The problem of God and His big rock is a problem known to man for an indeterminate amount of time. It is a logic puzzle that has been employed for every circumstance and by almost every kind of person. Some use it to "prove" that God is not omnipotent, while others use it merely as a semantically silly game. Perhaps worst of all, it has been used to suggest that the Christian faith is not to be examined rationally, or that some matters of the nature and essence of God are best left to faith and shouldn't be tampered with through the use of logic. What is the God-rock problem? Quite simply it is just this:
Can God make a rock so big He can't lift it?
The question has appeared in numerous forms, but is essentially the same. My father used to ask my brother this question in the form of, "Can God make a basketball hoop so high He couldn't dunk on it?" Beyond the speculative question of whether or not God even likes basketball, the basic question asks whether God can so do something as to not be able to do something else to it or with it. On the surface the question seems to set a trap. If we say yes, then He isn't omnipotent because He can't lift the rock. If we say no, God isn't so powerful after all because He couldn't make that rock. But is there a third answer?
After hearing this and pondering it for all of a few seconds, most people just stop here, enjoying the whimsical wonders of the English language when put against a theological backdrop. However, this is not a question to be left unanswered. The answer is quite simple, and neither compromises the truth of God's omnipotence nor leaves it in some suspended state of paradox. To make the question really simple, let's break it down into its simplest form. The question could then read:
What happens when an irresistible force meets and immovable object?
This should clarify the issue a bit. The best answer, however wrong, I've thus far gotten to this question was the somewhat humorous reply that the universe would simply implode. Back on track, however, we can see that the irresistible force represents God, and the immovable object, the rock. Thus the question is illogical. While a somewhat anti-climatic answer, it's true nonetheless. By the very definition of "irresistible" the force wouldn't be able to be resisted, no matter how big or great the object it meets. Likewise, an "immovable" object can never be moved, not even by an "irresistible" thing - and yet we just stated that nothing could resist the irresistible force. The contradiction should not be readily apparent, but may be aided by two other examples.
Can God red? Like our rock problem, this question is also illogical because "red" is a color, not an action. It does not limit God, nor does it reduce His power or otherwise take away from the glory of God. What's the difference between orange? Same thing as in the other two puzzles. This time, "difference" necessitates two things to be compared and contrasted, in this case "orange" and - ? The question is never answered, creating a sound sentence with unsound logic.
Thus, the tough problem of God and His rock isn't quite so hard after all. Pending the universe imploding, we can safely assume that we need not worry about irresistibles and immovables because the question itself is irrational and illogical.
