If being omnipotent means being able to do only what is possible, then we have to dismiss every miracle attributed to god and reduce him to mere human capabilities. For example, turning water into wine in an instant isn't possible, right? One might argue that it could be, under the right pressure, temperature, and with the right ingredients, but that just delays the problem. How could anyone create such perfect conditions in a split second? In my opinion, this paradox is not, as some have called it, "argumentative noise" or nonsense. I believe that paradoxes are useful tools in logic, much like inequalities are in mathematics-they help us quickly identify when something isn't working, indicating that an error has been made.
On one hand, I get where you're coming from. How did Jesus turn 5 loaves and two fishes into such that it fed 5,000 people. Or Him walking on water. But, there's an easy solution to this: God can manipulate the laws of reality, but He can't contradict the laws of reality. In all of Jesus's miracles, He was manipulating the laws of the universe in order to do what He willed to do, but He never contradicted those laws by creating a square triangle, or making something so heavy that His power couldn't lift it.
I think this is less of the things we find to be impossible, and more of the things that are logically contradictory. Just my guess but there isnt anythign illogical about an all powerful God doing miracles, but more so of an all powerful God not being all powerful in all scenarios. For example, if we said God snapped his metophorical fingers and created the universe, there isnt an issue. But if God tries to fix the problem in this video, we run into problems because he starts breaking laws of logic, P and not P. So yea miracles would be possible, contradictions wouldnt is what im assuming.
Yeah, great comments guys, and actually after I thought of theoretical god as lets say a "programmer" of our reality, and the scenario when he can potentially upload himself into that reality with all the cheat codes in his belt then indeed miracles as local manipulations of the universe pass whereas logical issues remain - stone can't be too heavy and not too heavy in the same time.
How do you decide what is and isn't possible? Creating time seems impossible to me, but God did it. If a is b and b is c then a is c, but the trinity says it's not true. So can God do impossible things or not? Or is he only limited to impossible things convenient to people who believe in him.
So how did god go from a god that had not created time to a god creating time to a god that had created time without time. aka in a state of stasis? Do you have any evidence to back up the claim god did create time? Never seen god do anything so I dont know if he can do the impossible or not, does not even show he can do the possible.
I think this turns into the Euthyphro dilemma. If god can’t do what is logically impossible, then we don’t need to appeal to god, the laws of logic are supreme. If god created the laws of logic, he could change them so the paradox disappears.
Having the power to not have all powers does not contradict the set of having all powers until that power is exercised. God can have the power to microwave a burito so hot that he can no longer and eat it, but until god uses that power he remains all powerful.
@@memegazer I can see what you're saying, but doesn't that still perclude God from doing those things? God would never do something that would stop him from being God, right?
I do agree with you that it could be possible for God to change the laws of logic to make certain paradoxes disappear, but then that would only create new paradoxes (if logic still exists). it is very possible that God could create a universe where a triangle with four sides exists, but then for that to exist certain things that may exist in our current universe would then become new contradictions in that one. I don’t find it to be very problematic or a big deal at all that there will always be certain paradoxes. For there to be a paradox there has to be order, so a world with no paradoxes is a world of complete chaos. with that, it makes sense that God would choose a world of order.
@@isakhedeen It's not a logical contradiction. The set of all powers can include the power to not be all powerful without logical contradiction. This is a simple matter of order of operations.
If god can do anything have him say “Hello”… I think we found something a fictional entity can’t do, interact with reality or take any tangible or testable action of any kind or provide any evidence whatsoever of its existence outs of its fictional book.
Listen I know you may dislike this answer, but if you truly start praying he will indeed talk with you. Even some of us religius folk forget that prayer can also be a form of communication with God. Many people at least claim to have spoken with God, so give it a shot and it might work for you, you've got nothing to lose. Also there is many evidence outside of the Bible to support Gods existence, Alex literally made a 2 hour video discussing evidence for God, and even saying many of the arguments are good. I suggest looking a the contingency argument for example, a really good argument for God, which Alex discuses in the video I mentioned before
@@indi_prime I mean, if the Christian deity wants a personal relationship with each of us, which is often claimed, the least it can do is introduce itself with a hello. If one wants to save us all and through omniscience knows the very words to convince even the reddit atheists, why does it demure?
@@indi_prime God isn't requited to. But if god can then why can't he prove it? Christians not getting emotional when confronted with facts and logic challenge impossible.
I don't think the triangle counts because that's a matter of definition. The rock god can't lift definitely does put limits on god's power. The slightly weaker version of omnipotence does work. So in a sense, this argument is powerful, but it's also incredibly easy to get around it.
@@bigdavexx1 No it's not. A triangle is defined as a closed shape comprised of 3 line segments. Definitionally, anything else isn't a triangle. A rock isn't too heavy to lift by definition. You have to add that context explicitly.
@@avishevin1976 , it's not just "a rock" in the paradox like it's not just "a polygon". Can a specific polygon have both exactly 3 sides and exactly 4 sides at the same time? [no] Can a specific rock have the property of "unliftable" and "liftable" at the same time? [no]
Maybe God can create a stone so heavy he can't lift it, but at the very instant of it being created his power requires that he now be able to lift it, and he can. Both making him powerful enough to create the stone he cannot lift and powerful enough to lift it anyway
But this makes god less powerful at a specific time than another, and this contradicts the omnipotent criteria .also, this makes him within the realm of time .
One answer to this question that always stuck with me is that of Leo Gura who said god can do that, but only if god convinces itself that it can't lift this rock. It's like a videogame developer that created limits and rules in his videogame. Ofc this suggests that god isn't all-knowing in this moment yes, but Gura has a different conception of god.
@@bishsama3252 Unless you're talking about a tetrahydron. But Alex' point was a triangle doesn't exist with four sides. If it did, it would not longer be a triangle by definition.
To lift something, don't you need to be a physical being first? The rock should be in a physical space with gravity for it to be counted as being lifted right? So does the question require God to be a physical being, and to lift a physical rock that is heavily influenced by gravity with the use of hands? What does it mean to lift a heavy rock outside of space and time?
The "stone so heavy he couldn't lift it" paradox differs fundamentally from the "square circle" paradox, in that the "square circle" paradox, is, as you say, just definitionally impossible, as it's not possible even to imagine a square circle; however, the "stone" paradox is not, because the paradox doesn't lie in the definition of the terms involved, but in the subject of the dilemma itself, i.e. God, and it is possible to imagine a stone of any size or mass. What this means is that the stone, unlike the square circle "is a thing", because the stone is just a regular stone. Its weight is the only property that's in question. The paradox, therefore, lies in God's ability to create or lift it, not in the object itself... So, the real question is, "Is God capable of being incapable?" If God is capable of being incapable, it means that he is incapable, because he has the potential to not be able to do something. Conversely, if God is incapable of being incapable, then he is also incapable by definition. And if your objection is that: "...since God is supposedly omnipotent, the phrase "he couldn't lift" does not make sense and the paradox is meaningless," then, you're just engaged in sophistry and are simply defining your God into existence. The one objection to this version of the omnipotence paradox that I don't have a good rebuttal for is that, "For the stone to be unable to be moved from one space to another, it would have to be larger than space itself. However, it is impossible for a rock to be larger than Space itself, as"", that would be logically impossible, because Space is defined by the fact that it comprises the X, Y, and Z axes, which are fundamental properties of the stone. Thus, the paradox is meaningless. This is easily the strongest objection against this version of the omnipotence paradox; however, it misses the entire point of the paradox, namely, that an omnipotent deity, is as logically incoherent as a square circle!
A square circle is quite possible and a neat trick. I made one for a school science fair when I was a young teen. You cut a perfect circle from a piece of wood the same thickness as the circle's diameter. Then paint it mat black and mount it in a box with two peep holes in adjacent sides, ie at ninety degrees to each other. When viewed from the end you see the cut out circle, but from the side you see it edge on and it appears as a perfect square.
I haven't watched the video and probably haven't thought much at all on this paradox. (Perhaps you have. If so I hope you're managing to stay sane : ) ).. Maybe there's more to it as you suggest, but as a Theist I tend to dismiss it as nonsensical. Anyhow some thoughts came to mind: Can God make any thing or being greater than Himself? No (I think) because God is such, in truth and by definition, that very being which nothing can be greater than. A question which could similarly be seen to limit God's omnipotence could be : Can God create a perfect being? Again I think the answer is no. God would only be duplicating Himself and really, further, ending up creating the identical being which He Himself actually is. And since God is uncreated then, again, God cannot create a perfect being, if being uncreated is part of perfection...Can God create an uncreated being? So CGCAPB? would appear to be an absurd question rather than a legitimate question logically challenging God's omnipotence.... So in a sense God cannot create a rock so heavy that he cannot lift it since that rock would have to exceed God's ontological status of that which nothing can be greater than. Also: Can you really say capable of being incapable? Being unable is a disability not a capacity. And isn't the paradox implicitly including that-which-even-God-cannot- lift into the definition of the rock?
The 'triangles with four sides" is just a category error. God can make (let's assume he exists) shapes with three sides and shapes with four sides. We call the shapes with three sides 'triangles' and the shapes of four sides 'quadrilaters', but that's entirely on us: we decided to use those names for those shapes. If we use the wrong word for a shape, is not a logical contradiction, is just a mistake, no different than saying "a dog is type of plant".
If you consider that a planet is a big rock, it floats in space. A planet thousands of times bigger than Jupiter happily floats in space. Put all the physical matter together in the universe, it still floats in space. You can never have a rock big enough to occupy infinite space so there can't be a scenario where a rock can't be lifted.
#1 Are morals objective? #2 Are there objective moral duties? #3 Is it immoral not to do an objective moral duty? #4 Does god do the objective moral duties? #5 You see a child drowning in a shallow pool and notice a person just watching that is able to save the child with no risk to themselves but is not, is that persons non action moral? #6 If you go to save the child, the man tells you to stop as he was told it was for the greater good, but he does not know what that is, do you continue to save the child? #7 Is it an act of justice to punish innocent people for the crimes of others? #8 If you were able to stop it and knew a person was about to grape a child would you stop it? #9 Would you consider a parent who put their kids in a room with a poison fruit and told the kids not to eat it but then also put the best con artist in the room with the children knowing the con artist will get the kids to eat the fruit and the parent does nothing to stop it a good parent?
@@a.i.l1074 #4. If its an objective moral duty to save a drowning child, does god save the drowning child and do the objective moral duty? That is what is meant by #4 to give an example and hopefully make that clear.
I pose the paradox slightly, differently. "Can God pile a bunch of rocks together (created or found) such that the resultant weight of the pile is so heavy that God wouldn't be able to lift it?" They object by saying such a task is impossible to perform. But the thing is, I can go outside, pile a bunch of rocks together so that I cannot lift the resultant pile of rocks, done. Since I am able to do this, this task is one of the logically possible tasks that can be done. This task is impossible only for an omnipotent being. And that's the point since, a being who is omnipotent should be able to do all logically possible tasks.
If it was omniscient it would know those things. If it doesn’t know those things it’s not omniscient. Mostly omniscient is not omniscient by definition, because not being omniscient is not omniscience.
The reason the rock paradox is a fallacy is because it makes omnipotence a function of itself. Its like saying if God can't armwrestle his right arm with his left and win He can't be omnipotent but if he can win he also isn't. Omnipotence would mean having the power to make the rock of any weight and to lift a rock of any weight, no self reference involved.
If you ask if God can both create and lift a 100 ton rock, there is no fallacy or even conceptual problem. Inflate it to 1,000 tons, or 1 million tons, still no problem. No one will have a problem agreeing he could both create a rock that heavy, as well as lift it. The problem doesn't arise until you take that scenario and blow it up to infinity. Which illustrates a problem with the concept of omnipotence, not the concept of lifting rocks.
@@Freefall347No, the paradox would not question Gods ability to create or lift a rock of infitite weight. The problem is it must be so heavy as to outperfom his capacity. Also in a side note there's also a problem with the concept of infinity, which is a useful mathematical idea but not an actual amount.
God can only do things within the realm of possibility and cannot do the impossible... You mean like him existing outside of the confines of space and time? That seems pretty impossible to me
There is no contradiction in the idea of a substance without the properties of space and time. 1) Platonists would point out that things like the number 2 or the concept of equality have no spatial or temporal property. 2 isn't 2 at one moment and not 2 at another. 2+1 is equal to three and cannot be not equal to three. It is not true now, as opposed to earlier or later. It is eternally true. These concept also do not depend on any spatial relation between elements: 1 and 2 cannot be near or far or to the right or to the left (etc...) with respect to one another or to other things. We conceive them regardless of space and time. 2) If you posit that space and time had an origin, that origin by definition must be non-spatial and atemporal. (How an atemporal reality can change, or what could even cause such a change, is a different problem.) 3) The Einsteinian model of the universe is a block-universe without time in itself. Time here is a relation that we establish due to our limited perspectival nature, while all moments in time always already exist, i.e. they exist eternally, in themselves. If we wanted to, we could extend this reasoning to space itself, saying that it is also such an illusory relation, which does not belong to the essence of reality in itself. All these thoughts are both very abstract and vastly debated. But they are not self-contradictory. They are not impossibilities like a square triangle or a bright darkness.
In order for God to be able to make such an object, it presupposes that he would make it out of himself since omnipotence implies omnipresence. For, to be all powerful implies harnessing that power everywhere. So, God himself would ultimately be this very object, which reframes the underlying assumption that he and this object would've been separate.
The scriptures say that "Nothing is impossible with God." It would seem that the Bible won't let God's Omnipotence be limited only to things that are possible. So, if He is omnipotent, He must be able to make a four sided triangle, or something of that impossible nature.
How about "yes because God can grow in trinitarian form: The father can make a rock so large that Jesus @ 1 year old cannot lift it up Jesus @ 10 years old can lift it." God can grow seems included in God as "best possible being" because growth is good
interesting take. Humans can certainly create things they cant lift up. So God could make any rock and turn himself into a shredded Jesus and lift it up. Or maybe we could just play around and replace God with Jesus.
Given the theistic notion that a tri-omni god created the universe as it exists right now, I've always wondered why it is that such a being could not do literally anything. Could such a being not remake the entirety of existence such that any impossibility is suddenly possible?
I thought the usual work around was “yes, god can make a rock so heavy he can’t lift it” followed by “but god can do anything, so he can still lift that rock.”
That's a definitional contradiction because the rock is not a rock God cannot lift it they can lift it. I think omnipotence is best understood as the ability to do all things which are possible, I imagine there are still flaws to that definition, but I think it manoeuvres around most of the issues one encounters when considering this conundrum.
@@billybobthornton9668Who decides what's 'possible'? Flight was impossible for humans... until it wasn't. Going faster than the speed of light is impossible... until it isn't. If God can't change the laws of logic, then he isn't omnipotent. If he can, then anything is possible, so there's no paradox.
@@JD-wu5pf What are you even on about. The things you listed have nothing to do with formal definition of things which is what the person you are replying to is talking about. If God can change the laws of logic, then literally any statement can be made about him and it would be equally valid as you have no way to define what truth is
@@billybobthornton9668 the definition of a “rock even god cannot lift” is consistent if the definition of a god is “a being that can do anything,” because anything includes all the things god cannot do. It’s still a rock god can’t lift. It’s just that god can do anything. He can lift rocks humans can’t lift, and he can lift rocks he can’t lift as well.
@JD-wu5pf Those things are or weren't possible at one point in time, which is clearly distinct from there existing a stone that God cannot ever lift, which is the purpose of asking the stone question in the first place - the inability to lift the stone is fundamental to the question and can't be handwaved by an appeal to the relative subjectivity of what can be considered possible. In my estimation you've missed that pretty crucial point when you conflated colloquial uses of the word impossible with the stone which, for the purposes of the hypothetical, is definitionally 'unliftable' by God. That proposition is distinct from the examples you've provided as they would be more akin to the assertion that the stone cannot be lifted by God at a particular moment in time. If the solution to that, and I think it probably has to be given your definition of impossible/omnipotence, is to flip the chessboard and say 'God can do it just because' then it becomes an exceedingly boring exercise akin to a lazy Chuck Norris joke. If, however, we interpret omnipotence as meaning an ability to do all things which are possible, then we get into far more interesting discussions regarding the limits of God's power while simultaneously navigating around the stone proposition as being beyond the scope of omnipotence.
If god is in fact bound by the laws of logic, and is the creative force behind all things, including the laws of logic, then by creating the laws of logic and then becoming bound to them, he did in a sense create a rock so heavy that he can't lift it.
If he is bound by the laws of logic, then he cannot be all powerful. If he is the one who created the laws of logic, then at the time before he creates these laws, he should be all powerful which creates the stone paradox anyways. Meaning he cannot ever precede the laws of logic. Also by the virtue of changing, it means he is also affected by time which means he is not all powerful. Every way leads to a contradiction unless you start with a constrained god from these start.
@@connorhilfinger5155 he's the alpha and the omega, allegedly. He's already the 3 who are 1, any number of additional impossibilities should be peanuts.
But then you've just defined God as explicitly illogical. So, by extension, any logical statement you attempt to make that includes God doesn't have to follow the laws of logic, making God unknowable and meaningless.
One of the tings people forget is that when we say the words "four-sided triangle," that doesn't mean anything. We aren't actually describing anything we can imagine. The phrase "imagine" in that scenario basically just refers to the fact that you said the words out of your mouth, but you can't picture it in your head in any meaningful way. It's a spacial paradox. When we say omnipotent God, we have some level of understanding as to all the things that theoretically could be done. Therefore, a God that has the property of omnipotence can do them all.
@@JacobTheStrangeOfficialno that would just mean the Bible lied saying he can do all things, but it means he can defy logic. god can be illogical but that would also mean the book isn’t the truth because it lies…can you believe in god without the book?
Not very important but triangles theoretically do have 4 sides so that analogy doest work as well as a square triangle. Vsauce has a cool video about it if anyone is interested :)
Problem resolved. But now you've violated some other valuable arguments for the existence of God. Ontological argument? Nope, there was a possible world with a greater god than the one that created the rock he could not lift. God as the unmoved mover? No, because a god who can make a different version of himself has potential and is thus not an unactualized actualizer.
I put the stone paradox and the ontological argument for God in the same F-tier category. They're word games untethered to anything empirical. Nobody believes or disbelieves based on this nonsense. It's argumentative noise.
This question is one of those questions that points out the flaw in how we conceptualize omnipotence. It's essentially asking, "can something without limitations give itself limitations. If not, it is limited. Therefore, it is not actually limitless. If yes, it becomes limited. Therefore, it is not actually limitless." And I fully recognize the paradox here, but I think for something to be truly limitless, or omnipotent, then it would have to operate outside of any possible limitation - including logic. I have no idea how this might work, but it's the only reasonable explanation. It may be possible that we simply do not have the capacity to understand omnipotence, outside of just reckoning that it is the property of being limitless."
But I guess that just shifts the goal post to asking, "Can an omnipotent being use logic to limit himself? If not, then that's a limitation. If yes, then he creates a limitation. Either way, a limitation is met, and omnipotence is lost."
The only other way I could think to answer this would be: Yes, God CAN create a rock so heavy he can't lift it. But he chooses not to. God CAN create limitations for himself, but chooses not to." Then you might ask, "Why does he choose not to." And the answer would be, "because it would limit his power." And so we come full circle back to: "if it's possible that something could limit the limitless, then is it truly limitless?"
@TianYuanEX yeah I thought about that. But, I don't know how else to say it lol. Can I use reason to acknowledge the possibility of something operating outside of reason?
Agree. The very definition, "we" can come up for God is a full of paradoxes, incoherences, ilogic arguments, etc. The very concept is really problematic. So... why is that?
And something that impresses me is that God is often postulated as the solution of the problem of infinite regression, because 'a infinite regression is obviously impossible', but a singular being beint three times infinite is perfectly ok.
Warning this is cut and paste The Epicurean paradox is a logical dilemma that argues against the existence of a god who is all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good: If God is willing to prevent evil but can't, then God is not all-powerful. If God is able to prevent evil but isn't willing to, then God is not all-good.
I still say that an omnipotent god can create a rock so heavy he himself can't lift, but doing so would necessarily require that god to render themselves no longer omnipotent
This whole question comes down to, is God Bound by some type of universal laws or logic. If logic or universal laws apply, then no, you're all powerful and you can't create something you can't do. And if he's not all-powerful but if he can't create the stone, then maybe he's just bound to some type of rules that would be a contradiction to what your requesting logically. Then again, let's take the four-sided triangle, a triangle is three sides, but what if he creates a pyramid, it's three sides, but it also has a bottom which is a fourth side which we don't see, at least in our 3D World, 4th dimensional it'd probably be a pyramid
Set theory: In the set of things that human beings can do you should find "To create an object that its creator cannot lift". If an omnipotent being can do whatever a human being can, then in the set of things that an omnipotent being can do you should find also "To create an object that its creator cannot lift". Of course in the case of an omnipotent being this is paradoxical, so what you should do is to take it out from such set, giving you the outcome that there is at least one thing human beings can do that omnipotent beings can't, so omnipotence is proved false. But you decided to save omnipotence by assuming that it is true, so suddenly "To create an object that its creator cannot lift is not logically possible for an omnipotent being". By doing that you are not just begging the question, but solving a paradox with another paradox, I believe.
Some Romantic thinkers positively chafe under the constraints of math and logic, and they don't want their god limited by these things either. For example, philosopher Lev Shestov was particularly upset by the injustice of Socrates' death, and insisted that God must be able to defy logic, and undo such past injustices and correct them.
@@Needlestolearn Therefore a paradoxical situation like the rock scenario cannot stop him. The laws of logic hold no power over him. So he can or cannot make a rock so heavy that he cannot lift it?
@@BrainRotVideosAF God can create anything with the inherent ability to disobey Gods command. Therefore a rock which rejects to be lifted even by God is possible but this ability stems from god endowing it with this kind of ability. However, a rock which rejects Gods power is impossible as God has power over everything.
Hm. It is easier to argue against *"omniscience"* in itself rather than against _"omnipotence"_ in itself: P1) If there is an omniscient God or God is omnisciente knowing everything including any and every halting problem, then the general halting problem would be solvable and decidable (at least by that omniscient being). P2) According to Turing, the general halting problem is unsolvable and undecidable (by all means - not even an omniscient being is capable of solving and deciding it totally). C) Therefore, there is no omniscient God or at least God is certainly not omniscient knowing everything as God is at least not capable of solving and deciding the unsolvable and undecidable general halting problem totally and certainly. Just replace by or with in here *"Impossible Programs (The Halting Problem)"* (by Undefined Behavior ruclips.net/video/wGLQiHXHWNk/видео.htmlsi=xuhvAO7tA6cqRogj ) and you will get the gist of my argument against _"omniscience"_ and an _"omniscient God"._
This line of thinking is the only way I can come close to the reconciliation of sin, suffering and evil in relation to a loving, just and benevolent god. That perhaps these aspects are part of the definition of reality, in a similar way that four sides are part of the definition of a square. Reality can't exist without sin, evil and suffering, much like a square cannot exist without four sides.
That idea doesn't fit with the dominant conception of God or orthodox Christianity. A deity being limited in what they can make and being constrained by more than just logical impossibilities is more defensible position but largely obscure in a post Christian framework.
@@japexican007 Yeah there's plenty of holes in the (imo) most reasonable explanation which is why I find it more convincing to believe that god doesn't exist. Reality without suffering is far more conceivable than a square with 3 sides.
@@doloadventures You are just accepting the reasoning of the Epicurean Trilemma. Reality without suffering is conceivable and is possible for a omni being to create. If there is no omni creator then suffering is a valid aspect of reality since no agent has the power or will to change it. Without further reasoning the best you get is skepticism towards a particular kind of theism associated with the Abrahamic Religions.
Honestly, I think this kind of constraint on God would have bothered me back when I was a theist. As I understood it at the time, omnipotence meant that God could do anything, full stop. Restricting that power to only what is logically possible doesn't imply atheism, but it would take way some seemingly desirable hypothetical abilities, such as changing the past, or (if the future is open) knowing the future, which would probably make me question whether God is truly relevant to my life. For instance, can he intervene on the physical world, or would that entail violating the laws of physics, and would _that_ be a logical contradiction? Can he hear my prayers, or is there some logical contradiction to a being who is supposedly non-physical (and therefore lacks any sort of auditory organ) being able to hear anything? Can he even _think_ if he doesn't have a brain or central nervous system? Again, none of this proves that God doesn't exist, but his capacities would certainly affect the nature of our relationship to him.
If you define omnipotence as the ability to do everything that is possible... Can he create a universe? (Out of nothing?) Can he exist outside of time and space?
3:00 Polygons with only two sides exist. Take two lines of longitude that meet at the poles. These form two-sided polygons in spherical geometry called lunes. Logic is something we evolved to use to survive in the world, but the laws of nature don't care. Quantum mechanics has its own kind of reasoning, for instance, and it often doesn't make sense to us. But that doesn't mean it's wrong. The word "impossible" is the problem. I say it's not possible for a three-days-dead human being to be resurrected. Why not? Because that's what the laws of biology and entropy have revealed to us. You might be able to imagine a human being rising from the grave and not a two-sided triangle, but that is technically an argument from incredulity. A moment ago, you might not have been able to imagine a two-sided polygon.
I think in this hypothetical euclidian geometry is implied. Remember that the idea was to present something logically impossible, the specific example isn't as relevant.
A question that you'd also need to ask is what does someone mean by "lift"? Would you mean to define "lift" as, "move, under a planetary body, in the direction opposite to said planet, without damaging the rock"? Because under that logic what would suppose that the rock could be created, and gravity could then be altered on that planetary body that would allow it to be "lifted"? If you teleported this rock to a location with different gravitational power, then "lifted" it, would that count? Going a step farther, how can you say that the force of gravity acting upon the rock is not it being "lifted"? It is merely being "lifted" in a direction that is from a different position. By the logic of "a rock that cannot be lifted by anything in existence" you would need thus for the rock to be immune to the action of any outside force, operantly, gravity. But even then, what about moving the entirety of existence AROUND this rock, could that not be counted as "lifting" the rock? Thus, not only does this rock need to be immune to outside forces, but it also must simultaneously be constantly in motion such that its position relative to the universe around it never changes. However, this also means that the rock IS being moved, i.e. it is being "lifted". A "rock that cannot be lifted" must therefore be a rock that never moves relative to any potential observer, it must somehow be both a rock that remains in a fixed position in an ever moving universe, both in absolute space and relative to the objects around it. Except if it remains fixed in an absolute location, then it is moving relative to other objects, and if it does not move relative to other objects, it must be changing its location in absolute space. Imagine you have a bar graph where you have four points that are all a fixed distance from each other, and you have a fifth center point. You wish for this center point to remain at the center of the four other points, but you do not wish for this center point's X-Y coordinates to change. If you move the four points, you must choose either to change the fifth point's position such that it remains a center point, or you must choose its X-Y coordinates to remain fixed so it is no longer a center point. If you wished to "lift" the center point, you could do so by moving the four points around it. This is what makes it a type of "logical impossibility." It's not an impossibility of saying, "Find the largest number," it's one where the definition of a "rock that cannot be lifted" is something that you need to define what "lift" means and when you really boil down what exactly it would entail, such an object simply cannot exist as it would need to be simultaneously exhibit two mutually exclusive traits.
@@joshuadala3508 I know what lift means if you're speaking colloquially and about normal people but if you're speaking about a question that is more abstract, like if we're talking about an omnipotent being who is able to warp the cosmos themselves, how exactly do you define "lift"? The definition of the term is important to discuss what exactly you mean. If you include within one the ability to do things that ARE very clearly within the realms of possibility, such as the ability to move any number of objects in the universe, with precision, simultaneously, an object that "cannot be lifted" is a logical impossibility.
I think it's a loaded question, as it contains the premise that there possibly exists a stone which God cannot lift, and the question is, can God make one? But if God is omnipotent such that he can lift all possible stones, that entails the premise of the question is false. Maybe there's a way to improve it by stating the task as "create a stone so big that its maker can't lift it" but now it's much more clear that the self-referential nature of the question is causing a problem kinda like the barber's paradox
I think one way to think about this argument can give it lot of value. That is, we are talking about impossible and possible things from our present of existence, ie universe and laws of logic and physics that already exist. And then we find that God needs to be confined inside those same laws of logic he created. But what when we look at the moment God created universe and laws of logic, was he constrained then too? Seems non-sensical that God created laws of logic while he was constrained by those same laws of logic. Thats why theist are, with good reason, frightened by this argument.
“For whosoever will save his life shall lose it; but whosoever shall lose his life for my sake and the gospel's, the same shall save it. Whosoever therefore shall be ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation; of him also shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he cometh in the glory of his Father with the holy angels.” Mark 8:35, 38 KJV
“God can do anything that is possible to do.” Then he can’t create the universe out of nothing. He can’t multiply the loaves and fish to feed the multitude. He can’t turn water into wine. He can’t raise the dead.
@@Emperorhirohito19272 i can move them in my head without contradicting the law of identity, but thise modified laws do not apply to the world , they are just aren't incarnated
@@planteruines5619 how do you know your ability to conceive something means it could possibly exist? How do you know the laws of nature could be any other way and are as they are arbitrarily?
@@Emperorhirohito19272 changing the laws of nature doesn't result in logical contradictions. It's logically possible for the laws of nature to be different, meaning: Logic allows for that possibility to be the case. It doesn't violate any laws of logic. That's what's meant by "possible" here
God isn't bound to the rules of our reality, or any rules, by constrained necessity, but rather by unconstrained necessity, meaning that constraints are willingly self imposed by a mind with total self control. The reality we experience is an aspect of creation where reason exists as a method of understanding, or knowing ones place inside of, reality. It would be like saying "can you draw a rock you cannot lift?", both yes and no, you can lift the paper, but you cannot lift the rock, however you could draw yourself lifting the rock on the page but that would only be a representation of you lifting the rock, so you're not lifting it. Christian theology actually already answered a more interesting question "can God die?" to which the answer is both yes and no depending on the outcome God desires, which is tautological with existence, an existence which has a history, laws, direction and purpose, all of which depend on God allowing it to be so. God's desire, in so far as we're able to know it, is for minds independent of God's own to experience creation and through that process change, which God is unable to do, and in doing so discover that which binds creation, gives it a teleological direction and serves as a bedrock for further creation, that thing being agape.
I do feel like it could be noted that the definition in terms of something like a four sided triangle not being able to exist because it is impossible is impossible as our definition of a triangle defines it as not having more or less than three sides, so if a all powerful god were to make a four sided triangle then that god would need to redefine what a triangle means. Same with a stone that can not be lifted, an all powerful god would need to redefine what it means for something to not be able to be lifted.
If God is a Boltzmann brain-a hypothetical consciousness that arises spontaneously in the universe-then reality exists within His thoughts. In this framework, He could imagine an unliftable stone and, by adjusting His thoughts, lift it as well. This resolves the paradox: the "stone" only exists as a mental construct, free from physical limitations. This aligns with the Bible, which describes creation as coming from God's will or word. If the world is a product of His thoughts, it’s flexible and unrestricted by our physical laws, allowing Him to "create" and "lift" at will.
Well that would render the stone perfectly liftable in the first place. I can currently bench press 180 lbs. But I can 'create' a 200 lbs weight by putting an extra plate on the bar. But by adjusting my training regiment I could lift the previously unliftable weight. For the paradox to mean something it can't simply be that the rock's weight is beyond God's current capabilities, the rock must also be beyond God's possible capabilities. But this implies that God has potential and that causes a whole host of issues, especially with the concept of God as an uncaused cause.
The God who can exist in our minds isn't the real God. The real God is the Mind that keeps all contingent physical reality in existence moment by moment, and who is not bound by that physical reality.
@@juanausensi499 He told us, then we told each other, and he confirms it by his presence in those who will accept him. He comes to us, Being to being. To all who will have him.
@@juanausensi499 If someone asked you to marry, to open your whole life to that person, and you said yes. It means unconditionally trusting that person.
Matthew Whittle's argument for why it isn't a paradox is the best: "Could God create a stone so heavy that even He could not lift it?" Yes, He could. He is omnipotent. "This stone contradicts His omnipotence." Until the stone is created, He remains omnipotent.
I still think God should be able to do ANYTHING regardless of how ilogical or "impossible" is. He could just redefine what that means. If logic comes from God, he could just change logic to suit whatever reality he dreams of. I can do that everynight in my dreams. Why can´t God? I think one of the main problems we have when we talk about this is that all our definitions, all of our abstract construcions are biased! We define things from our human perspective because it is the only one we know and can use. We really have no fucking idea what God, if such thing really exsts, is or wants, can or can not do or whatever.
Perhaps God can make impossible "worlds", meaning realities where logic is not like ours, but that type of realities can only be "percieved" by God, it is literally "impossible" for any other entity to experience this types of realities. So all "real" physicial worlds must be bound by some kind of logic. However we still could ask why cant God make other entities capable of experience these realities? Can God make other semi-mini Gods? In the end, it does seem like is is restricted by his own nature. It always comes down to some kind of paradox. God is a problematic concept in itself.
Ngl I agree with many Atheist counterarguments to religion but this has to be the worst one 😅 I mean think of it this way, let's say you are the programmer and you developed a first person shooter game, so could you program an enemy that can kill you in admin mode? Of course you could, but what makes you God in a sense is that, you can also remove that feature, I think if God is real that's how he'd also answer this riddle, he can create a rock that he can't lift or burrito so hot even he can't eat, but, like programmer, he can also remove this feature. So he is, technically, able to do both, he's able to create something that defies him but is able to remove it. Just like how programmer can make an enemy that can even kill you in God/admin mode. Alternatively I guess you could say no he can't do, but that's because he exists in seperate plane of existence. Also I'd argue that alone does make God unique, the fact that he can create the most OP thing in existence even he can't lift but then he can deprogram it to not be OP is in itself a unique God power. Being able to experience both states of being OP and not OP. Feel free to correct me guys if I missed something 😅
the problem is with the equivocation and change in definitions and how theists change 'god' through the ages. The paradox also comes more into play when other aspects of 'gods' character are assessed, omnibenevolence and omniscience. While the omni paradox does not stand on its own it is just one more reason I do not believe in 'god'.
The "impossible" counterargument fails because ostensibly God determines what is and isn't possible so there's no reason that he couldn't do something impossible
I suppose God could create a tiny pebble and grant unto that pebble agency to allow itself to be lifted or not. While He could subsequently override and destroy the agency of that pebble and lift it against its will, in this notional example if the pebble does not consent to be lifted, then God honoring the pebble’s agency by not lifting it does not reduce His omnipotence and power. Similarly He has both ability and desire to lift us, but He has granted us our agency to choose Him or not. Even an ordinary pebble obeys the voice of the Lord, are we more or less obedient? Just food for thought.
"With men this is impossible, but with God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26. I agree the stone paradox is at the bottom of the barrel for pro-atheist arguments because it doesn't even begin to attack the foundations of theism. But if God can't do literally everything, then what does omnipotent even really mean? God can do any possible thing, which really just means he can do anything it's possible for him to do. But I can do anything it's possible for me to do too and I'm not omnipotent. God has capacities beyond me, but I also have capacities beyond him. I'd say it is impossible for God to delight in sin. Even if Satan tempted Jesus as a man, if Jesus not only succumbed to temptation but enjoyed it I think that would fundamentally violate the nature of divinity just as surely as four sided triangles violates logic. How could the source of goodness enjoy what is contrary to goodness? For Jesus to delight in sin must surely break him off from the concept of God in the same way that adding a fourth side to a triangle removes it from the category of triangles. But it is not logically impossible for a human to enjoy what is contrary to goodness since we have fallen natures. God can do anything possible for God to do and I can do anything possible for me to do. I don't think the stone paradox is a good atheist argument, but I do think it succeeds in pointing out that when you really dig deep, the word omnipotent sounds grandiose but is really just an empty concept.
The answer to this is actually really simple: yes. Let's say the mass of a stone so big God cannot lift it is i (this doesn't have to be a possible number). Can an omnipotent creator create such a rock? Yes. Can an omnipotent God lift this rock? Also yes. There is no contradiction here; the rock exists as a mathematical abstract, but also is by definition moveable by an omnipotent being.
Is imagination a test for logical impossibility? If we can imagine something, does that mean it's logically possible? eg. can we imagine a square circle?
The usefulness of this argument for atheism is 2 things. First, it brings to forefront the question of whether God is at the top of hierarchy or logical laws and restrictions. If it's logic, then the reasons for worshiping god diminish in various ways (although they wouldn't be eliminated). And second, if the answer is that God is (or God and logic are the same), then God cannot hide behind excuses with the nature of "God had to" or similar, such as Shapiro claiming God had to condone slavery to some degree, otherwise human hearts couldn't accept his religion. He could make it so that he doesn't condone slavery, and simultaneously, human hearts could accept his religion. If he's above logical laws, then he never "has to", and always only "chooses to".
It might be that God and logic are the same, but since we do not know what God and logic really are we cannot ever say for sure. It is so funny to observe the ants spouting out their "definitiv" judgments about the elephant with that self-confident faces of theirs....
@@alena-qu9vj as I said, if God and logic are the same, my second point still applies. Also "definitiv" and "self-confident" more aptly describes religous sources, which, to be fair, are fun to watch or read.
@@mohamaddelkhah What do you mean by "religious sources" precisely? As far as I know, according to the theology God is "unspeakable, unknowable, incomprehensible.." . This is the official position of those who really know what they are talking about. Of course there are dabblers on both sides, but the theists have no problem to acknowledge that human brain is not omnipotent at least, which materialistic atheists have big problem with.
@@alena-qu9vj yet they make innumerous claims about characteristics and nature of God with absolute certainty and zero doubt. "Omnipotent", "omniscient", "benevolent", "good", "timeless", "sentient", "truthful", "forgiving", "just", and hundreds more. These are all claims about that unknowable incomprehensible entity which are made by religious books, scripture, and figures. Looks like they pick and choose when to respect that "unknowable" and "incomprehensible" part.
@@mohamaddelkhah You still have not specified what you mean by "religious" or - as of late - "they". Do not obsess with the Abrahamic image of god so much. There are many different concepts of supernatural.
(I am typing this in the middle of the video and i am glad it was brought up) I would rather go in the path of concepts. For example: What is a triangle? A triangle of 4 sides can't not exist because a triangle has 3 sides, if it has more or less then 3 it's not a triangle anymore. The same with the square circle concept that sometimes people bring up. A square circle is nothing more than two words put together that contradict eachother and don't mean anything. It's the absurd, God can't make the absurd.
Omnipotence doesn't mean the power to do logically impossible things. For example, even an omnipotent being can't make a "square circle" because it's self-contradictory by definition. 🤷🏻
The reason I love this argument is because if god cannot do impossible or illogical things then creating the universe from nothing is out of God's power, assuming it is illogical.
Since the Christian God is a Covenant (promise) keeping God then if God says that this rock is to heavy for me to lift he keeps his word and that rock is to heavy for God to lift.
"Can God draw a triangle with 4 sides?" I mean, geometry is descriptive. If you draw a regular, 3 sided triangle, then modify it to give it an extra side, you could grammatically say "the triangle now has four sides," because you are referencing the name of the object from before it was changed, though it would probably be better to say: "the triangle has become a quadrilateral." Because any shape that has four sides is a quadrilateral by the definitions we made to describe shapes. To me, this highlights how triangles themselves don't physically exist, the same way numbers don't. Three sided objects exist and triangles are just a concept we use to describe three sides objects. So can God make a three sided object have four sides? Clearly yes, if omnipotent. To make a Triangle itself be redefined to have 4 sides, he might have to hack the collective human consciousness and edit every written resource to internally change our systemic definitions of triangles. If he is truly omnipotent, he can do this, and also to do so imperceptibly if he wishes. Therefore, we can't know for certain he hasn't done so already, as it would stand to reason he could change every person's memory simultaneously and perfectly so no human could remember that it was ever not true that triangles could have 4 sides. We only know at the moment that if such a being has such powers, for the moment they allow us to collectively believe that a three sided object is called a triangle and a four sided object us called a quadrilateral, making a four sided triangle "impossible." This begins to resemble the simulation argument with God filling the role of the simulation administrator. It could also be aliens or hyper advanced humans just as easily, because this answer treats the solution as modifying data entries in a database.
applying logic to the concept of an omnipotent god is an arbitrary imposition. A god that can both create and not create a rock so heavy it can't lift is unthinkable, but not necessarily impossible. Applying logic or saying God can't act against its true nature is a theological patch. It's also a silly place to stop. Religion already asks people to believe in things that defy logic, why stop short of embracing things that seem logically impossible. Just because we can't imagine or perceive an omnipotent thing doing these things, doesn't mean they are impossible. They are just inaccessible to reason. But if you are selling me an unfathomable god, this is the kind of God I want. the kind that defies everything.
The God of the Bible is both outside and inside of His creation, He fills all things and is therefore Omnipresence. The question is illogical because it doesn't take into consideration all the attributes of God, example, His Omnipresent, it's like asking, "can God lift Himself" you see how illogical it is?
Well, I can stack a bunch of rocks in a pile too heavy for me to lift. So, how is it impossible for an omnipotent being? This is where I think you guys are mistaken, and this is quite an important distinction to make. By presenting the stone paradox, we're not asking God to perform an impossible task like making 1+1 equal to 3 or lift a stone AND not lift a stone at the same time. If we are to remain consistent, we can label this task : _"Making a stone so heavy it can't be lifted by its maker."_ and just like that, it belongs to the set of all possible things. The problem comes up when you consider that this is a task that all non-omnipotent beings can perform, but no omnipotent being can... It's terribly ironic, isn't it? What gives? Perhaps raising this proposition to infinity is where the symmetry breaks, and that is, in no small part, fault of the definition that relies on unrestricted comprehension. To make this go away, we can redefine omnipotence all we want, but in doing so, we're degrading the attributes of God to a point that's totally inconsistent with the major tri-omni Abrahamic concept, and could even be considered blasphemous. How more obvious could it be that an alleged being with such properties is inescapably broken? Also, I have to say, for likely the first time, that I'm genuinely disappointed with your demeanor the entire video. This is an extremely complicated subject with roots in analytic philosophy and logic. Unfortunately, it seems that you haven't considered it for longer than a few minutes at a time. How to define "omni-anything," how inclusive an infinite set is, what characteristics God is supposed to have, and what declares a being impossible are just a few of the vast questions you could've put forth and investigated but you chose to divert and make jokes... And what's more frustrating is that if you pick apart its premises, they rely on the same principles as the problem of evil, WHICH YOU RANKED S TIER!? This is actually embarrassing. Needless to say, I wasn't prepared for that when I clicked on the video.
The answer is very simple: the question implies g-d is the type of being that lifts (in space time, has parts etc) but g-d has no body he does not lift anything. He could create a universe where there is antigravity that lifts the rock and one where it doesn’t. But He Himself doesn’t lift anything. How tall is blue? How fat is courage? Misapplications. If ur response is that this is just the general structure but we could rephrase it to apply to g-d as bodiless, then I can’t be faulted for replying to what has been stated. State a different case and we can respond to it. Until then the entire question is a waste of time
It's not clear to me how "a rock so heavy that God can't lift it" is impossible like a four-sided triangle is. The latter is obvious to me; it's impossible by the definition of a triangle.
@@MurshidIslam because the definition of God is an "infinitely" powerful being, so for a rock to exist that an infinitely powerful being cannot lift must be infinite by definition or greater than infinite (whatever greater than infinite means)
@@MurshidIslam infinite mass in a closed body with quantitative area? (a closed body must have a definite surface area) if it has area it also has perimeter and volume which rocks do, then it is mathematically deduced to numbers which would mean its finite. 👉and a rock without area and perimeter would be a logical fallacy because its just as necessary for a rock to have these qualities as it is for a triangle to have only 3 sides instead of 4👈
Asked another way: Can God limit himself? Which, to me, just sounds like "can God restrain himself, such as to refrain from action." And I think... the answer is yes, but why would that take away from him being omnipotent? Another, similar, question is: can God sin? Well, is he unable or unwilling? Unable would imply non-omnipotence. So, he answer is yes but chooses not to. But wait, what is sin? It's acting outside of the accordance of God. Can God act outside of himself? Well... no. Does that mean he's not omnipotent... I don't think so? It's like saying a square isn't a square because it's not a circle.
It's much like the paradox of being all good and all powerful, where if you're all good, then nothing you do can be evil - and that is a limitation, therefore you're not all powerful.
Can God limit himself is a different question. A more general way to put it is can God's unlimited power be frustrated? If unlimited power by definition cant be frustrated, then the answer must be 'no'.
@@a.jperez202 I like that, but then I can bring it back around to asking, "Can God's unlimited power be used to frustrate his unlimited power? (Can God limit himself)
@@jasonhendricks4562 Conceptually I dont see why an unlimited god couldn't limit himself. He would just not be omnipotent anymore. Can an omnipotent god make it so that he is no longer omnipotent? Sure, unless we smuggle additional qualities into what it means to be omnipotent to rule that out. But i must say that not even God can frustrate unlimited power since that is logically contradictory. Its like making a married bachelor.
The way I would imagine "omnipotence" is that God would have absolute control over this universe. A bit like how a programmer created a virtual reality, they could control what happens in that virtual reality. Or how an author can control what happens in a book. There might be things that God couldn't do to himself. But that's kind of irrelevant. If God still had absolute control over this universe, I think that's all that matters. And I think that would justify calling God omnipotent.
I like the idea of a constrained God; constrained by it's own sense of/commitment to logic, principals, and laws of nature it established. A God that can create a logical contradiction seems not only impossible but also a simplistic interpretation that a dumb human came up with not realizing they were violating every principal of logic when contriving this 'god'. And for those that try to point that God does this or that that is 'impossible' such as existing outside of physical reality, raising a man from the dead etc; I would counter this with saying those are 'seemingly' impossible. It is possible that we from our perspective do not fully know what is possible and what is not. Raising a man from the dead is not a logical paradox in the same way that making a stone so big that he cannot lift.
@@planteruines5619 good point, you can say for God logic is not merely a principal it follows up an indistinguishable characteristic. Not really a "constraint" but an essential part of its nature. I do not see any issue with your point.
Humans can create structures so heavy they can't lift it; there is nothing inherently illogical about the concept of creating something that far exceeds the ability of its creator in some respect or another, int his case the rock being heavy.
Ordinarily I would dismiss this argument on the basis of it being an issue of logic - I accept that a claim of "omnipotence" does not allow for logical impossibilities. However, when a theist claims that their God created the laws of logic (ie TAG) the argument is back on the table
It’s absurd that the God who created logic would be subject to it by His very nature. Either God created logic and is not bound by it (which is self-refuting) or God is secondary to logic, which is the most fundamental thing in the universe. It’s my belief that if we bypass God altogether, logic explains everything. It’s Turing-Complete, meaning that it can simulate any Turing-Complete system, including our own universe (assuming that it’s computable in principle).
Heisenberg's indeterminacy principle places direct experimental limitations on what can be known. Any attempt to simulate the universe would only exist in tautology as the universe
@@indi_prime A few things to note: 1. Quantum systems can do everything classical systems can do, they’re just more efficient since they can run in parallel. 2. Even if we can’t know the exact state of the universe experimentally, it could be possible to simulate the universe in principle, because of point 1. We are on the verge of discovering a theory that explains all the behaviours of the universe. 3. Turing-Completeness explains many other things as well: a. Mathematics can be simulated by the brain, but also describes the universe. b. We often see computer science explanations popping up in physical theories: Bits, entropy, compression, optimization, etc. c. Turing-Complete systems require memory to work. The farther we zoom out, the more states are possible, so we expect to see more behaviours. That’s called emergence.
@seanpierce9386 none of that disproves my point, also, simulation of qualia is far beyond our current capacity and that's an essential aspect of any simulated universe
@@indi_prime We don’t even know that other people have qualia like I do (and I assume you do). I mean, we’re able to look at the neural networks produced by training image generation AI, and it has concepts of “dogness”, “catness”, etc. That’s leaps and bounds ahead of what we can know about our fellow humans. I think you’re assuming that the existence of qualia and other conscious experiences implies that the mind is somehow nonphysical. But that doesn’t follow at all. Emergence, embodiment in a physical universe, and the need for pattern recognition and reconstruction can explain qualia without the need to resort to magic (or whatever explanation you might propose).
@seanpierce9386 I'm not suggesting anything about the nature of qualia specifically, only that to simulate it would make it, theoretically, indistinguishable from the original from the perspective of the simulated qualia, thereby returning us to my original assertion, that to simulate a universe would require a universal tautology
I'm having difficulty with the definition of omnipotence as only the ability to do that which is rationally possible, and then saying that this giga heavy rock is a rationally incoherent concept. Can I describe myself as omnipotent? I am weak (I have a certain muscle mass, certain amount of leverage with my bone structure, ect.), so I cannot lift 500 lbs off the ground (I've been exercising free will and the capacity to change so I've been getting pretty close). However, it's just not possible for me to lift that weight; a weak person cannot do that. Does that mean my inability to do what is definitionally impossible for me to do because of my nature (i.e. god cannot tell a lie because he is the perfect truth) similarly doesn't refute my ability to do anything that isn't something that I can't do? I of course can change, gain muscle mass, and stop being a weak person, but if that means it always was rationally possible while giga rock wasn't does this mean that god cannot change and/or lacks the free will to do so? Apart from the mathematical analysis of omniscience and rational interrogation of the paradox, it seems that this reveals serious frictions with the way these religious beliefs are commonly presented or understood. I think Alex is underestimating the mileage of this problem. Like other comments have discussed, fixtures of orthodox beliefs like miracles become compromised; I don't think the authors of these texts meant to convey "hey, god can add these ingredients to water and cause a reaction to change it to wine super quick" or "he can separate the water in the red sea to form a walkway. you all will probably be able to do this in the future, but he can do it now!" I suspect they meant he can do the truly impossible. Perhaps Aquinas' definition of omnipotence as power bound by logic is made in bad faith, or is a kowtow to the greek enlightenment.
A square with 3 sides is “impossible” by definition. That has nothing to do with the rock “paradox”. If there’s one thing that theists DO believe is possible, it’s God creating a rock, given that they assert he created the entire universe. So it’s not even a rhetorical question, let alone a paradox.
If being omnipotent means being able to do only what is possible, then we have to dismiss every miracle attributed to god and reduce him to mere human capabilities. For example, turning water into wine in an instant isn't possible, right? One might argue that it could be, under the right pressure, temperature, and with the right ingredients, but that just delays the problem. How could anyone create such perfect conditions in a split second?
In my opinion, this paradox is not, as some have called it, "argumentative noise" or nonsense. I believe that paradoxes are useful tools in logic, much like inequalities are in mathematics-they help us quickly identify when something isn't working, indicating that an error has been made.
On one hand, I get where you're coming from. How did Jesus turn 5 loaves and two fishes into such that it fed 5,000 people. Or Him walking on water. But, there's an easy solution to this:
God can manipulate the laws of reality, but He can't contradict the laws of reality. In all of Jesus's miracles, He was manipulating the laws of the universe in order to do what He willed to do, but He never contradicted those laws by creating a square triangle, or making something so heavy that His power couldn't lift it.
I think this is less of the things we find to be impossible, and more of the things that are logically contradictory. Just my guess but there isnt anythign illogical about an all powerful God doing miracles, but more so of an all powerful God not being all powerful in all scenarios.
For example, if we said God snapped his metophorical fingers and created the universe, there isnt an issue. But if God tries to fix the problem in this video, we run into problems because he starts breaking laws of logic, P and not P.
So yea miracles would be possible, contradictions wouldnt is what im assuming.
Yeah, great comments guys, and actually after I thought of theoretical god as lets say a "programmer" of our reality, and the scenario when he can potentially upload himself into that reality with all the cheat codes in his belt then indeed miracles as local manipulations of the universe pass whereas logical issues remain - stone can't be too heavy and not too heavy in the same time.
What's being talked about in the video is logical impossibility, not physical impossibility
I can just see them rewriting the Trinity now. God is the programmer, the holy spirit is the code, and Jesus is the avatar
How do you decide what is and isn't possible? Creating time seems impossible to me, but God did it. If a is b and b is c then a is c, but the trinity says it's not true. So can God do impossible things or not? Or is he only limited to impossible things convenient to people who believe in him.
So how did god go from a god that had not created time to a god creating time to a god that had created time without time. aka in a state of stasis? Do you have any evidence to back up the claim god did create time? Never seen god do anything so I dont know if he can do the impossible or not, does not even show he can do the possible.
The Trinity says it’s not true? Not sure what you are talking about
@@thejerichoconnection3473The trinity says the father is the son and the father is not the son. So a is equal to b and a is not equal to b.
@@scottneusen9601 no, that’s not what the Trinitarian theology says. Please, read and study before strawmanning.
@@thejerichoconnection3473 why dont you tell us then
I think this turns into the Euthyphro dilemma. If god can’t do what is logically impossible, then we don’t need to appeal to god, the laws of logic are supreme. If god created the laws of logic, he could change them so the paradox disappears.
Having the power to not have all powers does not contradict the set of having all powers until that power is exercised.
God can have the power to microwave a burito so hot that he can no longer and eat it, but until god uses that power he remains all powerful.
@@memegazer I can see what you're saying, but doesn't that still perclude God from doing those things? God would never do something that would stop him from being God, right?
I do agree with you that it could be possible for God to change the laws of logic to make certain paradoxes disappear, but then that would only create new paradoxes (if logic still exists). it is very possible that God could create a universe where a triangle with four sides exists, but then for that to exist certain things that may exist in our current universe would then become new contradictions in that one. I don’t find it to be very problematic or a big deal at all that there will always be certain paradoxes. For there to be a paradox there has to be order, so a world with no paradoxes is a world of complete chaos. with that, it makes sense that God would choose a world of order.
@@Radi0actvChickn
No
I have the power to kill myself right?
But that doesn't mean either I am dead or I can't.
@@isakhedeen
It's not a logical contradiction.
The set of all powers can include the power to not be all powerful without logical contradiction.
This is a simple matter of order of operations.
Demonstrate god lifting any stone
Your mother
If god can do anything have him say “Hello”…
I think we found something a fictional entity can’t do, interact with reality or take any tangible or testable action of any kind or provide any evidence whatsoever of its existence outs of its fictional book.
Why is God required to? Reddit athiests stop treating God like their estranged earthly father challenge: improbable
Listen I know you may dislike this answer, but if you truly start praying he will indeed talk with you. Even some of us religius folk forget that prayer can also be a form of communication with God.
Many people at least claim to have spoken with God, so give it a shot and it might work for you, you've got nothing to lose.
Also there is many evidence outside of the Bible to support Gods existence, Alex literally made a 2 hour video discussing evidence for God, and even saying many of the arguments are good.
I suggest looking a the contingency argument for example, a really good argument for God, which Alex discuses in the video I mentioned before
@@indi_prime I mean, if the Christian deity wants a personal relationship with each of us, which is often claimed, the least it can do is introduce itself with a hello. If one wants to save us all and through omniscience knows the very words to convince even the reddit atheists, why does it demure?
@@zotaninoron3548 If God suddenly started putting words in people's heads people's first reaction wouldn't be its God, and with good cause
@@indi_prime God isn't requited to. But if god can then why can't he prove it? Christians not getting emotional when confronted with facts and logic challenge impossible.
I don't think the triangle counts because that's a matter of definition. The rock god can't lift definitely does put limits on god's power. The slightly weaker version of omnipotence does work. So in a sense, this argument is powerful, but it's also incredibly easy to get around it.
I agree. A much better point would be creating a (Euclidean) triangle whose angles don't sum to 180°.
How do you easily get around it?
The rock so heavy that a God who can lift anything can't lift it is equally a contradiction by definition.
@@bigdavexx1
No it's not. A triangle is defined as a closed shape comprised of 3 line segments. Definitionally, anything else isn't a triangle.
A rock isn't too heavy to lift by definition. You have to add that context explicitly.
@@avishevin1976 , it's not just "a rock" in the paradox like it's not just "a polygon".
Can a specific polygon have both exactly 3 sides and exactly 4 sides at the same time? [no]
Can a specific rock have the property of "unliftable" and "liftable" at the same time? [no]
Sometimes the question itself is the problem.
Maybe God can create a stone so heavy he can't lift it, but at the very instant of it being created his power requires that he now be able to lift it, and he can. Both making him powerful enough to create the stone he cannot lift and powerful enough to lift it anyway
But this makes god less powerful at a specific time than another, and this contradicts the omnipotent criteria .also, this makes him within the realm of time .
One answer to this question that always stuck with me is that of Leo Gura who said god can do that, but only if god convinces itself that it can't lift this rock. It's like a videogame developer that created limits and rules in his videogame.
Ofc this suggests that god isn't all-knowing in this moment yes, but Gura has a different conception of god.
Don’t play coy with me. Evil isn’t a problem because it makes me cry when my opponent suffers. If it happens to me? That’s because I didn’t pay.
A triangle with 4 sides is called a pyramid
A pyramid doesn't have four sides.
@@Eddieshred yeah hu
@@bishsama3252 Unless you're talking about a tetrahydron. But Alex' point was a triangle doesn't exist with four sides. If it did, it would not longer be a triangle by definition.
@@Eddieshred so dats what dats called. should just be four sided triangle tbh smh
If I were a theist I'd say God doesn't create the stone. He becomes the stone, just as he became you.
An omnipotent God can make our human logic a meaningless laughingstock. And He does so - by inspiring such stupid questions.
To lift something, don't you need to be a physical being first? The rock should be in a physical space with gravity for it to be counted as being lifted right? So does the question require God to be a physical being, and to lift a physical rock that is heavily influenced by gravity with the use of hands? What does it mean to lift a heavy rock outside of space and time?
The "stone so heavy he couldn't lift it" paradox differs fundamentally from the "square circle" paradox, in that the "square circle" paradox, is, as you say, just definitionally impossible, as it's not possible even to imagine a square circle; however, the "stone" paradox is not, because the paradox doesn't lie in the definition of the terms involved, but in the subject of the dilemma itself, i.e. God, and it is possible to imagine a stone of any size or mass. What this means is that the stone, unlike the square circle "is a thing", because the stone is just a regular stone. Its weight is the only property that's in question. The paradox, therefore, lies in God's ability to create or lift it, not in the object itself...
So, the real question is, "Is God capable of being incapable?" If God is capable of being incapable, it means that he is incapable, because he has the potential to not be able to do something. Conversely, if God is incapable of being incapable, then he is also incapable by definition.
And if your objection is that: "...since God is supposedly omnipotent, the phrase "he couldn't lift" does not make sense and the paradox is meaningless," then, you're just engaged in sophistry and are simply defining your God into existence.
The one objection to this version of the omnipotence paradox that I don't have a good rebuttal for is that, "For the stone to be unable to be moved from one space to another, it would have to be larger than space itself. However, it is impossible for a rock to be larger than Space itself, as"", that would be logically impossible, because Space is defined by the fact that it comprises the X, Y, and Z axes, which are fundamental properties of the stone. Thus, the paradox is meaningless. This is easily the strongest objection against this version of the omnipotence paradox; however, it misses the entire point of the paradox, namely, that an omnipotent deity, is as logically incoherent as a square circle!
A square circle is quite possible and a neat trick. I made one for a school science fair when I was a young teen. You cut a perfect circle from a piece of wood the same thickness as the circle's diameter. Then paint it mat black and mount it in a box with two peep holes in adjacent sides, ie at ninety degrees to each other. When viewed from the end you see the cut out circle, but from the side you see it edge on and it appears as a perfect square.
@@mirandahotspring4019 I stand corrected! LOL! But seriously, illusions aside...
I haven't watched the video and probably haven't thought much at all on this paradox. (Perhaps you have. If so I hope you're managing to stay sane : ) ).. Maybe there's more to it as you suggest, but as a Theist I tend to dismiss it as nonsensical.
Anyhow some thoughts came to mind:
Can God make any thing or being greater than Himself? No (I think) because God is such, in truth and by definition, that very being which nothing can be greater than.
A question which could similarly be seen to limit God's omnipotence could be : Can God create a perfect being? Again I think the answer is no. God would only be duplicating Himself and really, further, ending up creating the identical being which He Himself actually is. And since God is uncreated then, again, God cannot create a perfect being, if being uncreated is part of perfection...Can God create an uncreated being? So CGCAPB? would appear to be an absurd question rather than a legitimate question logically challenging God's omnipotence....
So in a sense God cannot create a rock so heavy that he cannot lift it since that rock would have to exceed God's ontological status of that which nothing can be greater than.
Also:
Can you really say capable of being incapable? Being unable is a disability not a capacity.
And isn't the paradox implicitly including that-which-even-God-cannot- lift into the definition of the rock?
The 'triangles with four sides" is just a category error. God can make (let's assume he exists) shapes with three sides and shapes with four sides. We call the shapes with three sides 'triangles' and the shapes of four sides 'quadrilaters', but that's entirely on us: we decided to use those names for those shapes. If we use the wrong word for a shape, is not a logical contradiction, is just a mistake, no different than saying "a dog is type of plant".
@@themanwhowasthursday5616 But why should being uncreated a part of perfection? Exactly, what is and what isn't part of that perfection?
If you consider that a planet is a big rock, it floats in space. A planet thousands of times bigger than Jupiter happily floats in space. Put all the physical matter together in the universe, it still floats in space. You can never have a rock big enough to occupy infinite space so there can't be a scenario where a rock can't be lifted.
Maybe a rock that occupies all space, so there is no free space for it to be moved.
#1 Are morals objective?
#2 Are there objective moral duties?
#3 Is it immoral not to do an objective moral duty?
#4 Does god do the objective moral duties?
#5 You see a child drowning in a shallow pool and notice a person just watching that is able to save the child with no risk to themselves but is not, is that persons non action moral?
#6 If you go to save the child, the man tells you to stop as he was told it was for the greater good, but he does not know what that is, do you continue to save the child?
#7 Is it an act of justice to punish innocent people for the crimes of others?
#8 If you were able to stop it and knew a person was about to grape a child would you stop it?
#9 Would you consider a parent who put their kids in a room with a poison fruit and told the kids not to eat it but then also put the best con artist in the room with the children knowing the con artist will get the kids to eat the fruit and the parent does nothing to stop it a good parent?
Oooh, I'll play
1) Yes
2) Yes
3) Yes
4) Unclear what you mean by this
5) No
6) Yes
7) No
8) Yes
9) No
@@a.i.l1074 #4. If its an objective moral duty to save a drowning child, does god save the drowning child and do the objective moral duty? That is what is meant by #4 to give an example and hopefully make that clear.
Hey, these questions seem familiar, lol.
@@theintelligentmilkjug944 I post them all the time.
@@macmac1022 yep, and I don't know if you remember me but I answered them a while back.
I pose the paradox slightly, differently.
"Can God pile a bunch of rocks together (created or found) such that the resultant weight of the pile is so heavy that God wouldn't be able to lift it?"
They object by saying such a task is impossible to perform. But the thing is, I can go outside, pile a bunch of rocks together so that I cannot lift the resultant pile of rocks, done. Since I am able to do this, this task is one of the logically possible tasks that can be done. This task is impossible only for an omnipotent being. And that's the point since, a being who is omnipotent should be able to do all logically possible tasks.
God made a cross that God-become-Man could not lift-Simon of Cyrene had to help Him to carry it.
It's a bit like claiming that a being couldn't be omniscient unless it knew the last digit of pi, or how many waffles it takes to dog house.
So , the law of explosion
@@mqtte9594 the law of explosion is an interesting consequence of allowing contradiction, but the comment isn't about that
If it was omniscient it would know those things. If it doesn’t know those things it’s not omniscient. Mostly omniscient is not omniscient by definition, because not being omniscient is not omniscience.
@@Nevyn515 No, he would know that he can't know those things
@@Nevyn515
> it would know these things
It would know the last digit of PI ? You realize PI has no last digit in the first place ?
The reason the rock paradox is a fallacy is because it makes omnipotence a function of itself. Its like saying if God can't armwrestle his right arm with his left and win He can't be omnipotent but if he can win he also isn't.
Omnipotence would mean having the power to make the rock of any weight and to lift a rock of any weight, no self reference involved.
If you ask if God can both create and lift a 100 ton rock, there is no fallacy or even conceptual problem. Inflate it to 1,000 tons, or 1 million tons, still no problem. No one will have a problem agreeing he could both create a rock that heavy, as well as lift it.
The problem doesn't arise until you take that scenario and blow it up to infinity. Which illustrates a problem with the concept of omnipotence, not the concept of lifting rocks.
@@Freefall347No, the paradox would not question Gods ability to create or lift a rock of infitite weight. The problem is it must be so heavy as to outperfom his capacity.
Also in a side note there's also a problem with the concept of infinity, which is a useful mathematical idea but not an actual amount.
Square triangles aren’t a thing, but heavy rocks are a thing. Everyone on earth can lift something up to a point. But fake things can’t do anything.
God CAN create a rock that he can't lift... But he can lift it too
God can only do things within the realm of possibility and cannot do the impossible...
You mean like him existing outside of the confines of space and time? That seems pretty impossible to me
Why does that seem impossible?
That's not even logically impossible, let alone being metaphysically impossible
There is no contradiction in the idea of a substance without the properties of space and time.
1) Platonists would point out that things like the number 2 or the concept of equality have no spatial or temporal property. 2 isn't 2 at one moment and not 2 at another. 2+1 is equal to three and cannot be not equal to three. It is not true now, as opposed to earlier or later. It is eternally true. These concept also do not depend on any spatial relation between elements: 1 and 2 cannot be near or far or to the right or to the left (etc...) with respect to one another or to other things. We conceive them regardless of space and time.
2) If you posit that space and time had an origin, that origin by definition must be non-spatial and atemporal. (How an atemporal reality can change, or what could even cause such a change, is a different problem.)
3) The Einsteinian model of the universe is a block-universe without time in itself. Time here is a relation that we establish due to our limited perspectival nature, while all moments in time always already exist, i.e. they exist eternally, in themselves. If we wanted to, we could extend this reasoning to space itself, saying that it is also such an illusory relation, which does not belong to the essence of reality in itself.
All these thoughts are both very abstract and vastly debated. But they are not self-contradictory. They are not impossibilities like a square triangle or a bright darkness.
@@drbirtles existing before time is a contradiction, because "before" is temporal orientation.
@@j8000 that's why theologians don't say God exists before time. They say God exists outside time
Tell me you're nuts without telling me you're nuts.
"I want to see a triangle with four sides."
I believe that signals static is the source of all accident.
As nuts as believing in an all powerful father figure
In order for God to be able to make such an object, it presupposes that he would make it out of himself since omnipotence implies omnipresence. For, to be all powerful implies harnessing that power everywhere. So, God himself would ultimately be this very object, which reframes the underlying assumption that he and this object would've been separate.
So god can't create such thing.
The scriptures say that "Nothing is impossible with God."
It would seem that the Bible won't let God's Omnipotence be limited only to things that are possible.
So, if He is omnipotent, He must be able to make a four sided triangle, or something of that impossible nature.
How about "yes because God can grow in trinitarian form: The father can make a rock so large that Jesus @ 1 year old cannot lift it up Jesus @ 10 years old can lift it."
God can grow seems included in God as "best possible being" because growth is good
interesting take. Humans can certainly create things they cant lift up. So God could make any rock and turn himself into a shredded Jesus and lift it up. Or maybe we could just play around and replace God with Jesus.
Given the theistic notion that a tri-omni god created the universe as it exists right now, I've always wondered why it is that such a being could not do literally anything. Could such a being not remake the entirety of existence such that any impossibility is suddenly possible?
God wouldnt be bound by anything, including logic. This would obviously mean he can do the impossible: lifting an unliftable rock.
Kind of like infinity right. There is always infinity + 1, infinity + 2, etc.
That would render the rock liftable
I thought the usual work around was “yes, god can make a rock so heavy he can’t lift it” followed by “but god can do anything, so he can still lift that rock.”
That's a definitional contradiction because the rock is not a rock God cannot lift it they can lift it.
I think omnipotence is best understood as the ability to do all things which are possible, I imagine there are still flaws to that definition, but I think it manoeuvres around most of the issues one encounters when considering this conundrum.
@@billybobthornton9668Who decides what's 'possible'? Flight was impossible for humans... until it wasn't. Going faster than the speed of light is impossible... until it isn't.
If God can't change the laws of logic, then he isn't omnipotent. If he can, then anything is possible, so there's no paradox.
@@JD-wu5pf What are you even on about. The things you listed have nothing to do with formal definition of things which is what the person you are replying to is talking about.
If God can change the laws of logic, then literally any statement can be made about him and it would be equally valid as you have no way to define what truth is
@@billybobthornton9668 the definition of a “rock even god cannot lift” is consistent if the definition of a god is “a being that can do anything,” because anything includes all the things god cannot do.
It’s still a rock god can’t lift. It’s just that god can do anything. He can lift rocks humans can’t lift, and he can lift rocks he can’t lift as well.
@JD-wu5pf Those things are or weren't possible at one point in time, which is clearly distinct from there existing a stone that God cannot ever lift, which is the purpose of asking the stone question in the first place - the inability to lift the stone is fundamental to the question and can't be handwaved by an appeal to the relative subjectivity of what can be considered possible.
In my estimation you've missed that pretty crucial point when you conflated colloquial uses of the word impossible with the stone which, for the purposes of the hypothetical, is definitionally 'unliftable' by God. That proposition is distinct from the examples you've provided as they would be more akin to the assertion that the stone cannot be lifted by God at a particular moment in time.
If the solution to that, and I think it probably has to be given your definition of impossible/omnipotence, is to flip the chessboard and say 'God can do it just because' then it becomes an exceedingly boring exercise akin to a lazy Chuck Norris joke.
If, however, we interpret omnipotence as meaning an ability to do all things which are possible, then we get into far more interesting discussions regarding the limits of God's power while simultaneously navigating around the stone proposition as being beyond the scope of omnipotence.
If god is in fact bound by the laws of logic, and is the creative force behind all things, including the laws of logic, then by creating the laws of logic and then becoming bound to them, he did in a sense create a rock so heavy that he can't lift it.
But he isn't really bound to them, unless that act is an irreversible one. He is just acting as if he was bound.
@@juanausensi499 So in that case, God accepts the challenge of creating the rock, and then pretends to struggle to lift it.
@@penutpickle5437choosing not to do ≠ not having the ability to do
@@axps4964 God creates a rock so heavy that he can't be bothered to try and lift it.
If he is bound by the laws of logic, then he cannot be all powerful. If he is the one who created the laws of logic, then at the time before he creates these laws, he should be all powerful which creates the stone paradox anyways. Meaning he cannot ever precede the laws of logic. Also by the virtue of changing, it means he is also affected by time which means he is not all powerful. Every way leads to a contradiction unless you start with a constrained god from these start.
If we can imagine this impossible rock, can we also imagine a god that defies logic? Simultaneously capable and not capable of lifting the rock?
Can he off himself?
@@connorhilfinger5155 he's the alpha and the omega, allegedly. He's already the 3 who are 1, any number of additional impossibilities should be peanuts.
But then you've just defined God as explicitly illogical. So, by extension, any logical statement you attempt to make that includes God doesn't have to follow the laws of logic, making God unknowable and meaningless.
One of the tings people forget is that when we say the words "four-sided triangle," that doesn't mean anything. We aren't actually describing anything we can imagine. The phrase "imagine" in that scenario basically just refers to the fact that you said the words out of your mouth, but you can't picture it in your head in any meaningful way. It's a spacial paradox. When we say omnipotent God, we have some level of understanding as to all the things that theoretically could be done. Therefore, a God that has the property of omnipotence can do them all.
@@JacobTheStrangeOfficialno that would just mean the Bible lied saying he can do all things, but it means he can defy logic. god can be illogical but that would also mean the book isn’t the truth because it lies…can you believe in god without the book?
Not very important but triangles theoretically do have 4 sides so that analogy doest work as well as a square triangle. Vsauce has a cool video about it if anyone is interested :)
This is easy a truly omnipotent god would make the immovable rock and then make a version of him that can lift it
Son wukong style
Problem resolved. But now you've violated some other valuable arguments for the existence of God. Ontological argument? Nope, there was a possible world with a greater god than the one that created the rock he could not lift. God as the unmoved mover? No, because a god who can make a different version of himself has potential and is thus not an unactualized actualizer.
Your not serious
@@joshuadala3508 it’s a joke we all know the sky fairy isn’t real
@@SphericalCowPhysics same god he’s just delegating like a true convince store manager
god cant microwafe a burrito so hot that he cant eat it bcause he is all powerfull so he is able to eat any temperature burrito
I put the stone paradox and the ontological argument for God in the same F-tier category. They're word games untethered to anything empirical. Nobody believes or disbelieves based on this nonsense. It's argumentative noise.
And yet its seems quite probable that you are a believer
@@Oyabu... , I'm not. Why do you infer this?
As a Christian I agree, bad argument, and even if it was good, no one accepts or rejects God because of this
This question is one of those questions that points out the flaw in how we conceptualize omnipotence. It's essentially asking, "can something without limitations give itself limitations. If not, it is limited. Therefore, it is not actually limitless. If yes, it becomes limited. Therefore, it is not actually limitless." And I fully recognize the paradox here, but I think for something to be truly limitless, or omnipotent, then it would have to operate outside of any possible limitation - including logic. I have no idea how this might work, but it's the only reasonable explanation. It may be possible that we simply do not have the capacity to understand omnipotence, outside of just reckoning that it is the property of being limitless."
But I guess that just shifts the goal post to asking, "Can an omnipotent being use logic to limit himself? If not, then that's a limitation. If yes, then he creates a limitation. Either way, a limitation is met, and omnipotence is lost."
The only other way I could think to answer this would be: Yes, God CAN create a rock so heavy he can't lift it. But he chooses not to. God CAN create limitations for himself, but chooses not to." Then you might ask, "Why does he choose not to." And the answer would be, "because it would limit his power." And so we come full circle back to: "if it's possible that something could limit the limitless, then is it truly limitless?"
Saying "it would have to operate outside logic" and "it's the only reasonable explanation" in the same comment is not a good look...
@TianYuanEX yeah I thought about that. But, I don't know how else to say it lol. Can I use reason to acknowledge the possibility of something operating outside of reason?
@@jasonhendricks4562 No, you can't
A God is the very definition of an impossible being. And omni categories are incoherent by their very nature.
Agree. The very definition, "we" can come up for God is a full of paradoxes, incoherences, ilogic arguments, etc. The very concept is really problematic. So... why is that?
And something that impresses me is that God is often postulated as the solution of the problem of infinite regression, because 'a infinite regression is obviously impossible', but a singular being beint three times infinite is perfectly ok.
Warning this is cut and paste
The Epicurean paradox is a logical dilemma that argues against the existence of a god who is all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good:
If God is willing to prevent evil but can't, then God is not all-powerful.
If God is able to prevent evil but isn't willing to, then God is not all-good.
God cannot lie .... doesn't mean he isn't omnipotent.
I still say that an omnipotent god can create a rock so heavy he himself can't lift, but doing so would necessarily require that god to render themselves no longer omnipotent
This whole question comes down to, is God Bound by some type of universal laws or logic. If logic or universal laws apply, then no, you're all powerful and you can't create something you can't do. And if he's not all-powerful but if he can't create the stone, then maybe he's just bound to some type of rules that would be a contradiction to what your requesting logically.
Then again, let's take the four-sided triangle, a triangle is three sides, but what if he creates a pyramid, it's three sides, but it also has a bottom which is a fourth side which we don't see, at least in our 3D World, 4th dimensional it'd probably be a pyramid
Set theory: In the set of things that human beings can do you should find "To create an object that its creator cannot lift". If an omnipotent being can do whatever a human being can, then in the set of things that an omnipotent being can do you should find also "To create an object that its creator cannot lift". Of course in the case of an omnipotent being this is paradoxical, so what you should do is to take it out from such set, giving you the outcome that there is at least one thing human beings can do that omnipotent beings can't, so omnipotence is proved false. But you decided to save omnipotence by assuming that it is true, so suddenly "To create an object that its creator cannot lift is not logically possible for an omnipotent being". By doing that you are not just begging the question, but solving a paradox with another paradox, I believe.
It supposes God is a body among bodies or a force among forces and not the nature of truth itself
Some Romantic thinkers positively chafe under the constraints of math and logic, and they don't want their god limited by these things either.
For example, philosopher Lev Shestov was particularly upset by the injustice of Socrates' death, and insisted that God must be able to defy logic, and undo such past injustices and correct them.
God has power over everything and nothing has power over him.
So a paradoxical situation has no power over him?
@@BrainRotVideosAF nothing has power over God.
@@Needlestolearn Therefore a paradoxical situation like the rock scenario cannot stop him. The laws of logic hold no power over him. So he can or cannot make a rock so heavy that he cannot lift it?
The rock does
@@BrainRotVideosAF God can create anything with the inherent ability to disobey Gods command. Therefore a rock which rejects to be lifted even by God is possible but this ability stems from god endowing it with this kind of ability. However, a rock which rejects Gods power is impossible as God has power over everything.
Hm. It is easier to argue against *"omniscience"* in itself rather than against _"omnipotence"_ in itself:
P1) If there is an omniscient God or God is omnisciente knowing everything including any and every halting problem, then the general halting problem would be solvable and decidable (at least by that omniscient being).
P2) According to Turing, the general halting problem is unsolvable and undecidable (by all means - not even an omniscient being is capable of solving and deciding it totally).
C) Therefore, there is no omniscient God or at least God is certainly not omniscient knowing everything as God is at least not capable of solving and deciding the unsolvable and undecidable general halting problem totally and certainly.
Just replace by or with in here *"Impossible Programs (The Halting Problem)"* (by Undefined Behavior ruclips.net/video/wGLQiHXHWNk/видео.htmlsi=xuhvAO7tA6cqRogj ) and you will get the gist of my argument against _"omniscience"_ and an _"omniscient God"._
This line of thinking is the only way I can come close to the reconciliation of sin, suffering and evil in relation to a loving, just and benevolent god. That perhaps these aspects are part of the definition of reality, in a similar way that four sides are part of the definition of a square. Reality can't exist without sin, evil and suffering, much like a square cannot exist without four sides.
If there were no humans or animals then reality would exist without sin would it not?
That idea doesn't fit with the dominant conception of God or orthodox Christianity. A deity being limited in what they can make and being constrained by more than just logical impossibilities is more defensible position but largely obscure in a post Christian framework.
But that would seem to make heaven a logical impossibility. Or at least beyond reality which seems to amount to the same thing.
@@japexican007 Yeah there's plenty of holes in the (imo) most reasonable explanation which is why I find it more convincing to believe that god doesn't exist. Reality without suffering is far more conceivable than a square with 3 sides.
@@doloadventures You are just accepting the reasoning of the Epicurean Trilemma. Reality without suffering is conceivable and is possible for a omni being to create. If there is no omni creator then suffering is a valid aspect of reality since no agent has the power or will to change it. Without further reasoning the best you get is skepticism towards a particular kind of theism associated with the Abrahamic Religions.
Honestly, I think this kind of constraint on God would have bothered me back when I was a theist. As I understood it at the time, omnipotence meant that God could do anything, full stop. Restricting that power to only what is logically possible doesn't imply atheism, but it would take way some seemingly desirable hypothetical abilities, such as changing the past, or (if the future is open) knowing the future, which would probably make me question whether God is truly relevant to my life. For instance, can he intervene on the physical world, or would that entail violating the laws of physics, and would _that_ be a logical contradiction? Can he hear my prayers, or is there some logical contradiction to a being who is supposedly non-physical (and therefore lacks any sort of auditory organ) being able to hear anything? Can he even _think_ if he doesn't have a brain or central nervous system?
Again, none of this proves that God doesn't exist, but his capacities would certainly affect the nature of our relationship to him.
If you define omnipotence as the ability to do everything that is possible...
Can he create a universe? (Out of nothing?)
Can he exist outside of time and space?
3:00 Polygons with only two sides exist. Take two lines of longitude that meet at the poles. These form two-sided polygons in spherical geometry called lunes.
Logic is something we evolved to use to survive in the world, but the laws of nature don't care. Quantum mechanics has its own kind of reasoning, for instance, and it often doesn't make sense to us. But that doesn't mean it's wrong.
The word "impossible" is the problem. I say it's not possible for a three-days-dead human being to be resurrected. Why not? Because that's what the laws of biology and entropy have revealed to us. You might be able to imagine a human being rising from the grave and not a two-sided triangle, but that is technically an argument from incredulity. A moment ago, you might not have been able to imagine a two-sided polygon.
I think in this hypothetical euclidian geometry is implied. Remember that the idea was to present something logically impossible, the specific example isn't as relevant.
Burrito may have a better flavor, but the rock version is harder
A question that you'd also need to ask is what does someone mean by "lift"? Would you mean to define "lift" as, "move, under a planetary body, in the direction opposite to said planet, without damaging the rock"? Because under that logic what would suppose that the rock could be created, and gravity could then be altered on that planetary body that would allow it to be "lifted"? If you teleported this rock to a location with different gravitational power, then "lifted" it, would that count?
Going a step farther, how can you say that the force of gravity acting upon the rock is not it being "lifted"? It is merely being "lifted" in a direction that is from a different position.
By the logic of "a rock that cannot be lifted by anything in existence" you would need thus for the rock to be immune to the action of any outside force, operantly, gravity.
But even then, what about moving the entirety of existence AROUND this rock, could that not be counted as "lifting" the rock? Thus, not only does this rock need to be immune to outside forces, but it also must simultaneously be constantly in motion such that its position relative to the universe around it never changes. However, this also means that the rock IS being moved, i.e. it is being "lifted".
A "rock that cannot be lifted" must therefore be a rock that never moves relative to any potential observer, it must somehow be both a rock that remains in a fixed position in an ever moving universe, both in absolute space and relative to the objects around it. Except if it remains fixed in an absolute location, then it is moving relative to other objects, and if it does not move relative to other objects, it must be changing its location in absolute space.
Imagine you have a bar graph where you have four points that are all a fixed distance from each other, and you have a fifth center point. You wish for this center point to remain at the center of the four other points, but you do not wish for this center point's X-Y coordinates to change. If you move the four points, you must choose either to change the fifth point's position such that it remains a center point, or you must choose its X-Y coordinates to remain fixed so it is no longer a center point. If you wished to "lift" the center point, you could do so by moving the four points around it.
This is what makes it a type of "logical impossibility." It's not an impossibility of saying, "Find the largest number," it's one where the definition of a "rock that cannot be lifted" is something that you need to define what "lift" means and when you really boil down what exactly it would entail, such an object simply cannot exist as it would need to be simultaneously exhibit two mutually exclusive traits.
A rock may be moving relative to planetary bodies but as long as there’s no acceleration it wouldn’t be lifted.
You know what lift means stop making it hard
@@joshuadala3508 I know what lift means if you're speaking colloquially and about normal people but if you're speaking about a question that is more abstract, like if we're talking about an omnipotent being who is able to warp the cosmos themselves, how exactly do you define "lift"? The definition of the term is important to discuss what exactly you mean. If you include within one the ability to do things that ARE very clearly within the realms of possibility, such as the ability to move any number of objects in the universe, with precision, simultaneously, an object that "cannot be lifted" is a logical impossibility.
Is this what Nietzsche ment he said that we killed god with the knives of science?
I think it's a loaded question, as it contains the premise that there possibly exists a stone which God cannot lift, and the question is, can God make one?
But if God is omnipotent such that he can lift all possible stones, that entails the premise of the question is false.
Maybe there's a way to improve it by stating the task as "create a stone so big that its maker can't lift it" but now it's much more clear that the self-referential nature of the question is causing a problem kinda like the barber's paradox
I think one way to think about this argument can give it lot of value. That is, we are talking about impossible and possible things from our present of existence, ie universe and laws of logic and physics that already exist. And then we find that God needs to be confined inside those same laws of logic he created. But what when we look at the moment God created universe and laws of logic, was he constrained then too? Seems non-sensical that God created laws of logic while he was constrained by those same laws of logic. Thats why theist are, with good reason, frightened by this argument.
“For whosoever will save his life shall lose it; but whosoever shall lose his life for my sake and the gospel's, the same shall save it.
Whosoever therefore shall be ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation; of him also shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he cometh in the glory of his Father with the holy angels.”
Mark 8:35, 38 KJV
I find your enthusiasm cute.
“God can do anything that is possible to do.”
Then he can’t create the universe out of nothing. He can’t multiply the loaves and fish to feed the multitude. He can’t turn water into wine. He can’t raise the dead.
you're confusing the logical laws , which are is own nature, and the laws of nature , which are arbitrary
@@planteruines5619 how do you know the laws of nature are arbitrary
@@Emperorhirohito19272 i can move them in my head without contradicting the law of identity, but thise modified laws do not apply to the world , they are just aren't incarnated
@@planteruines5619 how do you know your ability to conceive something means it could possibly exist? How do you know the laws of nature could be any other way and are as they are arbitrarily?
@@Emperorhirohito19272 changing the laws of nature doesn't result in logical contradictions. It's logically possible for the laws of nature to be different, meaning: Logic allows for that possibility to be the case. It doesn't violate any laws of logic. That's what's meant by "possible" here
God isn't bound to the rules of our reality, or any rules, by constrained necessity, but rather by unconstrained necessity, meaning that constraints are willingly self imposed by a mind with total self control. The reality we experience is an aspect of creation where reason exists as a method of understanding, or knowing ones place inside of, reality. It would be like saying "can you draw a rock you cannot lift?", both yes and no, you can lift the paper, but you cannot lift the rock, however you could draw yourself lifting the rock on the page but that would only be a representation of you lifting the rock, so you're not lifting it. Christian theology actually already answered a more interesting question "can God die?" to which the answer is both yes and no depending on the outcome God desires, which is tautological with existence, an existence which has a history, laws, direction and purpose, all of which depend on God allowing it to be so. God's desire, in so far as we're able to know it, is for minds independent of God's own to experience creation and through that process change, which God is unable to do, and in doing so discover that which binds creation, gives it a teleological direction and serves as a bedrock for further creation, that thing being agape.
I do feel like it could be noted that the definition in terms of something like a four sided triangle not being able to exist because it is impossible is impossible as our definition of a triangle defines it as not having more or less than three sides, so if a all powerful god were to make a four sided triangle then that god would need to redefine what a triangle means. Same with a stone that can not be lifted, an all powerful god would need to redefine what it means for something to not be able to be lifted.
There is one thing god can't do, he can't convince me that all the nonsense in Genesis really happened!
If God is a Boltzmann brain-a hypothetical consciousness that arises spontaneously in the universe-then reality exists within His thoughts. In this framework, He could imagine an unliftable stone and, by adjusting His thoughts, lift it as well. This resolves the paradox: the "stone" only exists as a mental construct, free from physical limitations.
This aligns with the Bible, which describes creation as coming from God's will or word. If the world is a product of His thoughts, it’s flexible and unrestricted by our physical laws, allowing Him to "create" and "lift" at will.
Well that would render the stone perfectly liftable in the first place. I can currently bench press 180 lbs. But I can 'create' a 200 lbs weight by putting an extra plate on the bar. But by adjusting my training regiment I could lift the previously unliftable weight. For the paradox to mean something it can't simply be that the rock's weight is beyond God's current capabilities, the rock must also be beyond God's possible capabilities. But this implies that God has potential and that causes a whole host of issues, especially with the concept of God as an uncaused cause.
The God who can exist in our minds isn't the real God.
The real God is the Mind that keeps all contingent physical reality in existence moment by moment, and who is not bound by that physical reality.
and you know that because....
@@juanausensi499 He told us, then we told each other, and he confirms it by his presence in those who will accept him.
He comes to us, Being to being. To all who will have him.
@@stephenbailey9969 What do you mean by 'accept him'?
@@juanausensi499 If someone asked you to marry, to open your whole life to that person, and you said yes.
It means unconditionally trusting that person.
@@stephenbailey9969 But why should I trust somebody that i never met before?
Matthew Whittle's argument for why it isn't a paradox is the best:
"Could God create a stone so heavy that even He could not lift it?"
Yes, He could. He is omnipotent.
"This stone contradicts His omnipotence."
Until the stone is created, He remains omnipotent.
No, because he has the limitation of not being able to lift the rock before the rock is created.
Best at sophistry pretending to make sense maybe.
I still think God should be able to do ANYTHING regardless of how ilogical or "impossible" is. He could just redefine what that means. If logic comes from God, he could just change logic to suit whatever reality he dreams of. I can do that everynight in my dreams. Why can´t God? I think one of the main problems we have when we talk about this is that all our definitions, all of our abstract construcions are biased! We define things from our human perspective because it is the only one we know and can use. We really have no fucking idea what God, if such thing really exsts, is or wants, can or can not do or whatever.
Perhaps God can make impossible "worlds", meaning realities where logic is not like ours, but that type of realities can only be "percieved" by God, it is literally "impossible" for any other entity to experience this types of realities. So all "real" physicial worlds must be bound by some kind of logic.
However we still could ask why cant God make other entities capable of experience these realities? Can God make other semi-mini Gods? In the end, it does seem like is is restricted by his own nature. It always comes down to some kind of paradox. God is a problematic concept in itself.
Ngl I agree with many Atheist counterarguments to religion but this has to be the worst one 😅
I mean think of it this way, let's say you are the programmer and you developed a first person shooter game, so could you program an enemy that can kill you in admin mode? Of course you could, but what makes you God in a sense is that, you can also remove that feature, I think if God is real that's how he'd also answer this riddle, he can create a rock that he can't lift or burrito so hot even he can't eat, but, like programmer, he can also remove this feature. So he is, technically, able to do both, he's able to create something that defies him but is able to remove it. Just like how programmer can make an enemy that can even kill you in God/admin mode.
Alternatively I guess you could say no he can't do, but that's because he exists in seperate plane of existence.
Also I'd argue that alone does make God unique, the fact that he can create the most OP thing in existence even he can't lift but then he can deprogram it to not be OP is in itself a unique God power. Being able to experience both states of being OP and not OP.
Feel free to correct me guys if I missed something 😅
what's the point?
God knows All the experiences already,
he's the All knowing
Maybe God can make a rock infinity pounds and can mutate himself so he's temporarily weak so he can't lift it
the problem is with the equivocation and change in definitions and how theists change 'god' through the ages. The paradox also comes more into play when other aspects of 'gods' character are assessed, omnibenevolence and omniscience. While the omni paradox does not stand on its own it is just one more reason I do not believe in 'god'.
The "impossible" counterargument fails because ostensibly God determines what is and isn't possible so there's no reason that he couldn't do something impossible
I suppose God could create a tiny pebble and grant unto that pebble agency to allow itself to be lifted or not. While He could subsequently override and destroy the agency of that pebble and lift it against its will, in this notional example if the pebble does not consent to be lifted, then God honoring the pebble’s agency by not lifting it does not reduce His omnipotence and power.
Similarly He has both ability and desire to lift us, but He has granted us our agency to choose Him or not. Even an ordinary pebble obeys the voice of the Lord, are we more or less obedient?
Just food for thought.
"With men this is impossible, but with God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26. I agree the stone paradox is at the bottom of the barrel for pro-atheist arguments because it doesn't even begin to attack the foundations of theism. But if God can't do literally everything, then what does omnipotent even really mean?
God can do any possible thing, which really just means he can do anything it's possible for him to do. But I can do anything it's possible for me to do too and I'm not omnipotent. God has capacities beyond me, but I also have capacities beyond him. I'd say it is impossible for God to delight in sin. Even if Satan tempted Jesus as a man, if Jesus not only succumbed to temptation but enjoyed it I think that would fundamentally violate the nature of divinity just as surely as four sided triangles violates logic. How could the source of goodness enjoy what is contrary to goodness? For Jesus to delight in sin must surely break him off from the concept of God in the same way that adding a fourth side to a triangle removes it from the category of triangles. But it is not logically impossible for a human to enjoy what is contrary to goodness since we have fallen natures. God can do anything possible for God to do and I can do anything possible for me to do.
I don't think the stone paradox is a good atheist argument, but I do think it succeeds in pointing out that when you really dig deep, the word omnipotent sounds grandiose but is really just an empty concept.
I can create a 4 sided triangle. I just did, I put it under my bed right alongside the invisible dragon who lives there. :)
"Hey Vsauce, Michael here"
@@sockdivine6144 I had to google that. Cute, but that's just a mathematical trick--mine is REAL :)
The answer to this is actually really simple: yes. Let's say the mass of a stone so big God cannot lift it is i (this doesn't have to be a possible number). Can an omnipotent creator create such a rock? Yes. Can an omnipotent God lift this rock? Also yes. There is no contradiction here; the rock exists as a mathematical abstract, but also is by definition moveable by an omnipotent being.
Is imagination a test for logical impossibility? If we can imagine something, does that mean it's logically possible? eg. can we imagine a square circle?
The usefulness of this argument for atheism is 2 things. First, it brings to forefront the question of whether God is at the top of hierarchy or logical laws and restrictions. If it's logic, then the reasons for worshiping god diminish in various ways (although they wouldn't be eliminated).
And second, if the answer is that God is (or God and logic are the same), then God cannot hide behind excuses with the nature of "God had to" or similar, such as Shapiro claiming God had to condone slavery to some degree, otherwise human hearts couldn't accept his religion. He could make it so that he doesn't condone slavery, and simultaneously, human hearts could accept his religion. If he's above logical laws, then he never "has to", and always only "chooses to".
It might be that God and logic are the same, but since we do not know what God and logic really are we cannot ever say for sure. It is so funny to observe the ants spouting out their "definitiv" judgments about the elephant with that self-confident faces of theirs....
@@alena-qu9vj as I said, if God and logic are the same, my second point still applies.
Also "definitiv" and "self-confident" more aptly describes religous sources, which, to be fair, are fun to watch or read.
@@mohamaddelkhah What do you mean by "religious sources" precisely? As far as I know, according to the theology God is "unspeakable, unknowable, incomprehensible.." . This is the official position of those who really know what they are talking about. Of course there are dabblers on both sides, but the theists have no problem to acknowledge that human brain is not omnipotent at least, which materialistic atheists have big problem with.
@@alena-qu9vj yet they make innumerous claims about characteristics and nature of God with absolute certainty and zero doubt. "Omnipotent", "omniscient", "benevolent", "good", "timeless", "sentient", "truthful", "forgiving", "just", and hundreds more. These are all claims about that unknowable incomprehensible entity which are made by religious books, scripture, and figures. Looks like they pick and choose when to respect that "unknowable" and "incomprehensible" part.
@@mohamaddelkhah You still have not specified what you mean by "religious" or - as of late - "they". Do not obsess with the Abrahamic image of god so much. There are many different concepts of supernatural.
(I am typing this in the middle of the video and i am glad it was brought up) I would rather go in the path of concepts. For example: What is a triangle? A triangle of 4 sides can't not exist because a triangle has 3 sides, if it has more or less then 3 it's not a triangle anymore. The same with the square circle concept that sometimes people bring up. A square circle is nothing more than two words put together that contradict eachother and don't mean anything. It's the absurd, God can't make the absurd.
Omnipotence doesn't mean the power to do logically impossible things. For example, even an omnipotent being can't make a "square circle" because it's self-contradictory by definition. 🤷🏻
The reason I love this argument is because if god cannot do impossible or illogical things then creating the universe from nothing is out of God's power, assuming it is illogical.
Since the Christian God is a Covenant (promise) keeping God then if God says that this rock is to heavy for me to lift he keeps his word and that rock is to heavy for God to lift.
"Can God draw a triangle with 4 sides?"
I mean, geometry is descriptive. If you draw a regular, 3 sided triangle, then modify it to give it an extra side, you could grammatically say "the triangle now has four sides," because you are referencing the name of the object from before it was changed, though it would probably be better to say: "the triangle has become a quadrilateral." Because any shape that has four sides is a quadrilateral by the definitions we made to describe shapes.
To me, this highlights how triangles themselves don't physically exist, the same way numbers don't. Three sided objects exist and triangles are just a concept we use to describe three sides objects.
So can God make a three sided object have four sides? Clearly yes, if omnipotent.
To make a Triangle itself be redefined to have 4 sides, he might have to hack the collective human consciousness and edit every written resource to internally change our systemic definitions of triangles. If he is truly omnipotent, he can do this, and also to do so imperceptibly if he wishes. Therefore, we can't know for certain he hasn't done so already, as it would stand to reason he could change every person's memory simultaneously and perfectly so no human could remember that it was ever not true that triangles could have 4 sides. We only know at the moment that if such a being has such powers, for the moment they allow us to collectively believe that a three sided object is called a triangle and a four sided object us called a quadrilateral, making a four sided triangle "impossible."
This begins to resemble the simulation argument with God filling the role of the simulation administrator. It could also be aliens or hyper advanced humans just as easily, because this answer treats the solution as modifying data entries in a database.
applying logic to the concept of an omnipotent god is an arbitrary imposition. A god that can both create and not create a rock so heavy it can't lift is unthinkable, but not necessarily impossible. Applying logic or saying God can't act against its true nature is a theological patch. It's also a silly place to stop. Religion already asks people to believe in things that defy logic, why stop short of embracing things that seem logically impossible. Just because we can't imagine or perceive an omnipotent thing doing these things, doesn't mean they are impossible. They are just inaccessible to reason. But if you are selling me an unfathomable god, this is the kind of God I want. the kind that defies everything.
The real question is, can God make a rock and roll tune so heavy that even they can't top it?
The God of the Bible is both outside and inside of His creation, He fills all things and is therefore Omnipresence.
The question is illogical because it doesn't take into consideration all the attributes of God, example, His Omnipresent, it's like asking, "can God lift Himself" you see how illogical it is?
This made me think did Jesus commit suicide?
Surely that’s a good paradox
No, he just sacrificed himself to himself to save humanity from himself, which is much more logical.
Well, I can stack a bunch of rocks in a pile too heavy for me to lift. So, how is it impossible for an omnipotent being?
This is where I think you guys are mistaken, and this is quite an important distinction to make. By presenting the stone paradox, we're not asking God to perform an impossible task like making 1+1 equal to 3 or lift a stone AND not lift a stone at the same time. If we are to remain consistent, we can label this task : _"Making a stone so heavy it can't be lifted by its maker."_ and just like that, it belongs to the set of all possible things. The problem comes up when you consider that this is a task that all non-omnipotent beings can perform, but no omnipotent being can...
It's terribly ironic, isn't it? What gives? Perhaps raising this proposition to infinity is where the symmetry breaks, and that is, in no small part, fault of the definition that relies on unrestricted comprehension.
To make this go away, we can redefine omnipotence all we want, but in doing so, we're degrading the attributes of God to a point that's totally inconsistent with the major tri-omni Abrahamic concept, and could even be considered blasphemous.
How more obvious could it be that an alleged being with such properties is inescapably broken?
Also, I have to say, for likely the first time, that I'm genuinely disappointed with your demeanor the entire video. This is an extremely complicated subject with roots in analytic philosophy and logic. Unfortunately, it seems that you haven't considered it for longer than a few minutes at a time. How to define "omni-anything," how inclusive an infinite set is, what characteristics God is supposed to have, and what declares a being impossible are just a few of the vast questions you could've put forth and investigated but you chose to divert and make jokes...
And what's more frustrating is that if you pick apart its premises, they rely on the same principles as the problem of evil, WHICH YOU RANKED S TIER!?
This is actually embarrassing. Needless to say, I wasn't prepared for that when I clicked on the video.
The answer is very simple: the question implies g-d is the type of being that lifts (in space time, has parts etc) but g-d has no body he does not lift anything. He could create a universe where there is antigravity that lifts the rock and one where it doesn’t. But He Himself doesn’t lift anything. How tall is blue? How fat is courage? Misapplications. If ur response is that this is just the general structure but we could rephrase it to apply to g-d as bodiless, then I can’t be faulted for replying to what has been stated. State a different case and we can respond to it. Until then the entire question is a waste of time
It's not clear to me how "a rock so heavy that God can't lift it" is impossible like a four-sided triangle is. The latter is obvious to me; it's impossible by the definition of a triangle.
And infinite mass isn't a thing either
@@eYaeger1407 Why does it have to be infinite?
@@MurshidIslam because the definition of God is an "infinitely" powerful being, so for a rock to exist that an infinitely powerful being cannot lift must be infinite by definition or greater than infinite (whatever greater than infinite means)
@@eYaeger1407 Surely an infinitely powerful being can create infinite mass.
@@MurshidIslam infinite mass in a closed body with quantitative area? (a closed body must have a definite surface area) if it has area it also has perimeter and volume which rocks do, then it is mathematically deduced to numbers which would mean its finite. 👉and a rock without area and perimeter would be a logical fallacy because its just as necessary for a rock to have these qualities as it is for a triangle to have only 3 sides instead of 4👈
The worst argument against God ever. I'm not religious
Asked another way: Can God limit himself? Which, to me, just sounds like "can God restrain himself, such as to refrain from action." And I think... the answer is yes, but why would that take away from him being omnipotent? Another, similar, question is: can God sin? Well, is he unable or unwilling? Unable would imply non-omnipotence. So, he answer is yes but chooses not to. But wait, what is sin? It's acting outside of the accordance of God. Can God act outside of himself? Well... no. Does that mean he's not omnipotent... I don't think so? It's like saying a square isn't a square because it's not a circle.
It's much like the paradox of being all good and all powerful, where if you're all good, then nothing you do can be evil - and that is a limitation, therefore you're not all powerful.
Can God limit himself is a different question. A more general way to put it is can God's unlimited power be frustrated? If unlimited power by definition cant be frustrated, then the answer must be 'no'.
@@a.jperez202 I like that, but then I can bring it back around to asking, "Can God's unlimited power be used to frustrate his unlimited power? (Can God limit himself)
@@jasonhendricks4562 Conceptually I dont see why an unlimited god couldn't limit himself. He would just not be omnipotent anymore. Can an omnipotent god make it so that he is no longer omnipotent? Sure, unless we smuggle additional qualities into what it means to be omnipotent to rule that out. But i must say that not even God can frustrate unlimited power since that is logically contradictory. Its like making a married bachelor.
@a.jperez202 I agree. It's like saying, "The circle isn't a circle because it's not a square."
The way I would imagine "omnipotence" is that God would have absolute control over this universe. A bit like how a programmer created a virtual reality, they could control what happens in that virtual reality. Or how an author can control what happens in a book.
There might be things that God couldn't do to himself. But that's kind of irrelevant. If God still had absolute control over this universe, I think that's all that matters. And I think that would justify calling God omnipotent.
I like the idea of a constrained God; constrained by it's own sense of/commitment to logic, principals, and laws of nature it established. A God that can create a logical contradiction seems not only impossible but also a simplistic interpretation that a dumb human came up with not realizing they were violating every principal of logic when contriving this 'god'.
And for those that try to point that God does this or that that is 'impossible' such as existing outside of physical reality, raising a man from the dead etc; I would counter this with saying those are 'seemingly' impossible. It is possible that we from our perspective do not fully know what is possible and what is not. Raising a man from the dead is not a logical paradox in the same way that making a stone so big that he cannot lift.
i will help you on your path to see better God , God is logic , not a follower of it
@@planteruines5619 good point, you can say for God logic is not merely a principal it follows up an indistinguishable characteristic. Not really a "constraint" but an essential part of its nature. I do not see any issue with your point.
But a stone exists in this Universe, not in his realm.
Humans can create structures so heavy they can't lift it; there is nothing inherently illogical about the concept of creating something that far exceeds the ability of its creator in some respect or another, int his case the rock being heavy.
humans dont claim to be omnipotent.
Ordinarily I would dismiss this argument on the basis of it being an issue of logic - I accept that a claim of "omnipotence" does not allow for logical impossibilities.
However, when a theist claims that their God created the laws of logic (ie TAG) the argument is back on the table
And if the theist says the laws of logic are merely a reflection of God that allows us to discover who he is?
It’s absurd that the God who created logic would be subject to it by His very nature. Either God created logic and is not bound by it (which is self-refuting) or God is secondary to logic, which is the most fundamental thing in the universe.
It’s my belief that if we bypass God altogether, logic explains everything. It’s Turing-Complete, meaning that it can simulate any Turing-Complete system, including our own universe (assuming that it’s computable in principle).
Heisenberg's indeterminacy principle places direct experimental limitations on what can be known. Any attempt to simulate the universe would only exist in tautology as the universe
@@indi_prime A few things to note:
1. Quantum systems can do everything classical systems can do, they’re just more efficient since they can run in parallel.
2. Even if we can’t know the exact state of the universe experimentally, it could be possible to simulate the universe in principle, because of point 1. We are on the verge of discovering a theory that explains all the behaviours of the universe.
3. Turing-Completeness explains many other things as well:
a. Mathematics can be simulated by the brain, but also describes the universe.
b. We often see computer science explanations popping up in physical theories: Bits, entropy, compression, optimization, etc.
c. Turing-Complete systems require memory to work. The farther we zoom out, the more states are possible, so we expect to see more behaviours. That’s called emergence.
@seanpierce9386 none of that disproves my point, also, simulation of qualia is far beyond our current capacity and that's an essential aspect of any simulated universe
@@indi_prime We don’t even know that other people have qualia like I do (and I assume you do). I mean, we’re able to look at the neural networks produced by training image generation AI, and it has concepts of “dogness”, “catness”, etc. That’s leaps and bounds ahead of what we can know about our fellow humans.
I think you’re assuming that the existence of qualia and other conscious experiences implies that the mind is somehow nonphysical. But that doesn’t follow at all. Emergence, embodiment in a physical universe, and the need for pattern recognition and reconstruction can explain qualia without the need to resort to magic (or whatever explanation you might propose).
@seanpierce9386 I'm not suggesting anything about the nature of qualia specifically, only that to simulate it would make it, theoretically, indistinguishable from the original from the perspective of the simulated qualia, thereby returning us to my original assertion, that to simulate a universe would require a universal tautology
You need to invite Dr Gavin Ortlund to your show!!!
I'm having difficulty with the definition of omnipotence as only the ability to do that which is rationally possible, and then saying that this giga heavy rock is a rationally incoherent concept. Can I describe myself as omnipotent? I am weak (I have a certain muscle mass, certain amount of leverage with my bone structure, ect.), so I cannot lift 500 lbs off the ground (I've been exercising free will and the capacity to change so I've been getting pretty close). However, it's just not possible for me to lift that weight; a weak person cannot do that. Does that mean my inability to do what is definitionally impossible for me to do because of my nature (i.e. god cannot tell a lie because he is the perfect truth) similarly doesn't refute my ability to do anything that isn't something that I can't do?
I of course can change, gain muscle mass, and stop being a weak person, but if that means it always was rationally possible while giga rock wasn't does this mean that god cannot change and/or lacks the free will to do so? Apart from the mathematical analysis of omniscience and rational interrogation of the paradox, it seems that this reveals serious frictions with the way these religious beliefs are commonly presented or understood. I think Alex is underestimating the mileage of this problem. Like other comments have discussed, fixtures of orthodox beliefs like miracles become compromised; I don't think the authors of these texts meant to convey "hey, god can add these ingredients to water and cause a reaction to change it to wine super quick" or "he can separate the water in the red sea to form a walkway. you all will probably be able to do this in the future, but he can do it now!" I suspect they meant he can do the truly impossible. Perhaps Aquinas' definition of omnipotence as power bound by logic is made in bad faith, or is a kowtow to the greek enlightenment.
A square with 3 sides is “impossible” by definition. That has nothing to do with the rock “paradox”. If there’s one thing that theists DO believe is possible, it’s God creating a rock, given that they assert he created the entire universe. So it’s not even a rhetorical question, let alone a paradox.