God, omnipotence and stone paradox
The stone paradox (TSP):
x = stone so heavy that God can't lift it
1. Either God can create x or God can't create x
2. If God can't create x then God is not omnipotent
3. If God can create x then God is not ommipotent
Therefore
4. God is not omnipotent
My ''solution'' to the paradox is:
1. Either God can create x or God can't create x
2. If God can create x then God defeats himself
3. If God can't create x then God can't defeat himself.
4. Either God can defeat himself or God can't defeat himself
5. If God defeats himself then God is omnipotent
6. If God can't defeat himself then God is omnipotent
Therefore
7. God is omnipotent
My ''solution'' is based on the claims that God is the only omnipotent being which seems to be in accordance with the omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent God of monotheism.
Your comments...
x = stone so heavy that God can't lift it
1. Either God can create x or God can't create x
2. If God can't create x then God is not omnipotent
3. If God can create x then God is not ommipotent
Therefore
4. God is not omnipotent
My ''solution'' to the paradox is:
1. Either God can create x or God can't create x
2. If God can create x then God defeats himself
3. If God can't create x then God can't defeat himself.
4. Either God can defeat himself or God can't defeat himself
5. If God defeats himself then God is omnipotent
6. If God can't defeat himself then God is omnipotent
Therefore
7. God is omnipotent
My ''solution'' is based on the claims that God is the only omnipotent being which seems to be in accordance with the omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent God of monotheism.
Your comments...
Comments (82)
By 'lift' do you mean against gravity or what?
And what do you mean by create, it sounds like compiling material to add to their collective weight.
My question is, "how can God bring anything to existence without manifesting absolute control over it?" There seems to be some conflation between human's relative potency and God's supposed omnipotency.
or our completely human understanding of what we call "omnipotence" and how we define it, has absolutely nothing at all to do with the nature of such a thing as "God".
And most anything we say about the nature of God has little of it based on reason, and a whole bunch of it based on faith.
So for example we can say "A Square Circle" even though that is contradictory based on definitions. So should Gods be able to do anything we can state in language or should their omnipotence exist in the external world of physical constraints?
I think God could make a large rock and then weaken his muscles so he was unable to lift the rock (assuming he has muscles and a body). But I think the main problem for omnipotence is why God doesn't intervene in suffering and who created suffering.
Why?
Maybe if he actually creates the stone then he isn't omnipotent because there's a stone he cannot lift, but that's not what your premise says.
What if he can create the stone but doesn't?
until someone can make be a valid argument, with propositions I can believe as true that support the conclusion " therefor I know this about the nature of God" . I will continue to believe such declarations about the nature of God to be outside reason.
There might be an interesting discussion with regards to God failing to do things we are capable of but at the very least the rock thing always feels a bit silly to me. It'd be like saying "If God can't checkmate from both sides of the board in the same game he's not omnipotent."
I think Omnipotence is hypothetically possible if someone know about every aspect of reality and reality is like a computer program they can manipulate.
So if you ask, "can God do X," then you must first examine whether X is logically coherent.
If X is logically coherent, then God should be able to do it.
If X is not logically coherent, then God should not be able to do it.
The answer I hear from theists is that God is identical to Goodness.
Don't quote me on that though because I am just going by memory.
Here are some videos that you might enjoy, regarding this topic.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kEcqB9wW2Lw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VptVYd7zENs
My point is we begin by defining Him as omnipotent and therefore the only person he ''competes'' with is Himself. That means God, despite his ''inability'' do something, can't be made non-omnipotent.
Imagine there's only one man in a competition. Whatever he achieves will be a record. Now the next time he competes (with himself) he could break his record or not. Either way he's still first. In the same way God would still be omnipotent whether he creates the stone he can't lift or he can't do so.
Quoting Michael
''Can't'' assumes priority over ''doesn't''. Without a choice will doesn't matter.
I don't know what you mean by this. If God can create such a stone but doesn't create such a stone then is he omnipotent?
When you mention omnipotency, it negates inability in any and every way. So, why and how do you arrive at a stone that can't be lifted? If God is omnipotent, then He exists in a realm where His power is absolute. Any contrary conditions and they do not refer to an omnipotent God.
Is it at all possible to do any of the following:
Can one define omnipotent (almighty or infinite in power) by placing omnipotent into context?
If the omnipotent is infinite, how exactly does one define it or place it into a context that is finite?
Would not any attempt to speak of a finite definition or context for something that is infinite be incorherent?
---------------------------------------------
Other worthless nonsense I'd toss into the frey regarding my thoughts about such a matter:
- Our understanding of a stone is in terms of natural sciences and moving a stone in terms of physics. Facts and conclusions are of an empirical nature bound/checked by scientific method.
- Our understanding of an omnipotent god is in terms of supernatural notions and in terms of metaphysics. Truths and comclusions are of an anecdotal nature held together/controlled by religious faith.
Perhaps it's just me, but I feel the standards of measure do not match up well enough to speak in any way cosistantly and coherently about the issue.
Why do I have the feeling that this sort of line of question is on the level of calculating the drag coefficient of tassels on flying carpets?
Meow!
G
Yes omnipotency negates all inability and that's what the stone paradox is about. Omnipotency is impossible. What I meant to show was that God's ability/inability to do something, anything, has relevance only to himself. A single competitor in a game is ALWAYS first.
How and why?
If I can't kill you then what is the value of me saying ''I won't kill you.''
''God doesn't'' implies an ability to choose but the stone paradox demonstrates his inability i.e. ''God can't"
You speak as if the stone paradox is fact. God's abilities are just as speculative as God's inabilities. How can there be any definite conclusions about them?
The Principle of Credulity: - It is basic to human knowledge of the world that we believe things are as they seem to be in the absence of positive evidence to the contrary
Or
CORNEA - Condition Of ReasoNable Epistemic Access.
On the basis of cognized situation s, human H is entitled to claim ‘It appears that p’ only if it is reasonable for H to believe that, given her cognitive faculties and the use she has made of them, if p were not the case, s would likely be different than it is in some way discernible by her. The key idea behind CORNEA is a proposed test for whether some alleged evidence E seriously ‘supports’… some hypothesis H
Interesting application of CORNEA.
I usually see it associated with the "problem of evil" in term of skeptical theism (Wykstra), but I imagine it could be applied here as well.
If anyone needs this for context: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/skeptical-theism/
Meow!
G
The stone paradox may be considered a thought experiment. It's a rational argument against the concept of omnipotence. An argument needn't necessarily be about the concrete. Even abstract ideas may be argued upon.
Anyway, the stone paradox demonstrates that omnipotence, if one considers it logically, is self-refuting. Isn't that what the paradox brings to light?
What I'm suggesting is a counter-dilemma. That's all. What do you think?
The stone paradox:brow:
It refers to omnipotence from human perspective. It is not about if God is omnipotent or not, but whether we (humans) can understand omnipotence. And, furthermore, it is not strictly logical, in the sense that, it does not define its parameters distinctly, making it like a layman's argument. Like I said, if the argument is about an omnipotent God, then, inability would not be a factor. To have an absolute aspect represented relatively is fallacious to the definition of the terms themselves.
Also, sidebar, paradox implies deviation from logic.
The argument is rational, it is just based on premises that are unsupported.
There is no rational support for us to believe we can say anything with any truth value at all about the nature of such a thing as "God"
That does not mean that such discussions are without merit or purpose, it just means the foundation of all such arguments are faith based. As reasonable and logical as the arguments are, if they entail a proposition about the nature of God, it is important to acknowledge that such propositions are unsupportable.
I'm saying that God can create the stone but doesn't. Where's the problem for omnipotence here?
The argument is based on the definition of omnipotence and, ergo, needs no sub-arguments.
If God can create a stone that he can't lift then He's not omnipotent because now there's something He can't do viz. lift that stone.
You say God doesn't create such a stone, implying a choice that God makes in order to get around this, to put it mildly, "difficulty". The point is He made that choice because He can't because if He did He wouldn't be omnipotent.
In short, God doesn't create such a stone because He can't.
This is like saying that if I can break my legs then I can't walk. That's wrong. If I can break my legs but don't break my legs then I can still walk.
If God can create the stone but doesn't create the stone then there isn't a stone that he cannot lift.
That he would lose his omnipotence if he creates the stone isn't that he isn't omnipotent before creating the stone.
I think we see the situation quite differently. In terms of hierarchy of importance my list looks like this:
1. Possibility
2. Choice
First there has to be a possibility and only then can anyone, even God, claim to having chosen one.
In the case of the stone paradox, God can't create such a stone as if He did then he would be rendered non-omnipotent. So your saying God doesn't do such a thing is moot since there is no possibility in the first place and, hence, no choice. That's what I mean.
If I were to assign any value to a decision of mine then I should own it, so to speak, and that can't be done if I had no choice either to act or not to. This point I'm making pertains to the stone paradox where God can't create such a stone unless He wants to knock himself down from the pedestal of omnipotence and, ergo, saying He doesn't matters naught.
That doesn’t follow. God can, if he chooses, render himself non-omnipotent by creating the stone. But he doesn’t, and so he remains omnipotent.
Omnipotency, or even plain potency, is about what can/cannot be done. [I]Doesn't[/i] is not about power and the limits of power. It's simply the act of choosing.
Another angle:
When you say God doesn't create such a stone what do you mean?
1. God can but chooses not to create such a stone
Or
2. God cannot but chooses not to create such a stone
If it is 2 then he's not omnipotent because he cannot create such a stone.
If it is 1 then you said creating such a stone would be tantamount to God not being omnipotent (that's why God doesn't) and that means God can't do it. God is not omnipotent.
The stone paradox can't be ''solved'' by saying ''God doesn't create such a stone''.
The problem with this argument is that it asserts an omnipotent God, whose omnipotence then declines into doubt in relation to a supposedly immovable stone without showing how or why God's power changed or the stone was imbued with an absolute quality. Unless, of course, there's another influence that can lift the stone.
My second query is with the definition of 'create' employed. Does it imply create in the human sense that the raw materials are already available or in the absolute sense that the object is made distinct within God's being as a relative existence. In the first case, that God is not omnipotent; in the second, that God is omnipotent and has absolute ability including the capacity to lift the stone.
Omnipotency is only about what can be done. Any other option and it fails to define omnipotency.
I believe the stone paradox, as with all paradoxes, to be founded on faulty premises.
That doesn't follow. If God creates the stone then he will lose his omnipotence, just as if I break my legs then I will lose my ability to walk. But I am currently able to walk because I haven't broken my legs, and God is currently omnipotent because he hasn't created the stone.
You seem to be saying that if God can make it such that he isn't omnipotent tomorrow then he isn't omnipotent today, but that's a non sequitur.
1. If there is a stone that God cannot lift then he is not omnipotent
2. If God can create a stone that he cannot lift then there is a stone that he cannot lift
3. Therefore if God can create a stone that he cannot lift then he is not omnipotent
4. If God cannot create a stone that he cannot lift then he is not omnipotent
The problem here is 2. It's a false conditional. The antecedent doesn't entail the consequent. That he can create such a stone isn't that there is such a stone. Because 2 is false 3 is unsupported and the paradox fails.
When someone talks about omnipotency it's my understanding that we're discussing about what someone/something can/can't do.
Your defense that God doesn't create such a stone is existentially dependent on God being unable to do so. If God could've created such a stone without any problem you wouldn't have to bring in the doesn't - defense in the first place. That's what I'm trying to show. God doesn't because God can't and that makes him NOT omnipotent.
The argument is based on assigning the human understanding of the world omnipotence to the nature of God, and anything we say about the nature of God is unsupported, ergo your proposition about the nature of God is unsupported and fails.
No, I'm saying that God is able to, but because he doesn't, there isn't a stone that he cannot lift, and so he remains omnipotent.
Your mistake is in saying that if God can create the stone then there is a stone that he cannot lift. That doesn't follow.
A virgin can have sex, and if he does then he will lose his virginity, but if he doesn't then he remains a virgin.
God can create a stone that he cannot lift, and if he does then he will lose his omnipotence, but if he doesn't then he remains omnipotent.
I don't quite get the idea that an omnipotent/omniscient being is required to have logically impossible abilities, and have access to in principle unknowable knowledge. It seems we demand too much from our gods.
I don't see that being unable to make a stone so large he cannot pick up, or a rose that is simultaneously white and red, is a slight on his omnipotence?
I don't think it reasonable to regard omnipotence as something you can lose just by making a stone.
I haven't said anything about having logically impossible abilities?
Well, the way I see it the phrase ''doesn't'' implies choice which should be free. However, in this case God doesn't create the stone because God's forced not to. After all, if God did then God wouldn't be omnipotent.
In short God is forced to not create the stone. Being forced to do/not do something implies that God isn't omnipotent.
He's not forced to. He's free to give up his omnipotence if that's what he wants.
Since when does omnipotence require the ability to defy logic, to instantiate logical contradictions?
Either it's possible for him to create a stone that he can not lift or that's not possible. Both possibilities imply something he's not able to do (he either could not lift that rock that he could create, or he could not create such a rock). Whether he actually creates it or not is beside the logical point.
Is there anything to add to this? If there is, I can't see it. Well said! :up:
No one ever argues that god lacks omnipotence because she cannot make 2+2=5.
That doesn't have the same dilemma built into it though. The "rock heavier than he can lift" thing sets up a dichotomy where either answer implies something a god wouldn't be able to do.
I think the difference is psychological rather than logical. We can all imagine things we can't lift, and even making things we can't lift, and this clouds our reasoning.
The paradox translates to something like this:
Can God create logical inconsistencies?
If not, then God is not omnipotent.
Non-sequitur if you ask me.
“....To know what questions we may reasonably propose is in itself a strong evidence of sagacity and intelligence. For if a question be in itself absurd and unsusceptible of a rational answer, it is attended with the danger—not to mention the shame that falls upon the person who proposes it—of seducing the unguarded listener into making absurd answers, and we are presented with the ridiculous spectacle of one (as the ancients said) "milking the he-goat, and the other holding a sieve”.....
......Different as are the significations in which the ancients used this term for a science or an art, we may safely infer, from their actual employment of it, that with them it was nothing else than a logic of illusion—a sophistical art for giving ignorance, nay, even intentional sophistries, the colouring of truth, in which the thoroughness of procedure which logic requires was imitated, and their topic employed to cloak the empty pretensions. Now it may be taken as a safe and useful warning, that general logic, considered as an organon, must always be a logic of illusion, (...), for, as it teaches us nothing whatever respecting the content of our cognitions (...) any attempt to employ it as an instrument in order to extend and enlarge the range of our knowledge must end in mere prating; any one being able to maintain or oppose, with some appearance of truth, any single assertion whatever. Such instruction is quite unbecoming the dignity of philosophy....”
Peace.
It's not a nonsequitur, because then logic is "above" god so to speak.
If your conception of God is an inconsistent, incoherent, self-contradictory, unnecessary entity, then I'm not sure the point of engaging with the idea.
If someone's conception is that logic is somehow "above" him, then he's not omnipotent. That's okay, people don't have to propose an omnipotent god, but I'm just sayin'.
2. I am not god.
3. god is not me nor can it be me.
4. god is not onm
Let me at it from another perspective:
Unicorns don't exist. The stone that God can't lift doesn't exist.
God chose not to make either of them.
Is there a difference between a unicorn and the stone God can't lift?
Yes.
A unicorn doesn't affect God's omnipotence but the stone does.
To not make a unicorn was a free choice but to not make the stone was a forced choice.
This is what I've been trying to tell you.
Quoting Inis
The stone paradox demonstrates that omnipotence isn't possible.
It's not a forced choice. He can choose to make the stone if he wishes and forgo his omnipotence.
Why didn't God choose to make the stone even God can't lift?
Why didn't God choose to make unicorns?
The point of the stone paradox lies in the difference between the answers to the two questions above.
In one case (unicorns) there are no consequences that impinge on God's omnipotence while in the other there are serious consequences for God.
That's all I want to say.
Yes, there are consequences. But so what? Those consequences don't entail that God is forced not to make the stone, that omnipotence is incoherent, or that God isn't presently all-powerful.
God can do anything. He can make a stone that he cannot lift. But because he hasn't made a stone that he cannot lift there's no current limit on his power. There's only a hypothetical future limit that can only be of his own making.
If I'm not mistaken the notion of creating or making something (act of creation) is bound by the standards of either the temporal or spatial (of course it could be both).
Is it just me or does it seem odd to suggest that omnipotence is bound by the same set of constraints of the temporal and spatial?
If indeed omnipotence is not bound by standards of the temporal and spatial, yet the act of creation is indeed bound by them would this be an indication that:
a) when discussing omnipotence the standards of temporal and spatial prove omnipotence as wrong?
b) when discussing omnipotence the standards of temporal and spatial play no role and prove nothing?
c) something else
Oh... and somethng else...
If indeed omnipotence is not bound by the standards of temporal and spatial, yet there seems to be a conflict in our perception of omnipotence not being able to hold it's end up against this standard of measure which is the case:
a) omnipotence is at fault as it just cannot hold up to the standard of measure binding it to the temporal and spatial?
b) the fault has to do with our inability to have a standard of measure that is not bound by temporal and spatial norms (implying perhaps that all language/experience is bound in the context of temporal and spatial standards); thus the fault here is due to our inability to coherently (or consistantly) speak of omnipotence?
c) something else
How does one speak of omnipotence in a coherent manner with language that is itself bound by a standard of measure that omnipotence should theoretically not share as a constraint?
On a side note...
The act of creation is cause/effect.
Omnipotence, it seems, would/should include omnipresence; thus cause/effect in the face of omnipotence loses any and all meaning?
Perhaps this is all but a race to the pot at the end of the ranbow filled up with gold pins and we somehow feel counting the number of angels who sit atop those gold pins grants or denies credence to the entire folly?
Meow!
G