If man can create something too heavy for him to lift, why can't God ?

You know the saying, "Can God create something so heavy that even God can't lift it ?"

My answer is based off common logic; If man can do something, by theological consistency, so can God.

Man has created plenty of things that in their final form are too heavy for him to lift on his own. This being the case, why can't God ? The idea that God stops being so simply for creating something God's unable to life doesn't make sense in this analogy, does it ?

 

Well, God is by some asserted to be omnipotent, able to do anything, including lifting any rock. If there can be a rock which he cannot lift, then that violates his supposed omnipotens. Humans are not asserted to be omnipotent. We are not required to be able to do such a thing.

 

But many think this deity is not all powerful just the most potent being in the cosmos, so he couldn't in this case make anything more heavy than he could lift since it would be impossible he couldn't get any stronger. Its kind of necessary to limit god this way across the board it allows him to make mistakes.

 

Sure, I think the argument only addresses omnipotence.

 

My point is most modern theologians got away from the Omni-(insert trait) deity for god to eliminate the host of logical issues in theology of he is not Omni-potent then he has an upper limit to what he can do it would be darn high the peak of potency in the Cosmos but n upper limit nevertheless. And explains freewill and the issues of him constantly messing up things in the Bible all his failures then makes sense.

 

RE: If man can create something too heavy for him to lift, why can't God ?
※→ Channe, et al,

The question is flaw from its inception.

(COMMENT)

You are not an immortal Supreme Being. So you are thinking as a human mortal with limitations. An Immortal Supreme Being which created all that there has been, all that there is, and all that will be, is not limited by the realm Paradox of man.

The question implies so many things at the same time is presents the conditions: To the heart of the matter.

• Refined Question: CAN an Immortal Supreme Being create a proposition that sound reasonable in its challenge, YET leads to a conclusion that is self-defeating, self-contradictory and logically unacceptable, as it is contradictory to the Immortal Supreme Being which created all that there has been, all that there is, and all that will be. A (human) cannot create a paradox that transcends into the realm of the Immortal Supreme Being which created all that there has been, all that there is, and all that will be.

In the case of the rock scenario:

• Heavy implies weigh.
• Weight implies gravity.
• Gravity implies a massive object warping the fabric of space.
• Lift implies the attraction of an a second massive body. (Lifting it up from what?)

​

(ANSWER)

An All Powerful Immortal Supreme Being can create a "something too heavy for him to lift," [lift meaning stand on one object and raise the heavy something (2nd object) off the shell of the other] and address the problem one of two ways.

• The Supreme Being removes all other objects outside the gravitational influence of m1 the removes m2 (making m2=0) from (Gm1m2). The F then becomes undefined (a Supernatural Power). This may sound complicated by is really not.
* The Supreme Being creates a Massive Singularity and make is become m2. Instead of m2=0, making F=undefine, m1=∞, making F=∞ and it absorbs the m2. In a sense, the Supreme Being created the "something" that was submissive to another power created by the Supreme Being.
​

There are several other solutions to your question that would be separating the two massive object (lifting it, but not lifting it); but changing the shape of the fabric of space (change everything around it) seems the easiest way.

It is extremely difficult for a mortal human that does not have the benefit of being all knowing, to create a paradox that could influence the realm of the Supreme Being.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

Okay where did this being come from if we are its creation and all life some likely a billion years or more advanced than us then who constructed and created the creator, if you say this being always existed then you know its a logical fallacy of a special case for your concept and then not another such as something coming from nothing using scientific theory.

 

I am wide open to the possibility that a revolt occurred in several dimensions of space - time that left the most ancient Intelligence with a dilemma that G-d could not solve without our help.............

the revolt of Lucifer with one third of the angels put G-d in a situation where G-d.... had to put the Elohim.... into human bodies...... and work out a plan that would eventually lead to the full Teshuvah / repentance and restoration of the fallen angels...........

Adam and Eve were like babies.... left in Eden.... with an off the scale intellect comparable to the soon to exist Artificial Intelligence........
and the Tree of Life program vs
the Tree of Knowledge of Good Vs Evil program......
were set up as the only way that G-d could figure out how to restore his fallen children........
who existed in a number of space - time dimensions at the same time...... (I think).......

Does a major fallen angel return to G-d and divide the kingdom of Satan and...

 

RE: If man can create something too heavy for him to lift, why can't God ?
tkolter, et al,

Again, I'm agnostic. I do not necessarily subscribe to these theories or theology.
​

Yes, this is often the question, in the theory of First Motion which can infinitely regress into the past.

Within the limits of man's mind, the the nature of the Supreme Being is beyond comprehension. But one of the powers generally understood to be in the hands of the Supreme Being is called: "The Doctrine of Divine Immutability (DDI) asserts that God cannot undergo real or intrinsic change in any respect."

• Immutability •
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Another argument against DDI appeals to God's power. Before Creation, God could assure that no universe ever existed. God has this power now only if he can alter the past. Few think he can. So events seem to change God's power. DDI's defenders reply that any change here is purely extrinsic. God has the power he always has. He has lost a chance to use it, and so we no longer want to call his power a power to prevent a universe. But God is intrinsically as able as ever to do so.​

It is the DDI and Omnipresence that implies a presences across all timelines.

(COMMENT)

This idea of of the Supreme Being includes existence outside of time - dates back to a time before Solomon, Son of David, King of Israel; - some say dating back to Moses and Mount Sinai. The idea appears in many prayers, but most prominently in Orations found in the Ars Notoria: The Notary Art of Solomon which is one of the most famous Solomonic Grimoires of the 5th Century --- still in use today. The most common version is the 1657 Written originally in Latine, and translated into English by Robert Turner. The basic oration is: (Excerpt)

"I implore thy Majesty, and Glorify thy omnipotency, with an intentive imploration, adoring the mighty Virtue, Power, and Magnificence of thy eternity.

​

------------------------------------------------------------------------ AND ------------------------------------------------------------------------
​

The fourth Oration; Let this Oration be rehearsed before the third Grammatical Note: O ADONAY, Creator of all visible Creatures! OH most Holy Father, who dwellest incompassed about with eternal light, disposing and by thy power governing all things before all beginnings; I most humbly beseech thy eternity and thy incomprehensible goodness may come to perfection in me, by the operation of thy most Holy Angels; and be confirmed in my Memory, and establish these, thy Holy works in me, Amen."​

King Solomon's magic and wisdom was thought to be refreshed through the oration and prayers to the "Creator."

Most Respectfully,
R

 

If God can lift the whole universe what would he stand on?

 

I'm not going to lie, tldr, however here are the broad strokes:

Man isn't all powerful, the paradox is one inherent in the very existence of an all powerful being. In general, if a being has infinite power, it should be able to do anything including create a box it can't break a puzzle it can't solve, stone it can't lift etc.

Now, if we suppose there is a limit on its power, then there must be some law of nature established outside of that being establishing that limit. Therefore, something has arisen from nothing, and everything else can arise from nothing as well. So, there is no need for that being, it is just a middle man.

 

Any post that cites the SEP ought to be congratulated. Kudos.

 

Well I think the issue is indeed one of logic. Since the paradox is meant to show the following: 1) either God cannot create the rock, or 2) God cannot lift the rock, the question inevitably leads to the conclusion that omnipotence is logically impossible. However, the standard theist response to this, is just to say that omnipotence means only the ability to do what is logically possible. Hence asking whether God can create a rock to heavy for God to lift is the same as asking whether God can square circles. But to answer that God cannot do the logically impossible, theists argue, is not to undermine divine perfection. If one holds that the laws of logic are created by God, then this opens the paradox back up, but doing so creates other theological problems for theists - good luck addressing the problem of evil, if you argue that God can obviate the laws of logic.

 

RE: Challenge for Atheists: Define God
※→ The Wyrd of Gawd, et al,

This is another malformed interrogative.

(COMMENT)

The constantly accelerated expansion in the Fabric of Space actually lifts the universe away from the Cosmic Background Radiation. It have been doing it for more than 13 Billion Years.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

Imaginary beings can't lift anything.

 

So since God doesn't have anything to stand on it's impossible for him to lift the universe.

 

I think the other problem is that if god cannot determine the rules of logic, then what can?

 

Well presumably nothing creates the laws of logic - they just are. The laws of logic, just like the principles of mathematics, are necessary conceptual/relational truths (particularly when talking about formal logic). They are discovered, not created. They are relations that hold between concepts, and are true eternally.

 

lol, i think there is some debate about whether they are discovered or created, but that aside, the point is how could it just arise?

Or more clearly, if a god is needed to create life, why wouldn't it be required to create the rules of logic? If the rules of logic can spontaneously appear, so can the laws of physics.

 

Well there are several things here. 1) Why do you assert that a god is needed to create life? 2) Logic is fundamentally a different type of thing than a living thing. The latter is a contingent thing (it is possible for it to not exist, on the other hand logic is a necessary thing. Hence logic is not created, it did not come into being. The truth of 1+1=2 (or the claim that every number has a double) did not appear 13.7 billion years ago. It is true eternally. The laws of logic obviously are not tangible things, unlike living things. But they nonetheless exist. Or to put it in more philosophical terms, the laws of logic are necessary (analytic) truths, and must exist in all possible worlds. It is not possible to conceive of the world (or any world) without them. Hence they did not appear, there was no time in which the rules of logic didn't exist. On the other hand, as I understand it, the laws of physics are contingent, based on experiential observation (unlike logical claims). They could have been otherwise, in other words, there could be other universes (part of the multiverse for example, in which the laws of entropy are different - hence they came into existence with the creation of the universe (how or why is the million dollar question).

 

OP

WTF are you babbling about?

 

RE: Challenge for Atheists: Define God
※→ Adorno, et al,

There are many things that sound like science, that come from the scientific community, that have a theory, but are not science. String Theory is an example; just as the multiverse theory is another.

(COMMENT)

This is another theory that has no scientific evidence to support and cannot be subjected to the Scientific Method to evaluate it.

Great Answer... Remember, that questions such as these are outside logic and the comprehension. Questions such as these, take us to a conclusion that seems senseless, logically unacceptable (an intentional and purposeful paradox that attempts to challenge the unlimited power of the Deity), The question is no more valid that: What does "BLUE" (from a visual sense) taste (the detection of flavor) like?

You answer is the solution to the Fallacious Thinking About God. This different from a challenge to an imaginary being. The Book of Imaginary Beings (By Jorge Luis Borges) lists more than a hundred imaginary beings; none of which have omnipotence as a trait or characteristic (all can be defeated in one way or another). But to some people, especially those who are genetically predisposed to seek-out a Deity as a mental coping mechanism, "God" is something altogether different than imaginary.

SOURCE: Excerpt From → We are Hard-wired to Believe in God by S. Saajid Amin Bhat

Human beings have a natural inclination for religious belief, especially during hard times. Our brains effortlessly conjure up an imaginary world of heavenly things, and the more insecure we feel, the harder it is to resist the pull of this supernatural world. It seems that our minds are finely tuned to believe in god.
​

Most Respectfully,
R

 

RE: Challenge for Atheists: Define God
※→ The Wyrd of Gawd, et al,

Read the answer again. The universe is lifted everyday.

(COMMENT)

If there is a Supreme Being, if knows all and therefore can defeat any challenge by Paradox.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

This claim itself has no scientific evidence to support it. It cannot be subjected to the Scientific Method to evaluate it. How do you avoid epistemic circularity here?

I speak in terms of possibility as it relates to multiverse - it's possible. I make no claim to its ontological status.

 

I don't, but, I'm saying if it is then...

I hear you, and that is pretty logical.

However, I still argue that the possibility and impossibility of certain logic is still contingent on our current existence. The fact that we can't imagine it is based on the fact that we live in this reality. Sort of like we can't picture more than 3 spatial dimensions.

All that being said, if we say that logic is immutable and fundamental to the fabric of any possible existence, could we logically say that evil is too? I'm legitimately asking.