Part 1: Introduction to CHIPS (second half)

This is the second part of the introduction to the CHIPS model of Christian case-making. Read the first part here.

All aspects of apologetics - every positive case and every objection -  essentially asks one or more of the following five questions: Is the Bible sufficiently…

1)      Comprehendible?  

“Is it something I can comprehend?”

2)      Historical?             

“Is it an accurate reflection of historical events?”

3)      Interpreted?           

“Is it a proper interpretation of what the author meant to say?”

4)      Preserved?             

“Is it an adequate preservation of the original composition?”

5)      Significant?            

“Is it significant for my own life?”

SO WHY FIVE?

How can we be so sure every case made in favor of Christianity and all challenges fall into these five categories? Could there be more? The way we can be confident in this is by familiarizing ourselves with the adventures of Christianity over the last 2,000 years. We know these five categories are sufficient because those are the only ones that have been raised. It’s certainly possible for a new critic to come up with a challenge never thought of before, but it’s not likely. As much as the “new atheists” trend gives it a fresh face, critics of Christianity are nothing new and neither are their arguments.

Atheism: No God is Real, No God Actually Exists

In his book A World of Difference: Putting Christian Truth-Claims to the Worldview Test, Ken Samples recalls a conversation he had with an atheist who claimed that God did not exist.(1) The conversation went something like this:

Ken: "Is it correct to define atheism as the claim that 'no god or gods are real' or that 'no god or gods actually exist'?"

The atheist eventually agreed.

Ken: "If atheism asserts that 'no god is real' or that 'no god actually exists,' then isn't it making a universal claim about 'all reality' and 'all existence'?"

Logical Fallacy: Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc

Say what? Post hoc ergo propter hoc is Latin for "after this, therefore because of this." It is frequently abbreviated "post hoc" and may also be called the fallacy of false cause or questionable cause.

Please note: you always get bonus points for saying it in Latin and it makes you sound smarter.

The post hoc fallacy occurs when a person concludes that a particular event caused another event simply because the first preceded the second in time. In other words, A caused B because A occurred before B. The danger in this line of reasoning is that nothing definitive regarding causation can be drawn from temporal sequence. Simply because one thing precedes another it does not necessarily follow that the first caused the second. We need sufficient reason or evidence to determine a causal relationship between two events, not merely temporal sequence.

For example, suppose I were to say, "Whenever we take Jake to the park it rains. We better not take Jake to the park anymore." The fact that it has rained when Jake has gone to the park does not mean his going caused the rain. In fact, I think it is pretty safe to assume that Jake going to the park has no causal relationship to the rain. To reason this way commits the post hoc fallacy.

Even when there is consistent correlation between two events it does not necessarily equal causation. For example, though a rooster may crow every day before the sun rises it does not follow from this that the rooster crow causes the sun to rise. In a similar fashion, a man may consistently brush his teeth before bed every night but it does not follow that brushing his teeth causes him to fall asleep. Correlation does not equal causation.

Logical Fallacy: "Begging the Question" a.k.a. "Circular Reasoning"

Probably one of the most frequent logical fallacies you'll come across in debates or dialogue is referred to as "circular reasoning" or "begging the question." In Latin it is called petitio principii which means "request for the source." This fallacy may take several forms but one of the most common occurs when the arguer assumes the truth of the conclusion he is trying to prove.

For example, some Christians have wrongly argued this way:

Skeptic: How do you know God exists?
Christian: Because the Bible says He does.
Skeptic: How do you know the Bible is true?
Christian: Duh! It's the Word of God!

Notice in this dialogue the Christian is assuming that God exists and wrote the Bible in order to prove that God exists. This commits the logical fallacy known as "begging the question." The arguer cannot assume the truthfulness of the conclusion he is attempting to prove.

However, non-Christians are just as prone to logical fallacies and the following are some common examples.

"Miracles Can't Happen."

Well known Scottish skeptic David Hume stated in On Miracles, "A miracle is a violation of the laws of nature; and as a firm and unalterable experience has established these laws, the proof against a miracle, from the very nature of the fact, is as entire as any argument from experience can possibly be imagined" (My emphasis).

Unfortunately Hume is begging the question. Notice he makes the claim that a firm and unalterable experience counts against the belief in miracles. In other words, testimony and experience count 100 percent against miracles! But how would Hume know this? C.S. Lewis addresses this nicely in his book Miracles:

Now of course we must agree with Hume that if there is absolutely "uniform experience" against miracles, if in other words, they have never happened, why then they never have. Unfortunately, we know the experience against them to be uniform only if we know that all the reports of them are false. And we can know all the reports of them to be false only if we know already that miracles have never occurred. In fact, we are arguing in a circle.

"Jesus Never Existed."

Another example of circular reasoning can be seen in the claim made by some skeptics that "Jesus never existed." Given the ample amount of historical evidence for the life of Christ, how could anyone ever support the claim that Jesus never existed? The only way you could show that Jesus never existed is to prove that every account of Jesus that exists is false. Of course the only way you could prove that every existing account of Jesus is false is if you knew He never existed in the first place! This begs the question.

Abortion

The entire abortion debate centers around one question: What is the unborn? Many arguments in favor of the pro-abortion choice position beg the question by assuming the unborn is not a human being.

For example, some pro-abortion choice advocates argue that "A woman has the right to do what she wants with her own body." This begs the question by assuming the woman's body is the only one involved. If the unborn is a human being there are two human beings and two human bodies involved. Furthermore, it is never the woman's body that gets aborted. The woman survives the abortion, the unborn doesn't.

Conclusion: If all else fails, remember this: circular reasoning works because circular reasoning works because circular reasoning works because circular reasoning works...

"The Bible Was Only Written by Men...and Men Make Mistakes."

(Stand to Reason) by Greg Koukl

Greg Koukl offers a very helpful response to this common objection to biblical accuracy, authority and authenticity:

First, it doesn’t follow that because the Bible’s written by men, that it therefore must be in error. Human error is possible, not necessary. If human error were always necessary in anything man said, this challenge would be self-refuting (“suicide tactic”). If all human claims were necessarily in error, then the claim that the Bible was written by men and men make mistakes would also be in error because it’s a claim made by men who err, defeating itself. It is possible for human beings to produce something without errors. It’s done all the time. What is 2+2? What is the formula for nuclear fission?

Second, this is circular reasoning. If there’s good evidence the Bible can be trusted, then the issue of man’s involvement is moot. A simple question illustrates this: “Are you suggesting with this objection that if God does exist, He’s not capable of writing what He wants through imperfect men?” This is hard to affirm. If the answer is “No,” then the objection vanishes. If the answer is yes, then ask, “Did you ever own a dog? Could you get your dog to sit? If you can get a dumb dog to sit, what makes you think an all-powerful God can’t get a man to write just what He wants him to?” If you first establish that the Biblical record can be trusted, then the second problem—human involvement is irrelevant. If God inspires it then it doesn’t matter if men or monkeys did the writing; they’ll still write exactly what God intends.

Another way of stating it: God can’t err; the Bible is God’s Word; therefore, the Bible can’t err, even if men are involved.

Check out Greg's book Tactics for more great apologetic material.

Who Has the Burden of Proof?

Probably one of the most important ideas to grasp concerning argumentation and debate is the issue of burden of proof. In his book Tactics, Greg Koukl dedicates an entire chapter to this topic (see chapter 4). What do we mean by "burden of proof"? Greg Koukl defines it this way:

The burden of proof is the responsibility someone has to defend or give evidence for his view. Generally, the rule can be summed up this way: Whoever makes the claim bears the burden. The key here is not to allow yourself to be thrust into a defensive position when the other person is making the claim. It's not your duty to prove him wrong. It's his duty to prove his view.(1)

It doesn't matter whether you are discussing theology, philosophy, politics or ethics, the burden of proof rule is a crucial one to remember. It prevents you from being unjustly placed in a defensive position and forces the individual making the claim to carry his own load.

EXAMPLE #1: THERE IS NO GOD!

Perhaps you have been in a conversation or overheard one that goes something like this:

Skeptic: There is no God.

Christian: Really? How do you know that?

Skeptic: Well, how do you know there is a God?

Notice what has happened here. The skeptic started out the conversation by making a truth claim. In this case, he is making the claim "there is no God." The Christian rightly asks the question "How do you know that?" in order for the skeptic to provide justification for his position, as he should. After all, the skeptic is the one making the claim. Therefore, the skeptic bears the burden of proof in this case. But the skeptic doesn't accept it! Instead, he tactfully (and wrongly) attempts to shift the burden of proof to the Christian!

So how should the Christian respond? Should he answer the question? Should he accept the burden of proof? Should he give a three hour lecture on the kalam cosmological argument? No! Why not? Because he is not the one who made the claim. Instead, the Christian should point out to the skeptic that since it is the skeptic who made the claim it is his job to support it. The conversation might continue like this:

Skeptic: Well, how do you know there is a God?

Christian: Wait, hold on a minute. You started out this conversation by making the claim that there is no God. Since you made the original claim, the burden of proof is on you to provide some reasons or evidences as to why you think you are right. I am not going to accept any burden of proof at this point because I have not made any claims. So again, how do you know there is no God?

EXAMPLE #2: THE BURNING BUSH

Here is another scenario. Recently I was speaking with a friend of mine who is Roman Catholic. We began discussing the Roman Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation (a five dollar word for sure, this is the idea that the bread and wine during communion actually become the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Christ when the priest consecrates it.) As a Protestant, I disagree with the doctrine of transubstantiation and do not believe this is what the Bible teaches regarding the nature of communion. On the other hand, my Roman Catholic friend beliefs it wholeheartedly.

During our conversation, my friend attempted to defend the idea that God could take on the form of material objects by pointing to Exodus 3 where he claimed that God actually took on the form of the burning bush when He spoke with Moses. If God can become a bush, why can't he become the bread and wine in communion? That was his line of reasoning. Our conversation went something like this:

Roman Catholic: In Exodus it says that God took on the form of a burning bush and spoke to Moses. If he could do that, why couldn't he become the bread and wine?

Me: Actually, Exodus 3 does not say that God literally became the burning bush. Verse 2 says, "The angel of the LORD appeared to him in a blazing fire from the midst of the bush." There is nothing in the text that says God became the bush. It wasn't necessary for God to do so in order to make His presence known "from the midst of the bush" and speak to Moses.

Roman Catholic: Well it doesn't say He didn't become the burning bush either! Where does it say that He didn't become the bush?

***Notice he has shifted the burden of proof.

Me: Wait a second. You are the one who brought this text up in support of your position. You are the one who made the original claim. Therefore, the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that this text is saying what you are claiming it says.

Roman Catholic: But you are making a claim too! You are claiming God didn't become the bush! Show me where it says that!

***This conversation (can I call it ridiculous?) carried on for about half an hour.

Me: But as I mentioned, the burden of proof is on you since you made the claim. Whoever makes the claim bears the burden of proof. My only claim is that you have not made your case. You can't base your argument or evidence on what the text doesn't say. That is an argument from silence. Besides this, even if I grant that you are right on this point, it doesn't follow from this that transubstantiation is true.

Again, notice what happened here. First, my friend started out by making a truth claim, i.e. that God actually became the burning bush. I pointed out to him that there is no evidence or reason from the text to believe this.

Second, my friend attempted to shift the burden of proof to me by implying that it was not his duty to prove himself right but rather my job to prove him wrong!

In response to all of this, I pointed out three problems with his reasoning:

First, I rightly pointed out that, despite what he may think, the burden of proof rests with him. I tried to explain this to him as clearly as I could but in the end I don't think the information stuck.

Second, I pointed out that he was committing a logical fallacy: an argument from silence. Notice his statement above. During our conversation he implied that because the text does not say God didn't become the bush that this is somehow evidence that God did become the bush! The obvious problem with this fallacious reasoning is that you cannot base your argument or evidence on what the text doesn't say! That commits a logical fallacy, an argument from silence.

Third, I pointed out that even if he was correct in assuming God actually became the burning bush, it wouldn't follow from this that transubstantiation is true! Why not focus on more important passages in the New Testament that Roman Catholic apologists use to defend their views? Ultimately this was a silly conversation that got us nowhere.

CONVERSATIONAL TIPS:

First, never accept the burden of proof if it isn't yours to bear. Explain the rule "whoever makes the claim bears the burden." Of course, if you do make claims, be prepared to give reasons or arguments as to why you think you're right.

Second, don't get frustrated (as I did after a half hour of meaningless debate) when speaking with someone who seemingly is not willing to follow the basic rules of argumentation and logic. In cases such as this it is unlikely the conversation will ever be productive, or even get off the ground.

Third, explain yourself as best as possible. Stop, think for a moment, and pick your words carefully so you are able to speak as clearly and persuasively as possible.

Fourth, don't waste your time discussing issues that are distracting from the main topic. These are red herrings. Instead, focus in on the question under discussion and try to redirect the conversation toward more foundational and relevant matters.

Fifth, in the end, you may just have to "agree to disagree." If your interlocutor is refusing to be reasonable or abide by certain conversational rules it may be best to simply end the discussion on a friendly note and try again next time (if you dare).
______________________________________________

(1) Greg Koukl, Tactics: A Game Plan for Discussing Your Christian Convictions, 59.

Self-Defeating Statements

"There is no truth!"

How many times have you heard that before?

In their book I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist, authors Norman Geisler and Frank Turek provide one of the most valuable tools and tactics a clear-thinker needs to master and have in their arsenal:

If someone said to you, "I have one insight for you that absolutely will revolutionize your ability to quickly and clearly identify the false statements and false philosophies that permeate our culture," would you be interested? That's what we're about to do here. In fact, if we had to pick just one thinking ability as the most valuable we've learned in our many years of seminary and postgraduate education, it would be this: how to identify and refute self-defeating statements.(i)

What is a self-defeating statement?

A self-defeating (or self-refuting) statement is one that fails to meet its own standard. In other words, it is a statement that cannot live up to its own criteria. Imagine if I were to say,

I cannot speak a word in English.

You intuitively see a problem here. I told you in English that I cannot speak a word in English. This statement is self-refuting. It does not meet its own standard or criteria. It self-destructs.

The important thing to remember with self-defeating statements is that they are necessarily false. In other words, there is no possible way for them to be true. This is because they violate a very fundamental law of logic, the law of non-contradiction. This law states that A and non-A cannot both be true at the same time and in the same sense. For example, it is not possible for God to exist and not exist at the same time and in the same sense. This would violate the law of non-contradiction. So if I were to say, "God told me He doesn't exist" you would see intuitively the obvious self-refuting nature of this statement.


How do you expose self-defeating statements?

Simple: you apply the claim to itself. This is what Geisler and Turek call the Road Runner Tactic and what Greg Koukl refers to as The Suicide Tactic (see chapter 7 of his book Tactics).

Below is a list of self-defeating statements that are commonly repeated in our culture today. The goal should be three-fold: (1) recognize self-defeating statements, (2) expose them for what they are, and (3) avoid being caught off guard and taken in by them.

Below each self-defeating statement is an explanation of why it commits suicide along with suggestions on how you can respond. If this is your first time dealing with self-refuting statements you may need to read them a couple times. Stop and reflect on what the statement is saying and then see if you can identify its self-refuting nature.

Feel free to leave comments with your own favorite self-defeating statements and I will add them on. Enjoy!

1. There is no truth.

If there is no truth this statement itself cannot be true. Therefore, truth exists. You cannot deny truth without affirming it. You might respond, "Is that true?" or "How can it be true that there is no truth?"

2. You can't know truth.

If you can't know truth then you would never know that "you can't know truth." This person is claiming to know the truth that we can't know truth. You might respond, "Then how do you know that?"

3. No one has the truth.

This person is claiming to have the truth that no one has the truth. If no one has the truth then the statement "no one has the truth" is false! You might respond, "Then how do you know that is true?"

4. All truth is relative.

Sometimes also stated as "Everything is relative." If all truth is relative then this statement itself would be relative and not objectively true. In other words, the person is claiming that it is objectively true that all truth is relative. You might respond, "Is that a relative truth?"

5. It's true for you but not for me.

This statement is self-refuting because it claims that truth is relative to the individual and yet at the same time implies it is objectively true that something can be "true for you but not for me." This statement commits the self-excepting fallacy. You might respond, "Is that just true for you, or is it true for everybody?"

6. There are no absolutes.

This statement is an absolute statement about reality that claims there are no absolutes. You might respond, "Are you absolutely sure about that?"

7. No one can know any truth about religion.

This person is claiming to know the truth about religion and it is this: you can't know truth about religion. You might respond, "Then how did you come to know that truth about religion?"

8. You can't know anything for sure.

If you can't know anything for sure then you would never know it! This person is claiming to know with certainty that you can't know anything for sure. You might respond, "Then how do you know that for sure?"

9. You should doubt everything.

If you should doubt everything then you should doubt the truth of the statement "you should doubt everything." You might respond, "Should I doubt that?" And remember: always doubt your doubts!

10. Only science can give us truth.

If only science can give us truth we could never know that "only science can give us truth" because this is not something science can tell you! That is because this statement is philosophical in nature rather than scientific. You might respond, "What science experiment taught you that?" or "What is your scientific evidence that only science can give us truth?"

11. You can only know truth through experience.

If you can only know truth through experience you would never know the truth of the statement "you can only know truth through experience" because this is not something that can be known through experience. You might respond, "Can you know that truth through experience?" or "What experience taught you that?"

12. All truth depends on your perspective.

If all truth depends on your perspective then even the truth "all truth depends on your perspective" depends on your perspective. This is another objective statement which claims relativism is true. Again, it commits the self-excepting fallacy. You might respond, "Does that truth depend on your perspective?"

13. You shouldn't judge.

The person who says this is making a judgment, namely, that it is wrong to judge! You might respond, "If it is wrong to judge, then why are you judging?"

14. You shouldn't force your morality on people.

This person is forcing their moral point of view that it is wrong to force a moral point of view. You might respond, "Then please don't force your moral view that it is wrong to force morality."

15. You should live and let live.

The person who tells you to "live and let live" isn't allowing you to live how you want! They are prescribing behavior for you rather than taking their own advice. You might respond, "If that's your philosophy, why are you telling me how to live?"

16. God doesn't take sides.

If God doesn't take sides then He does in fact take the side that doesn't take sides. You might respond, "Does God take that side?"

17. You shouldn't try to convert people.

This person is trying to convert you to their position that it is wrong to convert people! You might respond, "If it is wrong to convert, why are you trying to convert me?"

18. That's just your view.

This statement is self-refuting if it treats an objective statement as if it were subjective. This is the subjectivist fallacy. The hidden assumption is that your view is relative and a matter of personal opinion. If that is the case, this statement can also be relativized and made into a matter of personal opinion. You might respond, "Well that's just your view that this is just my view."

19. You should be tolerant of all views.

Most statements regarding tolerance are self-refuting if by "tolerance" the person means "accepting all views as equally true and valid." If that is the case, the person who says "You should be tolerant of all views" isn't being tolerant of your view! You might respond, "Then why don't you tolerate my view?"(ii)

20. It is arrogant to claim to have the truth.

This person is claiming to have the truth that "it is arrogant to claim to have the truth." Therefore, by his own standard, he is the arrogant one! You might respond, "My that is awfully arrogant of you!"
_________________________________________________

(i) Geisler and Turek, I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist, 38.

(ii) Note: true tolerance means "putting up with error" and carries with it the idea of respect and value with regards to persons. This is in contradistinction to the postmodern definition of tolerance which means holding all truth claims as equally true and valid.

Why Atheists Need God

A précis based on the book Persuasions by Douglas Wilson

What this Book is About:

Persuasions – A Dream of Reason Meeting Unbelief, by Douglas Wilson, is a story of a man named Evangelist who is journeying on a road towards the City. In his travels Evangelist encounters various people who are walking in the opposite direction towards the Abyss. Conversations ensue and Evangelist attempts to persuade these individuals to change their direction of travel. He uses reason and a Socratic style of questioning to expose the inconsistencies in their false thinking and answer common objections. In the end this story is a picture of our journey through life and our call to be thoroughly equipped ambassadors for Jesus Christ. Like Evangelist we have a responsibility to warn those who are heading away from the City of God and we must always be ready to give an answer for the hope that is within us.


Chapter 6: Mark - Atheism:

In chapter six of Persuasions, Evangelist meets a man named Mark who identifies himself as both a scientist and an atheist. A conversation follows in which Evangelist argues that the existence of reason only makes sense within a theistic worldview.

As Mark walks down the road toward the Abyss, he is approached by Evangelist who gives him a piece of paper which speaks about God. Mark brushes aside the tract and disregards any talk of God because he says he does not believe in fairy tales. Evangelist responds "If you object to 'fairy tales,' then why do you borrow from them?" (Wilson, 43). Mark explains that as a scientist he believes in the theory of evolution and that everything we see is the result of time, chance, and matter. He is a materialist who believes nothing exists apart from this process. Evangelist then asks "Why do you believe in the validity of reason? How can time and chance, acting on matter, produce reason?" (Wilson, 44).

Evangelist continues and explains that a chemical reaction observed in a laboratory is neither true nor false. It just is. And if our beliefs are also simply a product of time, chance, and matter, then neither can they be characterized as true or false. They just are. On Mark's view, our beliefs are nothing more than chemical reactions within our head. But if this is true then it makes no sense to characterize some beliefs as true and some as false. Evangelist has exposed the inconsistency in Mark's worldview. He wishes to object to belief in the existence of God because he thinks it to be false and yet his worldview does not permit the existence of true and false beliefs.

The point Evangelist is making is that the existence of reason only makes sense within a theistic worldview. In order for atheists to argue their case that evolution is true and that God does not exist they have to believe that there are actually good reasons for believing these things. But appealing to reason implies that something exists apart from the material universe and assumes that we can get beyond our pre-determined beliefs to establish what is true, that is, what corresponds to reality. The existence of reason and the ability to discover true beliefs only makes sense if God exists. Hence, Evangelist states, "My question is why the proponents of evolution borrow reason from theism to argue their case" (Wilson, 44).

So it is not the case that the existence of God depends on reason but rather the existence of reason depends on God. Evangelist states, "Reason flows out of His nature" (Wilson, 45). Mark now finds himself in a dilemma. He used to reject the existence of God because he thought he had good reason. Now he realizes that the existence of reason actually presupposes that which he is trying to argue against. Mark can no longer give reasons for his atheism because in order to do so he must borrow from theism. His worldview prevents him from using rationale so that his "atheism must rest on an unsupported presupposition, not on any claim to reason" (Wilson, 45). Evangelist concludes that "The only thing standing between you and God is your unwillingness to have anything to do with Him" (Wilson, 45).

Before the conversation ends, Evangelist encourages Mark to ponder one last thing. If Mark cannot give any reasons for his decision to rebel against God then the source of rebellion must come from somewhere else. Evangelist encourages Mark to investigate the area of morality. Perhaps the reason Mark rejects God is because Mark does not want to live the way God has instructed him to. If this is true then it is not the case that Mark has intellectual problems with the existence of God but rather a problem of volition. Ignoring this observation, Mark continues down the road toward the Abyss despite his not having any reason to do so.

Is Dogmatic Agnosticism Logically Self-Defeating?

(Reasons.org) Kenneth Samples

The word agnosticism literally means “no-knowledge-ism”. The skeptical position held by agnostics usually comes in two distinct forms: soft and hard. Soft or flexible agnosticism simply claims to have an absence of knowledge as to whether God exists (thus reserving judgment). Hard or dogmatic agnosticism makes a stronger claim asserting that “no one” can know whether God exists.

This hard type of agnosticism appears to suffer from the same problems that atheism does in terms of verifying its bold claim. To embrace a hard form of agnosticism would mean that a person would have to either (1) know that knowledge of God is logically impossible, or (2) be an expert on all the possible ways one could come to know about God. Yet neither of these positions seems logically justifiable in nature.

Plus, the dogmatic form of agnosticism is actually self-defeating (at the same time affirming and denying the identical claim) for the position simultaneously asserts that one doesn’t know if God exists and yet knows enough about God to assert that no one can know that God exists. Hard agnostics, in effect, claim to have knowledge about a topic that they claim is not possible to know anything about. In his book No Doubt About It, Christian philosopher Winfried Corduan notes the following: “Thus agnosticism pivots on a contradiction by having to maintain that at one and the same time it is both possible and impossible to know something about God.”

Hard agnosticism asserts the self-destructing claim that “one knows enough about God in order to affirm that nothing can be known about God.”¹ Thus, the extreme claims of skepticism first affirm what they ultimately deny.

1. For a critical evaluation of agnosticism, see Norman Geisler, Christian Apologetics (pages 13-27).

Can God Make a Rock So Big He Cannot Lift It?

This is one of my favorite questions that comes up from time to time. Indeed, many atheists and skeptics have posed this question in an attempt to stump Christians and somehow disprove the omnipotence (and existence) of God. Maybe you've been there. What is so ironic about a question of this type is that rather than prove any sort of deficiency in the character or nature of God, this question actually shows a lack of clear thinking and logic on the part of the skeptic! In other words, the question itself is flawed and fallacious in several ways and, unfortunately, the person raising the question has not taken the time to truly think this problem through.

Problem #1: this question commits the fallacy known as a loaded question. Imagine if I were to ask you, "Have you stopped beating your spouse yet?" If you answer yes, that means you were beating your spouse but you have since stopped. And if you answer no, that means you're still beating them! Either way you answer the question, you automatically concede that you beat your spouse! This is a no win situation because the question itself starts with a false assumption and is therefore a "loaded" question. Likewise, the question "Can God make a rock so big He cannot lift it?" also starts with a false assumption, i.e., that God is not omnipotent. If you answer "Yes" to the question, that means that God is not omnipotent since He can make the rock but isn't powerful enough to lift it. But if you answer "No," that also means that God is not omnipotent since He couldn't make a rock so big He cannot lift it! In other words, the question itself is dishonest, a pseudo-question, since it begs the question by assuming God is not omnipotent.

Problem #2: this question commits a categorical fallacy. The question itself is incoherent and meaningless. Suppose I were to ask you, "What does the color blue smell like?" or "How much does the number seven weigh?" These are category mistakes because colors don't smell and numbers don't weigh anything. They are logical impossibilities. In the same manner, asking the question "Can God make a rock so big He cannot lift it?" is essentially to ask "Can God's power defeat His own power?" This is nonsensical and a category error since the question is being incorrectly applied. Greg Koukl has stated, "The question is nonsense because it treats God as if He were two instead of one. The phrase 'stronger than' can only be used when two subjects are in view...Since God is only one...it makes no sense to ask if He is stronger than Himself."

Problem #3: this question commits a straw man fallacy. The goal of the skeptic who asks this question is to somehow undermine the Christian concept of an omnipotent God. It is thought that if it can be shown there are some things God cannot do, this would prove that God could not be omnipotent and thus could not exist as Christians have traditionally portrayed Him. However, this line of reasoning is attacking a distorted concept of Biblical omnipotence and is therefore guilty of the straw man fallacy.

So what does it mean then that God is omnipotent? Omnipotence doesn't mean that God can do anything. There are actually quite a few things that God cannot do. He cannot make squared circles. He cannot make a one-ended stick. He cannot sin. He cannot improve His morality. So God is "limited" in a sense. But not one of these "limitations" has to do with power, rather, they are logical contradictions. Also, notice that His "limitations" are not due to any defects in His character or power but rather they are the result of His perfection and rational nature! As Norman Geisler has stated, "He is only 'limited' by His unlimited perfection." To say that God is omnipotent then is to say that God can do anything so long as it is logically possible and consistent with His nature. God's omnipotence does not mean that He can do what is impossible but only that He can do whatever is actually possible.

C.S. Lewis stated:

I know very well that if it is self-contradictory it is absolutely impossible...His Omnipotence means power to do all that is intrinsically possible, not to do the intrinsically impossible. You may attribute miracles to Him, but not nonsense...It remains true that all things are possible with God: the intrinsic impossibilities are not things but nonentities...nonsense remains nonsense even when we talk it about God (Problem of Pain, 18).