-1

About the omnipotence paradox, the 'ability or inability to do something' has a factor of time associated with it. So if i ask an omnipotent being to make a rock it can't lift,

"Here. A rock I can't lift."

"Haha. So you aren't omnipotent."

"Yes I am. Look I'm lifting it."

"But you just said you could not lift it?"

"I said I 'couldn't'. But I 'can'. "

"Ok then make one you can never lift."

"Done."

"Ok. Now you really aren't omnipotent."

"Yes I am. You just have to wait through a 'never' to see me lift it."

"I want to see you do it now."

"Look I'm lifting it."

"You said you couldn't lift it until an eternity."

"I have always been able, and unable to lift this rock."

TLDR:Omnipotent beings are beyond time. Please go easy on me as I know nothing of philosophy.

Reet Jaiswal
  • 103
  • 1
  • How is time relevant, aside from having explanatory conversations? Ability to do X is there, or not, regardless of time. It does not have to actually be done, even assuming *that* requires time (which is doubtful given omnipotence). And if combined with inability to do the same X the result is paradoxical. So if creating an unliftable rock is a legitimate X then there is a paradox. With or without time. – Conifold Aug 17 '21 at 11:22
  • @Conifold How is the inability to do something not impermanent? Yesterday I could not do X, today I can. One might say that I cannot be able and unable to do something at the 'same time", but simultaneity is what's of importance here. Omnipotent beings are beyond that and exist at all points of time always. It's axiomatic in logic that if two statements are opposing, they are contradictory, but the condition here clearly involves 'time'. – Reet Jaiswal Aug 17 '21 at 13:39
  • "I have always been able, and unable to lift this rock." If "God" is internally in a state of contradiction like this, then theology is an entirely impossible and pointless endeavour. – curiousdannii Aug 17 '21 at 13:46
  • @curiousdannii I see. I do understand that this is a lost cause but are you sure there is no perspective that can put this in slightly better words and solve the self contradiction? – Reet Jaiswal Aug 17 '21 at 13:56
  • If you can do it at *any* point in time then you have the ability. This paradox does not involve "ability" in the loose colloquial sense that one can "acquire", or time. "At the same time" is just a turn of phrase added for emphasis. The logic here is timeless, either for you or for timeless beings. – Conifold Aug 17 '21 at 14:12
  • @Conifold I understand. Thank you. – Reet Jaiswal Aug 17 '21 at 14:20
  • @ReetJaiswal Well the typical explanation of the omni-s is that they are concerned with only what is logically possible. God doesn't need to know what a four sided triangle looks like to be omniscient. Got doesn't need to lift the unliftable to be omnipotent. Instead omnipotence means that God is never unable to act as he wants to. – curiousdannii Aug 17 '21 at 14:23
  • I always wonder what they are lifting off of.... – Allan Aug 17 '21 at 21:56

2 Answers2

4

Omnipotence is more complex than that.

There are a lot of different, nuanced views on omnipotence, that I advise you go and read about in more detail, but I'll present the basic, most common answer I've heard here.

In mainstream Christian theological thought, these views on omnipotence have become more and more restrictive as more questions are asked.

The main school of thought I've seen on this is that omnipotence means one can do anything that is possible within our cosmos, unbounded by time or potency.

What does that look like?

For example, I am not omnipotent, because if I wanted to move a rock from point A to point B, I am both bounded by potency (my ability to lift the rock) and by time (I am still bound by time; I cannot move the rock instantly).

An omnipotent entity could move any rock that can possibly exist, instantaneously.

Let's put it another way: I could ask God to turn a star into ice, instantly, and God could do so.

I could not ask God to "bring me a gneurshk", because there's no such thing as a gneurshk. There is such a thing as stars, and ice, but no gneurshk.

Just like the gneurshk, the rock that God cannot lift does not, and cannot exist, because it cannot exist within our cosmos.

Cosmoi

You might respond with; "Ok, can said rock be made outside of our cosmos?" and the basic response would be no.

Just like gneurshk makes no sense in our cosmos, rock makes no sense outside of our cosmos.

The next counter would be "Can God make a cosmos in which such a rock can exist?"

The Theological Response

At this point, we threaten to tread into the murky waters of theology, but suffice it to say that the theological response would also be "No", at least in our current view of monotheistic thinking.

God is meant to be Perfect, in this system of thought; the existence of anything more than God, inside or outside of this cosmos, nullifies God. If such a rock existed, it would nullify God's Perfect Strength, thus nullifying God's Perfection, thus nullifying God.

ConnieMnemonic
  • 328
  • 1
  • 9
-2

The logic is simple: Suppose God makes a rock impossible to lift. Either God can lift this rock and is not omnipotent because He cannot make a rock impossible to lift, or He cannot lift the rock and then He is not omnipotent because He cannot lift the rock.

Speakpigeon
  • 5,522
  • 1
  • 10
  • 22
  • What exactly is the "logic" there? Why does God have to be internally contradictory to be omnipotent? – curiousdannii Aug 17 '21 at 13:39
  • @curiousdannii "*What exactly is the "logic" there?*" Suppose God makes a rock impossible to lift. Either God can lift this rock and is not omnipotent because He cannot make a rock impossible to lift, or He cannot lift the rock and then He is not omnipotent because He cannot lift the rock. – Speakpigeon Aug 17 '21 at 16:54
  • @curiousdannii "*Why does God have to be internally contradictory to be omnipotent?*" I don't think it is appropriate to say that He has to. He does not even has to be omnipotent to begin with. In fact, He does not even have to exist at all. I didn't say or infer that God had to be "*internally contradictory*". The logical reasoning in my answer only shows that the concept of omnipotence is self-contradictory. Any omnipotent being would have the same problem. The question of God is irrelevant in this respect. – Speakpigeon Aug 18 '21 at 16:29