An interesting solution to the omnipotence paradox

[zhoudu]

As a Catholic who is interested in philosophy and also a little interested in theology, I have had some thinking on the omnipotence paradox, and have come up with an interesting solution to it. I want to share this solution and also to know what you think on this solution.

Simply speaking, the omnipotence paradox denotes that, on the one hand, God is omnipotent, which seems to mean that He can do every thing, but, on the other hand, there seem to be some things that God cannot do. I list three things that God seems to be unable to do:

(1) to create a stone that He cannot lift
(2) to commit a sin
(3) to paint a square that is a circle

Some solutions have been proposed to try to solve this apparent contradiction. You can find them on the Internet. But they seem to have their own difficulties, and seem to be somewhat complex. However, the solution that I propose here is very straightforward and simple, and seems to be very problem-resistant. Of course, my solution may be wrong. But it seems to be at least worthy of consideration.

This solution is the following:

God can do every thing, literally. But among these things, there are some things that He NEVER does and NEVER wants to do. And there are good reasons why He never wants to do them.

So, consider the three things that I have listed:

(1) to create a stone that He cannot lift: Yes, He can do this. But He never wants to do this, because it would make Him lose His omnipotence.
(2) to commit a sin: Yes, He can do this. But He never wants to do this, because it is bad to commit a sin.
(3) to paint a square that is a circle: Yes, He can do this. But He never wants to do this, because this would violate the truth that there is not any square that is a circle.

For thing (1), I want to explain a little more: That God can create a stone that He cannot lift is not contradictory to His omnipotence. Only if He has created such a stone, there will be a contradiction to His omnipotence. But, since He never creates such a stone, there is not any contradiction to His omnipotence.

What do you think on this solution?

 

[ProdglArchitect]

The answer to two of these is simply that they are nonsense. You don’t need to attempt any further explanation.

The very nature of infinite capacity makes the notion of a stone so large God cannot lift it nonsense. There is nothing that God would be unable to lift, and so that stone is in the category of things that cannot exist.

Similarly, the nature of a circle is that it is round, and the nature of a square is that it has four sides of equal length. To speak of a square circle is pure nonsense, as a non-round circle is not a circle, and a non-four-equal-sided square is not a square. The ability to put two words together doesn’t actually give that string of words validity. “Potato cornmeal lightning octopus” is a string of words I put together, but it is a meaningless string, as is the entire notion of a square circle.

As for sin, God cannot sin, it is impossible, because sin is contrary to His nature. Sin is not a thing unto itself, it is the absence of something, the absence of God and the good. God cannot be absent from Himself, so the notion that God could sin is nonsensical.

People present these things as if they’ve created gatchas for God. They believe falsely that God is capable of doing things that are logically impossible, things which cannot, by their very nature, exist. That is not what Catholics believe of God. We believe that in His omnipotence, God is capable of creation anything which can exist. If something cannot exist, because it would violate the very nature of the thing, then God cannot do that, and that is not a violation of omnipotence. These sorts of arguments are born form a misunderstanding of the nature of omnipotence which is rampant in today’s society because few people bother to learn what we mean by that, nor are they willing to consider the nature of things before concocting their nonsense.

 

[Thinker_Doer]

What do you think on this solution?

You confuse what God does not want to do with what God is unable to do or cannot do. Generally speaking God is unable perform actions, which lead to a logical contradiction. In other words, God cannot violate the second law of logic (the law of contradiction or non-contradiction).

Now it is funny that people have no problem with God violating the first law of logic - “A” is “A” or everything is itself (by performing miracles) because God allegedly created the laws of nature, so he is “free” of suspending them. Also funny the word they use. God does not violate the laws of nature… he suspends them. Why don’t they also argue that God does not violate the laws of logic… he merely suspends them, when he creates a “square circle” or a “married bachelor”?

The concept of omnipotence is internally incoherent, just like omniscience.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

Now it is funny that people have no problem with God violating the first law of logic - “A” is “A” or everything is itself (by performing miracles) because God allegedly created the laws of nature, so he is “free” of suspending them. Also funny the word they use. God does not violate the laws of nature… he suspends them. Why don’t they also argue that God does not violate the laws of logic… he merely suspends them, when he creates a “square circle” or a “married bachelor”?

Because those two things are not the same.

A square circle is a violation of the nature of both a square and a circle. A circle cannot exist as anything other than a round object. Similarly, a square cannot exist as anything other than an object with four equal sides. As soon as those natures are changed, they cease to be that object. (i.e., by extending one side of the square it become a rectangle, and by stretching the circle in only one axis, it becomes an oval.)

Miracles are different. They are not a violation of the underlying nature of an object, they are a violation of the natural operation of an object. It is normal that a wound should heal over the course of time, it is miraculous if it heals instantaneously. There is no violation of the nature of the wound, only the rate and completeness of its healing. Similarly, take spontaneous remission of a cancer. There is nothing int he nature of the cancer which says that it cannot enter remission, it just simply doesn’t most of the time. Miracles are a suspension of the normal operation of a thing, but they never violate the nature of that thing in the way the notion of a square circle would violate the natures of those two types.

 

[Thinker_Doer]

They believe falsely that God is capable of doing things that are logically impossible, things which cannot, by their very nature, exist.

A square circle is a violation of the nature of both a square and a circle.

Can an electron with a positive charge exist? No, because it would be a positron, something that is physically different. Every physically different state of affairs is also logically different. So the laws of nature are just as inviolable as the laws of logic.

Miracles are different. They are not a violation of the underlying nature of an object, they are a violation of the natural operation of an object.

Not so fast. What is the underlying nature? This would lead to the Thomistic concept of “essence”, which is also a nonsensical concept. Draw that square onto a rubber sheet and apply the necessary physical transformation to it… (topology!) and the square will become (miraculously???) a circle. After all a circle is nothing but a polygon with infinitely many equal sides.

To talk about the “nature” of a mathematical (or geometrical) object is simple, because we decide what their nature is - by defining them. To find out the “nature” of an actual physical object is quite different.

 

[Gorgias]

(1) to create a stone that He cannot lift: Yes, He can do this. But He never wants to do this, because it would make Him lose His omnipotence.

Nope. He wouldn’t “lose His omnipotence” (if you have it, you can’t lose it; if you can lose it, you never had it). This example just falls into the category of “logically inconsistent.”

(2) to commit a sin: Yes, He can do this. But He never wants to do this, because it is bad to commit a sin.

No, He can’t. Sin is the absence of the good. God is perfectly good. It’s not that He “can’t sin”, it’s that sin is inconsistent with His nature. It’s not a defect or a lack of omnipotence to say “God does not sin” – rather, it’s a statement of His nature: He’s perfect, and therefore, there is no sin in him.

(3) to paint a square that is a circle: Yes, He can do this. But He never wants to do this, because this would violate the truth that there is not any square that is a circle.

Right. Again, logical inconsistency.

Generally speaking God is unable perform actions

Freely asserted, freely denied.

The concept of omnipotence is internally incoherent, just like omniscience.

Says you.

 

[whatistrue]

Draw that square onto a rubber sheet and apply the necessary physical transformation to it…

Nope. Once you start stretching it, it is no longer a square.

After all a circle is nothing but a polygon with infinitely many equal sides.

Nope. A circle is a round plane figure which consists of all points equidistant from a fixed point (all within the plane). A polygon with infinite equal sides is an approximation to a circle, but not an actual circle.

 

[Thinker_Doer]

No, He can’t. Sin is the absence of the good. God is perfectly good

Defining things into existence is not allowed. Freely asserted, freely denied!

It’s not that He “can’t sin”, it’s that sin is inconsistent with His nature.

Actually, it is not that God is unable to do actions which we would consider “sinful” in others, but when God performs (or allows) them, it is perfectly fine. Genocides and other atrocities come to mind.

Of course, if one starts with the definition that “sin” is to act contrary to God’s will, then God would be unable to sin. But that definition is only one of the possible definitions… What did you say? Freely asserted, freely denied? Yep, works both ways.

 

[Inquiry]

First, the square circle issue is an issue of preference, not incapability. There’s no reason that a circle can’t be square. That’s just the rule he’s chosen to use in ours. That shouldn’t be taken as his limitation but a limitation of our world. He could do it, it just wouldn’t make sense in any way we are familiar with.

It would be like us dropping Pac Man into Conway’s Game of Life. He isn’t related to it and he doesn’t fit there. We could do it, but what we got would be neither Pac Man or the Game of Life and if it was at all important to us that the two remain distinct we would never try.

Similarly the stone isn’t a problem because it is in the very nature of stones to be less than God. No stone he could make would ever be a problem for him or it wouldn’t be a stone. There’s no challenge to his omnipotence, only quirks of definition masking as actual problems.

Or let’s take this from a different angle. Lets say instead of being created as creatures of flesh and blood we were creatures of stone. Every other aspect of our history and identity was the same, we were just stone. In that hypothetical world Christ would have incarnated as a stone. He would have been fully stone yet fully divine. God could lift even that stone (himself). Is that really a paradox?

 

[whatistrue]

There’s no reason that a circle can’t be square.

If it were a square, it would not be a circle, so yeah there kind of is. The definitions as they exist are mutually exclusive.

 

[Inquiry]

It’s quite possible that the idea he built the idea that squares can’t be circles into our world such that God cannot make a squared circle here without fundamentally altering the rules of our world. That doesn’t imply he’s limited, only that our world is.

 

[whatistrue]

What seems to be lost here is that the definitions of square and circle are not divine revelation, but human definition. And unless those definitions are changed to make it possible, one figure cannot fit both, no matter Who draws it.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

Can an electron with a positive charge exist? No, because it would be a positron, something that is physically different. Every physically different state of affairs is also logically different. So the laws of nature are just as inviolable as the laws of logic.

I agree with the positron-electron example, but I don’t agree that it applies to all aspects of nature. You are citing the same sort of thing I am with the square circle argument. A miracle in relation to this would be converting an electron to a positron by changing it’s charge.

This would lead to the Thomistic concept of “essence”, which is also a nonsensical concept

It most certainly is not a nonsense concept. There is an underlying reality to the nature of things which remains constant regardless of the way in which that thing is expressed. My favorite example is a chair. No matter what form a chair takes (the accidents), it is still a chair because it meats the underlying principles that govern something being a chair. This is true for pretty much everything.

Draw that square onto a rubber sheet and apply the necessary physical transformation to it

I’ve heard that argument before, and it doesn’t address the fundamental reality or the thing. Perhaps I left out thhe qualifier of four straight sides, at 90 degree angles to each other. I didn’t think I needed to get that detailed, but I guess I do. A square which has been distorted is no longer a square, it’s a rhombus, and then eventually it can become distorted into other shapes.

After all a circle is nothing but a polygon with infinitely many equal sides.

This is also incorrect. We calculate circles as though that were the case, but that is because we are limited in our computational capacity. In reality, a true circle is an unbroken, unsegmented, round object of 2πr circumference. It has no straight segments to it. Do not mistake the limits of our representational capacity for an altering of the fundamental nature of the thing.

because we decide what their nature is - by defining them.

That is a philosophical position, and one which I disagree with. A square is a square, no matter what name we give it. Similarly, 1 is 1, no matter what we use to represent it, as is two, and three, and so on and so forth. These things are constant regardless of how we express them.

 

[Wesrock]

I wouldn’t use artifacts such as chairs or other things whose apparent unity is accidental as an example for essence, though quite simply Thinker Doer is thinking too hard on this and missing the real point about there being a real distinction between being proposed.

But this topic is going far afield.

There are typically two positions in the omnipotence debate.

• There is no such thing as a capacity for logical contradictions, so not being able to do them is not a capacity being lacked. In the square circle example, there’s no capacity for a closed surface existing on a 2D euclidean plane to have all its points equidistant from the center AND for it to have all its points along four adjoining, straight sides which are set at 90 degree angles where they join.
• Or that God can create a rock so heavy that he can’t lift it… and he can then also lift it, because God’s not bound such logical limitations and both are true.

Most Catholic theologians, in my experience, go with the former.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

I wouldn’t use artifacts such as chairs or other things whose apparent unity is accidental as an example for essence, though quite simply Thinker Doer is thinking too hard on this and missing the real point about there being a real distinction between being proposed.

I find it to be a relatable example to help people understand the concept. As with all analogies, it will fall short if you attempt to apply it too literally.

There is no such thing as a capacity for logical contradictions, so not being able to do them is not a capacity being lacked. In the square circle example, there’s no capacity for a closed surface existing on a 2D euclidean plane to have all its points equidistant from the center AND for it to have all its points along four adjoining, straight sides which are set at 90 degree angles where they join.

I didn’t think that level of detailed definition was necessary, but apparently it is, so thank you for providing it.

 

[Thinker_Doer]

I agree with the positron-electron example, but I don’t agree that it applies to all aspects of nature. You are citing the same sort of thing I am with the square circle argument. A miracle in relation to this would be converting an electron to a positron by changing it’s charge.

Then it would cease to be an electron, it would become a positron. Violation of the first law of logic, the law of identity.

It most certainly is not a nonsense concept. There is an underlying reality to the nature of things which remains constant regardless of the way in which that thing is expressed. My favorite example is a chair. No matter what form a chair takes (the accidents), it is still a chair because it meats the underlying principles that govern something being a chair . This is true for pretty much everything.

What is the difference between a chair, and a table? Only the usage. You can sit on a table and place your food on a chair, and eat it from there. How many legs do they have? What are they made of? Can you stand on a table?

The point is simple. Every object has many attributes. We can arbitrarily choose some of them and declare that those are the “essence”, the rest are “accidents”. We are free to chose which attributes are which. It all depends on what we wish to use that object for! It is not intrinsic to the object, it is extrinsic and belongs to our “objective”.

That is a philosophical position, and one which I disagree with. A square is a square, no matter what name we give it. Similarly, 1 is 1, no matter what we use to represent it, as is two, and three, and so on and so forth. These things are constant regardless of how we express them.

Such a simplistic approach only works in axiomatic (deductive) systems - where we lierally define things “into existence”. They do not work in the inductive reality. Try to apply it to “cows”, “goats”, “horses”, “bisons”, etc… What is the “essence” of a “cow”?

 

[Dovekin]

In reality, a true circle is an unbroken, unsegmented, round object of 2πr circumference. It has no straight segments to it. Do not mistake the limits of our representational capacity for an altering of the fundamental nature of the thing.

Actually, a circle is a polygon with infinitely many equal sides.

It is not a polygon with almost infinitely many sides. The limits of our representational capacity are broken by infinity, such that an infinity of equal sides equals an infinity of equidistant points.

 

[Inquiry]

I was operating out of the more difficult case that our definitions were based upon something seemingly intrinsic to our world. Yes, if they are just our definitions then He ‘can’t’ make a square circle, but that just means he can’t make something we would call a square circle. That’s not a limitation on him.

That’s like saying that if Adam decided to name all the animals ‘cat’ then God could never create a dog. It’s true, but it has nothing to do with God’s omnipotence.

 

[Thinker_Doer]

Most Catholic theologians, in my experience, go with the former.

Again, the point is that these “omnimax” attributes are philosophical and NOT theological concepts. They need a secular definition to make sense at all. Whether they describe something that ONLY God can have is a different matter. What is “omnipotence” and what is “omniscience”… that is the question?

 

[whatistrue]

The definitions being man made still doesn’t mean that a single figure could be both straight sided and completely round at the same time.