Could You Make an Argument So Simple Even AiG Couldn't Mess It Up?

Behold, the longest entry title ever for this blog. Before heading out on my walk tonight, I checked some of AiG's recent articles while my mp3 player was sync'ing. One immediately caught my attention:

Can God create a rock so big that He can’t lift it? Bodie Hodge, AiG–U.S., shows how to respond to this sort of argument.

I thought ahhh. I wonder how they will respond to this one? Will it be a "God is impossible to comprehend" or perhaps "God is not bound by the laws of logic" or maybe even "God can do anything logically possible." The argument they chose will stun you...

For this to be a valid question, God would need to be bound by the laws of gravity. Obviously, God is not bound by His creation (i.e., gravity), as it is part of the universe He created. [...] In other words, this question first assumes that gravity is greater than God.

I don't usually laugh out loud reading blogs, but I made an exception in this case. So, could you make an argument so simple that even Answers In Genesis couldn't mess it up? Obviously, no.

The heavy rock paradox is just a silly little conundrum to show that omnipotence -- understood in the traditional since as all-powerful or able to do anything -- is logically impossible and therefore meaningless. Perhaps when phrasing questions to AiG you should take into consideration this elementary school-level understanding. Perhaps you should take care to phrase it as "can God do something that he can't undo" or "can God create something he can't destroy" or "can God create something more powerful than himself" or "can God microwave a burrito so hot that not even he can eat it?" And let's not even get into the omniscience aspect of it.


But the silliness of this short entry goes even further:

This is like asking on what page of Shakespeare’s Hamlet can we find Shakespeare? It is an illogical question.

Yeah, that is an illogical question. Perhaps if we were asking where in the universe we can find God that would be a good analogy.

But the real gem of this article is at the end where they discuss the God of the Bible. If you take the Bible literally then God is definitely not omnipotent. Take the lying aspect:

Along a similar line, a coworker relayed this conversation to me that she had with her ten-year-old daughter:

She asked “Can God lie?” to which I said “No.” Then she asked, “Can't He do anything?” and I said “Yes, but He wouldn't want to lie.” Then she asked, “Well, could He if He wanted to?” to which I replied, “He wouldn't want to.” But she kept asking, “But what if He wanted to.” So I answered “According to the biblical account of His character, He wouldn't want to and He wouldn't. Whether or not He could is a question that misses the point. The answer is He wouldn't want to and so He would not, and that’s the end of it.”

Additional to the general biblical account of God’s character indicating He would not lie is Hebrews 6:18, which says it is impossible for God to lie.

Are you rolling on the floor yet? Apparently the entire article is not a refutation of arguments against God's omnipotence, it's just a refutation of God literally creating a rock so heavy he can't lift it. They have no problem with God being unable to do certain things (therefore he is not omnipotent), they just have a problem with him creating heavy rocks.

No Personal God, Personally

I usually don't reply to posts about the nature of God and other items aimed at specifically Christians, but I've been thinking about what Ray posted regarding God's obligation. He claims that a woman should not have blamed God for her boyfriend having been killed in a car accident -- God gave us life and we should appreciate that. If he intervenes and shows mercy, we should praise him for that. If he does not show mercy, we should not hold him responsible for that.

I am glad that I no longer live my life with that sort of mindset. Thinking that there is this omnipotent, omniscient God who loves us all and interacts with our world and chooses to intervene with some people and not with others. Just because he shows mercy to some does not mean he is merciful or deserves praise for it. We must also consider his withholding of mercy as well.

Consider: There is some horrible disease affecting the population. All who have it will suffer and die from it. I, however, have engineered a cure for it which only I possess. I have a near unlimited cache of it, more than enough to go around. Giving it to people simply requires them getting the pill.

Further, we might also consider, to make it a better analogy, that I was the one who first unleashed the horrible disease on the population. I did this because the population acted contrary to my desires. I had given the population many great advances, including medicinal, agricultural, and technological.

Are you, then, to call me merciful and benevolent if I arbitrarily only give it to some people and not to others? What of the people I don't give it to? Are you to simply say: "It was by his grace and wisdom that he has the cure which is so easily disseminated. He has no obligation to us, the man who had given us so much. If he chooses not to give the cure to some people, that is his will; his right to show or not show mercy, as it is 'unmerited.'"

What a terrible mindset one must be in to call someone merciful and benevolent who would withhold a cure for something which costs the person no money or time to disseminate. I am glad I am not of that mindset, personally.