God and the Immovable Rock

[Fonceai]

Atlas mentioned this elsewhere, and I thought it was an entertaining enough of a topic to deserve its own thread.

Can God create an immovable rock?

Let's define some things first.

By God, we are talking about an omnipotent being.

By immovable, we mean that it is impossible for the rock to the be moved, lifted, or otherwise acted on in a way that changes its position.

I won't get into the elaboration of different scenarios... I'll leave that to those who chose to explore the topic!

--- EDIT ---

This is meant to be fun. No pushing people's buttons. No being belligerent because you can get away with it. The point is to discuss if God can cancel out his own omnipotence.

[phoenix_fire]

I don't get it. What's the point?

[Lotharia]

Fantasizing an omnipotent being can be fun, I guess.

[Osborn F Enready]

I would suppose that if there could be a god as you speak of, there could also be immovable rocks, flying pigs, and rainbow colored unicorns.

Why would logic have any effect on something that is almost entirely based in fiction, ignoring most of the facts we have proven to be true and the physical model we live in, which we have proven exists.

Now, I am not saying there isn't or couldn't be a god, but I highly doubt it is an "omnipotent being" as many people imagine, or as many people put forth in text.

What do you mean by immovable?

Immovable by mans direct, or indirect action?

I think we can NOW move the earth(very big rock) by indirect action, and it is the earth which anchors our idea of immobility(pun intended) thereby bringing in the idea of which explanation is relevant to immovable.

All rocks we know exist, are moving, as time and space are moving and all things reside within time and space.

So no, no immovable rocks in my opinion.

[phoenix_fire]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready I think we can NOW move the earth(very big rock) by indirect action, and it is the earth which anchors our idea of immobility(pun intended) thereby bringing in the idea of which explanation is relevant to immovable.

You mean like this?

[Atlas]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready What do you mean by immovable? Immovable by mans direct, or indirect action? I think we can NOW move the earth(very big rock) by indirect action, and it is the earth which anchors our idea of immobility(pun intended) thereby bringing in the idea of which explanation is relevant to immovable. All rocks we know exist, are moving, as time and space are moving and all things reside within time and space. So no, no immovable rocks in my opinion.

Quoted by me in "Proof that God does not exist":

Is almighty god powerful enough to create a rock that even he could not destroy ?

I changed it a bit to exclude smartass gravity related comments...

I predicted your kind of logic here as I thought of it myself when I was asked that question...

[Fonceai]

@OFE

You miss the point of the exercise.

@phoenix

It's an atheist argument meant to demonstrate that there can be no such thing as God.

If God, as I defined, cannot create an immovable rock, then God is not omnipotent. Therefore, God could not exist.

If God can create a rock that even He cannot move, then again he is not omnipotent. Therefore, God could not exist.

On another forum I posed a scenario where God cannot create the rock and still have it not contradict omnipotence.

[lsbskins1]

An Omnipotent God could create a rock that would be immovable by any force except his own. This would convince the flock of his omnipotence, while not contradicting it in fact. An omnicient God would not create such a rock because it would lead to these kind of discussions.

[Lotharia]

Quote by: lsbskins1 An Omnipotent God could create a rock that would be immovable by any force except his own.

Great. But that wasn't the question.

[lsbskins1]

Quote by: Lotharia Great. But that wasn't the question.

Well, it was not specified that it was immovable even by his own force. Omnipotent means omnipotent. It means all powerful. It, by definition, implies that he can control the rock. He created the rock, he is omnipotent, he can move the rock. They go together. An omnipotent God can not create something more powerful than all powerful. All is all. See.

[joseph2622]

I say we blow every rock and see if God exists...If our planet becomes destroyed, then he does not exist...But if the earth is still able to follow is orbital movement, he does exist... Simple as that, I'll bring the nitroglycerin

[tivodan1116]

Quote by: Fonceai @OFE You miss the point of the exercise.

You did not specify the point in the OP. Some of the more perceptive posters, who know what goes on around here (including OFE who I surmise was having a little fun with it) already knew your point.

@phoenix It's an atheist argument meant to demonstrate that there can be no such thing as God.

And that it is. However, it is a poor one.

If God, as I defined, cannot create an immovable rock, then God is not omnipotent. Therefore, God could not exist. If God can create a rock that even He cannot move, then again he is not omnipotent. Therefore, God could not exist.

There's the classic argument. And yet it is flawed.

If God, as I defined

And there is the flaw. The atheist, the one who says G(g)od does not exist, is defining what god is. The fact is, omnipotent or not, singular or plural, every religion has a different idea of what god(s) is/are.

Your argument/hypothesis/problem is meaningless. It is akin to holding out an empty outstretched hand and saying "the dollar bill I have in my hand does not exist". Of course it doesn't, because you have defined it in such parameters that it cannot. In that situation, your hypothesis is true, but it does not preclude the fact that the dollar bill in my pocket does exist.

In order to prove something does or does not exist, you have to start with a set of parameters to push against. Setting the parameters yourself does not accomplish anything, since it will always result in the answer you were looking for.

[Fonceai]

@tivodan

The point is for a discussion.

Should I put something in the OP that says this is meant to be a break from insult-ridden posts that the mods have let slide lately?

There...

OP edited in a way that addresses your post to me, and will hopefully make this a more relaxed thread, as I'm getting sick of the constant button-pushing.

[Fonceai]

Quote by: tivodan And there is the flaw. The atheist, the one who says G(g)od does not exist, is defining what god is. The fact is, omnipotent or not, singular or plural, every religion has a different idea of what god(s) is/are.

In the context of the discussion, use the God I defined.

Relax. Have fun with it.

[Nathan Struth]

No this is a certain kind of paradox, it doesn't disprove god and there's a way that you can solve these kind of paradoxes. If we had a logician it'd be really nice you know. I believe this is an omnipotence paradox.

[Atlas]

Quote by: Fonceai Can God create an immovable rock?

After some thought I came up with a pretty simple answer for this:

Assuming that god is omnipotent, as most monotheist religions do, then he can create the rock, the real question here is -

Can god permanently erase some of his powers by his own will ? or he is stuck with his almightiness forever ?

The answer is - of course he can, after all he is omnipotent, isn't he ?

But as soon as he creates that rock that he can't move, he is no longer omnipotent, he sacrifices his omnipotence to create it, therefore, if god = omnipotence, he is no longer god as it is defined, it's like locking a house from outside with the only key, and then throwing it inside through the window, another question is - is god stupid enough to actually do it ?

[Fonceai]

I had an answer for it based on science and math, of sorts.

Bear with it and keep an open mind without getting too... err... anal.

As posed, God is presumed omnipotent.

Omnipotent is, essentially, infinite power.

An immovable rock is presumed to have infinite immovability.

Could one infinite quantity create another infinite quantity?

There are two answers to this question... yes and no, and they both preserve God's omnipotence without paradox. The foundation is as follows:

If God has infinite power then he has to have infinite energy from which you draw that power. I'm going to abbreviate infinity as INF, since I can't use the infinity symbol...

INF - ~INF = INF
INF / ~INF = INF
~INF / INF = ~0

INF - INF = 0

In order to create something infinite would require infinite energy.

Using the foundation listed above, here are the possibilities:

Yes... God could create the rock if and only if he completely drained himself in doing so. This preserves that God could indeed create a rock of infinite immovability and also not be able to move it himself.

No... God could never create the rock. By doing so, he would have to completely drain himself of all power. Being God, that is impossible, so no matter how immovable the rock became, God would still have the power to move it.

---

The Yes answer is based on simple subtraction.

The No answer is based on a theoretical scientific concept where, in any system, there can be only one infinite quantity.

[Mr. Blue Sky]

God could create a rock that he could not move. He could then, after creating this rock, make himself more powerful and then able to lift the rock. He's like a guy who found a genie with no bounds to his wishes, and asked "can I get infinity wishes, dude?" for his 3rd wish. If he ever finds or creates something he cannot move, he can just increase his power.

[Eclipse]

Nevermind. Now that I've read the context of the thread entirely.

[samsara15]

Insisting on infinites always leads to problems. Why not a finite God, with finite powers? Nature seems to abhore infinites, although logic doesn't.

You could ask this, if you like paradoxes: Could God un-create himself, so that he had never existed?