Omnipotence Paradox stands still
God's Omnipotence is defined as god's ability to do everything, i.e. have immense power.
The main response from theists, is that god can do everything, but the impossible or contradictory is not a thing, so it isn't included in the definition, and this is done to save god from the problem of the rock he can't lift.
I think, that if the universe came from creatio ex nihilo, which is impossible/contradictory logically ( notice ) it must mean god cannot do it under this definition of everything, since anything impossible or contradictory isn't a thing, therefore god can't do it, therefore god didn't create the universe.
as for holy substance I would ask where that came from.
otherwise god would be able to do anything and he would be self contradictory,
so what are your thoughts?
(P.S. I thought of the Islamic god mainly when thinking this out)
The main response from theists, is that god can do everything, but the impossible or contradictory is not a thing, so it isn't included in the definition, and this is done to save god from the problem of the rock he can't lift.
I think, that if the universe came from creatio ex nihilo, which is impossible/contradictory logically ( notice ) it must mean god cannot do it under this definition of everything, since anything impossible or contradictory isn't a thing, therefore god can't do it, therefore god didn't create the universe.
as for holy substance I would ask where that came from.
otherwise god would be able to do anything and he would be self contradictory,
so what are your thoughts?
(P.S. I thought of the Islamic god mainly when thinking this out)
Comments (59)
Some theists define it this way and I agree that if they seek to avoid a god doing logically contradictory things then this definition of Omnipotence wouldn't be what they were looking for.
Quoting Augustusea
Not exactly to save it from the rock paradox but rather make this property they ascribe to god consistent with their need for it to be logically constrained to classical logic. The definition that is given, after abandoning the previous, would usually be something similar to "For a being x to be omnipotent, x would only be able to do all that is logically possible". This falls prey to other misconceptions or problems given it's a rather vague statement without too much extra detail but this is to be expected. What are your thoughts/criticisms on this definition?
Quoting Augustusea
This is assuming that god could only have given rise to the universe through creatio ex nihilo means while under different philosophical traditions (I hopefully recall correctly) they don't have to strap themselves to this. God could give rise to the universe by manipulating matter as we know it (creatio ex materia) or similarly some previous chaotic substance (creatio ex profundis) or even out of god himself (creatio ex Deo) which would mean god either becomes the universe in totality (pantheism) or still remains separate somewhat (panentheism). Not every definition of god will fall prey to your argument there assuming it even holds at all.
Quoting Augustusea
Holy substance? Are you talking about philosophers or believers speculating on the idea that perhaps the substance of the universe or things within are not the same as what god is made of (physical vs. non-physical substances)?
Yes my argument is that they cannot truly escape it, for most theists anyways (meaning people who believe in Abrahamic or similar religions)
Quoting substantivalism
The rock he can't lift is what I meant as an example of him being logically contradictory,
I would criticize this definition with the same problem of creatio ex nihilo, as well as there is nothing that entails god is constrained to logical possibility, but if he was illogical then you cannot prove him logically, which makes them fall into another problem, of proving god's existence without using logic, or science, which I believe is impossible, making the entire idea of his existence absurd.
Quoting substantivalism
But then comes the question, where did that matter come from for creatio ex materia or creatio ex profundis?
god becoming the universe or taking a part of him and making it into matter, would imply god is made of some sort of matter, and anything made of matter, should have an origin if we assume the kalam cosmological argument is correct.
And that is correct, not every type of god, but I had the Abrahamic god in mind, which is a fault on my part,
Quoting substantivalism
I meant Creatio ex deo.
Yes, a consistent definition would be required.
Quoting Augustusea
Of a particular definition of omnipotence leading to contradictory actions not that god simpliciter is contradictory only certain definitions of omnipotence allow him to be so.
Quoting Augustusea
Perhaps creatio ex nihilo is a logically contradictory/impossible action to entertain. . . then it wouldn't technically be included under that definition of omnipotence if we are restricting the range of actions god can perform to the logically possible (whether they be individual or complex actions). Where you talk about entailment this has to do with what we would define omnipotence as and if your metaphysical assumptions precludes anything that lead to violations of classical logic then clearly no definition of omnipotence allowing for such a possibility should be accepted by you or anyone else. Not every theist is a presuppositionalist or such about god in which they think he must ground/give rise to even the laws of logic or that they even apply to him. Assuming we are not dealing with such a theist then saying you could define god without being constrained to logically possible actions isn't going to convince the theist who doesn't buy such an understanding of god to then accept a definition in which it can do logically contradictory things.
Quoting Augustusea
If we defined god as having certain characteristics that in the end lead to him being contradictory or definitionally incoherent then he would be illogical and conclusively non-existent. The key point here is in specifying those specific attributes then discovering whether they are or are not collectively contradictory.
Quoting Augustusea
I agree, given the definition of god is either wholly incoherent or his assorted properties lead to a contradictory entity. Only after those properties are given and we've made such an assessment could you even make such a judgement.
Quoting Augustusea
Ex materia or profundis would probably involve the theologian here saying they coexisted with god himself merely that he crafted the universe from them. Basically, perhaps, the idea that you couldn't have one without the other.
Quoting Augustusea
No, this would imply that the substance that makes us up is the same as that which makes up god in some manner or gives rise to us. Think of a dot picture in which up close it's made of small circular dots but far away perceptually we gain awareness of the structures that emerges giving the appearance of a face. The dots are not equivalent to the face but the face wouldn't exist without the dots being there in some patterned way.
The Kalam assumes a lot of metaphysical baggage as far as i'm aware of including rather choice metaphysical interpretations of general relativity or that even the model itself fully describes or applies to descriptions of spacetime emergence/creation. If anything it also assumes an A-theory of time which is difficult to parse with general relativity as far as i'm aware and i'm still unsure that any philosophers model of time even has the last word on it's nature.
Quoting Augustusea
Always be mindful of specifics.
Quoting Augustusea
Okay.
that is correct
Quoting substantivalism
I agree, but here I presumed that he doesn't follow the rules of logic in that statement (and followed after), meaning they don't apply to him and therefore he cannot be proven to exist, so we could basically throw him in the pile of unicorns and cathulus.
Quoting substantivalism
what entails god's existence then and not just the material? why would god be necessary? according to quantum physics it could be an imbalance in a field that produced such, ruling out god's necessity.
Quoting substantivalism
yes that's correct but besides my point, my point is that god is made up of matter if he is, or uses a part of him to create the universe, since the universe is 100% made of some types of matter and energy,
that would logically entail god also being from matter.
Quoting substantivalism
I would agree entirely, I just used it since, its the strongest argument for the existence or at least necessity of a god/first cause, other arguments can be debunked in one sentence truly.
Quoting Gregory
that's the problem of evil, there are many theodicies which are mostly weak.
what I am mainly talking about is the paradox of omnipotence, which is basically, "god can do everything" therefore we can assume he can for example create a rock he can't lift, or a god more powerful then him.
You seem to be glossing over the free will defense here as while god would have given rise to human beings with the capability to perform certain actions he wasn't in charge of them actually doing such an action. This does depend on whether it would be a more morally perfect universe to have free beings who make such choices rather than one filled with robots who only ever do what preprogrammed, morally pure, actions they undertake. The real issue comes when you begin dealing with natural evils such as hurricanes or diseases which don't have a direct origin in the actions of human beings.
I wouldn't even that is the strongest argument i've seen. To wave away other arguments with a single sentence they must of have been rather poorly constructed then.
Quoting Augustusea
Or that the world is made of god, were basically then disagreeing on what properties (emergent or fundamental) that physical (needs defining) objects consist of and whether, if god makes them up, this means god metaphysically grounds them (or they metaphysically ground god). Much similar to a discussion in the philosophy of spacetime in which some assert spacetime makes up objects (super-substantivalism), it's reductive to physical relations/properties (relationism), or according to some working on quantum gravity that you can't have spacetime without matter nor matter without spacetime, it's a two piece package.
Quoting Augustusea
Yes, similar to a person who refuses to even discuss truthfully his terms or willingly obscure the conversation sometimes does imply you simply can throw your hands up and walk away. Philosophers can get into heated but informative discussions of non-classical logics while layman may abuse the concept as a philosophical gotcha question to assume the win.
Quoting Augustusea
I can't answer your questions because i'm an ignostic and would leave those questions to be the philosophical burden of those who do happen to propose answers. Quantum physics in certain stripes or models propose spontaneous changes in the fields resulting universes being created or spontaneous production of particles as we know them. . . creation of the material from these involves some further specification on what were defining matter as or the intuitive/philosophical key points of being physical.
I disagree but this is the wrong thread for this
well most arguments for god are poorly constructed.
Quoting substantivalism
I would fail to see an objection then, but I would also ask how is that proven so to be the case deductively?
Quoting substantivalism
ah yes the classical gotcha moment will go along the lines of "if god doesn't exist then how do you explain you being born"
Quoting substantivalism
Seems like not many theist folks around these parts, anywho it would, but I think for a normal theist a conclusion on the definitions could be easily reached.
S = God can create a stone that he can't lift
O = God is omnipotent
1. S v ~S.....premise
2. S -> ~O.....premise
3. ~S -> ~O.....premise
4. ~O v ~O.....1, 2, 3 Constructive Dilemma
5. ~O......4 Tautology
Basically, whether God can create such a stone or not, the conclusion is that he can't be omnipotent.
That aside, look at it in terms of defeat & victory
D = God defeats God
1. S v ~S....premise
2. S -> D....premise (If God can create such a stone, he defeats himself)
3. ~S -> ~D (If God can't create such a stone, he fails to defeat himself)
4. D -> O (If God defeats himself, he's still top dog)
5. ~D -> O (If God can't defeat himself, he's still omnipotent)
6. D v ~D.....1, 2, 3 Constructive Dilemma
7. O v O.....4, 5, 6 Constructive Dilemma
8. O.........7 Tautology
It seems then that God, by creating or failing to create the stone he can't lift, either defeats himself or fails to defeat himself and either way he remains omnipotent.
If the world boxing champion spars with himself, two thing can happen: either he'll manage to knock himself out or not and either way he still keeps his title.
:chin:
Quoting TheMadFool
if god defeats himself, god is both not the top dog since he got defeated, and is the top since he is also victorious, such is contradictory, thus impossible
Quoting TheMadFool
Omnipotence's regular definition is the ability to do everything, D is a thing if he can't do it it entails for him not to be omnipotent
1- S ? ~S
2- S -> D
3- ~S -> ~D
4- D -> O ? ~O
5- ~D -> ~O
4 is contradictory as he cannot be both at the same time, hence it cannot be put as a constructive dilemma, and therefore the conclusion is false.
5 is still basically the paradox of omnipotence
It depends on your point of view.
Quoting TheMadFool
if he manages to knock himself out, he is both the world boxing champion and not the world boxing champion at the same time, contradictory.
if he can't then he would be the world boxing champion, but here we aren't dealing in absolutes, unlike with god in which he can do everything, or he is the best (implying no one could be better) at such.
You mean to say the omnipotence paradox is off in some way then for all I did was use its form.
Noob here.
Doesn't the logical impossibility speak for itself here? A logically impossible thing can by definition not be done. Right? So it's contradictory to think anyone. Even God could do it?
Quoting Augustusea
But the problem is that once you have God who is there to create then it is no longer creatio ex nihilo. As sub said panentheism for example. The universe would be within God. And if you subscribe to idealism then this can work out without ever having an issue. However im not even sure if Craig goes that far. He seems to specifically argue against creatio ex nihilo with God as the fix. Something about sufficient causes as well.
When you ask where this specific substance came from then..Well I suppose they would just say it's part of God and thats the end of it. Maybe they would even go as far as say its obvious where it came from.
Edit: Sorry for the ambiguity. Been a loooong day and i'm exhausted ;p
Welcome to the club, mon amie.
Quoting DoppyTheElv
That is correct, it means it basically is impossible/doesn't exist, which would be really fatal to religious doctrines, mainly Abrahamic religions.
Quoting DoppyTheElv
It isn't a sufficient fix, because if it is Panentheism it would also entail many other problems such as, is god matter? and if the universe is a part of god, that still doesn't fix the problem of the Universe's creation, since I believe it would entail god also needing a cause since he would be material, if we assume the Kalam cosmological argument is correct (other arguments to prove Panentheism would be insufficient I believe)
What do you mean?
"God can do everything"
is an absolute trait,
being the world champion is not an absolute
This makes sense (or so it seems). I'm not that sure but tell me this: in what sense is god omnipotent if not in a relative sense? We have a to-do list, like, say, in a strong man competition then, we field competitors and see who comes out on top, no? Competitors get knocked out when they fail to do something on that list and whoever is able to perform is the champion, no? If omnipotence is not relative, as you seem to be suggesting, then if someone, say X, bests God at some feat, god doesn't lose his numero uno position and remains omnipotent but if that's the case then, the word "omnipotence" is being used in a way that differs from its normal usage.
I would disagree, as God here is meant to be the most powerful, the best at doing everything, so it is an absolute which isn't relative, hmm it may differ in a way, I mainly used it to describe his power, and Ability to do everything, according to Abrahamic definitions
How about this then: The stone paradox basically pits god against himself, right? Imagine now this universe is a game of chess and you're god - the Grandmaster champion of champions ( :smile: ) - and you decide to have a match against yourself. Does the notion of loss/victory apply to you? What does it mean to win against yourself and what does it mean to lose against yourself?
Loss/Victory if viewed in the context of a person playing against himself doesn't make sense, right?
Do I get you if I say that the question itself is nonsensical? Because thats what I meant too but I failed to communicate correctly.
There's no question. The stone paradox depends on the notion of defeat/victory but when a person plays against himself, these concepts don't make sense.
Yes thats what I meant. So the question "who will win?" Or "Can he make a rock he cannot lift?" Lead to logical impossibilities and should be disregarded?
It's not about logical impossibilities but that the idea of god losing his power - becoming non-omnipotent - involves him beating himself and that doesn't make sense (to me). Perhaps you can help us out.
You also have the sufficiently or necessary omnipotent semantics but as always I think Im just misunderstanding the entire thing :razz:
Correct. Sorry, I missed that earlier.
If God creates that stone then he's not omnipotent.
If God can't create that stone then he's not omnipotent.
If God creates that stone then God creates a problem God can't solve. God beats himself. He's won AND lost (contradiction as you correctly pointed out)
If God can't create that stone then God can't create a problem that God can't solve. God beats himself, again. He's won AND lost (contradiction, again, as you correctly pointed out)
You haven't defined matter so I do not know why this would be a problem given in this situation what ever aspects are to be defined as god gave rise to the universe and not vice versa.
Quoting Augustusea
I'd curious know to know what those arguments are but besides that because we're talking about panentheism (not pantheism) as well assuming a string of philosophical assumptions (or philosophical interpretations of spacetime) this is rather dubious a critique. At most this particular part of god temporally wasn't before at some point in time then after another point in time it was (the clay was an amorphous blob then it was sculpted into becoming davids statue but all throughout the process the clay still existed where clay = god).
Which I think is a mainly small viewpoint to take as there are other ways of approaching defining omnipotence that do not explicitly write into their definitions that they can perform impossible tasks which is a sort of low hanging philosophical fruit to me.
No, it's not. The stone paradox has as a conclusion the non-omnipotence of God. It doesn't employ contradiction to make that point. The contradictory nature of the stone paradox is what we discovered in this discussion.
everything, can be defined as matter.
nothing, as no matter
Quoting substantivalism
Quoting substantivalism
touche.
Quoting substantivalism
well I didn't specify correctly, which was a fault at my part, I was mainly discussing the abrahamic god which has a set definition of omnipotence throughout holy scripture
I beg to differ,
you cannot have a green red, it is contradictory/illogical, thus impossible
it is a conclusion that can be extracted from the contradictory nature of the paradox.
Show me the contradiction is the stone paradox then.
god is both defeated and victorious over himself in this situation, a contradiction, thus illogical.
god can be both omnipotent and not omnipotent here,
he is powerful to create it, but by creating it he isn't powerful.
That's not part of the stone paradox. That's something that came to light in our discussion.
Yes, as we discovered to be the case.
I don't think that works if we keep in mind that there is energy or light. Some substances have no mass at all. Should you then call them matter? and well..That nothing is a negation in and of itself. So its not worth saying that it's not matter. It's not anything.
Quoting Augustusea
So then is this a mistake on the definition of omnipotence or is this a mistake within the question "Can God create a stone he cannot lift?" ?
It seems to me that it's the same as asking 'Why is there something rather than nothing?'. As in that it's a wrongheaded question that leads us nowhere.
energy and light are made of photons, particles, things.
Quoting DoppyTheElv
the definition of omnipotence.
Therefore, you beating a kitten to death would simply mean you have not yet developed or unfolded the pure qualities latent in your own being which would prevent you from doing such a heinous action and thus still on a relatively lower level on the ladder of evolution. I say relatively since there would still be those even lower you in evolution!
Moreover, Creation rightly understood means Manifestation. In each being, the Spirit of God lies within, like a seed in a field, and thus the potential prospect of being God, Perfect or Good is latent in all beings. Manifestation or Creation is simply the gradual unfoldment of this potential latent in all beings.
That the earth and all its inhabitants are not yet perfected by no means imply the creator isn’t good. It simply means the perfection and purging process is still ongoing and not yet ripe.
This is what Pantheism, the true hope and promise of salvation for all beings, means. God is in All beings and All beings are in God. In their joy He rejoices and in their afflictions He is afflicted!
Energy is a mathematically conserved quantity and the conservation of it comes only from time invariance mathematically. Light is would be matter then that lacks the monadic property of rest mass but photons still exist.
Quoting Zack Beni
Reality is ever evolving and changing as few things remain forever. You never step into the same river twice and the previous river wasn't or isn't considered lesser than the later.
Always nice to learn more. Thanks. I guess I got too caught up on the mass part!
Therefore in the absolute sense, your use of the word "Reality" wouldn't be true since that which is Real is immutable. And according to these great faiths, only God is Real.
Well there are aspects of these things we call matter or the ideal that change. It's your burden of proof to assert beyond our experiences that the true inner nature of said experiences/matter is truly immutable or not. It's thusly not known nor ever be possible to argue fully that the world is heraclitean or parmenidian.
I hope you mean illusory by the idea that even though our interpretation of a mirage is incorrect (there are not trees or pools of water in the distance) those experiences in of themselves still exist. . . illusory only in the sense of an interpretational failure when analyzing said phenomenon with our limited list of human concepts. Our experiences and the matter they represent is very much real.
You also haven't defined god so much of what you said remains somewhat meaningless.
So could you actually define what god is?
Are you in favour of abandoning anthropomorphic renditions of god including giving him the human moral high ground or aesthetic perfection?
By God, I mean God is his dual mode namely Spirit and Substance which are also called Male and Female, Father and Mother, Will and Love, Energy and Space respectively. This substance is the essence of Matter. Matter is the result of motion and activity of Substance, the female part of God. But I add that the Matter I am referring to, is NOT limited to Physical Matter only recognised by materialists. In addition to this, there is also Astral matter,...
Thus It means that all that exists is the substance of God simply in different conditions so that all is in God and God is in all and thus everything is God but only differ in condition or state.
By this definition, it is evident that God didn't create anything by means outside Himself as some, in my opinion, unreasonably assert since there is NO THING outside Him but used Himself(God's Self) to create all. And from this comes His omnipresence.
Now you need to define what a spirit is and what a substance is.
Quoting Zack Beni
Yes, biological indicators of the sexes, behaviors, and social rolls of many animals including ourselves.
Quoting Zack Beni
Energy (as understood through physics) is a mathematical quantity that is only conserved when there is time translation invariance. Spacetime has its own history of philosophically rich interpretational issues that should be clear in the literature.
Quoting Zack Beni
Haven't really much defined matter here.
Quoting Zack Beni
Still unclear given you haven't defined most of these terms nor made much of an argument for them.
Quoting Zack Beni
What is physical matter? What is astral matter and how can we perform pragmatic epistemologically idealist investigations of its existence/influence on understanding the inner behavior/workings of our universe?
Quoting Zack Beni
Stuff is stuff is basically what you are saying but giving it the word god as a generalized word for it. . . sloppy and a wonderful example of equivocation but still seems lacking in argumentative substance. Nor does this tell us anything new about the reality that we reside within as it doesn't seem to give us the ability to better describe/predict how reality will behave.
Quoting Zack Beni
Again, define god as you seemingly have failed to do aside from giving me rather poetic language that hasn't gotten me anywhere.
God, in His true self, is the essence and the highest of all the qualities we can think of; be it Perfection, Beauty, Good, Purity,etc. God defines what is moral and ethical and only that which perfectly conforms to His will can be rightly termed ethical and moral.
You have to thoroughly muse into why humans adopt these anthropomorphic renditions. Humans are the closest and highest in manifesting God on earth; Christ being the true manifestation of God on earth.
Now since the God of Mind is a subjective one, and the highest of any quality the Mind of man can conceptualize is actually his God; Man in taking the highest qualities he can readily see, namely those found in his fellow men, he creates the God of his Mind by attributing to Him those highest qualities he has come across and can conceive.
Thus, I won't say I am really in disfavour of those renditions since it is simply a means of man going Godwards. The higher your conception of God, the closer you are to Him and are getting alike since Man is ever striving to create himself in the image of his God..
The definition of God, well at least my conception of Him—which in all fairness might be different from yours— has really been given maybe you were just not satisfied. But I do agree some of the terms were not were explained and need some further elaboration.
Quoting substantivalism
A simple definition of Matter, of course from the point of view of my conception, is all things whose particles are in movement, motion or vibration. I believe it is well established in science that every thing in the universe is in some sort of motion which I also called activity.
Substance is simply the essence of this matter. Matter is Substance in motion. When actvity shall cease in the universe, all matter shall resume its original condition spirit and be Substance. Here Spirit is used to mean a condition.
Quoting substantivalism
Physical matter is referring to the tangible part or plane of our planet. I am afraid for the astral matter, I can't offer you any way to experiment with it unless you develop the corresponding senses to consciously experiment with that plane. On Astral matter and other non-physical matter, I can only direct you to those who did experiments on that plane and documented their scienfitic findings for you to judge whether they are credible or not per your own discretion.
Yes it was all still vague.
Quoting Zack Beni
I'll stick with physicalists definitions of physical objects/material objects being those indispensable entities included in scientific theories or something similar.
Speaking more simply there is stuff that isn't you and that is. Both of these change so. . .
Quoting Zack Beni
Matter is just the stuff that gives rise to our experiences or ourselves. Due to philosophical skepticisms challenges you cannot actually know it's TRUE essence and so only its behavior/interactions possess importance.
Quoting Zack Beni
If you cannot apply a scientific methodology to rule in the use of "astral matter" and thusly also it's common absence as a useful concept for understanding our realities behavior then I fail to see how it isn't to be cast out of our models.
On the "tangible plane" you can only distinguish between waking experiences and abstractions from within (hallucinations, dreams, or our imagination) and to speak of things which are meant to be a part of waking experiences but clearly part of the latter makes me think this is doomed to fail.
Morality is a human centered concept and it would be equivalent in my eyes to giving god qualities similar to zeus if we gave him this moral high ground or origin of said principles.
Quoting Zack Beni
Now you have forced yourself into the possible burden of supporting evidentially the miracle/God-hood claims attributed to the character Jesus Christ from a collection of ancient writings that may have been about a real person. Separating the fact from fiction aspects of his personality in the bible would be next to impossible though.
Quoting Zack Beni
A claim you now have to support.
Quoting Zack Beni
Yes, god is a vague mentally homeless concept that has had millions believe in it but either fail to define it, leave it in incoherence, or strip it as far from experience to the point that not even philosophy could rationalize belief in what cannot be deemed mere inner abstractions than a part of the clearly real world you experience.
We need to bring the Occident and the Orient together. They seem to make up for each other's flaws.
I consider this pure blasphemy! That's absolutely not what gods are. Its man's vanity talking here.