Can God create a stone he cannot lift?

Question

If so, he is not all powerful because he cannot lift it.
If not, he is not all powerful because he cannot create it.
He may be able to choose not to be able to lift it, but then his choice has resulted in something which denies his omnipotence.
Does this dis-prove God?

Answer 1

Your observations misunderstand the proper, formal understanding of the concept of omnipotence.

The philosophical rationale is that a supreme being, God, cannot act in an illogical manner with respect to that being's divine and perfect attributes. Hence, God cannot make a rock so big that He could not move it, nor could God do anything that would be a logical contradiction to His divine nature.

Omnipotence means God can do everything **that is possible** within the boundaries of a supreme being. Omnipotence doesn’t mean that God can do anything. The concept of omnipotence has to do with power, not ability per se. In fact, there are many things God can’t do, for example,

- God can’t make square circles.

- God cannot lie.

- God is perfectly Good and can only do Good, therefore God cannot create nor do evil.

- What God has created in His image, God cannot annihilate (to erase from existence, to destroy completely).

- God cannot create a morally free creature that couldn’t choose evil or the creature would not be morally free to choose.

None of these, though, have to do with power. Instead, they are logically contradictory, and therefore contrary to God’s rational nature.

Answer 2

Can God create a stone so heavy that he cannot lift it? Yes, he can.

If so, he is not all powerful because he cannot lift it. Wrong. Your forget that God can create anything and everything. God can also change his mind. It is His choice and time when a stone is created, and whether He wants to move it or not. The freedom to choose started with God, not man.

The interesting part of your questions and comments is how you are putting limitations on God. Surprisingly, God does not have to conform to our thoughts and wishes. God does not have to have a relationship with us. He chooses to.

Whether each person chooses to believe in God or not is their choice. Choice is the key to most everything in our lives.

Does it disprove God? No, because God has nothing to prove.

Answer 3

Ah, an old one, but a good one. Let's see if they answer it this time.

The best answer I ever heard was, "yes". This student of Hermeneutics explained that Christianity was, after all, a mystic faith. He believe it transcended reason. In that context the Trinity makes perfect sense. So, for that matter dose Apollo's sun Chariot.

Let's not question the contradictions of a text, but instead let's ask why believe in God at all. The whole discussion begins with the statement, God is real. All that it appears we need to do to refute it is ask for evidence there of.

It is a mistake t spend to much time on the Ark, killer bears, the wife of Kane, or Resurrections. All need to do is ask for proof.

Glad for your question. I'm sure we'll all be laughing at the answers through the morning.

PS Good effort by AMDG

Answer 4

What stupid reasoning!
Just because he doesnt create something doesnt mean he cant create it. God created all the laws of the universe etc, a stone no matter how big is insignificant compared to those. All you can do is to think in a limited way inside your tiny little head (nothing personal, we're all the same) so trying to reason about things pertaining to God is a bit silly.
So, no it doesnt disprove God.

Answer 5

no, it does not disprove God. you are asking one of the most famous philosophical paradox questions out there. getting down to the base of the question you are asking if God can cripple himself (not necessarily physical crippling). can he cripple his own powers and make something that he cannot do. Another question would be could God sprain his ankles? the answer of course, is no. a perfect being cannot do something to make that same being imperfect. it is not a limitation of powers, however it is an absence of of existence, ie. that object which would make God imperfect, un-omnipotent simply does not and cannot exist. Thomas Aquinas, one of the early centuries philosophers believed that "the paradox can indeed be viewed as a straightforward logical impossibility, in that it frames an inability ("cannot lift it") as an attribute of total ability (omnipotence), rather than its absence or negation."

Answer 6

Yes, god creates stones he cannot lift, but in the end, it is not god that lifts the stone, but your belief that god can lift the stone. the stone is only a physical blockade between your faith in gods power.

"GOD" is only a mental creation of power, not a physical person or power. If you bevlieve in god, an believe the stone can move, it will.
If you believe in god and believe the stone is too heavey to move, it won't

Answer 7

No, because it misconstrues what omnipotence is. Omnipotence doesn't mean God can do anything, but that God can do anything POSSIBLE. Since God has total control over all material objects, a rock He cannot lift is not a possible construct. Hence, His inability to create it does not refute His omnipotence.

Answer 8

This does not disprove God. Because you are asking people without total knowledge a totally hypothetical question. It would be like asking a person off the street what Donald Trump's net worth is, and because they wouldn't be able to tell you, using that as proof he is poor.

Answer 9

nicely if the god is all-powerful shouldn't he have the capacity to create logical contradictions as nicely? So the God makes a stone that he can't strengthen AND he can strengthen on the comparable time. And he makes that logical contradiction achieveable. it is actual susceptible argument against God's omnipotence.

Answer 10

So, this question has reared its ugly head yet again. . .

God and Omnipotence
The paradox of the stone, as presented by Wade Savage:
1. Either God can create a stone that God cannot lift, or God cannot create a stone that God cannot lift – there are no other possibilities.
2. If God can create a stone that God cannot lift, then there is at least one thing that God cannot do (i.e., lift that stone).
3. If God cannot create a stone that God cannot lift, then there is at least one thing that God cannot do (i.e., create that stone).
4. From the combination of 1, 2 and 3, it follows that there is at least one thing that God cannot do.
5. If God is omnipotent, then God can do anything.
6. Therefore, God is not omnipotent.

What this argument apparently shows is that omnipotence is impossible (or, that the notion of omnipotence is incoherent). Thus, God cannot be omnipotent (as nothing can be).

Suggested solutions to the paradox St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274):
Aquinas defines as “absolutely impossible” any thing where the “predicate is altogether incompatible with the subject” (his example: “man is an ***” (in the non-metaphorical sense)). With this in mind:
Whatever implies contradiction does not come within the scope of divine omnipotence, because it cannot have the aspect of possibility. Hence it is more appropriate to say that such things cannot be done, than that God cannot do them.

That is, to be omnipotent involves being able to do all things that are possible. For example, it is not considered a limit to my powers that I cannot draw a square circle. That’s impossible, so it’s no failing that I can’t do it – it cannot be done.

BUT: surely I can make a thing that is too heavy for me to lift, so that task is not impossible, so if God can’t do it, that really is a limit to his power.

George Mavrodes (1926-):
Mavrodes responds that although “a stone too heavy for Simon Cushing to lift” is not a contradictory notion, “a stone too heavy for an omnipotent being to lift” is a contradictory notion.
Mavrodes’s argument in full:
1. Either God is omnipotent or he is not.
2. If God is not omnipotent, then the fact that he cannot do something (either make or lift the stone) is unsurprising.
3. If God is omnipotent, then, by definition, there necessarily cannot be a stone that is too heavy for him to lift (otherwise he would not be omnipotent).
4. If there necessarily cannot be such a stone, then it is an impossibility.
5. By Aquinas’s reasoning, even an omnipotent being cannot perform impossibilities.
6. Therefore, by definition, inability to create a stone too heavy for one to lift is no barrier to being omnipotent. (In fact, only non-omnipotent beings can create objects too heavy for themselves to lift.)

BUT: both Aquinas and Mavrodes assume that God cannot do impossible things. Is this right? Descartes, for one, thought not. Descartes believed God could make 2+2=5. Why? Because otherwise you are suggesting that God is bound by the laws of logic. But if God created the laws of logic, why should he be bound by them? Couldn’t he have made them differently?

Harry Frankfurt:
However, if we assume that God can do impossible things, then God can create a stone too heavy for him to lift (which is supposedly impossible). Furthermore, if he can do that, then he can go one stage further and lift that stone (also impossible – but what’s the difference between doing one impossible thing and doing two?)
BUT: doesn’t that mean that the stone he created was not a stone too heavy for him to lift, and that we’re back to the situation of him being unable to create such a stone? Not according to Frankfurt:
If an omnipotent being can do what is logically impossible, then he can not only create situations which he cannot handle but also, since he is not bound by the limits of consistency, he can handle situations which he cannot handle. [256]
That doesn’t seem to make sense – but that’s because “sense” is limited to logical possibility.

To recap:
There are two options for an omnipotent being:
1. Omnipotence means the ability to everything that is logically possible but nothing that is logically impossible. In this case, by definition, an omnipotent being can lift any rock, and therefore “a rock too heavy for an omnipotent being to lift” is an impossibility. In that case, however, inability to create such a rock is no barrier to omnipotence, because no omnipotent being can do the impossible.
HOWEVER: why limit omnipotence to logical possibility?
2. Omnipotence includes the ability to logically impossible things.
In this case (says Frankfurt) an omnipotent being could create and lift a stone too heavy for him to lift, both of which are impossible, but that’s no problem for somebody omnipotent!
HOWEVER: taking this option removes the discussion from one that makes sense to humans, because it allows God both to exist and not exist at the same time, or to sin and be good at the same time.

Can God sin?
Similar problem: if God can sin, then he is not wholly good. But if he can’t sin, then he is not omnipotent.

Suggested solutions
Aquinas: Two options
Either: it’s true to say “If God wants he could sin”, which allows that he can sin. But he won’t ever because (by his nature) he will never want to.
Or: God can do absolutely anything, rape, murder, whatever, but by definition, because he defines what is good, if he did it it would be good. (This is essentially the Divine Command Theory – or perhaps, the Divine Action Theory.)

William of Ockham:
Again, assume that an omnipotent being can only do what is possible. Also assume that the definition of “sin” is “whatever is opposed to God’s will”. To sin, God would have to will what is opposed to his will, which is impossible. Thus, the fact that he cannot sin doesn’t prove he’s not omnipotent.