How do you answer the omnipotence paradox?

  • Thread starter Thread starter sidetrack
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
tijeras said:
I think it’s important to try to get at WHY the person asking this old question is asking it now.

Is it a sassy kid who just wants to try to poke holes in something? A sincere teenager who’s learning to push the limits of their understanding? An adult who’s just being obnoxious? A pseudo-intellectual who’s just trying to corner you?

Is it a real stumbling block to the person? Have they just not come up with a better argument? Is it masking some other, deeper question they have about God?

You need to get at the motive behind it to ever answer someone’s actual question. And the spiritual work of mercy of helping the doubtful is the only reason to engage in such conversations in the first place.
Click to expand...
What if somebody is asking simply because they want to understand what God’s omnipotence amounts to? Understanding seems like a reason in itself, insofar as it’s a part of truth.
 
Eleve said:
What if somebody is asking simply because they want to understand what God’s omnipotence amounts to? Understanding seems like a reason in itself, insofar as it’s a part of truth.
Click to expand...
Sure, then answer to that question. My point is, you’ve got to figure out what they’re getting at. If they want to understand what omnipotence is, then explain as best your human mind can fathom the infinite.
 
blessedrosary said:
To say that it doesn’t describe a possible state of affairs only means that you are already assuming that which I said may not ‘in fact’ be realizable. But its not being able to be realized has to do with ‘fact’ not ‘conceivability’, in which case it is only inconceivable if we are able to epistemically penetrate the internal going-ons of God and possible rocks with the quality ‘unable to be lifted’. As it stands, we are not, and so the notion of rock with the quality ‘unable to be lifted’ still makes sense, even if God does exist and there is in reality no rock with the quality ‘unable to be lifted’.
Click to expand...
I answered all these problems a few posts back. A “weight that cannot be lifted” is not a weight. There is always a force to equal it that pushes up (stopping it from sinking), and no reason at all to rule out a force greater than that (to make it lift). That’s central to the idea of weight. That disposes of the problem entirely. Similar objections can be made to other impossibilities like “square circles”. They are not significant ideas.

Further, omnipotence is an invention of religious materialists who take a physicalistic view of reality. They assume a given world of objects (over which we have power). But this world of objects is of our own making. It is we who set up the limits that set up objects. God need have no jurisdiction over the things and limits we set up or invent.

Omniscience succumbs to a similar fate. Paradoxes around omniscience and omnipotence take root in a flawed, superstitious, scientific view of reality - the idea that there is a given world of objects (in philosophy this is called transcendental realism). We need to reject that whole discourse.
 
Jonesboy said:
Omniscience succumbs to a similar fate. Paradoxes around omniscience and omnipotence take root in a flawed, superstitious, scientific view of reality - the idea that there is a given world of objects (in philosophy this is called transcendental realism). We need to reject that whole discourse.
Click to expand...
Why?
 
blessedrosary said:
The answer is no.

And it’s not a paradox. The problem is- as you noted- a linguistic one, but that doesn’t mean it’s insurmountable.

Look at it in terms of ‘Being 1’ who can lift infinitely large/heavy stones and ‘Being 2’ who can build infinitely large/heavy stones. We say to Being 2, make a stone this large (where we specify some particular- possibly infinite- ‘weight’), and he makes it. By hypothesis he is always able to do this. To Being 1, we say lift this, where we hand him a stone. By hypothesis he is always able to do it.

Now the problem with the question is the ‘description’ of the thing we are asking Being 2 to do. We know * he is uninhibited by building infinitely large stones. But that is only what he is uninhibited to do. Whereas when we attach the description ‘larger than Being 1 can lift’ to the size of stone he is supposed to be able to cook up, when we say he cannot in fact make one so big that Being 1 cannot lift, we do not thereby mean to take away his power to make a rock as big as he’d like; that remains. What we are denying him is the power to do something that inhibits another uninhibited power- and that* was not included in the description of his power to make a rock no matter how big.

Of course God is a being which has both powers of Being 1 and 2. The same reasoning applies. The power we ascribe to God to make a rock is a power whose description only applies to the size of the rock he can make (which we allow to be unlimited), not to any other special metaphysical features that could come a long with it, such as a forced limitation on some other power.

To say it another way, God’s lifting an infinitely big rock in no way impugns his building an infinitely big rock, whereas his building one “large enough” (where the quotes specify the conditions of the paradox- it is an abuse of language though) obviously impugns his ability to lift, and that contradicts our hypotheses, so we have to throw it out.

In philosophy it is extremely important to be clear about what exactly the assumptions are, and the consequences of the assumptions.

Thanks - exactly
Click to expand...
 
sidetrack said:
A common variation of the omnipotence paradox goes like this."“Can God create a stone so heavy that even he cannot lift it?”.This seems to highlight a dilemma between omnipotence and the possiblity of exceeding omnipotence.Here are two ways to answer that question which I hope people dont mind me posting.I sincerely hope that this first one is not blasphemous (it suppose to have a bit of humour in it).Yes God can create a stone a stone so heavy that even he cannot lift it [the trick here is that he makes this **LOOK
Click to expand...
like a*** TEMPORARY*** thing].See this works out by having God make a huge and heavy stone and try to lift at first and he does’nt get it up** BUT **a minute later (after maybe “checking his watch and/or agenda”) he lifts the rock up (thereby kind of satisfying both parties people who’d answer yes or no I guess?).The more serious answer that I’d give is that this paradox is like the result of some linguistic problem like it being a matter of syntax or something to that effect since we are only human and can only percieve of God in human terms (like language) therefore this paradox is meaningless.I’m really curious though to know what the people of forum have to say about this though.Thank you very much so for your time.

God creates by his Word. If he were to want an infinitely big (heavy) rock, bigger than anything, there would, of course be no planet or star or black hole big enough to apply any significant attraction to it, so it would be in free space. Or would it? It would be so big that there would be no space.
As for moving it, again, if he wished to move it, he would say to the rock, “be moved over there”, and it would be moved instantaneously because it is subject to him, even if it were held by the gravity of an infinitely large planet.
He does not use his “hands” to lift or move things.
But, in reality, material objects cannot be made “infinitely” anything. That is a principle that is not to be found in material objects, but only understood as a universal concept, and from which we can understand dimensioned material objects.

John Martin
 
Doesn’t this discussion lead to the maxium of Non-Contradiction:
Nothing can be and not be at the same time.
The fact we (humans) can know this is one evidence that we are made in God’s image…

As has been noted by someone above this argument is an argument in linguistics.

If God can do anything, sure he could violate the law of Non-Contradiction; but it is IMPOSSIBLE for us to understand how it can be. A worm understands Man better than we understand God.

It is like trying to understand the FACT that there are or were other diminsions at creation. Mathamatically it is a most probable fact at creation’s moment there were at least seven diminsions - but one can not experience its understanding.
 
The premise of the question, before any debate is entered into, is “man is equal to GOD”, as who is limited by the weight of his creations - and that would be man. We make things all the time we cannot lift when the project is done.

Therefore, to discuss this question requires that the believer begins to defend GOD from the limitations of man, and thus assume that GOD is indeed so limited and therefore without full knowledge the believer immediately places GOD as equal to man and vice-a-versa in any attempt to debate this question.

Our knowledge of GOD is set by the limits which GOD HIMSELF imposes upon us. We will not fully “Know” GOD until we stand before HIM on our judgment day, but we know that HE is not limited by time, space or material boundaries as by the ample evidence of examples within the bible (multiplying the loaves, splitting the Red Sea, rising from the dead, rising others from the dead, fire from heaven, shutting the rain for 3 years, and the miracles - such as the spinning sun in Fatima - that have occurred).

This is an atheists delight as they attempt to use mans limitations to define why they can never accept the truth of GOD, i.e. since GOD is as limited as I am, there is no GOD.

The answer is: GOD is not limited by HIS creation. Weights and measures are boundaries only known to men. The definition and use of mankind’s “science”, such as weights and measures; to in turn weigh and measure GOD is unreasonable and nonsensical - except to him who does not believe and seeks every hope of atheism to live secure in achieving their eternal goal of “the complete and total absence of being” upon their death - no regrets, no forgiveness, no consequences - all based upon mankind’s use of weights and measures.

Now will they accept that mankind’s science is at play and cannot apply - no, but do not spend anymore time and thought in attempting to prove what cannot be proven using the science of mankind’s weights and measures.
 
MarcusAndreas said:
Nothing is impossible for God. A stone so heavy it cannot be lifted by God is a nothing, a logical impossibility. It’s impossible for God because God is not the author of nonsense.
Click to expand...
I think God could do both lift the rock and not lift the rock simultaneously, fulfilling both criteria.
 
PetrusRomanus said:
I think God could do both lift the rock and not lift the rock simultaneously, fulfilling both criteria.
Click to expand...
You cannot have X and not X at the same time.

The question is loaded: it presupposes that there is something that an Omnipotent Being cannot do. That is contrary to the definition of “omnipotent” and is thus a fallacy from the onset.
 
Solus_vistor said:

The Cretan says: “All Cretans are liers.(sic)”​

Click to expand...
Interestingly enough, this one is from Saint Paul.

Titus 1:
5
For this reason I left you in Crete so that you might set right what remains to be done and appoint presbyters in every town, as I directed you,
. . .
12
One of them, a prophet of their own, once said, “Cretans have always been liars, vicious beasts, and lazy gluttons.”
13
That testimony is true. . . .
 
sidetrack said:
A common variation of the omnipotence paradox goes like this."“Can God create a stone so heavy that even he cannot lift it?”.This seems to highlight a dilemma between omnipotence and the possiblity of exceeding omnipotence.Here are two ways to answer that question which I hope people dont mind me posting.I sincerely hope that this first one is not blasphemous (it suppose to have a bit of humour in it).Yes God can create a stone a stone so heavy that even he cannot lift it [the trick here is that he makes this **LOOK
Click to expand...
like a*** TEMPORARY*** thing].See this works out by having God make a huge and heavy stone and try to lift at first and he does’nt get it up** BUT ** a minute later (after maybe “checking his watch and/or agenda”) he lifts the rock up (thereby kind of satisfying both parties people who’d answer yes or no I guess?).The more serious answer that I’d give is that this paradox is like the result of some linguistic problem like it being a matter of syntax or something to that effect since we are only human and can only percieve of God in human terms (like language) therefore this paradox is meaningless.I’m really curious though to know what the people of forum have to say about this though.Thank you very much so for your time.

I don’t see how this is a paradox. God can’t be who He isn’t. God can’t do evil, God can’t hate, God can’t bring death. So the perception that omnipotence means God can do everything, meaning anything a person can think of, its false.
 
I can only keep repeating the solution:
A “weight that cannot be lifted” doesn’t describe a weight. It doesn’t describe anything. It is no more a description of something than “£$%^&*” is a description of something.

The problem is a kindergarten problem. Just because we say something that sounds like a question doesn’t mean we are asking a question.
 
It looks like I will have to keep repeating the solution:

A “weight that cannot be lifted” doesn’t describe a weight. It doesn’t describe anything. It is no more a description of something than “£$%^&*” is a description of something.

The problem is a kindergarten problem. Just because we say something that sounds like a question doesn’t mean we are asking a question. This is why we are all so convinced that we are asking something that makes sense. Please stop and consider. This problem has nothing to do with God.
 
Alberti_Devoveo said:
You cannot have X and not X at the same time.
.
Click to expand...
Sure, not for people who are bound by this earth’s laws and time and space. But God is not bound by this earth’s laws or time and space. He is all-powerful, He can do anything and things we cannot even comprehend.

So I’m convinced God can have X and not have X at the same “time” (remember God is also outside of time so this would not be a problem for Him whatsoever).

In fact there is the Holy Trinity. God the Father could be lifting the heaviest rock while Jesus on earth, bound by this earth’s laws when He was alive by his humanity, could have failed to lift such a heavy rock.

Problem solved.
 
PetrusRomanus said:
Sure, not for people who are bound by this earth’s laws and time and space. But God is not bound by this earth’s laws or time and space. He is all-powerful, He can do anything and things we cannot even comprehend.

So I’m convinced God can have X and not have X at the same “time” (remember God is also outside of time so this would not be a problem for Him whatsoever).

In fact there is the Holy Trinity. God the Father could be lifting the heaviest rock while Jesus on earth, bound by this earth’s laws when He was alive by his humanity, could have failed to lift such a heavy rock.

Problem solved.
Click to expand...
God cannot do what is logically impossible, despite His Omnipotence.
 
PetrusRomanus said:
But it’s not logically impossible.

It would only be logical that an all-powerful being could in fact have X and not have X at the same time.
Click to expand...
For you, this is logical.
For most people that just is not going to cut it.
Consider this your being “persecuted” card for the day.
 
StrawberryJam said:
For you, this is logical.
For most people that just is not going to cut it.
Consider this your being “persecuted” card for the day.
Click to expand...
lol Hi Strawberry, I like that persecuted card 😛

Wait a minute though… it’s NOT logical that an all-powerful being could do anything he wanted? How so?

If he couldn’t do anything he wanted he wouldn’t be an all-powerful being.
 
It looks like I will have to keep repeating the solution:

A “weight that cannot be lifted” doesn’t describe a weight. It doesn’t describe anything. It is no more a description of something than “£$%^&*” is a description of something.
There is no such thing, also, as “logical impossibility”.

Can’t anyone here see that this has nothing to do with deity?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top