Someone by the name of cathy commented on the “Logically Disproving the Christian God” post a couple of days ago posing an interesting question:
There is also the stone paradox which takes down most definitions of omnipotence. ‘Can god create a stone so big he can not lift it?’ If he can, then there is something he cannot do (lift the stone). If he can’t, there is something he cannot do (create said stone).
This is a question I’ve seen elsewhere, and it’s always fun to explore with a theist. There are other, related questions which together form the omnipotence paradox. Essentially, it’s a set of paradoxes which makes the existence of any truly omnipotent being impossible.
I thought it would be an interesting exercise to give some examples of these paradoxes and questions, and throw them open to debate. To kick off, I thought I’d offer the definition of Omnipotent:
om·nip·o·tent (ŏm-nĭp’ə-tənt)
adj. Having unlimited or universal power, authority, or force; all-powerful. See Usage Note at infinite.
n.
1. One having unlimited power or authority: the bureaucratic omnipotents.
2. Omnipotent God. Used with the.
It is the unlimited power attribute that the omnipotence paradoxes call into question. Essentially, the paradox is whether an omnipotent being has the power to limit themselves. If they do, then they no longer have unlimited power (because of the self-imposed limit). If not, then there is something that cannot do, also meaning their power is not limitless.
Some examples:
- The Stone Paradox is the most popular, it posits the simple question of whether an omnipotent being can create a stone so heavy that that they cannot lift it. Personally, I feel this particular paradox is somewhat dated given what we understand of the physical attributes and forces involved with objects, particularly their gravitational force.
- The Triangle Paradox was posed by Aquinas in Summa contra Gentiles and asks whether God could create a triangle with three internal angles that did not add up to 180 degrees. Again, I don’t think this is a particularly useful or valid paradox as it relies on our definition of a triangle. Could God create an object that has internal angles that do not add up to 180 degrees? Yes, and so can I.
- The Atom Paradox comes from Descartes’ Principles of Philosophy, and questions whether God could create something so small it was no longer divisible.
The examples above have been known, discussed and debated for some time. Each, in my opinion, has problems. So with that in mind, I thought I’d offer the following:
- Could God kill himself? One might question why God would have the desire to kill himself, but that is not a valid reason for dismissing the question. If God can kill himself, then he lacks the power of immortality (perhaps a poor choice of words, maybe ever-existence would be better), if he cannot, then he lacks the ability to kill himself.
- Could God create a truly immortal being? Similar to the above but a step removed. If God can create a truly immortal being, then he lacks the ability to end the life of that being, if he cannot create a truly immortal being, or if he can create a truly immortal being that he can then kill, then either he lacks the ability to create a truly immortal being or that being he creates is not truly immortal.
- Could God create a being more powerful than himself? You might also ask whether God can create a more powerful God? This is particularly interesting as it applies across multiple definitions of the word omnipotent (see below). If God can create such a being, then he is clearly not of unlimited power (for a being to be more powerful, there must, by definition, be something the new God can do that the old one cannot), and if he cannot, then that is an ability God lacks.
- Could God make himself no longer omnipotent? Rather than questioning whether God is omnipotent, this dispenses with that and rather asks whether God can make so that he is no longer omnipotent, or such that he is no longer a God. If so, then what impact does that have on the established belief systems, and how would we know?
These are just a selection of the paradoxes one can pose that question the possibility of an omnipotent being.
I’d love to see your responses to the paradoxes. Typically, theist responses debate the definition of omnipotent suggesting that an omnipotent being has only the power to perform logically possible actions. One could argue in response that the existence of an omnipotent being is not logical in itself, thereby creating another paradox of sorts. There is also some debate as to whether a God is omnipotent, or just Almighty, where Almighty is simply a definition of a God that lacks some of the logical fallacies and vulnerabilities of an omnipotent God. Much like theists changing their holy books, and selectively accepting them, this feels like a desperate move to maintain their beliefs.
What are your thoughts?
Related posts:
Man made god in his own image.
I CAN or AM ABLE to cut my own leg, BUT would I do it just for the hell of it?
Oh that’s brilliant. That has completely demolished the arguments… (not really).
Yup, stupid idea. Unlike the great ideas here that can emanate only from brilliant minds. Proposing a deity to cease to exist just because he can. It’s like offering a mentally challenged kid to jump the cliff just to prove he can do it.
Atheist have weird constructive compass.
Much like theists changing their holy books, and selectively accepting them, this feels like a desperate move to maintain their beliefs.
Here is the most interesting question of them all, IMHO: Why do theists selectively accept their holy books in order to maintain their beliefs?
Why is that?
I’ve covered that very question briefly before, but it certainly warrants further attention.
I think, in essence, our morality as a society has now surpassed the morality as defined in the holy books. We no longer tolerate discrimination, forced submissiveness, rape and child killing. That means that to remain relevant and accessible to the masses some of the particularly hateful parts of the various holy books have to be dropped. And the Bible is full of hateful stories and passages.
The world would be much simpler if everyone agreed that the holy books are just a collection of various fables passed down for generations that have simply been made more relevant at certain points in history and have no basis in reality or history.
I appreciate your effort� Here is an answer to all the masterpieces�
Term Omnipotent is mistaken while describing God.
Having power above all things (created). Just like all innovators and creators of earthly objects have. There is nothing like being able to do everything.
God is Just, now put a hilarious question like, can He be unjust? God is true, make a foolish paradox like can God tell a lie?
If snakes(lower graded) can lay thousands of eggs then being human(higher graded) why cant women carry a thousand of fetuses? This is out of question. This is why all your paradoxes based on human nature about God are also out of questions.
I can give you 100,000 narrations triggering paradoxes within paradoxes, all of them based on human (circular) logic, pure human nature, exclusive instincts, and innate desires.
One who is comparable to God is only God Himself, there is nothing comparable to Him. There is nothing like Him. There cant be anything done of this sort by God as His nature and desires are not like Human.
Hope you�re feeling comfortable now!
Now, about morality thing you just said that world has superseded the religion. Can you name some please? What did you get as a moral apart from a religious base. And what has superseded something provided by religion as a moral?
I appreciate your effort� Here is an answer to all the masterpieces�
Term Omnipotent is mistaken while describing God.
Having power above all things (created). Just like all innovators and creators of earthly objects have. There is nothing like being able to do everything.
God is Just, now put a hilarious question like, can He be unjust? God is true, make a foolish paradox like can God tell a lie?
If snakes(lower graded) can lay thousands of eggs then being human(higher graded) why cant women carry a thousand of fetuses? This is out of question. This is why all your paradoxes based on human nature about God are also out of questions.
I can give you 100,000 narrations triggering paradoxes within paradoxes, all of them based on human (circular) logic, pure human nature, exclusive instincts, and innate desires.
One who is comparable to God is only God Himself, there is nothing comparable to Him. There is nothing like Him. There cant be anything done of this sort by God as His nature and desires are not like Human.
Hope you�re feeling comfortable now!
Now, about morality thing you just said that world has superseded the religion. Can you name some please? What did you get as a moral apart from a religious base. And what has superseded something provided by religion as a moral?
Following crude and illogical definitions of omnipotent does not in any means falsify the existence of God.
Omnipotent in its historical and theologically valid usage means a being capable of doing all that is possible – you’ll find this commonly defined by philosophers as ‘maximal power’. God is not able to create a triangle with more than 180 degrees because such an entity is not logically possible.
The bottom line is that none of the paradoxes mentioned have any bearing on the existence of a maximally powerful, Necessary Being because they are nonsensical.
Unfortunately, they think that omnipotence includes the power to make sense out of nonsensical blabbering.
Please stop before you embarrass yourself any further.
Yup, god is not omnipotent, he can’t change 1+1=2 to 1+1=3.
Mu
The stone paradox is flawed.
- Assumes God is seperate from the stone. A better description for God, would be All-That-Is.
- Assumes God is ‘he’
- Where would he/she lift it
a) from, and
b) to?
And lastly, the question is akin to asking, “Have you stopped beating your wife.” If you don’t have a wife, the question is irrelevant.
Here’s the real test: can god present himself to humanity without being a paradoxical laughing stock? Obviously not, so that’s something he can’t do a therefore does not exist.
BTW, here’s a few more things god can’t do: can’t stop a tornado, can’t give curt warner another superbowl victory (thank you, jesus), and can’t stop emotionally needy mama’s boys from talking about how much they “feel” god and looking like completely stupid pansy fags.
There was a better version of this on the Simpsons once. Homer gets stoned, and askes Ned ‘can god microwave a buritto so hot he himself cannot eat it’.
Im still searching for an answer.
Illogical Challenges to a Deity’s Existence.
Why not assume YOU are the omnipotent God and ask yourself if it is possible that you then can have deluded yourself to think you´re a mere mortal.
=))
God doesn’t go against himself.
I had been save by a couple of angels and given a bible by a friend but I could not get my head round it.So i asked my angel for a plane English bible about 7 days later i went for a walk to are local market. walk up to a stall look at it for a minute walk away about 700 metres stopped turn round walk back to stall.Not a clue why stood looking round so i said to the young lady that i had bin drown to the stall dont no why so she side quietly.Can i give you something yes i said she was given this book 2weeks ago and give it to me in a little bag when i got home it was a newcomer bible contemporary English version?BUT DID GOD OR JESUS GIVE IT ME or just coincident.?
Peter, it would be foolish to believe that was anything other than coincidence. It would also be foolish to read meaning into something that has none. Market stalls, shops, supermarkets, shopping malls – they’re all designed to pull people in, to influence you subliminally. Christians are obliged to spread their particular beliefs, this usually involves the distribution of leaflets and Bibles. As they are usually spreading their beliefs to non-believers, it’s far more likely that they would try and do it using a plain English version of their holy book.
So perhaps not a pure coincidence, but there’s certainly a logical explanation for it. If the lady on the stall had handed you a Qur’an, would you have converted to Islam? Or if she handed you a pitchfork, would you have become a farmer? Or, if she had tried to sell you a credit card, would you see that as divine inspiration and automatically sign up? As I said, don’t read meaning into a situation that has none, and think these things through logically.
hallow atheist I have been waiting for you YOU are my mission you like challenges please read or try to read some of my other stores I have wrote they are for you but if anyone ells would like to challenge them that’s OK.
Your explanation is correct for you because you are unable to open your mind my angel has just got me out of bed it is 340am.Right I had forgot about the bible it was Saturday I just went for I walk in town the stall sold religious trinkets not books this young lady went in her own bag it cost me nothing I had never seen this stall was not on every weekbut this bible is only one of many but remember I will test you i am brewing up .
To argue that God does not exist because He can not contradict logic is ridiculous. God can do all these that are able to be LOGICALLY done. These arguments aren’t even taken seriously anymore because atheists are trying to make God illogical in order for Him to exist, which is ridiculous. If this is the kind of arguments you’re relying on I would really encourage you to update yourself on theistic logic and argumentation. To say that God must make logical impossibilities possible in order for Him to be omnipotent only shows that you don’t understand omnipotence.
I do find it amusing that the theist responses here have tended to argue that omnipotent only refers to what is “logically” possible. But one must ask who or what defined the term “logical”. Didn’t God create the entire earth, laws and behaviour that would restrict any of these things? If there’s a being capable of creating a world of such complexity in the first place – why is it hard to beleive that he can’t change the rules of this world at any time?
Why? Because it sounds like nonsense of course -right? And there, in a nutshell, is how most athiest see the original stories of creation.
Interesting that theists are defining what their omnipotent God is capable of doing by the limits and restrictions of human scientific knowledge to date. Presumably 100 years ago people will have been saying “of course God couldn’t split the atom, of course he couldn’t create a machine to make man travel faster than sound – that’s not logical”.
We would all acknowledge that these theologians of the past were mistaken because these things are now possible. So using the same argument, isn’t it very likely that a book written 2000 years ago could be mistaken about an awful lot of things of which the writers were ignorant?
Interesting also that some have said that of course God cannot create an immortal being. Yet at the same time believe that he can “create” a virgin birth and have a son that rises from the grave to live on in spirit. I thought you said that he could only do things that were “logically” possible?
Rainman, the “logically impossible” is simply nonsense or non-speak. It is impossible to have a 4-sided triangle not because it’s really really difficult to do, but because the very definition of triangle excludes that… It’s no limitation on God that he can’t do something nonsensical – it’s just a quirk of language that we are able to say something that does not mean anything coherent at all.
On the other hand, the story of creation is not strictly speaking “non-sense”, even if you don’t think it is not true – it is not a self-contradiction, in other words. Nor are the other things you mentioned: splitting the atom or travelling faster than sound. Even if someone (including scientists, not just theologians!) might have thought these things were impossible centuries ago, the ideas are still meaningful.
The question of miracles (including the Virgin birth which you don’t understand) is also not a logical contradiction. Once again, that does not mean that they are all necessarily true.
Actually Jonathan, I think Rainman’s point on the virgin birth is entirely relevant and cohesive. Joel, whom Rainman was responding to, said:
But as Rainman pointed out, God instigated a Virgin birth, which is completely illogical. Therefore, why would we judge God by any other logical constraints? I think using the immaculate conception as a counter to Joel’s point is perfectly reasonable, and salient.
Sorry, but there are distinctions that need to be made between logical falsity (a branch of philosophy) and natural impossibility (which form part of the conclusions of the physical sciences).
The Virgin birth (which is not the same as the Immaculate Conception, by the way) is not illogical (self-contradictory). A 4-sided triangle is not illogical because it is physically impossible to make one, but because the meaning of triangle logically precludes it.
Perhaps this argument helps:
P1 A triangle has three sides
P2 Shape X does not have three sides (ie but 4)
C Shape X is not a triangle.
The Conclusion is reached by logical means, but ALSO, P1 is a definition of what a triangle is, so the argument is water tight.
BUT take arguement B:
P1 Human conception requires a human mother and human father
P2 Jesus did not have a human father
C Jesus was not humanly conceived.
Fine, he wasn’t. The conclusion certainly follows, but in any case P1 is not a definition and entirely disputable even if this is the normal, natural process. In fact we know that (unfortunately) other ways of conceiving humans may well be possible eg cloning.
It is not the logic of the argument that is at stake here, but the truth of one of the premises. Therefore God’s extraordinary intervention is certainly not precluded by purely logical means.
I hope this helps.
Erm, not really.
So, to be clear, what logical method was used to instigate the Virgin Birth? I don’t recall the parable of Mary and the IVF clinic. If there was no physical placement of the fertilised egg into the womb then are we left with the “God put it there” explanation? If so, then is this really a “logical” thing to accept when we’re told that creating an immortal is illogical? What about bringing someone back from the dead?
If I read you correclty, it does seem as though you are also trying to define the limits of your chosen diety’s omnipotence based on the laws and rules of science as we know it.
That was the crux of my argument. To me it doesn’t make sense because any being capable of designing the entire earth and all the laws and behaviours in it must be able to change all that at any time.
How do I know this? Because for the stories to be true it must have already happened once. There must have been a time before the earth and before humans when God decided to create them both. At that time the very concepts of living matter and beings did not exist – they were created at this arbitrary point it time. In other words at time X, God spontaneously brought into being a new set of laws, behviours and the concept of living things. One second before that happened they were not logical or naturally possible by the existing universe.
If he can do this at some point in the past, why should an omnipotent being not be able to do this again? Why could he not create a new planet or universe with a completely different set of laws tomorrow? He’s done it once – why should he suddenly be bound by the physical laws of one of his creations?
It does seem somewhat ironic that it is actually the atheists that are arguing that an omnioptent God should be able to do more than the theist are crediting him with being capable of doing. Theists are arguing that God should only be capable of what the current earth defines as possible. Even though the world was created by that god – arbitrarily at a moment in time.
The reason, as far as I can see, is that it is impossible to make a sensible argument that supports a God capable of the sorts of things that he has supposedly been capable of previously. By tying down a deity to the limits of the physical world it’s creating an crutch which avoids having to explain why this omnipotent being supposedly now has limits.
It’s almost as if we’re being told “yes, God did do some mirculous things such as creating the earth and every living thing on it but I’m afraid now that humans are here he can only do what their scientists deem ‘possible’”. So no more mircales then?
Apologies – I can spell miraculous – just can’t type it.
“What logical method was used to instigate the Virgin Birth?”
Actually I am not entirely sure. The Bible does not give much in the way of details. But, yes, it is obvious that God intervened directly.
There is confusion here about too many things to give answers to them all. The most central one appears to be:
“If I read you correclty, it does seem as though you are also trying to define the limits of your chosen diety’s omnipotence based on the laws and rules of science as we know it.”
I am simply trying to explain what “omnipotence” means. Or rather, explaining why an inability to do something self-contradictory is not a limit to omnipotence.
It is true that God could have created things totally differently, and yes, this means that “before creation” (an uncomfortable term, since time is also created, as I’ve discussed elsewhere on this blog) the universe is not naturally possible. ie it requires direct intervention from God to exist at all. However, it would still be logically possible. As you say, God could (and maybe will so far as I know) create a whole new ‘universe’ (another uncomfortable term, since this ought to include everything that exists in it, and so strictly there is only one) tomorrow. You are completely correct – he is not bound “by the physical laws of one of his creations?” (hence the possibility of the virgin birth in the first place).
Also, I don’t believe I ever saw (and certainly never accepted) the argument that God is logically incapable of making an immortal….
The only thing I have been trying to point out is that God is incapable of doing something that doesn’t make sense, because that is not really a “something” to be done in any case. It is nonsense in the strict sense of the term and impinges on omnipotence in no way at all.
Oh yeah, in regards to this question:
Could God create a truly immortal being?
yes, why couldn’t He? You say that if He did then He would not be able to kill him. Well, again, that’s obvious. If something is immortal then it does not die, hence the descriptive word “immortal.” but, just because something can’t die doesn’t mean God can’t make that thing stop existing. If God created an immortal thing then He could also cause that same thing to stop existing. Existence and immortality are not the same thing. The thing may not be able to be killed but it can stop existing.
Wow, the nonsense that theists come up with is ridiculous. If God is omnipotent he can do ANYTHING, he has ABSOLUTE power. Omnipotence does not conform to definitions of logic or possibility. God could, according to christians, turn this website into a squirrel. Makes no sense, is completely illogical but, if he was omnipotent this would possible. That’s why omnipotence is a farce, trying to contemplate it would be like trying to measure the vastness of the universe using a vernier. God isn’t real, god can’t be real.
This blog has actually been a huge eye opener and one thing that resonates throughout all the comments i’ve read and honestly scares me is to see people, that would otherwise be capable of reason, so absolutely brainwashed by a cult. No wonder christianity is such a major religion, with fanatics like all of you it must have been easy to kill the competion. All in the name of a fake god. Makes me sick.
you restrict the god in question, to the boundaries of YOUR knowledge, logic and understanding. i wonder if you, in all your evident wisdom, have considered the possibility that perhaps, if there is a god, he is smarter than you are. maybe he understands things you don’t. just sayin.
I will concede that if there was an omnipotent being, god, he would be infinitely more intelligent than any mere mortal. However, i will also concede that if santa’s reindeer where real, they would definitely be faster than a cheetah. And that if the witch from Hansel and Gretel was real, she would be a far superior architect than myself.
But since they’re all fairy tales, i don’t think he is smarter, no.
i do hope you understand you are on a forum arguing the existence of a god, and not the existence of santa’s reindeer or the witch from hansel and gretel. expect to be arguing with people who don’t lump them all into the same category.
get used to things not making perfect sense all the time bro. like how light works, travels, bends, warps and distorts. or the whole sub-atomic realm. or why some things can defy the laws of the universe. maybe we should lump it all in with santa’s reindeer too.
I appreciate your effort… Here is an answer to all the masterpieces…
Term Omnipotent is mistaken while describing God.
Having power above all things (created). Just like all innovators and creators of earthly objects have. There is nothing like being able to do everything.
God is Just, now put a hilarious question like, can He be unjust? God is true, make a foolish paradox like can God tell a lie?
If snakes(lower graded) can lay thousands of eggs then being human(higher graded) why cant women carry a thousand of fetuses? This is out of question. This is why all your paradoxes based on human nature about God are also out of questions.
I can give you 100,000 narrations triggering paradoxes within paradoxes, all of them based on human (circular) logic, pure human nature, exclusive instincts, and innate desires.
One who is comparable to God is only God Himself, there is nothing comparable to Him. There is nothing like Him. There cant be anything done of this sort by God as His nature and desires are not like Human.
Hope you’re feeling comfortable now!
“Term Omnipotent is mistaken while describing God.”
Omnipotent means one thing, all the time. You can’t pick and choose definitions when it suits you. Sorry.
“Having power above all things (created). Just like all innovators and creators of earthly objects have. There is nothing like being able to do everything.”
Oh yes, i forgot when Thomas Edison conquered the galaxy using his army of mind controlled light bulbs. WTF do you even mean that creators of earthly things have supreme power over them?
“God is Just, now put a hilarious question like, can He be unjust? God is true, make a foolish paradox like can God tell a lie?”
This is the point: -> .
This is you:———————->you
Totally missing the point.
The two examples offered are nothing like the original questions, proving god is not omnipotent would mean that he is not real. Proving that god can tell a lie, well that just means he can lie.
“If snakes(lower graded) can lay thousands of eggs then being human(higher graded) why cant women carry a thousand of fetuses? This is out of question. This is why all your paradoxes based on human nature about God are also out of questions.”
Well firstly, the amount of young you can spawn has nothing to do with anything here. Secondly, evolution. Why would we need to have thousands of young? Survival of the fittest is no issue anymore. And lastly, what snake can lay thousands of eggs?
“I can give you 100,000 narrations triggering paradoxes within paradoxes, all of them based on human (circular) logic, pure human nature, exclusive instincts, and innate desires.”
Well, i’m waiting…
“One who is comparable to God is only God Himself, there is nothing comparable to Him. There is nothing like Him. There cant be anything done of this sort by God as His nature and desires are not like Human.”
To quote above, “Having power above all things (created). Just like all innovators and creators of earthly objects have.” By your own reasoning, i can compare god to a human because humans created god, therefore i have control over him and i am his superior.
“Hope you’re feeling comfortable now!”
Not really, i need to urinate and it’s causing some discomfort.
“i do hope you understand you are on a forum arguing the existence of a god, and not the existence of santa’s reindeer or the witch from hansel and gretel. expect to be arguing with people who don’t lump them all into the same category.”
I am completely aware of that, as i am also aware that the likelihood of a god existing is right up there with a flying reindeer. I can’t disprove that there are flying reindeer, can you?
“get used to things not making perfect sense all the time bro. like how light works, travels, bends, warps and distorts. or the whole sub-atomic realm. or why some things can defy the laws of the universe. maybe we should lump it all in with santa’s reindeer too.”
Now i’m not exactly clear on what you’re referring to here or what statement you’re trying to make. Give me an example about what you mean with regards to light and sub atomic particles and the laws of the universe being broken or bent. It’s a bit vague to just throw some words around and expect it to make sense. Clarity, you will find, is key. There’s no way to have a debate if you’re not making sense.
Giraffe and carrot cake.
Sod, belief in God is an entirely natural phenomenon – all ancient cultures demonstrate it.
Flying reindeers is an entirely unnatural phenomenon – we know a lot about reindeers, and for them to fly on their own accord would require… nothing short of divine intervention, I suppose!
aitheists are actually insecure guys. Deep down inside you’ll have the fear of ending up in hell IF indeed God actually does exist
Honestly, the thought of an eternity spent with a tyrant like the Judeo-Christian god scares me so much that I would prefer hell. I’d have damn good company too.