Fadl

One of the Paradoxes we often here related to the omnipotence of God is this:

Can God make a stone heavy enough that He cannot lift it? The logic follows that if God is omnipotent, He can do anything. But if he can make a rock so heavy that He can't lift it, then he is not omnipotent because he can't lift the stone. If he can't make such a stone, then he is not omnipotent either. Conclusion: God is not omnipotent.

So I got to thinking about this. The reason why I've titled the thread "a rock small enough for God to lift" is because it raises the question: How does God lift any stone, large or small?

If we accept that goes is not physical and possesses neither hands, arms, legs or back to lift anything at all, then it is important to think about how God would in fact accomplish lifting anything, regardless of its size. One way that God might accomplish something is through agency. He might inspire into someone to lift something, and through that act of inspiration, the lifting gets accomplished according to his will. If God wanted lifted a stone so small it couldn't be seen, perhaps he inspires an insect to flutter and the rock is lift by the air current. But what about a stone so large that God could not lift it?

First of all, God cannot directly lift any stone, whether big or small. God merely wills something, and it gets done. He doesn't directly interact with anything, since such an interaction, corporeal/incorporeal is meaningless. But suppose, for the sake of entertaining our foolish fancy, God were willing to play along in our game, and consents to create a stone so heavy that He cannot lift it, while at the same time, preserving his own omnipotence.

Method 1: is to command or create an agent to carry out God's will to lift the stone that is so heavy God cannot lift it. This means that the mass of this stone would necessarily correspond in someway to the limitations of corporeal existence and the laws of physics since it involves a material stone, and a material agent. In this scenario, the stone would likely take on the properties of a stellar object that is just small enough, and just massive enough that it could be interacted with by that agent of God doing the lifting without destroying that agent so that it could make the attempt, but large enough that the agent will fail. That stone is thus too heavy for God to lift, yet God's omnipotence is intact because the failure stems from the limitation inherent in the capacity of that agent, and not in God.

Another variant of method 1 that is much less exotic and just as valid, is for God to inspire an ant to move a boulder, beyond the capacity of that ant, thus the stone is one so big God can't move (in that scenario), yet God's omnipotence is intact. I know most of you won't like method 1, and maybe its not even sound logically, so let's look at method 2.

Method two:

God consents to will into being a stone so big that he cannot even will it into being moved (since God still has no hands, etc.). A stone as heavy as this would certainly have infinite mass, and become an infinite singularity (black hole) the like of which would consume the entire universe until nothing remained other than this stone of infinite mass. This method has several experimental problems, however. First, none of us could exist to witness it, because the universe itself is now consumed by the infinite mass of the stone. But for the sake of argument, imagine that somehow you could float in nonexistence (there is no universe anymore, remember?) and watch God move that stone, God could will the stone to move, but you could never observe that it moved. Why? Because motion is meaningless without objects to relate motion too.

In other words, lifting is too move one object away from the center of gravity of the earth or some other object. Therefore, the stone would not be able to be lifted by God, because there is nothing remaining to lift it relative too. Nevertheless, God's omnipotence is intact.

Another variation of Method two, that doesn't involve weight or mass, is for God to take any stone, maybe a very small stone, say, a speck of dust, and will all other things out of existence. With no other existing things, this speck of dust could not be lifted, because there would be nothing to lift it relative too.

The way I see it, God could certainly make a rock so heavy he couldn't lift it, and he could then create a new universe, thus preserving his omnipotence. The trouble is, which of us would be omnipotent enough to witness it?

aidan

Why might I want to contemplate this Fadl?

Fadl

I don't know, but cleverer men than we have entertained this and other paradoxes for centuries. Also it such paradoxes that atheists like to use to disprove certain attributes of God such as omnipotence to then disprove God.

arthra

God consents to will into being a stone so big that he cannot even will it into being moved (since God still has no hands, etc.). A stone as heavy as this would certainly have infinite mass,

A lot like

"Can God create a rock so heavy that even he cannot lift it?"

The omnipotence paradox goes back to the 12th century..

Omnipotence paradox - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Fadl

Yes, that's the one I was playing with. Does it seem like a solution?

If God made a rock so heavy even He couldn't lift it, such a rock would have infinite mass and density. A rock of infinite mass would be a colossal singularity (black hole) consume and destroy the universe. with nothing relative to the rock (since the universe is gone) it cannot not be lifted, because lifted from what? Therefore, the rock cannot be lifted by God and He is still omnipotent. We should NOT be asking God to make a rock such as this.

Yeshua

Nihil est, quod deus efficere non possit ("there is nothing that God cannot do") - Cicero

Fadl

I agree, but here is what I am suggesting. If there were only one thing that existed (a rock of infinite mass) then God 'not being able to lift it' is not a chink in the omnipotence of God, because the problem lies in the meaning of the word 'lift' and not being able to lift such a stone at that point becomes merely semantics. The word 'lift' has no meaning without one object to relate to another object. Therefore, such an object cannot be "lifted" by God, and God is still omnipotent, because impotence of language does not equate impotence of God.

Even if you want to change the verb lift with move, the same truth still holds. Motion without two objects to relate, has no meaning. Even when you have many objects, each object, according to relativity theory, states that any object has the right to regard itself as motionless, and other objects as moving. As this would apply to all objects, then all objects are both moving and not moving depending on perspective.

If there was only one object in existence (an infinitely massive stone) then it could be considered equally as moving or motionless, since there would be nothing else to relate it to. Therefore, God is both moving and not moving the stone, there is no contradiction, and His omnipotence is intact.

LordOfGoblins

Fadl. If you would indulge me because your explanation does not make sense to me. Perhaps this is related to the 'exist' vs 'non exist' thing which we have different perspectives on...
If you do not define the ability to lift as a measure of Gods omnipotence, then what is? The question of whether he can lift the stone or not is just a vehicle to measure the omnipotence. I could equally say "can God create an ocean too vast enough for him to dry up"? It is the same thing.



So this is my opinion: Gods omnipotence can not be measured relative to himself. It can only be measured relative to us. Therefore he cannot "outdo" himself so to speak. It is like saying. "Can God become More-powerful" than the title, "all-powerful". The answer is no because all-powerful would result in a rock that is infinately heavy, which God still has the power to lift. Thus he is omnipotent in the sense that we are week and he is powerful infinitely so. As to his power when compared to himself, well we have no idea of that... It really does not matter though since it is completely out of our sphere of relevance and comprehension.
cheers

aidan

Someone please dynamite this rock so that people will return to useful discourse!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

LordOfGoblins

hehe
Brother Aiden. If you think about my explanation you might see that it also explains why God cannot manifest himself as a man. The logical conclusion of what I said above is that power cannot -> weekness. Therefore God cannot-> human being...
If this makes sense? I know I simplified it but it is capable of showing this impossiblilty which matches what Abdul'Baha says about the impossiblity of God becoming a human-being literally speaking. I hope I am not overdoing it here... thankyou.

aidan

God is omnipotent and omiscient as we so often quote when praying.History has shown that God will not work outside of the laws of nature,laws which He created.

Fadl

Brother,

There is really no bigger waste of time, that what you just wrote.

All anyone has to do in a forum is engage in what interests him or her and not be bothered with that which doesn't...right?

aidan

ok

Fadl

I like these thoughts, very much LOG. Very well said.

I'm not sure if it works, however, as a thought experiment that I can use with an atheist raising the traditional omnipotence paradox, and that's kind of what I'm shooting for here.

Do you think that the thought experiment I came up with is logical? I would like someone to attack the logic in my idea and kick it around, because maybe it's no good! It does seem OK to me so far, but I'd love to have it torn down if possible to learn from it.

Fadl

If I follow you, what you mean to say is that nature is the instrument of God and that he commands it to carry out his will, rather than to say that God will not work outside nature himself, as God is supernatural and by definition outside nature himself, no?

If yes, then I agree with you.

armin

Similar to what Abdu'lbaha has said, the stone no matter how heavy, is in a sub-par reality than God. Mathematically speaking, there are different kinds of infinities. The stone can be infinitely heavy but this infinity is a member of the bigger infinity of God. The relative matters I think are insignificant. The existence of this world or the creation of that infinitely heavy stone does not need to be explained in any relative world, though we can of course, but I find it unnecessary. Even if we assume that the stone is created in a different universe than ours without any other matter in it, and assuming that the action of lifting is still possible, the infinity of the mass of the stone is inferior to God's infinity.

Fadl

But the challenge I'm tackling is this: If God is omnipotent he should be able to create a stone so heavy he can't lift it. If he can't create it, then he is not omnipotent. If he cannot lift it, the he is not omnipotent.

It seems that a stone so heavy God couldn't lift would have a minimum infinite mass, and, something of such mass would collapse the universe on itself into a singularity that is as massive as the whole universe such as the one that may have existed at the beginning of the universe before the big bang. Since there would now be nothing else except that stone of infinite mass (singularity) there could be no neither lifting nor not lifting, moving or not moving as all such terms are meaningless without two or more physical bodies. Therefore, we cannot say lifting or not lifting, since it is illogical without something to lift relative to. We could however, say simultaneously that it is moving and not moving, since, with no absolute reference and with nothing to relate to, both statements are equivalent. Therefore, God can make a stone so heavy he cannot lift it, and this in no way subtracts from his omnipotence.

armin

I get what you're saying Fadl. That's just the way I see it. I have given this problem some thought before and that's pretty much how I settled it for myself. One thing I tried to explain though, and that I somewhat object to your conclusion as a result, is that there's no need to see this problem in a physical sense or explain it in our own universe. It's a philosophical question, and thus we can make things simpler rather than relying on things such as singularity and physics in general.

In my view approaching this philosophical question is best done mathematically. They both address abstractions. How would you go about explaining this problem with the following setting. It's a completely new universe with no matter in it whatsoever. The question is if God can create a stone too heavy to be lifted by Himself. What would be the mass of that stone? We have no other way of answering this question other than saying the mass is infinite. And this is how I sort of made my conclusion that even though the mass is infinite, as heavy as that stone can possibly get, this infinite is an element of the bigger infinite set of God (in my view, whenever we reach infinity in any way then we are more or less impotent to come to a clear conclusion. We are incapable of understanding infinite values inherently. The best that our brightest have come up with is that name a big enough number, and add 1 or any number you want to it, and infinity is just bigger than that, simply put.)

Again this whole universe is an inferior reality to God. You can raise the infinite weight of that stone to infinity and still get an infinity that is no match for God's infinite being. I see the whole question as a contradiction but pondering things like this is interesting. The contradiction being that we are defining God with characteristics similar to our own world and our own set of laws and understanding.

Fadl

Armin,

It's not that I am disagreeing with you, but I wish you would tackle the argument as it is framed in the paradox, and the approach I am attempting to solve it with for a few reasons.

First, the paradox is framed from a materialist view point. A stone is something material, weight and mass are material characteristics. It is certainly true what you've said, and of course God transcends this universe and is a spiritual reality, not a physical one. Nevertheless, it is this same transcendent God who has created the material realm, and he has absolute dominion over it. Therefore, I think it's OK to exam this paradox from the material side, not withstanding the fact that God is still transcendent above material existence and exalted above our comprehension and logic.

Typically this argument is waged by atheists bent on proving that the idea of God itself is illogical by attacking one of his alleged attributes such as omnipotence. By "proving" God cannot be omnipotent, they feel that one of the legs upon which God stands on is removed, which is the whole point of it. Now we no that God is even transcendent above any attribution whatsoever, including the human concept of omnipotence, and I am aware of that and not arguing against it.

However, since I do feel it is important to engage with anyone from some point of common ground, at least to begin, I've tried to consider this paradox form a materialist point of view to see if I might come up with some sort of a solution from it. I'm really not sure if I've succeeded at that. It may have some logical flaw that a materialist would point out. This is why I was hoping some of you might not mind humoring me and kicking it around and see if it can stand up on logical grounds, even if it is defective, in my view, from the fact that it is so materialistic in its approach.

armin

I see your point Fadl. I looked at it strictly in a philosophical way and tried to resolve the issue, at least for myself. Convincing others was not something I considered but I think there are still some valid points in my point of view; they rather attack the validity of the question as opposed to answer it though.

My personality is more of a, leave them to themselves, kind of thing. Of course we should talk to anyone and I have engaged in conversations with atheists in the past. But I think someone who holds this kind of ideas as a logical proof in his mind to comfort him that he's right, is not all that susceptible to the spiritual realm and the teachings of the faith. When I get the feeling that the person is not susceptible or ready I just let it be. "But" more power to you and others who can continue and see it worthwhile.

Fadl

All very good points, Armin. This might be closer to my heart than yours because my wife was gripped by the cold despairing fingers of atheism for many years before Baha'u'llah saved her.

With evangelical and charismatic atheism (yes, I know!) on the rise, we will be faced more and more with these kind of materialistically bound logical arguments, and, these arguments sadly do win converts for them from among those who had weak and erroneous theological views to begin with. I hate to leave them completely alone though, because atheism can really be a horrible and debilitating sickness, so we ought to fight it back if we can. To this end I hope someone will humor me and attack the solution I have presented to see if it can stand or not, since I'm really not sure that it doesn't contain some glaring error that one of you might expose, and that would be a good thing!