Saturday, June 14, 2025

Can God Create A Rock So Heavy He Cannot Lift It? (PhD Edit): Satire Und Theology Version

Can God Create A Rock So Heavy He Cannot Lift It?

Preface

Originally published on Blogger, 202130520, this is the main article sourced for an entry on academia.edu, 20250614.

I have never viewed this question as a serious intellectual threat to theism or Christianity…

From my PhD


Humanist Simon Blackburn, from a non-theistic critical perspective, reasons there are difficulties with the concept of an omnipotent God not being able to make a stone so heavy he could not lift it, as this would make God possibly contradictory[1] but does explain that the classic explanation is that God cannot commit the logically impossible.[2]
            
Baptist and Reformed theologian Millard Erickson writes that God cannot do any arbitrary thing he desires,[3] as he can only accomplish what is logical and not illogical and contradictory.[4]  Erickson also reasons, interestingly, that God cannot undo the past,[5] although he may take away the effects and memory of it.[6] God cannot logically violate his own nature[7] or fail to live up to a promise.[8]  Otto Weber suggests God has unlimited capacity[9] and unrestricted will.[10]  God is unrestricted in what he determines within self and outside of self.[11] Presbyterian theologian John M. Frame admits the term omnipotence is not in Scripture,[12] but reasons the concept is Biblical.[13]  He deduces that based on the Bible, it is impossible for anything to occur outside of what God has willed to happen.[14] 

John Frame and D.Z. Phillips
           
The ‘all things’[15] God can accomplish does come with some need to interpret.[16]  Frame explains that God cannot perform logically contradictory actions,[17] as in making a square circle,[18] committing that which is immoral and sinful,[19] and interestingly, God cannot commit actions ‘appropriate only to finite creatures.’[20]  This would include ‘buying shoes’ and ‘taking medicine for a cough.’[21]  Philosopher, D.Z. Phillips within The Problem of Evil and The Problem of God, disagrees with this basic notion and writes that since God cannot commit the actions of finite creatures such as ‘riding a bicycle’[22] he is not omnipotent.[23]  Phillips reasons it is not logically contradictory for one to ride a bicycle and therefore God should be able to do it and yet he cannot.[24]  Therefore, God is not omnipotent.[25]
            
One approach to Phillip’s argument[26] is to admit that God, as non-finite, cannot commit finite actions[27] and is therefore not omnipotent[28] as classically reasoned by many within traditional thought.[29]  A second approach is in agreement with Frame’s point that even though God cannot by nature commit the actions of finite creatures,[30] this does not disqualify God as being omnipotent within his infinite nature.[31] God’s lack of finiteness is actually a strength.[32] Frame states God could commit the type of finite actions discussed if he so desired by taking human form.[33]  I reason God could take human form to accomplish the task of riding a bicycle, as for example, God is stated in Genesis[34] to have walked and spoken[35] in the Garden of Eden.[36] Although I do not reason this is a ridiculous suggestion to deduce God could take bodily form[37] to walk or ride a bicycle,[38] it certainly would not be within God’s nature to typically ride a bicycle.[39]
            
Philips summarizes his view on God’s omnipotence in three points.[40]  One, God would only be omnipotent if he could do anything that can be explained that is done without contradiction.[41]  Two, he then reasons there are many countless activities that God without contradiction cannot do.[42]  Three, his conclusion is that God is not omnipotent.[43]  Philips’ view can be accepted as reasonable and for some God’s omnipotence would need to be redefined.[44]  However, I reason Frame’s explanation adequately offers the points that God can only do what is logically possible[45] and as well what is not contrary to his infinite and spiritual nature.[46]

BLACKBURN, SIMON (1996)  Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy,  Oxford, Oxford University Press.

CAUTHEN, KENNETH (1997) ‘Theodicy’, in Frontier.net, Rochester, New York, Kenneth Cauthen, Professor of Theology, Emeritus, Colgate Rochester Crozer Divinity School.

GRENZ, STANLEY J., DAVID GURETZKI AND CHERITH FEE NORDLING  (1999) Pocket Dictionary of Theological Terms, Downers Grove, Ill., InterVarsity Press.

ERICKSON, MILLARD (1994) Christian Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House.

ERICKSON, MILLARD (2003) What Does God Know and When Does He Know It?,  Grand Rapids, Zondervan. 

FRAME, JOHN M. (1999) ‘The Bible on the Problem of Evil: Insights from Romans 3:1-8,21-26; 5:1-5; 8:28-39’, IIIM Magazine Online, Volume 1, Number 33, October 11 to October 17, Fern Park, Florida, Third Millennium.

FRAME, JOHN M. (2002) The Doctrine of God, P and R Publishing, Phillipsburg, New Jersey.

PHILLIPS, D.Z. (1981) Encountering Evil, Stephen T. Davis (ed.),  Atlanta, John Knox Press.

PHILLIPS, D.Z. (2005)  The Problem of Evil and the Problem of God, Fortress Press, Minneapolis.

HAMILTON, VICTOR P. (1988) Handbook on the Pentateuch, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House.

HUME, DAVID (1739-1740)(1973) ‘A Treatise of Human Nature’, in Paul Edwards and Arthur Pap (eds.), A Modern Introduction To Philosophy, New York, The Free Press.

HUME, DAVID (1779)(2004)  Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, Digireads.com/Neeland Media LLC, Lawrence, Kansas. 

LA SOR, WILLIAM SANFORD, DAVID ALLAN HUBBARD, AND FREDERIC WILLIAM BUSH. (1987) Old Testament Survey, Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

SHEDD, WILLIAM G.T. (1874-1890)(1980) Dogmatic Theology,  Volume 1, Nashville, Thomas Nelson Publishers. 

SHEDD, WILLIAM G.T. (1874-1890)(1980) Dogmatic Theology,  Volume 2, Nashville, Thomas Nelson Publishers. 

THIESSEN, HENRY C. (1956) Introductory Lectures in Systematic Theology, Grand Rapids, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

WEBER, OTTO (1955)(1981) Foundations of Dogmatics, Volumes 1 and 2, Translated and annotated by Darrell L. Guder, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

WRIGHT, R.K.McGREGOR (1996) No Place for Sovereignty,  Downers Grove, Illinois, InterVarsity Press.



[1] Blackburn (1996: 268).
[2] Blackburn (1996: 268).  William T. Shedd explains that God cannot do what is ‘absurd and self-contradictory’.  Shedd (1874-1890)(1980: 359 Volume 1).
[3] Erickson (1994: 277).
[4] Erickson (1994: 277). For Shedd a logical impossibility is a nonentity and God could not create a nonentity.  Shedd (1874-1890)(1980: 359-360 Volume 1).
[5] Erickson (1994: 277).
[6] Erickson (1994: 277).  The implication being that God could hypothetically change all the results of a past occurrence, but could not logically make the past occurrence to have not occurred, even if only he had any ultimate knowledge of it.
[7] Erickson (1994: 277).  Thiessen (1956: 126).  Weber (1955)(1981: 440).
[8] Erickson (1994: 277).
[9] Weber (1955)(1981: 440).
[10] Weber (1955)(1981: 440).
[11] Weber (1955)(1981: 440).
[12] Frame (2002: 515).
[13] Frame (2002: 515).
[14] Frame (2002: 518). Weber (1955)(1981: 440).
[15] Frame (2002: 518).
[16] Frame (2002: 518).
[17] Frame (2002: 518).  Erickson (1994: 277). Shedd (1874-1890)(1980: 359-360 Volume 1).
[18] Frame (2002: 518).  Thiessen (1956: 126).
[19] Frame (2002: 518).  Thiessen (1956: 126). Weber (1955)(1981: 440).
[20] Frame (2002: 520).
[21] Frame (2002: 520).
[22] Phillips (2005: 113).
[23] Phillips (2005: 113).
[24] Phillips (2005: 113).
[25] Phillips (2005: 113). For Philips, God’s inability to do finite things is a weakness making God less than all-powerful.  For Frame it is a strength which maintains God as omnipotent.  Frame (2002: 520). 
[26] Phillips (2005: 113).
[27] Frame (2002: 520).  Phillips (2005: 113).
[28] Phillips (2005: 113).
[29] Cauthen (1997: 1).  Grenz, Guretzki, and Nordling (1999: 85-86).  Wright (1996: 278).
[30] Frame (2002: 520).  Phillips (2005: 113).
[31] Frame (2002: 520).  A traditional perspective would not view the lack of finite nature of God as a negation, but God would be understood in the positive sense as not lacking power by being infinite.
[32] Frame (2002: 520).  With Phillips’ view, God could be considered less than omnipotent with my own example I provide here, because it is not illogical for a being to sleep, and God cannot sleep.  However, it could be stated that it is a strength for God to not need to sleep or be able to sleep.
[33] Frame (2002: 520).  Phillips would more than likely view this as an ‘absurd suggestion’ with no contextual warrant, as he describes similar attempts to counter his argument.  Phillips (2005: 113).
[34] Genesis 3: 8 in The New American Standard Version Bible Version (1984: 4). 
[35] Old Testament scholar Victor P. Hamilton reasons this could be taken from a literal (to some degree) reading. Hamilton (1982: 48).
[36] I realize there is debate on the creation story in Genesis concerning whether it is to be taken as plain literal, figurative literal, myth or a combination of approaches.  La Sor, Hubbard, and Bush reason there is definitely metaphorical language in Genesis. La Sor, Hubbard, and Bush (1987: 72).  My example does serve well as agreement with Frame’s point, however.  Aspects of Genesis will be further discussed within this thesis.
[37] Hamilton (1982: 48).
[38] Phillips (2005: 113).
[39] Phillips (2005: 113).
[40] Philips (2005: 11).
[41] Philips (2005: 11).
[42] Philips (2005: 11).  Frame (2002: 518-520).   I of course offered Frame’s response to this view, and my own. 
[43] Philips (2005: 11). 
[44] Traditional perspectives would still reason that God’s omnipotence need not be redefined as a lack of finiteness would demonstrate God’s lack of impotency.
[45] Frame (2002: 518).  Erickson (1994: 277). Shedd (1874-1890)(1980: 359-360 Volume 1).  Blackburn (1996: 268). 
[46] Frame (2002: 520).   Erickson (1994: 277).  Thiessen (1956: 126).  Weber (1955)(1981: 440).  David Hume within Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion questions this traditional understanding of an omnipotent supreme being as human limitations make God’s attributes ‘totally incomprehensible.’  Hume (1779)(2004: 21).


Saturday, June 07, 2025

Epicurus (341-271-270 B.C.): Satire Und Theology Version

Helix Bridge, Singapore-Socialphy.com
Epicurus (341-271-270 B.C.) 

Preface

Blogger article published 20130715, revised on Blogger for an entry on academia.edu 20250607. My work on Epicurus within my PhD and on my website is short and non-exhaustive. I am, for the most part, relating Epicurus and Epicureanism to my work on problems of evil and theodicy. This is not a thorough review of the writings of Epicurus.

PhD Edit

Saturday, September 19, 2020 PhD Full Version PDF: Theodicy and Practical Theology 2010, Wales TSD

William Ferraiolo (2005) notes many anti-theists deduce that the all-powerful God would not allow his children[1] to suffer, and therefore the God of theism is an irrational concept.[2] Philosopher Theodore P. Rebard (1996) states that the logical problem of evil exists since God is omnibenevolent[3] and omnipotent,[4] and writes critics can view the logical problem as meaning that if God cannot end evil, he is not omnipotent, and if he can prevent evil and does not, he is not omnibenevolent or all loving.[5]  Rebard concludes that God either does not exist or is misunderstood.[6] Greek philosopher Epicurus was known to have made a similar statement. Epicurus (341-270 B.C.)(1949: 80).
---

Website work

In my MPhil and PhD theses work continually I would see in written form the logical problem of evil within philosophy of religion/philosophy traced back to Epicurus. Blackburn explains Epicurus was born on the island of Samos but moved to Athens 307-306 BC where he established a secluded community known as the ‘Garden’ Blackburn (1996: 122). His work was written up in ‘Diogenes Laertius’ and via Lucretius' poem ‘De Rerun Natura'  his view was shown, 'atomistic metaphysics' which allowed for empty space and an infinite number of atoms and infinite number of worlds. Blackburn (1996: 122). Blackburn reasons that Epicurus had a doctrine of the survival of the fittest in order to account for the evolution of species with an appeal to the causes of Aristotle. Blackburn (1996: 122). 

(This is by no means to be confused with any doctrine of the survival of the fattest)

Gods were philosophically allowed but played no part in the cosmos or in first causes or maintaining existence. Blackburn (1996: 122). Epicurus allowed for free will as atoms can swerve in their course. Blackburn (1996: 122). David N. Sedley states that the Epicurean atomistic system was developed from a fifth century BC system of Democritus where space includes absolute void without which motion would be impossible and with which body is constituted out of indivisible particles known as atoms. Sedley (1996: 230). The gods are not the divine minds behind the evolution of life and society, but rather are viewed as ideal beings and models of an ideal life and detached from humanity. Sedley (1996: 230). The aim of this philosophy would be to practically live well, with cultivated friendships, and the ending of unneeded negative desires and wishes. Blackburn (1996: 122). Epicurean philosophy is hedonistic seeking pleasure and pain is viewed as an evil, pleasure is even valued over virtue. Sedley (1996: 231). Sedley lists Epicurus' years as (341-271 B.C.). Sedley (1996: 230).

In my mind Epicurus is obviously a key historical philosopher. In a sense because of his impact he is a great philosopher. However, although I am not a scientist and I can reason that he made some reasonable and intelligent deductions to even arrive with the term ‘atoms’, obviously his science would now largely be outdated by twenty-first century standards.

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: Epicurus

David Konstan 2022

Cited 

'First published Mon Jan 10, 2005; substantive revision Fri Jul 8, 2022' 

'The philosophy of Epicurus (341–270 B.C.E.) was a complete and interdependent system, involving a view of the goal of human life (happiness, resulting from absence of physical pain and mental disturbance), an empiricist theory of knowledge (sensations, together with the perception of pleasure and pain, are infallible criteria), a description of nature based on atomistic materialism, and a naturalistic account of evolution, from the formation of the world to the emergence of human societies.'

Sources from Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Bibliography

Editions, translations, commentaries

  • Annas, Julia (ed.), and Raphael Woolf (trans.), 2001. Cicero: On Moral Ends, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Arrighetti, Graziano, 1973. Epicuro Opere, 2nd edition, Turin: Einaudi. (Best edition available, with Italian translation.)
  • Arrighetti, Graziano and Marcello Gigante, 1977. “Frammenti del libro undidesimo ‘Della natura’ di Epicuro (PHerc. 1042),” Cronache Ercolenesi, 7: 5–8.
  • Bailey, Cyril B., 1926. Epicurus: The Extant Remains, Oxford: Clarendon Press. (Best edition in English.)
  • Bollack, Jean (ed.), 1985. Il pensiero del piacere: Epicuro, testi morali, commentari, Genoa: La Quercia.
  • De Lacy, Phillip Howard and Estelle Allen De Lacy, 1978. Philodemus On Methods of Inference, 2nd edition, Naples: Bibliopolis.
  • Delattre, Daniel and Jackie Pigeaud (eds.), 2010. Les epicuriens, Paris: Gallimard. (Very rich collection of texts in translation.)
  • Dorandi, Tiziano (ed.), 2013. Diogenes Laertius, Lives of Eminent Philosophers, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Hammerstaedt, Jürgen, Pierre-Marie Morel, Refik Güremen (eds.), 2017. Diogenes of Oinoanda: Epicureanism and Philosophical Debates / Diogène d’Œnoanda: Épicurisme et Controverses, Leuven: Leuven University Press.
  • Hessler, Jan Erik, 2014. Epikur: Brief an Menoikeus, Basil. (Best commentary on this epistle.)
  • Indelli, Giovanni and Voula Tsouna-McKirahan (eds.), 1995. [Philodemus]: [On Choices and Avoidances], Naples: Bibliopolis.
  • Inwood, Brad and L.P. Gerson, 1997. Hellenistic Philosophy: Introductory Readings, 2nd edition, Indianapolis: Hackett. (Translation of principal sources. The Epicurean part is also published separately.)
  • Konstan, David (trans.), 1989. Simplicius on Aristotle’s Physics 6, Ithaca, NY and London: Cornell University Press and Duckworth.
  • Konstan, David, Diskin Clay, Clarence Glad, Johan Thom, and James Ware, 1998. Philodemus On Frank Criticism: Introduction, Translation and Notes, Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature Texts and Translations (Greco-Roman Religion).
  • Laursen, Simon, 1995. “The Early Parts of Epicurus, On Nature, 25th Book,” Cronache Ercolanesi, 25: 5–109.
  • –––, 1997. “The Later Parts of Epicurus, On Nature, 25th Book,” Cronache Ercolanesi, 27: 5–83.
  • Leone, Giuliana, 1984. “Epicuro, ‘Della natura,’ libro XIV,” Cronache Ercolanesi, 14: 17–107.
  • –––, 2012. Epicuro Sulla natura libro II, Naples: Bibliopolis. (Splendid edition with major introduction on simulacra and related questions.)
  • Long, A.A. and David Sedley, 1987. The Hellenistic Philosophers, 2 volumes, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (Excellent collection of sources, with Greek text in volume 2, arranged by topic.)
  • Mensch, Pamela (trans.), 2018. Diogenes Laertius: Lives of the Eminent Philosophers. Oxford: Oxford University Press. (Best and most accessible English version, based on Dorandi’s text.)
  • Millot, C., 1977. “Epicure ‘De la nature’ livre XV,” Cronache Ercolanesi, 7: 9–39.
  • Obbink, Dirk, 1996. Philodemus De pietate, Oxford: Clarendon Press.
  • Sedley, David, 1973. “Epicurus, ‘On Nature’ Book XXVIII,” Cronache Ercolanesi, 3: 5–83.
  • Smith, Martin Ferguson (ed.), 1993. Diogenes of Oenoanda: The Epicurean Inscription, Naples: Bibliopolis.
  • Stern, Jacob (trans.), 1996. Palaephatus: On Unbelievable Tales, Wauconda, IL : Bolchazy-Carducci Publishers.
  • Taylor, C.C.W. (ed.), 1999. The Atomists: Leucippus and Democritus: A Text and Translation with a Commentary (The Phoenix Presocratics 5 = Phoenix Supplementary Volume 36), Toronto: The University of Toronto Press.
  • Usener, Hermann, 1887. Epicurea. Leipzig: Teubner. Italian translation by Ilaria Ramelli, Epicurea: Testi di Epicuro e testimonianze epicuree nell’edizione di Hermann Usener, Milan: Bompiani, 2002. (Most complete collection of fragments.)
  • Verde, Francesco, 2010. Epicuro Epistola a Erodoto. Rome: Carocci. (The best edition of this fundamental work.)
  • Verde, Francesco (ed.), 2022. Epicuro, Epistola a Pitocle, in collaboration with M. Tulli, D. De Sanctis, F. G. Masi, Academia Verlag, Baden-Baden.
---

Hedonism was discussed with my MPhil


Hedonism was also discussed by Woods. James A. Montmarquet defined Hedonism in the following way: "the view that pleasure (including the absence of pain) is the sole intrinsic good in life." Montmarquet (1996: 311). Woods provided a similar definition: "Hedonism is a broad term used to encompass all theories that see pleasure as the ultimate goal of life and criterion for conduct. Anything that is fun is good. Anything that is not fun is bad and should be avoided." Woods (1974)(1982: 18). Basically, Hedonism sees pleasure as the most important thing in reality. 

Philosophically, Biblical Christianity is not in agreement with a life of hedonism at the expense of virtue, certainly. Pleasure in fine, but not at the expense of virtue. Epicurean philosophy is hedonistic seeking pleasure and pain is viewed as an evil, pleasure is even valued over virtue. Sedley (1996: 231). 

An aspect of problems of evil is that God can use pain, suffering and evil for the greater good; Christ's sacrifice on the cross, leading to the atoning and resurrection work applied to believers, a classic example.

Theological reflections

As far as the logical problem of evil statement attributed to him, I of course dealt with that and the gratuitous problem of evil with a Reformed based Sovereignty defence/theodicy in my British academic work and with my website work. It could be seen philosophically how one that holds to Epicureanism would not accept an infinite, omnipotent God, that willingly has a problem of evil in existence. 

I therefore am not in general agreement with Epicurus or Epicureanism in regards to problems of evil, theodicy and perhaps, hedonism, at least to some degree, in connection to my own academic work. I will grant that hedonism is multifaceted and is documented as a broad term, rather than a specific philosophical movement. This in no way precludes or excludes other possible areas of philosophical agreement with Epicurus or Epicureanism.

Saturday, September 19, 2020 PhD Full Version PDF: Theodicy and Practical Theology 2010, Wales TSD

BLACKBURN, SIMON (1996) Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Oxford, Oxford University Press.  

CAUTHEN, KENNETH (1997) ‘Theodicy’, in Frontier.net, Rochester, New York, Kenneth Cauthen, Professor of Theology, Emeritus, Colgate Rochester Crozer Divinity School.

ENROTH, R.M. (1996) ‘Reincarnation’, in Walter A. Elwell (ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books.

EPICURUS (341-270 B.C.)(1949) in Overcoming Evil from the German translation, Von der Ueberwindung der Furcht, Zurich, Von der Ueberwindung der Furcht.

FERRAIOLO, WILLIAM (2005) ‘Eternal Selves and The Problem of Evil’, in Quodlibet Journal, Volume 7, Number 2, April-June, Evanston, Illinois, Quodlibet Journal.

MONTMARQUET, J.A. (1996) ‘Hedonism’, in Robert Audi, (ed.), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

SEDLEY DAVID N. (1996) ‘Epicureanism’, in Robert Audi (ed.), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

REBARD, THEODORE P. (1996) ‘The Problem of Evil Revisited’, in Catholic.net, North Haven, Connecticut, Christian Philosophy, Catholic. net. 

THIESSEN, HENRY C. (1956) Introductory Lectures in Systematic Theology, Grand Rapids, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. 

WOODS, B.W. (1974) Christians in Pain, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House.



[1] In context Farraiolo is describing human beings.
[2] Ferraiolo (2005: 1).
[3] Cauthen describes this as perfect goodness and love. Cauthen (1997: 1). Henry Thiessen in Introductory Lectures in Systematic Theology states that the goodness of God includes his benevolence and love. Thiessen (1956: 130).
[4] Rebard (1996: 1).
[5] Rebard (1996: 1). Greek philosopher Epicurus was known to have made a similar statement. Epicurus (341-270 B.C.)(1949: 80).
[6] Rebard (1996: 1).

2010 Theodicy and Practical Theology: PhD thesis, the University of Wales, Trinity Saint David, Lampeter 

2003 The Problem of Evil: Anglican and Baptist Perspectives: MPhil thesis, Bangor University