Tired of that "Rock so big" nonsense?

[CTD___]

One frequently encounters one form or another of the question "Could God make an object/rock/etc so large/heavy/etc that He Himself wouldn't be able to move/destroy it." My response (and all the reasoning here is my own, although it's likely others have figured it out on their own) is "Yes. In fact He has already done so."

That's the short answer, but it isn't very instructional. So for those who have patience, I provide the long answer. There is a medium answer, but it overlooks several important aspects.

The first thing I notice about this question is that it isn't really about God. Rather, it is about the definition of 'omnipotence'. It takes a particular definition of the term to satisfy the scoffer; a definition worthy of a small child, and a stubborn one at that; one unwilling to learn. Suppose I can do anything at all, but my capacity is such that I may need a thousand years or more to construct tools and gather resources, and formulate plans - stuff like that. Am I 'omnipotent'? Oooh! The experienced scoffer has to think about that one. The inexperienced just says "no".

There is a great danger here. If I can make an object over the course of 1000 years that I won't immediately be able to move/destroy/etc. that would mean the question can be answered in the affirmative, and the conflict is resolved because I would subsequently, after preparation, be able to move/destroy/etc. the object.

The definition of 'omnipotence' has to be sufficiently narrow, also. For a broad definition always results in an affirmitive answer. The whole question can be defined as a given task, and since the broadly-defined 'omnipotent' is capable of performing any task, the answer is affirmative. Only when the given task is broken up, which a broad definition does not require, can any trouble arise.

It should now be abundantly clear that the question is about the concept of omnipotence. Note that the question isn't restricted to God. I just got done asking if I would be omnipotent if I possessed certain qualities, and there was nothing wrong with that. Of course defining terms makes sense under some circumstances; basically any time there is reasonable potential for miscommunication. When we see that any entity described as 'omnipotent' would get the same results, we see that the issue isn't about God at all. It is about any omnipotent entity.

I was happy with this response initially, until it occurred to me that there's more involved. It goes a little deeper. When one says "God is omnipotent," what does that mean? I don't mean the term; I mean the statement itself. You see, some view the statement as describing God, while others view it as defining a god. Nothing that exists can be defined. Things that exist can be categorized and described; but they cannot be defined. You cannot pick up a stone and define it. You can define the term 'stone', and your definition may or may not apply. Either way, you haven't altered the stone by defining the term used to categorize it.

Things which do not exist are subject to definition. So right away we see that one's worldview alters one's approach to the simple statement, "God is omnipotent". Those who insist God does not exist see the statement as defining God, and they feel cheated when they perceive games to be played with a defining term. Those who understand that the statement is descriptive are able to understand that whether or not we have sufficient terms and intellectual capacity to accurately describe God, God will still be as He is.

Since the scoffer views the believer's response as a retreat from properly defining God, it is somewhat unsatisfactory. Remember that the scoffer is unwilling to grant that a descriptive process is involved.

So it's time to meet the bogus question on its own bogus terms. Well, almost. My goal is to glorify God, so permit me to apply the question to an hypothetically omnipotent Satan. If Satan is omnipotent, by the very shallow, narrow, juvenile definition the scoffer must advocate, we obtain the mutually desired result: Satan cannot make an object which Satan will not subsequently be able to act upon in the specified manner. His omnipotence must fail either on the creative side, or on the subsequent acting side. The "clever" trick is too much for Satan to overcome.

But God is not Satan! God has recourse to a two-step process. Just to make it obvious, for the first step I'll posit that He creates a small feather. Not even a grand eagle feather. Something like the delicate down I imagine a tiny hummingbird may possess. This may appear to be a jest, but it is not. For the second step is the one that distinguishes God from ALL other entities. The second step is for God to promise never to move/destroy/etc the feather.

Is not the only Living God splendid! He alone can meet this challenge. Not you, or I, or Satan, or even the angels who have not fallen. Not anyone else. We do not have recourse to this two-step method. And He has indeed met the challenge already. He has given us His Word, and it shall not be altered forevermore.

[TheologicalDisc]

what is the "Rock so big" question? are you talking about the 5th grade conundrum of "Can God make a rock so big He can't move it?

[Jaecp]

How often do you frequently encounter this? As TD said, this is playground level stuff. I can't remember the last time I heard someone seriously bring this up.

[Doug Shaver]

I can't remember the last time I heard someone seriously bring this up.

Neither can I. I've been a skeptic most of my life, and I have never considered it a sensible question.

[UrbanMonk]

So it's time to meet the bogus question on its own bogus terms. Well, almost. My goal is to glorify God, so permit me to apply the question to an hypothetically omnipotent Satan. If Satan is omnipotent, by the very shallow, narrow, juvenile definition the scoffer must advocate, we obtain the mutually desired result: Satan cannot make an object which Satan will not subsequently be able to act upon in the specified manner. His omnipotence must fail either on the creative side, or on the subsequent acting side. The "clever" trick is too much for Satan to overcome.

From where I'm coming from, "Satan" would equate to the proverbial rock that can't be lifted and/or overcome. Also, "Satan", "the world", and "hell" are synonymous. Jesus said, "I have overcome the world". Conceptually speaking, Satan is omnipotent, free to build hell without any interference from any other force. As such, Satan is a "big rock". Imagine this rock exploding in what we call the "big bang". It gives "reality" to a material (time+mass) neo-world...in opposition to a World of Spirit. It first rejects the truth, and then builds everything on a foundation of lies. It seems impossible to overcome because it represents all we think is real and true. But Jesus overcame it, and so can we. It is challenging to say the least. But I have it on good authority that it cannot prevail against a "Rock" that is yet eternally immovable. This Rock is perfect, and will not move or change because, as you implied, Go(o)d Will's that it be as it is forever.

Ultimately, Go(o)d is not an idiot. And that's why hell can't prevail...or why a "house divided against itself cannot stand".

[Abelard]

+1. It's been a while since I saw someone take an original approach to this chestnut.

[Kenny]

I think that the paradox deserves to be taken seriously, but only as a means of refining our understanding of the concept of omnipotence, and not as a challange to the possibility of there being an omnipotent being.

[TheologicalDisc]

I think it is easily answered.

Can God make a rock so big He cannot lift it? yes He can. God makes a rock so big He cannot lift it. Then after that action is done, He increases His strength and lifts it. It shows how specific actions has no bearing upon someones capacity.

[reformedtrucker]

If God made a rock that was so big (went on to infinity) where would He lift it to?

And He doesn't need a thousand years, only an instant.

[Vigilante]

I don't think the question is about omnipotence, it's about logical absurdities. They are trying to create a logic error.
If someone can only describe God in a simplistic way (i.e. "God can do anything!) then this response is asking a basic question can God create a rock too big for Him to lift. The question amounts to asking "can God do something logically impossible?" Can God create a married bachelor? Can God create a round square? Can God create a dry rainfall? Etc....
The question does not even merit a response as the question is an invalid question. In other words, the question itself is logically absurd, as it commits a category mistake. Rain is, by definition and by reality, wet, and so to ask if God can create some dry rain, is to make a category mistake, dryness is not a property of rain. It's like asking how loud the color red is, it's a category mistake.
The issue is that the rock question kind of hides this error, as rocks are not outside the category of "lifting" and lifting isn't outside the category of rocks. So where is the mistake? I suppose it is found in the relationship of these two things to the idea of omnipotence. God lifting rocks is not logically impossible, and since God can do anything, He can lift any rock no matter how heavy. And then separate from this God can make rocks of unlimited size and weight since God can do anything. So it is a conundrum.
The logical absurdity goes in to play by the suggestion that God's lifting power is pitted "against" His creative power.
His unlimited power to lift rocks will either always win over His creating heavy rocks, or at some point His creating heavy rocks will overcome His ability to lift them.
Neither condition can take place. He can always create a bigger rock, but He can always lift a bigger rock. But for some reason the questioner thinks these two powers will be at odds with each other, or that at some point one will "win" over the other.
I have to ask, why MUST one win? Why MUST God be able to create a rock so heavy that eventually He can't lift it? All that is saying is that God's unlimited ability to lift rocks is suddenly bested by his unlimited ability to create heavier rocks. But why must this eventually happen? I don't see why it must. So what's the problem?


The answer to the question is not some long argument or a fight about definitions. The answer is to say, God can't do what can't be done. He can't do illogic, he can't do contradictions, he can't do the truly impossible.
Again, it's schoolyard thinking, apparently this skeptic thinks that if we concede that God "can't" do some random thing, then He must not be all powerful. But what they are asking is if God can do an impossible thing, an illogical thing, an absurdity. And no, God can't do the logically impossible, so why would this somehow ruin his omnipotence? They think God is not all powerful because He can't do what is impossible and logically absurd? Well THAT is absurd. The question is absurd, and invalid given all proper definitions involved.

Trying to take the question to places like "well yes God can create a rock too big to lift but then he can break it down again later and lift it" or whatever, is just going too far. You said the answer is "yes" and that's wrong, the answer is "no", God doesn't do the impossible, nor what is against His nature. This is not a matter of "abilities", which omnipotence is about, but rather His nature. God can do anything that is within His nature to do. God can't do the illogical, God can't sin. God can't kill Himself or duplicate Himself. And yet this does not hurt His omnipotence one bit.

[Abelard]

I think it is easily answered.

Can God make a rock so big He cannot lift it? yes He can. God makes a rock so big He cannot lift it. Then after that action is done, He increases His strength and lifts it. It shows how specific actions has no bearing upon someones capacity.

If God's strength can be increased, then he is not omnipotent.

[ApologiaPhoenix]

I was at a sermon Dr. Habermas preached where he raised this question in the message and gave the best answer I'd ever heard and I quote:

"No."

[Vigilante]

I'm pretty sure that belongs to me.

[Rational Gaze]

How often do you frequently encounter this? As TD said, this is playground level stuff. I can't remember the last time I heard someone seriously bring this up.

Believe it or not, a 40 year old atheist on MySpace used the rock argument. And the omniscience vs. omnipotence argument and the omniscience vs. free will argument. Then again, it IS MySpace.

[Jaecp]

Would you believe someone repeatedly tried to convert me to Mormonism over the internet awhile back.

The medium?

World of Warcraft.