In this article, I will give my thoughts on a famous omnipotence paradox, that
tries to show that the very concept of all-power is self-contradictory.
1 Could God Create a Stone So Heavy That He Couldn't Lift?
A common omnipotence paradox that atheists use asks if God could make a rock
so heavy that He could not lift. This leaves the theist with a seemingly
unsolvable dilemma, of which either horn results in the incoherence of theism.
If the theist answered yes, then God would no longer be omnipotent, as He
would be impotent to lift the rock that He created.
If the theist answered no, then God would also no longer be omnipotent, as He
would be impotent to create even a rock!
This, the atheist would then claim, would lead us to conclude that the idea of
a being being omnipotent allows for paradoxes and situations where the being
would be both omnipotent and not omnipotent, meaning that it is an incoherent
notion that can't actually exist.
2 Omnipotence
However, I would argue that the above paradox, and many other similar ones,
operate on an understanding of omnipotence that many theists, maybe except
Descartes, would not accept, and one that the majority of theists have
historically rejected: namely that omnipotence is the ability to do anything
and everything, including logically impossible acts.
But most theists would approach omnipotence with more nuance, saying instead
that omnipotence is the ability to do anything that is logically consistent.
This isn't an ad hoc attempt to overcome omnipotence paradoxes as well, but
follows from further philosophical reflection.
2.1 Nonsensical Statements
The reason why an omnipotent being would not be able to do a logically
impossible action is because, upon further reflection, one realises that
logically impossible actions do not and cannot exist. So, for an omnipotent
being to do a logically impossible action would be for them not to act at all,
as they would not be doing anything.
This is because descriptions of logically impossible actions, like to walk and
not walk at the same time or to sit and stand at the same time, do not
actually describe anything, the same way the action of "elevening the
proposition "hello"" does not describe, or refer to, anything -- it's
nonsensical.
Such a form of reasoning is also applied to solve other paradoxes, like the
liar paradox. For example, Michael Huemer, an agnostic regarding the existence
of God, argues that the proposition, P, "P is false", does not actually refer
to anything, so the paradox does not actually exist. How Dr. Huemer argues for
this position in the context of the liar's paradox is not important, but goes
to show that the line of reasoning that I'm employing here is perfectly
legitimate and isn't just a last-ditch effort to salvage theism.
2.2 Conclusion of Omnipotence
So, omnipotence is the ability to perform all logically consistent acts, as
logically inconsistent or impossible acts cannot be done, or actualised, since
they don't even describe any action in a meaningful sense at all.
This means that the inability to perform logically impossible actions does not
show that a being is weak, as such actions do not even possibly exist for that
being to do, and to do them is equivalent to doing nothing, which all beings
can do.
3 Applying Omnipotence to Omnipotence Paradoxes
With this more nuanced view of omnipotence in place, let us see how we can
apply it to the paradox of the rock.
I would argue that God indeed cannot make a rock so heavy that He cannot lift,
but not because He isn't omnipotent, but because such an action is logically
impossible.
As the proponent of the paradox notes, it results in God being both omnipotent
and not omnipotent, which would result in a logical contradiction. Following
our definition of omnipotence, this would mean that such an action is as
nonsensical as the action of "purpling the number ten", and therefore, in
principle, cannot be done.
The inability to perform such an action also does nothing to affect God's
omnipotence, as such an action does not even exist and our description of it
amounts to an unintelligible string of words. The same way us describing the
action of "festgyywtqefa" is unintelligible and one's inability to do it
does not reflect upon their capabilities in any way.
4 Conclusion
In conclusion, the paradox of the rock does not pose a challenge to the notion
of omnipotence, as such an action results in a logical contradiction, meaning
that, according to theists, God would not be able to perform such an action.
This does not affect His omnipotence in any way, since logically contradictory
actions are not actions at all, and therefore cannot be done.
No comments:
Post a Comment