Can God create a stone heavier than Him?

[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.

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.

THAT IS VERY TOUCHING ....

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]

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]

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?

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.