Fallacy of "can God make a rock not even he can lift?"

[Aristoddler]

If god had doubts about himself, would he be an agnostic?

Nope.
And he could make a rock big enough, sure...but where would he put it?
It would have to be bigger than creation, and that would require him to make something bigger than that which he had already created...which is existence.

Therefore you would first have to determine how big existence is, before determining the size of the rock, and then you would no doubt come to the conclusion that god has limits.
Once you come to that conclusion, then you would prove that god is in actuality...fallible.
I believe that at that point the cosmos would cease to exist, so please stop thinking about it before you destroy us all.

[Didymos Thomas]

If god had doubts about himself, would he be an agnostic?

Only if he is skeptical about his existence.

[Holiday20310401]

Which brings us back to the whole point that God is a big conundrum, created by people, and it's true nature is of the course of transcendence.
Figuring out God is about as useful as doing metaphysics; all we need is to know that God's meaning is within ourselves.
Also, to think of God as a separate being,.. does that imply God has a conscience, or does having a conscience defy the definition of God? Either way, the way we see God as perfect, all knowing, not learning, would imply it's non existence, because in a sense there is no causal force or meaning to drive its existence.
I thought God was a construct of what is moral. So God's divinity would be that of humanity's ingenuity ability, the creature of conscience.

Once again, you could argue that God's divinity is beyond the need for conscience, thus we would get back into the conundrum, the transcendence, but what is transcendent is irrelevant to humanity's morals, making an indifference to humanity's moral evolving.

We are only within our capacity as a society to spread the idea of a conscious God, when in fact divinity doesn't need a conscience, but that seems amoral to me; therefore that would question God's need to be a potential to humanity's reasoning.

Let's say God has a conscience, and it can make every action at it's best moral standpoint possible, (lets say this is also possible). If I were this I would rather be of the most minimal influence to conscious sentients as possible, and being God would give it the ability to have no influence (concretely), right? So God becomes irrelevant even here because it would choose to lack potential to humanity for the better. It's perfection would make humanity boring, depriving any meaning to our existence.

[Didymos Thomas]

Interesting post, Holiday. Tomorrow when I have more time I'll try to make a more detailed response, but for now, would you mind elaborating on your use of "transcendence"?

[Holiday20310401]

Yeah, sorry, lol. Just look at...
transcendent - Definitions from Dictionary.com

Notice the double entendre possibility.

[scottik187]

Originally Posted by Aristoddler

If god had doubts about himself, would he be an agnostic?

Nope.
And he could make a rock big enough, sure...but where would he put it?
It would have to be bigger than creation, and that would require him to make something bigger than that which he had already created...which is existence.

Why does the rock have to be bigger than creation? Can't its size be small, but its mass large?

Think of a Neutron star, small size, but very large mass.

Is it possible to create something that's mass is greater than creation, but its size is smaller? Yes. It could be the size of a basketball, yet it could be heavier than all creation. Something that size would be able to go anywhere. (As I re-read this it kind of made me think - God could never actually make something heavier than creation, he could only make creation/larger).

However then questions of gravitational pull come in - I'm no physicist so I won't go there.

Anyways - I've always had a problem with this question. It seems nonsensical to me.

[Holiday20310401]

Irrelevant because the idea is that God can lift any mass.
But honestly, it doesn't matter. Creating a rock that it can't lift is like creating a duplicate of itself, now that's just insane! What an indifference. If God had to be a moral perfection then what positive ethical outcome can be defined by such an action? None, its stupid. (Although if u can say otherwise plz tell me).
Therefore, it is impossible for God to create something so morally trifling.
People make this problem tricky, assuming that this question is the same as asking if a entity that has no limits can or can't make a rock that it can't lift, when in order for God to exist it must have some limits of some kind. I am stating the moral limits that people have created.

[scottik187]

That an interesting way to look at it.

So what your saying, is that because God is morally perfect, He would not be able to create the rock as it lacks moral significance?

I'm just trying to get what your saying here...

[Holiday20310401]

Yeah, thanks for summing it up, I can't ever seem to do that.

[midas77]

Originally Posted by nameless

My comments above put aside, I still like the way one particular 7-year-old responded: "I can't give you a smart answer to a dumb question."

so why is it a logical nonsense? Because it provides a false assumption hence a false conclusion.

This fallacy assumes that an all powerful god can create something more powerful than itself. This can not be, because god by this assumption is the all powerful and if it can create something more powerfull than itself, it can not be all powerful. God in this assumption can be god and not god at the same time and at the same respect. Violates the basic Law of Non-Contradiction.

Second. It also assumes the inclusion of two mutually exclusive existent concepts, that of an unstopable being and an immovable being. This fallacy is actually a variant of another fallacy. "What will happen if an unstopable object collides with an immovable object." Unthinkable. One must choose between the two or assume that both be false.

Third. It is a trick question design for the foolish. Any sane atheist will not and should not use this argument as a proof of the non-existence of GOd