I always prefer this form of the question and answer.

Q: What happens when an irresistable force hits an immovable object?
A: An inconceivable smash.

The simple thing is difficult in this post- modern, relativistic social constructive society that we live in today.

You see the simple thing is, that God has already made a huge rock. God sustains the universe, that means He holds planet earth, this rock on which we live in His hands. No rock is ever too big for God.

So the question might not be "Can God make a rock so big that He can't move it?" Rather the question might well be "Why would God want, need, choose or desire to create something immovable?" Then one answer to that may well be that He has already created something immovable, that is hearts and minds of disbeliving people throughout history, indeed since time immemorial. Hearts/minds that under no circumstances desire to exercise their free will and move, yes MOVE, GROW through a belief system that requires FAITH, that He does in fact exist.

But you need faith of a child to hold to that truth. When you do step out in faith, you begin to appreciate that nothing is impossible for God.

In the beginning what came first, the pebble or the rock?

Answer: In the beginning God!!!!! Genesis 1:1

q:can god he? that he says volumes is trinity real? are all 3 malesa: i chose to believe not, eespesially holy spirit in Illustrissimi Luciano said that in first edition but it quickly was cchanged after his election as jp1-try to find a copy of first edition with 7 missing cartoons. 2nd edition changed one numeral and missing 7 were conveniently downto 4! how. did little brown do it so fast? Who ordered the change? not a.l. he was gone but cody sail in preface that He approved entire book.A,E. used to ask if G-d threw dice? stupid of Albert. even laplace knew if we knew all forces acting the outcome would be known!about the rock the answer depends on your Conception/beliefs re: 'him' or 'it' scripture says god=spirit another time god=love love canprobably move mountains. besides that i would come down on side that allah can do anything, including having a son. islam limits .god' only in that one area and look at the consequences!!

I answer this question the same way I justify to myself why God allows bad things to happen to good people. It is very simply this: God's level of understanding and mental capacity is on a level so far superior to my own that I, while still a human being, can't hope to see the reason in his actions. The sooner I accept this, the sooner I quench my curiosity and live a happier life.

God is also ALL-WISE...therefore would never do such a thing!!

Rodney,

You're missing the point: It isn't whether God would or wouldn't choose to do it. The point is the question contradicts itself and thus is inherantly meaningless. It first says something, and then contradicts itself.

It's like asking: "Could I be a bachelor who buys my wife flowers every day?" It's meaningless: If I was a bachelor, I wouldn't have a wife. If I had a wife, I wouldn't be a bachelor. It indicates an error in the thinking of the person asking it.

Why did God make human beings most of them he'll burn in hell? Did he not like roasting marshmallows?

Good question Imran, and one I've struggled with for years, and have been troubled at God about it, at times.

I am a Christian because I actually believe it's true, not because it suits my tastes. If I could create my own religion, and expected the universe to magically change to match, the religion I'd design certainly wouldn't include that belief.

Hell itself, and the possibilty of going there, is required when you have a just God, an afterlife, and free will. Remove any of those, and there's no need for hell. The short way of saying this is: "What, you want Hitler to go to heaven?"

But this still leaves the question: why so many?

The first statement contradicts the other!!!!! No answer is justified!!!!

Carlene

Correct - good example using the "bachelor and wife" - it sounds like English but it really doesn;t ask a question

Another one would be "If God is omnipotent, can he change the subject of this sentence to 'jello'?"

In answer to the question about God and the marshmallows. maybe the short answer is "free will."

If God kept stepping in on us, tidying things up, stopping accidents, murders, etc. how could we rate as anything more than goldfish in God's aquarium?

The question is misguided insofar as it implies that God created people SO THAT they could go to hell. In fact (so far as I understand it) he created humans and gave them a genuine choice about what to do with their lives.
Surprise, surprise - quite a few people have chosen to abuse that choice, down the ages.

Thus the *responsibility* for what happens to us is in our own hands - assuming that we have at least a basic understanding of "right" and "wrong".
I suspect that a lot of Christians are going to be quite surprised, come Judgement Day, at what a varied cross-=section of the population it turns out Jesus died for

RE: God is also ALL-WISE...therefore would never do such a thing!!

Simple logic tells us that God is neither all powerful (there are things it cannot accomplish) nor all wise. For instance, we can prove there are things God cannot know. Mathematics provides many examples.

Paul:

I suspect that a lot of Christians are going to be quite surprised, come Judgement Day, at what a varied cross-section of the population it turns out Jesus died for...

Speaking of being suprised: Paul, Christians believe that Jesus died for everyone, not a mere "cross-section of the population":

For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish... (John 3:16)

But that doesn't mean everyone necessarily will avail themselves of that offer. Indeed, Jesus himself taught that only a relatively few people would be interested in that offer:

But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it. (Matt 7:14)

You seem to be confusing God's love -- which is for everyone -- with our deciding to say "yes" to that love and put God in charge -- which Jesus said only a minority would do.

LyricalReckoner:

Simple logic tells us that God is neither all powerful (there are things it cannot accomplish) nor all wise.

God, I hate all this drivel about God. Especially when all the theocons start talking down to everyone else in their pompous, ignorant smug way.

God, I hate all this drivel about God.

Seems to really bother you!

Well, you're sitting in an italian restaurant, ordering plate after plate of sphaghetti, then complaining about how much you hate pasta!

Yes, that makes tons of sense.

Especially when all the theocons start talking down to everyone else in their pompous, ignorant smug way.

Heh! You make me chuckle, Jake. Well, if I'm ignorant, feel free to correct me with something vaguely resembling a counter-argument.

But as it is, you BOTH (and this is almost too rich to be believed) complain that your supposed enemy (me, apparently) is "smug", but then call everyone you disagree with "ignorant" -- clearly showing you yourself are actually quite smug.

Can you say "projection"?

The contradiction does not lie in the question.
Your claim (shown below) makes the assumption that God is omnipotent. I can build a house, but I cannot move a house. That doesn't mean that *nothing* in the universe can't move it; I just can't. It's a reasonable question. However, calling God an "irresistable force" *assumes* that God is omnipotent. This is fallacious because your premise assumes the result that the question is trying to prove.

Your claim:
"When we say there is an "irresistable force", we mean that we have a universe which contains a force, and no objects in that universe which can resist it. Then, when we also say we have an "immovable object", we mean we have a universe which contains an object which can resist all forces in the same universe."

It's certainly true that by equating the two scenarios, I was indeed implying that God was defined as being omnipotent. That is indeed the context in which the question is typically asked.

And, as you've pointed out, it's probably not even worth asking concerning a non-omnipotent God, as, at it's core, it's an attempt to prove the concept of "omnipotence" is inherantly meaningless. Such a tactic would be completely useless to employ against some object (e.g. "Can Bob make a rock...") which wasn't generally thought to have the property of omnipotence.

But when you say things like: "This is fallacious because your premise [an omnipotent God] assumes the result that the question is trying to prove," it sounds like you're not even paying attention.

Where did I say I was attempting to prove God was omnipotent? I'm demonstrating -- in case you missed it -- that the question at hand (in the title) is inherantly meaningless.

Again, if the presence of the word "God" in the question causes your brain to shut down, then try it out on the sample question. Imagine I said:

"Assume John has a pet duck. Also assume John has no pet ducks. Given that both are true, how much must he spend on Duck Chow?" It's a meaningless question, so there can equally be no meaningful answer.

And someone responded: "This assumes that ducks eat -- which is the result that the question is trying to prove." No, I'm trying to prove the question is meaningless. And it is, whether or not ducks actually eat, or whether or not John actually exists, or whether he is actually capable of feeding ducks, or owning them, or whatever.

Next, although (as was just shown) this is entirely beside the point, you're wrong in asserting you could build a house but not move it. Houses are moved all the time -- both as a unit, and by disassembly and reassembly. If nothing else, you could plant an explosive nearby, which would set off ground waves which would indeed move the house. I doubt you could build a house for which this would not be true.

Finally, (and more importantly) you're even wrong about what you think the original question ("Can God make a rock...") is supposed to prove. You seem to think the question is an attempt to prove God is omnipotent. (huh????) In fact, it's usually offered to prove God can't exist. So you've even apparently botched that part of your case.

I think God created that question to entertain himself by watching us fall all over ourselves in debating it.

Tim- Very good wording and explanation. Makes perfect sense what you're trying to say, and your logic is actually logical, which is refreshing.

Some believe there is a parallel universe that exists for every possible action. So in one universe, I'm typing this but the words are different. In another, I'm off at the beach (ooh, lucky me...). If this is the case, could there be an omnipotent God in one universe, but not in another, and does this really have anything to do with the original question?

"Locke",

Good luck in the Peace Corps; I'll try to remember you in my prayers.

If this is the case, could there be an omnipotent God in one universe, but not in another...

The "God" I'm used to talking about has the attribute of being the universe's creator. In that context, the question makes no sense, as God would not be "in" (a dependent attribute of) a/the universe, any more than I would be "in" a particular type of hamburger I cooked. Sure, I could stick my finger through it, but it would be the same chef making each burger.

... and does this really have anything to do with the original question?

No, but it's fun to talk about. :-)

Tim,
I kicked myself in the face right after posting because I used the word "prove". The question obviously doesn't try to prove anything, but, as you said, merely attack the concept of omnipotence.

I know it's fun to discuss this in terms of God, but really any omnipotence is challenged by the question. Does omnipotence by definition require the ability to move anything? Yes! So, can any omnipotent force create something it cannot move? No, by the very definition of omnipotence. It's a self-contradicting concept, so any question regarding the limits of omnipotence is easy to disregard as non-sensical if the assumption is made that omnipotence is possible. Do you see the circular logic at play here?

By the way, by "moving" the house I meant using my own force, and not external devices. I can stack a bunch of 2x4's and nail them all together, but I probably couldn't lift a stack of 20.

I kicked myself in the face...

Please don't! Besides being painful, and much too harsh given the rather minor error, I can't even imagine how you arranged this.

Does omnipotence by definition require the ability to move anything? Yes! So, can any omnipotent force create something it cannot move? No, by the very definition of omnipotence. It's a self-contradicting concept...

It seems clear that omnipotence, as you define it, is self-contraditory and meaningless. So yes, I'll readily grant that.

In philosophy, since language can sustain error, we can talk of things which cannot exist. We could speak of, for example, shapeless cubes or colorless hues. As with the question above, these are self-contradictory concepts, so, if we value logic, we should discard them as representing anything real or meaningful.

Likewise, your definition of omnipotence is certainly a self-contradictory one, as it would including having the power to have no powers.

But when Christians use the same word, they are not coming from the same definition you're offering. Omnipotence means "having all powers", and this has been historically understood as "having all powers which can be had, doing all things which can be done." The JudeoChristian God is a (philosophically) limited God, in the sense that God is limited to only have powers which can really be had, doing things which can really be done, and having states which can actually be had.

To show this is nothing new, here's the bible, on God's "limits" (a few selected verses from many):

God is not a man, that he should lie, nor a son of man, that he should change his mind. (Numbers 23:19) If we are faithless, he will remain faithful, for he cannot deny himself. (2 Timothy 2:13)

In the history of Christian thought, term "omnipotence" was used to reflect that characterization, not the other way around.

ben emmett,

by making the analogy between this question and the question of an immovable object/irresistable force you state that the queston is flawed in that an infinite force is not possible.

No, it says nothing of the sort. Please go re-read it. It says that an irresistable force cannot coexist in the same universe as an immovable object. That tells us nothing whatsoever about whether an irresistable force, or immovable object could exist without the other.

If you think that was a proof of what you're saying, you really need to take a few steps back and learn the basic rules of logic.

The rest is just your own assumption and religious belief, apparently. Nothing wrong with having religious beliefs, but we should be able to recognize them when we are stating them.

This is correct and is scientifically provable...

All claims of scientific proof should be accompanied by an explanation. For example, which field of science showed this? Biology? Chemistry? Physics? Which experiment? Was that experiment definitive?

But, as I said, I think you're just stating your own religious beliefs and calling them "science" because it makes you feel good. Such people, my experience seems to say, don't actually know much about science at all, but worship it as some kind of distant, unknown god.

By the way, science proves everything I have ever said is correct, and that everything you have ever said or thought was false.

Wasn't that fun? Anyone can just say such things.

...but in your anaogy "god's" omnipotence is represented by infiniteness of the force which you crrectly say desn't exist, so god's omnipotence is equally fallaceuos

You're completely out to lunch here. You're not even characterizing the article above correctly. I don't "correctly say" any of the things you think, and I've never spoken about an "infinite force". (I don't even know what such a concept might mean.) You're scoring a zero on reading comprehension. Get at least that much correct before you attempt to share the rest of your enlightened worldview with us, okay?

Tim,
Strictly speaking, an "infinite force" requires either infinite mass (which doesn't exist) or infinite acceleration (which is impossible according to general relativity and would require energy to be created from nowhere, which is impossible (at least in Newtonian physics)). But that's beside the point.

According to you, God is limited from doing something irrational. So the answer to the original question is, (drumroll please...) "No, God cannot create a rock he can't move." This wouldn't imply that God doesn't exist, just that there are some strange things he can't do.

where to begin...
I find it fascinating that the introduction of the word “God” to any subject can completely change the tenor of the subject being discussed. Perhaps this is evidence of God’s ability to change all things… I digress.

While I grant that much of this discussion is simply an argument of semantics I do find it irresistibly stimulating. For instance, using “simple logic” as explained, (or perhaps better to say completely unexplained) by LyricalReckoner to define something like God, which is in no way simple. If you are using logic to explain God, then perhaps you should use a more complex logic and have the courtesy to explain said logic for the rest of us simpletons.
This is not limited to the Christian God, but any of the God’s created by mankind throughout the ages. None of them was ever meant to be understood, and most often were created to explain that which could not be explained logically, or scientifically. For example early man had no idea what precipitation was so what does he do? Create a rain god, or two, or ten…whatever. Problem solved. Logical? No. The concepts of logic and science are also attempts by a creature with limited ability trying to explain the limitless. That’s like using the definition of a straight line to define a cloud. Use your logic to define Picasso or DeVinci or Britney Spears. That’s why we have art… (Britney being the exception, I offer no explanation for that phenomenon), again, I digress.
This also indicates the inherent need for man to appeal to a higher power. Why, if there is no god whatsoever, does man constantly create these powerful transcendent creatures to honor and appeal to? Some of us choose the Judeo Christian God, but there are others who choose logic or science, which often times leaves you with just as many, if not more, unanswered questions. How does logic address concepts like perfectly flawed? If it is perfect, can it be flawed? If it is flawed can it be perfect? Can logic or science define emotion? If so I would love to hear it.
At some point, be it Christianity, Insanity, Sean Hannity, or frilly laced panty, you must step out on faith, because, believe it or not, some things just can’t be explained. As for me and my household, we shall serve the Lord.

I think the fallicy in this question can be answered more clearly by considering the relationship between God and creation.

God is not limited by the constraints that we experience as humans. We say that we moved something or lifted something and it required energy, since we have limited energy we can lift a limited amount of mass. God however does not move objects using energy and forces. He spoke and the universe existed. He didnt put any energy into creating. So a rock that God 'cannot move' would no long by definition be a rock....and could not exist in this universe. If we want to talk about moving something outside of the universe then what is movement? force? matter? That, I think, is the true flaw to the question....thinking that God is like us and so moves objects as we do.

RE: For instance, we can prove there are things God cannot know. Mathematics provides many examples.

I'd be most impressed if you could provide one.

=========

Here you go: God cannot square the circle. God cannot find a general solution to fourth-order differential equations. God cannot find two integers whose ratio is irrational.

The list goes on and on and on.

Anyone who thinks there's a god that can do anything it likes wasn't paying attention during math class.

Isn't that how Satan in the bible tried to tempt Jesus, that is God, I mean also, the son of God? He would not throw himself down to prove he was God. So maybe God wouldn't make a stone too big for him that is God, to lift. I don't think this line of reasoning is dependant on anyone's belief in God. It is dependent on the rules of logic. That is if Jesus would not kill himself to prove he is God then God would not create a rock too big for himself to move to prove he is God.

Isn't that how Satan in the bible tried to tempt Jesus, that is God, I mean also, the son of God? He would not throw himself down to prove he was God. So maybe God wouldn't make a stone too big for him that is God, to lift. I don't think this line of reasoning is dependant on anyone's belief in God. It is dependent on the rules of logic. That is if Jesus would not kill himself to prove he is God then God would not create a rock too big for himself to move to prove he is God. I would say God knows his limitations. :-)

Isn't that how Satan in the bible tried to tempt Jesus, that is God, I mean also, the son of God? He would not throw himself down to prove he was God. So maybe God wouldn't make a stone too big for him that is God, to lift. I don't think this line of reasoning is dependant on anyone's belief in God. It is dependent on the rules of logic. That is if Jesus would not kill himself to prove he is God then God would not create a rock too big for himself to move to prove he is God. I would say God knows his limitations. :-)

RE Isn't that how Satan in the bible tried to tempt Jesus?

By what, telling Jesus that there are things the gods cannot do?

Hardly seems like temptation.

RE: Put another way: An "irresistable force" means no objects can resist it. But an "immovable object" means some there is object which can resist it. So there cannot both BE and NOT BE an object which can resist that force.

The questions aren't the same at all (which should be too obvious to need mention). The question says nothing at all about irresistable forces or immovable objects.

The question doesn't suggest the giant rock can't be moved. It only suggests that a single god can't move it. (It doesn't suggest, for instance, that 72 gods couldn't get together, join forces, and then move it.)

Why don't you deal with the question posed rather than exchanging others for it (so you can avoid dealing with the question)?

RE: Put another way: An "irresistable force" means no objects can resist it. But an "immovable object" means some there is object which can resist it. So there cannot both BE and NOT BE an object which can resist that force.

The questions aren't the same at all (which should be too obvious to need mention). The question says nothing at all about irresistable forces or immovable objects.

The question doesn't suggest the giant rock can't be moved. It only asks whether the god that created it can move it. (It doesn't suggest, for instance, that 72 gods couldn't get together, join forces, and then move it.)

Why don't you deal with the question posed rather than exchanging others for it (so you can avoid dealing with the question)?

Folks, this question (can God make a rock he can't lift, a rule he can't break, etc.) is in the nature of a zen koan. It is only "meaningless" under the popular world-view that God is separate from his creation, and outside it. But the definition of Universe is (to my way of thinking) everything that is, material and non-material, so how can God be outside it? Thus, it is the most fundamental and meaningful question you can ask about the nature of God and of the Universe. The resolution of apparent paradoxes is the path to greater understanding. To blow it off without giving it some serious thought is to abdicate your humanity and settle for being an automaton. The trick is to think about it hard enough to make the left-brain give up and turn it over to the right-brain holistic -some would say unconscious- self.

The most important fallacy of the intelligent design argument is the randomness-alone concept. As if every organism on the planet was always assembled randomly from scratch every time. No. The system has "memory" of sorts. It only works from one tiny success on and forgets all mistakes. Suppose our one tiny success propagates itself so we have 10 critters. Suppose one makes a fatal mistake and disintegrates. Fine. Suppose one makes an mistake which is an improvement. Now you have 8 original and 1 new improved version (let's say it propagates itself twice as much in the same time period). If nothing else happens, in the next generation you get 80 original, and 20 new and improved; the next generation after that you get 800 and 400, and the next generation after that you get 8000 and 8000 and so on. But previously we had a 20% “error” rate. So put that into the system (10% disintegration, 10% twice as productive as before) and see what happens. You do the math. Basically the critters "remember" the successful plan - by being more or less a copy of their parent(s) and only have to make one little improvement to be a roaring success. (In the real world, the plan was carried first on the RNA (which could have been as simple as 2 molecules joined*, which would bind to a particular amino acid)
and then in one improvement, on the DNA). Now multiply the population size (or half, if you assume they've discovered the advantages of sexual reproduction) by the lifespan of the critters and how long they've been around. That's a huge number, every one an opportunity for for and “error” which might be an improvement. The only “intelligence” that is required for evolution is the system “memory” of being a fairly accurate copy of your parent(s).

*(of any of these: adenine, guanine, cytosine, or uracil; actual codons are 3 molecules long, but the third position is still wobbly and the first two do not hook up to their respective amino acids in a random fashion)

I also find it interesting that I have never heard anyone, anywhere, in this kind of discussion actually mention Darwin's four principles, which if true, mean evolution not only can, but must happen – as a mathematical certainty. See above. I defy anyone to refute them (I would quote, but have to go instead on memory):
1) Individual variation exists [as genetic mutations and [hot off the presses!!: as genes permanently modified due to environmental causes (see Anway et al. 2005 article in Science)
2) It is heritable [both kinds, if they occur in germ-line cells (sperm and eggs)]
3) Populations are capable of excess reproduction
4) The "fitter" organisms survive. [these days we say they tend to reproduce more than others]

Whereas, the concept of intelligent design is just a façade for creationism. I listened to the Bible Answer Man for a long time trying to get to the “evidence” for this.
It amounts to only three tenets, of which the first two are blatantly bogus and the third is circular.
1) Evolution is cruel and capricious. [Is it cruel that some critters are dinner for others? (now you’ll explain it use it as part of “God’s plan”); doesn’t that make God cruel?, or the other favorite explanation, that only humans (read free adult white male) feel pain in any meaningful way. As for capricious… have you never had or known someone who had any kind of freak accident or totally undeserved bad luck? (Ah, you say, God is testing us and it only appears to be capricious); well why doesn’t he treat everyone the same, then? Otherwise, that meets the definition of capricious in my book.]
2) It’s racist. [Just because scripture can be twisted to imply one group is “better” than another has no bearing on the reality that some organisms reproduce more than others, or that this ability in itself is even “better” in the long term, leading as it may to overpopulation, starvation, and possible extinction.]
3) Because the Bible [and therefore creationism] is literally true, then Adam was a real man, who really fell from grace, therefore God as a real man (Jesus) had to really atone for it. If Adam wasn’t real but we all came from apes, then there’s no need for Jesus to save us either, and there goes “the Capstone of Christianity”. [Well, maybe we have a selfish animal nature by way of being animals, and this story is one way we can let God admit complicity in this for having made us this way, and let us all get on with our lives. The whole forbidden fruit story would be like the parent who gives the toddler a cookie then says ‘Don’t eat that, or I’ll be mad’, then when the kid eats it anyway he gets spanked-not once, but for eternity. Doesn’t the punishment outweigh the crime, and who’s really to blame here anyway? And if this is the extent of your belief in the teachings of Jesus, I’d say it’s pretty shallow.]

Let's put a period on all of this. Here it is:

People who believe there's a god that knows everything and can do anything have not so much as a grammar school student's education.

There's really nothing more to be said about this, now is there?

Wisdom has one source and a lifetime to become manifest, but patience is the essence of learning and time is Gods disciple

Furthermore: God, in its omnipotent wisdom, would know, and be completely aware of, before, and as, he was creating anything , whether or not he would be creating something that would in fact negate and / or possibly destroy or otherwise nullify its own existence , power , ability and / or existence. Gee is that concise enough? “Things that make you go Hmm.”

Tim, you got to the explanation that makes the most sense to me in one of your comments.

Omnipotence is not the power to do anything that can be represented in a nonsensical english statement. It's the possession of all powers which, obviously, only includes those that possibly can exist. God's inability to make a perfect circle with four sides does not dimish God's possession of all powers because that is not a power that can exist. Likewise, the power to create something too big for God to lift is an impossibility. Since it's an impossibility, there remain no powers outside of God's possession.

One problem with all these logical arguments (e.g. God can't simultaneously create an irresistable force and an immovable object because they can not logically coexist).

It assumes that God is subordinate to and must obey the laws of logic. There are two problems with this:
(A) God is not omnipotent. 'He' can only do what logic allows him to do.
(B) It opens the door to all the logical devices of science, in particular
(B.1) Circular logic is not allowed.
(B.2) Just because a sentence is syntactically correct does not mean it has a meaning. Meaning can only be assigned relative to direct sensory experience or to logical relations between direct sensory experience.

Of course, you can just say that God's power, will, mercy, wisdom, and choice are simply beyond our mortal logic. In which case it is as pointless to expect us to understand God as it is to expect bacteria to understand humans.

I, personally, think that anything deserving the name "God" is at least as far beyond us as we are beyond bacteria, so it is a waste of time to discuss the nature of god. Just live well.

RE: God's inability to make a perfect circle with four sides does not dimish God's possession of all powers because that is not a power that can exist.

That's one way to express it. Here's another: there are things that even God can't do.

Omnipotence is pretty senseless, once you think about it. It's certainly nothing for a well-educated person to believe in.

So, what else can God not do?
I'd really like to see a specific list.
For instance, can God lie, create evil, make time run backwards, etc.?

All Wise:

RE: The answer to the "rock" question is a simple NO. God CANNOT make a rock so big he can't lift it, BECAUSE the question is a contradiction. So quit your belly-aching.

Are you suggesting there's something God CANNOT Do because it We can't handle contradictions?

Humble Seeker:

RE: So, what else can God not do? I'd really like to see a specific list.

There can't be a specific list. But think of a list of sets, like the set of ALL THE THINGS THAT CAN'T BE DONE. That includes everything like GOD CAN'T FIND TWO INTEGERS IN THE RATIO OF PI.

What else?

I see it like this: Before we're educated, we can imagine all sorts of possibilities like GOD CAN MAKE A ROCK GO MUCH FASTER THAN LIGHT.

Once we learn about things, we realize that even the gods can't do some of them.

>>RE: What does it matter if we can express inconsistencies in formal logic, if those inconsistancies have no meaning in the real world?

Look . . . I can make something so heavy that I can't lift it. Can God do as much?

The question (can God make a rock so heavy it can't lift it) isn't illogical. The notion that there's a god that can do whatever it likes is illogical.

I don't know why my name got removed from my earlier comment. I must have hit the wrong button.

The question of whether God can make a rock so heavy that he cannot lift it is simply a matter of words. Unless those words can be mapped clearly to somthing that we can comprehend, the question is meaningless.

What would an infinite amount of mass look like?
What would an infinitely powerful force look like?
How do you measure or define the ability of God or of Gods? People can't really answer any of these questions. Not with anything approaching precision.

If you ask questions using terms that you don't clearly understand, you'll get an answer that you don't understand. Garbage in, garbage out, with computers and formal logic which is what I was saying.

It's like asking what happens when you divide by zero, or asking whether 1 divided by zero is more or less than 2 divided by zero.

Math is just a concept. If your concepts don't map to the real world in some way, they're meaningless.

"Infinity" is somthing that doesn't easily map to the observable universe in most cases. Questions involving both formal logic and infinity tend to be meaningless, more often than not.

RE: the above post. I accidentally deleted my 'quote brakets.' My comment begins with;

I don't know why my name got removed from my earlier comment. I must have hit the wrong button.

Everything above that line is quoting a previous message, and is not my message, it is written by someone else. Sorry for the confusion.

My .o2, If everything god does is good and god can do anything. If he decided to be evil how would you know?

Can God throw a rock with such force that it travels faster than the speed of light?

Can God come up with a general solution to all 4th order differential equations?

Can God square the circle (i.e., can It create a circle having the same area as a given square using only straightedge and compass).

A little study reveals all sorts of things that God can't do or know.

God is nothing.

Seriously. Can you describe nothing without making it something? You can't, as soon as a visualization pops into your head of what nothing could be it's already something. Nothing can only be defined by defining what it is not.

"Nothing" is where everything exists in.

That is the closest definition to it. So far there are only three things that are undefineable in the known universe: God, love, and nothing.

God IS nothing, Gos IS what everything exists in.

Nothing is also infinite, because anything that is a part of everything has a beginning and an end, and also will break down into chaos through entropy.

In order to be infinite you must be outside of everything, like nothing. Like God.

But God is also everything. Because in order to be nothing you can't have anything to compare nothing too, like everything. So in order to be nothing you have to be everything AND what everything exists in.

I guess the simplest form of this is that "God IS"

nothing more, nothing less. God just is. He is nothing and he is everything.

god made the rock then promptly vanished in a puff of logic.

LyricalReckoner,

A little study reveals all sorts of things that God can't do or know.

Who says God can't do any of those things? Take the speed of light: if it's a local constraint of this universe, why should God, outside the universe, be limited by it? Same for squaring the circle: it would be rather trivial to just directly know the necessary dimensions.

Sean,

God is nothing.

I hate private definitions, as they are usually intended to confuse and obscure. Most people define "nothing" in a way which would preclude an intelligent, thoughtful, sentient being, which would be rather "something".

And I can see your thoughts aren't bound by logic, since you contradict yourself by equating "nothing" and "everything". All well and good, but let's not pretend you make sense or are reasonable. You don't, and aren't. You have rejected reason, and are lost in the world where any and all propositions are simultaneously true and false.

Come back to us. Embrace thought and reason.

Hahahahaha.

Even in the Bible God says he is everything and he is nothing.

I makes more sense than almost any other definition of God.

Even in the Bible God says he is everything and he is nothing.

Not in the slightest, to my knowledge. Feel free to quote chapter and verse to demonstrate it's so.

But as it is, you're wrong on both points. The biblical God is neither pantheistic ("all"), nor impersonal ("nothingness"). Both those are Eastern conceptions, utterly alien to the bible.

I makes more sense...

You don't makes much sense at all, as pointed out previously. Come back to us. Embrace logic and reason.

RE: [i]Who says God can't do any of those things? Take the speed of light: if it's a local constraint of this universe, why should God, outside the universe, be limited by it? Same for squaring the circle: it would be rather trivial to just directly know the necessary dimensions.[/i]

Einstein says that God can't throw a rock faster than the speed of light. He goes further: God doesn't have enough energy to throw a rock that fast.

As for squaring the circle, it's a matter of construction. It's not a matter of finding a dimension. Neither man nor god can square the circle. It can't be done.

Humble seeker said, two months before I stumbled onto this page:

"Basically the critters "remember" the successful plan - by being more or less a copy of their parent(s) and only have to make one little improvement to be a roaring success."

A typical biological system works only when *all* the parts are present and working correctly, but doesn't work if any part is missing or malfunctioning. If such a system develops by adding a part at a time, then during most of the process the species incurs an ever-increasing cost of carrying the accumulating components without getting any benefit from them. It will be at a disadvantage compared to those that didn't set out on the path of trying to develop the feature in the first place, and it can be expected to lose out to them.

Actually it gets worse. The closer the species gets to having a completely working new biological system, the more likely that the parts it does have will hurt it. Think of all the diseases we have that consist of one component being missing in one of our biosynthesis systems. Instead of making a useful substance, the incomplete system makes, with great efficiency, an intermediate product that in itself is useless and builds up to toxic levels.

Mr./Ms. Seeker continues:

"(In the real world, the plan was carried first on the RNA (which could have been as simple as 2 molecules joined*, which would bind to a particular amino acid)
and then in one improvement, on the DNA). [...] *(of any of these: adenine, guanine, cytosine, or uracil; actual codons are 3 molecules long, but the third position is still wobbly and the first two do not hook up to their respective amino acids in a random fashion)"

The genetic code doesn't work that way either.

A chain of three messenger RNA bases (say, AAA) has no specific physical affinity for its corresponding amino acid (say, phenylalanine).

What makes each element the genetic code work is the simultaneous presence, for each amino acid, of
(1) a transfer RNA molecule, whose shape associates a certain sequence of three bases with a certain set of projections and side loops; and
(2) an aminoacyl-tRNA synthetase, a protein molecule whose shape matches, on the one hand, the projections and side loops on the transfer RNA and, on the other hand, the amino acid molecule.

The shapes of the protein and the RNA are determined by their sequences. In order for the system to exist for the first time, for each amino acid there has to be both the information for a tRNA *and* the information necessary to make a working corresponding synthetase *given* the shape of the tRNA. For the system to work, the synthetase information must exist in the form of a protein sequence. For the system to reproduce for the first time, the synthetase information must *also* exist, *independently*, in the form of an RNA sequence. If it existed only as a protein sequence, it couldn't reproduce; if it existed only as an RNA sequence, it couldn't be translated into the protein necessary to make the translation work at all.

Hieronymus et alia:

Apologies for posting here by mistake at 3 a.m.

Please paste your post over to the Intelligent Design page & I'll respond there.

Nothing is ever as simple as it seems.

I think that this is a vague question and something that puts God to the test. God is the source of wisdom and intelligence. Needless to say, he is the most powerful being in the universe. Such act is not a doing of a God. He is not stupid to fall for that trap.

Often, it's the atheists here who are clueless, but I see theists have their moments as well...

Friends. PLEASE try to understand: the question is meaningless. You can't say things like "God wouldn't fall for that trap" because the question itself is meaningless. It's not a trap. It's a self-contradicting question.

"If I have ice cream, and don't have ice cream, what flavor is it?" The question assumes conditions which can't exist. The intelligence level of -- say -- the ice cream is utterly irrelevant.

God does not need "power" because there is nothing for him to be a power against!

Just making a statement. Sorry if it dont fit witt the jonree.

If God created God. Or more exactly, if infinate intelligence allowed for an infinate integrated non-intellegence. Then the "Rock" would be an infinatly stagnant space in a constrasting infinatly dynamic existance that runs infinatly parallel to it. Thus in a basic 1 & 0 computing model of inteligence, both immovibility and dynamic movibility are prominant in existance.

So, God would create an immovable "Rock" to expand infinately and irresistably. By making immovablity an intricate part of its dynamic intelligence, both are possible and probible without God losing his omnipitance.

... and that, ladies and gentlemen, is a logical fallacy known as "argument from incoherence".

MacaroniGuy,

It is indeed very basic stuff, and you've botched it completely. Which is kinda funny, given your comment!

The question is expanded like this...

Postulate:
1. A force which can move anything exists
2. An object which cannot be moved by any force exists.

You might as well just expand it as:
1. I have ice cream.
2. I have no ice cream.

(That was an "ice cream koan"! Yuk! :-))

It is indeed like a reductio ad absurdum, except without any "reductio" going on, since it's already composed of two mutually contradictory lemmas (assumptions).

So yes, the correct thing you do when you reach a set of contradictory statements (in this case, before transform one) is to reject the collection of assertions -- which would mean rejecting any question which contains both assertions as contradictory, hence inconsistent.

Which is why I reject the question as meaningless.

Duh!

But the part you are missing here, Einstein, is to show that both parts of the question necessarily follow from "God exists", as you have just implied they do. Sadly, they don't, unless you're into circular reasoning.

But you could assume them, if you'd like, by defining whatever kind of God you'd like to reason about. So if YOU choose to assume this definition of "God":

"If God exists, THEN he must be able to have both properties -- of making rocks that can't be moved, and also of having the power to move everything..."

... then, yes, then by "proof by negation", that specific God would not, indeed, exist.

But, once again, for those who weren't paying attention:

The JudeoChristian God is not such a God.

Again, please note the verses above where I show that the JudeoChristian God does not claim to be able to do logically exclusive things, as the particular god you hypothesize does. The JudeoChristian God explicitly states that he cannot contradict Himself, which makes him an entirely different entity, with different properties, than the god you just assumed and refuted.

And since you're refuting the wrong god, your argument is simply an example of another fallacy, one called "straw man argument", whereby you wrongly define your opponent's position in order to make it easier to refute.

Hey, but thanks for playing!

I think that enrollment's still open for ya... ;-)

I think everyone here has missed a key ingredient...if you believe in the Trinity, this question is not contradictory at all, and God can make a rock so heavy God cannot lift it, and still be God. The answer is simple. Jesus Christ was fully God, yet fully Human. As such, Jesus, despite being God, was intentionally limited to human strength and endurance, so a rock heavier than he could life was certainly within the realm of possibility. The key is, Jesus WILLINGLY limits Himself to human limits. God the Father creates the rock, Jesus the Son, in human form, cannot lift it. No contradiction, no proof God can't exist. I love it when I can have it both ways...

Nice way to put it David. Because Jesus is and was God and in his human form could not lift the rock that God made.

Your answers are too complex and don't capture the majestic simplicity of God.

- God can make a rock so big that there would be no place to move it to.

And, MacaroniGuy: God not only can make a rock so big there would be no place to move it to...he could continue to expand both the rock and the universe containing it, infinitely! The problem does not lie in the question of God's existence, it lies in our finite inability to grasp his infinite capability.

EarnestLee,

A desire to help in situations like yours are exactly why I wrote this. I'm glad you found this page, and thank you for posting; I'm touched.

the question being asked here, is just another one of satans tricks to try and decieve you, the question makes no sense. it is a sensless question, not even worthy of being asked, god is something that NOONE on earth will EVER understand, so how can a nonesense riddle answer a question that we as inperfect humans will never have the answer to? ladys, and gentelmen ,THERE IS A GOD! I BRING TO YOU A LINK, THAT WILL HELP YOU ON YOUR JOURNEY..... i just hope and pray that it brings hope and peace to you, as much as it did me........

http://www.godscare.net/hell/index1.htm

copy and paste that link to your browser,once on the web page click, where it says links, once there click where it says to hell and back... i hope you find your path to god more easier after viewing this video.

Joe: I am a bit surprised at your response. Jesus himself NEVER turned away people with tough questions...as long as they were honestly seeking. Jesus himself said "seek and ye shall find". Why is it that every difficult question about God has to be a trick of satan? Jesus certainly didn't think so. And why is it that questions about "understanding" God are off-limits. Is it true that human beings cannot fully understand God? Yes. Yet, God created our minds as well as our hearts. And, by the way, God is not someTHING that noone on earth will ever understand. He is someONE who any person can come to know and love. God does not hide himself from his creation, He does not make Himself unknowable. The Bible itself is not something written to cloak God in mystery. The Word of God is, in fact, the REVELATION of God. That verse in I Corinthians 2 we are so fond of quoting, "But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him." is followed by a more profound statement of God's intention toward his creation, "But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God". For a God who loves his children, no question is stupid and no honest inquiry is rejected. Yes, there is a God, and HE is in the business of continually revealing himself...wise men still seek him.

In addition to be a textboook case of replying without bothering to read the blog entry, the previous commenter also attests to the irrationality of the Sufi conception of God.

Whereas the Christian God is "limited" to only doing and being rational (i.e. non-contradictory) things, there are many who believe in an irrational God -- perhaps created in one's own image.

In response to the 2 questions:
Irresistable forse meets immobile object:
The Xmen remove said "force"'s helmet and the professor knocks him unconcious.

Can omnipotence make a rock it cannot move:
Yes, ither by being constrained physically(actuially too large) or by applying a limit(It's not that I CAN"T move it, it's that I WON'T), and in ither case there is still the ability to destroy it and create it again at a different location.

the definition of omnipotent is "One having unlimited power or authority". it doesn't stop at mathematics or any other man-made thing... what makes turning four sides into a circle any different from making it possible for a human being to walk on water? (which, by the way, is completely impossible) or any different than turning ONE loaf of break and fish into a big enough proportion to feed thosands of people.... or even making the homosapien creation from the dust... God is the producer of tsunamis, hurricanes, earthquakes, etc... so what's limiting his power? nothing. "allpowerful" = omnipotent

the question doesn't make sense, not because it contradicts itself... because it doesn't. the question is simply asking if God can do something so great that even HE can't change it. that doesn't contradict anything.

but we as humans aren't able to think on the level of a higher power... even if you're an atheist and you think we just got here... how did that happen? or whether you believe in darwins theory of evolution... who created the monkey we came from? our "human" minds aren't capable of understanding our very existence. God being omnipotent can do ANYTHING whether allowing a guy that's gotten shot in the head 7 times come out alive needing no surgery or if He's saying 1 plus 1 is 3. he's almighty... *KP*

Various responses...

Steve Johnston:

Your answers are too complex and don't capture the majestic simplicity of God.

The point of my answer is not to "capture" the "majestic simplicity" of anything -- God or otherwise. I'm simply noting a lower bound on a theistic conception of God. (And I don't see what's so complex about saying God is not self-contradictory.)

Many people prattle on about things which are "beyond reason" or "higher than categories". What they really mean are things that are below reason, illogical and contradictory.

The problem does not lie in the question of God's existence, it lies in our finite inability to grasp his infinite capability.

You're confusing two ideas: whether we can fully "grasp" God (we cannot), or whether "he" can have any attributes at all (he can indeed).

For example, let's say God is infinite and exists. We can understand "exists". (After all, we "exist", we understand that concept pretty well.) But we can't fully understand "infinite", since we have no experience of infinities. My inability to fully appreciate one attribute (say, infinity) doesn't negate my ability to appeciate another (say, existence).

Likewise, we can all hopefully grasp the idea of two statements which do NOT contradict each other. I suggest that understanding that which exists -- including any possible idea of god -- should begin at that mininal level. Sure, we'll never get the whole picture. But that's no excuse for failing to understand even the basics.

God, if he exists, has attributes. The proof is that if we say he has no attributes, we are still asserting he has an attribute (that of having no attributes) and are thus contradicting ourselves. In this life, you must choose between reason and irrationality. If we choose reason, we necessarily also mean that we exclude self-contradicting statements.

If you embrace irrational thinking you're not "exceeding" reason, you're simply a nut -- and a self-contradictory one at that, since you inevitably spend a lot of your life still pretending to "reason" about other things.

Anonymous:

dont u think that its arrogance to label wat u understand as rational and acceptable and just ignore tht which u dont? one cant understand GOD with such a state of mind.
plus if GOD was trapped and 'rational' and all we wudnt worship such a god would we?
sufi or not lol, fact is GOD is beyond understanding and transcendent.

You say it is "arrogant" because, at the core, you believe we simply made God up as a form of self-flattery. Personally, I don't buy that: the God I found was not at all, in many ways, the god I would have preferred. And the bible is hardly flattering to human character.

Atheists are fond of making pronouncements like: "Belief in Christianity and God is irrational." But the simple truth is Christianity (and Judaism) are rational beliefs (they believe a rational mind is behind existence) and thus were the exception to historical world religions.

For example consider Taoism:

The Tao is conceived as a supernatural essence, an underlying mystical force or princple governing life, but one that is impersonal, remote... and definitely not a being... According to Lao-tzu, the Tao is "always nonexistent" yet "always existent," "unnamable" and "the name that cannot be named." ... One might meditate forever on such an essence, but it offers little to reason about. (Stark, The Victory of Reason, pp. 5-6)

Chinese elite atheists didn't embrace reason. They embraced a Taoist or Buddhist conception of the universe, both which were anthetical to modern rationality and science. Thus China, even though its civilization had once been far more advanced than Europe's, never developed science. Instead, the Europeans found the Chinese living in poverty and squalor, without clocks, guns, eyeglasses, astronmy, printing presses, etc.

In contrast, contemporary Western "infidels" (deists, and later atheists) are simply people who have appropriated Christian rationality, theology, and values while wanting to evict the Christian god.

But without the belief in an over-arching, rational mind which gave the first scientists the idea that "law" might drive everything, our religious drive causes us to fall away from reason. And we're seeing that increasingly in our "post-Christian" culture today: probably without knowing why, people like Anonymous -- and even many who label themselves "atheist" or "Christian" -- are embracing a theology which says that irrationality is "beyond" rationality, that it is a "higher" belief to believe the ultimate is more like a rock (lacking reason) than like a person (capable of reason).

When the ultimate is impersonal, the impersonal becomes the ultimate.