24

How does Judaism deal with paradoxes relating to the omnipotence of God?

For example: Can God create a rock that he himself cannot lift?

WAF
  • 23,730
  • 4
  • 46
  • 138
fakeID
  • 299
  • 1
  • 5

7 Answers7

32

Questions relating to God's omnipotence were discussed at length by the Rishonim in the Middle Ages in such great works as Saadia Gaon's "Emunos V'deos", Rambam's "Moreh Nevuchim", Ralbag's "Milchemes Hashem", and others. The consensus among them (in opposition to the authorities cited in @HodofHod's answer) is that God cannot violate the rules of logic. This prevents such paradoxes such as the one you mentioned, as well as other like "Can God assume physical form?", "Can God create another God?", etc.

Why does this not undermine God's omnipotence? Because saying that God cannot do X, where X is a logically impossible task, does not limit God's power any more than saying that a person cannot drink a Wednesday (h/t @DoubleAA) limits that person's power. The verb "drink" simply does not make sense with "Wednesday" as an object. Similarly, the verb "do" does not work with "X" as an object, if X is logically impossible. Here's how Saadia Gaon says it (Emunos V'deos, Ch. 2):

ואין היא משבחתו ומפארתו אלא בתבונה ומישרים, לא בגוזמא והבל כמי שעושה החמשה יותר מן העשרה מבלי הוסיף עליהם, שמכניס תבל בחללה של טבעת מבלי צמצם האחת והרחב השניה, שמחזיר אמש לקדמותו, שכל אלה הבל הם. אפשר ישאלונו כמה מן המינים באותו ענין. אנו משיבים להם הוא יכול לכל דבר ואלו מה ששאלו, לא דבר הוא, הבל הוא וההבל אינו ולא כלום

His praises and His glorifications are only with understandable and upright things, not with exaggeration and absurdity such as "He who can make five more than ten without adding to it", or "He who can fit the entire world into the hole of a ring without shrinking the former or enlarging the latter", or "He who can make the past into the future", for all these things are absurdities. Perhaps several heretics will ask us about this. We will respond to them "He has the ability to do all things, but that which you mentioned - that is not a thing; it is an absurdity, and an absurdity is not anything."

Community
  • 1
jake
  • 28,533
  • 2
  • 72
  • 159
18

According to some Jewish authorities, especially Kabbalists and Chassidic Rebbes, G-d does not have to obey the rules of logic, since they are just another creation of His. As I wrote to a similar question:

As the Creator of all things, including, but not limited to, time, the "laws" of physics, logic, and existence itself, G-d is not bound by any of them. Can G-d create a rock that He is unable to pick up? Yes, and He can also pick it up. How? Why? Because logic does not apply to G-d. Go argue with that (you can't; argument requires logic :-D).

From Chabad.org's "Can G‑d Create a Rock That's Too Heavy for Him to Lift?"

I've provided a long-winded answer for the inquisitive mind. Sometimes, however, it's not a philosopher asking the question, it's just some smart-aleck. But the smart-aleck also deserves an answer. So you can simply say, "Sure G‑d can create a rock so heavy that even He cannot lift it. G‑d can do anything. And He could even lift that rock that He cannot lift as well."

That'll send 'em flying. And it's not untrue. Because it's simply saying that G‑d does not fit into any of our standard ways of thinking. G‑d is not a thing—He is the source of all things. The tools of measurement of things simply do not apply to Him.

Community
  • 1
HodofHod
  • 21,056
  • 5
  • 91
  • 156
  • Ah, commentless downvotes. How I've missed you. – HodofHod May 13 '12 at 17:59
  • 10
    Violating the laws of physics is not the same thing as violating logic. The letter you linked to in Igros Kodesh (along with the example of the Aron) refers to the former not the latter. – Fred May 13 '12 at 18:45
  • 2
    I also heard that since a rock that G-d can't lift cannot exist, asking such a question is like asking if G-d can create a SDFSFAFGSFGFGA? Now answer that question... – ertert3terte May 13 '12 at 18:45
  • @ShmuelBrin, That is essentially the same as my answer. – jake May 13 '12 at 18:52
  • 2
    @Fred is Math considered logic or physics? – ertert3terte May 13 '12 at 19:05
  • 1
    @ShmuelBrin - To say that something is 10 feet tall and 20 feet tall at the same time violates the laws of physics. To say that something is only 10 feet tall and only 20 feet tall at the same time violates logic. – Fred May 13 '12 at 19:11
  • @Fred You are mistaken. In that letter the Rebbe is bringing a view that clearly disagrees with R' Saadya Gaon's. "כל יכול כפשוטו" means even that which is not "מעגליך על פי שכל". – HodofHod May 13 '12 at 21:01
  • 1
    @HodofHod Incomprehensible and illogical are two different things. – Fred May 13 '12 at 21:55
  • @Fred And therefore? G-d is both. And not both. When it says that G-d is capable of things that are not "מעגליך על פי שכל" it means that He can do things which are illogical, and therefore, incomprehensible. This opinion says that G-d is "כל יכול כפשוטו". That means that if you say "Can G-d ..?" the answer is "yes", and if you ask "Does G-d have to ...?" the answer is "no". Simple enough. – HodofHod May 13 '12 at 22:05
  • 3
    @HodofHod The Rebbe was disagreeing with the Ba'al HaAkeidah who takes the position that God's omnipotence does not extend to things that are incomprehensible, like an object having inconsistent dimensions. כל יכול כפשוטו means that God can even perform incomprehensible acts, such as making the aron dimensionless and dimensioned simultaneously. Those two things are physically incompatible and incomprehensible, but they are not logically impossible. The letter doesn't suggest that omnipotence violates logic. – Fred May 13 '12 at 23:11
  • Math is the basis of all Physics and all Boolean Algebra we use in Philosophy Logic and Fallacy. – Tony Stewart EE75 May 14 '12 at 00:21
  • @TonyStewart - Lists of certain event possibilities that are assumed to be exhaustive and mutually exclusive from a physical standpoint may not be so from a metaphysical standpoint. Only when we assume that two events are mutually exclusive do we have a logical dilemma when faced with their simultaneous existence. That's why a dimensioned, dimensionless ark does not pose a logical dilemma. – Fred May 14 '12 at 01:30
  • @Fred You're saying that the Baal HaAkeidah disagrees with the Aron both having and not having spatial dimensions? (I can't read that link right now.) – HodofHod May 14 '12 at 03:24
  • @HodofHod Not explicitly, but the Rebbe used the example of the aron as a basis for disputing the Ba'al HaAkeidah's understanding of omnipotence in general. – Fred May 14 '12 at 05:16
  • @Fred I fail to see how you can read any limitations into "כל** יכול כפשוטו**". I would think that if the Rebbe had intended the same meaning as R' Saadia (that that which is logically impossible is not possible for Him, and is still not a limitation), that would have been much clearer. It's clear enough that when the Rebbe says "כל יכול כפשוטו" he means without exceptions, else he surely would have included them in his response. (Saying that the limitation of logic is implied doesn't hold up. The Rebbe is explaining what "כל יכול" means, he wouldn't leave that out.) – HodofHod May 14 '12 at 05:32
  • 2
    @HodofHod - Logic does not impose restrictions or limitations on what can happen; it is descriptive rather than proscriptive. It is the means of discarding nonsense and absurdity. If someone can't eat a day of the week, it is not a deficiency in their capability - it is simply a matter of definition. A defining property of a day of the week is that it eating has no shaichus to it. It would be absurd to suggest otherwise. If someone would have the ability to eat a day of the week, that would say nothing about their ability... – Fred May 14 '12 at 06:29
  • 2
    @HodofHod - ...It would only mean that we have redefined what "day of the week" means. R' Saadia's words are a davar pashut; of course logical integrity does not limit omnipotence. There's no reason to assume that anyone would hold that it does, or that כל יכול כפשוטו somehow means that logic gets thrown out the window. – Fred May 14 '12 at 06:33
  • 1
    @HodofHod If God creates something that cannot be lifted, it is no longer a rock. God can't create a rock that can't be lifted because lifting is by the definition of rocks shayach to rocks. If you redefine "rock" to include this new thing, then God can create a rock that he can't lift. It only is a matter of definitions and has nothing to do with ability or omnipotence. – Fred May 14 '12 at 06:42
  • @Fred. The concept of G-d not being limited to sechel and logic is replete throughout Chassidus/Kabbalah and even rishonim (as the Rebbe states). The link to Chabad.org is indicative of that. The idea that the Rebbe would just ignore that part of "כל יכול " in his letter even while redefining the entire idea is absurd (IMO). Additionally, I'm not sure that Chassidus/Kabbalah draws much of a distinction between incomprehensibility and illogicality. Both would be "above" sechel and chochmah. – HodofHod May 14 '12 at 13:32
  • If you want to know more about why the Rebbe holds this, and what exactly his sources are, you should ask someone who is more well versed in the Rebbe's/Chassidus' teachings than I am. But that he held this is certain. Ok, I'm done discussing this. Thanks for the discussion :). – HodofHod May 14 '12 at 13:32
  • @HodofHod - Of course the concept of God isn't limited by sechel, but we must always think logically about aspects of scenarios that are within the scope of our understanding. The OP imposed limits on the scenario by introducing "rocks" and "lifting", both of which are inherently circumscribed by their definitions. – Fred May 14 '12 at 17:19
  • @Fred Hmmm... while there are certain rules that G-d chooses to operate under in this world, it would still be a problem to say "G-d can't...". Better say "G-d doesn't...". – HodofHod May 14 '12 at 18:14
  • 1
    @HodofHod - The Rashba is the rishon that the Rebbe directly referenced because he disagrees with the Ba'al HaAkeidah's main point that the conflicting nature of man's soul and animal aspects preclude God's ability to create mankind in a manner that it would never sin. The Rashba writes that is not true because God can suspend the rules of nature as he wishes. Further, the Tzemach Tzedek that the Rebbe quoted cites and agrees with R' Saadia... – Fred May 14 '12 at 18:26
  • 1
    @HodofHod - ...that God's interactions with the world are bound by logical constraints and that this is not considered a restriction on His omnipotence. An example that he gives is that a year, by it's definition, cannot have 600,000 days. (Furthermore, the Tzemach Tzedek writes that this is "l'chol ha'deios"). Only God's essence, he writes, is totally free from all logical constraints. – Fred May 14 '12 at 18:29
  • Did anyone in 19 comments mention that Logic is a human invention and therefore only humans are bound by logic. –  May 15 '12 at 23:02
  • @mochinrechavim I was under the impression that logic was G-d's invention, and therefore does not bind Him. – HodofHod May 15 '12 at 23:09
  • @HodofHod What put you under that impression? Everything is apart of Hashem, but he gave humans free will and we used it to create this "logic" idea and then try to work Hashem into our logic plan. Is it logical that the Red Sea split? Scientist try to explain it so it fits logic. –  May 16 '12 at 16:11
  • @mochinrechavim But humans did not create the "logic" (not the best word choice IMO) that prevents seas from splitting on a regular basis. G-d did. – HodofHod May 16 '12 at 16:33
  • @HodofHod Logic is the philosophical study of valid reasoning. If it isnt logical then it is a miracle. Man tries to fit our omnipresent G-d into a little man made box. Hashem creates EVERYTHING. This isnt what we are talking about. We are talking about the Chochma of Greek Philosophy which says that everything must follow their definition of nature which a Jew does not ascribe to. –  May 16 '12 at 17:02
  • @mochinrechavim Ah. So the fact that we have anthropomorphically given those same limitations to G-d is the "human invention" you were referring to. But the fact that we and the rest of the world have those limitations (except when G-d wills otherwise) is G-d's invention. – HodofHod May 16 '12 at 17:19
  • @HodofHod That sounds about right. We are talking about a very lofty idea. The Mitteler Rebbe (Chabad Rebbe No. 2) has a sefer called Shar HaYichud. It is considered to be the Keys to understanding Chassidus. It discusses this concept by explaining Seder Histalshelus and how Hashem functions and interacts in this world. Once you realize that Ohr Ayin Sof and the Rock on the ground are both the same level of G-dliness abeit one being concealed to a greater level then the question isn't so difficult. –  May 16 '12 at 17:43
  • In his Reader, R' Aryeh Kaplan zt"l says this is a machloqes betwen the Rambam and the Ramchal. The Rambam says the illogical is meaningless -- G-d can no more make a round square than He can make a flugleek. They're just a bunch of sounds that don't amount to anything. The Ramchal says what you describe here. Logic is a creation, and therefore the Creator isn't subject to it. – Micha Berger Jul 20 '18 at 16:03
  • Personal 2c: Since the 19th century, we found that there is no one system of logic -- Boolean Logic (including Aristotle's), Fuzzy Logic, the very small seems to obey Quantum Logic, other theoretical logics... Makes me inclined to go with the Ramchal. – Micha Berger Jul 20 '18 at 16:04
8

I heard someone once say that you can begin to understand God only when you acknowledge that you can never fully understand God.

Part of faith in God is understanding that we are finite and unable to ever understand the infinity of God.

So I guess the answer is that God is all powerful and we dont fully understand how that manifests itself in our world we can only have faith in that He is there and all-powerful.

WAF
  • 23,730
  • 4
  • 46
  • 138
Eytan Yammer
  • 1,652
  • 13
  • 9
  • Oh, thanks for saving Him out this stupid discussion. (Get me right - I appreciate the question and I ponder overt it myself sometimes, I appreciate other answers as well, but I think only this particular answer brings the whole discussion into proportions). – Sandman4 May 13 '12 at 18:18
  • 2
    I agree wholeheartedly with the first two sentences of this answer. It is true that no human can fully understand God. As Rambam famously wrote, "If I could understand everything about Him, I would be Him." However, this is said with respect to God's omniscience, not His omnipotence, which is the property the OP asked about. – jake May 13 '12 at 18:33
  • To say we don't understand is another way of proving my point. We are making an assumption, based only on Belief. No offense to Rambam, but If I could do the impossible and say it is true, does not prove the impossible is possible. Hence a fallacious argument. – Tony Stewart EE75 May 13 '12 at 21:19
8

To add a bit in the same vein as Jake's answer:

This is not a real paradox; it is simply a matter of definitions. "He who can make five more than ten without adding to it" is a great example of this; making five more than ten requires adding by the very definition of the ordinal system. A rock is by definition material, and lifting is by definition an act applicable only to the material.

Since God is omnipotent, he can lift anything that is definitionally subject to lifting. Therefore, to put it clumsily, "God cannot create such a rock" because God would by definition have to make it something other than a rock in order for it to no longer be subject to lifting.

Community
  • 1
Fred
  • 16,984
  • 1
  • 45
  • 85
  • This is what I described in https://judaism.stackexchange.com/questions/16307/how-does-judaism-deal-with-god-and-paradoxes/16311#comment308289_16311 as the Rambam's positoin. – Micha Berger Jul 20 '18 at 16:04
6

I don't have any source on this but my understanding has always been that these paradoxes stem from human perceptions and interaction with the world. The hardest thing about understanding the nature of god is that it is, by definition, beyond understanding. We use a term like "omnipotence" and impose on it our version of what that means and what paradoxical limitations could be applied to it. This simply points out our inability to grasp what god is.

When people ask me that particular paradox I simply say "Yes. And then he lifts it."

rosends
  • 38,242
  • 6
  • 38
  • 110
6

In the back of the first volume of Chassidut Me'vueret on the Holidays, there is a discussion similar to this. The question asked there is, if, as the Maharal of Prague says (In his sefer Gevurot Hashem), G-d is simply whole, without any parts or definable qualities, how can we give G-d descriptions, like Merciful, etc.? How can we say the Sefirot (at least in the world of Atzilut), which are specific attributes, are an extension of G-d's light?

The answer given is based on the statement in the Avodat HaKodesh: "Just as G-d has the power of the infinite, He also has the power of the finite. For if we were to say that G-d was only infinite, and not finite, we would be limiting G-d's completion."

In other words, to say G-d can't limit himself is itself limiting G-d.

It then goes on to explain that when we say G-d is infinite, we're saying that G-d has all the advantages of everything without the deficiencies (in Hebrew this is expresses as Shlemut HaKol). Everything in the world has an advantages and corresponding deficiencies. For example, a big car might be safer in accidents, but it takes more gas and needs bigger parking spaces.

G-d has the upside of everything without the disadvantages. Going back to the Avodat Hakodesh, G-d is infinite. If you tell me that there is a deficiency in being infinite (i.e. not being able to be finite when it is advantageous to do so), I will tell you that G-d can make himself finite too, when he needs to. That finiteness is not a limitation, but an expression of his infiniteness and completion.

Here is a chapter of Heaven on Earth, by Rabbi Faitel Levin which explains this all a lot better and more thoroughly than I just did.

So, to say G-d cannot create a rock so big he can't lift doesn't take away from G-d's completion, it doesn't mean G-d is deficient. Not being able to lift a rock is a deficiency, and G-d has none.

Menachem
  • 44,362
  • 6
  • 127
  • 247
  • 1
    "to say G-d can't limit himself is itself limiting G-d": no it isn't. God can't limit the unlimited not because he is limited in powers, but because it's not a thing to do, just as one can't drink a Wednesday. If something isn't a thing to do, then it can't be done. God can do everything that can be done; I don't see how that is limiting. – Double AA May 13 '12 at 18:46
  • 1
    @DoubleAA: G-d is unlimited, without any parts or descriptions - MahaRal of Prague. yet Kabalah says G-d contracted himself to create the world. G-d limited his infiniteness, to create a reality where G-dliness is concealed. - I added a link to a chapter for Rabbi Levin's book. See there for an analogy of 4.5-volt electric source, where being more limited is advantageous. – Menachem May 13 '12 at 18:59
  • I think he is confused then: it's not that the 4.5 V battery is stronger, it's that the tape recorder is weaker. That is certainly clear from a physics perspective. More energy is more energy. It is not advantageous for the tape recorder to be unable to handle large amounts of energy. – Double AA May 13 '12 at 19:06
  • @DoubleAA: exactly, therefore to blast the device with unadulterated power directly from the source would not be better, but worse. Limiting the power to the device would be better. – Menachem May 13 '12 at 19:09
  • No, increasing the capacity of the device to handle power would be better. – Double AA May 13 '12 at 19:18
  • (Don't you see how it's all a matter of perspective?) – Double AA May 13 '12 at 19:18
  • We can look both ways at which is better and which is worth, but in physics, energy is defined as the capacity to do work. Maybe in one instance you can show how reducing energy would be a temporary fix, but in general the best solution is always the one that increases total useful energy, ie more work can be done. – Double AA May 13 '12 at 19:27
  • Consider our case: in your solution we have a working tape-recorder; in my solution we have a super-tape-recorder that can play infinite tapes at infinite speeds at infinite volumes etc. Which of those two solutions is "better"? Subjectively, possibly neither if all you need is a regular tape-recorder. But most would agree that in general the more powerful one is better as it is more useful in more situations. – Double AA May 13 '12 at 19:27
  • So too God: you can limit God to achieve a specific solution based on your current needs, but isn't a limitless God overall better? – Double AA May 13 '12 at 19:28
  • @DoubleAA: Everything we are discussing is in relation to how G-d actually created the world, not how he could have created it. There is a standard tape recorder, now how do we power it. G-d wasn't forced to create the world this way, but did. Somewhere it is explained that G-d created the world (as explained in Kabbalah) using logical progressions (Seder Hishtalshelut), so that we would be able to understand it (as much as it could be understood by the human mind). It is within this framework that our discussion takes place – Menachem May 13 '12 at 19:39
  • Ok... So within the framework, I still don't see how God can limit the unlimited. How is that not like drinking a Wednesday? – Double AA May 13 '12 at 20:13
  • 1
    @DoubleAA: Because we're explaining unlimited as the ultimate of completion. That includes the completion (advantages) of infinite, and the completion of finite. – Menachem May 13 '12 at 20:20
  • So if it was to God's advantage to do so, he could drink a Wednesday? – Double AA May 13 '12 at 20:29
  • @DoubleAA: Can G-d create a big rock, sure? Can G-d limit himself so that he can't pick it up? What's the advantage in that? - That's different the drinking a wednesday, which would be answered by jake's answer: http://judaism.stackexchange.com/a/16315/603 – Menachem May 13 '12 at 21:21
  • How is an infinitely powerful being not being able to lift a rock more logical than drinking a Wednesday? – Double AA May 13 '12 at 21:57
  • @DoubleAA: Because something being heavy is something we can relate to, drinking Wednesday is just gibberish. Take for example, our sages' comment, "all in in the hands of heaven except for the fear of heaven". Is G-d truly powerless over our fear of heaven? Only because He chooses to be. – Menachem May 13 '12 at 23:30
  • @Menachem I'm not sure what your last analogy has to do with the argument. I accept He can choose not to do things within the realm of things He can do. I don't think creating a rock He can't lift is in that realm. It's not something He can do because it is gibberish. – Double AA May 13 '12 at 23:48
  • @DoubleAA: I edited to my answer to hopefully clarify what I was trying to say. – Menachem May 15 '12 at 22:16
  • @Menachem do you have an exact source for the Maharal? – Bochur613 Feb 12 '15 at 16:23
  • @Bochur613: I've never learned it inside, but a quick google search finds a discussion of it here, in Chapter 67: http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pagefeed/hebrewbooks_org_14204_304.pdf -- Here it is said that it is brought in the Preface: http://chabadlibrary.org/books/default.aspx?furl=/zz/dm/1/24/47a -- My guess it is a little bit of a running theme, since as explained in the second link, the Maharal is disagreeing with the Rambam's definition – Menachem Feb 12 '15 at 17:03
  • @Fred could you direct to the link of the Tzemach Tzedek you posed where you can find where he says what you summarized? Thanks – jj2 Jun 28 '15 at 15:36
5

i'm surprised that none of the answers have addressed the fact that God himself creates and abides by these contradictions. Things like God's omniscience and human free will or the kabbalistic concept of tzimtzum indicate that there are already plenty of "immovable rocks". from these examples it would seem clear that God puts limits on himself and, from our human perspective, abides by those limits. How this can be reconciled with our definition of omnipotence and "God" seems to take for granted that we understand completely what those latter two terms mean, which i don't believe is the case. If we admittedly do not know everything there is to know about God is it not the height of hubris to believe that we have "caught" him in a contradiction?

Community
  • 1
fakeID
  • 299
  • 1
  • 5