At the heart of this famous question is whether the omnipotence of God can be maintained. If you answer "yes", then you are concluding that God is not strong enough to carry such a rock. If you answer "no", then it seems to prove that God is not powerful enough to create the rock. Some atheists and agnostics argue that since omnipotence has been a classical characteristic of God, it seems to imply God does not exist. What would be a Christian response to this vexing question? Even though the question may imply that God is not omnipotent, it does not imply that God does not exist.
The Bible assumes the existence of God. Not only that, it seeks to describe who and what He is. Fundamental to this description is the omnipotence of God.
And all the habitants of the earth are accounted as nothing, But He does according to His will in the host of heaven And among the inhabitants of earth; And no one can ward off His hand... Daniel 4:35
If you read the Bible very carefully, Bible said that God can do everything according to His will and His nature. Since it is not Gods will to create such a rock and to be able to carry the rock, God will not perform either task. If we consider the non-Christian definition of "omnipotence," the answer is "no." Non-Christians do not understand the correct definition of omnipotence, according to the Bible. Omnipotence is not defined as an ability to do anything and everything, regardless of its logical or moral contradictions. Rather, it is the ability God has to do anything according to His will and nature.
Since some non-Christians are not happy with the Christian definition of omnipotence, we can use Christian apologetics to show their flaws in their thinking even though apologetics is a discipline that teaches Christians how to give a reason for our hope. Apologetics can never save a non-believer to Christ. Only Gods Efficacious (def. producing an intended effect) Grace can accomplish that. Apologetics can give Christians some comfort that we do not worship a non-existent God. So, I am going to discuss the flaws of the unbelieving heart regarding the above question.
Let us examine the semantics of the question and assume that their definition of God's omnipotence is correct. Some non-believers think that having an unanswerable question implies that God is not omnipotent, and other non-believers conclude that God does not exist at all. Following the logic of this question, I can list many unanswerable questions that deny the existence of an individual. For instance, I might ask a person whether he enjoys raping other women. If he answers "yes," he goes to jail. If he also answers "no," then he still goes to jail because what he is really saying is "No. I just rape women even though I do not enjoy it." The question does not apply to people who did not commit the crime. Because I assumed that he raped other women, either answer automatically imply that he did rape other women, even if he did not. Thus, this question is no different from the previous question. Agnostics and atheists assumed that God is not omnipotent when He is just as I assumed that the man raped women when he did not. The atheists and agnostics manipulated the "rock" question the same way I manipulated the "rape" question.
If you are not still unhappy with my first analysis of the God-create-rock question, does this mean that God is not omnipotent? The answer is no. If you look at the question a little more carefully, you have to understand that the question has little meaning. If you study the definitions of what a rock is, you will realized that God can not create a rock, which we do not know what we want God to create. If you look closely at the question, you have to understand that the question has little or no meaning. Consider this dialogue.
Agnostic: Can God create a rock He cannot carry?
Christian: What is a rock?
Agnostic: It is a stone.
Christian: What is a stone?
Agnostic: It is a rock.
Christian: What is a rock and a stone?
Agnostic: It is a conglomerate of silicon, oxygen and other atoms.
Christian: What is an atom?
Agnostic: This will take forever. (pointing at the ground) This is a rock.
Christian: Well then, God created that object and He can carry it.
Agnostic: OK, but can God create a similar rock but one which He could not carry?
Christian: Please be more specific. What do you mean by "similar"?
The person asking this question has to realize that the word "rock" has to be defined before his query can be answered. The only definition that can be offered is an object composed of finite materials. Thus, the any definition of a rock must include that its mass is finite. With this definition, God can carry any rock.
This age-old question has no real answer because it has no real meaning. It has contained within in a contradictory definition of a rock. If it were to simply be replaced with another object, the same problems remain. The question does leave us with a contradiction not one that threatens the omnipotence or existence of God but one that damages the validity of the question itself.
This discussion highlights a more pertinent issue. Unbelief is not simply an intellectual barrier. Christianity asserts that all people believe that God exists, whether they admit it or not, but we suppress the truth because we love to sin. The existence of God would severely constrain the nature of our lifestyles so we live as if God doesnt exist. Sometimes people even attempt to develop arguments that would make it difficult to believe in the living God of the Bible. This sometimes manifests itself in the atheists or agnostics request for a miraculous sign. God does provide a sign, but not in a way that we expect. Here is an example:
An evil and adulterous generation seeks after a sign; and a sign will not be given it, except the sign of Jonah." And He left them, and went away. Matthew 16:4
The sign of Jonah refers to the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ.
