Omnipotence Paradoxes

[Rational Agnostic]

Can an omnipotent God create a rock so big that he can't lift it? Can an omnipotent God create a being that he cannot destroy? Can an eternal and omnipotent God destroy himself? Many theologians dismiss the paradoxes generated by these questions as trivial. But, they are not trivial, because they illustrate that an omnipotent god cannot exist. An immensely powerful god could theoretically exist, but an omnipotent being cannot actually exist due to these logical paradoxes that result from answering these questions.

 

[Axe Elf]

You (and others that take this path) are simply suffering from a misunderstanding of what the word "omnipotent" means. When you get that straightened out, all of these paradoxes disappear.

 

[viole]

Can an omnipotent God create a rock so big that he can't lift it? Can an omnipotent God create a being that he cannot destroy? Can an eternal and omnipotent God destroy himself? Many theologians dismiss the paradoxes generated by these questions as trivial. But, they are not trivial, because they illustrate that an omnipotent god cannot exist. An immensely powerful god could theoretically exist, but an omnipotent being cannot actually exist due to these logical paradoxes that result from answering these questions.

God can only do things that do not break the laws of logic. So, there is no contradiction.
He can for instance create things from nothing, which is trivially possible, otherwise.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Quintessence]

I find it nonsensical to suppose that an omnipotent entity would be comprehensible to humans. That is to say, I see little reason to suppose its nature would conform to human expectations or constructs like logic. I also never ask the question "does X exist," so there's that too.

 

[Daemon Sophic]

You (and others that take this path) are simply suffering from a misunderstanding of what the word "omnipotent" means. When you get that straightened out, all of these paradoxes disappear.

@Axe Elf , your post is a dodge. Actually, the definition of the word, and its implication, is the point. Most theologians don’t understand the meaning of “omnipotent”. They tend to think of it as meaning “Really, REALLY powerful.”. But that doesn’t even begin to scratch the surface.
When you understand what it means, then all of these paradoxes appear.

Of course the big one is......if you’re omnipotent and omniscient, then how can you create anything with free will? Answer: You cannot.

 

[Quintessence]

Of course the big one is......if you’re omnipotent and omniscient, then how can you create anything with free will? Answer: You cannot.

As a non-omnipotent, non-omnisceint biological organism, how do you know that is the case? If you believe that somehow you have "the answer," why ask the question?

 

[Apologes]

Two responses:

1) God, as a transcendent being, may well be above our understanding and as such what seems like a paradox to us may not be a paradox for God

2) Omnipotence is often defined as being able to do all that is logically possible. The things that you describe are paradoxes (as you yourself say) ie logical impossibilites, therefore omnipotence does not include them.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

Can an omnipotent God create a rock so big that he can't lift it? Can an omnipotent God create a being that he cannot destroy? Can an eternal and omnipotent God destroy himself? Many theologians dismiss the paradoxes generated by these questions as trivial. But, they are not trivial, because they illustrate that an omnipotent god cannot exist. An immensely powerful god could theoretically exist, but an omnipotent being cannot actually exist due to these logical paradoxes that result from answering these questions.

An omnipotent God would have the power to limit Itself, temporarily or even permanently. The most likely circumstance God would do such a thing if for our free will. The only question remains, is that temporary, or would God make it permanent for some reason I can't fathom. Of course if God made any limitation permanent, God would no longer be omnipotent by definition. Retaining the ability to reverse a limitation would not negate It's omnipotence, however.

 

[Daemon Sophic]

As a non-omnipotent, non-omnisceint biological organism, how do you know that is the case? If you believe that somehow you have "the answer," why ask the question?

As a mere human, I understand the meanings of words and thought problems within our own language, including the logical limits of those.
The two states cannot coexist. That is the foundation of the word/thought problem, particulalry in regards to infinite knowledge combined with infinite power.
As I alluded to elsewhere in @Sunstone ’s thread about One vs multiple G(g)od(s), if The God is in fact infinite, and It creates a rock that It cannot lift, then It is by definition not truly infinitely powerful, since it cannot move an immovable object. Yet if it cannot create a truly immovable object, then its powers of creation are less than infinite, and we return to square one, and a finite godling.
God is not creating the word/logic arguement.....we are. And The infinite God is trapped, while a limited finite god is free to exist.

An omnipotent God would have the power to limit Itself, temporarily or even permanently. The most likely circumstance God would do such a thing if for our free will. The only question remains, is that temporary, or would God make it permanent for some reason I can't fathom. Of course if God made any limitation permanent, God would no longer be omnipotent by definition. Retaining the ability to reverse a limitation would not negate It's omnipotence, however.

Agreed (which is a first from me to you). The limitations may be self-imposed. And as a flesh and blood mortal being, I wouldn’t even hazard a guess as to why.

 

[Sunstone]

I think the best you can do is define away the problem by defining "omnipotence" in such a way as the problem no longer exists, or at least is pushed back a step, as @Apologes appears to be doing. Perhaps the worse you can do is simply dodge the problem as @Axe Elf appears to be doing.

 

[David T]

Can an omnipotent God create a rock so big that he can't lift it? Can an omnipotent God create a being that he cannot destroy? Can an eternal and omnipotent God destroy himself? Many theologians dismiss the paradoxes generated by these questions as trivial. But, they are not trivial, because they illustrate that an omnipotent god cannot exist. An immensely powerful god could theoretically exist, but an omnipotent being cannot actually exist due to these logical paradoxes that result from answering these questions.

Ahhh the intellect. No but an ego larger than than reality certainly can ask the questions and question the answers.

In religion Certainly the ego can say all kinds of nonsense starting in theology. Theology is the development of the intellect over thousands of years. It has written down exactly how it sees in exact precision over time. so it's a great psych tool, in context to the self b.s.. created by the intellect, lts totally worthless in context to the topic god, or the bible,or nature for that matter.

 

[Gohelwan alien Vega 17b]

The omnipotent can not create that kind of rock, he/she can not create that kind of being but the omnipotent could destroy itself. The last one is the only paradox from my perspective. Omnipotent in one version means Transcendent. That means without creation but always was. So it being true the omnipotent could destroy itself, then the omnipotent must exist simultaneously in both states destroyed and immutable-everthere. That is a paradox.

 

[Sir Doom]

Can an omnipotent God create a rock so big that he can't lift it? Can an omnipotent God create a being that he cannot destroy? Can an eternal and omnipotent God destroy himself? Many theologians dismiss the paradoxes generated by these questions as trivial. But, they are not trivial, because they illustrate that an omnipotent god cannot exist. An immensely powerful god could theoretically exist, but an omnipotent being cannot actually exist due to these logical paradoxes that result from answering these questions.

These are paradoxes because human language is insufficient.

What does 'lift' mean to omnipotence? Move away from strong gravity? The entire idea of a thing being 'on' something else, such that it can then be lifted off of that thing is a totally erroneous notion from jump street.

If God slaps Jupiter and Earth together, then moves them apart, is he lifting Jupiter off of Earth or Earth off of Jupiter?

Setting aside the language barrier between humans and reality, the thing these 'paradoxes' fail to consider (and a fair number of responders fail to consider as well) is that an omnipotent being is not bound to remain that way.

Can it make an object it can't destroy? Yes. It just loses omnipotence after doing so. It ceases to be omnipotent and becomes omnipotent minus this one thing.

No paradoxes here.

 

[Sir Doom]

Moses, I am the alpha and omega... Well, except that one rock I made... Never should have done that...

Anyway, Moses I am very nearly the alpha and omega...

 

[Caesar Saladin]

We have no idea what God/Allah/Great Spirit/Odin/The Force is capable or not capable of doing. In all likelihood, we'll never know.