Answer to age old paradox.

[Matthew4Jesus]

Here's a question militant atheists love to ask. I was surprised when I realised the simplicity of the actual answer.

Question: If God is omnipotent, then can he make a stone to heavy for him to lift?

Seems like an impossible to answer scenario right?

Answer: He can do both simultaneously. He can make a stone too heavy for him to lift, that he can lift. Impossible you say?

Well, it's God we're talking about here. He can do anything. Not some man bound by logic.

[Before you nitpickers get in, yes I know God cannot lie, etc.]

 

[Blain]

Here's a question militant atheists love to ask. I was surprised when I realised the simplicity of the actual answer.

Question: If God is omnipotent, then can he make a stone to heavy for him to lift?

Seems like an impossible to answer scenario right?

Answer: He can do both simultaneously. He can make a stone too heavy for him to lift, that he can lift. Impossible you say?

Well, it's God we're talking about here. He can do anything. Not some man bound by logic.

[Before you nitpickers get in, yes I know God cannot lie, etc.]

hello I am Reginald nitpicker the 4th and I do say your understanding of the atheist trick question is most amusing, more amusing than my brother in law when blew up the pub. Jk actually I found it quite good

 

[Sirk]

• Bonini's paradox Models or simulations that explain the workings of complex systems are seemingly impossible to construct. As a model of a complex system becomes more complete, it becomes less understandable, for it to be more understandable it must be less complete and therefore less accurate. When the model becomes accurate, it is just as difficult to understand as the real-world processes it represents.

 

[Percepi]

Here's a question militant atheists love to ask. I was surprised when I realised the simplicity of the actual answer.

Question: If God is omnipotent, then can he make a stone to heavy for him to lift?

Seems like an impossible to answer scenario right?

Answer: He can do both simultaneously. He can make a stone too heavy for him to lift, that he can lift. Impossible you say?

Well, it's God we're talking about here. He can do anything. Not some man bound by logic.

[Before you nitpickers get in, yes I know God cannot lie, etc.]

How can one conclude that the solution is simple if the solution is beyond logic? In fact, what does it mean for something to be "beyond logic"? Do you mean there is logic, it's just counter-intuitive to what we understand? And by which measures do we dictate counter-intuitive claims to be true?

You see, the moment God lifts an object that is too heavy for himself to lift - it ceases to be too heavy for God to lift by the very definition given to us. Saying God can do it outside our understanding just isn't enough.

But don't fret, there are some solutions to this "paradox", you just need to know how to address it.

Solution 1: The Dual God Solution

God first creates a large stone that he is able to lift. He then clones himself in which he limits the powers of said clone. The clone shall be similar to God in every way except he shall lack the ability to lift the stone, change the properties of the stone, or change his own properties so that he may lift the stone. Although the clone is technically not omnipotent, it is still a clone of God and therefore it solves the problem...

... unless an atheist tells you that you haven't solved the problem because the omnipotent God is still able to lift the stone, redirecting the problem to the omnipotent God. If this is the case, we can move onto....

Solution 2: The Many-Worlds God

The Many-Worlds God solution is named after the Many-Worlds interpretation of certain elements of Quantum Mechanics. I originally wanted to call this the Double-God experiment, named after the Double-Split experiment in the field of Quantum Mechanics, but I realized the name wouldn't make much sense. So I called it the Many-Worlds God solution because the Many Worlds interpretation will probably explain this anyway. I don't know anything about Quantum Mechanics, but it sounds smart.

If you're familiar with the Double-Split experiment, you'll know that it probably has something to do with the way in which light and matter behaves depending on whether it's being observed.

For this solution, you propose that God creates a large stone that he can not lift. It would appear that he is not omnipotent since he has limited himself. But, when nobody is looking, he can pick up the stone and move it elsewhere. As soon as someone looks, the stone is either already moved or God drops it. I think this is how quantum physics works.

And if anyone argues that God is still not omnipotent because he can not lift the stone while being observed, then I propose the 3rd and final solution.

Solution 3: Nothing Can Be Known Solution aka Schrodinger's God.

Note that God can create a very heavy stone. If someone claims to see him either lift the stone, or fail to lift the stone, remind them that it's possible their eyes could be deceiving them. They could be hallucinating, having their sight manipulated by Satan, or any other number of possible reasons why their eyes might be deceiving them. Just argue that because it is impossible to verify what was seen actually happened, it must be assumed that God can and can not lift the stone at the same time due to the possibility that our eyes may deceive us - making it unknown. Hence, the solution being referred to as Schrodinger's God.

The best part is, you don't need to know anything about Quantum Physics or Tautology to use these arguments! In fact, learning Quantum Physics and Tautology may render these arguments void.

(This comment is satirical. No offense intended.)

 

[Mo0448]

By far my favorite response:

The paradox assumes a wrong definition of omnipotence. Omnipotence, does not mean that God can do anything at all but, rather, that he can do anything that's possible according to his nature. The distinction is important. God cannot perform logical absurdities; he cannot, for instance, make 1+1=3. Likewise, God cannot make a being greater than himself because he is, by definition, the greatest possible being. God is limited in his actions to his nature. The Bible supports this, in passages such as Hebrews 6:18 which says it is "impossible for God to lie."

Can't take credit for that, I read it in an article online.

You take a very intellectual approach to most of these questions I've noticed Percepi, which is a great way to look at it! Have you heard of John Lennox? He's a Christian mathematician and philosopher I think you'd like how he conveys the Christian worldview.

 

[Percepi]

Many people use the word omnipotence to refer to slightly different characteristics.

By far my favorite response:

The paradox assumes a wrong definition of omnipotence. Omnipotence, does not mean that God can do anything at all but, rather, that he can do anything that's possible according to his nature.

According to this definition, I'm omnipotent because I can do anything that's possible according to my nature.

You take a very intellectual approach to most of these questions I've noticed Percepi, which is a great way to look at it! Have you heard of John Lennox? He's a Christian mathematician and philosopher I think you'd like how he conveys the Christian worldview.

I know I've heard his name somewhere before, but I can't recall where. I'm not familiar with his views so I suppose I can't comment on them at this time.

 

[Mo0448]

Many people use the word omnipotence to refer to slightly different characteristics. According to this definition, I'm omnipotent because I can do anything that's possible according to my nature..

What would you say is human kind's nature? I look around and I see good & bad; so our nature as we know it is a blend of good and evil if you will. God's nature on the other hand takes a different spin.

You could look at it this way, however your nature and God's nature is very different and one can say that his omnipotence transcends ours. The bible paints God's nature to us.

1. God never lies.
2. God is perfectly just and perfectly good.
3. God so loved the world he sent his only son so that those that believe would be saved.

My omnipotence doesn't come even close to those haha!


[video=youtube;YPaBXf0gXNg]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YPaBXf0gXNg[/video]

If you have time Percepi, I recommend you watch this talk by John Lennox, this one is one of many on youtube. I think you'll like how he conveys his view.

 

[Percepi]

What would you say is human kind's nature? I look around and I see good & bad; so our nature as we know it is a blend of good and evil if you will. God's nature on the other hand takes a different spin.

You described omnipotence as the ability to do anything within one's own nature. It's like saying, "God is omnipotent because he can do anything except for the things he can't do." Guess what, I can do anything except for the things I can't do too! This is why omnipotence, when using this definition, is way too vague.

You could look at it this way, however your nature and God's nature is very different and one can say that his omnipotence transcends ours. The bible paints God's nature to us.

1. God never lies.
2. God is perfectly just and perfectly good.
3. God so loved the world he sent his only son so that those that believe would be saved.

My omnipotence doesn't come even close to those haha!

Omnipotence refers to being all powerful.

1. is a limitation, which means God is not omnipotent because he is incapable of something.
2. refers to a situation in which God can get away with anything and still be considered perfectly just and perfectly good - there are supposed to be no standards of goodness without God. This means God could demand the slaughter of all children and it would be good simply because God is the authority of good and bad. This is what gives us an interesting conundrum called the euthyphro dilemma. "Is what is morally good commanded by God because it is morally good, or is it morally good because it is commanded by God?"
3. refers to a strategy used to save mankind that involved the sacrifice of his son. An omnipotent being would not have to sacrifice anyone in order to save mankind.

Lastly, and most importantly, you're not even addressing omnipotence.

My omnipotence doesn't come even close to those haha!

Your omnipotence, or your benevolence? Because what you described does not support omnipotence. Instead, it refers to omnibenevolence.

I'm 6 minutes, 40 seconds into the video you linked. John addresses how Dawkins is not a psychiatrist, and therefore challenges his use of the word "delusion". However, delusions don't always stem from mental disorders. Dawkins does not use the word delusion is a medical sense. This is precisely why Dawkins describes the meaning of the word in his book. He never steps his boundaries by diagnosing religious belief as a mental disorder - which is what John is eluding to. I can personally vouch for this because I have read The God Delusion myself. This is a straw man John is attacking.

John then goes on to cite a psychiatrist who talks about the positive effects of religion - as if having positive effects would make belief in god any less delusional. Since mental disorders refer to mental issues that have a negative effect on a person's life, he's trying to make it sound as if religion is not a form of delusion. Of course, delusion doesn't have to stem from mental disorders, making John's point rather moot.

John then goes on to describe how Dawkins does not back up any of his claims with evidence. My question to John is, which claims? He doesn't specify any unsubstantiated claims made by Dawkins at all - so why should we believe John?

He then goes on to quote a psychiatrist about how if Christianity is wrong, then it stems from one's desires for a father figure. Whereas if God does exist, then atheism is the desire to abandon anything having to do with God. This is a subtly misleading argument. It doesn't matter if God is real or not, the reasons people believe in God or not would remain the same. So if it's true that Christians are projecting their desire for a father figure into their beliefs, that would remain the same regardless of God's existence. And if it's true atheists are projecting their desire to have nothing to do with God, then that would be true regardless as to whether or not God exists. So for example, if I felt lonely and I wanted a father figure, and I felt like God was the father figure I needed - then I could begin to believe in God based on the desire to have a father figure. In this example, you can see that God's existence or lack thereof wouldn't change this one bit. In either scenario, I would still be seeking God for the same reason. So is it true that Christians are merely projecting their desire for a father figure into their beliefs? Is the opposite true for atheists? Well, that's an entirely different debate since John didn't address these actual claims.

Then John quotes a nobel prize winner who claims atheists choose not to believe in God because they don't want to face their sins. First of all, this is not a scientifically backed claim - so it doesn't matter WHO says this, it's equally as unsubstantiated. It wouldn't matter if Einstein said this, Plato, you, me, or your next door neighbor who sells drugs. Not only that, but as an atheist I can tell you that this statement is simply untrue. Our lack of belief has literally nothing to do with us being ashamed of our sins.

I've watched 8 and a half minutes - I'm not impressed.

 

[maxwel]

Here's a question militant atheists love to ask. I was surprised when I realised the simplicity of the actual answer.

Question: If God is omnipotent, then can he make a stone to heavy for him to lift?

Seems like an impossible to answer scenario right?

Answer: He can do both simultaneously. He can make a stone too heavy for him to lift, that he can lift. Impossible you say?

Well, it's God we're talking about here. He can do anything. Not some man bound by logic.

[Before you nitpickers get in, yes I know God cannot lie, etc.]

This is a really good effort, but this isn't actually the correct answer.



When an atheist asks a really stupid question, we need to simply remember it's a stupid question.

There is generally a flaw, a logic problem, within the question itself.
So the solution is generally in finding the flaw in the QUESTION.

So, that's the solution for most of these really silly atheist conundrums.
Just look for the flaw in the question, and then point that out.

Have fun.

 

[PeterJens]

The problem here is linguistics.
God is limited because he cannot make a stone he cannot lift.
This is an earth framework. To lift something is to move two things apart. The problem we have is firstly reality is not really real. Everything is energy, either free flowing, or wrapped up in particles we call atoms which are 99.999999% nothing.
Now gravity which defines the point of lifting is again an attraction between two objects. If an object cannot be lifted it actually is saying two things cannot be separated, they are by definition one undividable object. To date we do not know of anything that is like this. The only totally collapsed object we know of theoretically is a black hole, but all we know is the rules of this universe do not work on this object.
Maybe this is the totally undivisible object, but if everything is pure energy, then the question is an illusion anyway.

Now the other problem of language is it defines rules to obtain meaning. But rules define boundaries that cannot be crossed, and some things are simply a contradiction of an idea, not a definition of something possible. So if you want to say what is possible, you have to define truly what actually is, which we cannot do. All we can say for certain, literally is that we personally exist from our own perspective. Everything else is a hypothesis, because you only experience everything within your own head, so it is all a suposition.

So God could say he will not separate two objects. And into eternity he does not separate them. Now he could choose to separate them, but which is impossible, his will or the way he has made a thing. Only He could define what the reality is because again this whole discussion is outside our experience, because everything we experience is divisible.

So the nature of God being omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient is a way of expressing his abilities from a human perspective, but as that is very limited, we have to rely on our limited use of language. So for me the point is meaningless because its foundation is based on this universe being truly defined, which it is not.

 

[maxwel]

Many people use the word omnipotence to refer to slightly different characteristics.


According to this definition, I'm omnipotent because I can do anything that's possible according to my nature.


I know I've heard his name somewhere before, but I can't recall where. I'm not familiar with his views so I suppose I can't comment on them at this time.

People are free to use the word omnipotent to mean whatever they like.
That has nothing to do with the argument.

If we're going to use biblical definitions,
and deal with the things Christian theologians and scholars ACTUALLY believe...
then we quickly find that God ABSOLUTELY has many limits upon his person because of his nature.

No Christian scholar would ever say, "God can do anything."

This would be to simultaneously deny his own nature.
His own nature places him under certain constraints.
This is shown clearly in the bible.

E.g. God states that he cannot lie.
This is an ENORMOUS constraint.
If God did NOT have this constraint, he would be flawed and untrustworthy,
just like Darwin, Dawkins, Dennett, and all the other "gods" of atheism.

: )

 

[Percepi]

People are free to use the word omnipotent to mean whatever they like.
That has nothing to do with the argument.

You're right in that people can use the word however they want.
But to suggest it has nothing to do with the argument is wrong. It's important to establish the meaning of the word so we can discuss the idea behind the word rather than get caught up in tautology.

If we're going to use biblical definitions,
and deal with the things Christian theologians and scholars ACTUALLY believe...
then we quickly find that God ABSOLUTELY has many limits upon his person because of his nature.

There are many Christians who believe God has no limits. The OP is a prime example.

No Christian scholar would ever say, "God can do anything."

You may be right, but many people do say this. In fact, look at some of the comments in this thread.

This would be to simultaneously deny his own nature.
His own nature places him under certain constraints.
This is shown clearly in the bible.

Fair enough.

E.g. God states that he cannot lie.
This is an ENORMOUS constraint.
If God did NOT have this constraint, he would be flawed and untrustworthy,
just like Darwin, Dawkins, Dennett, and all the other "gods" of atheism.

Trustworthiness is not required for omnipotence, but I'll concede that omnipotence isn't the goal.

Your statement about "gods" of atheism is flawed in that none of these men are worshiped by atheists. Instead, we have Christians who claim they're atheist's Gods, but speak of them like devils. They're regular, intelligent, people who are not worshiped, but often admired and/or respected by skeptics and scientists.

 

[kodiak]

You described omnipotence as the ability to do anything within one's own nature. It's like saying, "God is omnipotent because he can do anything except for the things he can't do." Guess what, I can do anything except for the things I can't do too! This is why omnipotence, when using this definition, is way too vague.

Show me in the Bible where it says God is able to do all things. True Omnipotence is being able to do whatever you set out to do. God can do anything He wants to do. Titus 1:2 says God cannot sin....this does not take away his omnipotence...He would never set out to sin.

 

[Percepi]

Show me in the Bible where it says God is able to do all things.

I never claimed God is able to do all things, nor did I say the Bible mentioned this. However, many Christians do make this claim - making the context relevant.

True Omnipotence is being able to do whatever you set out to do. God can do anything He wants to do.

If this is the definition you want to use, then fine. But again, not everyone uses this definition.

Titus 1:2 says God cannot sin....this does not take away his omnipotence...He would never set out to sin.

If he cannot sin even if he decided to, then he's technically not omnipotent according to many people's use of the word. Or if you want to interpret it as God can sin, but chooses not to, that's fair enough. Again, you're focusing on the tautology instead of the context. I already stated that you can use the word however you want, I was addressing the use in which people claim God can do anything without any compromise. I never said this is what the Bible promotes, but it is promoted by many Christians - this thread showing a few examples.

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

Literally, omnipotence means that God has unlimited power (omni=all; potent=powerful). According to the standard Hebrew lexicon, the word shadday (shaddai) means "self-sufficient" or "almighty" (Gesenius, HELOT, 994). Others concur (Harris, et al., TWOT, 907).'

The Septuagint (LXX) translated it by the Greek word pantokrator, which means all powerful. The same is true in the New Testament, where pantokrator means "almighty" or "all-powerful" (see Arndt, GEW, 613).

Theologically, "omnipotent" means that God can do whatever is possible to do. Or, God can do what is not impossible to do. His power is unlimited and uninhibited by anything else.

Negatively, omnipotence does not mean that God can do what is contradictory. The Scriptures affirm that God cannot contradict His nature (Heb. 6:18; 2 Tim. 2:13; Titus 1:2). See Matt. 23:37. He works persuasively, not coercively.

Further, omnipotence does not mean that God must do all that He can do: It simply means that He has the power to do whatever is possible, even if He chooses not to do some things. God is free not to use His omnipotence whenever He desires; that is, God is free to limit the use of His power, but He is not free to limit the extent of His power. God must know all that He knows, but God does not have to do all He can do.

Theologically, omnipotence means that God can do whatever is supernaturally, naturally, and morally possible to do.

In the context of the problem you've posed, it is impossible for God to make a stone too heavy for Him to lift. Whatever God can make, He can move. What God can create, He can destroy and recreate in another place.

Whatever is finite, infinite God can lift. It is impossible for infinite God to make a finite stone He can't lift.

Here's a question militant atheists love to ask. I was surprised when I realised the simplicity of the actual answer.

Question: If God is omnipotent, then can he make a stone to heavy for him to lift?

Seems like an impossible to answer scenario right?

Answer: He can do both simultaneously. He can make a stone too heavy for him to lift, that he can lift. Impossible you say?

Well, it's God we're talking about here. He can do anything. Not some man bound by logic.

[Before you nitpickers get in, yes I know God cannot lie, etc.]

 

[kodiak]

I never claimed God is able to do all things, nor did I say the Bible mentioned this. However, many Christians do make this claim - making the context relevant.



If this is the definition you want to use, then fine. But again, not everyone uses this definition.



If he cannot sin even if he decided to, then he's technically not omnipotent according to many people's use of the word. Or if you want to interpret it as God can sin, but chooses not to, that's fair enough. Again, you're focusing on the tautology instead of the context. I already stated that you can use the word however you want, I was addressing the use in which people claim God can do anything without any compromise. I never said this is what the Bible promotes, but it is promoted by many Christians - this thread showing a few examples.

But we know he would never decide to sin, He won't sin....so we can still say He is omnipotent....