Can God create a stone heavier than Him?

[Helena]

:sl:

my brothers teacher is an atheist. the teacher told him 'can god create a stone hevier than him?' my brother replied back 'no, god cant do many things such as sleeping, eating etc.', the teacher replied with curioustiy 'but i heard that god is almighty and can do anything. my brother replied back with surprise he said:
' God told a prophet to come to him. he said to the prophet to hold a glass full of water and never let go. the prophet did not let go but he was asleep. when he woke up he found that the glass was brokrn and al of the water is gone. God said 'Do u now understand? Do u c dat if i were sleeping the world will be in chaos'. the teacher was shocked and never replied back.....lol....

this actually happend.

so wat do u think?

:w:

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

:sl:
This was answered previously on the forum.

Question: Can God create a stone large enough that even He can't lift?

Answered by Ansar Al-'Adl

Atheists attempt to use this question to prove that the concept of omnipotence is self-contradictory. But the problem here is a contradiction in terms. This issue becomes even more clear when we examine a related question: "Can God create an uncreated being?" The problem here is that the questioner has already defined the being to be uncreated and then proceeds to ask for something that contradicts that definition. The problem is in the questioner's terms, not any lack in God's potential. The same is true when asking God to make a circle with four sides. Having already provided a definition of a circle that could never include a four-sided figure, such a question is absurd. Something is certainly self-contradictory here, but it is the questioner's terminology and not the omnipotence of God.

The same is true when we come to the case of create a stone which cannot be lifted. Aside from the problem that we are placing an infinite unrestricted being under the finite restricted laws of our universe, the concept of the stone is self-contradictory. Basically, such a stone could not exist. When one asks if God could create such a stone, one would normally identify the properties of such a stone. But here we haven't been given absoloute properties, but instead we've been given properties of the stone relative to God's properties. The questioner has identified the potential stone as something so big that God couldn't lift, so even though we already know that there is nothing God cannot lift, they have used that as an attribute for the stone. Automatically, the concept of such a stone is nullfied. Now, when they ask could God create such a stone, the answer is no, but that doesn't imply a lack of potential on the part of God. Instead, it reflects the fact that the concept of such a stone is illogical, unreal, inadmissable. It is very similar to asking if God can die. Well, death isn't an ability, its the inability to live. The immortal cannot die because that defies His attribute of immortality. Similarly, the omnipotent cannot create a task that He can't complete because such a task is merely a figment of one's imagination and could not exist.

You're basically asking, if God can do anything, can He make it impossible for himself to do something? The question is illogical and self-contradictory because the argument contradicts the premise. Once you have already established that God can do anything, then that's a set attribute and part of His nature. Therefore, He can do anything that is consistent with His nature, anything that is absolute.

Can God make 1=2? Well if 1=2, then it wouldn't be 1! So the idea is self-contradictory, not God.

The question also reminds me of the idea of what happens when an immovable rock meets an unstoppable force? The two things cannot exist in the same universe. Likewise, if God exists then all things which contradict His attributes are imaginary, non-existant and impossible. They are forever bound to the realm of imagination and cannot be brought into existence.

Shaykh Ibn Abil-'Izz (d. 1389CE) also answered this question in Sharhul Aqeedatit Tahaawiyyah (p.137), in his discussion of the following verse:

And Allah, over each thing, is omnipotent; all-powerful [al-Baqarah 2:284]

This includes all that is possible. As for what is in intrinsically impossible - such as there being a thing that exists and does not exist at one and the same time - then, this has no reality, nor is its existence conceivable, nor is it termed 'a thing' by agreement of those with intelligence. Included in this category is: [Allah] creating the likes of Himself, making Himself non-existent, and other impossibilites.

This also serves as a reply to the question posed by some: 'Can Allah create a stone that He is unable to lift?' The argument being that if Allah cannot create such a stone, He is not all-powerful; but if He can, then likewise He is not all-powerful. The fallacy of this argument lies in the fact that such an affair is, in itself, impossible and exists only in the minds of certain people. And not all that the mind conjures-up has an existence that is possible, nor is it always termed 'a thing.'

Hopefully that makes the issue clear.

And Allah knows best.

:w:

[Abdul Fattah]

I like your answer Ansar. But I'm not 100% sure that that is the case.
You're right in analysing the problem as:

You're basically asking, if God can do anything, can He make it impossible for himself to do something?

Thinking out loud here, I'd say omnipotence means he CAN make it imposible for himself to do something. Is that contradicting with omnipotence? I don't think so. See If Allah would create such a stone, and he then cannot lift it, it is not because his omnipotence is limited, but because he chose to create it in that way. In other words; omnipotence theoretically means that one has the ability to waive his omnipotence.

Let me try to explain that with another example. Let's say you offer me an apple, and I refuse it. I now no longer have the posibility of getting that apple, not because you didn't offer it, nor because I cannot take up your offer, but simply because I already refused it. Whenever you choose to do something in one way, you loose the posibility to do it the other way. Remember that being consequent and sticking with ones choises isn't necesairly a weakness. This has nothing to do with potence, but rather goes hand in hand with choice.

So in conclusion the flaw in the question is not just a misunderstanding of the concept of the mentioned stone or the notion of omnipotence I think it's also flawed by a lousy interpretation of choice.

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

:sl: steve,
Thanks for your post, I always appreciate your comments and feedback.

Thinking out loud here, I'd say omnipotence means he CAN make it imposible for himself to do something. Is that contradicting with omnipotence? I don't think so. See If Allah would create such a stone, and he then cannot lift it, it is not because his omnipotence is limited, but because he chose to create it in that way. In other words; omnipotence theoretically means that one has the ability to waive his omnipotence.

Let's take a look at another example: Can God become a trinity? Since the notion of the trinity is logically incoherent and self-conntradictory (this is being debated here) I would say that this is not possible, not because of any limitation in God's omnipotence but because the idea itself is self-contradictory and illogical.

So in the question concerning the stone, the quality of the stone given is that "it should be too heavy for God to lift". Since God is omnipotent, this quality is impossible, and consequently there is no possible way for such a stone to be created, not because God has any limitations on His power, but because such a stone is self-contradictory and could not exist.

This is the explanation I find most satisfactory in explaining this issue.
:w:

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

[Abdul Fattah]

So in the question concerning the stone, the quality of the stone given is that "it should be too heavy for God to lift". Since God is omnipotent, this quality is impossible, and consequently there is no possible way for such a stone to be created, not because God has any limitations on His power, but because such a stone is self-contradictory and could not exist.

Yes I forgot explaining that. Look at it this way: The task is not building a stone thats imposible to lift even with omnipotence; but rather to build a stone and then to waive some of ones own omnipotence so the stone can no longer be lifted. So theoreticly its possible if you think outside th box. Everythings possible with omnipotence. The thing to remember here is that omnipotence isn't flawed by nature.

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

:w:
How does Allah 'waive' His omnipotence? Does He retain the ability to bring it back? If so, then He wasn't really waiving it, was He?

[Abdul Fattah]

First of All, let me make it clear I'm not trying to pass anything as an ability of Allah. I'm just discussing the notion of omnipotence. He has knowledge and we do not.

But philosophicly speaking; the term omnipotence (being able to do anything) implies the posibility to limit ones own abilitys. That's what the question is based on. But that doesn't mean omnipotence is flawed by nature. That only means acting upon a choise comes with a consequence. So yes; also waiving the ability to "take it back". But let me bounce that ball back: If you were omnipotent and all knowing, would you suddenly change your mind? So why would you suddenly want to take it back?

[Chuck]

You can look at this way, why would God create another god equal in power or even with a remote possibility to takeover Him, when He knows this will create chaos?

[sumay28]

We need to take special care when talking about Allah's abilities. It can be dangerous.

[Helena]

:sl:

guys i was just trying to show a example so you can explain or debate this matter with the athiest!! Be carefull wot we are talking about!! It seems as if ive created a conflict between u guys!! Sorry about that!!!

It was just a example, so u can expand abit more or just comment it inshalah!!

:w:

[Muezzin]

Can God create a stone heavier than him?

If someone asked me this question, athiest or not, my reply would be:

'Why don't you ask Him?'

:p

[dockies]

Allah alone knows

[akulion]

Space and dimensions do not apply to God

If God were to create a thing, he would still be the CREATOR thus would hold the power to destroy it as well and that creation would not be beyond God himself.

The question itself is one of those Questions which Allah swt fortold that the Shaytan will cause mankind to speak about God things which they know not.

If we were to even consider this question then we put limits on God. The dimensions of space, time, height, diameter, weight, etc are ONLY applicable to THIS world and are NOT applicable to God.

God can speak without the need of a tongue
He can see without the need for eyes

So pretty simply put - Understanding the true nature of God is beyond the limited comprehension of mankind and asking such questions only demonstrates a persons inability to comprehend the Greatness of Allah.

If anyone can refute my argument that mankind has limited comprehension then I challenge anyone on this EARTH who can come to me with the indepth knowledge of every single feild of study.......which quite frankly is impossible for humans

[akulion]

Oh and most importantly I forgot to mention what the Prophet(sa) said...

When Allah created everything it did not deminish anything from his might or kingdom.

And if Allah were to destroy everything it would not diminish anything from his Kingdom.

So quite frankly Allah can do anything but it wont change the fact that he is God :D

[Snowflake]

:sl:

Well, If my memory isn't failing me, things are only heavy to us because of the force of gravity. So in space there is no mass, therefore no matter how big the stone it would be weightless.

Anyway what a stupid question. It's like cutting ur nose off to spite your face!

[Chuck]

Br. akulion, good answer!

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace helena;

him 'can god create a stone hevier than him?'

Forget the stone, search for a greater question,

Can God love each one of us more than he loves himself?

As to your atheist friend, there are two possibilities God the creator of the universe exists fully and totally, or there is no God at all.

Irrespective of what we choose to believe we cannot change the truth, sadly neither side can prove the truth fully.

In the spirit of searching

Eric

[Abdul Fattah]

How can it be stupid question?? wen i askd da question, i gave a example with it! To show wot i mean!! Muslims lyk us can debate wid athiest, if we gt approachd!

First tym some one has dat to me, im really..................

am just trying to solve the matter, not create it!! sis nadia waheed!!

don't worry it's not like this really caused any problems, me an ansar just like going into these matters for the sake of discussing. And as I already said, I'm not trying to pass anything off as abilitys of Allah, I'm just discussing the notion of omnipotence in theory.

[akulion]

brothers and sisters

We always seem to forget one fundamental fact about human beings...and that is:

We are microscopic beings when taken in the reality of this entire universe Just imagine how small we are And yet in our limited comprehension power we assume we are the smartest and greatest

So how can we speak so carelessly about God and his magnificance - I have no doubt in my mind or heart that such statements are only from the Shaytan, whispers to make mankind go astray and say things which we have no knowledge of and neither can we hope to possess knowledge of. And Allah swt says in the Quran

Chapter 17
53 Say to My servants that they should (only) say those things that are best: for Satan doth sow dissensions among them: for Satan is to man an avowed enemy.

So let us be mindful and speak very carefully about such issues because even the Prophet(sa) warned us that none can comprehend God.

Let us not forget our place that we are simply a creation of God

[Faust]

God does not waste His time. As even an Infidel ( myself) will affirm. God doesnt usually do the absurd or the ridiculous. God is the foudation of Truth, therefore He doesnt spend a lot of his efforts striking matches on wet bars of soap, if you will pardon the metaphor. Meaning and PURPOSE are His big forte.

Reality has Seven primary characteristics and attention to BS is not one of them.

Squandering our time on the question of whether God wastes his time is just an illustration of our own lack of insight and pssing away out faith on useless things. If I were God ( which you better be glad I am not) I would be offended by such questions. It smacks of making fun of God. I am sure he has a reward for that somewhere. Right next to the hammer and the stairs.

Atheists? Those guys? Can you spell the word FOOL, Betsy?

Atheists are deserving of what they ask for....which is a long drop in a deep hole. Atheism inherits what it is, troops. You will never hear them hit bottom.

Here is a better question: What is Paradise? What would YOU like to find in Paradise? What is your image of Paradise? An Eternal cant get bored absolutely fine place with lots of focused meaning and fine reality in the very teeth. Some say its beautiful girls. Some say a feast and a big spread. Some simply dont say much and frown at you and pound on the Book.

I am not sure what I would say about Paradise ( I have never been there) and my imagination is not either wise or well prepared. I know that I have stood in a high place and looked across wilderness that was green and seemed to have no end, full of land rich land, trees and mountains and rivers and all of it unexplored. A world waiting and no man there before me.

I dont want a lot of people in my Paradise. So I would hope Paradise was so huge and large that I would have to go for about 2,000 miles to find anybody at all.

I want big bears in Paradise. I want big mean bears. I want fast rivers and good fishing. I want winters and Summers and Springs and falls...seasons. I want to hunt my dinner every day. I dont want to farm or build a skyscraper.
I want to build a bow that will throw an arrow 200 yards. I want to be so good I can shoot a bear right in his eye. I want to skin him and laugh.

Do you suppose I could find the far side of the Continent if I left today and kept walking for two years? I want that kind of Paradise.

No maps. Eternal Life and no maps.

[Mohsin]

:sl:

Zakir Naiks given a good answer regarding a similar question, when he's asked why God can't take human form since he can do everything.
His reply is that nowhere does Allah actually say he can do everything. Like he can't be a tall short man, or a fat thin man. He then says re. can god lie or eat etc. He says god can do these human things, but the moment he does do this, he refues to be god, because he's lost his godly qualities and so although God can do some of these things he would never do it
Its like the questions athiests pose; Can God create anything? Yes, Can God destroy anything? Yes, then can God create anything that he can't destroy. So using this logic with this question about a stone being heavier than god, you can say God can create it, but when he does he gives up being god, cos that way he'd longer be perfect, thats why god wouldn't do it, even though he can.

Anyways, me persoanlly, i think that God is so infinite and powerful and unique that he can do everything in his infite power. It's like that ayaah in the Qur'an regarding the camel passing through the eye of the needle, i heard a short bayaan by a brother on God's greatness and how he can do anything, he can put a camel through the eye of the needle, he won't need to shrink the camel, or increase the eye, in his infinite power he can put the camel as it is, through the eye of the needle as it is, since he is all powerful and super

[Abdul Fattah]

We are microscopic beings when taken in the reality of this entire universe Just imagine how small we are And yet in our limited comprehension power we assume we are the smartest and greatest

Correct, but that doesn’t mean we cannot try to understand.

So how can we speak so carelessly about God and his magnificance - I have no doubt in my mind or heart that such statements are only from the Shaytan, whispers to make mankind go astray and say things which we have no knowledge of and neither can we hope to possess knowledge of. And Allah swt says in the Quran

I disagree. I’ve actually met (unbelieving) people who were sincere in looking for answers but struggled with similar questions like this. Us muslims have a responsibility in helping them, but if we cannot even discuss this amongst our self how can we explain these things to them? So what you suggest is we can say Allah is omnipotent, but we cannot discuss exactly what that means? That’s the same thing as saying: “we can say Allah is the most mercifull, but we cannot discuss what mercifulness means …”

Chapter 17
53 Say to My servants that they should (only) say those things that are best: for Satan doth sow dissensions among them: for Satan is to man an avowed enemy.

Yes we do need to be careful, but you can’t just run away from a discussion because it’s dangerous! I would say leaving questions unanswered can lead to bigger strays then answering them does! I did state 2 times that I did not intend to pass anything off as a characteristic of Allah but was simply discussing the notion of omnipotence.

[akulion]

Salam Alaikum brother Steve

The fact remains that the Prophet himself instructed Muslims to be careful with regards to saying things pertaining to Islam that Allah or his Prophet has not given them knowledge on otherwise it will lead to innovation.

We can discuss all we want but then we have to undersand where our knowledge on wether Allah can create a rock bigger than him or not coming from?

Have we recieved any revelations which others did not?

It has been made clear in the Quran that is why my recommendation to everyone was not to stop discussion but rather be careful in the things we are saying.

The shaytan whispers into the minds and hearts of mankind Questions many times to which they cannot get answers due to the limitations upon our comprehension and as a result we humans start to use conjecture and speculation to come up with answers.

So please dont be offended this was meant to be a friendly post for people to watch their words insha'Allah...

My line of argument is derived from the following verses in the Quran:

---------------------------------------------------

Al-Quran, Chapter 23 Al-Muminun, Verse 52-68

On no soul do We place a burden greater than it can bear: before Us is a record which clearly shows the truth: they will never be wronged.

But their hearts are in confused ignorance of this; and there are besides that deeds of theirs which they will (continue) to do

Until when We seize in Punishment those of them who received the good things of this world behold they will groan in supplication!

It will be said: "Groan not in supplication this day; for ye shall certainly not be helped by Us.

"My Signs used to be rehearsed to you but ye used to turn back on your heels"

"In arrogance: talking nonsense about the (Qur'an) like one telling fables by night."

Do they not ponder over the Word (of Allah) or has anything (new) come to them that did not come to their fathers of old?
---------------------------------------------------

So once again please do not be offended by my post but rather let us all watch everything we say regarding the nature of Allah since it is something which we truly have very limited knowledge on.

[Tilmeez]

The original question was: Can Allah Ta'la creat a stone big enough that he can not lift it. This and other of such type questions were used to mislead the simple muslims from their Imman and to cultivate doubt with regards to Allah. In Math (if some knows) there is a formula called Test of Hypothysis. if you put this question on logical basis it is wrong in itself. Let me explain it... Allah is Qa'dir (Can do EVERY thing). if you say yes to this question of course you deny:Allah is Qa'dir or otherwise you come to the same result. so this question is worng. I believe. For give me for the shortage of time i could not read the whole conversation.
other such questions are: Can Allah pass camles through the hole of needle? if yes then how many at a time. Can angles sit on the tip of needle if yes then how many at a time??? etc.....

Allah know the best.

Tilmeez

[Abdul Fattah]

Wa aleykum selam
Don’t worry brother akulion, I wasn’t offended by your post, I simply disagree with you, but that’s what forums are for aren’t they? To talk to people with different ideas and opinions. What you say is all absolutely right, but I don’t think it applies to this discussion. Yes, one should always be careful with the things they say; even more when talking about religion, and even more when talking about Allah(s.w.t.) That goes without saying. But that doesn’t mean you have to avoid conversation, especially not if this is something that leads people away from religion, because then it’s important to find an answer to guide them back.

You could be right that these questions are whispers from shaytan. But be not discussing them, Shaytan is not going to stop whispering. In fact it has the opposite effect. If everybody avoids discussing these matters, then the whispers are the only opinion people can resort to regarding this matter. So you see how it’s important to discus this?

And yes, we cannot say things about Allah that we have no knowledge of, but we do know he is omnipotent right? I’m not picking this out of thin air.

Al-Qahhaar: The Subduer, The Dominant, The One who has the perfect Power and is not unable over anything.

[PrIM3]

Hello Steve and peace.

this question that some athiest and some that don't believe in a God at all ask...
well to this I say--
God in the Christian view is Omnipotent- God can do anything that doesn't VIOLATE his nature. He is all-powerful except by his own choice.

God bless

[Abdul Fattah]

Well yes, that's exactly what I said, "exept by his own choice"
So if he could theoretically create this stone; that does not mean that his omnipotence is flawed. Because the reason he cannot lift it is not due to a lack of power but because he chose it to be so.

[akulion]

Well bro if you want to discuss ur welcome to

but just remember "the vanity of humanity lies in the fact that we believe we know the answers to everything"

Insha'allah its best to sometimes say, "Only Allah knows"

[aamirsaab]

:sl:
Bumping

[Keltoi]

I will just take the easy route and suggest God can do anything that He wishes to do. When we get into the realm of attempting to describe what God might wish to do, it gets pointless.

[FatimaAsSideqah]

As Salaam Alaykum Wa Rahmatullahi Wa Barakatuhu and Greetings.

Allah Taala tells us that "Allah Taala is capable of doing anything that He Wills to do." He can make a rock (or anything for that matter) that is so large or heavy that nothing in the entire universe can move it. As regards Allah Taala "moving" it, He is not in the universe and He does not resemble His creation. Therefore, Allah Taala is never subject to the Laws of the Creation because He is both the Creator and the Law Giver. Whenever He wants anything done, He merely says "Qun! Faya Qun!" (Be! And so it will be!)

[Pygoscelis]

'Do u now understand? Do u c dat if i were sleeping the world will be in chaos'.

So God chooses not to do it. That doesn't mean he is incapable of doing it. If God is all powerful then by definition he can do anything. If there is anything that God can not do then he is not all powerful. It is really that simple.

Another similar question I like to ponder is "Can God retire?" Can he decide to stop being god? If not, then he's not all powerful. But if so, then he'd stop being all powerful if he did it.

[aamirsaab]

So God chooses not to do it. That doesn't mean he is incapable of doing it. If God is all powerful then by definition he can do anything. If there is anything that God can not do then he is not all powerful. It is really that simple.

Another similar question I like to ponder is "Can God retire?" Can he decide to stop being god? If not, then he's not all powerful. But if so, then he'd stop being all powerful if he did it.

See these:
http://www.islamicboard.com/comparat...tml#post159715

http://www.islamicboard.com/comparat...tml#post159885

[MustafaMc]

Well, If my memory isn't failing me, things are only heavy to us because of the force of gravity. So in space there is no mass, therefore no matter how big the stone it would be weightless.

As regards Allah Taala "moving" it, He is not in the universe and He does not resemble His creation. Therefore, Allah Taala is never subject to the Laws of the Creation because He is both the Creator and the Law Giver. Whenever He wants anything done, He merely says "Qun! Faya Qun!" (Be! And so it will be!)

I like these simple answers best.

An analogy is having in our minds that Allah created the universe in six 24 hour periods that we know from our human perspective as days. This is also in error because it places Allah on the earth with it rotating on its axis relative to the sun all of the while the universe was in the process of being created. Heaviness has meaning only in relation to gravity and, with all of its vastness, the universe still does not contain Allah.

Attempts at philosophically explaining in other ways is treading on thin ice.

[Mohammed K]

Asslamu Alaikkum

Can God create another God?
Can God die?
Can God lie?
Can God limit himself to be a human?
More importantly, can God be an atheist?

I think there are many things God cannot be and cannot do. It is not because God cannot do it or be it, but it is because God does only Godly things. That’s why he is God. Otherwise he would be something else. Most of the time such questions comes from atheists and sometimes from Christians. Christians do use the question 'Is love a quality of God?', to prove trinity with the explanation 'for love to express, it need more than one being from eternal' etc. I saw it in few Christian - Muslim debates. In response, we can ask the Christians questions like ‘If it is God who created heavens and the earth, where was God before that?’ like the Muslim scholar did in the debate. For atheists, I would ask questions like ‘Can you answer me in YES/NO for the question ‘did your wife stop beating you?’ if the atheist a married man.

It is good learn to face such questions and hope the thread may help in it.

[Abdul Fattah]

So God chooses not to do it. That doesn't mean he is incapable of doing it. If God is all powerful then by definition he can do anything. If there is anything that God can not do then he is not all powerful. It is really that simple.

Another similar question I like to ponder is "Can God retire?" Can he decide to stop being god? If not, then he's not all powerful. But if so, then he'd stop being all powerful if he did it.

The answer is very simple: "Yes he can create it; and no it's not a flaw that he cannot lift it.". The problem is choice. An omnipotent being surely has the potential to lift any stone, but also the potential to wave his own potential by choice! So the reason he cannot lift the stone then is not because the being was never capable of lifting it in the first place, but rather because he chose to forfeit his ability to lift it whilst creating the stone. The same goes for the retirement.
Of course philosophers could make a variation to the question to bypass my counter-argument. A situation where the reason for not being able to lift it is better speculated. More precisely, so the characteristics of the stone is not linked directly to the creator, like: Can one omnipotent being create something that is to heavy for another omnipotent being to lift? Here the question is unreasonable, the characteristics of the stone are contradicting. He is asking if omnipotence can make the impossible possible. He might just as well have asked, can an omnipotent being create water that isn't wet, or squared circles. At best, the only thing this question could illustrate is that the existence of two different omnipotent beings is problematic since the omnipotence of one would include limiting the other's omnipotence and vice versa.

[Azy]

The answer is very simple: "Yes he can create it; and no it's not a flaw that he cannot lift it.". The problem is choice. An omnipotent being surely has the potential to lift any stone, but also the potential to wave his own potential by choice!

You're talking about choice, not ability. I don't think anyone would disagree that God could choose not to do something, but that's not the same as being unable to do that thing under any circumstances.

The initial question is one of the most well known regarding God, and one of the most annoying for me because it could and should be a better one... it might have been interesting before people were aware of the real scale of things.
All I can think of when someone asks that question is a floating rock with galaxies stuck to it's surface like grains of sand, of course under normal circumstances something that massive would collapse on itself and tear the universe a new backside, but I suppose when we're talking about omnipotence the normal rules are suspended.

So moving big rocks isn't a problem. I'm curious about the related question "what does God use for propulsion?" i.e. how does he manipulate these things without leaving a trace.

Other pertinent questions might be, as Mohammed K proposed, can God lie? Does He?
Can he be supremely callous and unjust, unmerciful?

People will say no he can't because those are not Godly attributes. That is assuming that human descriptions of God are correct or that God's descriptions of himself in holy texts are correct. Can God lie about that? Of course he could if he wanted to, and who is any man to say they know the mind of God and say he would not do so.

[Abdul Fattah]

Hi Azy

You're talking about choice, not ability. I don't think anyone would disagree that God could choose not to do something, but that's not the same as being unable to do that thing under any circumstances.

I disagree, I'd say that choice and ability is intermixed, even more so for an omnipotent being. If you choose to be the most mercifully, you become unable of being extremely unmercifully due to consistency. Not because you don't have that ability, but simply because you have already chosen to forfeit the ability. Maybe you should clarify which semantical definition of "being able" you have in mind. For example, I could say I am able to kill a person. And hypothetically speaking you are right, I have the mental ingenuity to form a murder plan, and the physical capacity to execute it. However if you look at the bigger picture, then the hypothesis is false. I suspect that I am not truly able to kill simply because I lack a good motive to kill and because my morality and conscience prevents me from actually murdering. I could argue that thus I am not truly "able" in real life. In other words, "being able" to me means more then just having physical ability, it also means having psychological willpower to follow trough.

So moving big rocks isn't a problem. I'm curious about the related question "what does God use for propulsion?" i.e. how does he manipulate these things without leaving a trace.

Well, God causes the laws of nature, so it depends on which way he desires to lift it. By causal ways (applying a physical force to it) or much simpler by seizing to enforce gravity at that location.

[Azy]

Howdy Steve

I disagree, I'd say that choice and ability is intermixed, even more so for an omnipotent being. If you choose to be the most mercifully, you become unable of being extremely unmercifully due to consistency. Not because you don't have that ability, but simply because you have already chosen to forfeit the ability. Maybe you should clarify which semantical definition of "being able" you have in mind. For example, I could say I am able to kill a person. And hypothetically speaking you are right, I have the mental ingenuity to form a murder plan, and the physical capacity to execute it. However if you look at the bigger picture, then the hypothesis is false. I suspect that I am not truly able to kill simply because I lack a good motive to kill and because my morality and conscience prevents me from actually murdering. I could argue that thus I am not truly "able" in real life. In other words, "being able" to me means more then just having physical ability, it also means having psychological willpower to follow trough.

You're right in that any one person in their normal day to day life probably doesn't have the motivation or willpower to do something they normally wouldn't, but I don't see how a lack of willpower or motivation poses a problem to an omnipotent being.

I also don't see how being merciful one day and unmerciful the next means you cannot be the 'most' merciful.
If God's been around for millennia being merciful to billions of people I don't think there can be anyone else in the running for the Most Merciful title, even if he's been extremely unmerciful along the way.
Of course even if we assume he's never done an unmerciful thing in all of history that doesn't change the fact that he is perfectly capable of being unmerciful tomorrow.

Well, God causes the laws of nature, so it depends on which way he desires to lift it. By causal ways (applying a physical force to it) or much simpler by seizing to enforce gravity at that location.

We would notice this as an event without any apparent cause. If God gives people a little helping hand here and there then he must have been very careful to avoid being seen, or not do it near any kind of detection equipment.
I suppose it also renders conservation of energy laws pointless, or physical laws of any kind.

[Abdul Fattah]

Hi Azy

Howdy Steve
You're right in that any one person in their normal day to day life probably doesn't have the motivation or willpower to do something they normally wouldn't, but I don't see how a lack of willpower or motivation poses a problem to an omnipotent being.

Well it's not just a practical article issue. The correlation between willpower and capabilities actually goes a lot deeper. The questions assumes that God would first want to create something that he cannot lift, and that he would then want to lift it afterall! Why would God want inconsistent things? OR why would he change his mind? When someone is omniscient, no new information is ever revealed (since you already know everything there is to know) so that means you are never promoted to reconsider. Again the same conclusion, the flaw lies not in the concept of omnipotence, but rather in the hypothesis of the question. The same goes for God being the most merciful. Why would God suddenly change? And if God is perfect and he changes, would that make him imperfect? I think the problem is you're trying to reflect human psychology into your idea of how God would think/act.

As for the sneaking around not to be noticed, if you believe God created the world and anything in it, and constantly maintains and upholds the laws of physics, then that creates a different picture. For example, as you are reading this, God Is showing his mercy to you, by enforcing the strong force and electromagnetic force that respectively keep your atoms and molecules together. And I bet he did it without you noticing it.

[Woodrow]

These pseudo-pilosophical type questions have existed since the first debate took place. They sound like very intellectual thoughts and very profound. But, in reality are nonsensical and actually are attempts to compare apples to roses.

The creation is fully seperate from the creator. No matter what is created, it can not be compared to nor considered aplicable to him.

Makes as much since as asking if God(swt) can create a 4 sided triangle.

[Keltoi]

These pseudo-pilosophical type questions have existed since the first debate took place. They sound like very intellectual thoughts and very profound. But, in reality are nonsensical and actually are attempts to compare apples to roses.

The creation is fully seperate from the creator. No matter what is created, it can not be compared to nor considered aplicable to him.

Makes as much since as asking if God(swt) can create a 4 sided triangle.

Good point. Asking the question "Can God make a stone He cannot lift?" is assuming that what God creates is somehow materially equal to Him in a physical sense.

Personally I think the question is nonsensical and quite pointless, but I suppose it can be entertaining in some fashion.

[Trumble]

These pseudo-pilosophical type questions have existed since the first debate took place. They sound like very intellectual thoughts and very profound. But, in reality are nonsensical and actually are attempts to compare apples to roses.

The question is not "pseudo-" in the least and cannot be simply dodged in that fashion. Neither is it 'nonsensical' although you can certainly argue (not 'prove', to my knowledge) that it is incoherent.

Makes as much since as asking if God(swt) can create a 4 sided triangle.

No. A four sided triangle is a metaphysical impossibility. A rock is not.

[Sami234]

So God chooses not to do it. That doesn't mean he is incapable of doing it. If God is all powerful then by definition he can do anything. If there is anything that God can not do then he is not all powerful. It is really that simple.

Another similar question I like to ponder is "Can God retire?" Can he decide to stop being god? If not, then he's not all powerful. But if so, then he'd stop being all powerful if he did it.

:sl:

For me, it is clear that you are doing some intellectual exercice to convince yourself that He cannot be.

Let me ask you something : according to you, we are animals who evolved.
Apes don't understand how photoshop works. Apes are not able to use a cell-phone.

Our brain is sligthly better than their brains. So why should we think that we can understand the nature of God?

I have no reason to think that I can understand God's power.

Also, you are asking for impossible things to happen. It is exactly as saying that "can God do that 1=2? Or that 10=19?". The problem here is your question. Not the answer. The question makes no sense.

It is like saying : "I want a 5 side square" while a square is by definition four-sided.

I could also say : Yes, God can creat a 5 sides square, but you cannot understand how he do so.

[Sami234]

The question is not "pseudo-" in the least and cannot be simply dodged in that fashion. Neither is it 'nonsensical' although you can certainly argue (not 'prove', to my knowledge) that it is incoherent.



No. A four sided triangle is a metaphysical impossibility. A rock is not.

What a strange sentence.

A rock that God cannot lift is a metaphysical impossibilty! The reason is simple : a triangle is a 3 sided thing! A four sided triangle is like saying a four sided three sided thing. Makes no sense.

Now, let's say that God has an infinite power. An infinite power not able to lift something. Makes no sense.


The question is absolutely pointless and nonsensical. And I don't know how you do to ignore that.

The question also implies that we can understand God, and that we can think about God, which is simply not possible. That would need a complete understanding. An infinite intelligence. We don't have such a thing. So we must admist that we can not understand everything about God.

[Trumble]

What a strange sentence.

It's a perfectly straightforward sentence IMHO.

A rock that God cannot lift is a metaphysical impossibilty!

No. It is perfectly possible to concieve of a God that could not lift a particular rock.. that is not the same as saying God in fact has those properties. But something does not become metaphysically impossible only under certain assumptions about the properties of the things you are talking about. It is or it isn't.

The reason is simple : a triangle is a 3 sided thing! A four sided triangle is like saying a four sided three sided thing. Makes no sense.

Indeed, although you need something a bit better than "makes no sense". As I said, though, your analogy is flawed.

Now, let's say that God has an infinite power. An infinite power not able to lift something.

Metaphysical possibilities do not depend on a "let's say", as I have explained.

The question also implies that we can understand God, and that we can think about God, which is simply not possible.

Again, it is metaphysically possible. It is perfectly possible to concieve both of a God that can be understood, and of an entity capable of doing so. You are making assumptions about both us and God. You have no justification whatsoever for the latter other than your own beliefs which are, in turn, based on other assumptions. That is why the question is important and cannot just be brushed aside as both your self and Woodrow try to do. It's purpose is not to speculate about God so much as challenge the validity of those assumptions.

[Islamic Brother]

All i hope is for my mums happiness.Shes my light.Shes my dunya.Her tears are my weakness.Her sadness breaks my heart.She is my mirror.A mirror that keeps me alive.Without her am nothing.shes my saaya.How can i leave her.I pray to Allah(swt) to keep me with her forever inshAllah.:cry:

THAT IS VERY TOUCHING ....:cry:

I HOPE FOR MY MUM'S HAPPINES TOO

[Abdu-l-Majeed]

Wa 'alaykumus-Salam wa rahmatullahi ta'ala wa barakatuh!

Can God create a stone heavier than Him?

As with many questions atheists pose, this one's a zero as well. It's just a wrong question, in my opinion. Allah SWT doesn't have anything like weight so that you can compare His SWT "weight" with another weight. It's like saying: which is more round: water or air?

But, it could be possible that the question was like br. Ansar answered it.

[aamirsaab]

:sl:
I always found that question to be:
A) rhetorical
B) stupid

Why's it stupid? If you say yes, God isn't all powerful. If you say no: God isn't all powerful.

It's exactly the same as saying: If God is all powerful can He kill Himself. The only answer I can ever give to these sorts of silly questions (other than: ''this question is bs and you only ask this question to score points'') is: ''I don't know the extent of God's power so cannot say''

[Sami234]

It's a perfectly straightforward sentence IMHO.



No. It is perfectly possible to concieve of a God that could not lift a particular rock.. that is not the same as saying God in fact has those properties. But something does not become metaphysically impossible only under certain assumptions about the properties of the things you are talking about. It is or it isn't.

Exactly.

We are speaking about an all powerful god. So a stone he can't lift can't exist.

That's all. The presence of God and his characteristics make it impossible for this rock to exist.

So simple.

Indeed, although you need something a bit better than "makes no sense". As I said, though, your analogy is flawed.

I understand why you are Buddhist.

Metaphysical possibilities do not depend on a "let's say", as I have explained.

You are wrong. If we suppose God exists, a rock he can't lift can't exist. So simple and natural.

Again, it is metaphysically possible. It is perfectly possible to concieve both of a God that can be understood, and of an entity capable of doing so.

No it is not. Unless we are speaking as God like Zeus etc etc.

Saying that God could be understood is clearly seeing him like a powerful being similar to Zeus.

You are making assumptions about both us and God.

Do you understand why I do so?

Human comprehension is limited. We are now speaking about God which is unlimited. If he his not unlimited in power, then he is not God.

You have no justification whatsoever for the latter other than your own beliefs which are, in turn, based on other assumptions.

I am not making the assumption. The atheists claimed "If God is all powerful, why can't he create a rock he can't lift?"

I tell to them : If God his all-powerful, you can't ask thoses things. Logic.

That is why the question is important and cannot just be brushed aside as both your self and Woodrow try to do. It's purpose is not to speculate about God so much as challenge the validity of those assumptions.

As long as atheists and buddhists will see God as a migthy Zeus with a crown and a big big big beard, thoses questions will make sense in your head.

But for other people like us, your question just don't make sense.

Can you imagine that this question makes sense only for a group of people? We are not saying "oh it is a stupid question" just because we can't answer this. We just think the question is strange and "non-sensical". It sounds to me like a non-conveincing rhetoric.

In fact, this question pressupose that we can speak about God. For a muslim or a jew, it is natural to think that we can't even imagine anything about God.

Simple example :

For us, God can be pleased about someone and angry about someone else.

For you, it does not make any sense. From a pure logical point of view, a lot of things does not make any sense. This is why we are called muslims. We submit to God. For me, it is simple : God is not angry like I am. His anger is completely different from my anger. When he is pleased, it does not have anything to do with me pleased that my son got a A in his math exam.

This is another reason to say that logic is not a completely objective thing. It is different from people to people. We never saw two philosophers agreeing on exactly the same things about every issue. Yet, they used the same thing to get to their conclusion : reason. Simply because our comprehension of reality is absolutely limited. This is not a simple assumption. It is just a clear reality. If you say no to that, we just can't discuss about such matters since we don't agree about the base of the discussion. The problem here is not if God can or cannot create a rock too heavy for him. The problem here is you speak about Zeus and I speak about Allah.

My beliefs about that are simple : we are created to believe in such things as if they were natural. And I think they are. Believing in God is not against nature. Atheists generally, not all, but a lot of them think they are "more intelligent" because they ask "good questions" about God.

[Pygoscelis]

The question also implies that we can understand God, and that we can think about God, which is simply not possible. That would need a complete understanding. An infinite intelligence. We don't have such a thing. So we must admist that we can not understand everything about God.

If what you say is true, then you disprove religion :) And since your way of life is undisclosed perhaps that is your goal?

[Pygoscelis]

:sl:
I always found that question to be:
A) rhetorical
B) stupid

Why's it stupid? If you say yes, God isn't all powerful. If you say no: God isn't all powerful.

The question is designed to make exactly that point. Omnipotence is self contradictory and therefore irrational and therefore there is a serious hurdle to get over when you want to propose the existence of an omnipotent being. Its one of the classic (and by classic I mean way back to before Plato) arguments against omnipotent gods. I think the only older one may be the problem of evil.

[Abdu-l-Majeed]

Bismillah.

The question is designed to make exactly that point. Omnipotence is self contradictory and therefore irrational and therefore there is a serious hurdle to get over when you want to propose the existence of an omnipotent being. Its one of the classic (and by classic I mean way back to before Plato) arguments against omnipotent gods. I think the only older one may be the problem of evil.

I don't think so. In relation to logic, all things can divided into three groups: logical things, things that are beyond out logic, and things that go against our logic.

As far as I saw, this question was answered, and the answer wasn't against the logic.

[Keltoi]

The question is designed to make exactly that point. Omnipotence is self contradictory and therefore irrational and therefore there is a serious hurdle to get over when you want to propose the existence of an omnipotent being. Its one of the classic (and by classic I mean way back to before Plato) arguments against omnipotent gods. I think the only older one may be the problem of evil.

No, the question is posed from a human philosophical understanding of what divinity or omnipotence means. Humans are not divine nor omnipotent, so the question is posed in ignorance of what God's nature actually is. Boiling the question down to lifting a stone or not doesn't pose an honest question, it is simply word play. You might as well ask "Can God create a gigantic chicken that can beat Him up?"

[Sami234]

If what you say is true, then you disprove religion And since your way of life is undisclosed perhaps that is your goal?

Looks like someone needs explanation.

It is really evident that I am muslim.

Secondly, not being able to fully understand the concept, reality and nature of God is a basic principle of Islamic faith.

We just believe in the description he did of himself in his books and we apply those books.

I think you need to read my answer again.

I think the question is designed to make exactly that point. Omnipotence is self contradictory and therefore irrational and therefore there can exist no omnipotent being. Something along those lines.

The point of the brother is :

You just can't fully understand such concept as omnipotence, God, eternity, etc. Hence, it is possible that some things you don't understand exists, even if it looks like irrationnal.

[Sami234]

Keltoi : nice post. Truly. We agree about that.

[Pygoscelis]

You might as well ask "Can God create a gigantic chicken that can beat Him up?"

Well? Can he? :D

If you claim to know what god wants you to eat for breakfast, to chop up your genitals, to pray in certain ways on certain days, it seems much smaller a stretch in understanding him to explain the basic concept of what he is.

[Abdu-l-Majeed]

If you claim to know what god wants you to eat for breakfast, to chop up your genitals, to pray in certain ways on certain days, it seems much smaller a stretch in understanding him to explain the basic concept of what he is.

That's not true. A person doesn't have to understand the essence of something to conform it's existence.

[Trumble]

No, the question is posed from a human philosophical understanding of what divinity or omnipotence means. Humans are not divine nor omnipotent, so the question is posed in ignorance of what God's nature actually is. Boiling the question down to lifting a stone or not doesn't pose an honest question, it is simply word play. You might as well ask "Can God create a gigantic chicken that can beat Him up?"

You might indeed - and it would be no more dishonest or "simple word play" than the rock. Whether the question is asked in "ignorance of of what God's nature actually is" or not is irrelevant.

The whole point is to show that it cannot be answered without making certain assumptions, highlighting what those assumptions actually are and whether they are, or are not, 'proveable' or sustainable. Look at it this way. The assumed properties of God are supposed, somehow, to make an otherwise (replace 'God' with any other entity) perfectly reasonable question 'nonsense'. In any other context the reasonableness of the question, or something similar to it, would not be disputed.. so what exactly is it that is 'nonsense' - the question or the assumptions fed into it that somehow makes it 'nonsense'? THAT is the point of the question.

[aamirsaab]

The question is designed to make exactly that point. Omnipotence is self contradictory and therefore irrational and therefore there is a serious hurdle to get over when you want to propose the existence of an omnipotent being. Its one of the classic (and by classic I mean way back to before Plato) arguments against omnipotent gods. I think the only older one may be the problem of evil.

But the question doesn't make ANY sense. You are asking can God negate Himself what with Him being all powerful? In this particular question we are comparing His abilities to humans (can He create a stone heavier than Him) - so first off, that's incorrect (God is not bound by the laws of His creation). Secondly, it is illogical for that to happen anyway; How can something that is infinite negate it's own existence? Infinity minus 2 equals infinity. Infinity plus 2 equals infinity. Infinity minus infinitiy equals infinitiy.

In other words; since we don't know the exact value of God, which this question actually asumes and relies upon (if we are going philosphical route) then the question becomes rhetorical.

...In any other context the reasonableness of the question, or something similar to it, would not be disputed.. so what exactly is it that is 'nonsense' - the question or the assumptions fed into it that somehow makes it 'nonsense'? THAT is the point of the question.

Both really.
* The question because you are assuming God is bound by the laws of His creation. (stone being heavier than God)
* The assumption that because (for arguments' sake) can or cannot do either of those leads to His decrease in power. Which brings me back a few paragraphs above: infinity minus 2 equals infinity.

[rahul_89]

Hi pple, jst wntd 2 clear sumfing dat wen Allah sez that 'He is able to do all things' in the Quran many times - this means ALL GODLY THINGS.....just hav a little think abt it....

[Abdu-l-Majeed]

There were a few excellent points which brother Bassam in his lecture on atheism and materialism made, and among them was something from shaykh al-islam Ibn al-Qayyim (or Ibn-Taymiyya, don't remember now...). It was something like this: a thing which bears in it two contradictory things, such as something that exists and doesn't exist at the same time, isn't a thing at all, there's no such a thing, and Allah says: and Allah has power over all things.(Surah al-Maida, 17)

[Abdul Fattah]

No. A four sided triangle is a metaphysical impossibility. A rock is not.

There might be a different between any random rock, and a rock that an omnipotent being cannot lift. Again I fail to see my point defeated about choice. Either way you look at it, the paradox is not inhereted to omnipotence itself, but only to the nature of the question.

[Azy]

Steve-oooooooo

Well it's not just a practical article issue. The correlation between willpower and capabilities actually goes a lot deeper. The questions assumes that God would first want to create something that he cannot lift, and that he would then want to lift it afterall! Why would God want inconsistent things? OR why would he change his mind? When someone is omniscient, no new information is ever revealed (since you already know everything there is to know) so that means you are never promoted to reconsider. Again the same conclusion, the flaw lies not in the concept of omnipotence, but rather in the hypothesis of the question. The same goes for God being the most merciful. Why would God suddenly change? And if God is perfect and he changes, would that make him imperfect? I think the problem is you're trying to reflect human psychology into your idea of how God would think/act.

As for the sneaking around not to be noticed, if you believe God created the world and anything in it, and constantly maintains and upholds the laws of physics, then that creates a different picture. For example, as you are reading this, God Is showing his mercy to you, by enforcing the strong force and electromagnetic force that respectively keep your atoms and molecules together. And I bet he did it without you noticing it.

Firstly, let's ignore the stone question, we all know that it's just causing more problems than it solves because people get hung up on trivialities.

I think the problem is you're trying to reflect human psychology into your idea of how God would think/act.

I think I'm not the only one. We're not saying "hey let's go round to God's place and see if he wants to make a big rock, it's cool, come on." What we're doing is examining what we really mean by omnipotence and the perfection of God.
It's pretty irrelevant to the discussion what God might 'want' to do or 'usually does on a Tuesday', since desire is not a limit on capability and the sort of limits humans have on their capabilities are not applicable to something which is omnipotent and omniscient.

The point I was trying to make really is that omnipotence allows for omni-maleficence as well as omni-benevolence, otherwise you are restricting the omnipotence. You could argue that God wouldn't possibly want to do those things but then you are practically claiming omniscience for yourself (or at least direct contact), as you would need to know the mind of God, a being that knows everything.

[Converse02]

I can sincerely say many atheists struggle with these type of questions. Trust me, it's not like we want to go to hell.

I agree the question in the OP makes no sense.
God is supposely outside the physical universe. Weight and mass can only apply if he is within it.
The question like "Can God create a stone he cannot lift" can only be targeted to the Christian God Jesus or a Zeus-like being.

Not sure this can work against a non-physical being like Allah:
An atheist would probably use:
Can Allah create a being more powerful than himself?
Can Allah create 10 Allahs (for intellectual companionship or something), and what if the 10 Allah's fought the original Allah, and so on.

Questions like can God create a four-side triangle is to show that God must at least be limited by language and mathematical concepts.

The point is to show the concept of "all-powerful" is impossible/incoherent, therefore the concept of God is impossible/incoherent. It is like saying how can heaven be heaven if your loved ones are in hell, etc.

Atheists? Those guys? Can you spell the word FOOL, Betsy?
Atheists are deserving of what they ask for....which is a long drop in a deep hole. Atheism inherits what it is, troops. You will never hear them hit bottom.

Feel the Christian love :-\
Faust, watch this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fdVucvo-kDU

[Abdul Fattah]

Hi Azy

What we're doing is examining what we really mean by omnipotence and the perfection of God. It's pretty irrelevant to the discussion what God might 'want' to do or 'usually does on a Tuesday', since desire is not a limit on capability.

Well I disagree. Desire might not be a limit on capabilities in theory, but in real life it does limit. To choose, is to lose; it's intrinsic to the very nature of choice so I fail to see that as a flaw of omnipotence. Why would God do something he doesn't want to do? And this is the very base argument of what we've been disagreeing on the whole time, it changes everything.

The point I was trying to make really is that omnipotence allows for omni-maleficence as well as omni-benevolence, otherwise you are restricting the omnipotence.

Well to short circuit the discussion, I could meet you halfway and say: in theory he is capable of being omni-malificence, but in real life he is not, since he chose to resign those powers.

[Abdu-l-Majeed]

Was it already said that these questions do not proove anything except that they are posed incorrectly?

Added:

Here's an example to show that these questions do not imply anything about Allah, rather they say much about the one who asked. I say this because mainly atheists talk about logical fallacies, yet they're the ones who seem not to adher to logic 100%. They're maybe able to confuse someone from the mass, which only describes more an atheist in Harun Yahya's book: "Allah is knows through reason." That man openly confesses that he doesn't accept the existence, and so tries to find something against it.

OK, back to the example I wanted to mention. I ask the atheists: "Could Einstein add two small numbers, such as 1 and 1, so that the result remains unknown to him?" If you say: "Yes," then you actually said: "The sum of 1 and 1 is unknown to Einstein." If you say "No," then you actually said: "No, Einstein can't add 1+1." However, I personally like the answer of shaykh al-Islam most.

Here's something from Islam Q&A, direct link is http://www.islam-qa.com/en/ref/39679

The answer to the question posed by disbelievers, “Can Allaah create a rock that He cannot lift?”

This is a question, which is supposedly asked by missionaries. “Can Allah create a rock which He can’t lift?’ How do we respond to this?.


Praise be to Allaah.

This question – and others like it – contain a great contradiction. Many disbelievers try to use such questions in their debates with Muslims, seeking to force the respondent to say either “No He can’t” in which case they will say, “How can He be a god if He cannot create something?” or if he says, “Yes, He can,” they will say: “How can He be a god if He is unable to carry or lift this rock?”



The answer is:



This question is not valid at all because the power of Allaah is not connected to irrationalities. How can He be a god if He is unable to lift their “rock,” when one of the attributes of Allaah is power? Can there be any attribute in any created thing that is greater than the attributes of its Creator?



Professor Sa’d Rustam answered this question in a sound scientific manner, which we will quote in full here. He said:



The power of Allaah – which is undoubtedly absolute and unlimited – is connected to things that are rationally possible, not things that are rationally impossible. No matter how absolute and limitless His power, it must still remain within the bounds of possibility, and it is not connected to irrationalities. This is not a limitation of it. In order to clarify this point we will give some examples:



We ask all of these bishops and theologians: Can God create another god like Him? If they say yes, we say to them: How can this created being be a god if he is created? How can he be like God when he has a beginning, whereas God exists from eternity? In fact the phrase “creating a god” is a sophism or false argument, and is a contradiction in terms, because the mere fact that something is created means that it cannot be a god. This question is like asking could God create “a god who is not a god”? it is self-evident that the answer can only be: The power of Allaah has nothing to do with that, because the idea that something can be a god and not a god is illogical and is irrational, and the power of Allaah has nothing to do with irrationalities.



Another example: We may also ask them: Can God really expel anyone from under His control? If they say yes, they have imposed a limit on the control of Allaah, and if they say no – which is correct – they have agreed with us that the power of Allaah is absolute and has nothing to do with irrationalities, because it is rationally impossible for any created being to be expelled from the control of its Creator.



A third example: One day one of the disbelievers asked me: Can your Lord create a rock that is so huge that He would be unable to move it? And he added in a sarcastic manner: If you say, yes He can, you will have stated that your Lord is unable to move the rock, and this indicates that He is not a god, but if you tell me, No, He cannot, you will have admitted that He is not able to do all things, therefore He is not a god.



I answered this disbeliever simply: Yes, it is not part of the power of Allaah that He is able to create a rock that He is unable to move, because everything that Allaah creates He is able to move, but the fact that it is impossible for the power of Allaah to be connected to the creation of this supposed rock does not indicate that He is lacking in power. Rather – on the contrary – it is indicative of His complete power, because this question of yours is like asking: Can Allaah be unable to do something that may be rationally possible? No doubt, if we say no, this does not mean that the power of Allaah is limited, rather it is an affirmation of the completeness of His power, because not being incapable means having power. If we say that Allaah cannot be unaware of or forget anything, saying that does not mean that He is incapable or is lacking, rather it is an affirmation of His perfection and complete power and knowledge.



The Four Gospels and the Epistles of Paul and John deny the divinity of Christ as it is denied by the Qur’aan, by Sa’d Rustam.



And Allaah knows best.



Islam Q&A

[Converse02]

^I like the post above. God cannot create another God as God (by definition) is the creator, not a creation.

However, can God create a creation that is also all-powerful, all-knowing, and good, etc?

[Abdu-l-Majeed]

Haven't thought long about the answer, there's just an idea: If something needs to be created, than it's dependent on God, subhanahu wa ta'ala. And if it's dependent on someone, then that's in contradiction with being all-powerful.

[Converse02]

Haven't thought long about the answer, there's just an idea: If something needs to be created, than it's dependent on God, subhanahu wa ta'ala. And if it's dependent on someone, then that's in contradiction with being all-powerful.

Can God create something that is also unlimited like himself, that is not depend on the original God?

On a side, some atheists say the nature and the cosmos (which is more than just the universe) is unlimited and eternal. It does not need to be created or dependent on anything.

[Uthman]

Can God create a stone heavier than Him?

I don't know.

[Abdu-l-Majeed]

Can God create something that is also unlimited like himself, that is not depend on the original God?

If something is created, then it's dependent upon it's creator.

On a side, some atheists say the nature and the cosmos (which is more than just the universe) is unlimited and eternal. It does not need to be created or dependent on anything.

Yes, but I think we both know that's only their opinion, which seems to contradict the well-established Big Bang theory.

[Güven]

Yep ,,Only Allah Knows His Own Power , Who are we That We Know His Great Power , and suppose he Could do That , Why Would He Do that , Whats The Benefit ?

[Converse02]

If something is created, then it's dependent upon it's creator.

So the answer is that the God "cannot" create something that is independent from God. That seems to be a limitation to his power, then is he really all-powerful?

Yes, but I think we both know that's only their opinion, which seems to contradict the well-established Big Bang theory.

Welll, yes, but do not think it contradicts the Big Bang theory.
The Big Bang theory only addresses this universe, which time did have a start. But physics is moving beyond the Big Bang. Our universe maybe only a brane within a higher-dimensional bulk, which maybe unlimited and eternal.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-big...d_the_Big_Bang

[Abdu-l-Majeed]

So the answer is that the God "cannot" create something that is independent from God. That seems to be a limitation to his power, then is he really all-powerful?

No, the answer is as in the previous questions: the questions isn't posed in a correct way, it contatins a contradiction in itself. If a being is all-powerful, all-knowing etc then it can't be dependent on someone else.

I'll read the wiki-aritcle later, in sha Allah.

[Converse02]

No, the answer is as in the previous questions: the questions isn't posed in a correct way, it contatins a contradiction in itself. If a being is all-powerful, all-knowing etc then it can't be dependent on someone else.

I am not convinced the question is a contradiction in itself.
Why can't I ask if an all-powerful Allah can creat a being who is also all-powerful like himself?

Consider:
Allah supposedly can create a being of X power.
He can create another being slightly more powerful. Continue to infinity. We know in mathematics if you do this, you will reach something that is unlimited.
Is it not conceivable he can create a being of unlimited power, like himself, who is not dependent?

By merely saying "All created things are dependent," I feel you have found a way out, be it is artificial. Why must all created things be dependent? Why can't Allah create something that is independent yet not himself (ie God)?

I'll read the wiki-aritcle later, in sha Allah.

Good luck. Just want you to know modern physics has moved beyond the Big Bang. It made me realize that although our universe and the Big Bang may have been "created" by the cosmos (for lack of a better term), the cosmos may not be. Perhaps the cosmos was never created, but just always there, following laws that were not created, but also just always there.

[Abdu-l-Majeed]

I think we didn't understand each other. The X-being is in at leat one moment dependent, and that is the moment of it's creation, it's existence depends on Allah.

[Abdu-l-Majeed]

Good luck. Just want you to know modern physics has moved beyond the Big Bang. It made me realize that although our universe and the Big Bang may have been "created" by the cosmos (for lack of a better term), the cosmos may not be. Perhaps the cosmos was never created, but just always there, following laws that were not created, but also just always there.

Thanks. But this perhaps should be bolded. :D

[Converse02]

I think we didn't understand each other. The X-being is in at leat one moment dependent, and that is the moment of it's creation, it's existence depends on Allah.

I question why Muslims think all created things are dependent on Allah. What evidence do you have for this?
For example, take matter/energy. Science has shown that matter and energy can't be created or destroyed. It does not appear to be depend on anything. If you keep atoms in a box, with complete conservation of momentum, the atoms will continue bouncing around for all eternity.

If you say matter is depend on the will and thoughts of Allah, but why even go there? Why the extra step? Why not just accept matter exists and that's that?

[Azy]

Howdy doody Steve

Well I disagree. Desire might not be a limit on capabilities in theory, but in real life it does limit. To choose, is to lose; it's intrinsic to the very nature of choice so I fail to see that as a flaw of omnipotence. Why would God do something he doesn't want to do? And this is the very base argument of what we've been disagreeing on the whole time, it changes everything.

Well to short circuit the discussion, I could meet you halfway and say: in theory he is capable of being omni-malificence, but in real life he is not, since he chose to resign those powers.

The problem with this is that you don't actually know that and can't possibly know that. All you know is what you've been told, whether that is the truth or not you have no idea, unless you claim to know the mind of God.

One could argue God has been known to be fraudulent.
PICKTHAL 3:54 And they (the disbelievers) schemed, and Allah schemed (against them): and Allah is the best of schemers.

[Arabic Dictionary] translates schemed (makr) as "Fraud, treachery, machination, imposture. Malice, malignity."

[Abdul Fattah]

Howdy doody SteveThe problem with this is that you don't actually know that and can't possibly know that. All you know is what you've been told, whether that is the truth or not you have no idea, unless you claim to know the mind of God.

I understand your criticism towards the teachings of islam in this issue. However, those are two seperate issues. One is the debate on wheter or not omnipotence is flawed by concept. Wheter or not Islam is genuine is a whole different issue. Mixing the two toghether really doesn't help either of us defending our viewpoints.

One could argue God has been known to be fraudulent.
PICKTHAL 3:54 And they (the disbelievers) schemed, and Allah schemed (against them): and Allah is the best of schemers.

Well if you see the context created by the other verses; that creates a whole new perspective. Not the image of a fraudulent God, but more the image of a God that counters the plans of those who plotted.

[Keltoi]

I still think the argument that "what God creates is dependant upon Him" is the best one. That statement means a variety of things. What God creates He can obviously "uncreate". God decides what He will create and for what purpose. Nature, the laws of physics, and other natural observable phenomena are also dependant upon God's Will.

That is what theists understand about God's nature. Anything beyond that is like an ant in the ocean, we cannot even comprehend the situation much less ask the right questions.

[Azy]

I understand your criticism towards the teachings of islam in this issue. However, those are two seperate issues. One is the debate on wheter or not omnipotence is flawed by concept. Wheter or not Islam is genuine is a whole different issue. Mixing the two toghether really doesn't help either of us defending our viewpoints.

Well it seems to me that omnipotence in the mind of believers always goes hand in hand with omnibenevolence, which is why I brought that up. I feel this is more a case of wishful rather than rational thinking, since an omnipotent being can do pretty much anything on any scale.


Anyway, omnipotence. The argument against creating a rock heavier than God can lift fails on a logical basis. Is it valid though, logically, that you could create something (a rock) which is infinite in it's properties (mass, spatial dimensions)? Is infinity a practical reality?

Well if you see the context created by the other verses; that creates a whole new perspective. Not the image of a fraudulent God, but more the image of a God that counters the plans of those who plotted.

He always uses the right words and there are plenty of words which would have had less negative connotations :) makr definitely gives a 'deceitful' impression.

[Abdul Fattah]

Well it seems to me that omnipotence in the mind of believers always goes hand in hand with omnibenevolence, which is why I brought that up. I feel this is more a case of wishful rather than rational thinking, since an omnipotent being can do pretty much anything on any scale.

Perhaps it is, perhaps it isn't, I still think the debate on whether or not it is logically flawed, and whether or not it is genuine should be separated =)

Anyway, omnipotence. The argument against creating a rock heavier than God can lift fails on a logical basis. Is it valid though, logically, that you could create something (a rock) which is infinite in it's properties (mass, spatial dimensions)? Is infinity a practical reality?

That depends, personally I don't believe that infinity exists within this universe. So therefor I would be inclined to think that God wouldn't be able to create an infinite thing since that is a thing with contradicting characteristics (like a squared circle, or a dark light). This is of course biased by my belief that infinity doesn't exist in this universe, which is my personal opinion, and not a mainstream Islamic nor scientific fact. Still I don't see this in a flaw of omnipotence, since I don't think the semantical value of omnipotence includes the possibility of creating impossible things.

He always uses the right words and there are plenty of words which would have had less negative connotations :) makr definitely gives a 'deceitful' impression.

Well I'm not an expert in Arabic, so I wouldn't be able to say. however for the sake of argument, even if you are right, I would still disagree with your conclusion. I would argue that deceiving the deceitful does not make an entity "deceitful" itself; since in this specific case deceiving the deceitful appears to be justifiable in my opinion. Or in simple terms that even a child could understand: "they started it!"

[Abdu-l-Majeed]

I question why Muslims think all created things are dependent on Allah. What evidence do you have for this?
For example, take matter/energy. Science has shown that matter and energy can't be created or destroyed. It does not appear to be depend on anything. If you keep atoms in a box, with complete conservation of momentum, the atoms will continue bouncing around for all eternity.

If you say matter is depend on the will and thoughts of Allah, but why even go there? Why the extra step? Why not just accept matter exists and that's that?

We were talking about creating an all-powerful being. Like I said: even if we'd suppose that such a creation is possible, we can't call it all-poweful, as it couldn't create itself, rather it needed a creator.

Seems to me, that questions like these are misused by atheists. Questions like these only proove that it's easily to trick the human brain, it doesn't say nothing about God.

[Azy]

I would argue that deceiving the deceitful does not make an entity "deceitful" itself; since in this specific case deceiving the deceitful appears to be justifiable in my opinion. Or in simple terms that even a child could understand: "they started it!"

Well it shows he has chosen not to forfeit all 'negative' abilities, as you suggested he might.

Perhaps it is, perhaps it isn't, I still think the debate on whether or not it is logically flawed, and whether or not it is genuine should be separated =)

Fair enough, i'll stay on track from here on.

That depends, personally I don't believe that infinity exists within this universe. So therefor I would be inclined to think that God wouldn't be able to create an infinite thing since that is a thing with contradicting characteristics (like a squared circle, or a dark light). This is of course biased by my belief that infinity doesn't exist in this universe, which is my personal opinion, and not a mainstream Islamic nor scientific fact. Still I don't see this in a flaw of omnipotence, since I don't think the semantical value of omnipotence includes the possibility of creating impossible things.

Whether inside or outside this universe, if God has the power to create and he is described as having unlimited power, he can create without limits.

How would you describe it?

[Abdul Fattah]

Well it shows he has chosen not to forfeit all 'negative' abilities, as you suggested he might.

If by exception in this case, the deceit is justifiable, then that means it is not "negative".

Whether inside or outside this universe, if God has the power to create and he is described as having unlimited power, he can create without limits. How would you describe it?

I'm afraid we're running into semantics again. Take the squared circle for example, if God cannot create it, do you consider that a flaw in omnipotence to? Or would you agree that this is not a limit to the creative powers, but a limit to existence itself.

[aamirsaab]

:sl:
Just came back from a jimas conference and this particular topic was actually covered by Sheik Shabir 'The Man' Aly.

He gave two answers to these sorts of questions:
A) it is a contradictory question and thus cannot even be considered a question.
B) it is not a matter of God can and God can not. It is a matter of God Does or God Does not.

End of.

[DAWUD_adnan]

Allah is able to do ALL things. But out of his Grace He has forbidden for Himself somethings. For instance, He doesn't oppress His creation. The answer is also simple, a Stone being of a stone itself has been given limits by Allah, because it is a finite object, it wouldn't be a stone anymore if the implied where to be conducted.

[Azy]

If by exception in this case, the deceit is justifiable, then that means it is not "negative".

I think 'justified' and 'negative' in this case are both subjective and I doubt we'll agree on either.

I'm afraid we're running into semantics again. Take the squared circle for example, if God cannot create it, do you consider that a flaw in omnipotence to? Or would you agree that this is not a limit to the creative powers, but a limit to existence itself.

I didn't think what I said to be particularly paradoxical. It would help me if you explained exactly what you understand omnipotence to mean rather than gradually picking off my suggestions one by one.

[Abdul Fattah]

I think 'justified' and 'negative' in this case are both subjective and I doubt we'll agree on either.

Yes probably :)

I didn't think what I said to be particularly paradoxical. It would help me if you explained exactly what you understand omnipotence to mean rather than gradually picking off my suggestions one by one.

Well, I think we agree on the same defenition, but simply disagree on how we interpret the details of that defenition.
Btw, lets not forget that I'm taking the defensive stance here against the argument of the impossible stone, meaning it's only natural for me to "gradually pick" on suggestions ^_^
But you're welcome to do the same with my arguments, like in the perfection of shariah thread.

[Azy]

Well, I think we agree on the same defenition, but simply disagree on how we interpret the details of that defenition.
Btw, lets not forget that I'm taking the defensive stance here against the argument of the impossible stone, meaning it's only natural for me to "gradually pick" on suggestions ^_^
But you're welcome to do the same with my arguments, like in the perfection of shariah thread.

Well it's going to be difficult if you keep telling me that we disagree but not what it is we are likely to disagree on, or why.

What are the restrictions on God's power as you see it?

I remember seeing an estimate of the volume of the universe at (as an example) 10^79 cubic metres. Is it beyond his capability to create one that is 10^80 cubic metres? (10^80)^80? That to the power of the number of photons in the universe?

(oh yeah I'm going to get back to the sharia and free will threads ;) there are quite a lot of things to think about on here and i get distracted :( )

[MuhammadRizan]

salam every one!

what's the point of GOD Creating that kind of rock anyway? God supposed to be ALL WISE, ALL KNOWING i will never bow to stupid god..creating pointless thing.

do GOD have weight in the first place?

[Abdul Fattah]

Well it's going to be difficult if you keep telling me that we disagree but not what it is we are likely to disagree on, or why.

What are the restrictions on God's power as you see it?

Well like I said there are no restrictions on his power, but there are concequences of choice, and restrictions on existence, and so on. In other words what I'm trying to say is that in my opinion none of these things we discussed are not a result of restrictions on God's power, but rather a concequence of something else.

I remember seeing an estimate of the volume of the universe at (as an example) 10^79 cubic metres. Is it beyond his capability to create one that is 10^80 cubic metres? (10^80)^80? That to the power of the number of photons in the universe?

Its impossible to create something of 10^80 within an area of 10^70, but it wouldn't be impossible to create it outside of the universe.

(oh yeah I'm going to get back to the sharia and free will threads ;) there are quite a lot of things to think about on here and i get distracted :( )

No problem, whenever you have the time :)

[Muezzin]

salam every one!

what's the point of GOD Creating that kind of rock anyway?

To facilitate comparative religion topics?

[chacha_jalebi]

this thread is beginnin to be borin :D and you know what hapens after threads become borin...

do we all agree:D

[Güven]

^I agree :p

[Uthman]

I don't agree. The debate is still going on between Azy and Steve. I think it's quite interesting atch. In the event that the thread gets closed, please delete this post of mine. Tar.

[Azy]

Well like I said there are no restrictions on his power, but there are concequences of choice, and restrictions on existence, and so on. In other words what I'm trying to say is that in my opinion none of these things we discussed are not a result of restrictions on God's power, but rather a concequence of something else.

ok

Its impossible to create something of 10^80 within an area of 10^70, but it wouldn't be impossible to create it outside of the universe.

I did mean as an alternative to the current one, rather than within it.
So if it wouldn't be a problem for him to make a bigger one instead of this one would his unrestricted power allow him to create one of unrestricted size?

[Converse02]

We were talking about creating an all-powerful being. Like I said: even if we'd suppose that such a creation is possible, we can't call it all-poweful, as it couldn't create itself, rather it needed a creator.

Seems to me, that questions like these are misused by atheists. Questions like these only proove that it's easily to trick the human brain, it doesn't say nothing about God.

Being all-powerful refers to ability, not origin. Another being created can still be called all-powerful if it is given by Creator the ability to do anything.
I'm not asking if it can "create itself" and agree such a question doesn't make sense.

Can God create another all-powerful being or not?

Questions like this are not misused by atheists. These questions are legitimate as they question how a being can be defined as "all-powerful" and requests what exactly that means. Atheists are saying no being can conceivably be "all-powerful," therefore the definition of God is incoherent.

[جوري]

...

Question: Can God create a stone large enough that even He can't lift?

Answered by Ansar Al-'Adl

Atheists attempt to use this question to prove that the concept of omnipotence is self-contradictory. But the problem here is a contradiction in terms. This issue becomes even more clear when we examine a related question: "Can God create an uncreated being?" The problem here is that the questioner has already defined the being to be uncreated and then proceeds to ask for something that contradicts that definition. The problem is in the questioner's terms, not any lack in God's potential. The same is true when asking God to make a circle with four sides. Having already provided a definition of a circle that could never include a four-sided figure, such a question is absurd. Something is certainly self-contradictory here, but it is the questioner's terminology and not the omnipotence of God.

The same is true when we come to the case of create a stone which cannot be lifted. Aside from the problem that we are placing an infinite unrestricted being under the finite restricted laws of our universe, the concept of the stone is self-contradictory. Basically, such a stone could not exist. When one asks if God could create such a stone, one would normally identify the properties of such a stone. But here we haven't been given absoloute properties, but instead we've been given properties of the stone relative to God's properties. The questioner has identified the potential stone as something so big that God couldn't lift, so even though we already know that there is nothing God cannot lift, they have used that as an attribute for the stone. Automatically, the concept of such a stone is nullfied. Now, when they ask could God create such a stone, the answer is no, but that doesn't imply a lack of potential on the part of God. Instead, it reflects the fact that the concept of such a stone is illogical, unreal, inadmissable. It is very similar to asking if God can die. Well, death isn't an ability, its the inability to live. The immortal cannot die because that defies His attribute of immortality. Similarly, the omnipotent cannot create a task that He can't complete because such a task is merely a figment of one's imagination and could not exist.

You're basically asking, if God can do anything, can He make it impossible for himself to do something? The question is illogical and self-contradictory because the argument contradicts the premise. Once you have already established that God can do anything, then that's a set attribute and part of His nature. Therefore, He can do anything that is consistent with His nature, anything that is absolute.

Can God make 1=2? Well if 1=2, then it wouldn't be 1! So the idea is self-contradictory, not God.

The question also reminds me of the idea of what happens when an immovable rock meets an unstoppable force? The two things cannot exist in the same universe. Likewise, if God exists then all things which contradict His attributes are imaginary, non-existant and impossible. They are forever bound to the realm of imagination and cannot be brought into existence.

Shaykh Ibn Abil-'Izz (d. 1389CE) also answered this question in Sharhul Aqeedatit Tahaawiyyah (p.137), in his discussion of the following verse:
And Allah, over each thing, is omnipotent; all-powerful [al-Baqarah 2:284]

This includes all that is possible. As for what is in intrinsically impossible - such as there being a thing that exists and does not exist at one and the same time - then, this has no reality, nor is its existence conceivable, nor is it termed 'a thing' by agreement of those with intelligence. Included in this category is: [Allah] creating the likes of Himself, making Himself non-existent, and other impossibilites.

This also serves as a reply to the question posed by some: 'Can Allah create a stone that He is unable to lift?' The argument being that if Allah cannot create such a stone, He is not all-powerful; but if He can, then likewise He is not all-powerful. The fallacy of this argument lies in the fact that such an affair is, in itself, impossible and exists only in the minds of certain people. And not all that the mind conjures-up has an existence that is possible, nor is it always termed 'a thing.'
Hopefully that makes the issue clear.

And Allah knows best.

[Chuck]

If God were one of us, it would make things much easier, because then I would be able to understand Him, enough at least to see the connection between good works and divine intimacy. I can understand other persons because I share similar experiences, similar fears, hopes, dreams, wants, hardships, and joys. I can relate to them because we are the same basic being, only differing by slight variations. But God is not one of us. The Qur'an goes so far as to say that we cannot comprehend God, that God is "high exalted above anything that people may devise by way of definition" (6:100), that "there is nothing like unto Him" (42:11) and "nothing can be compared to Him" (112:4). It could not be otherwise, for how could human beings who are mortal, finite, corporeal, dependent, vulnerable, weak, limited, created, bound by space and time, understand one who is everlasting, infinite, non-corporeal, utterly independent, invulnerable, all-powerful, all knowing, all wise, Creator of all, transcendent.
If only the Qur'an had elaborated on God somewhere, gave us enough of a description so that we could fill in the lines. I did not come all this way only to find out that God is incomprehensible - an inscrutable mystery - and that for me there is no hope.
No wonder we humans tend to deify our own or to humanize God. Although this creates for me more rational dilemmas then it solves; it does lend God some tangibility. I guess I wanted to have my cake and eat it too. I wanted God to be utterly exalted above creation, utterly unlike the humanity I was part of, and at the same time reachable.
What a fool I had been, deluding myself into thinking that the Qur'an could somehow bridge the infinite gulf between God and humanity, that it could logically relate human suffering to divine intimacy. We hardly understand the human personality; how could it make sense of the relationship between God and man? It took reading the entire text to prove that I had been right all along, that there is no possible theological rationalization for human existence.
I was finally beginning to see clearly again. I was wrong when I just said that we understand our fellow man. We do not understand our humanity; we only know it through experience. I do not fully comprehend who I am, my motivations, my anxieties, my dreams, my emotions, my conscience and psychology. I do not grasp my humanity intellectually; I know it through my being human. Virtually all of my knowledge of humanness is subjective. This leads, however, to a seemingly inescapable conclusion. For if we cannot come at all close to experiencing divinity, which appears to be the Qur'an's position, then we cannot possibly come to know God in any real, meaningful way. By insisting that God is radically unlike creation - that nothing we know even compares to Him - the Qur'an has made attaining a relationship with God practically impossible. Although the author had campaigned brilliantly, had presented a literary and rational masterpiece, he was unable to present a complete and coherent explanation for why we are here. Yet he had nothing to be ashamed of, for he fell short where he and all others must inevitably fall short, trapped in the limitless void between God and man.
This was for me a hollow realization, and I felt no sense of victory whatsoever. For there were times in my reading of the Qur’an when I was so close to surrender, when the author’s words – his voice – nearly overpowered me, causing me to feel that only God could be speaking to me through this Scripture. I’m not embarrassed to admit that I was moved to tears on several occasions, that at times I truly felt I was in the presence of a tremendous power and mercy. These spiritual moments always took me by surprise. I would even try to resist them, to shake them off, but they were often too strong and intoxicating to resist, and my resistance continually weakened as I progressed through the text. There were moments when I was almost sure there is a God, when I felt the presence of one I always knew but had fought to forget. I didn’t know if I was any better or worse for having read the Qur’an, but I knew that I had changed, that I would never be so confident in my atheism again.
Even so, it was time to get on with my life, time to stop agonizing over the existence of God, letting it impede with my happiness. One of the main things that first attracted me to San Francisco is that it is a place where people live life to the fullest. After twenty-one years of schooling, I was ready to reap the benefits of all my work. It was time for me to start enjoying myself, I had the motivation, the opportunity and the means, I was young, single, considered good-looking, and had a good career. It was time to start having fun.

[God says:] Say my Name

And then, not too long after finishing the Qur’an, perhaps a couple of weeks later, I thought of it. It came to me softly, unexpectedly – I think while I was watching a football game on television – as an afterthought, slipping into my consciousness,
It is not true that the Qur’an tells us very little about God; it tells us a great deal, but for some reason I had paid almost no attention to it. If I had just glanced at the beginning of a surah, or turned to almost any page, I would have found what I was looking for, if only I had read carefully, for there are thousands of descriptions of God in the Qur’an that link good works to growing closer to Him. Although I had read the Qur’an from cover to cover, deliberating on and analyzing almost every verse along the way, I mentally disregarded the Scripture’s abundant references to God’s attributes. Often used to punctuate passages, they occur typically in simple dual attributive statements, such as, “God is the Forgiving, the Compassionate” (4:129), “He is the Almighty, the Compassionate” (26:68), “God is the Hearing, the Seeing” (17:1). Collectively, the Qur’an refers to these titles as al-asmaa al-husnaa, God’s “most beautiful names” (7:180; 17:110; 20:8; 59:24).

• Say: Call upon God, or call upon the Merciful, by whichever you call, His are the most beautiful names. (17:110)
  
  God! There is no God but He. To Him belong the most beautiful names.(20:8)
  
  He is God, other than whom there is no other god. He knows the unseen and the seen. He is the Merciful, the Compassionate. He is God, other than whom there is no other God; the Sovereign, the Holy One, the Source of Peace, the Keeper of Faith, the Guardian, the Exalted in Might, the Irresistible, the Supreme. Glory to God, above what they ascribe to Him! He is God, the Creator, the Evolver, the Fashioner. To Him belong the most beautiful names. Whatever is in the heavens and on earth glorifies Him and He is Exalted in Might, the Wise. (59:23-24).

I had thought that the Qur’an used these divine names mainly as a literary device to crown passages and separate topics. That is probably why I for the most part skipped over them without giving them any serious thought. I now felt that I might have underestimated their significance and I began to jot down the divine attributes I could remember.

• God is the Merciful, the Compassionate, the Forgiving, the Clement, the Peaceful, the Loving, the Just, the Benevolent, the Creator, the Powerful, the Protector, the Truthful, the Knowing, the Wise, the Living, etcetera.

There, right before me, was the connection I sought, for this list largely intersected with and was the perfection of the one I had compiled earlier of the virtues that men and women need to develop. The implication was clear: Since God is the perfection of the virtues we should acquire, the more we grow in them, the greater our ability becomes to experience His being. The more we grow in mercy, the greater our ability becomes to experience God’s infinite mercy. The more we develop compassion, the greater our ability becomes to know God’s infinite compassion. The more we learn to forgive, the greater our ability becomes to experience God’s infinite compassion. The more we learn to forgive, the greater our ability to experience God’s infinite forgiveness. The same could be said of love, truth, justice, kindness, and so on. The more we grow in these, the greater our ability becomes to receive and experience God’s attributes of perfection.
An analogy would be helpful. I once had a goldfish and a magnificent German shepherd, and I now have three beautiful daughters. My gold fish, being very limited in intellect and growth, could only know and experience my love and compassion at a relatively low level, no matter how much kindness I directed towards it. On the other hand, my dog, who was a more complex and intelligent animal than my fish, could feel warmth and affection on a much higher level, and could therefore experience the love and compassion I showered on him to a much greater degree. Yet my daughters – and even more so as they mature – have the ability to feel the intensity of my love and caring for them on a plane my dog could never conceive of. This is because they have the capacity to know first hand through their own emotions and relationships deeper and richer feelings than my dog. Analogously, the greater our level of goodness, the greater our ability becomes to experience and relate to the infinite goodness that is God.
…Even if we are unaware of our experiences of the divine – even if we deny the existence of God – we experience His names nonetheless, but we remain deaf, dumb, and blind to their source. This is the greatest tragedy – the ultimate loss – according to the Qur’an, for we deprive ourselves of the means to grow closer to God. We come to know something of goodness, while closing ourselves off to the boundless mercy that originates it, which brings us back to the importance of faith in addition to good works.
…In the Qur’an, the story of Adam begins with the announcement that God is about to place a vicegerent (khaleefa) on earth, one who will represent Him and act on His behalf (2:30). It is presented as a momentous delegation, as a commission announced to the angels. It is presented as a momentous delegation as a commission announced to the angels. It is an honorable election for which each of us is created. When I first read this passage I was as dumbfounded as the angels were, for how could man, this most rebellious and destructive creature, represent God on earth? I, like the angels, saw only one side of humanity, the inclination to do evil, to “spread corruption and shed much blood”. Of course many men and women do not represent God very well. But our ability to do and grow in evil comes with the reciprocal ability to do and grow in goodness, and on the whole it seems that there must be more good than evil in the world, otherwise our race would have destroyed itself long ago. There have also always been persons who are great exemplars of goodness, who humbly dedicate themselves to helping others for love of God. This is the vicegerency to which the Qur’an calls us. More than just communicating a message or implementing a command, it means becoming an agent of God on earth through which others experience His attributes. Such individuals become filters, as it were, of the divine light, as God’s goodness reaches others through them. The more they grow in goodness, through their dedication, self-sacrifice, and learning, the greater becomes their ability to receive, experience, and represent God’s most beautiful names, and their experience of God’s presence in this life is only a small foreshadowing of what awaits them in the next.

(Lang, pp. 93-102)

[Woodrow]

Good stopping place.

I doubt if many of us here are philosophy students, fewer are philosophy teachers and even less ever got a pasing grade in a philosophy class.

:threadclo: