Omnipotence Paradox

[YoungCatholic86]

For a long time, I have explained the paradox by stating (borrowing the wording of Marc Barnes from Bad Catholic) that “it is not possible for an agent to bring about an impossible state of affairs.” But, using that logic, how did God create the universe since bringing something out of nothing is impossible?

If we say that creating the universe out of nothing is possible, but only through God, then why could God not be able to perform the actions in the omnipotence paradox?

If we say that God is not able to bring about an impossible state of affairs, then how do we exist?

Anyone have any idea how to reconcile these two views on what God can (or can’t) do?

(I am not doubting my faith, only the arguments that I and many others use to defend it)

 

[zro_x]

For a long time, I have explained the paradox by stating (borrowing the wording of Marc Barnes from Bad Catholic) that “it is not possible for an agent to bring about an impossible state of affairs.” But, using that logic, how did God create the universe since bringing something out of nothing is impossible?

If we say that creating the universe out of nothing is possible, but only through God, then why could God not be able to perform the actions in the omnipotence paradox?

If we say that God is not able to bring about an impossible state of affairs, then how do we exist?

Anyone have any idea how to reconcile these two views on what God can (or can’t) do?

(I am not doubting my faith, only the arguments that I and many others use to defend it)

many things are possible only through God, but are not logically impossible. God’s miricles are one example.

perhaps creating something out of nothing is not as logically impossible as it seems at first glance. Some scientists are postulating that the universe did indeed arise from nohting. Look up the zero-energy universe theory.

 

[Aelred_Minor]

It’s all a matter of logical possibility and impossibility. It is not logically impossible for Cinderella’s fairy godmother to appear out of nowhere or for a pumpkin to turn into a stagecoach even if we can’t think of a scientific explanation for such events. But it is logically impossible for Cinderella to be older than her older stepsisters (at the same time and in the same sense), since if those stepsisters are older than Cinderella then by definition Cinderella is younger than them.

In the same way it is possible for God to create something out of nothing or something out of anything, but not for Him to create a square circle or a stone too heavy for Himself to lift. These latter proposals are mere irrational combinations of words, not internally coherent concepts.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

I found an interesting bit on this subject once.

Paradoxes only exist because we cannot comprehend of a way in which they might not exist. That is to say, with regards to this subject, that the paradox only exists because we are limited in our understanding of God based on what our limited capacities can conceive. God is absolutely infinite. Since our faculties and understanding are finite, we could not possible conceive of him, period. It would be like a 2d character trying to comprehend 3d. They could have a vague concept of what 3d is, but they could never truly understand it because they could never experience it.

Since God is infinite, there is no paradox. God could create an immovable object, and then God could move it.

I like how this words it better

In the same way it is possible for God to create something out of nothing or something out of anything, but not for Him to create a square circle or a stone too heavy for Himself to lift. These latter proposals are mere irrational combinations of words, not internally coherent concepts.

 

[Aelred_Minor]

I found an interesting bit on this subject one.

Paradoxes only exist because we cannot comprehend of a way in which they might not exist. That is to say, with regards to this subject, that the paradox only exists because we are limited in our understanding of God based on what our limited capacities can conceive. God is absolutely infinite. Since our faculties and understanding is finite, we could not possible conceive of him, period. It would be like a 2d character trying to comprehend 3d. They could have a vague concept of what 3d is, but they could never truly understand it because they could never experience it.

Since God is infinite, there is no paradox. God could create an immovable object, and then God could move it.

I like how this words it better

If God could move an immovable object then God would be irrational. Rationality is a perfection, so God would be imperfect and therefore would not be God.

It is true that God is mysterious. He is so far above us that we cannot even begin to imagine Him. Nevertheless He made us rational animals, and while our reason is limited it is sufficient to perceive the law of non-contradiction.

Edit: It is possible that I have misunderstood you, and you merely mean that God could create an object that is immovable for anyone but Himself and then move it. This of course would be quite possible.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

It is true that God is mysterious. He is so far above us that we cannot even begin to imagine Him. Nevertheless He made us rational animals, and while our reason is limited it is sufficient to perceive the law of non-contradiction.

That’d kind of where I was going with that, and also why I quoted you when I saw your post, because it made the point much better than I did ^^ When i say that he could move an immovable object, I was using it to represent the fact that we cannot comprehend of God or his ways.

Like I said, I like your explanation a lot better ^^

 

[dshix]

For a long time, I have explained the paradox by stating (borrowing the wording of Marc Barnes from Bad Catholic) that “it is not possible for an agent to bring about an impossible state of affairs.” But, using that logic, how did God create the universe since bringing something out of nothing is impossible?

If we say that creating the universe out of nothing is possible, but only through God, then why could God not be able to perform the actions in the omnipotence paradox?

If we say that God is not able to bring about an impossible state of affairs, then how do we exist?

Anyone have any idea how to reconcile these two views on what God can (or can’t) do?

(I am not doubting my faith, only the arguments that I and many others use to defend it)

This is an interesting question. I think I can word the answer in a sufficient way.

For us, in this temporal world, there are certainly things that are impossible. It is impossible for a human to travel at the speed of light without dying; he would obtain infinite mass and collapse on himself. It is impossible for man to create something out of nothing.

But God CREATED all this. He is above and beyond our needs and difficulties. It’s like we are on a two dimensional plane, going about our business, and God is in the third dimension. He can see us, but we can’t see him. He is near us, but he is not actually physically in this world.

I’m not saying God is actually in a place in a fourth dimension (as we have 3) but it is a good analogy. He is ABOVE and BEYOND our ability to comprehend, and is therefore not subject to the laws of nature that we are. He created the laws of nature.

 

[bzkoss236]

God didn’t create something from nothing. He himself is something. The nothing of the universe may have been nothing, but God added something to that nothing, filling the void. Is that too confusing?

What we mean by God can’t to the impossible is that God cannot create something contradictory to what it is. So, he can’t create a square circle, because that would be a square, not a circle. So, he could square out a circle, but it would cease to be a circle.

So creating something from nothing is impossible, but adding something to nothing is not. And God is something, so he can create something from Himself.

 

[paduard]

For a long time, I have explained the paradox by stating (borrowing the wording of Marc Barnes from Bad Catholic) that “it is not possible for an agent to bring about an impossible state of affairs.” But, using that logic, how did God create the universe since bringing something out of nothing is impossible?

If we say that creating the universe out of nothing is possible, but only through God, then why could God not be able to perform the actions in the omnipotence paradox?

If we say that God is not able to bring about an impossible state of affairs, then how do we exist?

Anyone have any idea how to reconcile these two views on what God can (or can’t) do?

(I am not doubting my faith, only the arguments that I and many others use to defend it)

I do not agree that it is impossible for God to bring about an impossible state of affairs - He has the power to do that; but more significantly chooses not to do so.

 

[free_thinker]

This is how I see it, both scientifically and spiritually.

God, in the most raw and basic form, is pure energy. Energy is something that cannot be created nor destroyed, it can only change form. We create things out of nothing all the time… its called our thoughts and our imagination. I think that God didn’t necessarily create us out of nothing, but we are merely part of his thought and imagination. Thoughts are powerful things, and they certainly manifest, just slowly in this physical world. If you think about it, everything in existance started off as a thought. Take yourself for example… the clothes you are wearing were designed by someone. They didn’t just appear out of nowhere… they first were imagined in somebody’s mind, and then the actions were put into motion to create that clothing. The world around us is just God’s and other people’s manifested thoughts that are frozen in time and space. Everything started off as thought, and I don’t think our bodies, souls, and spirits are any different. In this aspect, we are a creation of God but we are also one with God at the same time.

 

[Aelred_Minor]

I do not agree that it is impossible for God to bring about an impossible state of affairs - He has the power to do that; but more significantly chooses not to do so.

Impossible for whom?

 

[JDaniel]

For a long time, I have explained the paradox by stating (borrowing the wording of Marc Barnes from Bad Catholic) that “it is not possible for an agent to bring about an impossible state of affairs.” But, using that logic, how did God create the universe since bringing something out of nothing is impossible?

YC:

Welcome to CAF.

The so called paradox you are posting about is, in fact, not a paradox at all. It is a clever juxtaposition of words into something essentially meaningless.

Catholicism concurs that God does not do things that are, as we might view them, impossible or irrational. Could God do such things: more than likely. But, to do such things would violate His Divine Plan and denigrate his Divine wisdom.

To say that “it is not possible for an agent to bring about an impossible state of affairs,” is true . . . for finite creatures. But, for God, whatever he can think he can create. A so-called “impossible state of affairs,” may not, indeed, be “an impossible ‘state of affairs’!” Since we can’t be absolutely sure of what it is, how can we conjecture? But, what I have just said begs a question.

God bless,
jd

 

[paduard]

Impossible for whom?

Impossible for all but Almighty God.

 

[Shike]

bzkoss236 is correct and on the right track

• when it is affirmed that God creates the universe from nothing (and He is still creating by the way), one is denying pagan deities such as Plato’s Demiurge. Such pagan deities “created” the world as a product of other preexisting materials, reformed or combined. The Judeo/Christian tradition is different in that Creatio Ex Nihilo states that God commanded and it came into being from no other preexisting materials. It is an important doctrine because it marks out the divide between being a part of nature and subject to its laws and being the creator of nature.

In short, in order for there to be a logical contradiction in the formal sense, there would have to be absolute nothing which brought about something. There is, however, no absolute nothing because God exists. Ergo there is no logical contradiction.

free_thinker:

God, in the most raw and basic form, is pure energy.

We can stop here in this line of reasoning because this statement is demonstrably false. Pure energy is something determinable–it has the capacity for receiving modification and not for modifying other beings, much less creating them. God is understood to be Creator, and therefore, the cards don’t match.

paduard:

I do not agree that it is impossible for God to bring about an impossible state of affairs - He has the power to do that; but more significantly chooses not to do so.

To paduard and the many others who affirm something similar: at one time I may have said the same thing, it certainly seems to affirm God’s omnipotence while providing an answer to many of the silly objections like creating an immovable object that He cannot move. I eventually found out that such a stress on God’s omnipotence to the point of ignoring the impossibility of logical contradictions only undermines any attempt to know the Creator through reason… to say the least. No, the best option, the only option, is to affirm that moving an immovable object is a classic case of logical contradiction… not only does it not make sense to our understanding, but it could not exist in principle. To say anything else is to build immovable barriers between reality and our understanding–and that’s not a very good road to go down as evidenced by the history of modern and contemporary philosophy.
Aelred Minor:

If God could move an immovable object then God would be irrational. Rationality is a perfection, so God would be imperfect and therefore would not be God.

God would also be rational, evil, and a turnip since anything follows from a logical contradiction. While your argument is valid, it is not sound. But you are very close by affirming the irrationality of the OP’s contention.

Overall, great discussion. Great job to those who pointed out that we humans don’t see things the way God does. It helps point out that we need to understand the difference between strict logical contradiction and what seems impossible to humans and that sometimes, perhaps, we cannot tell the difference–but not in this case .

Take care,
Michael

 

[In_Spiration]

For a long time, I have explained the paradox by stating (borrowing the wording of Marc Barnes from Bad Catholic) that “it is not possible for an agent to bring about an impossible state of affairs.” But, using that logic, how did God create the universe since bringing something out of nothing is impossible?

I tend to think that God probably creates contingent things as mere possibilia first; that is, before actualizing them beyond the very actuality of possibility per se, at least, and thus with the realm of possibility itself preceding any further actualizations of the various possibilities originally contained therein. So God initially thinks of the essence of potential beings, and then, only afterward (ontologically speaking), may He will their real existence into further, actual beings. And, of course, while logical possibility w/regard to mental things does indeed bind physical possibility w/regard to material things, and thereby limits which motions are conceivable for spatio-temporal (i.e., bodily) entities, this is not somehow due to its primary, specific nature or in accordance with its most fundamental, defining property, since the domain of logical possibility as such is rather simply characterized by the abstract principles within some mind that generally guide its intentional thought. Plus, in the broader case of logic itself, this pertains strictly to the divine intellect’s special range of action re: its own, self-determined realm of even further existential possibility.

[Hence, for anyone inside the created world, the intellect’s intention of being *qua ideal being (viz. truth) is always prior to the will’s extension of ideal being into its own degree of real being (viz. goodness). Idea (or “ens intensa”) and reality (or “ens extensa”), being the two main modes in a substance for the actualization of an essence, I think, are distinguished typically – i.e., first and foremost, if not entirely – by their different relations to the inherent rational nature of personal beings (meaning, on my view, beings which just possess some innate capacity to suffer through the negative tensions of any sort of opposite or evil properties in their existence via understanding, virtue, and love).]

If we say that creating the universe out of nothing is possible, but only through God, then why could God not be able to perform the actions in the omnipotence paradox?

Because the so-called actions of the paradox are in fact impossible non-actions, inconceivable non-beings. I’d rather say that God creates possibility out of nothing (potency out of “omni-potency,” or omnipotence), and only then does He decide to begin developing – out of that prior possibility, itself then already actual – the particular material universe we now know and (sometimes) love.

If we say that God is not able to bring about an impossible state of affairs, then how do we exist?

The mind of God, by making and defining the original world of possibility which itself encompasses within it all individual, specific, and general possibilia, in this fashion alone determines which states of affairs are ultimately possible and which, on quite the other hand, basically ain’t.

Or at least that’s pretty much my rough take on it. I haven’t yet double-checked my work above for comprehensible intelligibility, or really, to be quite honest with you, even full conceptual sense; and so, therefore, yeah… as always… I actually could be way off the mark on this one.

 

[fred_conty]

God does not create something out of nothing. If He did, He would not be a creator, but merely a maker.

God thinks something and there it is.

Just being a smart alec.

 

[frizzgrig]

For a long time, I have explained the paradox by stating (borrowing the wording of Marc Barnes from Bad Catholic) that “it is not possible for an agent to bring about an impossible state of affairs.” But, using that logic, how did God create the universe since bringing something out of nothing is impossible?

God creates ex nhilo by definition. If not, He is not the creator. People have to use what we find already created, and can not create something from nothing. (However if you look to particle physics, people can create conditions that cause a particle and it’s anti-particle to appear in an apparent vacuum.)

If we say that creating the universe out of nothing is possible, but only through God, then why could God not be able to perform the actions in the omnipotence paradox?

The ability to create the universe from nothing does not necessarily imply omnipotence.
Believing God is omnipotent allows for us to understand He created the universe from nothing.

Human logic does not necessarily apply to God. I believe this is an instance where we are prevented by our earthly existence from fully comprehending the nature of God. Just because a person can think of a scenario that seems impossible by the rules we live in does not mean it is impossible outside those rules.

If we say that God is not able to bring about an impossible state of affairs, then how do we exist?

How is our existence an “impossible affair?” Clearly we exist so our existence is not and impossible state of affairs. What is impossible for man is not impossible for God.

In human terms, just be cause you can does not mean you will. Saying God can not do something is different than saying God would not do something. Saying God can not rejects His omnipotence, saying He would not goes to affirming His omniscience.

Coming at the issue from a different perspective - the immovable object/irresistible force paradox. An irresistible force would by definition have to contain just over 1/2 the total mass-energy of the universe. If it existed, there would not be enough mass-energy to have an immovable object. The two are mutually exclusive. You can have one or the other but not both at the same time so even though man can conceive the paradoxical situation, it can not exist according to the rules of this universe.

If God is omnipotent there is nothing he can not do. God can always create an infinitely heavier rock, and He can always move it. It is the paradox that can not be sustained if one believes omnipotence exists.

 

[kingpomba]

I’m an atheist so i’m often in the business of considering arguments that are against a God existing and i don’t think this is a very good argument at all. I certainly wouldn’t use it as evidence that a God cannot exist.

I’m basing my objection to this partially on C. Savage’s response as interpreted and criticised by Oppy whom i first learned it from.

[The below is based on the paradox of the stone but i think it’s generally applicable]

It’s often combined into one clause, Can God create a stone he cannot lift? I think this is a bit deceptive and confused, let’s separate it out:

1. 
   *]God can create a stone of any weight
   *]God can lift a stone of any weight
   *](Therefore) There cannot exist any stone which God can not both create and lift
   
   If God can create a stone he can’t lift, thats obviously a limitation on his power.
   If God cannot create a stone he can’t lift, that’s obviously a different limitation on his power.
   
   The second one is true but not in the sense of disproving omnipotence. As we see from (1), God can create a stone of any weight and from (2) God can lift a stone of any weight, it doesn’t make sense to say that God cannot create a stone that he cannot lift because from (1-2) a stone by such definition can’t even exist.
   
   I’m a very practical person, so, i have a totally unphilosophical objection to this as well… So what?
   
   Why does it matter in any practical sense to me or the world if God can’t fulfill some kind of logical paradox or create a stone he cannot lift? Why would he need or want to do such a thing? I don’t think this brings any limitation to his Godliness even if it somehow technically makes him just short of omnipotent, i would have no problem believing in this God if i was a believer.

 

[JDaniel]

I’m an atheist so i’m often in the business of considering arguments that are against a God existing and i don’t think this is a very good argument at all. I certainly wouldn’t use it as evidence that a God cannot exist.

I’m basing my objection to this partially on C. Savage’s response as interpreted and criticised by Oppy whom i first learned it from.

[The below is based on the paradox of the stone but i think it’s generally applicable]

It’s often combined into one clause, Can God create a stone he cannot lift? I think this is a bit deceptive and confused, let’s separate it out:

1. 
   *]God can create a stone of any weight
   *]God can lift a stone of any weight
   *](Therefore) There cannot exist any stone which God can not both create and lift
   
   If God can create a stone he can’t lift, thats obviously a limitation on his power.
   If God cannot create a stone he can’t lift, that’s obviously a different limitation on his power.
   
   The second one is true but not in the sense of disproving omnipotence. As we see from (1), God can create a stone of any weight and from (2) God can lift a stone of any weight, it doesn’t make sense to say that God cannot create a stone that he cannot lift because from (1-2) a stone by such definition can’t even exist.
   
   I’m a very practical person, so, i have a totally unphilosophical objection to this as well… So what?
   
   Why does it matter in any practical sense to me or the world if God can’t fulfill some kind of logical paradox or create a stone he cannot lift? Why would he need or want to do such a thing? I don’t think this brings any limitation to his Godliness even if it somehow technically makes him just short of omnipotent, i would have no problem believing in this God if i was a believer.

1. 
   King:
   
   Not bad. I find it hard to believe that you aren’t a believer.
   
   God bless,
   jd

 

[Anthony_V]

YoungCatholic86, I hope my insights will be useful.

For a long time, I have explained the paradox by stating (borrowing the wording of Marc Barnes from Bad Catholic) that “it is not possible for an agent to bring about an impossible state of affairs.” But, using that logic, how did God create the universe since bringing something out of nothing is impossible?

Bringing something out of nothing is not impossible, it simply requires an infinite amount of power.

If we say that creating the universe out of nothing is possible, but only through God, then why could God not be able to perform the actions in the omnipotence paradox?

If we say that God is not able to bring about an impossible state of affairs, then how do we exist?

Anyone have any idea how to reconcile these two views on what God can (or can’t) do?

(I am not doubting my faith, only the arguments that I and many others use to defend it)

No need to defend the validity of your question! Do not feel bad for being skeptical. In fact, I would encourage that type of behavior insofar as it increases your knowledge of God.

Firstly, there is no such thing as a paradox in reality. Paradoxes exist within the human mind because we cannot reduce it to something simpler which we can understand. An example of this is the blessed Trinity. How is it that three divine persons can be eternally unified in substance and essence? And yet by the grace of faith and divine revelation, we know it to be true.
To be sure of this, there must be a most infinitely simple, irreducible, and axiomatic thing that all logic can be reduced to. We call this thing the divine Logos. We can only understand God indirectly, through his effects, because an infinite Logos cannot fit inside the mind of a finite logoi (except through grace in faith and then beatific vision). He appears to be complex because we compile and systematize these effects we measure to negatively interpolate a sort of figure of God that we can understand. But nevertheless, he is infinitely simple and irreducible. For this, we know that all things can ultimately be reduced, and therefore are logical.