Spirituality "Can god make a rock so heavy that he can't lift it?"

"My mercy prevails over my wrath"
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Feb 28, 2024
Messages
878
Here's my refutation/explanation to that question:

Atheists attempt to use this question to prove that the concept of omnipotence is self-contradictory. But the problem here is a contradiction in terms. This issue becomes even more clear when we examine a related question: "Can God create an uncreated being?" The problem here is that the questioner has already defined the being to be uncreated and then proceeds to ask for something that contradicts that definition. The problem is in the questioner's terms, not any lack in God's potential. The same is true when asking God to make a circle with four sides. Having already provided a definition of a circle that could never include a four-sided figure, such a question is absurd. Something is certainly self-contradictory here, but it is the questioner's terminology and not the omnipotence of God.The same is true when we come to the case of create a stone which cannot be lifted. Aside from the problem that we are placing an infinite unrestricted being under the finite restricted laws of our universe, the concept of the stone is self-contradictory. Basically, such a stone could not exist because it is conceptually incoherent.

When one asks if God could create such a stone, one would normally identify the properties of such a stone. But here we haven't been given absolute properties, but instead we've been given properties of the stone relative to God's properties. The questioner has identified the potential stone as something so big that God couldn't lift, so even though we already know that there is nothing God cannot lift, they have used that as an attribute for the stone. Automatically, the concept of such a stone is nullified. Now, when they ask could God create such a stone, the answer is no, but that doesn't imply a lack of potential on the part of God. Instead, it reflects the fact that the concept of such a stone is illogical, unreal, inadmissible. It is very similar to asking if God can die. Well, death isn't an ability, its the inability to live.


The immortal cannot die because that defies His attribute of immortality. Similarly, the omnipotent cannot create a task that He can't complete because such a task is merely a figment of one's imagination and could not exist.You're basically asking, if God can do anything, can He make it impossible for himself to do something? The question is illogical and self-contradictory because the argument contradicts the premise. Once you have already established that God can do anything, then that's a set attribute and part of His nature. Therefore, He can do anything that is consistent with His nature, anything that is absolute.Can God make 1=2? Well if 1=2, then it wouldn't be 1! So the idea is self-contradictory, not God.The question also reminds me of the idea of what happens when an immovable rock meets an unstoppable force? The two things cannot exist in the same universe. Likewise, if God exists then all things which contradict His attributes are imaginary, non-existant and impossible. They are forever bound to the realm of imagination and cannot be brought into existence


.Shaykh Ibn Abil-'Izz (d. 1389CE, may allah have mercy on his soul) also answered this question in Sharhul Aqeedah Tahawiyyah (p.137), in his discussion of the following verse:And Allah, over each thing, is omnipotent; all-powerful [al-Baqarah 2:284]This includes all that is possible. As for what is in intrinsically impossible - such as there being a thing that exists and does not exist at one and the same time - then, this has no reality, nor is its existence conceivable, nor is it termed 'a thing' by agreement of those with intelligence. Included in this category is: [Allah] creating the likes of Himself, making Himself non-existent, and other impossibilites.This also serves as a reply to the question posed by some: 'Can Allah create a stone that He is unable to lift?' The argument being that if Allah cannot create such a stone, He is not all-powerful; but if He can, then likewise He is not all-powerful. The fallacy of this argument lies in the fact that such an affair is, in itself, impossible and exists only in the minds of certain people. And not all that the mind conjures-up has an existence that is possible, nor is it always termed 'a thing.'Hopefully that makes the issue clear.
When people ask about the possibility of logically impossible actions, they often misunderstand what "impossible" means in this context. The real impossibility isn't in the ability of God, but in the definition of the thing being asked about. For example:


  • The question "Can God create a stone He cannot lift?" involves asking if God can create something that is conceptually incoherent, which is inherently impossible.
  • Similarly, "Can God create a being greater than Himself?" is nonsensical because, by definition, God is the greatest conceivable being. There's no logical space for something greater than God within the concept of God as the ultimate being.

    The paradox of "What happens when an immovable rock meets an unstoppable force?" is another example of an impossible scenario, because it involves two contradictory concepts existing in the same reality. If there were an immovable rock, then there could be no unstoppable force, and vice versa. This illustrates how contradictory concepts cannot coexist, and that their "existence" is a logical impossibility.




    Well, one could ask "wouldn't the immovable rock and unstoppable force just cancel each other out? doesn't necessarily mean they can't exist." And to that, I respond: You're absolutely right that the idea of an immovable rock and an unstoppable force in the same universe could be seen as concepts that might cancel each other out, but there's still an important point to consider in the context of logic and consistency.

    The issue here is that both of these concepts imply absolute extremes that are mutually exclusive. Here’s why:

    An immovable rock by definition cannot be moved. It is something that resists any force, no matter how strong, An unstoppable force, on the other hand, by definition cannot be resisted by anything. It is a force that, by nature, will always overcome any resistance, So, both things cannot exist together in a logically coherent universe. If you say there is an immovable rock, then by definition, there can't be a force that is "unstoppable" because the rock will stop it. And if there is an unstoppable force, there can't be an immovable rock because the force will move it. Their definitions cancel each other out logically because they describe concepts that are opposites in a way that doesn't allow them to coexist.

    In philosophical terms, these concepts aren't just unlikely to exist together—they are logically incoherent. A contradiction like this doesn’t represent something that could potentially exist in some universe, but rather something that doesn't have any meaningful existence at all. You might say they cancel each other out, but they do so because they don't represent real possibilities.

    To make a simple analogy: imagine you ask, "Can there be a married bachelor?" The terms “married” and “bachelor” are logically contradictory, and so such a person doesn't exist—not because they might cancel each other out, but because they don't describe a coherent, possible concept. In a logically consistent universe, you can have things that interact in predictable ways. But when you introduce these kinds of paradoxes, they break the rules of consistency. In this case, it's not about cancellation in the sense of them being able to interact in some way—it's about how the definitions themselves are flawed. You can't have one property (immovable) and its opposite (unstoppable) both exist at the same time, because the very notion of "immovable" and "unstoppable" is conceptually impossible to reconcile.


    I hope this clears things up!

    Tagging all my atheist/non-muslim brahs ^_^
    Magonia @Magonia Slap @Slap lunin7 @lunin7 fatcel_3000 @fatcel_3000 lunin7 @lunin7 Tabula Rasa @Tabula Rasa Plukee :): @Plukee :): ZZebra613 @ZZebra613 Enju @Enju NorwoodAscender @NorwoodAscender PointOfNoReturn @PointOfNoReturn Abhorrence @Abhorrence Postman @Postman n9wiff @n9wiff Sovereign @Sovereign Muttcel Foid Killer @Muttcel Foid Killer Chuddha @Chuddha Manletmachine @Manletmachine Kevin_Logan @Kevin_Logan Squonk @Patrick DieVoGel @DieVoGel Mentally Lost Cel @Mentally Lost Cel Nasi Lemak @Nasi Lemak LancasteR @LancasteR Ultimate Subhuman @Ultimate Subhuman @asdvek AsianBoss @AsianBoss Majestic @Majestic M @manchild Mathiverse @Mathiverse too lazy to tag the rest
 
General Adolf SergeantAutist Mayweather Khan
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Mar 2, 2024
Messages
433
Here's my refutation/explanation to that question:

Atheists attempt to use this question to prove that the concept of omnipotence is self-contradictory. But the problem here is a contradiction in terms. This issue becomes even more clear when we examine a related question: "Can God create an uncreated being?" The problem here is that the questioner has already defined the being to be uncreated and then proceeds to ask for something that contradicts that definition. The problem is in the questioner's terms, not any lack in God's potential. The same is true when asking God to make a circle with four sides. Having already provided a definition of a circle that could never include a four-sided figure, such a question is absurd. Something is certainly self-contradictory here, but it is the questioner's terminology and not the omnipotence of God.The same is true when we come to the case of create a stone which cannot be lifted. Aside from the problem that we are placing an infinite unrestricted being under the finite restricted laws of our universe, the concept of the stone is self-contradictory. Basically, such a stone could not exist because it is conceptually incoherent.

When one asks if God could create such a stone, one would normally identify the properties of such a stone. But here we haven't been given absolute properties, but instead we've been given properties of the stone relative to God's properties. The questioner has identified the potential stone as something so big that God couldn't lift, so even though we already know that there is nothing God cannot lift, they have used that as an attribute for the stone. Automatically, the concept of such a stone is nullified. Now, when they ask could God create such a stone, the answer is no, but that doesn't imply a lack of potential on the part of God. Instead, it reflects the fact that the concept of such a stone is illogical, unreal, inadmissible. It is very similar to asking if God can die. Well, death isn't an ability, its the inability to live.


The immortal cannot die because that defies His attribute of immortality. Similarly, the omnipotent cannot create a task that He can't complete because such a task is merely a figment of one's imagination and could not exist.You're basically asking, if God can do anything, can He make it impossible for himself to do something? The question is illogical and self-contradictory because the argument contradicts the premise. Once you have already established that God can do anything, then that's a set attribute and part of His nature. Therefore, He can do anything that is consistent with His nature, anything that is absolute.Can God make 1=2? Well if 1=2, then it wouldn't be 1! So the idea is self-contradictory, not God.The question also reminds me of the idea of what happens when an immovable rock meets an unstoppable force? The two things cannot exist in the same universe. Likewise, if God exists then all things which contradict His attributes are imaginary, non-existant and impossible. They are forever bound to the realm of imagination and cannot be brought into existence


.Shaykh Ibn Abil-'Izz (d. 1389CE, may allah have mercy on his soul) also answered this question in Sharhul Aqeedah Tahawiyyah (p.137), in his discussion of the following verse:And Allah, over each thing, is omnipotent; all-powerful [al-Baqarah 2:284]This includes all that is possible. As for what is in intrinsically impossible - such as there being a thing that exists and does not exist at one and the same time - then, this has no reality, nor is its existence conceivable, nor is it termed 'a thing' by agreement of those with intelligence. Included in this category is: [Allah] creating the likes of Himself, making Himself non-existent, and other impossibilites.This also serves as a reply to the question posed by some: 'Can Allah create a stone that He is unable to lift?' The argument being that if Allah cannot create such a stone, He is not all-powerful; but if He can, then likewise He is not all-powerful. The fallacy of this argument lies in the fact that such an affair is, in itself, impossible and exists only in the minds of certain people. And not all that the mind conjures-up has an existence that is possible, nor is it always termed 'a thing.'Hopefully that makes the issue clear.
When people ask about the possibility of logically impossible actions, they often misunderstand what "impossible" means in this context. The real impossibility isn't in the ability of God, but in the definition of the thing being asked about. For example:


  • The question "Can God create a stone He cannot lift?" involves asking if God can create something that is conceptually incoherent, which is inherently impossible.
  • Similarly, "Can God create a being greater than Himself?" is nonsensical because, by definition, God is the greatest conceivable being. There's no logical space for something greater than God within the concept of God as the ultimate being.

    The paradox of "What happens when an immovable rock meets an unstoppable force?" is another example of an impossible scenario, because it involves two contradictory concepts existing in the same reality. If there were an immovable rock, then there could be no unstoppable force, and vice versa. This illustrates how contradictory concepts cannot coexist, and that their "existence" is a logical impossibility.




    Well, one could ask "wouldn't the immovable rock and unstoppable force just cancel each other out? doesn't necessarily mean they can't exist." And to that, I respond: You're absolutely right that the idea of an immovable rock and an unstoppable force in the same universe could be seen as concepts that might cancel each other out, but there's still an important point to consider in the context of logic and consistency.

    The issue here is that both of these concepts imply absolute extremes that are mutually exclusive. Here’s why:

    An immovable rock by definition cannot be moved. It is something that resists any force, no matter how strong, An unstoppable force, on the other hand, by definition cannot be resisted by anything. It is a force that, by nature, will always overcome any resistance, So, both things cannot exist together in a logically coherent universe. If you say there is an immovable rock, then by definition, there can't be a force that is "unstoppable" because the rock will stop it. And if there is an unstoppable force, there can't be an immovable rock because the force will move it. Their definitions cancel each other out logically because they describe concepts that are opposites in a way that doesn't allow them to coexist.

    In philosophical terms, these concepts aren't just unlikely to exist together—they are logically incoherent. A contradiction like this doesn’t represent something that could potentially exist in some universe, but rather something that doesn't have any meaningful existence at all. You might say they cancel each other out, but they do so because they don't represent real possibilities.

    To make a simple analogy: imagine you ask, "Can there be a married bachelor?" The terms “married” and “bachelor” are logically contradictory, and so such a person doesn't exist—not because they might cancel each other out, but because they don't describe a coherent, possible concept. In a logically consistent universe, you can have things that interact in predictable ways. But when you introduce these kinds of paradoxes, they break the rules of consistency. In this case, it's not about cancellation in the sense of them being able to interact in some way—it's about how the definitions themselves are flawed. You can't have one property (immovable) and its opposite (unstoppable) both exist at the same time, because the very notion of "immovable" and "unstoppable" is conceptually impossible to reconcile.


    I hope this clears things up!

    Tagging all my atheist/non-muslim brahs ^_^
    Magonia @Magonia Slap @Slap lunin7 @lunin7 fatcel_3000 @fatcel_3000 lunin7 @lunin7 Tabula Rasa @Tabula Rasa Plukee :): @Plukee :): ZZebra613 @ZZebra613 Enju @Enju NorwoodAscender @NorwoodAscender PointOfNoReturn @PointOfNoReturn Abhorrence @Abhorrence Postman @Postman n9wiff @n9wiff Sovereign @Sovereign Muttcel Foid Killer @Muttcel Foid Killer Chuddha @Chuddha Manletmachine @Manletmachine Kevin_Logan @Kevin_Logan Squonk @Patrick DieVoGel @DieVoGel Mentally Lost Cel @Mentally Lost Cel Nasi Lemak @Nasi Lemak LancasteR @LancasteR Ultimate Subhuman @Ultimate Subhuman @asdvek AsianBoss @AsianBoss Majestic @Majestic M @manchild Mathiverse @Mathiverse too lazy to tag the rest
I'm muslim bro
 
Joined
Aug 20, 2024
Messages
94
Same can be said of order from chaos . If order is given ontologically higher position ( this is just human priors without substantiation like nagarjuna says) and is said to be impossible to derive being from chaos then chaos cannot derive being from order either . Most creationist arguments are running loops/ language games. Silence is probably warranted more than anything else.
 
Activity
So far there's no one here
Top