A question I’ve sometimes heard asked is:
If God is an Infinite, All-Powerful Creator, can He create a rock too heavy for Himself to lift?
The intention being to show that the impossibility of an answer reflects the impossibility of such a Creator existing, therefore God does not exist.
However, the question is a parlor trick, because it itself creates the conditions of that impossibility. It does this by assuming – and having the listener unwittingly accept this assumption – that God and the rock are on the same level. To make this absurdity more apparent, I’ll ask the same type of question but with different actors:
If my mind can imagine any thought whatsoever, can I imagine a rock which my physical self could then try to lift?
The two ideas in the sentence make sense on their own: me thinking of a rock, and me trying to lift a rock. The impossibility lies in the fact that a physical being cannot try to lift a mental image. It doesn’t matter that the question is posable, it is still absurd. The two objects exist in separate categories, whose only combining agent is the imagination of the listener. It’s like asking if a sound smells funny, or the light of the moon tastes good tonight.
I think a reason why this question has gained more credence is that its absurdity is not obvious. God is often anthropomorphized to the point that thinking of Him standing somewhere, trying to lift something, does not seem immediately crazy. After all, if a rock could exist beside Him it would disqualify any notion of “infinite” right away – since He would have to be of finite volume for the rock to have room! Yet still the question slips through our sense filters. Why would God have a body, or arms? Further, a rock’s existence is a trick of time, since atoms must spin to produce the guise of stability, but God is supposed to exist beyond time and space.
So, the question takes an Infinite being, casts Him into a finite part, then supposes to disprove His infinity by pointing at His “demonstrated” finiteness. It sets up the very conditions it wishes to claim to present. It does this by assuming – and having the listener unwittingly accept this assumption – that God and the rock are on the same level.
…After all, if a rock could exist beside Him it would disqualify any notion of “infinite” right away – since He would have to be of finite volume for the rock to have room! … Further, a rock’s existence is a trick of time, since atoms must spin to produce the guise of stability, but God is supposed to exist beyond time and space.
So, the question takes an Infinite being, casts Him into a finite part, then supposes to disprove His infinity by pointing at His “demonstrated” finiteness.