One attribute of the traditional conception of God is omnipotence. God is said to be all-powerful. But this attribute leads to a dilemma. Suppose that God can create a stone too heavy for Him to lift. If God can create such a stone, then He is not omnipotent since He cannot lift it. On the other hand, if God cannot create such a stone, then He is not omnipotent because He cannot create it. Both horns of the dilemma lead to the conclusion that God is not omnipotent. In this post, after setting out Mavrodes solution to the paradox of the stone, I will attempt to formulate a reason why Mavrodes argument fails.
In “Some Puzzles Concerning Omnipotence,” George Mavrodes argues not that God is omnipotent but that arguments against God’s omnipotence have failed. He argues that anyone who contends God is not omnipotent because either God cannot create a stone so heavy He cannot lift it or God can create something he cannot lift involve descriptions that are self-contradictory. Since these tasks are not within the bounds of possibility, it follows that this “implies no limit on the power of God, and hence no defect in the doctrine of omnipotence” (p. 223).
I want to argue that Mavrodes argument fails because God’s power should not be limited to possible objects. If God is all-powerful, then His power should include the creation of impossible (self-contradictory) objects. Mavrodes contends that we can give up on the idea that God can create a stone too heavy for Him to lift, while also at the same time retaining the idea that God’s infinite power to lift any stone. If this is the case, then God’s omnipotence is not stripped away because God can lift any stone. But this seems to be a bit of linguistic trickery.
God cannot create a stone too heavy for Him to lift. But God can lift any stone. If God can lift any stone, then God may lift a stone too heavy for Him to lift. God can’t lift such a stone. So, God cannot lift any stone.
Mavrodes has limited God’s omnipotence. God cannot lift any stone since the one stone God cannot lift is the one that is too heavy for Him to lift. If God’s power to lift is infinite, then God’s power enables him to lift the stone too heavy for Him to lift. God cannot lift the stone too heavy for him to lift. Therefore, God’s power to lift is finite. Hence, following from Mavrodes argument, God is not omnipotent.
If God were omnipotent, then God would have to power to create a stone so heavy He cannot lift it. A self-contradictory description of the stone is: “a stone which cannot be lifted by Him whose power is sufficient for lifting anything.” This is self-contradictory because God cannot lift the heavy stone and God can lift any stone (regardless of weight). God’s power should be infinite. Infinite power enables the possessor of that power to do anything. Anything includes consistent, inconsistent, and contradictory actions. After all, for example, in some forms of Christianity, we may suppose that God created a triune God – Jesus is one-and-three-persons at the same time (i.e., God the Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit). To be one-and-three-persons at the same time is self-contradictory. So, God can can create self-contradictory objects. Therefore, since God is omnipotent and is able to create self-contradictory objects, God’s infinite power should enable Him to create a stone too heavy for Him to lift.
It is language and concepts of absoluteness that allow us to create such paradoxes. This one is no different at heart, I would say, than the logico-mathematical paradox of “Who shaves the barber?” (One version: “The Barber of Seville lives in Seville. He shaves all and only those residents of Seville who do not shave themselves. Who shaves the barber?”) Mathematicians have come up with a variety of such paradoxes, some of them much more precisely formulated that this.
The paradox derived from God’s omnipotence is interesting in the same way that other such linguistic paradoxes are interesting, but it says more about language and logic, I think, than about God. I don’t see that any practical consequences, theologically speaking, follow from it.
Well, perhaps there is one practical consequence, in that how individuals resolve the paradox for themselves may say something about them. For instance, a person may be inclined to say that God cannot, by definition, do impossible things–God cannot do what God cannot do. That person I would guess is very committed to rationality: to finding rational explanations for things and to resolving confilicts within his/her own belief system.
Another person may be inclined to say God’s omnipotence is in no way limited, and that the paradox is a deep mystery, or only apparent; a result of our limited human thinking. I would guess this person is more mystically inclined and/or not as concerned to resolve contradictions within his/her belief system.
Either way, I think the resolution says more about the person than about God.
This is one more of the many arguments of Atheisum, yet it posses some very intresting liguistic Games!
First,
René Descartes though of omnipotence as the ability to do absolutely anything. According to Descartes, God can do the logically impossible; he can make square circles, and he can make 2 + 2 = 5.Thomas Aquinas had a narrower conception of omnipotence. According to Aquinas, God is able to do anything possible; he can part the red sea, and he can restore the dead to life, but he cannot violate the laws of logic and mathematics in the way that Descartes thought that he could.
thus, it would seem that we must first have an understanding of omnipotence. Is it the power to do anything inspite of a hummanly-viewed contradition? Can our limited thinking permit us to understand the concept of supream and endless power? Or is it that God must provide ruels to govern himself and his powers by abiding by certin laws of logic? According to many christin phlosophers, if God exists then he is a being that can lift all stones. A stone that is so heavy that God cannot lift it is therefore an impossible object. According to Aquinas’ understanding of omnipotence, remember, God is able to do anything possible, but not anything impossible, and creating a stone that God cannot lift is something impossible. If it is imposible then It must not exist thus, again, it could not be lifted if It did not exist.
I also assert that this argument is a prime example of a false false dilemma fallacy, becuase we are saying that God is either all-powerful or not and by doing that we ignore possible degrees of omnipotence…
*false dilemma-sry
Without quoting decarte or aquintas, or sounding terribly smart…to sum this all up without a whole lot of discussion, wouldn’t an all powerful god be able to do ANYTHING he wants? I mean simply because it doesn’t make logical sense to our mortal and un-powerful minds does not make it impossible for an all-powerful god (which we cannot understand due to our un-powerful nature).
Furthermore the sense that either god is all powerful or is not all powerful seems like a bifurcation in the argument’s own right. Why does god have to be this or that?
Lets say god does make a boulder so heavy he can’t lift it, this doesn’t really take away from god’s all powerful nature in that by manipulating this rock so it weighs left (or whatever) he could then lift it…in one sense it sounds like he is not all powerful because he wouldn’t be able to accomplish lifting the rock outright, in another sense he would be all powerful because he had the ability to do what would be impossible to do….
seems like a stretch even to me, maybe someoen else can make it sound better…
Spcbaker,
I agree with you. I think that men do try to interpret or define what omnipotence means, and the interesting thing is that we do that by our limited minds.
This paradox is obviously quizzing and causes a level of contradiction, and for that reason I assert that it is decently committing a fallacy (ie. FALSE DILEMMA). And by committing a fallacy there is reason to suspect that it is false and not addressing all of god’s abilities.
Here is my revised version of why there must be exclusivity of religion, and why there can only be one true religion.
1. If God is omnipotent and omniscient, then God would be able to use his omniscient and omnipotent abilities to achieve a state of absolute perfection. (Premise)
2. God is omnipotent and omniscient thus God is able to achieve a state of absolute perfection.(1)
3. If God is in a state of absolute perfection, then God would not require being mutable. (Premise)
4. Thus, if God is immutable, and perfect, then, his truths must exhibit a state of absolute perfection, and immutableness. (2,3)
5. If God’s truths are immutable and perfect, then there would only need to be one truth.(4,3)
6. God’s truths must be immutable and perfect in order to be constant with his chateristics. Thus, There must only be one truth.(4,5)
7. Therefore, if there is one truth, and truth is taught to men via religion, then there must only be one true religion. (5)
John, I am with you so far on the above mentioned argument, o.k. God is/does not need to be mutable, until you get to to 7. and then you lost me. Where in your argument did you premis that God’s truth would be taught through men via religion or more specifically a “true religion”? Why not snippits of truth in all religions? What about those where it is physically impossibe to hear about this said “true religion”? Are they completly doomed?
Thanks for your response TsJoJo. I should have added a additional premise, I was trying to simplify and for that reason there is a supressed premise. Let me provide a revised version to explain..
1. If God is omnipotent and omniscient, then God would be able to use his omniscient and omnipotent abilities to achieve a state of absolute perfection. (Premise)
2. God is omnipotent and omniscient thus God is able to achieve a state of absolute perfection.(1)
3. If God is in a state of absolute perfection, then God would not require being mutable. (Premise)
4. Thus, if God is immutable, and perfect, then, his truths must exhibit a state of absolute perfection, and immutableness. (2,3)
5. If God’s truths are immutable and perfect, then there would only need to be one truth.(4,3)
6. God’s truths must be immutable and perfect in order to be constant with his chateristics. Thus, There must only be one truth.(4,5)
7. God’s truths are recived by men via religion
8. Therefore, if there is one truth, and truth is taught to men via religion, then there must only be one true religion. (7,6,5)
That i beleve is the supressed premise that you were looking for.. i hope. its implied becuase if gods truths are are to be recvied by men then that would be via religion, thus, if there can only be one “immutable truth” then that truth must be true and absolute and eternal, thus, religion, if it is true, must coincide with that systematic principle what god’s truths exibit a state of constand and absolutnesss.
John,
I think Terri wants an argument for 7. She’s saying that you cannot just assume that “God’s truths are received by men via religion.”
You have to anticipate that (at least one of) her response(s) to your argument is going to be that the doctrines of the one true religion are reflected in one’s own religion, which presumably isn’t the one true religion. If so, then there’s no reason to think that the one true religion is exclusively true.
*that god’s truths exibit a state of constant and absolutnesss.
Here it is! I realized that i did not need 7… becuase 7 would infer definitions about organized practices or groups, the “truths” that I am referring to are those that relate to the true principles of God/teachings/doctrine…etc. (and not those invented by the deceptions of men).
1. If God is omnipotent and omniscient, then God would be able to use his omniscient and omnipotent abilities to achieve a state of absolute perfection. (premise)
2. If God is absolutely perfect, then God would not be mutable. (premise)
3. If God is immutable, then his truths must be absolutely perfect and immutable. (premise)
4. If God’s truths are immutable and perfect, then the only religion that reflects these truths is true. (premise)
5. Thus, if God is omnipotent and omniscient, then the only religion that reflects these truths is true. (1-4)
John- I think your proofs presuppose that a perfect God has truths that could be transferred to humanity. It seems that part of tsjojo’s criticism of your first proof is applicable here as well. Your argument leaves no place for contradictory truths or bits of truths in different religions or the possibility that no religion absolutely reflects God’s truths.
At the risk of creating a break in the discussion, i want to add my thoughts on the original question.
Can God create a rock so heavy he can’t lift it? I say that this question doesn’t follow the requirements of a question worth answering. Logic doesn’t follow the thread of the question. Similar is the question raised earlier in the thread, Can God create a round square? A square is defined by it’s lack of roundness, so therefore the answer to this question is no, but this doesn’t negate God’s omnipotence because the solution to the question is a definition change. If God creates something round and calls it a square, then the name is all that has changed, not the shape of an object. So the original question remains. We have to change the question to one that can be defended by the known attributes of God.
Stephen
…and…attack!
Rcheek,
In my argument uses the word “Truths” as a whole, which refers to all truths, not just 1 truth or a bit of truth here or there. You see, it is logical that if god is perfect and constant and absolute, then why would he posses such things as “contradictory truths” or give humanity bits? If he intentionally gave men only bits of truth here or there he would become a producer of confusion and deception thus being the cause of conflict and evil–all contrary to his chacteristics.
And how could a religion that reflected just 1 truth be just as true as a religion that reflected all the truths? –>Especially if God is perfect and all-knowing/all-powerful etc. wouldn’t he provide absolute and perfect truth…
And with regarding perfection and perfect things…can perfect truths be contradictory to one another? And can perfect truths be divided among its self?
And cant a all powerful being transfer what ever he wants to hummanity?
What are truths as a whole? John, you assume that finite qualities can easily explain God, his existence, his attributes, his purpose and his will. Perhaps it is not God’s purpose to impart truth on humanity and perhaps it is his purpose for humanity to not know his will completely. The existence of incomplete truth spread among religions is entirely possible if it is religion that seeks God and not God who seeks to use religion as a medium. This is not necessarily indicative of an “evil” god but of a “mysterious” god whose possibilities are beyond our faculties for understanding.
Rcheek,
Thank you for the insight, but I disagree with your points.
First, You said that perhaps God dose not wish to impart truth unto humanity. Lets use that premise for a moment:
1. If men are fallible, then what men create will be fallible
2. Thus, if men create religion it is fallible
3. If religion is fallible, then deception by misinterpretation, and false doctrine must occur.
4. Thus Deception must occur.
5. If God is omnibelevolant and, then he will not allow deception.
6. Therefore, If God cannot allow deception, and then he must provide truth and enlightenment.
And to continue I could address the question of truths as a whole using the same argument, because if god were to give men only a fragment of truth and leave the rest to men then deception must eventually occur, and if god is truly all-good then that will not occur, yet if it dose then God is not all-good or not all-powerful. Because he cannot stop deception and confusion. If god remains “mysterious” and by those “mysterious ways,
“ then he denies us his truths then God becomes the creator of deception and evil thus, he is not all good.
Furthermore,
1. If god were all knowing and all-powerful then he would have the abilities to direct his creations the most effective way of “seeking” him.
2. If god were all good and all loving then he would want us to obtain the most effective path.
4. The most effective path would only be known by god
Therefore it is required of god to provide us with this most effective way to reach him.
I do understand what you are trying to say, well… I think…
Perhaps you could provide a formal argument against my previous one proving that religion is exclusive? Because I would like to see something more convincing…
Thank you.
John, you seem to be ignoring the fact that there are in fact many religions and that they do not all agree with each other. In your framework of thought, this implies that at least some are deceptions–which you say an all good God would not allow (”God cannot allow deception”). This appears to me to be a contradiction in your thought. Either deception is not the evil in the sight of God that you assume and therefore God does not choose to prevent deception in religion, or God can’t prevent deception (which implies a limit on God’s power), or what you are perceiving as deception is, in the sight of God, something else.
I think the moral of the story we need to be humble in our pronouncements about God and God’s truth–and in particular, we need to be VERY cautious about declaring that we know what God’s truth is.
On the initial question of can God create a rock that he cannot lift, I say yes. If we accept that God is omnipotent and nothing is outside of His power, then why does it not follow that the impossible can be made possible? Does omnipotence require that men understand all that is in the realm of God? Why can’t both claims be true, that God can create something that He can’t lift, and then lift it? Just as John reminds us, Aquinas claims that parting the red sea and resurrecting the dead are “possible,” why not this dilemma?
As for the triune, I think it is about different phases of being. Like white light, which can be broken into a spectrum of many colors; it is all and it is each separate.
asok46: A square is a square because we agree that it is. Perhaps it is round but the information sent to us was interpreted incorrectly. Our round may be God’s square. Also, I would ask you to define the “known attributes of God?”
I would ask john, does omnipotence require omnibenevolence? Also, do you suggest that if religion is a creation of man and man is fallible, that God not only allows deception but also fallibility and is therefore not omnipotent? If so, then wouldn’t it follow that if fallibility is His will, than perhaps so is deception and evil?
I apologize for the multitude of topics but I am very interested in understanding the arguments.
Addofio,
Actually I am very aware of the fact that there are many religions, and I have stated that those religions can and are caused by the deceptions of men. Furthermore, I feel that its important to notice that god can still remain all-good by allowing deception if he still provides a way of truth so that men and their libertarian free will can obtain that truth and escape from deception!
I agree with you we need to be humble about God and his truth, yet I feel that we need to be bold and not tremble or cower under the cover of fear and doubt. Especially, if we are unsure about God. For that reason I try to speak boldly and attempt to discover new insight and thought.
John, your addiction to formalized proofs seems misdirected when speaking of an impossible being. You attribute deception to immorality and lack a defense of God being subject to his own laws. It is possible for God to be all good and not reveal his truths to humanity. Why is it God’s duty to lead us to him? If this were true, religious pluralism wouldn’t be possible. The existence of alternative faiths and beliefs in God seems sufficient prima facie evidence to demonstrate that if there is a true path, it is not a clear one paved by God.
Addofio, Thanks for the last post. I concur. You see, I was wondering if God is all Powerful and would not do anything to decieve us, why did he create humans with the capacity to be decieved? If wants us all to know his truth(s) and there is but one. Wouldn’t God make his truth so obvious and our capacity to accept this truth, that even, let’s dare say, I would recieve it and know it to be true.
Rcheek,
what do you mean by “mysterious” God. Is a “mysterious” God conceivable? If a mysterious God is inconceivable, then there is no argument for any of God’s attributes.
Here is a corrected form of my argument for those who need clarification…like myslelf
1. Mankind can be deceived into believing falsely. (premise)
2. Religion is a creation of mankind. (premise)
3. So, mankind can be deceived into believing false religious beliefs.
(1,2)
4. If God is omni-benevolent, then He will not permit mankind to be deceived.(premise)
5. God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, and omnipresent.
(premise)
6. Therefore, God doesn’t allow mankind to be deceived. (4,5)
7. Thus, mankind might be deceived into believing false religious
beliefs but it’s not God’s fault. (3,6)
Class,
I just want to write a note about the use of formalized arguments in blogs, class, etc.
You should always have an eye toward drafting a formalized argument. Philosophy wouldn’t be worth anything without them.
You shouldn’t be restricted to using them because formalized arguments can be clothed in natural language. So, the use of natural language is sufficient for blogging and papers.
How are the following not mutually contradictory?
1. Mankind is often deceived.
2. God is all-powerful.
3. God doesn’t allow mankind to be decieved.
It would seem to me that God being omnipotent implies both that God can do whatever, and that God can prevent any given event or action from occurring. Therefore, if God is omnipotent, then God is allowing to occur whatever is occurring. Therefore not all three of the above can be true.
“Allowing” does not imply approval; it is a matter of ability.
Joe, will you please clarify, I am not sure what you are saying here.
Humbly, Terri
Sure thing Terri,
If there’s no argument, then it’s not philosophy.
- Joe
P.S. (for those in the class): Arguments are important b/c that’s how I will grade you.
I once heard the riddle as to what happens when an unstoppable force meet an immovable object. The answer was that they both could not exist in the same reality, so nothing would happen. So the stone question seems the same. What happens when God creates a stone so big he cannot lift it? Well if he has done this, he is not omnipotent, since he can’t be an unstoppable force when there is an ommovable object.
However, much like Joe’s original argument, we must ask if reality really matters.
Maybe I’m not thinking it through hard enough, but what if we formulated our argument for God’s omnipotence as such:
1) It is impossible for an omnipotent God to create a stone so big that he could not lift it.
2) God, by definition, is not limited to the possible.
3) God can create a stone so big that he could not lift it, regardless of its impossibility.
Or how about this:
1) It is impossible for God to be able to lift a stone that he cannot lift.
2) God is not limited to the possible.
3) Therefore, God can lift a stone that is so big that he can’t lift it.
Sounds funny doesn’t it? But does it work?