Here's a philosophical argument against the Judeo-christian god I heard a while back:

"Can God create a stone so large that He can't lift it?"

If he can, then that means that he can create something so heavy that it can't be lifted, meaning that he's not omnipotent. If he can lift anything, and can't create something so large that he can't lift it, once again he is not omnipotent as there's something else he can't do - create a stone so large he can't lift it.

I seem to remember someone claiming that this was a stupid argument and saying something about 'God doesn't have to conform to human logic' or such - basically, desperate butt-dribble. What I am wondering is, are there any legitimate counter arguments to this, or is this sort of a punch in the face for Christianity and Judaism? I'm just curious.

I guess this is more a philosophy matter, but I chose 'debunking' as it directly relates to debunking an omnipotent God - the thread can be moved...

The usual counter argument is that God can do everything that doesn't go against logic.And can do everything he states he will.

Oliver wrote:Here's a philosophical argument against the Judeo-christian god I heard a while back:
"Can God create a stone so large that He can't lift it?"
What I am wondering is, are there any legitimate counter arguments to this, or is this sort of a punch in the face for Christianity and Judaism? I'm just curious.

"The intelligibility of the notion of omnipotence has been challenged by the so-called paradox or riddle of the stone. Can an omnipotent agent, Jane, bring it about that there is a stone of some mass, m, which Jane cannot move? If the answer is ‘yes’, then there is a state of affairs that Jane cannot bring about, namely, (S1) that a stone of mass m moves. On the other hand, if the answer is ‘no’, then there is another state of affairs that Jane cannot bring about, namely, (S2) that there is a stone of mass m which Jane cannot move. Thus, it seems that whether or not Jane can make the stone in question, there is some possible state of affairs that an omnipotent agent cannot bring about. And this appears to be paradoxical.

A first resolution of the paradox comes into play when Jane is an essentially omnipotent agent. In that case, the state of affairs of Jane's being non-omnipotent is impossible. Therefore, Jane cannot bring it about that she is not omnipotent. Since, necessarily, an omnipotent agent can move any stone, no matter how massive, (S2) is impossible. But, as we have seen, an omnipotent agent is not required to be able to bring about an impossible state of affairs.

If, on the other hand, Jane is an accidentally omnipotent agent, both (S1) and (S2) are possible, and it is possible for some omnipotent agent to bring it about that (S1) obtains at one time, and that (S2) obtains at a different time. Thus, there is a second solution to the paradox. In this case, Jane's being non-omnipotent is a possible state of affairs; thus, we may assume that it is possible for Jane to bring it about that she is non-omnipotent. So, Jane can create and move a stone, s, of mass, m, while omnipotent, and subsequently bring it about that she is not omnipotent and powerless to move s. As a consequence, Jane can bring about both (S1) and (S2), but only if they obtain at different times."

(http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/omnipotence)

Teuton wrote:...Plato stuff...

Thanks.

I find it funny that an all knowing and all powerful being could do something "on accident".

num1cubfn wrote:I find it funny that an all knowing and all powerful being could do something "on accident".

Well, if the biblical God did exist, he's made so many shitty mistakes in creation alone that I wouldn't be surprised if he was only occasionally and accidentally omnipotent.

num1cubfn wrote:I find it funny that an all knowing and all powerful being could do something "on accident".

lol. 'Accidentally' means 'contingently'.

Mick wrote:

num1cubfn wrote:I find it funny that an all knowing and all powerful being could do something "on accident".

lol. 'Accidentally' means 'contingently'.

In other words, an omnipotent dog, is, at the least, fooking very unlikely! Or, as we in the county of Yorkshire say...Give over!

IIzO wrote:The usual counter argument is that God can do everything that doesn't go against logic.

Yes, for then the question becomes highlighted as being nonsensical. For instance, the question "Can God make a square circle?" is really just a nonsensical question and cannot be utilised to refute God's omnipotence.

The question is, is the question posed in the OP nonsensical too? To answer that, we'd have to consider God's omnipresence too. And if God is omnipresent, then logic dictates that nothing else can really exist but God. That would mean, logically (again), that God could only create the illusion of things - including stones, and including 'people' to lift these stones.

So, the only logical way to pose the question in the OP, would be:

Can God create the illusion of a stone so big that the imaginary human that 'he' perceives himself as cannot lift that stone?

One other aspect of omnipotence that needs to be considered prior to answering this question: 'omnipotence' must embrace both positive and negative potential. That is, omnipotence must entail an ability to act AND an inability to act. That is, in this instance, God must exhibit both an ability to move stones, and an inability to move stones. Therefore, an omnipotent God should be able to create the illusion of stones that can AND cannot be lifted. Which is consistent with our abilities.

In conclusion, observation supports the notion of an omnipotent God (as long as 'being human' is an illusion beheld by God). And no reason/question can be employed, about 'stones', to refute God's omnipotence.

God can create AND uncreate such a stone.

He can be at any point in time - before or after the after the immovable stone appeared in space/time.

God can make Himself at One WITH the stone - being simultaneously both the irresistable force AND the immovable object.

God can make Himself really really small and unable to lift such a big stone.

He could create a no-boundary condition universe in which there was such thing as up or down and God would say...."see, I am lifting the stone" and the observer would say..."no you arent".

He could even make an immovable stone which would last for eternity and people would go around saying...."no-one other than the most Divine Highest Being could create THAT stone".

Most importantly, God can do anything He WANTS. Thats why He probably would NOT make something which was impossible for Himself to be able to lift. Because messing with peoples heads isnt on His "To Do List" no matter how often we ask Him ... "how many fingers am I holding up?"


Lion (IRC)
PS - Oh yeah, and He could make that rock standing on His head with one arm tied behind His back blindfolded.

One solution to the problem of omnipotence is indeed that the ominipotent divinity is not constrained by what our feeble human minds think are paradoxes

Obviously there are many more, often rather deeply philosophical attempts to explain the multiomni attributes of a prefered divinity (Xtian God a favourite) but they all usually end up with "limited omnipotence" of some sort or another (say, "God is incapable of not being God"). In which case one should really refer to the deity as "plentipotent", obviously...

But maybe it's best to just say "God is as God does" and be done with it.

Lion IRC wrote:God can create AND uncreate such a stone.

And yet... he doesn't. Why is that I wonder?

Here's an answer to that question courtesy of Rapture Ready.

# You think questions like, "Can God create a rock so big that He cannot lift it?" and, "Can God will Himself out of existence?" are perfect examples of how to disprove God's omnipotence and ultimately how to disprove God. When someone proves to you the false logic behind the questions (i.e. pitting God's omnipotence against itself), you desperately try to defend the questions, but then give up and go to a different Christian site to ask them.

From the thread You might be an Atheist Fundamentalist if....

The stone paradox is no different to the creation of square circles etc.

Let's take the statement "Baal Hadad is omnipotent". That is not merely one statement, but infinitely many:
"Baal Hadad can create water"
"Baal Hadad can turn the Eiffel Tower into a giant pizza"
"Baal Hadad can fill the universe with trillions of identical copies of the planet Jupiter"
"Baal Hadad can make George W Bush say intelligent things"
.
.
. (for every conceivable action)

When Baal Hadad creates rock x, the set of statements describing Baal Hadad's omnipotence will also include the statement:

"Baal Hadad can lift rock x"

Now, suppose Baal Hadad wishes to make rock x unliftable. To do this, he makes the statement "No being can lift rock x" true. This statement is also not just one statement, but infinitely many:

"Bill Clinton cannot lift rock x"
"Vladimir Putin cannot lift rock x"
"Harry Potter cannot lift rock x (or at least, wouldn't be able to if he was real)"
.
.
.
. (statements for every possible person)
and including:
"Baal Hadad cannot lift rock x"

So what is he essentially doing, by trying to create a rock he cannot lift? Assuming that he retains his omnipotence, our friend Lord Hadad is simply trying to make it such that the statement "Baal Hadad can lift rock x" is true at the same time as "Baal Hadad cannot lift rock x" is also true. In other words, creating a rock he cannot lift would be willing as true the statement "Baal Hadad both can and cannot lift rock x". This is no different from creating a box that both is and is not orange. And what would it be like if there were rocks that a particular being is simultaneously able and unable to lift, or a box that both is and isn't orange? The very concepts are meaningless - a liftable unliftable stone simply isn't an entity at all, and saying that Baal Hadad isn't omnipotent because he can't create one is like saying that he's not omnipotent because he can't make a dsiofajioweh.

Arcanyn wrote:a liftable unliftable stone simply isn't an entity at all, and saying that Baal Hadad isn't omnipotent because he can't create one is like saying that he's not omnipotent because he can't make a dsiofajioweh.

Well if he can't create a dsiofajioweh then he is certainly not omnipotent.

Oliver wrote:I seem to remember someone claiming that this was a stupid argument and saying something about 'God doesn't have to conform to human logic' or such - basically, desperate butt-dribble.

I fucking hate that claim. Maybe God doesn't have to conform to logic but his apologists do.

Basically, this is just a claim that "I know what I'm saying is nonsensical but I'm asserting the right to believe any old shit I like, and change the goalposts as my argument fails".

Omnipotence is an incoherent concept. Omnipotence allied to omniscience doubly so. Add in omnibenevolence and you have a "perfect storm" of gibberish.

Animavore wrote:

Arcanyn wrote:a liftable unliftable stone simply isn't an entity at all, and saying that Baal Hadad isn't omnipotent because he can't create one is like saying that he's not omnipotent because he can't make a dsiofajioweh.

Well if he can't create a dsiofajioweh then he is certainly not omnipotent.

A dsiofajioweh isn't anything. It has no definition, and describes nothing with any properties whatsoever.

Arcanyn wrote:

Animavore wrote:

Arcanyn wrote:a liftable unliftable stone simply isn't an entity at all, and saying that Baal Hadad isn't omnipotent because he can't create one is like saying that he's not omnipotent because he can't make a dsiofajioweh.

Well if he can't create a dsiofajioweh then he is certainly not omnipotent.

A dsiofajioweh isn't anything. It has no definition, and describes nothing with any properties whatsoever.

Woah, I think we just found an synonym for "god".

If a god is not bound by human logic then it makes no sense to say anything about it since anything said about it would be asserting that some statement about it is true rather than false. They'd be logical propositions about something to which logic does not apply. To say that the god exists is just babbling nonsense.

Arcanyn wrote:

Animavore wrote:

Arcanyn wrote:a liftable unliftable stone simply isn't an entity at all, and saying that Baal Hadad isn't omnipotent because he can't create one is like saying that he's not omnipotent because he can't make a dsiofajioweh.

Well if he can't create a dsiofajioweh then he is certainly not omnipotent.

A dsiofajioweh isn't anything. It has no definition, and describes nothing with any properties whatsoever.

Arcanyn: What does "having a definition" have to do with existing?