For some reason I've been thinking about this a lot lately, so I guess I'll make a topic. The omnipotence paradox is frequently stated as follows. I see this thrown around in a lot of discussions about gods and such, often with a smugness that can be quite abrasive. They usually present two options, both of which show that an omnipotent being is inherently contradictory. If a god cannot, then that god is not omnipotent If a god can, he cannot lift the stone and is not omnipotent However, doesn't the question just boil down to 'Can an omnipotent being make themselves no longer omnipotent?'? By definition, something that is omnipotent can do anything, and I imagine that would involve removing its omnipotence if it so desired. So, the question can be rephrased like the following. And the potential options are If it cannot, it is not omnipotent If it can, it is omnipotent Am I correct here? And, before any of you make assumptions, I am an agnostic strong atheist with no religious affiliations. I have noticed some people here like to go right to ad hominem when they think the other poster is religious, which is why I mention this. :shrug:
I think it assumes the being must try on good faith to lift something it had previously designed to be unliftable.
"Omnipotent" although seemingly an ultimate word is loosely speaking relativistic. Suppose person A is able to do everything in Chemistry- Is this person Omnipotent- no- but if the whole world was Chemistry- then yes. Suppose a person can lift infinite amounts of weight- Is this person Omnipotent- no- but if 'everything' is simply lifting weights- yes. In other words 'omnipotent' is a relativistic word that has a boundary which is defined by something- in general it is defined by the 'world', 'universe', 'field', etc. Now with regards to God. The boundary of God is God himself, as such is the case he is Omnipotent. And since there is nothing outside God, or that escapes Him, there is nothing to which you can relate this 'omnipotency'-which may mean that is the Ultimate 'Omnipotent' being. The question of "Can an omnipotent being remove their omnipotence?" fails to realize the relativistic nature of the word. Can there be a universe greater than the universe? No, because the universe basically takes everything in it, so the word universe apart from being an 'entity' (or existence) is also a 'boundary'... God encompasses everything, and he Himself is the boundary. So the question is really, can something be outside of everything? No. This is not a contradiction, it is simply the realization of the definition. Omni- All Potent- Power If God is the boundary, then 'all power' is contained within that boundary. So by definition God contains all power and thus Omnipotent. The question asks that everything create something that is outside of everything.. This is forcing a contradiction in definition. Its not that God and Omnipotent are contradictory, its rather the question itself is contradictory. Peace be unto you Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Can God break the logical law of non-contradiction? Can he make a dog that is both pink and invisible at the same time in the same sense? No, or else he's an illogical concept. The Bible states that God is not omnipotent (Titus 1:1-2). He is bound by some things. I like to think that since God has always been good, he did not create goodness (he is bound by his nature, a part of that being morality). Also, since God is unchanging, the logical law of identity has always held, he did not create logic. But then again, the realm of the illogical is just a flaw of language, it has no representative in nature. God can do anything that can be done. But...even then....what all verses claim that God is omnipotent? I know he's called the All-Mighty, all things can be done through him (which could be interpreted to all things that you need to do), and I know he boasts that he's God, what's too hard for him? But are there any other verses?
I going to jump to a assumption then. Can I assume that you believe that omnipotence is in fact a paradox. I respect your belief, and I respect the belief that seems to be implied by 786. The question from your point of view and his point of view are different as anyone can tell by reading the thread. Your question is, "is omnipotence a paradox", and 786's question is, "can omnipotence cause itself to not be Omnipotent? I answer that it depends on what you believe. My questing to you and 786 is do you ever consider that the other one of you could be right? Do you even consider the possibility that you might be wrong?
This is not my question.. This is the 'final' question asked by the OP, I simply quoted it and tried to break it down to show that this question is in itself contradictory. The logic offered by the OP is not strong, and as I tried to show that the question itself is contradictory that I find no reason to accept that the OP is correct. I may be wrong but he is definitely not right. Peace be unto you Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
If you extend the object of potency to include its potencies, there is no problem. For instance you could say that the sun is potent enough to incinerate entire planets (if they happen to get sucked into it) and also potent enough to warm a bucket of water by a few degrees (by the agency of sunlight). So in the same fashion, the expression of a fallible potency is found through the living entity (IOW just as the sunlight is a potency of the sun that accounts for a lesser aspect of it, the multitude of living entities account for a lesser aspect of an omnipotent god). As for the original issue of a rock and god, its the nature of gods potencies that they have no limit (in quality). So something that is created as unliftable at one moment is subsequently liftable in the next and so on. This expanding variety of god's potencies, and the competition between them, constitutes the perfect mellow (although it usually finds better means of application than mere brute strength and objects ... I mean even in our fallible existence we can find better things to do than merely making heavy things and seeing if we can lift them)
Well, I revert back to my question of the invisible, pink dog. The Omnipotence paradox question about a heavy rock is basically asking if God can break the law of non-contradiction. There are some things that either are, or aren't, and by definition, can't be both. Either the rock can be lifted, or it can't. Can he, then, create an unliftable rock, with the assumption that he can lift anything? No, he can't. Because we first assume he can lift anything. Does that mean he's not omnipotent? By no means. He can do anything that doesn't contradict his nature. He is only bound by himself. One aspect of his is that he can lift any rock. So he can create the heaviest rock ever, but he can't ever change his aspect that he won't be able to lift it. But to clarify the question, can he do something that is one thing, and is another contradicting thing, at the same time, in the same sense? And again, I'll say no. Not if his existence makes logical sense.
God is often defined as "omnipotent". So the question "Is God omnipotent?" is a tautology to begin with. It is similar to asking "Are apples fruits?" We cannot think or talk about God (or anything else for that matter) without operating with some definitions of God (or whatever it is we are thinking about). We might, however, sometimes forget about those definitions or they may be incorrect, and this is when we come up with notions of paradoxes. The proponents of the omnipotence paradox suppose that the ways God creates and lifts things are the same as the ways humans create and lift things. This is not proven, though. So one reason to put the omnipotence paradox aside is not knowing how God does things.
If you were blind, how could you tell? How do you know there aren't any pink invisible dogs running around? IOW, what point is there in proposing challenges or options, if we cannot test them or witness them?
I'm not sure I follow the first part. We understand the concept of color. We also understand the concept of no color. Either God makes sense, or he doesn't. If you claim that he doesn't make sense, it will seriously dock some believability points from your God, no matter how much more transcendent he is compared to me. To the second part, that's kinda what paradoxes are about. They are nonsensical flows of logic. To avoid these, you have to make the concept coherent and consistent. To say that we cannot witness such things might imply that such things can't exist (which, by definition, they can't). I wouldn't disagree, either. If a god exists, I'm sure it wouldn't bring along paradoxes.
The people who tend to claim that God is omni whatever have often been theologians. For them the terms are not relative terms, they are absolute and they fuss over beliefs in the abstract away from everyday practices and concerns and experiences of religious adherents. IOW they can get really silly. And so it's fine if they end up having to defend such concepts. Unfortunately their ideas often get conflated with religious ideas in general, or, even more foolishly, with theism in general. How do you know things about what God would be like?
I appreciate someone with a cruel streak. And it does work best if you just be cruel and let us wonder ... but just for the heck of it, would you spell out the error Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!.
I didn't see his statement as describing god, but rather describing logic (even though this isn't what he meant). If god did exist, any apparent paradoxes in logic would have resolutions. There are two different approaches I would consider with paradoxes of omnipotence. The problem I think is worth considering not because god is claimed to be omnipotent by theists, but rather because if god is the creator of the universe and he could choose the universe he creates, we have no way of differentiating between an omnipotent god and a god with limitations. Temporal considerations: a statement about a god's capability should specifically mention when the god has this capability. God could make a rock so heavy that he could not lift it. He could then give himself the ability the lift it anyway, and remove that ability later. Selection effects: a statement about god's capability should specifically mention how god would create the universe to allow or disallow an action. God could make a rock so heavy that he could not lift it. He could also plan the progression of the universe such that the rock is moved. This is somewhat harder to see, but is isomorphic to convincing a person of a thing that he could not be convinced of: by planning the mental stages of a person with perfect precision, he could allow errors in cognition such that he changes his mind anyway.
Logic is nothing without the premises we feed into the logical process. The choice of those premises, however, is another matter.
If an omnipotent being removes its omnipotence, then logically speaking it is no longer omnipotent. At which point this statement would obviously become false. Hence the very paradox of which the discussion is born.
True. I just wanted to hear you say it. So it is not a paradox, it is faulty logic just like the example in the OP, "Can an omnipotent being create a stone so heavy it cannot lift it?" It does not prove that omnipotence is impossible and it does not prove it is possible. Leaving us with a personal decision if we want an opinion on the topic.
