A ROCK TOO HEAVY FOR GOD? Why it's not an objection to divine omnipotence.

[@AntiCitizenX]

at 10:40, I think you are wrong here. The problem with "failure" is twofold: 1) God is not defined as "incapable of failure." God is defined as "able to do all that is logically possible." If you want to change the definition of omnipotence, then fine. But "failing to do something" is a logical possibility unto itself. Hence, a being that can do all that is logically possible must also be capable of failure. 2) Even if we change the definition, "failure" is highly interpretive. Any action can be described in successful or failure terms. For example, I could describe "dying" as "failing to live forever." I could describe "living forever" as "failure at dying." That kind of thinking gets you nowhere.

[@OzymandiasRamsesII]

I see your point AntiCitizenX, but any definition of omnipotence is going to be open to challenge, which is partly why I introduced the subject by explaining how, for many centuries, religious philosophers and theologians seriously entertained whether logical possibility was just too confining for the concept of omnipotence. As they saw it, a god was not limited to what's possible or what we think is conceivable, but could literally accomplish was are called 'impossibilia' (impossibilities). As for 'incapable of failure', that wasn't actually offered by me as a definition of omnipotence, but rather as a deductive implication of nearly every concept of omnipotence (past and present) that one could put forth. After all, if an omnipotent being were to fail at anything - genuinely fail to accomplish what was logically possible for it to do - in what sense would it qualify was omnipotent? My reason for dwelling on the issue of success and failure however, was to underscore that the 'rock-too-heavy' challenge, because it can only be answered with a 'no', makes it sound like there's some incapacity implied, when it fact answering 'no' means, 'Yes, such a being could perform both tasks'. Indeed, it's precisely because such a god can both create _and_ lift a rock of any mass, that we say that there's no such rock which _fits the description_ of 'rock to heavy for it to lift'. Such a being isn't failing to create a logically possible rock, it's just that no logically possible rock could (if such a being existed) be unliftable by such a being. Good comment. Thanks, - Ozy

[@TheGlobalAtheism]

Ozymandias Ramses II AntiCitizenX I have to say it's a real joy watching you two "fight it out". Could you imagine G Man and Vekl having this kind of civil discourse like you two are? Just on the video itself, I think it's really fascinating and certainly interesting hearing the background of the topic. Although I agree with the premise, it just seems to assume a different definition of omnipotence. I don't in principal have a problem with a different definition (I actually encourage it given the current definition cited is simply woeful) - but it just seems to be all it is. I'd be interested in hearing more of this to be honest because I think it is interesting. Although I think ultimately it might boil down to a circular argument. Namely that "God can't succeed in failure (insert paradox here) because it's not in his nature to fail" - or something to that effect. In the same way the moral argument falls prey to the same problem that it's just defining omnipotence into existence. Keep up the great work you two and hopefully there's a lot more to come from you both!

[@TheGlobalAtheism]

Epicurus A. Greek AntiCitizenX Ozymandias Ramses II I'll tag you all in this because it will be interesting to hear your responses. Does the problem of God's nature ultimately boil down to forms of the Euthyphro dilemma? So for example: is X impossible because God can't do it, or can God not do X because it's impossible? I'm thinking this might be a good discussion for a hangout if you are interested, I don't think we've actually met Epicurus A. Greek so it would be nice if you joined in too! Perhaps a topic along the lines of "what is impossible"? Or perhaps something with a less repulsive name. Let me know anyway because I'm really enjoying trying to get my head around this topic!

[@OzymandiasRamsesII]

TheGlobalAtheism Yes, there is a huge problem in any discussion of the concept of omnipotence, simply because anything we say about such a concept has to be largely stipulative, because any definition we put forth is not constrained by some facts about beings we observe to be omnipotent, but rather, we're just extrapolating the concept of 'power' or 'capacity' to a kind of idea limiting case....and that leaves a lot of room for disagreements about what such a limiting case would consist of. - Ozy

[@TheGlobalAtheism]

Epicurus A. Greek I'll have to add that to the growing list of books that I need to read! Hopefully we'll be able to arrange a discussion soon because I think it's safe to say you're one or two levels above vekl and G Man...! Maybe some day you'll be the level of Jason Burns I hope you have a nice time and hopefully we're able to sort something out soon.

[@deepashtray5605]

The real question is: Can God create a sapient species who glorifies His abilities so highly that even He cannot live up to the hype?

[@rozellcaldwell789]

your a fuckin genius....I worship u

[@ryrez4478]

Lol awesome

[@simonk4174]

HAHAHA 😂😂😂

[@simonk4174]

Imma remember this

[@TaeKenDo]

Which just assumed that God actually needs something of the sort from infallible humans. Just a rehash of the Omnipotence Paradox and violates the law of non-contradiction; therefore implodes...lol

[@AntiCitizenX]

I just watched this again, and I have to say that I think your response misses a key point of the rock challenge. The whole point of the paradox is that any time you define some entity in terms of naive, unrestricted universals, then we can immediately defeat that definition simply by adding in self-references. It is very similar in nature to Russel's paradox, and so falls apart for the same reasons. It's not a question of whether or not some rock exists that is too heavy for God, but *what can God do that involves Himself?* For example, if God "cannot fail" (as you said) then what happens when God challenges Himself to an arm wrestle? Or if God plays Himself at chess? By definition, He has to fail to achieve at least one of His goals because the goals themselves are inconsistent. Another example might try to assume that God has something like infinite strength. Okay, fine. But then what happens when God's left hand pushes against His right? We just defined a sort of "infinity minus infinity" scenario that has no logical solution. So again, the definition doesn't work. Likewise, if God can do "all that is logically possible," we have the same problem. Can God create a rock that is "unliftable by its own maker?" Is that feat an element of the set of logical possibility or not? Well, it has to be! As you said - I can personally perform that task on myself. So if I can do it, then it must be "logically possible," and therefore an element of the set of "things God can do." But now we again have the contradiction. As I said before, the challenge is not the problem. *The definition of God is the problem.*

[@Bonko78]

AntiCitizenX Sorry if I'm trying to revive a very old post here and I would understand if your position has changed since then, but I would like to comment on a few things here. I do agree that omniscience has many problems and if we pose it against itself we can come up with any number of seemingly contradictive scenarios. However, I wouldn't use the examples that you listed here (arm-wrestling or chess) because I don't think one can actually compete against oneself, at least not in a manner where winning or losing is applicable. "Winning" in any game is also a mere label that we assign to a competitor after having supposedly succeeded in a challenge "better" than their opponent(s), which makes assigning it a bit arbitrary. I wouldn't honestly know if any form of competition is applicable against an omnipotent being, least of all from itself. I think Ozzy presents a very strong objection to the "unliftable rock" question in this video since the question itself does indeed seem to ask for a logically impossible thing. However, I still think there are many ways to rationally dismiss the concept of omnipotence, one of which is the fact that it's never really clear what it means. To just say "capability of doing the logically possible" is far from sufficient since what is logically possible would depend on how the omnipotent being (God?) is otherwise defined; as soon as there are other specific properties in place, then they would present limitations for that in and of themselves. For instance, omnipresence would exclude moving, traveling, coming or going; omniscience would exclude concluding, assuming or learning (and probably anything connected with temporality), omnibenevolence would affect the capacity for intent, etc, etc. Arguably, even the most basic properties of any "being" would come in question, like becoming, doing, changing or even what it means to "be" in and of itself. So, plenty of fodder for that fire.

[@AntiCitizenX]

"The rock challenge does not challenge the existence of God, but rather seeks to challenge the omnipotence of God." In a sense, I agree. But if God is implicitly defined as "being omnipotent", then the paradox does necessarily disprove God. Of course, the only thing the theist needs to do now is simply redefine what "God" is, and not use "omnipotence" in that definition. Poof. Problem solved!

[@OzymandiasRamsesII]

Yes, I absolutely agree, and it's a point I should have made in the video. If god is defined as an omnipotent being, and one has a way of showing that omnipotence is incoherent (which I think it is), then that god - the alleged god which has been defined as omnipotent - has been challenged (possibly even disproven). My point in this video is not to suggest that omnipotence is a coherent concept. Rather, to argue that the 'rock-too-heavy' argument doesn't establish it. There are auxilliary argument that can show that the concept of omnipotence is incoherent (as I allued to at the end, but which specific arguments or objections one would apply would depend on exactly how omnipotence was defined by the theist or person in question. Thanks, - Ozy

[@tiberiusvetus9113]

Ozymandias Ramses II I would be interested in hearing more about why you think omnipotence is incoherent. While watching your video I thought of the universal Turing machine. Such a machine can execute every conceivable program successfully (even though some programs don't terminate). In a world were only this machine existed, it would be almost omnipotent. It would even be able to simulate our entire universe. But it wouldn't be able to change its own metaphysics.

[@OzymandiasRamsesII]

I explain some of the historical context behind the oft-posed challenge to divine omnipotence, "Can God create a rock so heavy even he can't lift it?", and why it's _not_ a good objection to the concept of omnipotence or divine omnipotence.

[@OzymandiasRamsesII]

I have not, but I asked him about it and so I'll check it out. Thanks, - Ozy

[@Fraterchaoraterchaos]

not sure that's entirely correct... what happens if you keep piling rocks on top of rocks, eventually, all those rocks will form into one rock by the force of their own gravity... so we'd have to ask, can God lift all the rocks in the set of all rocks combined? If you want to say he can. then you could say he is omnipotent... but if he could not lift the mass of all rocks in the set of all rocks, then he could create a rock too heavy, because he would certainly be able to pile all the rocks in the set of all rocks into one pile, since he can certainly lift every single rock in the set of all rocks... AntiCitizenX covers this in one of his videos... because the argument goes that it is logically impossible for God to create such a rock... but it simply is not, since it only involves piling rocks on top of rocks. I do understand your objection to it. And as I stated, you may be right if omnipotence is defined (in God's case) as being able to lift the mass of all rocks in the set of all created rocks... which I why I would not use this argument as "disproof of God" or "disproof of his omnipotence" and would instead use the glaring contradiction of omnipotence and omniscience... can God do something which God knows he will not do in the future? If he *can* do something he has not foreseen, he cannot be omniscient, and if he *cannot* do so, he cannot be omnipotent.

[@efrainnieves9887]

About that rock thing... here is something else to be considered too... So you ask us: "If God can do anything, can He a make a rock so large that He cannot lift it?" There are limitations to God's omnipotence in two areas: First... He cannot do things contrary to His nature. For example, He cannot lie and He cannot sin. Second... He has chosen no to do certain things. For example, He chose not to spare His Son from death on the cross. So if you wonder whether God can make 1+1 =3.. I simply respond that such a question is not about God's power; it's about arithmetic....or maybe geology or petrology in the rock details "case". By the way God holding the whole infinite universe on His hand and under His control like He has always done until now already... does that count as a big enough "rock" for you?

[@Fraterchaoraterchaos]

Efrain Nieves according to the Bible, God *can* lie

[@efrainnieves9887]

Charles Kunkle Jr. I' will make the clarification for you since you did not bother to said it for yourself... this is the only way to make it honest and truthful then...you should have said "According to my own personal opinion... in the Bible God can lie".

[@Number0neSon]

Great points Ozy. In the past I've wondered how valid that argument is, so you've answered the question.

[@Ebi.Adonkie]

It's not an argument, it's a paradox that makes a point about definitions. The paradox is not solved if Omnipotence is defined as infinitely powerful

[@antinatalist3686]

I am an atheist. It seems to me that the objection becomes invalid once accepting that God is part of reality. If God is immovable force in reality, then one cannot ask whether God can create unstoppable force.

[@jaromor8808]

AntiCitizenX: "The challenges are perfectly valid. It's God Himself that is logically broken." Well said :)

[@DynaCatlovesme]

At some point a rock gets so big we would call it a planet, so then if God wanted to lift such a rock, where would He stand to lift it from?

[@traog]

In space what does lift mean?

[@depenthene]

How do we know divine omnipotence or is it just a thought experiment?

[@OzymandiasRamsesII]

depenthene: It's just a concept. Whether or not there actually is anything which answers to any definition of omnipotence, is another question entirely. Nothing I've said he should be construed as suggesting I think there is or are omnipotent beings. The purpose of the video was strictly to explain why that particular objection to the concept of omnipotence is ineffective. Thanks for the question. Cheers, - Ozy

[@depenthene]

Sorry, I should have not phrased it as a question. I meant that wouldn't it be rather pointless to try disproving omnipotence if we have not yet established that there even is one. Unless it is meant to prove that omnipotence is not possible, hence god cant be omnipotent. Almost like when some creationists claim that evolution is false, so creation must be true. Usually conversation then continue to evolution. I just think in the same way it is rather pointless conversation in context, since even if evolution would be totally false it would not give any credit to creation. Anyway, it was quite good explanation. I just have always thought argument "Can God create a rock so heavy even he can't lift it?" is not a very good one because we haven't established omnipotence yet. Then again, philosophical arguments are not my thing.

[@integralmath]

Okay, I've listened to this and I have to say that I think you're somewhat underselling the nature of omnipotence. The god being proposed isn't simply just a very powerful person; it's a being whose power has *no limits* of any kind. I see no problem in asking of such a creature the doing of a seemingly impossible task. It's no kind of unlimited power if the retreat to save the concept is something like: this being, aside from all of the things it's not capable of doing, can do anything that's possible to be done. Hell, I can meet that definition. What is logically possible should be no more of a restraint on a such a being than it is on the universe, and the universe is certainly not obliged to obey any rules of logic. A universe in which the laws of identity and non-contradiction do not hold would function however it functions, without any difficulty at all. There would be tremendous difficulty in sensibly reasoning about such a universe, but that's not the universe's problem - that's a problem for people trying to reason about it.

[@OzymandiasRamsesII]

The Justicar I agree wholeheartedly. Indeed, that's why I devoted the first half of the video to how medieval religious philosophers treated the concept of omnipotence and mentioned that whole business about the doctrine of created eternal verities. As they say it, the concept of omnipotence, _simpliciter_ could not be constrained by such notions as logical possibility or concievability, which are limits applicable to us, but would not, _ex hypothesi_ be applicable to an omnipotent being. However, I was trying to address the problem from the standpoint of the more modern views we hear expressed now. For various reasons (not especially good ones) modern theologians, religious philosophers and apologists favour the idea that an omnipotent creator god must conform to the strictures of logic. I had wanted to get into the motivations for such a restriction, but the video was already longer than I would have liked. Thanks for that comment. They are always appreciated. Cheers, - Ozy

[@KEvronista]

*"I see no problem in asking of such a creature the doing of a seemingly impossible task."* like it or not, their current definition for omnipotence excludes logical impossibilities. insisting that their definition include such impossibilities will only land you a fair charge of equivocation. i'm satisfied with their definition; by it, the universe is inarguably an omnipotent entity.... which, of course, it is! KEvron

[@chadofisher947]

Ozymandias Ramses II I agree with God doesn't conform to Logic. That's the sugar-coat. Now the rub. I have a contention: I have a problem with your idea of God being "beyond" Logic. God is Divine Logic/Wisdom/Divine Mind. All systems in the universe are designed to transition through logical processes. To illustrate, God designed the universe at Creation in a logical orderly fashion. Yes, God has no need conform to Logic, HOWEVER, all systems of the universe conform to His Wisdom (the highest of all Logics.) God is beyond human logic, indeed, but He is not beyond Pure Logic, because He is Divine Mind.

[@LuiKang043]

Chado Fisher This is the problem with pure rationalism. It doesn't reveal the necessary details that empiricism often reveals. We don't know if such a Divine Logic exists or what it even could be, and so we allow arguments in the nature of God of the gaps argument survive, because it is beyond the ability of rationalism to find an answer to it. All it gives are possibilities that could be tested or believed, the former of which relies heavily on the innovation of the experimenter. When using pure logic just ends with prognoses than a diagnosis of the issue at hand, we have to start using empiricism. It's like we're on a boat trying to row with just one oar, when we need both to move on forwards and avoid going in circles. And that is why the scientific method, with all of its supposed imperfections, is a necessity. We cannot, ironically enough, get ahead of ourselves.

[@EveKeneinan]

You are mistaken that logic isn't a restraint on "the universe." You are saying that there "could be" a universe not bound by the law of non-contradiction-but such a universe would also *not be.* You are also saying that there could be "a universe" that could be *not the same as itself* -you are saying "There could be an X that is and also is not" and "There could be an X that is not X." In other words, you are speaking nonsense. You are a mathematician, and respect definition and precision. So explain what "An X that is and at the same time is not" and "An X which is not X" *mean.* You cannot do so. Any proposed defeator of divine omnipotence has to be an actual meaningful something to so serve. It would not be a cogent argument to say "God is not omnipotent because God cannot do xyzzy" where xyzzy is undefined and meaningless. And that seems to be what you are doing.

[@TheBibleSkeptic]

Well, with that neatly tucked away (appreciate your playing the devil's advocate on the apologists' behalf, Ozy; if you'll forgive the idiom), can you take on *"Can God Heat Up A Burrito Too Hot He Can't Eat It"* argument? :P

[@AntiCitizenX]

I think your defense of the rock problem is missing certain key points. The thing to remember is that God, by definition, can do all things in the set of "logical possibility." That statement literally means "any coherent action that can be described without contradiction." This even has a name in set theory, and it's called *unrestricted comprehension.* The issue has nothing to do with rocks, per se, but actions that I can describe with language. One particular action that I can describe perfectly coherently is "create a rock with the property of being unliftable by its own maker." That is a thing I, as a finite being, can do. Therefore, "create a rock that cannot be lifted by its own maker" is a "logically possible" thing. It does not matter if beings with infinite strength cannot meet this definition. The mere fact that I can do it is all it takes for such a thing to necessarily all into the set of logical possibility (see modal axiom B). The problem for God is that God is not defined as "able to lift all rocks." God, by definition, can do *all things* in the set of logical possibility. Therefore God must, by definition, replicate such a feat. Here, watch: 1) As a finite being, it is logically possible *for me* to create a rock that possesses the property of being "unliftable by its own maker." (A is a subset of B) 2) Therefore, creating a rock that possesses the property of being "unlifable by its own maker" is an element of the set of logical possibility. (B is a subset of C) 3) God, by definition, can do *all things* within the set of logical possibility. (C is a subset of D) 4) Therefore, God can create a rock that possesses the property of being "unlifable by its own maker." (Therefore, A is a subset of D). It's basic axiomatic set theory.

[@sbushido5547]

"It does not matter if beings with infinite strength cannot meet this definition." Doesn't it, though? Maybe I'm just naive, but it seems to me that the properties of the "maker" would be important when talking about what's "logically possible" for it to do. Especially if we're supposed to approach the concept of omnipotence as if it's coherent (for the sake of argument).

[@AntiCitizenX]

Scott Bowser This is a key confusion that I keep seeing people make. There is a huge difference between what is "logically possible for agent X", and what is simply "logically possible" in general. For example: 1) I have arms. 2) People with arms can do pushups. 3) Therefore, I can do pushups. 4) Therefore, it is "logically possible" for me to do pushups. 5) Therefore, it is logically possible for beings to "do pushups." Now compare with this: 1) Tim has no arms. 2) People without arms cannot do pushups. 3) Therefore, Tim cannot do pushups. 4) Therefore, it is "logically impossible" for Tim to do pushups. Ask yourself, does Tim's logical inability to do a pushup automatically mean that all pushups in general are now "logically impossible?" If God can do all that is "logically possible," then can God do a pushup or not? 1) Agent X can do Y. 2) Therefore, Y is "logically possible." 3) God can do all that is logically possible. 4) Therefore, God can do Y. Once you start expressing the issue in generic set format, the paradox becomes very apparent.

[@sbushido5547]

AntiCitizenX I think the point is that "a rock that cannot be lifted by a being with unlimited power" is logically impossible, and thus can't be created any more than a square circle can.

[@AntiCitizenX]

Scott Bowser If God were simply defined as a being with "unlimited strength," then that would be fine. God now can lift all rocks. However, the problem with statements like "unlimited" is that we can again break them by adding self-references. For example, what happens when God attempts to arm wrestle Himself? Or maybe what if God decides to push an object and then resist that motion at the same time? Now you get problems of infinity minus infinity, which is not a very well-defined concept. You can even replicate this problem yourself. Pretend you have the power to insert arbitrary forces in this world. Now try and move some object while simultaneously resisting that motion at the same time. What happens? Well, nothing. You sit there with a dumb look on your face as you try to find a number greater than infinity. It has no stable solution.

[@sbushido5547]

AntiCitizenX Heh, well maybe God is locked in an infinite number of never-ending self-arm-wrestling matches. :P

[@CaseAgainstFaith1]

Ozymandias Ramses II Can you come up with a better paradox? Something that does do what this paradox is trying to do, but more successful?

[@kemosabe1967]

Can god commit suicide?

[@woobmonkeyp3537]

Ozymandias Ramses II A question I posed to AntiCitizenX on this same topic, I'd like to ask your view on: What if we were to define 'omnipotence' as 'having unlimited potential to affect all things, including self?' In which case, a deity: A) May create an unlifitable stone/immovable object, contingent upon current capabilities; B) Alter its capability to encompass lifting/moving said object; C) Move/lift the stone, under the new, expanded set of capabilities. What makes for 'omnipotence' in this, possibly too deistic for Christians, view, is not an unlimited power, in the present moment, but rather an unlimited potential to expand upon current power, contingent upon the needs of any possible circumstance. For the record, I agree whole-mindedly with your take that we, as atheists, must not be content with picking only the low-hanging fruit, and must be careful to be rigorous in our reasoning, lest we fall to the level of mere 'anti-WLC' atheist apologetics. Cheers, and well said! NEW SUB GET! ^_^

[@OzymandiasRamsesII]

That's a tough one. Because the concept of omnipotence, in my view, is really just an extrapolation toward some imaginary limit of power, and we don't have anyway of knowing what the limits are of 'the do-able', we can't ever get to any definitive answer. The problem with all these thought-experiments about omnipotence is that, in the end, we're just mining our own intuitions about what we think is in principle do-able and we can be completely mistaken about what actually is do-able task. Regrettably, many theologians have staked a lot on what they think is logically possible based on what they think they can successfully conceive of. We always have to be careful that we don't mistake a failure of imagination for an insight into metaphysical or logical necessity. So, in my view, your question, as are many others posed by others here, can't be answered with any confidence. Thanks for the comment and for subscribing. Cheers, - Ozy

[@MathewSteeleAtheology]

Excellent exposition as always.

[@KEvronista]

then there's omniscience. does an omniscient being reason? what need would he have for reason if he already knows the conclusions? when he acts, does he draw on his reasoning or his omniscience? how could you tell the difference? KEvron

[@MrOttopants]

Can God create a copy of himself?

[@OzymandiasRamsesII]

That would be an interesting thought-experiment. What happens if an omnipotent being creates a duplicate of itself? Can that duplicate, which would be, _ex hypothesi_, equally powerful, be able to oppose the first being? And if so, what limits would this impose upon the alleged omnipotence of either? Thanks for the comment, - Ozy

[@hafaskater]

***** Not if the ontological argument succeeds.

[@avesatanas5728]

Ozymandias Ramses II Why would God not be able to create a duplicate of himself? If it is possible for God to exist then it is possible for a second God to exist. If they had a fight, whoever strikes first would win. They are both all powerful in terms of ability, but that does not mean they are immortal or protected from actions happening _to them_.

[@vwazp]

MrOttopants what if he creates a copy and then kill himself? would the clone god be the same god? interesting question

[@KEvronista]

*"If they had a fight, whoever strikes first would win."* a first blow is logically impossible in that scenario; it implies that one omnipotent being is more potent than another omnipotent being. KEvron

[@wildwhippet]

Thanks for the video! Have you any suggested reading tips for an older person to dip his toes into philosophy?

[@OzymandiasRamsesII]

***** Bertrand Russell's _The Problems of Philosophy_ is an excellent place to start. It's very clear, provides a concise introduction to some very basic and fundamental issues in philosophy, and it's mercifully short - a quick read. Cheers, - Ozy

[@wildwhippet]

Ozymandias Ramses II Thanks!

[@Christopholaes]

I did always wonder about this one. I always found it somewhat of a semantic game. There are better arguments at any rate. Thanks for the vid., kinda confirmed something for me. Well explained etc. Thanks again!

[@Ebi.Adonkie]

That's the point, it's a semantic game. It's an attempt to point out the absurdity of omnipotence based on definition

[@WilliamTyndale1]

Good stuff. When we think of omnipotence as simply "all-powerful," meaning to have power over all that IS rather than an idea of unlimited power to do any imagined idea, then hypotheticals become meaningless. God is constrained by His nature. He cannot lie, for instance (Numbers 23:19). Evil cannot dwell in His presence (Psalm 5:4; Habakkuk 1:13). So, does the fact that God's Divine Nature does not allow Him to sin (sin itself could be defined as that which is contrary to God's Divine Nature) mean God is not omnipotent? Well, God is constrained by God it would seem-- the devil or some other being is not forcing Him not to sin-- so I do not see where this would in any way challenge the idea of His being all-powerful. Neither does His not performing any other imagined task that runs contrary to His established order.

[@WilliamTyndale1]

***** God is not constrained by external forces, He is God. There is none higher. Perhaps it would be easier to understand what is meant by "God is constrained by His Nature" in conceptualizing what God _is_. All that is good. All that is just, holy, righteous and pure. He is light. He is life. He is love. He is truth. He is _the_ way. His ways are perfect. He has power over all, knows all, and is everywhere. Now conceptualize the opposite of all these attributes and realize that by virtue of what God _is_--- that is to say His Nature--- He is not what He is not. He is constrained to be what He _is_ as opposed to what He is _and_ what He is not. Now, how are we to "manipulate" a Being with the previously described attributes? Tell Him lies and He defeats them as Truth incarnate. Try to bend His Will, and be bent by the One whose will _will_ be done. Try to pull the wool over His eyes and realize He is light itself, knowing all and there is no idle word uttered that will not be called into account. Try to entice His lusts, as man's lusts are enticed, and realize He has no lusts to entice. Try to kill Him and realize He is life itself. He is victor over sin and death. What leverage could the created possibly exert over the Creator? I'm just grateful He is the good God of all that is right rather than a demiurge or a cruel tyrant.

[@The_Gallowglass]

What if an omnipotent being were to suspend its own power, for an unspecified amount of time, so that he could not pick up a rock, assuming he can restore his own power at will?

[@Scrumtralecent]

I always considered this argument to be a sort of poor mans Euthyphro dilemma. Great work as always Ozy! Plenty to think about after watching this.

[@Evitable]

I used to think this was an easy slap in the face, now I see I've been facepalming myself the whole time! Thanks for the clarification Ozymandias Ramses II ;)

[@stupormundi9676]

I very much liked your presentation and appreciated that for clarity you gave an example of a logical impossibility namely the feat of squaring a circle. But supposedly the Christian deity isn't deterred by logical impossibilities since in Luke's gospel (chapter 1, verse 37) we read "For with God nothing shall be impossible." Evidently this deity is special indeed. He squares any number of circles without so much as breaking a sweat, except of course on Saturdays when he likes to kick back and unwind.

[@sachamm]

Great video. That is the first time I've heard that definition of omnipotence, and I wonder if it runs afoul of the same sort of issue brought up by the New Riddle of Induction, namely that language matters. If I define "oomph" as "not moving", then can god succeed at "oomphing" the rock?

[@Eltrio2]

I personally think the question is just to get the other guy to shut up while you're enjoying lunch.

[@tiberiusvetus9113]

You touched on this in the video: Can an omnipotent being succeed at ceasing to exist? Succeed at limiting its own powers?

[@OzymandiasRamsesII]

Tiberius Vetus I should think so, though some would argue that a being that could do so would (somehow) be less potent because the mere capacity to render itself less capable would be a mark of having less power. I don't see how that can be defended however. If you have two beings, each seemingly capable of doing anything, but one can nullify it's own power to do anything, and the other can't, I'd say the former has a capacity the other lacks, meaning the other isn't actually omnipotent, since it lacks a capacity the other has. Good question. - Ozy

[@MostorAstrakan]

I'd say yes, but the next thing Ozy mentioned is much stranger: Having caused itself not to exist, could an omnipotent being then cause itself to exist again? In order to cause anything to happen, you'd have to exist first. Perhaps an omnipotent being could set an omnipotent egg-timer, that caused it to exist at some later time. Even if an omnipotent being can create a hiatus in its existence, it's still said that omnipotent beings exist "timelessly". In that case, could an omnipotent being cause itself never to have existed at all? Again, I'd say yes. But then, could that omnipotent being cause itself to have existed all along again? Unless this has been addressed before, I decree that this be known as the "Blinking Omnipotence Problem". Frankly, I think this entire "Omnipotence" discussion is a red herring. If you need to create a Universe, you only need a being capable of creating a Universe, and any additional abilities such as creating paradoxical rocks, are nice extras but not essential. I don't need my car mechanic to arrange flowers. Nice if he can, but I really need him to get my car running.

[@tiberiusvetus9113]

Flash Bastard I suppose an omnipotent being could create a magic timer would recreate itself at some future time. This video changed my mind about the logic coherence of an omnipotent being, but it's like having an omnipotent computer, without cause it wouldn't have reason to do anything. It's when you say that this omnipotent being is also omnibenevolent, that's when this being becomes more testable.

[@SciPunk215]

When a rock fails to fall, it succeeds at being lifted. When it succeeds at falling, it fails at being lifted.

[@Nai61a]

Do you ever publish the text of your talks? It would be helpful to people like me who tend to deal better with written formulations (in the context of these kinds of discussions) than with the spoken formulation (because it saves stopping the vid every few seconds to think etc).

[@OzymandiasRamsesII]

That's a good suggestion, which I may do. The problem is that, while my videos in my 'Archchair Reflections' are scripted, I often depart from the script and improvise a bit, and in some cases, quite substantially, so I'd have to rewatch my videos and transcribe what I actually did say as opposed to what I intended to say. But I should be able to do what you suggest for some of them. I just may do this. Thanks, - Ozy

[@wimsweden]

If one asks of such a being to be able do the logically impossible, i.e. be beyond logic, then wouldn't the question be self-defeating anyway? That is, similar to your dying-and-then-deciding-to-come-back-to-life example, this being could simultaneously succeed and fail at something.

[@AMomentOfClarity2011]

I heard a theist give quite an interesting rebuttal to the argument about the rock too heavy for god to lift that touches on what you said but also has an interesting comment on direction for lifting. Basically the idea is that his god is infinitely powerful and can therefore make an infinite sized rock, thus asking a god to lift it is nonsensical as there is nowhere to lift it as it is already everywhere (infinite). It is very rare I hear any argument from a theist that actually impresses me so I wonder what you think of this rebuttal. I wish I could recall who said it, but I cannot, it was months ago.

[@AnEntropyFan]

Ozymandias Ramses II Why would omniscience be incompatible with omnipotence, could you elaborate? The omnibenevolence is an obvious disqualifier, tho.

[@LeonhardEuler1]

Interesting take on it. The reason I've always been left completely unconvinced by this "rock too heavy challenge" since it is presented as something that reveals an inconstancy in a theist's worldview, but it doesn't. There are basically two definitions of omnipotence that are brought up (in casual conversation, there are more, as you mentioned): omnipotence means being capable of doing everything, even that which is logically impossible; or omnipotence means being capable of doing everything logically possible. _If a theist holds to the first definition:_ The answer to the question "Can god create a rock so heavy it can't lift it?" could simply be "yes." God is not bound by logic in this case, so this answer is consistent with the theist's view on omnipotence. _If a theist holds to the second definition:_ They could simply answer "no." God is not capable of doing something logically impossible, which is consistent with their view on omnipotence. In either case, the theist can easily answer the question in a perfectly self-consistent way, so this doesn't present a challenge to them at all. At any rate, I like the approach you took, it'll give me something to think about. Looking forward to the video tomorrow!

[@eng413driver]

Dude, you just caused me to have a "light bulb" type of moment! Thanks!

[@Aphetorusbull]

Dammit Ozy, it was a lot more fun to watch the theist struggle with this, and now you've gone and explained it to them. What are we going to do now :-)

[@DemonicRemption]

@Aphetorusbull I know this was a joke, but as a theist I'm genuinely taking this in. But I'm not surprised an atheist would give me a proper counter argument... I'm painfully aware that Christians at least aren't taught to defend our faith, just blindly follow it. That's why when our belief is challenged we fall to pieces.

[@IamGarySimpson]

Omnipotence is not demonstrative by actions, but rather evident by nature.

[@spacedoohicky]

Can an omnipotent being create another omnipotent being that's capable of killing the original permanently? Don't know if that's a logically valid objection. Just throwing it out there.

[@MilitantAntiTheist]

This argument is incoherent, as it ignores the laws of physics and what is considered "lifting." If you do a headstand, are you not holding the entire mass of the earth above you? You could lift anything so long as you have the same angular momentum as the object, no matter how massive. The idea of "lifting" a rock in this case would have to apply to counteracting the gravity of one body to elevate a rock away from an opposing body, and how "heavy" it was would depend on the gravity of the body that the other body is being lifted away from. Also, if you created a rock large enough, the core would heat up to the point it undergoes nuclear fusion, producing a star, and if the mass were large enough, it would become a black hole, in which case there would be no way to accelerate any object of any mass against the downward pull of the gravity of the black hole, since the energy required would be infinite.

[@OzymandiasRamsesII]

Nothing in the example hinges on the specific task of lifting a rock. It's completely arbitrary. The challenge (and my objection to it) It would pertain to any action. Substitute 'move' for 'lift', if that helps. Or substitute 'disintegrate' for 'lift'. Thanks for the comment, - Ozy

[@GreatRottweiler]

Awesome video as always, Ozy. After doing some research, I stopped using that paradox, glad you explained it waaay better. Aside from questioning some incompatibilities with other supposedly divine attributes, are there other good objections to the concept of omnipotence without involving things such as omnibenevolence and omniscience?

[@tctheunbeliever]

I'm glad you explained this. I always thought of this question as a pointless logic trick or word game, but never tried to elucidate why. It sounds like the kind of question Sye Ten would ask if he were an atheist. If a tree falls in the forest, it makes a sound. Socrates told me this in a way such that I cannot doubt it.

[@OzymandiasRamsesII]

Haha...love that! - Ozy

[@jreaganmorganchannel]

My favorite answer to the paradox: God could make a mountain God couldn't lift, and he could lift it!

[@oneki]

I tend to combine the qualities of Omniscience and omnipotence when i used this; only in situation where we have defined terms; and the theist has defined God as logical. if he knows to create such a rock, and if he is powerful enough to lift it.

[@cseguin]

I don't know why . . . but this reminds me of the notion of what was before the big bang . . . well . . . time, space, energy and matter seem to have come into being with the big bang . . . so that question ends up being unanswerable since there ostensibly is no before the big bang . . .

[@nevokrien95]

thats why the qustion is asked to clearfy omnipotence

[@Ebi.Adonkie]

They seem not to get it

[@DemonicRemption]

@@Ebi.Adonkie I do now... The problem is I can't clarify omnipotence in a way that an atheist would accept.

[@DemonicRemption]

@Nevo Krien So that's the point of the argument. That's not that hard to counter though.

[@graladue]

The problem seems to be (to me anyways) that infinite definitions by their very nature remove themselves from "real world" understandings. They only really apply in mathematical terms. In essence, the question is asking if there is a maximum infinite, which is improper, but it does represent how people actually think about the issue. The issue is that we do not actually seem to grasp infinity correctly on an emotional personal level (by and large).

[@john211murphy]

Doesn't this argument also apply to a god creating a square circle?

[@hcheyne]

I take it, from this argument (which is great by the way), that an omnipotent being is constrained by logic and as such is within a framework which has logic as a property. Can this type of God be the original cause?

[@OzymandiasRamsesII]

That's a good question and one which religious philosophers have debated for literally millennia. As I see it, it's rather hard to claim that a god is completely sovereign over all of reality if that reality is logical, even if it's logical because that's the very nature of the god, because that just makes god a being with a nature it can't control or determine. As such, if a god is logical by his its nature, it would just mean that god is the way it is for no reason. In the end, every ultimate account has to end in an appeal to some brute fact about how reality is, and such facts, if they are the ultimate brute facts, won't (_ex hypothesi_) have anything that accounts for them, since they are the ultimate brute facts. Thanks for the comment and glad you enjoyed the video. Cheers, - Ozy

[@nontheistdavid]

Ozymandias Ramses II I have a question. Assuming a god existed, if the god had "reasons" for creating a universe does this not imply that the god aforementioned is constrained himself by some "laws" preceding him and hence not all powerful or all knowing? It seems to be that all indications of reasoning involve limitations. To have reasons is to be constrained? I also want to know your thoughts on the idea of a being having "choices" this seems to imply non omnipotence and non omniscience as well. Organisms make choices because they dont have all the information related to a "problem" , in fact having a problem seems to also imply non omnipotence and non omniscience , how can an omnipotent , omniscient being have problems? I also wanted your opinion of "nature" Isn't having a "Nature" a limitation as well? If god had a "nature" then this would imply god IS this and NOT that , hence being limited. Isn't mere existence a limitation?

[@Eman_Puedama]

I mistyped my last comment. I'll say it again more simply and hopefully more accurately: I think a neater way to counter the 'Rock too heavy for God to lift' objection to God's omnipotence is to note that, if you define omnipotence so as to include the ability to do the logically impossible, then the fact that it's logically impossible for God to be omnipotent _and_ be unable to do something, wouldn't be any argument against his omnipotence, so an argument based on that conception of omnipotence would be self-defeating. I think that also speaks against the idea that some atheists have, that a definition of omnipotence that excludes logical impossibility is arbitrary, wishy-washy or a dodge, and makes it seem just a rational assumption. It certainly isn't a modern definition, as some also seem to believe.

[@jinxy72able]

But here's the problem I have. Is it possible for god to do anything? And by anything I even include exist. How do we know it is not in fact impossible for Deity type of beings (god/s) to even exist? I mean if we're talking about what is possible for god to do or conceive of doing, Would we first have to establish whether or not god/s existence is even possible (and I am talking about objectively exist, in objective reality, not just as an idea or concept). If it turns out that it is in fact impossible for god/s (god type beings) to exist, then everything is impossible for god to do, and god cannot conceive anything.

[@ZeroSignalZen]

That does indeed help. Thank you.

[@kgdblade]

I guess it takes some over-analysis to realize this 'question of the week' is being over-analyzed by the whole community. But, this video did inspire me to re-watch the Onion's timeless Ted-style talk again 'What is the biggest rock?' What Is The Biggest Rock? - Onion Talks - Ep. 4

[@Eman_Puedama]

I agree with this, but I remember an old video from another atheist that refuted this supposed problem for omnipotence in a different way. The argument was, that if you assume God *can* do the logically impossible, then it doesn't matter that you've logically proven that, under your criteria, it is logically possible for God to be omnipotent- because you've granted that he can do the logically impossible. Unfortunately, I can't remember the name of that youtube atheist, but he was another philosopher. Even longer ago than that video, I made a video making the same point, but I overstretched myself. I was extending the argument to answer the problem of evil, by saying that a world where there is no possibility of suffering is logically impossible, because happiness and unhappiness are mutually dependent opposites, in the way that up or down are. I was influenced by Alan Watts at the time, and I think that's the kind of thing he sometimes said. So, I was saying that if it would be logically impossible for happiness to exist without the possibility of suffering, then its existence is not proof that God is either limited or evil-- since, if he *could* prevent it, he could do the logically impossible, and if he is not constrained by logic, he could be perfectly good, even if that is not logically compatible with the existence of suffering. I think it perhaps *could* work, but the premise needs more work. It's probably more persuasive if we're not talking about 'natural' evil, but about the existence of moral and immoral behaviour in humans or other embodied agents. I suppose an argument based on the idea that it's logically impossible for virtue to exist if vice could not is very similar to the classic 'freewill' riposte to why 'moral' evil exists.

[@Swinburnean]

I've just discovered your channel. On the assumption that this is generally indicative of your content (I hope so), I've subscribed. I'm religious, so I have trouble watching a lot of other atheists on this site (like Thunderf00t). You seem cool, though.

[@twstdelf]

This was an interesting analysis, thanks for that, I have never heard it presented that way. I wonder if you'd consider doing a similar deconstruction video on the Epicurean paradox? I have always been fond of it, but it would be nice to know if there are any 'holes' to be aware of. I'm a philosophical noob, so no worries if it's out of bounds. ;) Cheers.

[@MyContext]

It would have been easier to simply say that an unliftable rock is a logical impossibility for the notion of omnipotence being presented. I did love the historical backdrop!

[@jaromor8808]

You probably wanna skip to 7:20.

[@SirMethos]

Technically, the answer to the question would be a simple: No(he can't create a rock/object so heavy he cannot lift it). The highest amount of mass any object can have, is "unlimited". Thus, the question simply becomes: Can an omnipotent being(in this case, god), lift an object of unlimited mass? An omnipotent being would, by most current definitions I know of, be able to lift an object of unlimited mass/have unlimited strength. Since it is physically impossible for an object to have more mass than "infinite", creating such an object would also be impossible. Alternatively, an object could, hypothetically, be created in a 'place' outside of our universe/reality, where the laws of physics as we know them, are not valid. In that case, the question itself becomes incoherent, because we don't know the "laws" that would govern such a place. There is also the problem of definitions, with the question. How would one define "lifting", for the sake of the question? What we understand by "lifting", is to move a physical object away from the surface that both the lifter(in this case, god) and the object are being pulled towards by gravity. Since an "omnipotent being", would logically be able to control the fundamental forces, something like reversing the effect of gravity, should be easily within the capabilities of such a being. Would this constitute as "lifting", in terms of the question? And if that would not constitute as "lifting", then the question becomes useless. Since we are essentially asking an omnipotent being, to do something that only an omnipotent being can do, but we ask the being to do it after limiting itself to only a small fraction of its capabilities. Finally, even if we disregard all the above mentioned objections, omnipotence, by the very definition of the word, implies a complete lack of limits. The ability to do anything. This would also include changing the laws of logic. The best example I've seen of this, actually comes from comicbooks, where a person who gains god-like power, changes the fundamental truths of the universe(math and logic, in this case), to the point where "2+2 = fish". Not just so that everyone thinks, or knows, that, but to the point where that is a fundamental truth, just as 2+2=4, is in our universe.

[@kenlee5509]

God made a firmament so firm he just bounces off, to the great entertainment of the other 2/3 of itself. That is why we have not heard from him in so long.

[@Ubersicht]

I understand the argument but it feels unsatisfying, like it misses the point because of a technicality. Consider the following alternative though experiment: Let god divide into two physical bodies, disable the universe's speed limit (or move to one that doesn't have it) and chase himself. Can godA catch GodB? Can godB escape godA's pursuit? Am I now asking god to move at a "speed that doesn't exist"? Would that even make sense?

[@OzymandiasRamsesII]

I understand what you mean. The question of the coherence of omnipotence is still left open. My point in this video was not to defend the coherency of the concept of omnipotence, but merely to challenge that the 'rock-too-heavy' objection isn't a good challenge to the concept. The concept of omnipotence is, on my view, extremely fishy, and it's coherence is really open to question. Cheers, - Ozy

[@deepashtray5605]

What I have observed is that the vast majority of people with the fundamentalist mindset, for whatever reason, need a practical answer or they will avoid the question all together. It is rare to have an exchange with a religious fundy where they don't seem to have the capacity to distinguish between metaphor/analogy and fact. Ambiguity be damned, this question demands a rock. Seriously, they'll get hung up on the rock and space out on the question.

[@daniellassander]

I personally never liked this objection to omnipotance as its set up in such a way that no matter what you answer, god is not omnipotant. Very good analysis of the question and what the different possible answers could be, and why the question itself is flawed from the start. The problem of omnipotance is that the term itself is not well defined. keep up the doing these amazing videos, i love them all :)

[@OzymandiasRamsesII]

Thanks you Daniel. Glad you liked my analysis of it. And like you, I agree that the concept of omnipotence is usually very poorly defined, and everything hinges on what a particular proponent of divine omnipotence means by the term omnipotence. Cheers, - Ozy

[@gnagyusa]

God seizing to exist is not even the biggest problem with god being above logic. A bigger problem is god being able to be both god and not-god, or both existing and not existing at the same time, violating the law of non-contradiction.

[@rationalagenda7083]

I was expecting a Slayer Album review

[@hian]

I.E failure is logically impossible for an omnipotent being, and thus asking it to fail, is to ask it to do the logically impossible? Or rather, lacking the ability to fail at something is not actually a lacking in an omnipotent being, because omnipotence simply means being able to do everything, not being able to fail at things? I would say that causes a bunch of problems, rooted in the concept of "logical possibility". I mean, think about it. What is logic? It's nothing but a linguistic construct meant to govern our use of language so that language accurately reflects what we perceive to be the nature of reality when we're talking about reality. There is no such thing as "laws of logic", only "laws of reality", and the logic of language that reflects them. However, god routinely breaks the laws of reality with his miracles. That threatens the concept of identity and non-contradiction, so clearly god isn't confined to the structure of reality. If he isn't confined to the structure of reality, then how is he confined to logic? By saying that god can only do that which is logically possible, what that actually means is that god is only capable of doing that which is realistically speaking possible, because by any reasonable standard, those are interchangeable, and actually means the same thing. Yet, that isn't the god of any of the Abrahamic traditions. If god can only do that which is logically possible, he shouldn't be able to do miracles, he shouldn't be able to exist before time, space and matter, and so forth. The idea that "logically possible", or even logic itself, is a meaningful framework at all without some foundation in empiricism in completely baffling to me. Consider that the statement "All bearded men are named Joe. This man [X] is names Joe, therefore he has a beard". is a completely sound in terms of logical structure, yet completely wrong in terms of empirical evidence. The only way of determining whether that statement is actually true, is the empirical factor. At the end of the day, logic only lends itself to empiricism as a methodology for making true statements in any meaningful sense of the word we could possibly devise. That's why all arguments for god are flawed from the very get go. They operate with the flawed view that logic can be used, in and of itself, using only words, to determine truth. So is the "can god make a stone he cannot lift"-argument useful? Maybe not so much, but it does force the believer to pick a god who either can break the fabric of reality, or can't. If god can, then god can be anything at all, or nothing at all, and any claim about him becomes an argument from ignorance. If the pick a god that cannot break the fabric of reality, then god cannot perform miracles, he cannot exist outside time, space and matter, and he certainly can't create stuff ex-nihilo, all which are things that as far as we know, aren't possible.

[@nooneleftalivekibo]

This was good. I suggest you try and make your videos a little shorter. There is some redundant content in the second part of this video which, if taken out, could make for a smoother watching.

[@OzymandiasRamsesII]

The Passionate William Lane Craig Fan I agree. This one, especially, could have been shorter. The redundancy was deliberate, to ensure the point was driven home, but it would have been better without it. Cheers, - Martin

[@nooneleftalivekibo]

Ozymandias Ramses II Still, I am quite confused about the section in between 8:58 and 11:20. First, you assert in between 10:12 and 10:24, you say (I'm paraphrasing) "The challenge asks if an omnipotent being could fail at lifting that rock he created." That's only half the challenge. The other side of the coin is, "Could an omnipotent being fail at creating a rock he can't lift?" You also say in between 10:46 and 10:58 "The question characterizes an accomplishment as if it were a failure of accomplishment." Not really. Rather, I think the question characterizes a logically impossible thing to do (creating a rock that a being that can lift a rock of any size cannot lift) as if it were logically possible. The omnipotent being is sort of "failing" in creating something, just that something's existence is logically impossible. I think I'm missing the flow of your reasoning in this part of your video, although the parts before and after it are quite clear. Any chance you could please rephrase?

[@Mutex50]

I don't think this is even a good example of a contradiction. Saying “Can God create a rock so heavy he can't lift it?” is like saying “Can got create a rock so yellow he can't lift it?” If God is omnipotent he can suspend gravity. Why would weight be a factor in his ability to lift something?

[@derezzed83]

This was a good video. Send it to anticitizenx. Even his fellow atheists like ozzymandias and goddard's journal think his counterapologetics are whacked.

[@screw0dog]

Except, if you read their comments above you'll find they actually agree, and simply disagree on minor details.

[@avesatanas5728]

I think the "too heavy" part is superfluous. The real question is simply: _Can God create a rock he cannot lift?_ I think the answer might be yes or no, but that regardless of the answer it does not disprove the logical coherence of omnipotence. Omnipotence: The power to do all that is logically possible. If you can name an action which makes sense and does not reduce to a contradiction, an omnipotent being can do it. Action: Creating a rock an omnipotent being cannot lift. This action is logically impossible. This is because the very idea of a rock that an omnipotent being cannot lift is logically impossible. Such a rock would have to be logically impossible to lift. Logical impossibility cannot be defined. It must be demonstrated from proving a contradiction arises. Since there is nothing contradictory about lifting a rock, there is no such thing as a rock that cannot be lifted. On the other hand, if you could think of a rock that cannot be lifted, for example a rock that somehow does not occupy space (and hence cannot change position in space), then the answer is yes. An omnipotent being could create such a rock because creating the rock is logically possible and lifting the rock is not. So whether the answer is "yes" or "no", it does not disprove the idea of omnipotence. Some might argue that by defining omnipotence this way, it is special pleading. However, this is the broadest definition of omnipotence that makes sense. If one did not presuppose the logical absolutes and said an omnipotent being could do the logically impossible, then one could simply say this being could create a rock it could not lift, and then lift it. It's logically impossible, but didn't we just say this being could do the logically impossible? The logical absolutes must be presupposed for any definition to make any sense, so even when we say a being can do anything, it is already implicit that we mean anything logically possible.

[@toxendon]

The problem is that within the Christian concept of God, the *concept* of creating a rock he cannot lift is illogical. So the answer to the "dilemma" is no - God cannot create a rock he cannot lift. And it is not a lack of ability on God's part, it's because such a rock cannot logically exist because of the very reason the dilemma is trying to disprove; God is omnipotent.

[@nontheistdavid]

It just seems to me that because of the various definitions of omnipotence with all the qualifications like "logically possible" etc simply shows that the concept is utterly incoherent and hence a omnipotent god is incoherent. "Theologians" Just muddy the waters and make what was once clear unnecessarily complicated.

[@Russlem]

The point of the "rock too heavy for god" is to demonstrate the incoherence of omnipotence. It necessarily relies on subjective values to determine that which is "greater". If you want to see the ridiculousness of the concept of "omnipotence", take a little vacation into a comic book forum where Superman 1 Million or Darkseid are being discussed. Every permutation of every concept of what "all-powerful" can and does mean will be discussed and if you leave with anything other than "this concept is totally meaningless" then I'd argue you haven't read enough. Personally I don't see the distinction between "god can make a rock too heavy for him to lift" and "a god that can violate the laws of logic at will can make himself no longer exist". These are two sides of the same coin: omnipotence is incoherent, no matter what definition you apply.

[@OzymandiasRamsesII]

I'm inclined to agree that omnipotence is probably incoherent. I just don't think the rock-too-heavy objection establishes that. Thanks, - Ozy

[@whiterabbit75]

+Ozymandias Ramses II So, what conundrum would _you_ present to showcase the incoherence of omnipotence?

[@gnagyusa]

Great explanation. So, a non-liftable-by-god rock, is like a square circle.

[@Durakken]

Thinking about what you said, it somewhat fails itself. You're arguing that a magical being isn't magical. Hypothetically creating something as we are talking about here is doing so magically, not practically, and that being the case you're already tossing out whether there is a logical limitation or not as magic is not logic based to begin with. If we're talking about a practical creation, this mandates that the nature of omnipotence is not some singular entity that wields unfathomable magical power, but that "god" is the result of the processes of the universe and would "be" those processes. And even in magical terms the only way that something is omnipotent is that it includes the power to be anything and everything which means the only way that god is omnipotent, both practically and magically, is if god is all things that exists, including all beings such as you and I. In this case the question becomes can anything/anyone create something that any thing/person cannot lift...The answer to that becomes yes. I can certainly create things that mice cannot lift. If I am god and the mouse is god, then this is certainly god creating something that it cannot lift. Of course we can also look at it from the point of view of physical possibilities... and the whole concept of lifting in general too... I mean I would grant that if you took all matter in the universe and placed it in one location there would be noone to lift that object, but there is the argument that space could be said to be lifting it. Likewise... the question is somewhat wrong in "a rock so large"... in an environment where gravity is "infinite," any object regardless of size or mass is so heavy that no other entity could "lift" it. Of course... if I had a infinite lever I could theoretically lift any object from a gravitational infinite... Infinites are fun ^.^ The concept of "lift" requires 3 objects. The object to be lifted. The object doing the lifting. And the object being lifted from. The 1st and 3rd of those are based on which is the more massive so to create a mass that is infinite so that one can not lift it one must realize that at the very least there is an object that is infinite +1 more massive than the supposed rock so massive it can't be lifted and by definition that infinite+1 object can't be lifted because there is no relative thing to be lifted from without creating an infinite+2 object from which it can be relatively lifted from...

[@EdWittenable]

Thank goodness THAT's finally settled. :D I think the answer would be beyond the comprehension of the ten year olds who typically ask that question.

[@Erik-yw9kj]

So in other words, god could create a rock too heavy for god to lift, and he could also lift that rock.

[@Ebi.Adonkie]

😂😂

[@gnagyusa]

Omnipotence is not as incoherent as omniscience. The latter is impossible due to Godel's incompleteness problem. In short, for a system to fully know / comprehend itself, would require a system that is more complex than itself, because this awareness is just a subset of all the functions and properties of such system (others being applying that knowledge, interacting with the universe etc.). Omniscience would be literally like trying to fit a bigger jar inside a smaller jar.

[@DIMentiaMinecraft]

Good presentation... I always like something new to think about. I propose that it is logically possible for an omnipotent god to create a rock too heavy for him to lift if the only thing required of omnipotence is infinite energy density. If a god was otherwise finite (localized) had infinite energy density and converted this into a rock, than at the cost of expending his infinite energy he would create an infinite rock which would be god, or which would be god's entire energy potential. His entire energy potential having been dissipated in the act of creating the rock, he would then no longer be omnipotent and wouldn't even exist any longer in the defined form. _creatio ex materia_ and _contritio in materia_ are both logically possible, and even physically possible. If he were localized and had infinite energy density and converted some major fraction of his infinite energy into rock, he could be half infinitely powerful and thus still infinitely powerful but be unable to lift the rock which would be more infinitely massive than the remaining fraction of his infinite energy. This appears to create in incoherence. If it is incoherent and all incoherent statements are false then the only condition in which a god with infinite energy density could create a rock too heavy for him to lift would be the first case in which he converts all of his infinite energy into an infinite rock. I don't see this as creating a contradiction within itself, but in conjunction with Eternal and Omnipresent creates a serious problem. If he had infinite energy density and was omnipresent then there would be no point in space that had less than infinite energy density. If he were also eternal, there would be no time in which he did not exist and during which any point in space had less than infinite energy density. He could not cease to exist in the act of creating an infinite rock and could never have less than infinite energy density. Work is the process by which all change occurs and is the realization of a potential within a finite period of time with energy flowing from a higher state to a lower state. If there were no point in space or time in which there existed a lower energy density than infinite, then no potential could be realized within a finite period of time. Such a god could not perform Work. If such a god existed, merely by existing it would be impossible for the universe to exist. The universe exists. Therefore it could not have been created by an omnipotent, omnipresent, eternal god.

[@opaldragon75]

I think you're missing the real trap in that argument, one that is a 2 way trap. Now before I get to it, I would like to point out how the whole "Omni" thing is really just a modified childhood game of "infinity" that kids use as a cheap win. And is used much the same way in theism to really say "Stop thinking or asking, because it is the way god wants it to be!" but without letting the other party hear that part. Now back to the 2 way trap, that I see, in that argument is one that either forces "Omni" into the finite realm putting limits on the god in question; or the way you started to go, if they start to find a way to make the omni work with god - it starts to fracture the god of from the doctrine that supports that god. Now if the god becomes finite in that trait then it is definable and hence testable but I think everyone sees that point; now the true gem is when "omni" of one trait is found to be plausible with the god, because they usually argue something similar to what you stated. Now when you have done just that, you make god incompatible with other traits and the supporting doctrine. Reason being is when they say any of the standard stuff to "convert you" you become highly justified in asking "Why does it have to be that way?". Because they have so clearly defined Omni, they cannot argue limits (in that frame), if the configuration of matter is possible with what we currently know (no matter how unlikely) that god has no excuse; they clearly chose the setup. At this point they have 3 choices: 1) recant their omni argument; and make god limited and restricted to a greater force. 2) Admit that this is god's choice, and out all the possible better setups he did not pick one that is better for us (aka god is a dick). 3) or walk away and mentally block this whole argument and mentally reset yourself so one won't gain doubts. And that is the real trap. Best part, theist designed it, or found it.

[@Blackmark52]

"the only thing god is failing at is failing to create a logically impossible rock" But isn't that precisely the point? Omnipotence is an absurdity. Restricting its definition to what is logically possible results in some kind of whimpy inverse new age omnipotence and is as meaningless as any other definition.

[@Ebi.Adonkie]

The theists don't want to understand that the paradox is only trying to prove a contradiction

[@elindred]

One could rephrase the question thusly: Can God conceive a question whose answer is so obscure that he can't answer it? If the question is answered no, then the amateur polemicist would say "Aha! Clearly God doesn't know everything because he doesn't know such a question". The absurdity seems more apparent in this case, at least to me.

[@HConstantine]

Who asked this question in the sixth century? How do you figure Anselm was great? How did you get through your historical survey without mentioning the figure most closely associated with this question?

[@mrfishy3]

Ozy, I really enjoy your videos, this one was no exception; however I do not entirely agree with you on this. I would really like to hear your thoughts on my argument. I think there is a problem with the argument you make about the "rock too heavy to lift". It seems to be arbitary which of the two options (making the rock or lifting the rock) you decide is unacceptable. You could just as easily say that because God can, ex hypothsesi, do any action, therefore God can make the rock and the ability to lift the rock does not exist as a possible option. After all, you said yourself that there is nothing inherantly contradictory about this rock. What if we re-phased the challenge as "Can God create all rocks that are not inherantly impossible?"; then ex hypothsesi, he make make the unliftable rock, and therefore this action of lifting it is excluded from the things God can do, as it negates the above. I think the main problem is there are always way of writing these abilities so that one is the "condition" and the other is the "NOT condition". To put it more abstractly, let X be the set of all actions, now the God constrained by logic (as opposed to the "eternal verities God") cannot do all of these things (as shown above). So let Y be the set of things God can do, and let ¬Y=X\Y, i.e. the set of all things God cannot do. We can now define omnipotence as being "the set Y, with the largest number of members" (i.e. we go through logical space and give God as many powers as logic lets us). The problem is, I do not think there will be one single set Y. There will be some sets where he can build the rock, others where he can not (none with both obviously). Hence the nature of God is arbitrary, and could be any one of these sets.

[@OzymandiasRamsesII]

Great question, mrfishy3. You asked, _What if we re-phased the challenge as "Can God create all rocks that are not inherently impossible?"; then ex hypothesi, he makes the unliftable rock, and therefore this action of lifting it is excluded from the things God can do, as it negates the above._ Okay, here's the problem. You're thinking there's some rock that god's not making (the unliftable one), but the question above posits an incoherent set. Here's why: Think of the set of all possible rocks, namely rocks of EVERY possible size and mass. That's a vast set (presumably infinite). Now, IF a being were omnipotent, then, by hypothesis, it could create every rock in that set. All of them. Let's imagine that this being does it...creates every rock in that set. This means every logically possible rock has been created. Every rock of every size, shape, and mass and make-up has been created...and an infinity of them. Now if that being is omnipotent, then, by hypothesis, it could lift each of those rocks too. So, now ask yourself, which rock in that set is the unliftable one? There are plenty in that infinite set of all possible rocks that are _correctly described as_ 'unliftable by Ozy' or 'unliftable by you. But is there a rock in that set that is _correctly described_ as 'unliftable' by the omnipotent being'? Surely not. So, although being hasn't created a rock that's unliftable to it, it's nevertheless created every logically possible rock. The problem is not that this being has failed to create a specific rock; it hasn't. It's created every rock in the set, by hypothesis, which is _every possible_ rock, but because it can also lift them all, nothing in that set could be designated as unliftable. In other words, the set of 1) logically possible rocks, 2) the set of rocks creatable by this being, and 3) the set of liftable rocks are all the same set. So, the being in question has not neglected to make a possible rock. It's made every possible rock. But no possible rock would _satisfy the description_ of being unliftable _for that being_. As such, there's no missing rock, no rock it's not capable of creating. The allegedly unliftable rock is not a logically possible rock because it's not part of the set of logically possible rocks. Hope this helps, - Ozy

[@mrfishy3]

Ozymandias Ramses II I agree with your argument, in so far as it gives us a logically coherent omnipotence. However it is not the only way, is my contention. I can, mirroring your argument describe a set of actions, of God lifting rocks, I can say that all possible rock lifting actions are in it, I can further say that the action of lifting this particular rock are not in the set. However this is because by hypothesis this rock is unliftable; i.e. there is no lifting corresponding with the rock, it does not make sense to talk about lifting this rock. Hence all rocks are created (including the rock that God cannot lift) and all rock liftings are undertakable by God (the lifting of the rock that cannot be lifted being excused from this set. As a mathematician I can't resist arguing it mathematically: R- set of all rocks God can create; r, a rock; r* the rock God cannot lift; L(r) - the undertaking of lifting a rock r, by God; A - the set of all rock liftings, by God i.e.: {L(r1), L(r2), L(r3),...}. Your formulation was: (1) God creates R such that for all entries in R the function L:R---> A is defined, and by hypothesis, this means that r* is not a member of A. My formulation is: (2) God creates R, which includes, r*. However by hypothesis there cannot be a member of A that God cannot do, hence L(r*) is not defined. It is my contention that (1) and (2) are equally possible omnipotences, the fact that perhaps (1) can be formed into an argument in English far more clearly than (2) does not change the fact that on a logical level they are both sound. Thus it is arbitrary to say it must be one of them specifically.

[@getoffthestageyoufatf1870]

Ozymandias Ramses II Hi Ozy (big fan). I posted on AntiCitizenX (big fan too) page the example of God competing against God in game of Connect 4. A perfect game will result in the failure of the second person every single time. In this case, the second God would have succeeded to get the perfect result - a failure to win inside the boundaries of the game, but God would have still failed and still be omnipotent.

[@ScepticalAgnostic]

I can't help but feel you've missed the point of the objection - the point is to say, "If God is capable of *anything* (by which I mean 'literally anything', including things logic normally precludes), is he capable of doing something he isn't capable of doing?". Obviously not, so God is limited to doing only that which is logically possible - because to say that you are able to do something you can't do is a contradiction. So, God can only do what is logically possible. Thus, if you can point to an event God has alleged to do and demonstrate that it is logically impossible, then it necessarily follows that God is incapable of doing it. Now, if only someone could turn the idea of 'You cannot act on nothing to create something, because there is literally nothing there to act upon' into a logical principle, thus necessarily disproving God as a creator. :)

[@OzymandiasRamsesII]

I see your point, but if the objection is that in order to be omnipotent, a being would have to be able to do the impossible (literally, self-contradictory things), then that would be to posit a being capable of producing incoherences...but the problem with incoherences, is...we can't specify them. Contradictions all have the same truth-value in 2-valued logics, and so there's no way to distinguish one contradiction from another (eg: Is the table that is non-table the same thing or a different thing from the circle that is not a circle?). As such, a god that could produce contradictions/incoherences is a being that has no capacities or powers we can specify. This is largely why the doctrine of created eternal verities was abandoned by most religious philosophers and theologians - it didn't describe anything over and above what an omnipotent being could do which was bound by logic. Thanks for the comment. - Ozy

[@vickmackey24]

As he explained (at length) in the beginning of the video, he's referring to a notion of omnipotence that only involves the ability to do that which is logically possible, not the idea of doing "literally anything." That's the idea of omnipotence most theists use. And since it is their concept of God that is under scrutiny, _they_ get to define its attributes, not you or me. As for that final bit about "necessarily disproving God as a creator," I don't think it's a very good argument. Theists do not believe in an ex materia creation of the universe. And when they sometimes say that God created the universe out of nothing, they usually don't mean it in the literal ex nihilo sense that you might be imagining. If you give them a chance to explain themselves, you'll typically find that they're really referring to an ex deo creation in which God somehow transformed its supernatural "thought stuff" into a physical manifestation. In other words, they believe the universe was made "out of" some part of God, not out of literally nothing or some pre-existing material.

[@martinp1539]

1: why does omnipotence by definition express an inability to fail? Why cant an omnipotent being decide to fail? 2: i disagree with the rock being an impossibility. didnt you yourself state just minutes before how theists "wrongly" claim this? And isnt the fact its an impossibility, even if its because of it being illogical (aka a square circle) affect a god supposedly outside of logic? If he isnt outside of logic, then he is bound by this. he is bound by his own creation. and how is that then omnipotence? 3: there are many other ways to formulate this paradox. so despite the fact i disagree with some arguments, i can still just formulate another similar paradox that does not have these issues per se. Like say, can an omnipotent being create an omnipotent being that opposes it at every instance without losing its omnipotence? i wont go into this but i can if its necessary cus this does need clarification before its discussed. 4: why does it automatically mean that if he created a rock he can lift it? didnt you again yourself say this isnt within logic using the snowball example?

[@MrAudienceMember2662015]

immoveable object, meet unstoppable force.

[@jankuiper3422]

I could argue that this does pose a problem for God. The idea that an omnipotent being is limited due to: logic, necessity, and non-contradiction, poses a problem for theists who argue God is truly omnipotent. This would mean that God created once, and afterwards simply obeyed the laws he himself created. This would make necessity omnipotent. "Ipse omnium conditor et rector... semper paret, semel jussit (The founder and guide of all things... always obeys, but has commanded only once)" As it was stated by Seneca. To me it seems that these rational rules bind God. This problem has been brought up by Shestov. He claims that once you start using 'Athens'/Greek thought to describe and rationally 'proof' God (Jerusalem) or his attributes, you're on a slippery slope. We humans seem to prefer to have a rational explanation, but an almighty God can't even be bound by reason itself. Why even argue that God is has to be bound by: logic, rationality, and non-contradiction; why are even theists afraid of a God for whom 'everything' is possible? It seems that by arguing for a logically coherent God, they don't do what the bible asks of them in Genesis and Exodus, they don't have faith; rather they turn towards the tree and eat the fruits of knowledge. Then the problem is: not that we ask of God to do something logically impossible and therefore non-sensical, it's that he's incapable of changing the nature of necessity and logic itself. They seem to be unnconsciously borrowing from the worldview of Athens simply by demanding it to be logical in the first place. They will have to explain why they sometimes use Athens, and the Jerusalem. For presuppers, this idea of using scepticism, (athens) to undermine the opponents worldview; and then faith (jerusalem) as a basis for their own worldview, is quite apparent.

[@OzymandiasRamsesII]

I'm not sure how this comment addresses the points raised in this video though. My point was not that omnipotence is a coherent or defensible concept (besides which, it would depend on the definition), but rather that this particular 'rock-too-heavy' argument is not a good objection to the idea of omnipotence, especially since we are arguing on the assumption that omnipotence must be constrained within that which is logically possible. Cheers, - Ozy

[@jankuiper3422]

Ozymandias Ramses II I can see how my comment isn't very to the point, it seems to drift out of topic on more than a couple of occasions. Sorry for that, bad habbit. It certainly wasn't my intention to argue that you tried to defend the idea of omnipotence. My main point would be that I actually completely agree as long as we use: necessity, logic and rationality. Then the theist can argue his way out of the heavy stone 'problem'. However it would raise an other 'problem', because it would confine God to the laws of: logic, necessity and non-contradiction (which he created?). For something omnipotent, this for me seems to be a very severe limitation. So severe that I actually wouldn't be able to call it omnipotence.

[@lacontrabasse]

I agree, Ozymandias Ramses II. The "Rock too Heavy" idea is flawed, and useless in a discussion about omnipotence. A more effective attack on the incoherent idea of omnipotence (which by definition includes omniscience), as is claimed for the Abrahamic God, is in its contradiction of the notion of free will, both for people and their God. In the secular world, the idea of human free will is problematic; the 'hard' problem. In the religious world, the idea of free will must be destroyed if the notion of omniscience is accepted.

[@OzymandiasRamsesII]

I agree the the concept of omnipotence would actually require that such a being also be omniscient, since without knowing everything, some actions would be impossible to it. For instance, and omnipotent being would have to know the full range of it's capacities, which would entail knowing an infinity of facts about itself. And unfortunately, the concept of omniscience is even more problematic than the concept of omnipotence. Thanks for the comment. Cheers, - Ozy

[@sojournners9799]

Can God created a heavy stone, ....so heavy that He cannot lifted it ? _{...such as the above question equates the below simultaneous equations } ;_ *X + 2 = 5* *X - 2 = 5* *Solve the value of X ?* The answer : ~ any math professors or mathematicians would say, those are a *wrong and illogical* equation or question !

[@borissman]

I define god as "nothing" and i state that he can contradict all logical laws. I win!!

[@FractalMachine]

when i was 14 and deconverting on my own,i have come up with the same solution,but i put it differently. yes,god can create a rock that is too heavy for him to lift,and he will *also* be able to lift the rock which he cannot lift. an omnipotent being can be defined as "a being for which nothing is impossible" that would also include lifting rocks which he cannot lift.

[@TaeKenDo]

Old video so I doubt I'll get a response anytime soon but here goes anyway. Woud be great of someone can address this to clarify where the faulty presuppositions are, regarding all claims. Atheist claim: Christians believe they can receive infallible revelation infallibly. from God, therefore they consider themselves to be gods. Christian claim: Humans can receive 'special' revelation as 'fallible' beings from an Omnipotent & Omniscient God who is infallible..

[@DemonicRemption]

@Tae Ken Do From where I sit as a Christian, both these claims hail from ignorant view points... The atheist example you gave is based on over generalization of the Christian PoV. While there are Christians who consider themselves to be Gods( *cough* Kenneth Copeland *cough* ) that doesn't apply to all of us. As we genuinely believe we receive infallible revelations. The reason there are so many fallible revelations in recent decades is because those are false prophets, which the bible warns against. And calling the Christian claim ignorant was a mistake, as it lacks clarification on the when, how, and why Christians receive revelations from God. I can only speak for myself on this as the "revelations" I've received are small and simple. Not like these world changing, society altering revelations you keep hearing from sermons. And they happened for me at random moments, usually when I was in need of answers. I know that sounds simple to an "a-ha moment," but a-ha moments are simple, calm, and don't cause a lot of stress, unlike some of the revelations I've gotten. And for any people revelations can occur under different circumstances.

[@TaeKenDo]

@@DemonicRemption When maybe try sliding over a little to the right as the Christian claim CAN be 100% accurate and logically speaking, is self-explanatory and logically coherent.

[@JimRiven]

Is god incapable of acting within his own limitations. No, he is omnipotent. I understand that part, but then to define omnipotence as capable of doing anything that is logically possible limits god.

[@OzymandiasRamsesII]

Jim Riven Ah, yes, which is why I mentioned that whole business of the doctrine of created eternal verities in the first half of this video. Many theologians have argued (and some still do) that their god is not bound by the limits imposed by logic. Cheers, - Ozy

[@JimRiven]

Ozymandias Ramses II Thanks for that, but I still think that claiming anything other than the logically possible reduces god to an absurdity. But then, I may be biased.

[@CaseAgainstFaith1]

Ozymandias Ramses II By the way, You made your point about 5 minutes or so before the end of the video, then you repeat yourself endlessly. Still, I enjoyed it anyway.

[@superhbman]

eh, listening to people arguing over the details of omnipotence makes me feel like trying to define something that isn't there. i guess you are trying to find what is true by logical deduction, but i can't get over the feeling that if evidence isn't presented, then i have no reason to spend time on this subject thanks for the video anyway

[@stiryotype4695]

babbla babble babble: It is not the heavy rock that cannot exist, it is the omnipotent god that cannot exist!

[@stephenhousman6975]

For the sake of argument that these miracles did happen (according to the Bible). Anything that is theoretically possible has to have some sort of logical process to make it work and is limited to knowledge. Realistic possibility is able to see or do, either by natural means or with the help of technology, things that happen in reality. Anything that happens in reality can be explained theoretically. We can say that it is at least theoretically possible for these miracles to happen because the miracles did happen. The people of the time (except Jesus) didn't have the knowledge nor the technology to understand what was happening with the miracles (ignoring god as the reason because this is what we are trying to prove). So they thought what Jesus was doing was impossible in their view of reality. It is like time travel to the future, it is theoretically possible to do but we do not have the technology to make it so in reality. Since these miracles did happen there has to be some sort of logical process that happened. We just don't know how it happened in logical steps but God might know. Since God might know these steps, he has to be at least a theoretically possible being (due to the fact he created Jesus who did the miracles). Therefor there has to be some logical process for God's existence theoretically. Then we can say he can lift a rock he can not lift has to be theoretically possible for him. We came to the same paradoxical outcome now and no amount of knowledge can convince a person that anyone can lift a rock that they can not lift. Therefor God has to be an impossibility theoretically.

[@BorgMuffinMan]

Christians claim that god created everything, broke laws of physics and caused miracles, so he is safe from any criticism. Supposedly you cannot discredit god using logic because god transcends logic. At that point an argument is pointless.

[@HConstantine]

Now I remember why I unsubscribed.