Changes

Some [[atheist]]s have argued that omnipotence is an inherent paradox, as it can be construed as self-contradictory. For example, suppose an omnipotent God were to attempt to create a rock so large that he could not lift it. This attempt must be either successful or unsuccessful. If it is unsuccessful, then this is a task which this God is not capable of, and thus the God cannot be truly omnipotent. If, however, the attempt is successful then God is now presented with a rock which he cannot lift. Again, this means that there is an action which the God is incapable of, and thus the God cannot be omnipotent.

Some [[atheist]]s have argued that omnipotence is an inherent paradox, as it can be construed as self-contradictory. For example, suppose an omnipotent God were to attempt to create a rock so large that he could not lift it. This attempt must be either successful or unsuccessful. If it is unsuccessful, then this is a task which this God is not capable of, and thus the God cannot be truly omnipotent. If, however, the attempt is successful then God is now presented with a rock which he cannot lift. Again, this means that there is an action which the God is incapable of, and thus the God cannot be omnipotent.

The problem with the argument is that it is a nonsense request, akin to asking if God can create a green smile or a fast tree. It presents a [[false dilemma]], by positing an "unlimited-power-which-is-afterward-limited", which is the same thing as an "unlimitable power which is limitable". There simply is no such thing, so the argument does not address what omnipotence is: unlimitable power. If, according to some atheists, omnipotence really is nonsense, then there would be no way to construe it as a paradox. But, if, as even many atheists admit, omnipotence is a logically necessary (but incoherent) concept, then omnipotence cannot be an inherent paradox without making logic into a set of incoherent rules of reasoning.

The problem with the argument is that it is a nonsense request, akin to asking if God can create a green smile or a fast tree. It presents a [[false dichotomy]], by positing an "unlimited-power-which-is-afterward-limited", which is the same thing as an "unlimitable power which is limitable". There simply is no such thing, so the argument does not address what omnipotence is: unlimitable power. If, according to some atheists, omnipotence really is nonsense, then there would be no way to construe it as a paradox. But, if, as even many atheists admit, omnipotence is a logically necessary (but incoherent) concept, then omnipotence cannot be an inherent paradox without making logic into a set of incoherent rules of reasoning.

The only reason it is possible to come up with questions that seem to show that omnipotence is a paradoxical concept is by drawing from certain kinds of facts about limited powers. A human has limited powers, yet a human has the power to smash her own hand to bits with a hammer that she has the power to make. Clearly, this does not mean that her hand has the power to be smashed to bits; rather, it means that the things that make up her hand are limited in their power to hold themselves together. Only God is coherent no matter what other powers are applied to Him. And, only God is able to think straight no matter what facts anyone thinks can be applied to Him.

The only reason it is possible to come up with questions that seem to show that omnipotence is a paradoxical concept is by drawing from certain kinds of facts about limited powers. A human has limited powers, yet a human has the power to smash her own hand to bits with a hammer that she has the power to make. Clearly, this does not mean that her hand has the power to be smashed to bits; rather, it means that the things that make up her hand are limited in their power to hold themselves together. Only God is coherent no matter what other powers are applied to Him. And, only God is able to think straight no matter what facts anyone thinks can be applied to Him.