If God were truly all-powerful...?

[Dan4reason]

For (at least) as far back as the 12th century, it has been commonly accepted that there are 'limitations' even with an omnipotent deity (and a bit later; "Nothing which implies contradiction falls under the omnipotence of God." -Aquinas).

Simply put, omnipotence is 'the ability to do anything that is possible to do'. To ask that one 'do something that isn't possible', is to ask that someone 'do something that isn't anything'. For those that wish to redefine it to suit their argument's needs, it simply isn't valid.

The rock 'argument' is no more than a play on words, which when distilled into an equation, shows itself to be illogical on its face. The language used develops a paradox inherent in the words themselves, not in this god's supposed attributes or abilities.

It is a cousin of the 'can god create a square-circle' problem, which suffers from the same type of internal logic problems. With both, you are essentially asking if god can make 'A' = 'not A'. Can (he) actualize a logical contradiction. The answer (no) has nothing to do with this god's 'abilities' or 'power'.

It is worthy of discussion in that it raises the question of whether or not this deity would be 'subject' (subordinate?) to the laws of logic. Most theologians worth their salt seem to think that god does operate within logic, but that this does not somehow lessen (his) abilities. I've no idea how that's supposed to work. But this is a different, more direct, and in my opinion more fruitful question.

(Incidentally, I'm a dyed in the wool atheist. I just happen to have a low tolerance for poor arguments, despite which 'side of the aisle' they come from.)

I think the rock argument disproves the omnipotent in its strictest form (can do all things) but it does disprove the bible's conception of the omnipotent. Maybe a few bible verses can clear this up.

I got the definition of omnipotent from thefreedictionary.com below.

om·nip·o·tent (m-np-tnt)
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.

This definition of omnipotent does not contain the stipulation that you can do everything ...but... the logically impossible.

Here is revelations 19:6.

Then I heard what sounded like a great multitude, like the roar of rushing waters and like loud peals of thunder, shouting: "Hallelujah! For our Lord God Almighty reigns.

This is the new international version. The King James Version uses the word omnipotent rather than almightly. Here is the definition of almightly.

al·might·y (ôl-mt)
adj.
1. Having absolute power; all-powerful: almighty God.

Here is the definition of all-powerful.

all-powerful
adj
possessing supreme power; omnipotent


These definitions do not place a limit on the omnipotent. It seems like the omnipotent can do absolutely anything regardless of whether it is logical or not.

The bible gets more specific about what it means by omnipotent.

Here is Matthew 19:25-26

25 When the disciples heard this, they were greatly astonished and asked, “Who then can be saved?”

26 Jesus looked at them and said, “With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.”

Here the bible becomes very specific about what it is defining omnipotence to be. According to the bible when you are omnipotent you can do all things. Again this conflicts with your stipulation that the logically impossible is beyond the omnipotent.

These three bible verses below specifically says that God can do everything and that there is nothing impossible.

Job 42:2
I know that thou canst do everything, and that no thought can be withholden from thee.

Jeremiah 32:17,27
Ah Lord God! behold, thou hast made the heaven and the earth by thy great power and stretched out arm, and there is nothing too hard for thee:
Behold, I am the Lord, the God of all flesh: is there any thing too hard for me?

Luke 1:37
For with God nothing shall be impossible.

 

[McBell]

can God create a rock so pink he can't stop it from growing feathers?

Of course he can.
There is nothing that god cannot do.

 

[1AOA1]

The question is not assuming that a rock God can't move exists, it is simply asking whether God can make it. The question is whether God CAN make something that strips him of his omnipotence. It is not saying that there is indeed a rock which does strip him of his omnipotence.

Through reasoning and understanding of what omnipotence is, rather than stripping God of his omnipotence by assuming that such a rock exist, we realize that this rock is impossible. This is why I call the rock impossible. This is why this question is really asking whether the omnipotent and the impossible can coexist in reality.

If God can do all things then nothing should be on the list of things he can't do. This is why I say that either the omnipotent doesn't exist or the impossible doesn't exist. However, contrary to the idea that nothing is impossible, we face an impossible act when it comes to making a rock God can't move. Another impossible act according to many Christians is making humans in such a way that they are perfectly moral yet at the same time allowing them free will.

So it makes a rock equal to it in power meaning it can't lift it? So if God is omnipotent and the rock as an extention of itself matches it's omnipotence, isn't this an exhibition of omnipotence?

 

[PolyHedral]

I think this just pushes the big question back one step. Is "God creates a rock so heavy he can't lift it" a member of the set of all possible actions?

Also, I think that looking at God's ability through set theory creates other strange issues, kinda like the problem of the catalog that lists all catalogs that don't list themselves. For instance, does the set of "actions God can do" include the negation of omnipotence? Can God fail? Can God render himself non-omnipotent?

Well, you could try it with the set of all conceivable actions, but I don't know how far that gets you. And presumably the answer to all those questions is yes, since God can do everything.

 

[Willamena]

The question proves an example of the impossible (rock God can't move). The question is whether an omnipotent being can do the impossible. Either we strip the idea of a rock God can't move of its impossibility but then God would be stripped of his omnipotence, or you simply state that there is no such things as the omnipotent. The problem is not with the question but with the idea of the omnipotent.

Disallowing that the omnipotent being can do the impossible needn't affect God's omnipotence at all. "The impossible" is only included arbitrarily (and, in my opinion, improperly); since it's impossible, it's not essential that God do the impossible.

Your argument might be right but I can't quite see it. In my view there is only this contradiction between the omnipotent and the impossible if we assume that both exist. By logical necessity we must abandon one of the ideas. An act defying omnipotence is itself impossible so we know that the impossible exists and the omnipotent doesn't. The problem is not with logic itself but with the logic of an omnipotent being.

...If God is omnipotent then he can do everything and so the impossible doesn't exist.

Things that are impossible do not exist anyway --that would be...

impossible. (Does that help?)

The question should never properly arise, hence it doesn't resolve and nothing is really defied by asking it. We can say the words --we can put the words together in a sentence that appears clever and meaningful --but that's the only context that's valid for impossible things.

I know that problems can arise with a priori arguments if they make hidden implicit assumptions like with the ontological argument but in this case the rock argument makes it case very well in my opinion.

A priori arguments in my opinion have the best change of proving anything. For example, all bachelors are unmarried men. This proves on its own point.

Fair enough.

 

[1AOA1]

"Ability plus opportunity" is but one interpretation of omnipotence.

True. Which brings another question to mind. The strongest man in the universe creates a man which he cannot beat by taking that man from himself and giving him his power and attributes. They both grapple )( in a tug of war and neither budges. Neither moves. He create a man he cannot beat. Does this mean that he is not the strongest man in the universe? Or does this prove it? Meaning the only thing that can match omnipotence is omnipotence. Omnipotence is not greater than nor less than omnipotence. Omnipotence = omnipotence?

 

[Thief]

See you have just proven the impossible. Therefore an omnipotent being cannot exist.

How about crushing....said rocks?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

A better question: Why would any hypothetical God even care to undertake such a task just for the gratification of the lesser humans?

 

[Dan4reason]

How about crushing....said rocks?

If there is a good reason to crush them we will.

 

[Dan4reason]

So it makes a rock equal to it in power meaning it can't lift it?

The rock does not need to be made omnipotent in order for God to not lift it by any standard. In order to make a rock the reigning heavyweight cannot lift you do not need to make it "stronger" then the champion, you need to give it completely different properties to resist the strength of the champion. You would need to make the rock large, heavy, and dense, not stronger. In order for the rock to defeat God's omnipotence, it does not necessarily need to be made omnipotent, we simply don't know what property it will require.

So if God is omnipotent and the rock as an extention of itself matches it's omnipotence, isn't this an exhibition of omnipotence?

The rock is an extension to God only in the way that it happened to be made by him. A banana specifically made by God is an "extension" of him according to your opinion, but that does not make it any more physically simmilar to God than an ordinary banana that grew from a tree.

A rock that an omnipotent being can't move is not necessarily omnipotent by any definition of the word. All the rock needs to do is have a specific property resistant to an omnipotent being. It does not necessarily need to gain the ability to think, move things, create words, etc.

This is a crazy line of thought anyway because if God was omnipotent, such rock could not exist in the first place so we can call this impossible.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Well, you could try it with the set of all conceivable actions, but I don't know how far that gets you.

Even then we have trouble.

For instance, can God surprise himself? Surprising onesself is certainly conceivable; I've done it myself. But if the answer's yes, then God's not omniscient, and if it's no, then God's not omnipotent.

And presumably the answer to all those questions is yes, since God can do everything.

But this results in a paradox: since God is omnipotent, he has the ability to do things that imply lack of omnipotence?

 

[1AOA1]

The rock does not need to be made omnipotent in order for God to not lift it by any standard. In order to make a rock the reigning heavyweight cannot lift you do not need to make it "stronger" then the champion, you need to give it completely different properties to resist the strength of the champion. You would need to make the rock large, heavy, and dense, not stronger. In order for the rock to defeat God's omnipotence, it does not necessarily need to be made omnipotent, we simply don't know what property it will require.

So our language and intelligence fails when trying to account for a rock with omnipotent properties?

The rock is an extension to God only in the way that it happened to be made by him. A banana specifically made by God is an "extension" of him according to your opinion, but that does not make it any more physically simmilar to God than an ordinary banana that grew from a tree.

A rock that an omnipotent being can't move is not necessarily omnipotent by any definition of the word. All the rock needs to do is have a specific property resistant to an omnipotent being. It does not necessarily need to gain the ability to think, move things, create words, etc.

This is a crazy line of thought anyway because if God was omnipotent, such rock could not exist in the first place so we can call this impossible.

So we can call a rock which matches omnipotence in characteristics something else?

 

[1AOA1]

Even then we have trouble.

For instance, can God surprise himself? Surprising onesself is certainly conceivable; I've done it myself. But if the answer's yes, then God's not omniscient, and if it's no, then God's not omnipotent.


But this results in a paradox: since God is omnipotent, he has the ability to do things that imply lack of omnipotence?

But aren't we redefining omniscience to omnisciencewiththeabilitytonotknowandscareitself (long word )Does this refute omniscience? Or create a circle maintaining omniscience and omnipotence? For ex.

Z: So God omnipotent and omniscient?
Y: Yes
Z: Can it scare itself?
Y: No
Z: Why
Y: Because it is omnipotent and omniscient
Z:Well shouldn't it be able to scare itself?
Y:It would have to be omniscientwiththeabilitytoscareitself.
Z:So what is it?
Y:Omniscient
(repeat)

Has omnipotence and omniscience been touched?