I ponder the classic question, “Can God create a stone He cannot lift?” and come away with an unsurprising answer, given my non-atheism.
Defending the liberal tradition in history, science, and philosophy.
Defending the liberal tradition in history, science, and philosophy.
I ponder the classic question, “Can God create a stone He cannot lift?” and come away with an unsurprising answer, given my non-atheism.
{ 1 trackback }
{ 34 comments }
Aziz,
One would hope that you not only would read the comments to your older posts, but that you would actually respond and engage in dialogue rather than offer up yet another aimless post going nowhere.
The only conclusion, one can come up with, is that you place much too much attention on tooting your own horn and sacrosanct opinion.
It used to be that Dean’s World was more about really communicating and dialogue rather than publication of unchallengeable private opinion.
One does not believe that is too your credit.
In order to be said to lift a rock, God must be standing somewhere with a gravitational field, such as on a planet. Let’s say He is standing on the Earth. If the rock is larger (i.e., more massive) than the Earth, however, it is difficult to describe what he is doing as “lifting” in the traditional sense. Really, He’s doing a handstand on the rock and lifting the Earth with His feet.
So the answer is yes, God can create a rock that He cannot lift — the rock merely needs to be bigger than any of the places He might stand to lift it. Of course, He could create that place to stand, of course, but it is debatable whether the question as formulated allows it.
Why would He?
cardeblu, great question!!!!
that opens up an entire line of inquiry I hadnt even considered. This bears some thought…
The question, to be frank, is infantile. I’ve never seen anyone that prided themselves as intellectually deep or honest pose it. Certainly, you’d never see the likes of Dawkins or Hitchens ask it. They know it’s absurd.
The only people I’ve ever see ask it are those that think they’re deep and find some perfect way to catch you in an “ah-HA!” moment.
Anyway, I have no problem with a God that cannot do certain things. Indeed, my God cannot do a great many things. The definition of divinity never included, “does whatever, whenever, to whomever they want.”
To me, it’s a bit like asking “Can God create something that disproves his omnipotence?” Simply working the desired conclusion into the question.
I’ve always interpreted God’s “omnipotence” in the context of Him being the Alpha and the Omega, i.e., by having the power to bring the universe into and out of existence, He in effect holds all power over the universe.
Re: “why would he”?
Why would He create a creature He could not control?
Kevin, I agree that its usually invoked for infantile reasons. But I do like the way the paradox is constructed, it has a certain elegance to it. Also, a being can be divine without being omnipotent (and vice versa, to lesser degree – think Q continuum). The emphasis on omnipotence is muted but no less important in Christianity than it is in Islam and Judaism.
Inv – I wish I’d reduced the sentence that far! great point.
The comment thread over at haibane is attracting the infantiles, it seems. Funny how a post on religion brings people out of the woodwork.
Kevin,
What is it that your God can and cannot do? I’m not trying to provoke an argument here, I’m just wondering what the things are in your mind.
Josher,
1) God cannot sin.
As for the original question: you might as well ask if God can make 4!=4. The very concepts are mutually exclusive.
Augustine, in The City of God, taught that God’s omnipotence was limited in that sense:
I, however, follow Aquinas: the question is absurd. It’s like talking of a square circle. It’s not a paradox because the definition of “stone” precludes such a thing.
See Aquinas’s observations on the omnipotence of God. Caution: it’s rough sledding.
How many angels are you guys dancing with on the head of this pin?
I’m with stereotypist.
50 Answers
His answer to this question is about halfway down the list, but you should read all of them, they’re awesome.
Josher,
What Yu-Ain said. To be a bit more granular:
1. God cannot lie.
2. God cannot contradict Himself.
3. God cannot contradict the nature of a thing (ie. make something that both is and is not).
4. God cannot force a man to do something he wishes not to.
5. God cannot ignore sin.
And so it goes. God’s nature as an absolute precludes Him from being or doing anything that conflicts with it. In short – God cannot do any kind of evil.
“When philosophy uses reason to resolve a doubt, this proves precisely that its starting point is a doubt which it is striving to overcome, whereas… the starting point of a metaphysical formulation is always something intellectually evident or certain, which is communicated, to those able to receive it, by symbolical or dialectical means designed to awaken in them the latent knowledge which they bear unconsciously and ‘eternally’ within them. ”
Frithjof Schuon
Yu-Ain wrote, “As for the original question: you might as well ask if God can make 4!=4. “
You should hang around mathematics grad students. They can come up with all sorts of number sets where what you think you knew no longer applies.
All of this is all well and good, but when Monty reveals what’s behind one door, does God keep the first door he chose or does he switch to the other door?
Jay:
Heh, I once did a mathematical analysis on that, and there is a mathematical advantage to switching. The logic goes like this… you have a 33.3% chance of winning the best item if you stick with the original one.
However, that means you have a 66.7% chance of NOT having picked the right the first time. Since the usual scenario with Monty was for him to show you what is behind ONE of the two doors (and it was NEVER the big win) then you now have essentially a 50% chance to win the big prize IF YOU SWITCH.
Or that’s how I remmber it. No doubt someone will correct me.
If I’m right, of course God would switch. Unless, of course, he prefers to cheat and use his omniscience to pick the right one. But since cheating is immoral, God can’t do that, right?
CC: According to Ron Clarke, you’re wrong.
As Clarke’s explanation goes, you have a 33.3% chance of picking a goat at the start. That means there’s a 66.6% chance that the car is behind one of the other doors. Even though you find out which of the other doors has a goat, you still have only a 33.3% chance of having picked the goat to begin with. That leaves a 66.6% chance that switching gets you the car.
Derek:
Yes, but the 66% depends on you not selecting the goat to begin with… so I don’t think the actual % chance to win the car is 66% when you switch. I don’t wanna go through all that again though, so I’ll just stick with “God should switch” whether his odds are 50% of 66%, either is better than the 33% chance he has with sticking with his original pick.
Scratch that. I got the percentages completely backwards by switching trains of thought mid comment.
As Clarke’s explanation goes, you have a 66% chance of picking a goat at the beginning of the problem. The host reveals the other goat meaning that, if you swap, you’ve got a 66% chance of swapping the goat for a car. You already know you’re not picking the second goat.
Derek:
I think you’re right. I think the odds are 2/3 if you switch. I can’t remember. I only remember that when we did this analysis we were amazed at the result. in retrospect 2/3 would amaze me more than 1/2 so it probably was 2/3.
I’m too lazy to do it again.
CC: You don’t have to! Marilyn vos Savant did it for you. Or, rather, she got a bunch of students to do it for you.
Derek:
Heh, it’s coming back to me now. The process she is going through is exactly what we went through. I had a programmer with a math major at the time who had a reputation of being right virtually every time a question of this sort came up. I’m not sure how the question came up, but someone popped into my office while she was there and asked if you should switch your door. As I recall (I admit to my shame) I immediately responded “Of course you should switch, your chances improve from 33% to 50%, only an idiot wouldn’t switch.
My programmer looked up and said “No, your odds are 2/3.”
So of course we then set out to prove which of us was right.
As it turned out, she was.
At least that’s what my fading, decrepit memory tells me now. Heh. Nice to see I made the same initial mistake again. sheeesh.
I’m pretty much with Aziz. Asking if God can make a rock too heavy for himself to lift is about like asking what smell the color red is, or what Pi tastes like. Indeed, it’s mostly a snotty question, like asking why, if you claim to love your father, you don’t want to have sex with him.
If you ask me, God has whatever limits he decides to have.
I also note that the Bible is full of examples of prominent Biblical figures arguing with God and winning. So apparently, if you believe the Bible, it’s actually possible to correct an omnipotent and omniscient God. Make of that what you will.
Ask someone with a Rabbinical Jewish background what exactly the name “Jacob” means. The answer is both simple and deep.
CC: At least you’re consistent. I’m consistently wrong, so I’ve learned to appreciate consistency. (Hah!)
Dean: As I recall, folks in the Bible who argued with God weren’t focused on correcting him, so much as getting him to change his mind.
Cosmic & Derek:
One of the very first things ever posted to Dean’s World–the 13th posting, as it happens–was an article on exactly what you’re discussing. Indeed, it’s something I am known for posting periodically, which is why I laughed when Jay Dean brought it up. He’s obviously been hanging out here longer than you guys. ;-)
As you have both gathered, the mathematical answer is unequivocal: if you want the best odds, you should switch doors. I am a bit wounded, however, because back in the very early ’90s, when Cosmic and I both worked at the same company (and my hair was much longer) I distinctly remember introducing this question not just to him, but to Von and every person on his team, and everyone on mine, only to be almost universally shot down for my stubborn insistence that you should switch.
I am only being silly when I say I’m “wounded,” but Cosmic’s really not remembering this, because I know I brought this riddle to his attention back around 1990 or 1991, and he’s just not remembering. ;-)
Now, let me be clear: I was as flummoxed with this question as anyone when it was first posed to me. I was absolutely, 100% convinced that switching made no difference whatsoever. If you read the article I linked above, I make that very clear.
Indeed, to me, this is “the brainteaser that changed my world,” because it really did change my world. Not only did it fool me, but it fooled (and continues to fool) an enormous number of extremely bright, well-educated, mathematically- and scientifically bright people. It’s blown away people with multiple PhDs in mathematics and physics. Indeed, my personal experience is that people who are not particularly well educated on such subjects are actually slightly *more* likely to get the answer right than the people who have Mensa-grade IQs and enormous knowledge of math and science.
Almost all really smart people get this question wrong. Indeed, although my survey is informal, I’m pretty sure *most* really smart people get it wrong, and get it wrong more often than everyday people do.
And to me that is the ultimate lesson: it doesn’t matter how smart and well-informed you think you are. It doesn’t matter how much effort you’ve put into being smart, educated, well-informed, and thoughtful: you can still be bare-ass-naked WRONG. And not just a little wrong, but 180 degrees wrong. You can completely and totally “prove” that you’re right and be as wrong as saying that 2+2=3.
That’s what I love so much about this riddle.
Yes, if you want the best odds, switch doors. It doesn’t matter how much it seems wrong. If you want the best odds of winning, you switch.
It doesn’t matter how much you say it must not be so. It is so. Unless there’s cheating going on.
Derek: I’m not sure you’re correct (you might be, I haven’t thought hard about it), but, if you have an omniscient God, what would the difference be? How does an omniscient God get confronted with an argument he’s never heard or thought about before?
At an ultimate level, this gets to the question of free will, which both theologians and physicists grapple with to this day: is it possible to surprise God?
Dean,
Regarding the math – the counterintuitive nature of (some) probability problems is part of the fun. It’s also the reason that I sat here until I understood the problem this afternoon, and am now working late to make up for it. Of course, I’m not working “well,” obviously.
Regarding arguing with God, maybe it was my Baptist/Pentacostal upbringing, but I always viewed the arguments with God as incidences when a human talked God back from the edge. ‘Cause God was mad as hell and not going to take it anymore. It wasn’t that God got new information. Maybe he just needed to vent.
Oh, and regarding the theological question about surprising God, perhaps the reason humans come up with these questions is because we’re not capable of fully grasping what God is.
Kind of like Caudill being irate that his human-style body limited the visible spectrum he could experience and process.
Dean,
“I also note that the Bible is full of examples of prominent Biblical figures arguing with God and winning. So apparently, if you believe the Bible, it’s actually possible to correct an omnipotent and omniscient God. Make of that what you will.”
That’s one way to read it but I think it’s not quite right (unsurprisingly).
At all these moments the men arguing with God were taking on the role of an intercessor. They were, in fact, archetypes of the role Yeshua would play for all mankind. They were not so much as correcting God, as you say, but “reminding” God of His mercy, and love. God’s judgment is without review. So, “correcting” implies that He’s making a mistake.
God’s places an intercessor between humanity and Himself for a reason. We need it. Without it we’d have been wiped out ages ago. His righteousness demands punishment. So, He gives us someone to come before Him, someone clean of sin, and say, “Give them a little more time.”
It’s to God’s credit that there is such a person.
Dean:
You must be the person who popped your head into my office and asked the question. I said I answered it wrong and Lynda (if you remember her) corrected me. Perhaps it wasn’t immediately though. That 1991 or 1992 sounds about right though. It was a long time ago.
All I definitively remember is being wrong and insisting I was right until I was proven wrong. I thought it was Lynda who did the proving perhaps it was you. I tend to give Lynda credit for these things since she is so insufferably RIGHT about this stuff all the time.
I’ll go with your memory of this since I’ve already admitted mine is so unreliable.
Comments on this entry are closed.