Does it answer the question?

[HonorBoundKnight]

I can't count the number of times someone has asked me the classical, unanswerable question, "If God is all powerful, can he create a rock so big that he can't lift it?" If one says yes, the reponse is that he can't lift the rock, so he's not all powerful, so he's not God. If one says no, he can't create the rock- same deal.

I've pondered this question for quite some time, and came up with something that might actually answer it.

1> If an all powerful being states that something cannot/will never happen, then that thing cannot/will never happen. The being's all powerful nature dictates this- as a statement of fact, it becomes an exertion of power.

2> If two all-powerful forces contradict each other, their force will become negated in a stalemate, with neither able to progress. In the case of a situation like this- the countering all-powerful source would not be able to go beyond the bounds of the statement, as the statement's force would be equal and opposite to its own.

3> The fact that God either cannot make a rock too heavy for Himself to lift, or cannot lift said rock, then becomes- instead of disproof of His all-powerful nature- solid proof that His all-powerful nature exists. If He were not all-powerful, then His statement would not hold an all-powerful force, and he would be able to counter it at will, just as we can break OUR word and do/not do what we said we couldn't/could.

It's not my best writing, as it's currently about 2:00 A.M. where I am. But it should be clear enough for its meaning to be ascertained without too much trouble.

So?  

[Sinner]

HonorBoundKnight

2> If two all-powerful forces contradict each other, their force will become negated in a stalemate, with neither able to progress. In the case of a situation like this- the countering all-powerful source would not be able to go beyond the bounds of the statement, as the statement's force would be equal and opposite to its own.

What? Where'd you pull that one from?

HonorBoundKnight

If He were not all-powerful, then His statement would not hold an all-powerful force, and he would be able to counter it at will, just as we can break OUR word and do/not do what we said we couldn't/could.

That is almost completely incomprehensible. However, from what I was able to glean from it, the flaw seems to be the assumption that omnipotence is required to make an object too heavy for an omnipotent being to lift.  

[Seority]

xd
I never knew God had arms
xd

 

[ioioouiouiouio]

The question itself is flawed. It forgets the very definition of 'omnipotence'. If a truely omnipotent being were able to create a rock so heavy that it couldn't lift then 'omnipotent' would not actually mean 'all-powerful', merely 'very powerful'.

Of course, this also assumes that God is omnipotent, which He is not. God can do all things, the difference, while subtle, is very important.  

[Sinner]

Cometh The Inquisitor

The question itself is flawed. It forgets the very definition of 'omnipotence'. If a truely omnipotent being were able to create a rock so heavy that it couldn't lift then 'omnipotent' would not actually mean 'all-powerful', merely 'very powerful'.

That's ridiculous. If a being could not create a rock with a certain property, then it wouldn't be all powerful.

Cometh The Inquisitor

Of course, this also assumes that God is omnipotent, which He is not. God can do all things, the difference, while subtle, is very important.

While I agree that there is a difference, I don't see how it applies to this question. Creating and lifting are both actions, after all.  

[BDSaint13]

My thoughts are that God is a being that is incomprehensible.

You can't truely assume everything about God.

Brain......not working....... crud......


Had a great thought but its gone......

Darn  

[Death T-2]

Quite ironic, I'm writing an ametuer paper on this myself. I think perhaps big flaws in the actual question are that is assumes that this rock will be created on Earth or a similar planet, while in fact God is holding up this entire galaxy, at least, in all proper rotations. So the rock must be greater than the MIlky Way. But of course, in order to lift this rock it has to be put somewhere to lift it [or not lift it]. So God can either make a rock and set it on nothing [or everything, if you count the rest of the universe] and lift it, or a giant and incomprehensible platform to make the rock on then lift or not. Either way, god will be lifting and not lifting the rock at the same time.
Or maybe if God can create a rock out of pure nothing, He is God. It's way more than what I can do.

I have more to this essay, but I don't have a grasp of how to get the scientific characters in a computer document and it's still rather a rough draft.  

[Sinner]

Death T-2

Quite ironic, I'm writing an ametuer paper on this myself. I think perhaps big flaws in the actual question are that is assumes that this rock will be created on Earth or a similar planet, while in fact God is holding up this entire galaxy, at least, in all proper rotations. So the rock must be greater than the MIlky Way. But of course, in order to lift this rock it has to be put somewhere to lift it [or not lift it]. So God can either make a rock and set it on nothing [or everything, if you count the rest of the universe] and lift it, or a giant and incomprehensible platform to make the rock on then lift or not. Either way, god will be lifting and not lifting the rock at the same time.

Wow. I cannot conceive of any way to miss the point even more than that.  

[Tarrou]

Actually, there's really nothing ironic about it at all.  

[HonorBoundKnight]

Sinner

HonorBoundKnight

2> If two all-powerful forces contradict each other, their force will become negated in a stalemate, with neither able to progress. In the case of a situation like this- the countering all-powerful source would not be able to go beyond the bounds of the statement, as the statement's force would be equal and opposite to its own.

What? Where'd you pull that one from?

You really should be a bit more precise in your arguments/degrading statements. (I can't even tell which it's supposed to be.)

Are you reffering to the idea that two equal forces, upon collision, would not be able to overcome each other? Because that's just logic- there's no pulling anything from anywhere.

Or are you reffering to the idea that the statement would be backed by the power of the being that made it?

Whatever the case, please explain more thouroughly so as to actually give something remeniscent of an argument- or at least something that pulls forward discussion.

Sinner

HonorBoundKnight

If He were not all-powerful, then His statement would not hold an all-powerful force, and he would be able to counter it at will, just as we can break OUR word and do/not do what we said we couldn't/could.

That is almost completely incomprehensible. However, from what I was able to glean from it, the flaw seems to be the assumption that omnipotence is required to make an object too heavy for an omnipotent being to lift.

Um, yes? Due to the nature of omnipotence being 'all powerful', it would require something 'all powerful' or greater to keep an omnipotent being from doing something.

Seority

xd
I never knew God had arms
xd

Who said anything about God having arms?  

[Sinner]

HonorBoundKnight

You really should be a bit more precise in your arguments/degrading statements. (I can't even tell which it's supposed to be.)

Are you reffering to the idea that two equal forces, upon collision, would not be able to overcome each other? Because that's just logic- there's no pulling anything from anywhere.

Or are you reffering to the idea that the statement would be backed by the power of the being that made it?

Whatever the case, please explain more thouroughly so as to actually give something remeniscent of an argument- or at least something that pulls forward discussion.

The entire paragraph is pure speculation. You can't support any of that with anything besides "It sounds like it makes sense."

HonorBoundKnight

Um, yes? Due to the nature of omnipotence being 'all powerful', it would require something 'all powerful' or greater to keep an omnipotent being from doing something.

Once again, an entirely speculative assumption. Saying that is easy, but can you back it up?  

[HonorBoundKnight]

Sinner

HonorBoundKnight

You really should be a bit more precise in your arguments/degrading statements. (I can't even tell which it's supposed to be.)

Are you reffering to the idea that two equal forces, upon collision, would not be able to overcome each other? Because that's just logic- there's no pulling anything from anywhere.

Or are you reffering to the idea that the statement would be backed by the power of the being that made it?

Whatever the case, please explain more thouroughly so as to actually give something remeniscent of an argument- or at least something that pulls forward discussion.

The entire paragraph is pure speculation. You can't support any of that with anything besides "It sounds like it makes sense."

HonorBoundKnight

Um, yes? Due to the nature of omnipotence being 'all powerful', it would require something 'all powerful' or greater to keep an omnipotent being from doing something.

Once again, an entirely speculative assumption. Saying that is easy, but can you back it up?

Unfortunately- no. Due to the fact that the entire subject is speculation, it's impossible to bring up solid evidence. So until God decides to /to see if He can create a rock that he can't lift, and decides to let us all in on the results, we're stuck with - Does it sound like it makes sense? Or no.  

[Seority]

HonorBoundKnight

Who said anything about God having arms?

I was being silly. God is a spiritual being though right? xd He doesn't need arms anyway.  

[ElenaMason]

This question is a ridiculous contradicted idea.

why? because God is an ALL powerful being. he could create a 50 billion ton rock and still lift it.

also your refering to a "spiritual being" vs. a "physical item" these contradicted questions date back to the middle ages.

its no different the question they asked back then "how many angels can dance/fit on the top of a pin?"

again, your putting a "spiritual being" vs. a "physical item".

no offense, but this is pointless to argue logically.