Hello. I'm an atheist. I have seen a pretty good sampling of the stock arguments theists tend to make. I would imagine it's a similar situation here, with many of you seeing the same arguments from atheists over and over again.
As such, I would imagine there's a bit of a "formula" for disputing the claim I'm about to make, and I am curious as to what the standard counterarguments to it are.
Here is my claim: God can not be omnipotent because omnipotence itself is a logically incoherent concept, like a square circle or a married bachelor. It can be shown to be incoherent by the old standby "Can God make a stone so heavy he can't lift it?" If he can make such a stone, then there is something he can't do. He can't make such a stone, then there is something he can't do. By definition, an omnipotent being must be able to do literally ANYTHING, so if there is even a single thing, real or imagined, that God can't do, he is not omnipotent. And why should anyone accept a non-omnipotent being as God?
I'm curious to see your responses.
Board index ‹ God
22 posts
• Page 1 of 3 • 1, 2, 3
Re: The Omnipotence Paradox
by jimwalton » Mon Jan 10, 2022 2:55 pm
Omnipotence has never been adequately defined, but it certainly doesn’t mean there are no limits to what God can do (Mk. 6.5). It means God is able to do all things that are proper objects of his power. It is no contradiction that God is able to bring about whatever is possible, no matter how many possibilities there are. The omnipotence of God is all-sufficient power. He can never be overwhelmed, exhausted, or contained. He is able to overcome apparently insurmountable problems. He has complete power over nature, though often he lets nature take its course, because that’s what He created it to do. He has power over the course of history, though he chooses to use that power only as he wills . He has the power to change human personality, but only as individuals allow, since He cannot interfere with the freedom of man. He has the power to conquer death and sin, and to save a human soul for eternity. He has power over the spiritual realm.
What all of this means is that God’s will is never frustrated. What he chooses to do, he accomplishes, for he has the ability to do it.
There are, however, certain qualifications of this all-powerful character of God. He cannot arbitrarily do whatever we may conceive of in our imagination.
Another aspect of God’s omnipotence is that he is free. Nothing in Scripture suggests that God’s will is determined or bound by any external factors. God’s decisions and actions are not determined by consideration of any factors outside himself, but are simply a matter of his own free choice.
Leibnitz & Ross philosophically state omnipotence in what’s called a “result” theory: theories that analyze omnipotence in terms of the results an omnipotent being would be able to bring about. These results are usually thought of as states of affairs or possible worlds: a way the world could be. A possible world is a maximally consistent state of affairs, a complete way the world could be. The simplest way to state it may be, “for any comprehensive way the world could be, an omnipotent being could bring it about that the world was that way.” Ross formulated it as “Since every state of affairs must either obtain or not, and since two contradictory states of affairs cannot both obtain, an omnipotent being would have to will some maximal consistent set of contingent states of affairs, that is, some one possible world.”
What all of this means is that God’s will is never frustrated. What he chooses to do, he accomplishes, for he has the ability to do it.
There are, however, certain qualifications of this all-powerful character of God. He cannot arbitrarily do whatever we may conceive of in our imagination.
- He can’t do what is logically absurd or contradictory (like make a square circle or a married bachelor)
- He can’t act contrary to his nature. Self-contradiction is not possible. He can only be self-consistent, and not self-contradictory.
- He cannot fail to do what he has promised. That would mean God is flawed.
- The theology of omnipotence rejects the possibility of dualism
- He cannot interfere with the freedom of man. Luke 13.34. If God can override human free will, then we are not free at all.
- He cannot change the past. Time by definition is linear in one direction only.
- It is not violated by self-limitation on the part of God
- It does not imply the use of all the power of God
Another aspect of God’s omnipotence is that he is free. Nothing in Scripture suggests that God’s will is determined or bound by any external factors. God’s decisions and actions are not determined by consideration of any factors outside himself, but are simply a matter of his own free choice.
Leibnitz & Ross philosophically state omnipotence in what’s called a “result” theory: theories that analyze omnipotence in terms of the results an omnipotent being would be able to bring about. These results are usually thought of as states of affairs or possible worlds: a way the world could be. A possible world is a maximally consistent state of affairs, a complete way the world could be. The simplest way to state it may be, “for any comprehensive way the world could be, an omnipotent being could bring it about that the world was that way.” Ross formulated it as “Since every state of affairs must either obtain or not, and since two contradictory states of affairs cannot both obtain, an omnipotent being would have to will some maximal consistent set of contingent states of affairs, that is, some one possible world.”
- jimwalton
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9108
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 2:28 pm
Re: The Omnipotence Paradox
by Parasailed » Mon Jan 10, 2022 3:03 pm
See, I just don't find that answer very satisfying. Omnipotence is a somewhat nebulous word, but if there are "rules" about logic and possibility that constrain God's power to do something, then there is something more powerful than God, right? And isn't God supposed to be more powerful than anything else? I mean if he can't even reverse time...
- Parasailed
Re: The Omnipotence Paradox
by jimwalton » Mon Jan 10, 2022 3:05 pm
> then there is something more powerful than God, right?
This claim seems to be a non sequitur to me. Rules of logic and possibility don't constrain God's power, they give evidence why God cannot be self-contradictory. These rules hold no sway over God. Instead, they show us the logic of His consistency.
The fact that you cannot teleport yourself doesn't mean that Quantum Mechanics, time, or space are more powerful than you. QM, time, & space are realities, not powers. It means only that we function in a context of reality and not independent of reality (which, of course, would be absurd. If we divest ourselves of a context of reality, all we are left with is meaninglessness, and even our conversation can't take place).
> I mean if he can't even reverse time...
Time is not a power, but a reality of material existence. So are space, energy, and motion. Because God conforms His activity to time, space, energy, and motion does mean that these entities are now powers greater than He.
Power, instead, is the rate of doing work. It necessarily requires an entity exercising said power. God is the entity exercising power. Conditions of consequent realities are not powers themselves.
The problem seems to be in your assumed definition. You want to define "All-powerful" as "power that ultimately doesn't make sense," and then you want to criticize omnipotence for not making sense. The problem is both in your definition and in your logic.
This claim seems to be a non sequitur to me. Rules of logic and possibility don't constrain God's power, they give evidence why God cannot be self-contradictory. These rules hold no sway over God. Instead, they show us the logic of His consistency.
The fact that you cannot teleport yourself doesn't mean that Quantum Mechanics, time, or space are more powerful than you. QM, time, & space are realities, not powers. It means only that we function in a context of reality and not independent of reality (which, of course, would be absurd. If we divest ourselves of a context of reality, all we are left with is meaninglessness, and even our conversation can't take place).
> I mean if he can't even reverse time...
Time is not a power, but a reality of material existence. So are space, energy, and motion. Because God conforms His activity to time, space, energy, and motion does mean that these entities are now powers greater than He.
Power, instead, is the rate of doing work. It necessarily requires an entity exercising said power. God is the entity exercising power. Conditions of consequent realities are not powers themselves.
The problem seems to be in your assumed definition. You want to define "All-powerful" as "power that ultimately doesn't make sense," and then you want to criticize omnipotence for not making sense. The problem is both in your definition and in your logic.
- jimwalton
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9108
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 2:28 pm
Re: The Omnipotence Paradox
by Parasailed » Mon Jan 10, 2022 4:04 pm
"These rules hold no sway over God." So, if God wanted to make square circles, he could?
Realities, not powers? Doesn't God have the power to shape and change reality at his will? If he doesn't he's not omnipotent.
So you're saying that even material things are more powerful than God? How do the other Christians feel about that statement?
Really seems like you are trying to redefine "omnipotent" as to mean something less than "the power to do anything." I'm sorry, but barring a very compelling argument, I will not accept that definition of the word.
Realities, not powers? Doesn't God have the power to shape and change reality at his will? If he doesn't he's not omnipotent.
So you're saying that even material things are more powerful than God? How do the other Christians feel about that statement?
Really seems like you are trying to redefine "omnipotent" as to mean something less than "the power to do anything." I'm sorry, but barring a very compelling argument, I will not accept that definition of the word.
- Parasailed
Re: The Omnipotence Paradox
by jimwalton » Mon Jan 10, 2022 4:12 pm
> So, if God wanted to make square circles, he could?
No, these are absurdities, not powers, realities, or rules. A square circle is nonsense, not a challenge or even a possibility to be entertained.
> Doesn't God have the power to shape and change reality at his will?
No. God is existence in its essence, self-defined, not shapable or changeable. It's like asking, "Can I change red to a different color?" No, you can't. If you change its color, its not red anymore. It doesn't make any sense to challenge reality with absurdities and think you're being logical or reasonable.
> Really seems like you are trying to redefine "omnipotent" as to mean something less than "the power to do anything."
I'm not trying to redefine it. Omnipotence NEVER meant "the power to do anything." That was what my ordinal post explained. It's false and absurd to consider that the the definition of omnipotence includes the power to do absurd nonsense. That's like asking, "God can't be omniscient because He doesn't know what it's like to not be omniscient." It's nonsense, and anyone is being nonsensical to think that we can define things irrationally in our search for reason.
> I'm sorry, but barring a very compelling argument, I will not accept that definition of the word.
I gave you a compelling argument. What you are lacking is a coherent argument to the contrary. You can't define omnipotence as "nonsensical power" and then expect to find some kind of sense in it. You must give me the compelling counter-argument that omnipotence should include the irrational in order to be rational.
No, these are absurdities, not powers, realities, or rules. A square circle is nonsense, not a challenge or even a possibility to be entertained.
> Doesn't God have the power to shape and change reality at his will?
No. God is existence in its essence, self-defined, not shapable or changeable. It's like asking, "Can I change red to a different color?" No, you can't. If you change its color, its not red anymore. It doesn't make any sense to challenge reality with absurdities and think you're being logical or reasonable.
> Really seems like you are trying to redefine "omnipotent" as to mean something less than "the power to do anything."
I'm not trying to redefine it. Omnipotence NEVER meant "the power to do anything." That was what my ordinal post explained. It's false and absurd to consider that the the definition of omnipotence includes the power to do absurd nonsense. That's like asking, "God can't be omniscient because He doesn't know what it's like to not be omniscient." It's nonsense, and anyone is being nonsensical to think that we can define things irrationally in our search for reason.
> I'm sorry, but barring a very compelling argument, I will not accept that definition of the word.
I gave you a compelling argument. What you are lacking is a coherent argument to the contrary. You can't define omnipotence as "nonsensical power" and then expect to find some kind of sense in it. You must give me the compelling counter-argument that omnipotence should include the irrational in order to be rational.
- jimwalton
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9108
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 2:28 pm
Re: The Omnipotence Paradox
by Same old same old » Mon Jan 10, 2022 4:32 pm
> He cannot fail to do what he has promised. That would mean God is flawed.
See, this would disqualify the Christian God in my view because of his broken promises to the Jews.
> The theology of omnipotence rejects the possibility of dualism
Dualism in the sense that there is not an equally powerful malevolent being that opposes God? Not a retort, just looking for clarification.
> He cannot change the past. Time by definition is linear in one direction only.
Science seems to have shown there is no fundamental difference between the past and the future, other than the fact entropy increases from past to future. If God can influence the future, God should be able to change the past.
See, this would disqualify the Christian God in my view because of his broken promises to the Jews.
> The theology of omnipotence rejects the possibility of dualism
Dualism in the sense that there is not an equally powerful malevolent being that opposes God? Not a retort, just looking for clarification.
> He cannot change the past. Time by definition is linear in one direction only.
Science seems to have shown there is no fundamental difference between the past and the future, other than the fact entropy increases from past to future. If God can influence the future, God should be able to change the past.
- Same old same old
Re: The Omnipotence Paradox
by jimwalton » Mon Jan 10, 2022 4:44 pm
You're grasping at straws to argue what you have decided against before the conversation began.
> See, this would disqualify the Christian God in my view because of his broken promises to the Jews.
You'll have to be more specific. We can't have much of a meaningful conversation if we're just dancing with generalities. To what alleged broken promises are you referring?
> Dualism in the sense that there is not an equally powerful malevolent being that opposes God? Not a retort, just looking for clarification.
Correct. If there is an equally powerful malevolent being, then God cannot be omnipotent because He would not, then, be necessarily able to do all things that are proper objects of His power.
> Science seems to have shown there is no fundamental difference between the past and the future
Science has "shown" no such thing. There are many speculations about time, linearity, "labyrinth," how it interacts with space and energy, Wheeler's theory of a one-electron universe, relativity, QM, etc. Time can be one reality as well as more than one reality simultaneously. Theories abound, nothing is "shown." As far as all our experience has shown, time on Earth is linear in one direction only. We would have to move forward to move backward in time, a contradiction. The ability to change the past would render all things unstable in consequence. Your point that God should be able to change the past is far from supported, let alone proven.
> See, this would disqualify the Christian God in my view because of his broken promises to the Jews.
You'll have to be more specific. We can't have much of a meaningful conversation if we're just dancing with generalities. To what alleged broken promises are you referring?
> Dualism in the sense that there is not an equally powerful malevolent being that opposes God? Not a retort, just looking for clarification.
Correct. If there is an equally powerful malevolent being, then God cannot be omnipotent because He would not, then, be necessarily able to do all things that are proper objects of His power.
> Science seems to have shown there is no fundamental difference between the past and the future
Science has "shown" no such thing. There are many speculations about time, linearity, "labyrinth," how it interacts with space and energy, Wheeler's theory of a one-electron universe, relativity, QM, etc. Time can be one reality as well as more than one reality simultaneously. Theories abound, nothing is "shown." As far as all our experience has shown, time on Earth is linear in one direction only. We would have to move forward to move backward in time, a contradiction. The ability to change the past would render all things unstable in consequence. Your point that God should be able to change the past is far from supported, let alone proven.
- jimwalton
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9108
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 2:28 pm
Re: The Omnipotence Paradox
by Parasailed » Mon Jan 10, 2022 5:57 pm
But an omnipotent being could make impossible things possible, right? Otherwise whatever causes things to be possible or impossible has power over the supposedly omnipotent being. If God can't change his will, or reality, then he's not omnipotent. In fact, he has even less power than a mortal human. You'll have to prove that the "omnipotence" does not mean "the power to do anything." Because I do not accept that statement.
You are absolutely right in saying that God can't be omniscient if he doesn't know what it's like to not be omniscient. Because then there's something God doesn't know.
Kinda seems like you're proving all my points for me. According to you, the claim "God is omnipotent" ONLY works if you define omnipotent as something other than omnipotent.
I really like that you brought up God's omniscience. If you're still willing to play ball, I've got a little question to ask you: If God is morally perfect, does he know what it's like to want to commit evil? Does he know what it's like to want to murder someone, or rape someone, or steal something? Because unlike square circles, those things are very, very real.
You are absolutely right in saying that God can't be omniscient if he doesn't know what it's like to not be omniscient. Because then there's something God doesn't know.
Kinda seems like you're proving all my points for me. According to you, the claim "God is omnipotent" ONLY works if you define omnipotent as something other than omnipotent.
I really like that you brought up God's omniscience. If you're still willing to play ball, I've got a little question to ask you: If God is morally perfect, does he know what it's like to want to commit evil? Does he know what it's like to want to murder someone, or rape someone, or steal something? Because unlike square circles, those things are very, very real.
- Parasailed
Re: The Omnipotence Paradox
by jimwalton » Mon Jan 10, 2022 6:15 pm
> But an omnipotent being could make impossible things possible, right?
No, as far as I understand your question. God can do things that we as humans consider impossible (such as a virgin birth), but He cannot do things that impossible because they are absurd (a square circle).
> Otherwise whatever causes things to be possible or impossible has power over the supposedly omnipotent being.
You mistake the notion of power with the concept of reality. Suppose I can't teleport to Saturn. That's not because the powers of non-teleportation have power over me—there ARE no powers of non-teleportation. Back to God. There is no such thing as a square circle. Irrational absurdities don't deal in power, nor do they have power. They are nothing more than the lack of sense, viz., nonsense.
> If God can't change his will, or reality, then he's not omnipotent.
God change His will. He has free will and the authority to change it, as the Bible adequately shows.
> You'll have to prove that the "omnipotence" does not mean "the power to do anything." Because I do not accept that statement.
Then, as I said, you must give counter-argument with more weight, proving to me that "omnipotence should include the irrational in order to be rational." If you find that claim more acceptable, you must show me so.
> Kinda seems like you're proving all my points for me.
Not a bit. I've shown you on every turn how you are wrong, and you have so far neglected to step up to the plate with a more acceptable definition and explanation.
> I really like that you brought up God's omniscience. If you're still willing to play ball, I've got a little question to ask you:
You haven't responded with anything rational about omnipotence, so I don't know why I should venture into another realm of absurdity, but for now I'll play along.
> If God is morally perfect, does he know what it's like to want to commit evil?
You've stepped outside of omniscience already. This is a question of morality, not omniscience, and it's another absurdity. Let me throw out a few nonsense questions for you, all of which are in the same vein:
Just like omnipotence, people drastically misunderstand and abuse what omniscience is. When we say that God is omniscient, we are undeniably talking about all things that are proper objects of knowledge. For instance, God doesn't know what it's like to learn, he doesn't know what it's like not to know everything, he doesn't know what would happen if an unstoppable force met an immoveable wall. These are absurdities. By omniscience we mean that God knows himself and all other things, whether they are past, present, or future, and he knows them exhaustively and to both extents of eternity. Such knowledge cannot come about through reasoning, process, empiricism, induction or deduction, and it certainly doesn't embrace the absurd, the impossible, or the self-contradictory.
To complicate the problem of defining omniscience, it can't be established what knowledge really is and how it all works. What are the principle grounds of knowledge, and particularly of God's knowledge? Does he evaluate propositions? Does he perceive? What about intuitions, reasoning, logic, and creativity? We consider knowledge to be the result of neurobiological events, but what is it for God?
But let's continue on to the true issue at hand: Is an omniscient being capable of thought? Of course he is, because thoughts are more than just knowledge, and they are more than just evaluating propositions, and the Bible defines God's mind as...
None of these conditions negates His omniscience. Generation of thoughts is not a process that negates His omniscience. If God is going to be responsive to human free will, which the Bible indicates He is (Jer. 18.1-12, Jonah 3), then thought does not imply a change of divine characteristics.
Is God's omniscience propositional or non-propositional? Can God have beliefs (since beliefs can be true, and beliefs are different than knowledge)? Are God's beliefs occurrent or dispositional? As you can see, this can all get pretty deep pretty quickly. At root, a cognitive faculty is simply a particular ability to know something, and since God knows everything, his cognitive faculties are both complete and operational. Perhaps we can define God's omniscience as:
No, as far as I understand your question. God can do things that we as humans consider impossible (such as a virgin birth), but He cannot do things that impossible because they are absurd (a square circle).
> Otherwise whatever causes things to be possible or impossible has power over the supposedly omnipotent being.
You mistake the notion of power with the concept of reality. Suppose I can't teleport to Saturn. That's not because the powers of non-teleportation have power over me—there ARE no powers of non-teleportation. Back to God. There is no such thing as a square circle. Irrational absurdities don't deal in power, nor do they have power. They are nothing more than the lack of sense, viz., nonsense.
> If God can't change his will, or reality, then he's not omnipotent.
God change His will. He has free will and the authority to change it, as the Bible adequately shows.
> You'll have to prove that the "omnipotence" does not mean "the power to do anything." Because I do not accept that statement.
Then, as I said, you must give counter-argument with more weight, proving to me that "omnipotence should include the irrational in order to be rational." If you find that claim more acceptable, you must show me so.
> Kinda seems like you're proving all my points for me.
Not a bit. I've shown you on every turn how you are wrong, and you have so far neglected to step up to the plate with a more acceptable definition and explanation.
> I really like that you brought up God's omniscience. If you're still willing to play ball, I've got a little question to ask you:
You haven't responded with anything rational about omnipotence, so I don't know why I should venture into another realm of absurdity, but for now I'll play along.
> If God is morally perfect, does he know what it's like to want to commit evil?
You've stepped outside of omniscience already. This is a question of morality, not omniscience, and it's another absurdity. Let me throw out a few nonsense questions for you, all of which are in the same vein:
- Does God know what it's like to not know everything?
- Does God know what it's like to learn?
- Can God really believe anything?
- Can God think?
- Etc. ad absurdum
Just like omnipotence, people drastically misunderstand and abuse what omniscience is. When we say that God is omniscient, we are undeniably talking about all things that are proper objects of knowledge. For instance, God doesn't know what it's like to learn, he doesn't know what it's like not to know everything, he doesn't know what would happen if an unstoppable force met an immoveable wall. These are absurdities. By omniscience we mean that God knows himself and all other things, whether they are past, present, or future, and he knows them exhaustively and to both extents of eternity. Such knowledge cannot come about through reasoning, process, empiricism, induction or deduction, and it certainly doesn't embrace the absurd, the impossible, or the self-contradictory.
To complicate the problem of defining omniscience, it can't be established what knowledge really is and how it all works. What are the principle grounds of knowledge, and particularly of God's knowledge? Does he evaluate propositions? Does he perceive? What about intuitions, reasoning, logic, and creativity? We consider knowledge to be the result of neurobiological events, but what is it for God?
But let's continue on to the true issue at hand: Is an omniscient being capable of thought? Of course he is, because thoughts are more than just knowledge, and they are more than just evaluating propositions, and the Bible defines God's mind as...
- creating new information (Isa. 40-48)
- showing comprehension
- gaining new information (Gn. 22.12, but it's not new knowledge)
- He orders the cosmos (Gn. 1)
- He designs (viz., the plan for the temple)
- He deliberates (Hos. 11.8)
- He can reason with people (the whole book of Malachi; Gn. 18.17-33)
- He can change a course of action (Ex. 32; 1 Sam. 8-12)
- He remembers (all over the place)
None of these conditions negates His omniscience. Generation of thoughts is not a process that negates His omniscience. If God is going to be responsive to human free will, which the Bible indicates He is (Jer. 18.1-12, Jonah 3), then thought does not imply a change of divine characteristics.
Is God's omniscience propositional or non-propositional? Can God have beliefs (since beliefs can be true, and beliefs are different than knowledge)? Are God's beliefs occurrent or dispositional? As you can see, this can all get pretty deep pretty quickly. At root, a cognitive faculty is simply a particular ability to know something, and since God knows everything, his cognitive faculties are both complete and operational. Perhaps we can define God's omniscience as:
- Having knowledge of all true propositions and having no false beliefs
- Having knowledge that is not surpassed or surpassable.
- jimwalton
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9108
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 2:28 pm
22 posts
• Page 1 of 3 • 1, 2, 3
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 7 guests