If god is omnipotent can he...

[Stitch]

I see this argument used quite a lot during debates with Theists, where a logical paradox is proposed (make a rock so heavy he can't lift it, for example).

Dictionary.com defines omnipotent as:

Having unlimited or universal power, authority, or force; all-powerful


I am not suggesting that any being exists that is omnipotent, but the atheist / sceptic attemt to counter using logical pardoxed seems a rather weak approach to me.

If an omnipotent being existed why would they have to adhere to the laws and rules as we see them or belive they operate. Surely the meaning of omnipotent is they are not bound by logic or the rules of science, they can change them at a whim to suit themself. This being the case there is no real issue with paradox based questions and omnipotence as I see it, we may have one heck of a time trying to figure out what is going on if we were to observe it, but that's a different issue :D

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Stitch
I see this argument used quite a lot during debates with Theists, where a logical paradox is proposed (make a rock so heavy he can't lift it, for example).

Stitch,

These types of questions are fallacious. They are examples of the meaningless question fallacy. The problem is not assumptions about God's limits, but the inherent contradiction in the question.

[Stitch]

Originally posted by BillHoyt
---snip---
but the inherent contradiction in the question.

That's kind of my point. A question is posed that is a "no win" question in terms of logic as we know it. If there was an omnipotent beaing they would not be constrained by what we know as logic and so it ought to be perfectly possible for them to maintain a contradictary state. Our minds may not be able to comprehend that, but then we aren't omnipotent.

Either way, I am not sure why sceptics seem to enjoy posing such questions that don't move things forward. Gues we are all human after all and while we are happy to pick apart others debating methods we are not so good a noting when we make the same mistake ourselves, it seems emotion always gets in the way.

[Marquis de Carabas]

The point of such questions is that omnipotence, literally interpreted, is self-contradictory. This leaves a responsible theist with two options, as I see it.

1) Rule that God is above logic. The problem with this is a theist using this out has essentially ruled him- or herself out of any further reasonable discussion about God. If God is beyond logic, what are we to make of Him?

2) Not insist on a literal interpretation of omnipotence. This can be seen as moving the goalposts, I grant, but I feel someone defining God's omnipotence as "the ability to do anything logically possible," for example, is a tenable position to take.

Of course, those are the options for responsible theists. Raving lunatics can do whatever they want, I suppose.

[Stitch]

Originally posted by Marquis de Carabas
The point of such questions is that omnipotence, literally interpreted, is self-contradictory. This leaves a responsible theist with two options, as I see it.

1) Rule that God is above logic. The problem with this is a theist using this out has essentially ruled him- or herself out of any further reasonable discussion about God. If God is beyond logic, what are we to make of Him?

2) Not insist on a literal interpretation of omnipotence. This can be seen as moving the goalposts, I grant, but I feel someone defining God's omnipotence as "the ability to do anything logically possible," for example, is a tenable position to take.

Of course, those are the options for responsible theists. Raving lunatics can do whatever they want, I suppose.

The trouble is that I see point 1 as being acceptable for an omnipotent being. It kind of adds weight to why I think there is no such being, but in terms of definition it is what it is.

I was pondering on this during an insomniac moment last night and I thought of it as a bit like inventing a new game. You ask somebody else to play this new game, but you don't tell them what the rules are. If they do something that is against the rules then they fail, when they follow the rules things work and work consistetley. However, only they are contrained by the rules, you invented them and have a caveat that says "the rule writer can add or modify rules to suit themseleves".

I agree it doesn't move the debate about "is there a god" forward as it just leaves the whopping great out of "god can do anything", but that is what an omnipotent being is supposed to be able to do and why I think we should probably avoid trying argue that issue.

I am more interested as to why an omnipotent being would have created Earth as it is if they are such a perfect and powerful being. I think most of us agree there are lots of things we would have done differently if it had been down to us, and it is hard to put a case for a loving, forgiving omnipotent being such as the christian god as a result.

[Marquis de Carabas]

Originally posted by Stitch

I am more interested as to why an omnipotent being would have created Earth as it is if they are such a perfect and powerful being. I think most of us agree there are lots of things we would have done differently if it had been down to us, and it is hard to put a case for a loving, forgiving omnipotent being such as the christian god as a result.
This is the problem. You're attempting to figure God out logically when you've already credited the possibility that He is above logic. Once you allow "God is above logic" as a credible answer to one question, it becomes a credible answer to any question about His alleged actions.

[Stitch]

Originally posted by Marquis de Carabas
This is the problem. You're attempting to figure God out logically when you've already credited the possibility that He is above logic. Once you allow "God is above logic" as a credible answer to one question, it becomes a credible answer to any question about His alleged actions.

That's very true of course, trying to run before I can walk again :D

[Prester John]

Originally posted by Marquis de Carabas
The point of such questions is that omnipotence, literally interpreted, is self-contradictory. This leaves a responsible theist with two options, as I see it.

1) Rule that God is above logic. The problem with this is a theist using this out has essentially ruled him- or herself out of any further reasonable discussion about God. If God is beyond logic, what are we to make of Him?

2) Not insist on a literal interpretation of omnipotence. This can be seen as moving the goalposts, I grant, but I feel someone defining God's omnipotence as "the ability to do anything logically possible," for example, is a tenable position to take.

Of course, those are the options for responsible theists. Raving lunatics can do whatever they want, I suppose.

Isn't the problem with choice 2 that it puts god within the confines of the Universe, governed by its laws and thus not omnipotent (or omni anything). This type of natural god is not the Judeo Christian god.

Similar arguments i have seen are why can't god make us with free will and unable to do evil, thus avoiding the neccessity to send us to hell. That he hasn't indicates either he can't or won't.
(riddle time ;) )

[Marquis de Carabas]

Originally posted by Prester John
Isn't the problem with choice 2 that it puts god within the confines of the Universe, governed by its laws and thus not omnipotent (or omni anything). This type of natural god is not the Judeo Christian god.
I don't see why using a limited definition of omnipotence necessarily subjects God to all the Universe's laws. I'll agree that any limit to God's power is antithetical to traditional interpretations of the Christian God, but I know a few Christians who aren't so concerned with tradition and do accept some limitation or another on omnipotence. (Yeah, I know, that's hearsay. Heresy hearsay even.)

Similar arguments i have seen are why can't god make us with free will and unable to do evil, thus avoiding the neccessity to send us to hell. That he hasn't indicates either he can't or won't.
(riddle time ;) )
Only if God is subject to logic, of course, is this a problem, but the answer is obvious: God's a right bastid.

[drkitten]

Originally posted by Marquis de Carabas
I don't see why using a limited definition of omnipotence necessarily subjects God to all the Universe's laws. I'll agree that any limit to God's power is antithetical to traditional interpretations of the Christian God, but I know a few Christians who aren't so concerned with tradition and do accept some limitation or another on omnipotence. (Yeah, I know, that's hearsay. Heresy hearsay even.)


There is an interesting formulation of this question in C.S. Lewis' Pilgrim's Regress, in which an angel states, in essence, that God can do anything that is meaningful, by which read, "a meaningless sentence will not gain meaning because someone chooses to prepend to it the words '[God] can.'" I think that this is a quite reasonable answer for a theist to take to the question of an omnipotent God. The problem is not with God, or His limitations, but with our understanding of the question. The phrase "a rock that God cannot lift" would be an example of a phrase without a meaning.

A formulation I also like is to consider the situation of the authorship of a work of fiction. As an author myself, I recognize that I am not constrained by logic in the works that I write; if I want to have a character appear at two places at once, or have two mutually exclusive properties, or even create total gibberish, there is nothing about the nature of the word processor that will prevent me. I can even create entirely "illogical" situations -- bachelors with wives, four-sided triangles, circles with corners -- that the reader will be unable to comprehend. It's usually the sign of a very bad writer that s/he does so. Only my own skill as a writer "compels" me, if you will, to try to write something logical. If you consider God to be the author of the universe, then He's similarly unconstrained. But almost by definition, He's also a much better writer than I am (although, frankly, you wouldn't know it to look at his major work....).

[Z]

If we read 'omnipotence' to mean absolutely all powerful, then omnipotence is logically impossible. If we read it to mean 'able to do anything logically possible', we avoid apparent paradox, but apparently limit the supposedly infinite power of such a being.

While I have no problem with the idea that God may be logically impossible yet still exist, I do have a problem with proposing a mighty deity whose powers are limited in scope. However, this means God cannot be ascertained through either senses or reason; God, being logically impossible, cannot be determined through anything except pure, gut feeling - intuition, if you will. This implies, to me, that any discussion which includes God as a part of the reasoning process, either in the steps of reasoning or as a conclusion, are irrelevant and meaningless.

Lifegazer, for example, likes to argue for a logically impossible God. Yet he attempts to do so using 'reasoning' - which is a fallacious methodology, at best.

Now, here's a nice catch for you: analyze the relationship between omnipotency and omnipresence! (I did that last night, but I'd like to see your conclusions first!)

[Jon_in_london]

Good is omnipotent but is also omnibenevolent so can do no evil. So god is not omnipotent? Well, reading about Job, seems god is capable of a fair old whack of evil. The only way out is to conclude that god is not so good after all. In which case why not worship satan?

[Eleatic Stranger]

That's kind of my point. A question is posed that is a "no win" question in terms of logic as we know it. If there was an omnipotent beaing they would not be constrained by what we know as logic and so it ought to be perfectly possible for them to maintain a contradictary state. Our minds may not be able to comprehend that, but then we aren't omnipotent.

The point made above regarding CS Lewis is basically right, but I'm going to restate it anyway because I like posting stuff.

The question regarding whether or not god - being omnipotent - can do logically contradictory actions is not really a question, because there are no logically contradictory actions(or, more precisely, there are no actions accurately described by logically contradictory sentences.). That is an odd way of putting it - but go ahead and imagine one, and then ask yourself if God could perform it. (Note: do not simply say the words that would describe that action, but in fact imagine the action itself. The problem here should become evident.)

In other words, comparing "Omnipotence means capable of doing anything" and "Omnipotence means capable of doing anything logically possible" is not really a comparison. In fact, those two are the same thing, except in the second case one is asserting specifically that God is not capable of doing actions accurately and completely described by words strung together to create meaningless sentences. In other words - the limit in question isn't one regarding omnipotence, it's one regarding language.

There are plenty of bizarre problems with the idea of omnipotence - especially conjoined with the various other perfections - but this isn't really one of them.

Saying that "God is greater than logic" is a very silly answer, though, and any theist who claims that should be resolutely ignored from then on.

[gnome]

Originally posted by new drkitten
A formulation I also like is to consider the situation of the authorship of a work of fiction. As an author myself, I recognize that I am not constrained by logic in the works that I write; if I want to have a character appear at two places at once, or have two mutually exclusive properties, or even create total gibberish, there is nothing about the nature of the word processor that will prevent me. I can even create entirely "illogical" situations -- bachelors with wives, four-sided triangles, circles with corners -- that the reader will be unable to comprehend. It's usually the sign of a very bad writer that s/he does so. Only my own skill as a writer "compels" me, if you will, to try to write something logical. If you consider God to be the author of the universe, then He's similarly unconstrained. But almost by definition, He's also a much better writer than I am (although, frankly, you wouldn't know it to look at his major work....).

If you take it that far, you also have to conclude that either God created the idea of what's "skillful writing" and what isn't (and you're back to the original question), or there are standards against which God's skill can be measured. That would imply something beyond God... and it's turtles all the way down.

[drkitten]

Originally posted by gnome
If you take it that far, you also have to conclude that either God created the idea of what's "skillful writing" and what isn't (and you're back to the original question), or there are standards against which God's skill can be measured. That would imply something beyond God... and it's turtles all the way down.

I don't see how the idea that God created the concept of "skillful writing," along with the rest of the Platonic universe of concepts, gets us back to the original question, any more than the question of where the concept of "red," or "turtle," or "molybdenum disulfide" arose gets us back to the original question. God-as-an-author can produce just as much gibberish as James Joyce.... but for some reason has chosen not to, probably because He has infinitely better taste in literature....

[Beerina]

Ok, then. How about something not logically forbidden?

Can God make a man so sexy even He cannot resist homosexual activity?

(Assuming God is a man. We already know he diddled with females.)

[Eleatic Stranger]

If God is omnipotent, anything he can't do (like resist) would be logically impossible.

[c4ts]

God can do anything, logical or not. Otherwise you're conceding that logic is a power higher than God. That's why it's pointless to try to guess his motives or predict his actions, or hang around in church all day praying to him.

[Beleth]

Can a Game Master in a role-playing game put a rock in his role-playing universe that is so heavy that even he can't lift it?

[Cosmo]

Originally posted by Beleth
Can a Game Master in a role-playing game put a rock in his role-playing universe that is so heavy that even he can't lift it?

Only if you fail your Save vs. Paradox.

[69dodge]

Originally posted by new drkitten
A formulation I also like is to consider the situation of the authorship of a work of fiction. As an author myself, I recognize that I am not constrained by logic in the works that I write [...] I can even create entirely "illogical" situations -- bachelors with wives, four-sided triangles, circles with corners -- that the reader will be unable to comprehend. [...] If you consider God to be the author of the universe, then He's similarly unconstrained.That doesn't sound right to me. You can write "four-sided triangle" (and so can God), but you can't create a four-sided triangle (and neither can God) because there's no such thing.

I agree with Eleatic Stranger. Logic isn't something that can so easily be dismissed. How can anything be true which is false by definition? The idea is absurd.

Triangles are called "triangles" because we've chosen to call them "triangles." And we've chosen not to call a "triangle" anything with four sides. So that pretty much rules out the existence of four-sided triangles, no matter how omnipotent God is. God can create anything he likes, but we don't have to call it a "four-sided triangle" if we don't want to.

Unless he forces us to, I guess. But that isn't really what people mean, is it?

The problem is, people don't know what they mean when they say, "God can create a four-sided triangle." They just like saying it, for some reason.

(No offense intended, new drkitten. You seem a reasonable sort. I just like pontificating, I guess. For some reason. :D)

[Kitty Chan]

Stitch

suggestions for your thoughts

disclaimer I am using the word "lawor system" for the sake of conversation. Take it to mean the way something works or is.

For instance;' IF He created the things on earth then He would have also created the systems and laws and how things work.

Logic, gravity, sun movement, life, body systems etc. A lot of time when things happened it was not necessarily outside of those natural laws.

Now, Jesus could have materilized to the next place He was going. But He spent alot of time walking on the road everyone else used.

Now, when He wanted to make a point then the miracle would occur. For instance Jesus walking on the water and then calming the storm.

So Hes not going to walk up and make a 4 sided triangle as its against the basics of math, which He would not be confined to but would work with because it would have been part of the systems created in the first place. Things do need to be logical.

Leaves miracles which are not part of those laws or systems. They are outside of the natural law if you will.

Go back to the storm, If God created the system to create the storm then He could "adjust" the system to be calm. While still working within the storms laws.

Anyway its late and if this doesnt quite flow then ask, but remember Im just joining the discussion at God making a 4 saided triangle, He wouldnt do that as its not logical, it breaks His laws and serves no purpose.

[EdipisReks]

if god's omnipotent can he suck a golfball through a gardenhose that is so large it won't fit through the gardenhose? like, a normal golfball?

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by Eleatic Stranger
The question regarding whether or not god - being omnipotent - can do logically contradictory actions is not really a question, because there are no logically contradictory actions(or, more precisely, there are no actions accurately described by logically contradictory sentences.). That is an odd way of putting it - but go ahead and imagine one, and then ask yourself if God could perform it. (Note: do not simply say the words that would describe that action, but in fact imagine the action itself. The problem here should become evident.)

In other words, comparing "Omnipotence means capable of doing anything" and "Omnipotence means capable of doing anything logically possible" is not really a comparison. In fact, those two are the same thing, except in the second case one is asserting specifically that God is not capable of doing actions accurately and completely described by words strung together to create meaningless sentences. In other words - the limit in question isn't one regarding omnipotence, it's one regarding language.Well put.

Omnipotence suggests the ability to "do all things", but I doubt whether such conceptual or linguistic contradictions (married bachelors, square circles) actually constitute "things".

[Z]

Originally posted by ceo_esq
Well put.

Omnipotence suggests the ability to "do all things", but I doubt whether such conceptual or linguistic contradictions (married bachelors, square circles) actually constitute "things".

This is the main counter-argument I've seen from many sites, including many theist sites, and I'd have to agree.

This is why it is useful to have two terms: 'absolute omnipotence' and 'logical omnipotence'.

[gnome]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
This is the main counter-argument I've seen from many sites, including many theist sites, and I'd have to agree.

This is why it is useful to have two terms: 'absolute omnipotence' and 'logical omnipotence'.

And the counter-counter argument is this puts God in the unusual position of being limited by something He supposedly created (logic)... or if He did not create it, that there is something else creating things limiting God.

Of course, you can avoid the whole problem if you don't assume intelligent design. Then logic can just be, without having been invented by something.

[Z]

Originally posted by gnome
And the counter-counter argument is this puts God in the unusual position of being limited by something He supposedly created (logic)... or if He did not create it, that there is something else creating things limiting God.

Of course, you can avoid the whole problem if you don't assume intelligent design. Then logic can just be, without having been invented by something.

Agreed - if God is omnipotent within the limits of logic, then God cannot be absolutely omnipotent. As such, I find the concept of absolute omnipotence to be an impossibility. Further, I would have to say that if God were absolutely omnipotent, he would be able to not exist, as well.

I don't assume 'intelligent design' as much as I assume 'semi-intelligent artistry'. Let's throw all this matter and energy together and see what happens! (I also tend to suscribe to a non-omniscient deity concept as well...)

Of course, I essentially suscribe to an irrelevant deity, which is why (when I preach) the point I generally try to get across is that the true power of God is the power of free will, of choice, possessed by each of us. So while God is not so important, per se, Man's choices in life are.

Eh, what do I know? I guess I'm more of a psychologist than a preacher, huh?

[gnome]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
Agreed - if God is omnipotent within the limits of logic, then God cannot be absolutely omnipotent. As such, I find the concept of absolute omnipotence to be an impossibility. Further, I would have to say that if God were absolutely omnipotent, he would be able to not exist, as well.

I would argue here that a God that was not "absolutely omnipotent" could also not have created everything that there is. So such a God is starting to seem somewhat Olympian, or perhaps like "Q" from Star Trek -- which to me takes away from the idea of God transcending reality--something with such limited power could be a product of the universe, instead of vice-versa.

I don't assume 'intelligent design' as much as I assume 'semi-intelligent artistry'. Let's throw all this matter and energy together and see what happens! (I also tend to suscribe to a non-omniscient deity concept as well...)

Of course, I essentially suscribe to an irrelevant deity, which is why (when I preach) the point I generally try to get across is that the true power of God is the power of free will, of choice, possessed by each of us. So while God is not so important, per se, Man's choices in life are.

Eh, what do I know? I guess I'm more of a psychologist than a preacher, huh?

A practical approach... but I would ask, is the idea of a God necessary to such a world view? Do you need a God to push a bunch of matter and energy together, any more than you need one to push the planets around in their orbits?

Or is it perhaps, not necessary, but you happen to think there might be such an intelligence anyway? Not everything that exists is logically necessary, I suppose.

[Z]

Originally posted by gnome

A practical approach... but I would ask, is the idea of a God necessary to such a world view? Do you need a God to push a bunch of matter and energy together, any more than you need one to push the planets around in their orbits?

Or is it perhaps, not necessary, but you happen to think there might be such an intelligence anyway? Not everything that exists is logically necessary, I suppose. [/B]

Probably the latter - I fully admit I hold beliefs of an intuitive and irrational nature, including a belief in deity. However, I just don't see 'deity' as anything we can really understand. (In point of fact, I have an idea about 'real' vs. 'unreal' things, and how they interact via probability - but it's really bizarre and half-baked.)

[ManfredVonRichthoffen]

I thought it was, "Could god microwave a burrito so hot that even he couldn't eat it.?"

[Beleth]

Originally posted by Beleth
Can a Game Master in a role-playing game put a rock in his role-playing universe that is so heavy that even he can't lift it?Originally posted by Cosmo
Only if you fail your Save vs. Paradox. I was actually being moderately serious.

If you look at it that way - a Creator mucking with a Creation He is totally outside of, yet has total control over - a lot of paradoxes are revealed for the absurdity that they are. It doesn't make sense to think of a GM lifting a rock inside his own created fantasy world, since he is totally outside it. I mean, if you get right down to it, the GM can't even touch a rock he created. He can affect it in all sorts of ways - make it smaller, turn it colors, make it turn into a rabbit, etc. - but he, the actual physical GM, can't come into physical contact with the rock because the rock is not a physical object.

This is one of the reasons I give lifegazer some slack. His arguments often depend on this separate-but-controlling viewpoint, even though he can't bring himself to admit it.

[Z]

In other words, an 'unreal' God in charge of a 'real' universe? :D

[Beleth]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
In other words, an 'unreal' God in charge of a 'real' universe? :D Yup. Also known as Deism.

It's also important to not equate "unreal" with "nonexistent"!

[Eleatic Stranger]

Agreed - if God is omnipotent within the limits of logic, then God cannot be absolutely omnipotent. As such, I find the concept of absolute omnipotence to be an impossibility. Further, I would have to say that if God were absolutely omnipotent, he would be able to not exist, as well.

Sigh - seriously, if god were completely omnipotent, could he gueljke weroihne owpihowe weduhwoe weough?

And no, I'm not going to add meanings to any of those letters - they're nonsense syllables. Could do that, though? And could not being able to do that constitute a limitation?

[Matteo Martini]

Then, answer this !!

If God is omnipotent, can he create a rock so undestroyable that not even Him can then destroy it ?

If he can then He is not omnipotent, if He can not He is not omnipotent.

Where is 1stinChrist ?