, the limit was never real at all. He is incapable of creating the limit because the limit itself is incapable of existing, as I said before, it'd be like a square circle.

the psychiatrist example doesn't work because there are limitations. there are no limitations in the quantum mechanics example, except that the thing proposed is ridiculous. just as this thing proposed is ridiculous.

Edited June 16, 2011 by Aloysius

[Mr.Cat]

[quote name='Aloysius' timestamp='1308202969' post='2254464']the limit was never real at all.[/quote]Thus a limitation, thus a contradiction. Why are you so reluctant to admit that a minor change in definition, that you seemingly implied before, is wanted in this case?

A hypothetical situation. "Q" appears aboard the Enterprise, claiming that he is all-powerful, which if we follow the fictional universe of startrek he demonstrates fantastic powers repeatedly. So is it safe to assume that "Q" is in fact all-powerful? Is there any way for the crew of the enterprise to give a single test to either confirm or deny this?[quote name='Aloysius' timestamp='1308202969' post='2254464']the psychiatrist example doesn't work because there are limitations. there are no limitations in the quantum mechanics example, except that the thing proposed is ridiculous. just as this thing proposed is ridiculous.[/quote]You are merely dismissing it... I think you're example doesn't even remotely relate. BUT I won't stop you from thinking it does.

Edited June 16, 2011 by Mr.CatholicCat

[Aloysius]

I don't think it's a limitation at all.

"something that an all-powerful being cannot lift" is a contradiction the same as a "square circle". the only thing it is is a string of human words put together that contradict each other. it is not something that God is incapable of doing, it is not a something at all. a square circle cannot exist because of the definition of the term "circle" and the definition of the term "square", they are mutually exclusive terms. God is not limited because He cannot make that happen, because that is simply a nonsensical string of human words. likewise God is not limited because he cannot create "something that an all powerful being cannot lift"--that is a nonsensical string of human words.

Q is certainly not all-powerful, though he claims to be.

say we are talking about two different all-powerful beings, call them Dave and George. they are both truly all-powerful beings, able to do absolutely anything. can Dave make a rock that George cannot lift? no, not because the Dave is not all powerful, but because George is all powerful as well and so it is nonsensical to talk about anything being impossible for George. nothing is impossible for George, and Dave's power is not limited by that fact.

this is not dismissing it, this is thinking it through.

Edited June 16, 2011 by Aloysius

[Mr.Cat]

[quote name='Aloysius' timestamp='1308206836' post='2254479']I don't think it's a limitation at all.[/quote]Respectfully disagreed.[quote name='Aloysius' timestamp='1308206836' post='2254479']"something that an all-powerful being cannot lift" is a contradiction the same as a "square circle". the only thing it is is a string of human words put together that contradict each other. it is not something that God is incapable of doing, it is not a something at all. a square circle cannot exist because of the definition of the term "circle" and the definition of the term "square", they are mutually exclusive terms. God is not limited because He cannot make that happen, because that is simply a nonsensical string of human words. likewise God is not limited because he cannot create "something that an all powerful being cannot lift"--that is a nonsensical string of human words.[/quote]So in this sense, you are defining "all-powerful" as all that is possible and that is willed. This is reasonable. But it is still a proviso, a reasonable one yes, but it is a proviso.[quote name='Aloysius' timestamp='1308206836' post='2254479']Q is certainly not all-powerful, though he claims to be.[/quote]So you are willing to concede "Q" is not all-powerful, even though he can demonstrate amazing power and claims to be all-powerful in this hypothetical situation. Why? So according to you we have a "god" claiming to be "all-powerful", even though this cannot be demonstrated and it can't even be confirmed that this "god" claims to be all-powerful... in fact the existence of this "god" remains questionable. Why?[quote name='Aloysius' timestamp='1308206836' post='2254479']say we are talking about two different all-powerful beings, call them Dave and George. they are both truly all-powerful beings, able to do absolutely anything. can Dave make a rock that George cannot lift? no, not because the Dave is not all powerful, but because George is all powerful as well and so it is nonsensical to talk about anything being impossible for George. nothing is impossible for George, and Dave's power is not limited by that fact.[/quote]So Dave cannot do something... That is a limitation. By definition that is a limitation, at least a proviso. You can protest the question all you like but that doesn't change the contradiction.

How about a similar question that is commonly used in it's place? Can Dave create an even more all-powerful being? If not, why not?[quote name='Aloysius' timestamp='1308206836' post='2254479']this is not dismissing it, this is thinking it through.[/quote]I am sure this makes sense to you, but to the non-believer it sounds like a word-salad. So you are going to have to be very clear and demonstrable in your argument.

Edited June 16, 2011 by Mr.CatholicCat

[Nihil Obstat]

Can God create a tndiugoivs?

[Mr.Cat]

"[i]What happens when an irresistible force meets an immovable object?[/i]" Another variant on this paradox.


[s]Which sounds almost like the start of a good joke...[/s]

Edited June 16, 2011 by Mr.CatholicCat

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1308208980' post='2254486']
Can God create a tndiugoivs?
[/quote]
That's an easy one.

[IMG]http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h119/NoonienSoong_2006/phatmass/tndiugoivs.jpg[/IMG]

[stevil]

[quote name='Aloysius' timestamp='1308175967' post='2254264']
because I don't only believe in thngs I can prove in the materialist sense. I can argue a priori philosophical reasons why I believe in God, I can give you a posteriori reasons from my own experience that you could discount as nothing more than imagination and coincidence. but no, there's no way I can show you God lifting a rock without human intervention.

that doesn't mean God can't lift a rock. I can't make Him do it though, and He invented the law of gravity so that rocks would lie exactly where he wanted them to.
[/quote]
That's the dilemma that I find with regards to all god theories. Its always completely non detectable, non measurable and non testable. To me, if we can't do these things, then how can we know that the theory is correct? To me much of theology seems to be simply conceptual, without the requirement of being spacial, temporal and constructed of substance, it is purley conceptual, and we are required to simply believe what we are told. I've never been good at doing what I am told. I am always the little kid that says "..but why?"

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' timestamp='1308212200' post='2254491']
That's an easy one.

[IMG]http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h119/NoonienSoong_2006/phatmass/tndiugoivs.jpg[/IMG]
[/quote]
I'm calling shenanigans!

[Luigi]

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1308223012' post='2254507']
That's the dilemma that I find with regards to all god theories. Its always completely non detectable, non measurable and non testable. To me, if we can't do these things, then how can we know that the theory is correct? To me much of theology seems to be simply conceptual, without the requirement of being spacial, temporal and constructed of substance, it is purley conceptual, and we are required to simply believe what we are told. I've never been good at doing what I am told. I am always the little kid that says "..but why?"
[/quote]

There are a lot of mysteries connected to faith, and the Catholic Church recognizes, perhaps, more mysteries than most other religions. At least we recognize a mystery when we see it, and some of the official answers to some of the complicated questions in the Baltimore Catechism are, "Because it is a mystery."

To my mind, the most mysterious mystery is why religion requires faith - why does God want us to [b]believe[/b] rather than [b]know[/b]? Many, many people, including you and some of my relatives, would "believe in God" if they could be shown satisfactory proof. But having seen proof, we would not "believe in God," we would [b]know[/b] about God. And, for reasons I cannot explain, God wants us to believe rather than know - and He could certainly reveal Himself through means other than faith/belief if He wanted to.

Catholics, based on some things St. Paul has written, recognize faith as a gift from God - Lord knows my parents have prayed for years that certain of their children be blessed with faith; they've shown no evidence of it lately, even though they were "taught the faith." It's a mystery to the old folks why some of their children have been blessed with faith and others haven't.

There are verses in the Old Testament about not testing God. The show-me-some-solid-proof-and-then-I'll-believe mentality can be interpreted as a kind of "testing God." For instance, you use the terms 'non-testable' and 'god theories.' Personally, I can imagine God saying, "I'm nobody's [i]theory[/i]!"

There's also the parable Jesus told about Lazarus. Poor, hungry, bottom-of-the-socioeconomic-ladder Lazarus dies and goes to heaven. The rich man who refused even the crumbs from his table to Lazarus dies and goes to hell. The rich man sees Lazarus enjoying eternal happiness while he himself is stuck eternally in hell. The rich man says to God, "At least tell my brothers what's going to happen to them so they can change their ways before it's too late." God tells the rich man, "They have the prophets and the law - let them learn from that." So, in other words, God seems to think that He has revealed Himself satisfactorily to us - Moses, the law, the prophets, Jesus, gospels, epistles, sacraments, crucifixion, resurrection, yada yada yada.

You're "the little kid who always says... 'but why?'" I can describe the situation as I understand it (limited though that is). But I can't explain why God wants faith/belief instead of knowing. Not really, not to your satisfaction.



It's a mystery.

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote name='Aloysius' timestamp='1308177517' post='2254299']
yes, God is all powerful, AND He cannot make a rock that He cannot lift. ie, because by definition He is all-powerful, He cannot make Himself not all-powerful.

He cannot limit the unlimited, because to do so would make it no longer "unlimited". if something is by definition unlimited, it cannot have any limits. if something is by its nature all powerful, there can be no rocks it cannot lift. so His inability to make one simply reflects the definition of the word all-powerful.
[/quote]

i'll go with this. i always said 'one cannot limit the unlimited', and al expressed why pretty well, by definition, etc. and, before i had said things like 'he could make the rock if he wanted to, then if he wanted to change his mind, he could'. but then, that'd mean that, ultimately, he couldn't make that rock, cause he could always change his mind.
so given he could always change his mind, and given one cannot limit the unlimited... i'm going to say no

[dairygirl4u2c]

i'm not convinced that my answer though gets around the dilemma. if he's all powerful, he should be able to make that rock... and if he can't make the rock, then there's a limitation there. "can't limit the unlimited", is a limit, in some sense. not a true limit, though, and i s'pose this is the heart of what al is getting at. instead of all that 'square circle' stuff, some better analogies would be... something that i'll think of later. something like 'decreasing at an increasing rate is still decreasing', though that's not quite right as an analogy.
i actually like what that wiki post i did said... perhaps our concept of his 'unlimited' nature is wrong, or perhaps his 'omnipotenice', though my deifnition issues is probably different than others'