Robert Murphy posts that God could create a rock so heavy that even he cannot lift it but chooses to abstain from such activity. He also claims that God could kill himself. Let us consider this question further.

We ask this question because we consider God to be like ourselves. We can lift some things but not others. God is omnipotent. Does that mean God can lift everything?

Lifting requires a subject and an object. It implies the existence of two things: the subject doing the lifting and the object receiving the lifting. An object like a stone will only lift after forming a relationship with a subject. Until the object is subjected to some other force, it remains in its current state.

Lifting — like action generally — adds characteristics to the object at the expense of the subject. I expend energy in order to add velocity and altitude to the boulder. The first law of thermodynamics tells us the work outputted never exceeds the work inputted. So if the object of input and output are one and the same it is impossible to accomplish anything. I cannot move myself. Lifting — like all action — requires distinction between subject and object.

At first it may appear otherwise — I can lift myself in the air with a handstand. But this ignores the other forces at play. A handstand works on the ground because I can push against the earth. But throw me out of a plane: my handstands no longer have any effect. I can only perform a handstand when a platform is under me. In reality, the object of my handstand is the earth itself. I do not lift up myself; I push down the earth.

So the question, “can God create an unmovable object?” assumes that God can create something beyond himself. Is this a wise assumption?

Saint Anselm described God as that than which nothing greater can be conceived. He used this idea to prove God’s existence in reality. To do so, he assumes attributes can only add to existence. So existing with attributes A and B is greater than existing with attribute A alone. If we consider God to have all the attributes that we imagine, then we can also conceive of God having those attributes and in addition the attribute of existence in reality.

Spinoza and Leibniz built upon this framework to show that God must be part of everything. If we can conceive of God having the particular set of attributes that allows him to create an unmovable object, we can also conceive of him having the attribute where he is part of the unmovable object in addition. Therefore, God includes the unmovable object — and everything else. God is everything and everything is God.

Who wonders whether he is a better lover than God? This assumes love is possible outside the presence of God. The reality is that it is only through God’s graces that love is even possible in the first place. The question makes no sense. No one asks this question.

The unmovable rock makes no more sense. The idea of a rock — movable or unmovable — existing outside of God contradicts the very meaning of the word God. Asking whether God can move himself assumes there is a place outside of God to which he can move. This is no less a contradiction. So asking whether God can create an unmovable rock makes no more sense than asking whether God can create a square circle or a colorless blue.

I have an interesting question for the author of the Human Action Study Guide: Can a God who is all knowing nonetheless act?

This entry was posted on 2009-3-31 at 5:21 and is filed under Human Action, Religion. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.