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 (Åm-nÄp’É™-tÉ™nt)
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?
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.
After encountering even the First Stone Paradox, I can conclude that an Omnipotent Being cannot exist.
Of course, it doesn’t follow that a non-omnipotent being does not exist.
However, the Ontological Argument for God’s Existence had been refuted long ago.
“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.”
Can an Omnipotent God create an Immortal Being that he CANNOT KILL?
Can an Omnipotent God create a EVER-EXISTING Being which he CANNOT make to stop existing?
“God can do all these that are able to be LOGICALLY done.”
Can an Omnipotent God do anything that is NOT able to be LOGICALLY done?
this rough translation from malay to english
No one know when the beginning of human’s early history questioning god concept. Perhaps that history as long as own the man’screation history age. Philosopher such as Xenophanes (c570 – ?475 BC)which preceded own Socrates have said before: “If the horse can draw,certainly he will be drawn god they equineâ€. In fact god issue had held long may be before existence philosophical knowledge more.
However, a stands to reason, every religion have faith concept and different principles in explaining matter on god, although basically it shall get back to admit at with the existence of an entity that Most powerful arrange their lifestyle.
This article carried to explain a little bit issue and god concept from Islamic views and how Islam answering question that often proposed byphilosopher from time to time. This issue looks easy. However, the answer differ according to, as I mentioned previously, understanding to god concept according to human view. Two issues that often revolve in philosopher debate world is:
1. If God that make us, so whom on the other hand that make God?
2. If the God The Mighty entity, can He make a stone that he himself cannot lift up? If can be and He cannot list it up, He weak because cannot lift up that stone. If He cannot make stone like that , He had also weekend because He cannot create stone that not lifted. In other words,according to this philosopher, the God weak.
Explanation to this issue would just carried from Islamic point of view and not from different religion. So, before any attempt answering question this carried out, were important for us see god concept that carried by Islam to the follower.
God concept in islam
Islamic theology believe that everything in sky and this earth is Allah’s creation object. Allah is inventor (al Khalik) and oyher than Him was the subject that coined (creature), including sky and earth include space,time, matter and anything beyond this realm are also creation.
Issue and God-Creature answer can be concluded (among others) as follows:
S: What God?
J: Entity that does not depend on the creature. It without early and end
S: What is creature?
J: Entity which depends with the God and mutually also depends with different creature.
So contrasts with ideology some Christian religion or other religion which said that God “stay†in universe and all so this nature static without having beginning and ending, such as God’s fact also, Islamic teach faith that Allah not “life†in universe or this world environment. All, including universe is creature His creation and He not bounding to own His creation’s subject.
This nature is creature with evidence, among other, from surah al Anbiya’sentence 16 and sentence 19:
“And We noti create sky and earth and all that there is between both with fooling†(al Anbiya’ : 16)
And belonging to His all that were in sky and on earth.†(al Anbiya’ : 19)
This proven by modern theory of science now include discovery of formula general relativity Einstein (although he who try to deny one’s own discovery formula because the faith state this nature static – viz do not start andended) and mathematician, David Hilbert which said that time and the space not separate with universe and every creature in him.
It associated closely and mutually need. Mathematical model generalrelatitvity this predict will existence of control and ending for universe,space and present. This proven by Roger Penrose scientist and Stephen Hawking through universe survey and arrangement based on formula general relativity Einstein.
This lump sum cancel universe’s early theory Euclid that write Elementsbook of Geometry around 300 this BC Teori also abolished theoryruangmasa Isacc Newton that aged more 200 years in the book Principia Mathematica that produced in year 1687. Among different Newton say thattime and universe is entity that nothing beginning and are going to remain forever.
his discovery bring scientist such as Hawking to name beginning of the universe as Big Bang and it would be ending with Big Crunch wherewhole universe, star, planets, astroid and so on this are going to stop fromexpand and will meet again, parallel to doomsday concept to Muslims based on following sentence:
“When sun is rolled. When star fall. When mountainous beterbangan such as mirage†(At Takwir : 1-3) (see also different surah surah fromconstituent 30 Alcoran)
Big Bang’s theory states that before occurence of that big bang, space and time (spacetime) like available today not and not yet exist. Only when occurence of that explosion, new the beginning of space-time and also all physics law, chemical, biological and so on which eventually manage this universe.
This discovery parallel to Allah sentence swt that sound:
“And what the infidel do not see the sky and the earth formerly grafted solid (In language arabnya mentioned ratq and in the sciencelanguage called singularity or union) and then We break secondly (In language arabnya mentioned fatq or in the science language Big Bang)†(Al Anbiya’ 21:30).
Hereby, in Islam, Islamic people’s faith states that time and the space is Allah’s creature swt. When something the is Allah’s creature, Allah could not become subject or need that creature because it outside logic or lawthat own Allah fixed viz – Al Khalik cannot depend on creature (see Godmeaning above). This is because, if Al Khalik depends on creature, forexample it “life†in space frame and time, thus it no longer qualify called al Khalik, instead of becoming weak creature because it need something(see creature meaning above).
What evidence which states that the time is even Allah’s creature and Allah uncommitted to him? This based on following sentence:
For time. Indeed man in loss. ( Al Asr: 1-2)
This sentence were consistent with different sentence, that explain thatAllah swear with His creation creature. This show that the time is even creature that Allah create for purpose part of from Allah programme oncreation of nature. This parallel to theory of science such as that was explained above that time-was creature that have beginning and ending which because concept “God does not require creature†mentioned previously altogether prove that God uncommitted on time.
Human mind and concept spacetime
The real human mind very limited. Limited with meaning said limited byspace frame and time. No man can work something out that outside space and time. If alleged to we something the incident happen,immediate our mind will reasoned issue where and when. We will imagine that condition of event based on space frame and time.
But if we say that world war to two occurred not in year 1942, not before him and not after him, our mind would be said – Illogical! Thus we sayimpossible for it happen. But the news presenter say , it happen! So ourmind cannot accept that incident because it does not happen in frame available time.
Same with space. We say is one apel that staying not in box, also not
outside of the box. But it there is. So our mind are going to die there and say illogical. Where possible something had not been in space frame!
So the description in think will Allah nutrient swt. space-time is like a piece of paper that tabled. From one end to different end, that time proverband among them would be space which house us. Allah swt on the other hand outside framework space and time that. So our mind will not arrive to think on His nutrient. But does not mean He does not exist because own science prove that exist state which had no space and time.
Answering question philosopher:
From our this concept can drafting answer for questions above. Firstly, to get correct answer and right, own the question necessary correct andright. To get question that logic, own the question necessary drafted so that it heading towards to answer that logic. On the other hand both issues this although in the language configuration correct, but in terms of logic it actually incorrect. We will study profoundly under later.
We will study this question based on god concept from view of the Islamic people that was explained before this. Were important for us to do so because, as I described previously, god concept something the religion differs between each other. We will see whether this question fulfill logic itself or it should be earmarked because it illogical and troubled.Troubled question and illogical will not get giving answer that right and logic. That the logic.
First question: Whom that make God?
S: If God that make us, so whom on the other hand that make God?
J: Answering question this, first we say that when the the thinker try placing equivalent God with his different His’s creature actually have contravened and disorganized principle and ‘law’ god-creature such as that have stated before this. We say if the God already ranks with different His’screature – viz have early and end so does it still God?
The meaning here, because creature’s characteristic have early andending or even the least it have early creation, so qualified it dubbed as creature. Such as that agreed that the God not creature, so God has no creature’s characteristic viz among them have early and end. Immediately the God not created make issue “Who that make God†to be impossible.God when take creature feature, it is no more God in principle framework that had we spread out previously.
Yet arise again issue:
S: So how have God if He not created?
J: This issue also answered with what we mention previously that God lives at metaphysics framework and not depends on space-time and physics law / biological / creature chemistry. This is because God that subject or depends on space-time or physics law just now unfit become God and only fit to be creature immediately make it is not god. So illogical, if he god that not beginning and ended but created and then can become God! It protest own the logic theory.
God fact no need created for He there is parallel to concept that was explained that He uncommitted to space and time and also physics law /biological / chemical make He no need inventor to be. Only that binds with space-time only that need creator. Furthermore, if possible exist a state which nothing space-time until human beings themselves cannot think of state just now, but it exist like proven by science, cooking cannot exist an entity that not beginning and not ended this.
Lastly, this issue also brittle because it wrong from its logic itself. Say us given statement:
“Ali has break stone that could not be destroyed.â€
Although this statement correct in terms of the language, but in terms of the logic it illogical and unreasonable. How stone that could not be destroyed, was demolished? Fact that it has been devastated by Ali have made stone that could not be destroyed just now into stone that may be destroyed. Thus it not stone that could not be destroyed! It such asstatement, bird flying. Aircraft flying. So aircraft is bird!. Correct in terms of language, but wrong in terms of the logic.
In Conclusion:
This issue wrong because it just like we ask after: Whom that make God which not creature and has no creator?
Premise 1: Only creature that created by inventor Premise
2: God not creature Conclusion: So God nothing His inventor / no need inventor.
Second question: Lift stone
S: “If the God The Mighty entity, can he make a mile that he himself cannot pick up him? If can be and he cannot pick up him, he weak because cannot pick up that stone. If he cannot make stone like that , he had also weekend because he cannot create stone that not lifted. In other words, according to this philosopher, the God, ways of how even were weak.â€
J: This long issue actually short only. It can conclude as: “…can he (God) make a mile that he himself cannot pick up him?â€
As I state previously, this issue seems true from the language angle, but not cater to law logika is wanted itself by the person who ask question. Secondly, explanation on this matter will be seen from Islamic faith teology.
This issue can be divided two fractions following:
1. Can God make one stone…
2. That he not able to lift him?
First break cater to logic framework and improper lengthened theexplanation. Certainly God able to create stone because the stone either from the creation. But when reach in second phrase, many which willincurving. Stone (His creation) own God not able to lift him?
As I state previously, it seems true, but does not necessarily it logic. It also perceived logic but does not necessarily it true.
First, God matter lift stone will not and cannot happen although own Godrequire. This because it would contradictory with physics law that createdpersonally by Allah swt. The meaning here, was explained before this that God uncommitted with space-time or law that arrange space-time that. With questioning whether God able or not raise that stone, we have tie God with physics law, viz mass subject and that stone matter.
Mean, when God already subjugated with the creature law, we had wrenched God inside framework space-time. This make principle that creator cannot subject to that created just now just now were downed. It become impossible.
Secondly, to see from different aspect, God is metaphysics entity that uncommitted in physics and cannot, by the principle also, tied to physics matter. Meanwhile, process lift stone is physics process that can not must be made in realm or own the physical world framework.
Both things this impossible to happen. Impossible to God to ‘enter’ intocreature world to lift stone like impossible for generation physics law creature stone just now can hold in metaphysical world. So, if two entities this can not be united and happen, by itself this incident impossible it happened and by itself this issue were wrong and fall.
Here does not arise issue whether the God can or not lift stone, but what questioned is own the question truth in facing human mind’s logical issue. In other words, own the issue wrong from logic aspect and physics arrangement and mathematics. Not God cannot come into creature world and exempt law of nature (physics, logic, chemical, biological, and such)coined own His, but by doing so, he confused law of nature that created His. When everything already rout, so the nature were destroy. When nature were destroy so do human’s logical law. this question will not arise early him. This Allah’s intelligence swt.
Conclusion Premise 1: God bound with His creation
Premise 2: Time, space, physics law is His creation
Premise 3: Lift stone is physics law, perpetrated in space and time
Conclusion: Determine whether God can or not lift stone will be tying God to the creation. Breach the logic law.
If god is perfect and everything is possible to him, could he create something more powerful than himself?
Ans: If God is perfect and is all powerful he could create something more perfect than perfect and more powerful than powerful which would be total absence of perfection thus no imperfection and total abscene of power thus no powerless or powerful; and the only thing which has these is NOTHING!
Which brings in another paradox:
Can God create NOTHING?
yes, He can create a stone He can’t lift. He could make it smaller then lift it, and vice versa. And there ARE limits to being all-powerful. That’s WHY there’s sin in the first place. It’s due to the fact that not even an ALLPOWERFUL BEING could make a COMPUTER LOVE HIM{us without free will}. An allpowerful being couldn’t do that, and still be all-powerful.
It’s an incredibly fun thing to do to thing of such things with mathematics.
If one takes “God is omnipotent” as an axiom, then, as you’ve shown, God can do something that is contradictory to some other thing that he can do.
Since we have a contradiction trivialism follows, i.e. if a Christian takes “God is omnipotent,” then he is also implying that his god doesn’t even exist, because trivialism means everything is true.
If we take an axiom as “God is omniscient,” and say S is the set of all God knows, then God, who knows everything, must also know in all the ways in which the things he knows are related to each other, and he must know the relations of all that he knows the relations of all that he knows, ad infinitum.
In math we’d say S maps to P(S), P(S) maps to P(P(S))…
But a map to a single power set (i.e. to P(S)) has a different cardinality that the set S. So if “God is omniscient,” then he knows more than he knows, which is a contradiction, and once again everything in the world is now true.
It is not begging the question to claim that divine Omnipotence means that God can do everything that is not intrinsically impossible. I would argue in fact that the definition of Omnipotence you chose is not philosophically rigorous and is in fact something of a straw man. No thinking Christian defines divine omnipotence in the way that you have. What’s more, no thinking Christian asserts that God can do intrinsically impossible things. It is not begging the question to ignore a straw man it is simply ignoring a straw man.
If it is allowed that an omnipotent agent can create a rock that’s too heavy for it to lift, then it is allowed that omnipotence is more powerful than omnipotence. But, if omnipotence already is more powerful than itself, then it already is just that powerful. This means that its power to create a stone that’s too heavy for it to lift is identical to its power to lift that very stone.
While this doesn’t quite make complete sense, I wish to stress the implicit point most strongly: that even within the process of proving that the concept of omnipotence is immediately incoherent, one concludes that it is immediately coherent, and that the only difference is that this process is forced to this conclusion by a perfectly irrational route to its own unwilling end, with a perfectly unwelcome set of things included in that end.
In fact, this process is merely a fancier form of the classic Liar Paradox: If I say, “I am a liarâ€, then how can it be true if I’m telling the truth therewith, and, if I’m telling the truth therewith, then how can I be a liar? So, to think that omnipotence is an epistemological paradox is like failing to recognize that, when taking the statement , ‘I am a liar’ self-referentially, the statement is reduced to an actual failure to lie. In other words, if one maintains the supposedly ‘initial’ position that the necessary conception of omnipotence includes the ‘power’ to compromise both itself and all other identity, and if one concludes from this position that omnipotence is epistemologically incoherent, then one implicitly is asserting that one’s own ‘initial’ position is incoherent.
This position finds that the ‘ultimate identifiable power’ can be identified only by requiring that it be, at once, subordinate and superior to an ‘omnipotence of thought’.
There once was a Faithful Hunter out to prove that a certain large animal was both a carnivore and didn’t exist. He was very pragmatic and clever, this hunter was. So, just in case the animal really did exist, this hunter wore fake ‘large carnivore’ feet over his boots that made huge, clawed tracks like he was convinced that the animal must make. This would prevent the animal, in case it existed, from detecting him by his own boot tracks and, in its noticing his boot tracks, either catch and eat him, or try to thwart his attempts to track it.
So, off this hunter went, fake clawed feet over his boots, looking for signs of the animal. Soon, he saw his own fake ‘large carnivore’ tracks, but mistook them for those of the animal. But, he was not about to admit that they proved that the animal existed, because he was well aware that he had been walking in the same circle as the animal. So, in seeing that the tracks led to nowhere but round-and-round, he concluded that the animal did not exist. Yet, he was convinced by these very tracks that he was right all along in what sort of tracks the animal made, and that, by its huge claw marks, that it was a truly monstrous carnivore.
This Faithful Hunter was so proud of his accomplishment that he brought other Faithful Hunters to see the tracks, telling them that these were the tracks to look for, since these tracks did, in fact, lead to nowhere. Some of these hunters believed him. The other Hunters insisted that the animal was invisible, ‘so that, of course, it could not be identified directly’. But, all of these Faithful Hunters, including the one who had made the tracks, knew that the animal was a carnivore.
And, it was because they knew that the animal was a carnivore that all these Hunters, including the first one, carried really big guns with them wherever they went. In fact, in their minds, all animals were carnivores, so that each of these Hunters shot at every animal they respectively saw without waiting to find out. And, so, one day, in happening upon a house of mirrors, they failed to get in through the doorway because, in their arrogant haste, they walked into the beam above it and were knocked out cold.
So, what we commonly refer to as ‘logic’ is nothing other than a mirror that we make to reflect our minds. Of course, it’s possible merely to submit to someone else’s preferred presuppositions, and thus to be subject to their preferred reflections. Or, we could internalize wrong presuppositions when we’re disappointed by, or afraid of, what our initial natural notions seem necessarily to produce. But, just like the simplest concept of power as simple agency, the simplest concept of reasoning is ‘logic’. Both are pure abstractions; neither of them is a thing in itself. So, the problem with this mirror called ‘logic’ is in recognizing ourselves when we look into it.
So, this irrational position on omnipotence argues, in effect, that the ‘logic’ which requires that this be the genuine concept of omnipotence is actually the glass, and the silver backing, of the very mirror by which we know also of logically coherent things. That’s a seriously flawed mirror:
Person: “Ouch! My mirror just punched me!…I’m telling!…Mom! My mirror hit me!â€
Mirror: “Did not!â€
“If it is allowed that an omnipotent agent can create a rock that’s too heavy for it to lift, then it is allowed that omnipotence is more powerful than omnipotence.” Correct, and that doesn’t make sense. So clearly the concept of omnipotence can’t mean that if it is to mean anything coherent. It is no real restriction to “limit” omnipotence to the possible. Indeed the words potency and possibility share the same Latin root. The reason it is not actually a limitation is, as you say, because the ability to do something that has no meaning is itself incoherent.
Thus, the definition of omnipotence can be articulated as the power to do anything coherent. (The last word only being necessary for those who can’t comprehend that this is already implied).