Is my argument on this question flawed: Can God Make a Rock that is Too Big for Him to Move?

Question

Read the argument below.

Ever heard the argument that the concept of omnipotence is a self contradiction as revealed by the question, "Can God make a rock that is too big for him to move?" The problem with that is that the question is a self contradiction. It has an assumption, that a rock that is too big for him to move can exist in reality. It is like asking the question, "Can Ted make pure water that humans can't drink?" The question is invalid because pure water that humans can't drink is a self contradiction. It is an imaginary concept that is not in the realm of reality, so the question is invalid. It is like asking what the square root of negative -1 is and saying there has to be an answer.

Is this argument flawed?

Answer 1

the funny thing about this -

god is all powerful. therefore he can do anything (ie move anything).

so god can move all rocks.

however, if god is all powerful, he can make anything

so god can make a rock he cant move.

but if he cant move it, hes not all powerful.

however, it is not like asking if ted can make pure water that humans cant drink, because ted is not all powerful, as god is (supposedly)

Answer 2

but Ted could build a car in his front room that is too big to get out of the door....

Answer 3

nice, good paradox. i could see some people thinking about this one for a while. it's like a computer virus for christians, it'll make their heads explode.

god.. all... powerful..... can... do anything,.. make.. rock... as big.. as he... wants,.... can move... anything.. not matter.... how big.. can do... anything...rock.. too big.. all powerful... not.........    KABLAM!

Answer 4

Every argument that comes from a position is flawed.  But yours makes complete sense to me.

The question posed is an attempt to discredit God by presuming hypotheticals have existence.  What is often not considered is that God cannot be not-God as Dr. David R. Hawkins put it.  If God is the totality and the source of the totality (omnipresence)  there isn't anything that is not God.  Therefore 'nothing' (nothingness) is impossible.

Answer 5

You aren't completely off, but because the question assumes something about the nature of omnipotence, the issue must be addressed more foundationally.

What I mean is this: those that ask this question generally define omnipotence to be unbounded; and assume that an omnipotent Being must, by definition, be able to do the absurd.  Because this is their underlying assumption, omnipotence does not make sense to them.  Indeed, for many that is the POINT of asking the question - they are questioning the reasonableness of omnipotence.  To say that the question is invalid is, in effect, to agree with them.

In contrast, within a Christian theistic framework, God's omnipotence is bounded.  God can do all things, but only within the boundaries of his own nature.  It is like saying "I've looked everywhere for my keys."  When I say it, I don't expect people to think that I've looked on the moon for them.  I've looked everywhere in my room or in my house.  "Everywhere" has limits, but within those limits, it can still make sense.

The way to genuinely discuss this issue is to take the time to define the implied terms, and come to an agreement on what those terms will mean during the conversation.

Answer 6

The answer would be no. I would think that no one can bite more than the mouth can accommodate.

Which means that, no stone he made can be too big for him to move.

Thanks for sharing.

Answer 7

Answer is simple, NO, God can do anything!

Answer 8

What is it with people asking religious questions in philosophy?

I think your argument is one of the pointers to the non-existence of any god. It shows just what a nonsense the whole god thing is.

Answer 9

Sort of.

I don't really get the water part because you could make pure water (distilled water) and in it's gas form it would be undrinkable.

And I don't get the next one because the answer is that there is no answer...

But anyway, your argument is flawed in that God doesn't exist. Not only doesn't God not exist but no one seems to know what they mean when they talk about God. They say that they believe in God but not in the bible or in religion. Well, then that means that God could be ANYTHING. Religious texts are essentially our only knowledge about "God" and the only things that attempt to give us some kind of definition.

Answer 10

You raise a perfectly valid point. The problems of the divine attributes have plagued philosophers of religion for centuries (and by the way, questions such as yours are perfectly fine in the philosophy section; the philosophy of religion is a huge area of philosophy).

Your solution to the problem has been accepted historically by many philosophers and theologians such as Anselm, Aquinas, and Maimonides. They argue that omnipotence (as in having "all powers") means that God could only do that which is logically possibly. Even God cannot break the laws of logic. The rock that is too big for him to move is a classic example but you may ask also: could he create something more powerful than himself? Make a square circle? Or, contentiously for theologians, could he make himself non-omnipotent/human (as in the incarnation)? Aquinas even thought that God couldn't do anything that corporeal beings could do.

The most noticeable objector to this interpretation of "omnipotence" is Descartes who thought that the laws of logic were God-made and could, if God so wanted, be altered. Therefore, for Descartes, God was potentially capable of changing the laws of logic and thereby lifting the unliftable stone. No law, even logic, binds God since he is the ultimate creator of these laws.

The problem with admitting that God cannot break the laws of logic is that it places a huge limitation on his powers. It means that God is the slave to the laws of logic (that he has created). If we conclude on the other hand that logic and mathematics are merely human tools and not some objective law written into the fabric of the universe, then God becomes a servant to human laws which would obviously have most religious disciples baulk!

Answer 11

It reminds me of that silly question that was debated centuries ago,

"How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

Do angels even dance?   If so, why would they ever dance on the head of a pin?    Silly and pointless.     I would think that if there were a God, he would ignore such nonsense.

Answer 12

The question assumes that there can be something greater than an infinite. But, there cannot be something greater than an infinite. Of course, if the person asking the questions asserts that he doesn't really believe that God is infinite, then (1) We we have a entirely new discussion emerging and (2) One of which will have nothing to do with the Christian God. Secondly, meaningless questions don't count as refutations against the Omnipotence of God. Asking something like "Can God exist and not exist at the same time"? Of course he can't. "HA, see God can't do everything". Unfortunately, the question is meaningless because it defies the law of non-contradiction. Asking such questions, again, like "Can God make a square circle" is ridiculous. The straw-man fallacy is usually leveled against theists here. When a Christian says God can do everything we mean he can do everything actually possible. But, what's actually impossible, like existing and not existing at the same time, is LITERALLY IMPOSSIBLE for any being.