Theist Response

 

Today (12/1/2023) I stumbled, on the internet, onto a theist response to the question: Is the omnipotence paradox a good argument against God. It is not long so I will quote the paragraphs in full and respond to them. This question was posted on got.questions.org.

 

Gotquestions.org (G after this): “An ‘omnipotence paradox’ is an argument that the idea of an all-powerful being is self-contradictory and therefore, impossible. To make this claim, however, a person needs to define omnipotence in ways contrary to Scripture. These paradoxes may prove that some conceptions of God are irrational; however, they do not prove that the God described in the Bible is impossible.”

 

My response: This paragraph seems like a solid refutation of the paradox. If God is omnipotent, and cannot lift a stone that De creates, or cannot make such a stone, so De is limited, both failures, it is argued, resulting in God being not omnipotent, self-contradictory and impossible so God cannot exist.

 

The Christian writing this answer is rejecting this way of characterizing God’s omnipotence as contrary to the way that God’s self-defines De omnipotence in Scripture. These paradoxes may point out that some conceptions of God are irrational, but they do not prove that the God described in the Bible is impossible. I like this.

 

Descartes, on the other hand, did not seem to worry about criticisms of self-contradiction as attributed to God. Other, lesser beings, if self-contradictory would be false and not exist, but God is beyond all so God could even be self-contradictory, and it would not matter. Descartes argued that God could make a stone that De could not lift, and then lift it, but Descartes said God is the author of the laws of logic so De could be self-contradictory and then self-consistent, whenever De chose to be, and still be omnipotent. Everyone today rejects Descartes take, but, I think it may be right.

 

Who knows if God can write consistent laws and then violate them at will, and still be omnipotent afterwards. Our logic and God’s inscrutable supreme logic may not be identical, and our logic is subsumed under God’s logic. I am not saying I accept Descartes’s answer to this paradox, but I insist that we do not know enough to rule it out either. We must be moderate or a bit agnostic about our answers to ultimate questions asked. A touch of agnostic self-doubt here is required, is truth-living, and respectful of God’s immortal, and omnipotent or near omnipotent nature, a nature that we really do not comprehend. Let us make provisional, revisable generalizations about God, openly confessing our doubt about the certainty of our claims.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 G: “The most famous example of an omnipotence paradox’ is this: Can God create a stone so heavy He couldn’t lift it? If he can’t, then He is not omnipotent. If He can create it, then He is not omnipotent, because He can’t lift it.

 

Using this reasoning, some conclude God cannot be omnipotent, while others argue that omnipotence itself cannot exist.”

 

My response: Skeptics argue that God cannot be omnipotent, cannot exist because De is self-contradictory, or that omnipotency itself cannot exist, but our theist will reject these conclusions.

 

G: “Several forms of the omnipotence paradox exist. This form of attack on God’s nature has been around for centuries. Thomas Aquinas argued the counterpoint in the early 13^th century. Some versions of this paradox can be found in historical records at least to the sixth century AD. Each time a variant is countered, attempts are made to strengthen the argument. Yet none have ever been able to take hold, even in some of the most prestigious philosophical circles. Eventually, all such arguments fall apart under scrutiny.”

 

My response: The author notes that this paradox is an attack on God’s nature, and that was my suspicion all along. If one doubt’s God nature, that is normal and healthy. Doubt and faith strengthen and deepen one another. If one is demonic or a militant atheist that hates theists, then this paradoxical attack on the nature of God is based on questionable, hostile motives.

 

The author is confident he can repel any updated version of this paradoxical attack, but I will judge for myself.

 

G: “The problem with the omnipotence argument is that it reveals an error in forming a logical statement. Nothing meaningful is produced. Simply put, creating an omnipotence paradox means writing nonsense. It asks whether a force can overcome itself—to validate the criticism, we’d have to assume that equal forces are not equal. If God can create something, He can control it. That’s not a ‘limitation’ of power; it’s an expression of it. Saying, ‘God cannot be more powerful than God, so He is not Powerful’ is absurd.”

 

My response: This argument that the paradox is written nonsense to be dismissed out of hand is appealing and sound.

 

The author is rejecting the paradox as discussing God powerfulness and power as ways of discrediting God as self-contradictory, but it is a false, empty question. The very asking of such a nonsensical, irrational, illogical question indicates that the quest is not useful, meaningful or worth being taken seriously.

 

G: “Further, these paradoxes rely on limited understandings of things like weight, gravity, and even objects. All of these would be under control of any omnipotent being. If a being is truly omnipotent, he could modify gravitational force, time, and distance. There is no concept of ‘too heavy’ from God’s perspective. Philosophers have strived to tweak the definition of omnipotence throughout history to address this flaw in logic. The developers of theses paradoxes struggle to truly comprehend an absolutely omnipotent being and as a result they misrepresent what omnipotence is.”

 

My response: The author points out that philosophers who contrive these paradoxes misrepresent what is an absolutely omnipotent being, and if they did, the paradoxes would dissolve of their own accord. Again, this defense of God and God’s non-self-contradictory nature  seems plausible to me.

 

G: “The question that needs to be asked is not ‘Can He?’ but rather ‘Would He?’ Would God create a situation where He had to change the foundational scientific principles as we, His creation, know and understand them? Would he change the strength of gravity or he relationship between potential and kinetic energy? Scientists and engineers are virtually unanimous that the balance of these kinds of physical relationships are finely tuned in such a way as to allow for life as we know to exist. God wanted it this way for a reason.  Things exists as they do because God wills it. The laws and rules of physics, mathematics, logic, etc., were designed so we would exist and He would be revealed to us through them. ‘For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse (Romans 1:20).”

 

My response: The author is offering that God could produce a stone that He could not lift, and still be omnipotent, but why would De? I like this response. It seems that skeptics and philosophers twist reality into weird, unworldly exceptions that do not exist, do not pertain to reality, and are mostly irrelevant, not to be regarded too seriously. God is not overly concerned about these challenges to De’s existing or being omnipotent.

 

G: “Another common attempt at an omnipotence paradox is to ask if God can make a ‘square circle;’ There, again, the problem is not power, but logic. Square and circle have different definitions. A ‘square circle’ is not impossible; it’s nonsensical. In the most technical sense, we don’t need to answer that question at all, since it’s nonsensible.”

 

My response: Good point.

 

G: “C.S. Lewis wrote, ‘It is no more possible for God than for the weakest of His creatures to carry out both of two mutually exclusive alternatives, not because His power meets an obstacle, but because nonsense remains nonsense even when we talk it about God’ (The Problem of Pain, Zondervan, 2001, p. 18). Omnipotence paradoxes that do not address the true creative power and deliberate will of God are just two mutually exclusive alternatives strung together to form nonsense. God’s omnipotence is not self-refuting.”

 

My response: Lewis seems to say that, in terms of power, God will not carry out two mutually exclusive alternatives (The moderate theologian in me agrees that God will not do this, but could and occasionally may, and that that would not refute God’s omnipotency.)

 

The paradox usually does not create an obstacle for God because it is nonsense. It is not God as God exists and operates in the world, at least most of the time. Therefore, God’s omnipotence is not self-refuting.