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 poses a nonsense request (akin to asking if God can create a green smile or a fast tree), and then presents a [[false dichotomy]] (specifically, by way of positing an ''unexceedable power which is exceedable''). There simply is no such thing, so the argument does not address what omnipotence is: a peerless agent. To ask if God can create a rock too heavy for Him to lift amounts to asking if He has the power to create something that's more powerful than Himself. It's an invalid, untenable question; like asking if infinity is finite, and then being unsatisfied when the answer is "no".

The problem with the argument is that it poses a nonsense request (akin to asking if God can create a green smile or a fast tree), and then presents a [[false dichotomy]] (specifically, by way of positing an ''unexceedable power which is exceedable''). There simply is no such thing, so the argument does not address what omnipotence is: a peerless agent. To ask if God can create a rock too heavy for Him to lift amounts to asking if He has the power to create something that's more powerful than Himself. It's an invalid, untenable question, like asking if infinity is finite. But, some people misunderstand their own thinking in regard to the concept when the question is answered with "No".

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.

According to most atheists, omnipotence is nonsense. But, if omnipotence 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, to them, incoherent) concept, then omnipotence cannot be an inherent paradox without making logic into a set of incoherent rules of reasoning <ref>[http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1468-2265.00152/abstract] Reconsidering Absolute Omnipotence, by Louis Groarke </ref><ref>Omnipotence Paradox: Overview; Wikipedia article[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnipotence_paradox#Overview]</ref>.

According to most atheists, omnipotence is nonsense. But, if omnipotence were ''pure'' nonsense, then there would be no way to construe it as a paradox: Pure nonsense has no meaning whatever, such as any nonsense word that does not include sensible words (sgfdpfkp). So, there must be some sense to omnipotence to begin with. Furthermore, if, as even many atheists admit, omnipotence is a logically necessary (but, to them, incoherent) concept, then omnipotence cannot be an inherent paradox without making logic into a set of incoherent rules of reasoning <ref>[http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1468-2265.00152/abstract] Reconsidering Absolute Omnipotence, by Louis Groarke </ref><ref>Omnipotence Paradox: Overview; Wikipedia article[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnipotence_paradox#Overview]</ref>. Some atheists admit that omnipotence is coherent, though they reject the idea that it can apply to a sentient agent.

The concept of omnipotence is coherent prior to any task. Therefore, any task which does not abide the concept is precluded by the concept. Of course, some tasks, as such, are difficult to understand, while others are difficult to rightly understand in the first place; But, this does not impact on the coherence of the concept of omnipotence.  

The concept of omnipotence is coherent prior to any task. Therefore, any task which does not abide the concept is precluded by the concept. Of course, some tasks, as such, are difficult to understand, while others are difficult to rightly understand in the first place; But, this does not impact on the coherence of the concept of omnipotence.