Omnipotence

[hightreason]

I was just thinking of this and so I thought I'd search out a forum on which I could post it and see what people think.

One of the leading criticisms of the Christian conceptualisation of God is that he is omnipotent. Without omnipotence, Christians would have to admit to a much less powerful God than what they suppose exists. There have been various arguments for the impossibility of omnipotence.

Most of them boil down to this: Can God create a rock that is too heavy for God to lift?

That seems on its face to completely disprove omnipotence. The answer to the question has to be yes or no. If it's yes, then God would not be able to lift the rock and would therefore not be omnipotent. If it is no, he would not be able to create the rock and would therefore not be omnipotent. Airtight argument right? I thought so too until yesterday. Today, however, I'm actually going to disprove that argument.

The first thing I need to do is address the point of logical impossibility. For example, can God create a round square? The answer to this question clearly seems to have to be no. This, however, unlike the above argument, is not very compelling evidence at all against God's omnipotence. Despite the fact that the two look very similar on the face, they are, in fact, very different.

Our first argument (about the rock) talks about something that is a contingent truth. God's ability to lift a rock is contingent (unless you except St. Anselm's argument which brings with it baggage you probably don't want). A square not being round is a necessary truth. It is defined in the definition of the square that it is not round (in Euclidean geometry).

Therefore, when you ask the first question, you are referring to a possibility which really exists, the possibility that someone or something (God) could lift someone or something else (a rock). When you ask the second question, you are just speaking gibberish. The term "round square" doesn't actually refer to anything. It is akin to asking "Can God create a guettedoojazzle?" The answer to that question, therefore, is not "no," but rather "what the hell are you talking about?"

God cannot create logically impossible things because logically impossible things are not really things at all but merely silly combinations of words.

The question I really came here to talk about though was that as to whether God can create a rock that he can't lift. I contend that he can create such a rock, and that his ability to do so does not disprove his omnipotence.

Omnipotence is the ability to do anything. However, it is not by definition a permanent ability. Someone could conceivably have omnipotence at one point and then cease to have it. That means that God, if omnipotent right now, could create the rock that he can't lift. After creating it, however, he would cease to be omnipotent as there would be one thing that he could not do.

Now, I know what some of you Christians are thinking. You're thinking that you don't believe in a God that could, at some point, cease to be omnipotent. You believe in a God that is, and always will be, omnipotent. Well, this is not that difficult of a problem to solve, actually.

If God does not want to stop being omnipotent, he will never stop being omnipotent. That's because his omnipotence, will allow him the ability to stop anything from happening that would take away his omnipotence. If this were true, there could be only one being in the world that was omnipotent. Multiple omnipotent beings would screw it up because what if one of them wanted to take away the omnipotence of the other and the other didn't want that... But the good news is that, if you're Christian, you probably already believe that God is the only omnipotent being, so we don't have a problem.

In order to accept this explanation, you would also have to believe that God is fundamentally the type of guy who wants to be omnipotent forever. This doesn't seem that incompatible with Christian beliefs, either, so it shouldn't cause too much problem. It might make him seem a little bit like a megalomaniac, but he kind of is anyway what with creating an entire world full of people who's sole purpose is to worship him.

So, there you have it, folks. It is entirely possible for God to be omnipotent (if there were a God).

[Miles]

You're assuming it would be logical for God to somehow show his divine prowess by displaying strength and power based on your terms.

Not at all. It's merely the impossibilities inherent in the claims some Christians make of their god. If you claim god is X, then god must possess all the characteristics of X. Not that such a demonstration of these characteristics is required, only that having been claimed, they are then presumed to be true and entirely possible.

It also seems to suggest that we must measure God based on laws of this world. Lets say this world was 2 dimensional. Could we use our known laws to measure things in a 3D world? Assuming God is both real and true, what means of measurement can you provide that would accurately encompass who He is and what he is capable of? Could a 3D world explain in written terms what they are capable of to a 2D world?

The only trouble here is, no qualifying condition is ever postulated. When god has been claimed to be omnipotent no one has ever added an "except . . . ." We take the words used in their commonly understood sense, unless given reason to do otherwise, and no such reason is ever given. Now you seemingly want to take his claimed omnipotence and cast in some otherworldly light. Fine, but I have no interest in such an issue. I prefer to talk about his attributes in the same senses they were claimed.

It seems to be more a contradiction of terms than a scenario in which God has been proven as limited.

Not "terms," but "term," singular. Omnipotent is simply a bankrupt concept from the starting line. It's a poorly conceived notion that has only gained currency because it sounds majestic and fitting of a god to those need their god to be bigger than life.

I'm only suggesting that if God is real, we would have no way to explore the limit of his abilities.

Sure we can. Unless one is going to insist on using words in an Alice in Wonderland way, where "no" can mean "yes," the claimed abilities of god must conform to the definitions of the words used to describe those abilities, all of which means the logic of these descriptions is open for examination. If such an examination reveals a false logic then we can say the description is faulty: false. And this is the case with omnipotence, it is bankrupt because it leads to self contradiction, kind of like the saying, ""The first rule is that there are no rules." or "this sentence is false."

Being able to come up with a scenario you feel limits God is different than discovering God is limited.

Not a scenario, but a self-contradictory condition that some insist he possesses. Now if they want to claim their god is self-contradictory, fine, I have no argument. But just don't tell me he's not self-contradictory and omnipotent.

I'm not arguing whether He is or isn't omnipotent here, only I don't feel it's possible to measure such a thing by our standards.

But we do; by the standards of non-contradiction. A standard that makes "I wish that this wish doesn't come true," illogical. An omnipotent god is simply so illogical that its truth factor = 0.

[Zephyr]

Perhaps all of you are missing the point. We all know that "forever" exists. How long is forever though? You can't conceive it. It is the same way with this question. Imagine a place where mass does not exist. If mass does not exist, then this rock will have no weight. We can't comprehend something without mass, because we can't imagine it not existing. Now, let us say that there are more inconceivable things. The true idea of Heaven is inconceivable to man. No man has ever found perfect paradise; but yet, the Bible states that it exists.

Now, let's look at something even greater than Paradise itself. Now, if we can't comprehend Heaven, we surely can't comprehend the idea of Omnipotence. Therefore, we can't comprehend God. Omnipotence cannot be conceived, that is why we're using material objects to try to describe it. The Bible was meant to be interpreted in the Spiritual sense, but man interprets it Physically.

[FinalEnigma]

Perhaps all of you are missing the point. We all know that "forever" exists. How long is forever though? You can't conceive it. It is the same way with this question. Imagine a place where mass does not exist. If mass does not exist, then this rock will have no weight. We can't comprehend something without mass, because we can't imagine it not existing. Now, let us say that there are more inconceivable things. The true idea of Heaven is inconceivable to man. No man has ever found perfect paradise; but yet, the Bible states that it exists.

Couple problems here - we don't know that forever exists. What does that mean? What is forever?

yes, we can comprehend things with no mass, like light. It's really hard to say something that can't be comprehended, without spouting gibberish.

Now, let's look at something even greater than Paradise itself. Now, if we can't comprehend Heaven, we surely can't comprehend the idea of Omnipotence. Therefore, we can't comprehend God. Omnipotence cannot be conceived, that is why we're using material objects to try to describe it. The Bible was meant to be interpreted in the Spiritual sense, but man interprets it Physically.

If omnipotence cannot be conceived, then you can't talk about it, either. You can't know anything about it, because it can't be conceived, so how do you know it exists?

[Zephyr]

Perhaps all of you are missing the point. We all know that "forever" exists. How long is forever though? You can't conceive it. It is the same way with this question. Imagine a place where mass does not exist. If mass does not exist, then this rock will have no weight. We can't comprehend something without mass, because we can't imagine it not existing. Now, let us say that there are more inconceivable things. The true idea of Heaven is inconceivable to man. No man has ever found perfect paradise; but yet, the Bible states that it exists.

Couple problems here - we don't know that forever exists. What does that mean? What is forever?

yes, we can comprehend things with no mass, like light. It's really hard to say something that can't be comprehended, without spouting gibberish.

Now, let's look at something even greater than Paradise itself. Now, if we can't comprehend Heaven, we surely can't comprehend the idea of Omnipotence. Therefore, we can't comprehend God. Omnipotence cannot be conceived, that is why we're using material objects to try to describe it. The Bible was meant to be interpreted in the Spiritual sense, but man interprets it Physically.

If omnipotence cannot be conceived, then you can't talk about it, either. You can't know anything about it, because it can't be conceived, so how do you know it exists?

Thank you for noting my mistake in the first part. But, how could forever not exist? The most popular creation theory is the Big Bang, which was preceded by the Big Crunch. But, we're going to have another Big Crunch at the end says Scientists. It will throw together a never ending cycle. That is forever.

And as for the second part, we can talk about a compressed form of it. We can't comprehend the full deal though.

[JBlack]

But, how could forever not exist? The most popular creation theory is the Big Bang, which was preceded by the Big Crunch. But, we're going to have another Big Crunch at the end says Scientists. It will throw together a never ending cycle. That is forever.

I believe the Big Crunch is a theory that not all scientists agree on. For now, it's merely a proposed possibility.

And as for the second part, we can talk about a compressed form of it. We can't comprehend the full deal though.

So what form of omnipotence is the Bible referring to? The "compressed" form or the "full deal"?
Firstly, please clarify on what a "compressed" form of omnipotence is. Secondly, if the "full deal" can't be comprehended, then you once again have the problem of how can it be known to exist.

The Bible was meant to be interpreted in the Spiritual sense, but man interprets it Physically.

How is something interpreted "spiritually"?

[WinePusher]

Most of them boil down to this: Can God create a rock that is too heavy for God to lift?

That sure is a lot of talkin for this one question

My simple response to your question? You're essentially asking if God is bound by the laws of gravity. Considering that planets seemingly "float" are you asking if God can create an object on earth he can't lift? Are you asking if God came to earth, if he could lift a heavy rock?

Assuming for a moment you lean towards the existence of God, you're asking if he who created gravity is less powerful than it's effects. In which I would ask, why is it important what God can do under the influence of gravity or not?

To quote C.S. Lewis here:

Can a mortal ask questions which God finds unanswerable? Quite easily, I should think. All nonsense questions are unanswerable.

It appears you've missed the point. It isn't about gravity per se, but about god's supposed powers and how they contradict each other. If god is capable of doing absolutely anything he wants---he's omnipotent---then he should be able to create a rock as heavy as he wishes, BUT can he create one too heavy for even him to lift? One would certainly think so because, after all, he is omnipotent. Yet on the other hand, if it's too heavy for even him to lift what does this say about his ability to do anything he wishes? Either the rock is too heavy and he can't lift it, in which case he's not omnipotent, or he can't create a rock too heavy to lift, in which case he's not omnipotent. Seems as god simply can't be omnipotent. But Christians never bother themselves with such particulars. It's far easier and less stressing to simply claim certain powers, and then go brunch. Doesn't pay to examine religious assertions too closely. There's kind of bliss in ignorance. HEY! that's it. Ignorance is bliss. Gotta remember that.

omnipotence doesn't entail performing illogical feats. The statement, can God create a rock so heavy he cannot lift it, is self contradictory. I could easily turn it around on u say

"Any Rock God can create, God can lift"
"There is no such rcok that exists that God can create but cannot lift"

[JamesWesley]

Most of them boil down to this: Can God create a rock that is too heavy for God to lift?

That sure is a lot of talkin for this one question

My simple response to your question? You're essentially asking if God is bound by the laws of gravity. Considering that planets seemingly "float" are you asking if God can create an object on earth he can't lift? Are you asking if God came to earth, if he could lift a heavy rock?

Assuming for a moment you lean towards the existence of God, you're asking if he who created gravity is less powerful than it's effects. In which I would ask, why is it important what God can do under the influence of gravity or not?

To quote C.S. Lewis here:

Can a mortal ask questions which God finds unanswerable? Quite easily, I should think. All nonsense questions are unanswerable.

It appears you've missed the point. It isn't about gravity per se, but about god's supposed powers and how they contradict each other. If god is capable of doing absolutely anything he wants---he's omnipotent---then he should be able to create a rock as heavy as he wishes, BUT can he create one too heavy for even him to lift? One would certainly think so because, after all, he is omnipotent. Yet on the other hand, if it's too heavy for even him to lift what does this say about his ability to do anything he wishes? Either the rock is too heavy and he can't lift it, in which case he's not omnipotent, or he can't create a rock too heavy to lift, in which case he's not omnipotent. Seems as god simply can't be omnipotent. But Christians never bother themselves with such particulars. It's far easier and less stressing to simply claim certain powers, and then go brunch. Doesn't pay to examine religious assertions too closely. There's kind of bliss in ignorance. HEY! that's it. Ignorance is bliss. Gotta remember that.

omnipotence doesn't entail performing illogical feats. The statement, can God create a rock so heavy he cannot lift it, is self contradictory. I could easily turn it around on u say

"Any Rock God can create, God can lift"
"There is no such rcok that exists that God can create but cannot lift"

Then discard the rock example.
Can God stop being God?

[ChaosBorders]

Most of them boil down to this: Can God create a rock that is too heavy for God to lift?

That sure is a lot of talkin for this one question

My simple response to your question? You're essentially asking if God is bound by the laws of gravity. Considering that planets seemingly "float" are you asking if God can create an object on earth he can't lift? Are you asking if God came to earth, if he could lift a heavy rock?

Assuming for a moment you lean towards the existence of God, you're asking if he who created gravity is less powerful than it's effects. In which I would ask, why is it important what God can do under the influence of gravity or not?

To quote C.S. Lewis here:

Can a mortal ask questions which God finds unanswerable? Quite easily, I should think. All nonsense questions are unanswerable.

It appears you've missed the point. It isn't about gravity per se, but about god's supposed powers and how they contradict each other. If god is capable of doing absolutely anything he wants---he's omnipotent---then he should be able to create a rock as heavy as he wishes, BUT can he create one too heavy for even him to lift? One would certainly think so because, after all, he is omnipotent. Yet on the other hand, if it's too heavy for even him to lift what does this say about his ability to do anything he wishes? Either the rock is too heavy and he can't lift it, in which case he's not omnipotent, or he can't create a rock too heavy to lift, in which case he's not omnipotent. Seems as god simply can't be omnipotent. But Christians never bother themselves with such particulars. It's far easier and less stressing to simply claim certain powers, and then go brunch. Doesn't pay to examine religious assertions too closely. There's kind of bliss in ignorance. HEY! that's it. Ignorance is bliss. Gotta remember that.

omnipotence doesn't entail performing illogical feats. The statement, can God create a rock so heavy he cannot lift it, is self contradictory. I could easily turn it around on u say

"Any Rock God can create, God can lift"
"There is no such rcok that exists that God can create but cannot lift"

Then discard the rock example.
Can God stop being God?

It would probably depend on a matter of perspective. But addressing the whole logical impossibilities thing, there seems to be the assumption that omnipotence is impossible if it fails by the specific definition being used.

This is faulty as there are multiple definitions to omnipotence:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/omnipotent
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnipotence

Most definitions and meanings do not require a being to be able to do logically contradictory things to retain the label omnipotent. So the argument against God being omnipotent is a false dichotomy.

But even if you go with a definition of omnipotence that requires an answer, there is a whole list of them on this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnipotence_paradox

[Miles]

It would probably depend on a matter of perspective. But addressing the whole logical impossibilities thing, there seems to be the assumption that omnipotence is impossible if it fails by the specific definition being used.

This is faulty as there are multiple definitions to omnipotence:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/omnipotent
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnipotence

Just because there are other definitions doesn't at all signify that "the assumption that omnipotence is impossible if it fails by the specific definition being used" must be faulty. All additional definitions do is add options to the stated definition, which in essence says, there is absolutely nothing god can't do.

Most definitions and meanings do not require a being to be able to do logically contradictory things to retain the label omnipotent. So the argument against God being omnipotent is a false dichotomy.

Again, the fallacy of numbers. Just because one can choose among several definitions or even make up their own, in no way proves that the definition I've given "there is absolutely nothing god can't do" is a false dichotomy. If one wants (needs) to elect a more limiting definition of "omnipotence," fine, but then don't tell me god can do anything he wants to or that there is nothing god can't do. As you're well aware, "omnipotence" comes from "omni," all, + "potent," powerful. So unless one explains their limiting redefinition of the term, then they have no conscionable basis for using it, because as it stands such usage misleads others who take the word at its ligitimate meaning.

But even if you go with a definition of omnipotence that requires an answer, there is a whole list of them on this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnipotence_paradox

Thomas Aquinas simply asserts that "inherent contradictions and logical impossibilities do not fall under the omnipotence of God," which is nothing more than redefining the term to suit his needs, so it isn't the same one under discussion.

J. L Cowan sees this paradox as a reason to reject the concept of absolute omnipotence,

and Descartes sticks his head in the sand and argues that God is absolutely omnipotent, despite the problem.

The other "solutions" I bothered to read are no better.

[ChaosBorders]

Just because there are other definitions doesn't at all signify that "the assumption that omnipotence is impossible if it fails by the specific definition being used" must be faulty. All additional definitions do is add options to the stated definition, which in essence says, there is absolutely nothing god can't do.

My apologies, I actually wasn't intending to address your post at all. I was aiming my statement at the OP, with a side note comment at JamesWesley. Clearly it was short-sighted (and mainly lazy) to not delete the posts he was addressing, or realize that mine could be viewed as addressing said posts.

That being said, the OP doesn't narrow the definition, and neither do most people who say "an omnipotent God cannot exist". Instead, they simply assume their definition is the only one and declare God "can't" be 'omnipotent'.

Most definitions and meanings do not require a being to be able to do logically contradictory things to retain the label omnipotent. So the argument against God being omnipotent is a false dichotomy.

Again, the fallacy of numbers. Just because one can choose among several definitions or even make up their own, in no way proves that the definition I've given "there is absolutely nothing god can't do" is a false dichotomy. If one wants (needs) to elect a more limiting definition of "omnipotence," fine, but then don't tell me god can do anything he wants to or that there is nothing god can't do. As you're well aware, "omnipotence" comes from "omni," all, + "potent," powerful. So unless one explains their limiting redefinition of the term, then they have no conscionable basis for using it, because as it stands such usage misleads others who take the word at its ligitimate meaning.

A) Precisely which fallacy of numbers is it that you're accusing me of?
B) Again, apologies in that I was not intending to address your particular argument. I would actually agree that there are things God can't do, even though I still label God as omnipotent.
C) However, the majority of people do not explicitly narrow it to the definition you use and simply declare 'omnipotence' impossible. And that is a false dichotomy.
D) Technically all (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/all) powerful (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/power) does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that "there is absolutely nothing god can't do". As such, I would say that it is those using that definition whom should have to state it, not those using the many definitions that do not lead to logical paradoxes.