Download - Omnipotence paradox ironchariots
Omnipotence paradoxThe omnipotence paradox is generally summed up by the phrase or some form of the phrase "Can
God create a rock so heavy that he can't lift it?". Either God can or can't create the rock. If he can
create a rock so big he can't lift it then he's not omnipotent because he can't lift it. If he can't create a
rock that big in the first place then he's still not omnipotent.
Contents
[hide]
1 Accidental vs. Essential
Omnipotence
o 1.1 Accidental
Omnipotence
o 1.2 Essential
Omnipotence
2 Moral Limitations
o 2.1 God's Free Will
o 2.2 God's Nature?
o 2.3 Standard of Morality
3 Omnipotence vs omniscience
4 Swinburne's definition
o 4.1 Countering
Swinburne
Accidental vs. Essential Omnipotence
The omnipotence paradox may be resolved by stating that God is either accidentally or essentially
omnipotent.
Accidental Omnipotence
An accidentally omnipotent God could resolve the paradox by creating a rock so heavy that he can't
lift it and thus, ceases to be omnipotent. In other words, because this God is "omnipotent", this God
can make himself "not omnipotent" anymore. However, one could argue that it's hard to tell if a god
of this sort was ever truly omnipotent or just in possession of great power. One way to reconcile this
is to suggest that the God is really omnipotent. But just as many of us will not want to drive a knife
through our eyes, God too may not choose to make himself not omnipotent anymore, although he
has the ability to do so. Again, the point that God is not truly omnipotent can be raised. This point,
however, commits the No true Scotsman fallacy. Put simply, an accidentally omnipotent God IS
omnipotent and can thus make himself not omnipotent anymore.
Essential Omnipotence
Essential omnipotence states that it is impossible for the god to be non-omnipotent. Some theists
may argue that God is not "absolutely omnipotent" but is merely "omnipotent". This is an extremely
dishonest use of words, for omnipotence is suppose to be the highest possible attainable state of
power in which the being can acheive anything, and adding the term "absolutely" means nothing.
One can say that God is "absolutely absolutely absolutely omnipotent", which gives a similar empty
effect. Nonetheless, according to Peter Geach, if Y is absolutely omnipotent, then Y "can do
everything absolutely. Everything that can be expressed in a string of words even if it can be shown
to be self-contradictory," Y "is not bound in action, as we are in thought by the laws of logic." (See
Wikipedia: Omnipotence Paradox) On the other hand, being merely "omnipotent" means that Y will
be subjected to the laws of logic. "Absolute omnipotence" will put Y in a precarious position of falling
straight into the omnipotence paradox. Mere "omnipotence", however, shows that Y is unable to
acheive everything anymore, as there is something that Y cannot do, which is to defy the laws of
logic which it has supposedly created formerly. The term "omnipotence" used to described Y will thus
be very misleading.
Moral Limitations
Even if we grant that God can do all things except those which are "logically impossible", there still
seem to be limits on God's abilities in practice, though not prohibited by logic. Can God act in a way
that is evil? By definition, God is supposed to be omnibenevolent, so the answer should be no. Yet
people can do many things that are evil, so clearly being evil is logically possible, but God
supposedly cannot do it. People can commit imperfect acts, so it is logically possible. However, God,
a perfect being, cannot do so, therefore he is not omnipotent. The "ability" to do imperfect things
goes against what we define as perfect. But isn't God who defines perfection? If it is so, then the
statement "god is perfect" is meaningless. As an inductive case, we can say that perfection does not
exist (god created imperfection apparently), therefore God does not exist. There is always room for
improvement, except in the case of a perfect being. However imperfection gives us willpower to act
and improve, which God cannot possess. If God's activity is asserted, then perfection must be
eliminated.
God's Free Will
Apologists may respond to the above argument by stating that it isn't that God can't do evil, it's just
that he always uses his perfect free-will to choose not to. This, of course, raises the question of why
God didn't create humans the same way. It would be a good solution to the problem of evil.
God's Nature?
Another answer to the above argument is the assertion that being good is "God's nature," and He
can only do things that aren't against His own nature. At this point, the concept of omnipotence starts
to get completely fuzzy. "God's nature" appears to be defined as "the things that God is capable of
doing." In this case, the claim of omnipotence is nothing more than the tautological statement, "God
can do all things that God can do." Under this usage, people are also "omniscient."
The fundamental problem may be that the concept of being all-powerful is ill-defined and lends itself
to equivocation.
Standard of Morality
A third answer to the above: Because God is the defining standard of morality, anything that God
does is good, regardless of how horrendous the same action would be if it were conducted by a
human. This neatly resolves the omnibenevolence issue, but does not address omnipotence.
Omnipotence vs omniscience
An omnipotent god is further confused when it is also granted omniscience, that is knowledge of all
things past, present and future. If a god knows what is going to happen in the future, it is not able to
omnipotently change that future because it is limited to what it knows will happen. If a god can
omnipotently change that future then that god can not have known the future in the first place and is
therefore not omniscient.
For example, the omnipotent and omniscient God at Time X speculates that Scenario A will occur 10
minutes later. 5 minutes later, one then wonders whether this God can cause Scenario B, instead of
A, to occur after another 5 minutes. If he can, then he is no longer omniscient; if he cannot, then he is
no longer omnipotent.
One must note that omnipotence can easily lead to omniscience. An omnipotent god has the ability
to do anything with the unlimited power of his, that is, he can gain the knowledge of all things past,
present and future. As such, this may be considered as another form of the omnipotence paradox.
One can then ask the question, "Can an omnipotent God make himself omniscient?" If yes, then
there exists a contradiction, as mentioned above. If no, then there is something that God apparently
cannot do, which is to make himself omniscient, and he thus ceases to be omnipotent.
Swinburne's definition
Richard Swinburne invented the following definition of omnipotence in an attempt to define this
paradox out of existence:
"A person P is omnipotent at a time t if and only if he is able to bring about any logically
contingent state of affairs x after t, the descriptions of which does not entail that P did not
bring x about at t. This is subject to the restriction that a person is no less omnipotent for
being unable to bring about a state of affairs if he believes that he has overriding reason not
to bring it about. So, God is omnipotent even if he is unable to do what he believes wrong.
The paradox of the stone has false premises."
Countering Swinburne
Swinburne's argument depends on linear time, or at least the ability to describe events in a
linear fashion. Furthermore, the concept of a "Logically contingent state of affairs" presumes
that person P is subject to the laws of logic - as the alleged creator of the universe that contains
these laws, one would presume that God also created these laws and retains the ability to alter
them.
The premise of the stone-paradox is not whether god chooses to do only what he considers
right. The paradox is arises when determining whether god is CAPABLE of performance.
Performance is inconsistent with the logic of this universe. God could not simultaneously
maintain the laws of this universe AND break the paradox.
Expanding this argument, we can further state that God cannot create even a single atomic
particle without violating the logic of this universe, and thus demonstrating a flaw in his alleged
omnipotence.
Categories:
Arguments
Arguments against the existence of God
Deductive arguments
http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Omnipotence_paradox