Reply
Mon 5 May, 2014 01:16 am
I have come up with an answer of my own to the omnipotence paradox that I believe to be a fact that almost everyone with logic will agree with. My answer is that God can create a stone He can't lift, but at the same time the stone can never be greater than His own power. I will now explain why.
Infinity can not be greater than infinity. In the case of God's infinite power vs the infinite weight of a stone, infinity is infinity (it's the same). Therefore, if both God and the stone have infinite power, then it would actually be impossible for Him to create a stone that is greater than His power. Nothing can be greater than infinity. Now as for not having "enough" power to lift the stone, the word "enough" implies a limit. And since there is no limit when it comes to God's infinite power, that word does not apply. Even the word "greater" does not apply (when it comes to both God and the stone having infinite power) as that also implies that there was something limited in comparison as the only way to say something is greater is to have something that is of limited value and to have something else greater than that set limit (and again, just like I stated before, the infinite weight of the stone cannot be greater than God's infinite power or vice versa). Finally, if it is a stone that is less than His power, He would be able to lift it. And, of course, if it's greater than His power, then it would mean He can't lift it. But if it's equal (in this case of infinity vs infinity), He still wouldn't be able to lift it because the only way to lift something is to exert greater power than the weight of the stone in order to lift it.
Now that I have given my answer, feel free to object to it. If it can't be objected against, then go ahead and tell me if it's indeed a worthy answer that practically everyone with logic can agree with. Is it worthy like I said?
@MattMVS7,
"Infinity cannot be greater than infinity"
That is mathematically incorrect. There are different size infinities.
Not that it has any bearing on the omnipotence paradox which is an aspect of our thinking of an anthropomorphic god as the ultimate controller.
The concepts of control, cause, power and creativity are sub aspects of what humans call "cognition" aka "the ability to partially control" and predict events. God is merely an insurance policy to fill the gaps.
@Frank Apisa,
That is the simplest and most obvious solution to the paradox. Occam couldn't have said it better himself
@MattMVS7,
With omnipotence comes omniscience...all knowing. The proof that there does not exist an omniscient being is Thomas Young's 2 slit experiment. If there was such a being it wouldnt work...and it most certainly does...ergo: there is NO omniscient being that exists.
@MattMVS7,
It's a good argument given the premises.
But I take exception to the whole rock premise. I think it's a category error. God as omnipotent can do anything that is logically possible. A rock (or stone) that he can't lift does not fit within the realm of the logically possible, and is therefore a false premise. It's in the same category as a square circle.
There really is no omnipotence paradox if you examine the premises' used to formulate it, and look at them very carefully. They all fit within the category of logical absurdities. This example is no exception.
Any rock or stone that God creares by definition would be less than God, and therefore an object that He can lift.
@MattMVS7,
As long as the question is applied to a anthropological deity, there cannot be an answer, as it clearly satisfies the definition of a paradox.
However, if one is to consider the concept of a deity that is outside of anthropological reasoning; a power beyond our ideas of universe - a "creator of all" - then the question itself is irrelevant. Structures of physics and mathematics that apply to the stone are all pieces of a greater creation that the deity itself has defined - the deity being outside the definitions - just as we are outside the definitions of these words we use to relate ideas. The deity that creates and defines infinity is beyond describing in those terms.
There mere fact that we engage, indeed even able to engage, in these discussions is evidence (subjective - but evidence nonetheless) of a ultimate transcendent being.
The other solution is to throw out the premiss that God is omnipotent. I mean, where did that come from?
@giujohn,
giujohn wrote:With omnipotence comes omniscience...all knowing. . .
Be careful not to trap yourself in your own definitions. Omniscience in the traditional sense implies necessity. An omnipotent God is subject to no necessity. He is no more obliged to peer into your future than you are to read the last page of the whodunnit.
@MattMVS7,
The paradox is not a paradox. Because God is not just power He is Intelligence. The question, if there were one, is why you don't consider this a limitation on your intellect, which is exactly what it is.
God can do absolutely anything He wills to do. That He has not done what you will He should do just shows your limitation.
@AugustineBrother,
Quote:God can do absolutely anything He wills to do. That He has not done what you will He should do just shows your limitation.
Those are your conclusions without objective evidence. What you call god, I call nature and evolution.
@cicerone imposter,
That make you MORE wrong not less.
So what would you have called it before Darwin ? You would have cried and said "Noooo, I just don't wanna and you can't make me"
@AugustineBrother,
Why would there need to be a name before Darwin? I'm living in the 21st century with all the scientific knowledge now available to all.
@Frank Apisa,
No, that assumes that with God there must logically be a paradox. That is not demonstrated just by (what is in effect) re-defining the question to fit your 'answer'.
@rosborne979,
Ockham of course was Franciscan and would not go with that.
He ' was an English Franciscan friar and scholastic philosopher and theologian'
@giujohn,
But that would mean that the question couldn't exist either until the experiment.
and it most certainly does. Ergo you have deserted logic.
I think I must guide you a bit here. If the question had any meaning prior to the experiment then the experiment can't be crucial to the question. Further: You can't say reason can reach a conclusion but only this conclusion.
@brandonsays,
Like everyone on here you are answering a question about a God with only power and not 'mind'. The inability to see why this is not a limitation is a limitation -- for us !! and specifically for our non-omniscient minds.
@fresco,
Very wrong. Cantor, the mathematician of infinity, most certainly had different greater and less infinities. And he did apply this theologically
"Cantor had accurately forecast how his mathematics would open up new developments in Christian theology. In a letter dated 15 February 1896 and addressed to the Catholic theologian Thomas Esser, he noted as follows: For myself, Christian philosophy is what first provides the true theory of the infinite. "
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace