Thread by @deocx, Why "Can God create a rock He can't lift?" is not an [...]

Why "Can God create a rock He can& #39;t lift?" is not an incoherent question.
A (small) thread on omnipotence.
ULR = Unliftable Rock
OP = omnipotent/omnipotence

Is God capable of creating a rock He can& #39;t lift? If no, then God is not omnipotent - there is at least one thing that God cannot do, namely, create the unliftable rock. If yes, then God is not OP-- because once God has created the rock, He is perpetually unable to lift it...

contradicting OP. The question is meant to expose a logical problem within the concept of OP. Whatever horn of the dilemma one takes, one is seemingly commited to the idea that omnipotence is logically impossible. At least, that& #39;s the utility that the question is often thought to

serve. Common theistic responses to the problem of the ULR and OP have revolved around (a) dismissing the question as incoherent or meaningless or/and (b) objected to on the basis that & #39;God cannot do logically impossible things.& #39; On (b), given that God is OP, it would entail a...

logical contradiction to say that God can create the ULR. So, then, given that logical contradictions are senseless or impossible, the correct answer to the question should be "No." It& #39;d be akin to asking: "Can God create a square circle?" Can God do the & #39;impossible?& #39; Since God..

only does or can do what is possible, this is no problem for OP.

I think there are some serious conceptual problems with this response, so I will attempt to show why this response is inadequate or incomplete and subsequently why (a) is and must be false. I& #39;ll mainly be focusing

on (b) in this thread.
In order to understand what& #39;s gone wrong with OP and ULR, we must discuss what OP is (and perhaps, what it ought to be). Suppose we accept the & #39;common-sense& #39; view that God can do only do (and do all) logically possible things. For something to be logically

possible, a self-contradiction has to be avoided (square-circles, married bachelors are thus, & #39;out of the picture& #39;). If we accept this notion of OP then God creating an ULR does not, prima facie entail a logical contradiction. There& #39;s a subtle, implicit premise that is lacking,

often times neglected, when attempting a conceptual analysis of OP and ULR -- and that is that God& #39;s OP holds permanence, or is essential to Him. Under this view, God couldn& #39;t do anything that would entail Him suspending His OP. Suppose that OP was just an accidental property of

God -- it& #39;d be difficult to see why He couldn& #39;t create an ULR. God is, prior to creating ULR, OP, then God creates the ULR and & #39;stops& #39; being OP. There does not seem to be anything impossible about this. So does adding the proposition that God& #39;s OP is permanent or essential fix

the problem for (b)? I do not see how it does, and the reason might lie with the ambiguity of & #39;OP.& #39; Does God& #39;s OP entail that He at all times, has & #39;power& #39; over all things? If so, what does & #39;power& #39; really mean? Suppose that OP God really did create this world and everything in it.

God has a change of mind and now desires it to be the case that lions rule the planet. But given that humans are already the rulers or masters of this planet, in order for God to give lions that authority, He must take that authority, directly or indirectly (via whatever means)..

away from us. There& #39;s no possible world where humans are at tnow (the present moment) the rulers of earth, and tnow+1minute (1 minute after the present moment), lions are the rulers of earth, that God hasn& #39;t shifted authority from humans to lions. That seems quite evident. But

suppose that God wanted to give lions authority without taking it away from humans. Does God have the power to do so, given the facts in this world? No. But that seems analogous to OP and ULR. God, by creating us and giving authority to us, limits His future power to give lions

authority without necessitating the fact that it& #39;s been taken from us. God is powerless to do anything about the fact. It seems like someone who defends this notion of God& #39;s OP wouldn& #39;t have a problem accepting this entailment. Suppose now that I say that God can create the ULR..

It seems like the only objection would be that post creation, God is permanently incapable of lifting it. Similarily, post giving humans authority over earth, God is permanently unable of giving someone else said authority without taking it away from us (directly or indirectly).

One could say that both are logical impossibilities (by virtue of both limiting God& #39;s future powers). In the first case, it ought be impossible for, once God has given the authority to humans to rule the earth, that He cannot do anything to change that. Another response is that

God couldn& #39;t give humans authority in the first place. There are a lot of problems with these responses that I won& #39;t get into here. It at least seems clear to me that it& #39;s not clear (from the notion of OP I presented) that God couldn& #39;t create an ULR. If God cannot create an ULR

because it places limitations on His future powers, why say that God can create humans, or anything at all? Maybe omnipotence simpliciter must be abandoned, or another understanding of it should be pursued. These seem like legitimate questions. My verdict regarding...

"Can God create a rock He can& #39;t lift?" is not that the question is incoherent, or prima facie entails a logical contradiction. It seems like if God can create anything by virtue of omnipotence, God can and should be able to create an unliftable rock.

Latest Threads Unrolled: