This is perhaps another topic in that 'god is self contridictory' set, started by an athiest, and yes it of course would like to be the be-all-end-all (hah! yah right.) But hear me out. (Apologies upfront: sorry if I repeat what has been discuessed to death. Further apologies about any bad topic content, or any lack of clarity, or general mistakes. I shall blame them on the hour and the alchohol, though I imagine that the hour has conquered the alchohol by now.)
The following is a counterargument to a few (one for now, after seeing the length) arguments which conclude that a god who is omnipotent or omniscient (or some combination thereof) as being self contradictory (‘god’ or ‘God’ from here on will refer to something with the above characteristics.)
This is based solely on a priori knowledge, and will remain within fields of deductive reasoning.
Now, I have seen a few arguments (browsing these boards,) which are fairly similar in nature.
The first is the age old paradox: “Can God create a stone so heavy that he cannot lift it?”
I will say my answer upfront: no.
The conclusion that is usually drawn (by it's presentors,) from the question is that: “god cannot then be omnipotent.”
I say, this argument is false. Here is a breakdown of the logical argument:
First the premises:
God is omnipotent. This is assumed true since it is our focus entity.
It is then assumed that by definition of omnipotence, it means god should then be able to create any stone. He should also be able to lift any stone.
Time to interject: omnipotence is ill-defined: generally people will say it as “all powerful” with the connotations that he can do anything.
Of course, now there’s the problem with: what constitutes ‘anything’?
Logically nothing can do something which is logically contradictory (there is no runner who can run faster than himself for instance.) Hence, our set of ‘anything’ must only include that which is non-contradictory.
Now, if the definer of the deity in question gives defines omnipotence as being able to do that which is non-contradictory, then fine, his deity is contradictory by definition. In fact, omnipotence on it’s own is contradictory by that definition.
For that reason, I shall assume that the general meaning of omnipotence is, in the least strict sense, the ability to do anything that is logically possible.
Alright, so god can do anything which is non-contradictory, so, in order to show that god is contradictory in this sense, he must not either be able to lift the stone nor be able to create a stone which he cannot lift, though, this stone itself be logically sound.
I say, the stone is not.
God is able to exert a given lifting power, x. The mass of the stone he can lift with force x is equal to m.
Fg<x (if his force is greater than the force of gravity, he can lift the stone)
Fg=GmM/d^2 (force of gravity equation. We shall assume he is making these stones in place where G, M and d all equal 1)
Hence
Fg=m
m<x (if that is satisfied, he can lift he stone.)
Assuming we wish to focus on the largest stone he can lift with x amount of force:
Lim m<x as m approaches x equal x. Hence the biggest stone he can lift with force x has mass m=x.
So, since god can select his lifting force, let’s examine the mass of the upper limit of his force, assuming we use:
Lim m=x as x approaches infinity equals infinity. Thus, the largest stone he can lift is one which has infinite mass.
Now then, what would a stone bigger than what he can lift have a mass of? Well, what mass is greater than infinity? None. There is no upper bound to the size of stone god can lift, and thus, no bound to the mass he can lift. Hence, his abilities cover the entire set of stones possible. Hence, since omnipotence does not cover the impossible, the fact that god cannot create this impossible stone has no bearing on his omnipotence: he is omnipotent without being able to create that stone.
I shall see how the above plays out and then perhaps take a look at a few other arguments that have been itching me.
-Andrew
The following is a counterargument to a few (one for now, after seeing the length) arguments which conclude that a god who is omnipotent or omniscient (or some combination thereof) as being self contradictory (‘god’ or ‘God’ from here on will refer to something with the above characteristics.)
This is based solely on a priori knowledge, and will remain within fields of deductive reasoning.
Now, I have seen a few arguments (browsing these boards,) which are fairly similar in nature.
The first is the age old paradox: “Can God create a stone so heavy that he cannot lift it?”
I will say my answer upfront: no.
The conclusion that is usually drawn (by it's presentors,) from the question is that: “god cannot then be omnipotent.”
I say, this argument is false. Here is a breakdown of the logical argument:
First the premises:
God is omnipotent. This is assumed true since it is our focus entity.
It is then assumed that by definition of omnipotence, it means god should then be able to create any stone. He should also be able to lift any stone.
Time to interject: omnipotence is ill-defined: generally people will say it as “all powerful” with the connotations that he can do anything.
Of course, now there’s the problem with: what constitutes ‘anything’?
Logically nothing can do something which is logically contradictory (there is no runner who can run faster than himself for instance.) Hence, our set of ‘anything’ must only include that which is non-contradictory.
Now, if the definer of the deity in question gives defines omnipotence as being able to do that which is non-contradictory, then fine, his deity is contradictory by definition. In fact, omnipotence on it’s own is contradictory by that definition.
For that reason, I shall assume that the general meaning of omnipotence is, in the least strict sense, the ability to do anything that is logically possible.
Alright, so god can do anything which is non-contradictory, so, in order to show that god is contradictory in this sense, he must not either be able to lift the stone nor be able to create a stone which he cannot lift, though, this stone itself be logically sound.
I say, the stone is not.
God is able to exert a given lifting power, x. The mass of the stone he can lift with force x is equal to m.
Fg<x (if his force is greater than the force of gravity, he can lift the stone)
Fg=GmM/d^2 (force of gravity equation. We shall assume he is making these stones in place where G, M and d all equal 1)
Hence
Fg=m
m<x (if that is satisfied, he can lift he stone.)
Assuming we wish to focus on the largest stone he can lift with x amount of force:
Lim m<x as m approaches x equal x. Hence the biggest stone he can lift with force x has mass m=x.
So, since god can select his lifting force, let’s examine the mass of the upper limit of his force, assuming we use:
Lim m=x as x approaches infinity equals infinity. Thus, the largest stone he can lift is one which has infinite mass.
Now then, what would a stone bigger than what he can lift have a mass of? Well, what mass is greater than infinity? None. There is no upper bound to the size of stone god can lift, and thus, no bound to the mass he can lift. Hence, his abilities cover the entire set of stones possible. Hence, since omnipotence does not cover the impossible, the fact that god cannot create this impossible stone has no bearing on his omnipotence: he is omnipotent without being able to create that stone.
I shall see how the above plays out and then perhaps take a look at a few other arguments that have been itching me.
-Andrew
