Can God Make a Mountain So Big He Can’t Move It?

This question, or one of its many permutations, is one that on the surface may seem to be a stumper for the Christian. The premise is that if God can make a [fill in object] so incredibly huge that God no longer has full dominion over it then He is, obviously, a finite God no more worthy of our worship than Bicycle Repair Man.

There is a simple answer to this question. It goes along the lines of, “that’s just a dumb question.” C.S Lewis puts it a little kinder by saying that it’s “nonsense.” Though it is very popular to say that there is no such thing as a dumb question, only dumb answers, it is rubbish to say so. There are dumb questions. For instance, “why do I have to get up in the morning to go to work to get paid? Can’t I just lie at home and receive a paycheck?” Ask your boss that question and you will quickly see how dumb that question is. Mileage may vary if you work for a government entity.

But the simple answer really doesn’t help much except to make the person asking it think you are a complete, intractable, obtuse, dunder head. Let’s avoid that and go for the long answer. First, as with any question, it is important to remember that the person asking the question is a real person and that they may have real, deeper, questions at the heart of this one. That is why the short answer should be jettisoned. In rare instances it may actually be that this question is one that the individual has been agonizing over. Much like the dyslexic, agnostic, insomniac who lies awake at night wondering if there really is a dog. Often in answering “trap” questions such as this genuinely, you are able to question the questioner and strip away presuppositions, expose errors in logic, and get at the heart felt reasons for why the individual has been rejecting God.

It is important not to build our house from the roof down so we should lay our foundation first before tackling the answer. The two main foundational points to address and define prior to answering this question are:

1. Who is God and what are his attributes?
2. What are some logical errors or incorrect presuppositions encapsulated in the question?

Define God and Give Three Examples

Go ahead, you have 5 minutes.

Were we to attempt a full definition of God here, we would fail miserably at fully exploring the depth and breadth of all His attributes. Even the fullest description and definition would only succeed at giving but a faint glimmer to His majesty. So, having failed in that endeavor before even beginning, we will stick to those attributes of God that relate directly to the answer of this question. Here are the unique God attributes we are concerned with:

• God is unchanging – same yesterday, today, and forever (Num 23:19, Mal 3:6, Heb 13:8)
• God is infinite in all his attributes (1 Kings 8:27):
  • Omnipotent (all powerful) – Job 42:2, Ps 33:6-7, Ps 115:3
  • Omniscient (all knowing)  - Ps 139:1-6, 13-16, Is: 40-13-14, 48:3-5, 1 Jn 3:20
  • Omnipresent (all present – everywhere) – Ps 139:7-12, Is 48:5, Mt 6:6,
• God is eternally existent (no beginning, no end) – Gen 22:33, Dt 33:27, Hab 3:6, 1Tim 1:17
• God is unique – there is no other like Him – 2 Sam 7:22, Ps 86:8, Is 40:25, 1 Tim 6:15-16
• God is logical and does not violate the laws of logic

When we look at these attributes we see that God cannot change. He cannot diminish nor can He increase. He is fully manifest in His infinite capacity as God. By extension, nothing can be more than God in any of its attributes. For that to be true, God would cease to be God – which He cannot. He is infinite and unchanging, after all. If He were less than perfect or infinite in any of His attributes there would be room for something to be greater than He. In which case, God would no longer be unique or infinite in his attributes. Also, God operates within the laws of logic which are an eternal, infinite aspect of His being.

If there were something or someone that were more powerful than God then His infinite, unique characteristic of omnipotence would no longer be His because he is no longer all powerful. There is someone or something more powerful than He. As to the logical nature of God, he would never make the square root of 4 = 10 even though He is omnipotent. That would be nonsensical.

Elementary, my dear Watson

There is a bit of logic that we need to interject into this discussion. God, being a logical being, operates within the realm of logic. It is not that logic is a higher law that He must submit to but that logic is part of the warp and woof of His being. With that in mind we should note that within a category you cannot have two or more mutually exclusive statements or truths. For instance: in the realm of shapes a square cannot be round, in colors green cannot be orange, and the number 8 cannot be the number 5. This should be completely logical unless you are attending a school that uses the Common Core curriculum or perhaps that you have taken a philosophy or logic class too many in college. Another way of stating this is that statements concerning an object, concept, etc must be logically consistent with the nature of that object.

The second bit of logic to bring to the table is the Law of non-contradiction which states that contradictory statements cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time. For example: you could not say, “At 8:00am Sally was pregnant and not pregnant.” She either is or she isn’t.

That is Most Illogical, Captain

Let’s put all this stuff together now that we have our building blocks and answer the question:

Q: Can God create a mountain so big He can’t move it?

A: No!

There you go. That’s the answer. It was really very simple. All of the above was just to get the word count of this post up. What? You want more? You want to know why?

[Begrudgingly commences to answer the question fully] There are a couple of things at play here in the answer. The first is that the question is asked without a full understanding of who God is and His attributes. Chiefly at stake is the fact that God is omnipotent which means that He is all powerful. This is an attribute that helps to define God. If He were not omnipotent He would cease to be God. If God created an object that prevented Him from being able to exert His omnipotence upon that object, He could not be considered to be omnipotent and, therefore, not God. Another attribute of God is that He is unchanging. If he were to become less than omnipotent He would fundamentally change and, therefore, cease to be God. The object He created could not become God because God is unique and that is yet another attribute of God. Also, even if the object were infused with all the attributes of God that effort would fail because at least two Divine attributes are those of eternality and uniqueness, which it could not have. The object, therefore, could never become God or supersede God.

For God to be able to create an object so big that He no longer exerted dominion over it would be to violate His nature. This is a categorical error. It is like the example above wherein a circle cannot become a square and still be a circle. Both cannot be true at the same time. Circle = square = never. This violates the law of non-contradiction. An all powerful God cannot be NOT all-powerful. Thankfully, God has created a logical universe and, as part of His nature, operates logically. He cannot, therefore, create something so big that he no longer has control over it.

So in short we can say, “No. God cannot create a mountain so big that He can not move it because it violates His nature such that He could not longer be God if He were to do so.”

This question and its line of reasoning is often referred to classically as the Omnipotence Paradox. There are various arguments and lines of reasoning to address this paradox. Hopefully the one I have provided is helpful to you.

This is the Dawning of the Age of Dystopia

It has often been said, “art imitates reality” – a concept that philosopher Aristotle posited in what is called the mimetic theory of art when he said that art should be an imitation of life.  But when life imitates art, what is that called?  Insightful?  Prophetic?  Eerie?  If art imitates life and life is imitating art, are we lost in some sort of perpetual Ground Hog Day or “chicken or the egg” loop?  The powerful literary art form I am referring to is the genre known as the dystopia.  Some familiar books and movies of this genre include Brave New World, Animal Farm, Soylent Green, Logan’s Run, Gattica, and The Island.  In each of these the writer brings to the table a certain set of beliefs and extrapolates those to tell a story of what the world would look like in the future if a certain set of parameters were true.  It is the initial set of assumptions and the logical and consistent progression from those assumptions that paint the generally bleak view of the future that all these books and movies share as well as what makes the stories told often eerily prophetic.  Some of the themes that are frequented, almost to the point of cliché, are those of totalitarian regimes controlling the details of people’s lives (loss of individualism), food shortages and their affect upon how societies live and are governed (animal competition for scarce resources), and overpopulation (man’s destruction of the earth’s environment for his own comfort and survival).

The 1973 movie Soylent Green, loosely based on the Harry Harrison novel Make Room! Make Room! (1966), is set in 2022 when the world is dealing with the issues related to overpopulation.  Food shortages have resulted in uneven distribution of limited food supplies which leads to riots and other social ills.  There are food luxuries such as meat and $150 a jar strawberry jam, but these are only accessible by the wealthy elite.  Everyone else is reduced to a diet of marginally palatable food supplements such as Soylent Red and Yellow which are produced by the massive Soylent Corporation.  Human dignity has been reduced to effectively being no more than an animal, and some in society are even referred to as “furniture.”  Life is cheapened by the freely exercised and legal right to assisted suicide.  The philosophy of utilitarianism is ultimately revealed in the denouement when it is revealed that the new, healthier and tastier supplement, Soylent Green, is made from…

WARNING!!  SPOILER ALERT!  Soylent Green is made from people

The premise of this film is readily apparent; the natural resources of the planet will be strained, making the competition for these scarce resources brutal.  People’s lives and meaning will be reduced to that of subsistence and survival.  Any dignity or sanctity of life will be reduced to simply surviving if overpopulation is not addressed.  Through the lens of such movies as Soylent Green, we are presented with a distinct view of what things could be like in the future if humanity continues down its current path.

Overpopulation and its affects on the planet are “problems” today that have gathered much attention in the political arena and in the media within the last few years and are the subjects of much political wrangling and headline news stories.  One need not look far to see how this view of the earth and man’s place in it is viewed by many.  Active organizations dealing with the issue of overpopulation, such as  The Center for Biological Diversity in Tucson, Arizona, are doing so by handing out 100,000 condoms beginning on Valentine’s Day to bring attention to the impact of human overpopulation on endangered animal species.  The message is very clear; human beings need to reduce their numbers so that the animal species of the planet will have a fighting chance at survival.  Other organizations such as the UN Population Fund have their own take on how to deal with the “problem.”

Soylent Green’s premise is not just a fictional vehicle for entertainment but is insightful in that it reveals a viewpoint that has been adopted by many who are actively working on solutions to the “problem” of overpopulation.  We are told that unless something is done regarding human population growth, the adverse affects of our abundant presence upon this planet will be irreversible and life, as we know it, will cease to exist here on earth.  Some factions believe the damage done to the environment is already irreversible.  But how do we approach a solution to this “problem?”  There are many questions and different answers to the questions depending upon your point of view.

For instance, if, to stem the tide of population growth, a one child policy were to be implemented, then how would that policy be enforced?  What about people who live in countries with high mortality rates?  Or those who live in countries that are not industrialized and, therefore, do not have the efficiencies of mechanized industry and food production?  Would not a one child policy be akin to cultural bias or racism as those peoples would effectively be wiped out within a matter of a few generations?  Who will be the enforcers of a one child policy and how will they be chosen?  What tools will they use for enforcement?  What of mothers who give birth to twins, triplets, etc?  Will forced sterilization be practiced?  What about people who believe that children are a blessing, love children, and believe that having children is an important practice regarding their religious faith?  Will the state dictate the practice of their faith?  And from the perspective of the state (South Korea, Japan, and most of Europe are current prime examples), how do you continue to fund your public liabilities with a dwindling tax base?  Do you move to a model wherein all work is done in the employ of the state and the state which then distributes food and other benefits as the state sees fit?

There are many questions related to just the one child solution to the “problem.”  Much can be written just on the few questions posited here but the purpose of this essay is not to address any of the questions raised here or their answers.  This is not because the “problem” of overpopulation and the various questions and answers aren’t important, but because to discuss them without first having a framework in which to place the various arguments would be like building a house from the roof down.  Any argumentation would be from an arbitrary basis as far as you, the reader, would be concerned, regardless of whether you agreed with the arguments.  To have a meaningful, well reasoned discussion on this topic, we need to first lay a firm groundwork and foundation from which all subsequent discussion should emanate within a logical and reasoned construct.  I am proposing a bottom up discussion as opposed to a top down or a middle outward one.

To begin with, it is important to recognize that for any issue we bring to the table certain presuppositions, biases, understandings, learning, and epistemology.  These are collectively known as your worldview.  We all have one and it is important for us to understand what ours is and where it comes from.  No matter where you stand on the “problem” of overpopulation, the nature of the “problem,” and its attendant questions and solutions, the issue is not entirely the “problem” itself, but is ultimately about your view of the human race and its place on earth.  This is part of the warp and woof of your worldview.  Worldviews are based upon what we believe to be true about the world and the things we perceive in it.  A rational worldview is not a series of isolated, siloed bits of belief and knowledge, but is instead made up of interrelated particulars.  It should be noted that not all worldviews are created equal.  A worldview may be judged not only by its logical consistency in all its particulars to each other but also in how those particulars correspond to physical reality.  A strong, reasonable worldview will have one particular building upon another and also fit best with the reality of the world we live.

Take overpopulation as an example to illustrate how differences in worldviews and the importance of foundational presuppositions that inform those worldviews can lead to very different perceptions of the “problem” and how to address it.  If I believe that man exists on this planet because the universe came into being by some cataclysmic event and, due to a random progression of events, brought forth life on this planet; and that human life came into being through chance, gradualism, mutation, adaptation, survival of the fittest, and a great deal of time; and if I believe that overpopulation is a problem affecting the future of the planet and that of all humankind; then I should believe, to be consistent with my worldview, that the strongest of humanity should continue to live while the weaker in society should not.  This will relieve the pressure on the earth and its limited resources and reduce the competition for limited food resources.  This would ensure that the strong of humankind will survive, thereby, ultimately, preserving and evolving the species with the desirable trait of strength.

On the other hand, if I believe that the universe came into being through the divine fiat of an infinite, loving being and that man was this being’s unique and specially thought of creation, I would approach overpopulation completely differently.  In this instance my worldview would inform me that man has a special place in this creation and that his place on this earth was also special and highly valued by that divine being.  It would be my responsibility, then, to determine how that creator had revealed himself to creation and through creation that I might know him, if at all possible, and know what he required of me.  If he revealed that I should love my fellow man, the “problem” of overpopulation becomes a completely different one than for the person with the naturalistic worldview.

Worldview, ultimately, determines how we perceive any issue and its solution, whether we recognize that or want to admit it or not.  The two examples I gave above would be consistent worldviews though I have left out a number of intermediary conclusions for the sake of space.  In other words, if one began at the points I began at and progressed reasonably to the “problem”, then the conclusions I gave should be consistently and reasonably reached.  This is not to say that everyone will reach the same conclusions.  There are a number of reasons for this.

The first is that some people diverge at various points in the progression because one or more reasonable following conclusions are unpalatable to them.  Another is that of applying faulty reasoning or completely skipping a priori arguments that would naturally follow.  Many people formulate their worldview in a way that is incoherent.  This approach often involves formulating their worldview based upon multiple a posteriori arguments, many of which violate the law of non-contradiction.  This is, perhaps, now the most common means by which people in our post-modern age formulate their worldviews.  In this view an individual tackles problems on the basis of how they feel about the problem and what they feel is the right solution.  This type of worldview is very shaky and subject to our fickle natures.  In dealing with overpopulation I may one day feel like wiping out everyone who doesn’t agree with me and the next day I may feel like removing myself from the gene pool.  Radically different approaches; but without any foundation they would be equally valid, or invalid – depending upon your perspective.

There is one last means of developing a worldview that I want to discuss.  This is the worldview that doesn’t fit reality.  This worldview may be internally consistent but its initial presuppositions and, perhaps, some of those along the way do not match with reality.  In this worldview one may believe that aliens placed us here on the planet or that there are an infinite number of parallel universes.  Fast forward to our example of the overpopulation “problem” and my solution may be to dump vast resources into developing interstellar spaceships in order to seek out these aliens that placed us here so that we might be reunited with them or so that we could colonize space.

The importance of one’s worldview cannot be overstated.  If we are to avoid having our worldview soggily planted in mid-air then, in the areas of beliefs, understanding, knowledge, and actions we must have a foundation that is firm and that fits best with the observable world around us.  And, in the example of overpopulation, our worldviews are quite literally a matter of life and death.  How about you?  What is your worldview and what is it based on?