Omnipotence and Omniscience Paradoxes Refuted

 

 

Paradoxes are apparent and not actual contradictory realities such that there is an argument to sustain it without contradicting the laws of logic. Therefore, the conclusion of a paradox seems illogical on the surface but the argument to back it is logical. One of the most famous paradoxes presented in the theological realm is the Paradox of the Stone also known as the Omnipotence Paradox. Paradoxes in theology attempt to create tension in their conception of God through an apparent contradiction such that it could be possible to accept absurd conclusions about the divine nature. This may be with positing there is a contradiction within God’s omnipotence or it could be with multiple attributes or an attribute with our human experience of the world such as the Problem of Evil existing with God being infinitely merciful (this is refuted in a different blog post). In this case, the Paradox of the Stone is an example of the first type. It states,

‘‘Could the omnipotent God create a stone so heavy that even He could not lift it?’ This is a paradoxical question because if God could create something He could not lift, then He would not be omnipotent. Alternative statements of the paradox include ‘If given the axioms of Euclidean geometry, can an omnipotent being create a triangle whose angles do not add up to 180 degrees or can God create a marriage bachelor or a squared-circle?’”.

This is attempting to prove that God being omnipotent is logically impossible as it results in God being all-powerful and not all-powerful at the same time. However, this argument is completely absurd and completely surface level to any sound mind.

For the argument to be valid one must presume that God can create a stone so heavy that it cannot be lifted. That implies that one has to negate the thing you need for the argument to even stand. One needs God to be omnipotent for the argument to stand. It cannot be the case that God is being denied omnipotence but needs it at the same time for the argument to hold.

Secondly, to say that God can create a stone so heavy that it cannot be lifted is to say that God has power and not power at the same time. He is so powerful that He cannot do something. This is to say that God can do the logically impossible. This is to predicate to God which is not properly in the bounds of possibility. It is not logically possible for God to do something that undermines His power and therefore the objection does not stand. The stone that God cannot lift is attempting to imply that there is an object so heavy that it is beyond the control of infinite power which is logically absurd. To accept it is to say that God is not perfect. One needs to properly define what is meant by omnipotence. Omnipotence is related to the bounds of possibility rather than impossibility as it is impossible logically to say that an all-powerful God can create something that demonstrates He does not have power. The question assumes a wrong definition of omnipotence such that it assumes that God can do something absurd. It is equivalent to ask can God create weqefdsfe as that word has no meaning and logical contradictions have no content as well. God can do anything but a logical contradiction is not a thing in the first place. There is no reality behind the words even though it may make apparent sense semantically. This is equivalent to saying that God who is the necessary being can exist and not exist at the same time. This contradicts the law of non-contradiction. The question itself is unsound. This is similar to how Christians say that God incarnate can have His omni properties and be completely man at the same time – it is a logical contradiction. The unliftable stone for the omnipotent being is an impossible object therefore, the statements regarding it are inherently flawed.

    The Omniscience Paradox states that God’s foreknowledge of all events and actions contradicts human freewill. If God knows how an individual will act, this implies that one cannot act freely because one’s act cannot contradict God’s perfect foreknowledge thus human acts occur by necessity and therefore there is no freewill. However, this is false according to the logic of a sound mind.

P1. God knows I am going to write this blog post.
P2. It is not possible to have both God knowing that I am going to write this blog post and me failing to do it.

P3. If God knows I am going to write this blog post, then it is necessary that I will do it.

C. Therefore, it is necessary that I am going to write this blog post.

This argument commits the modal fallacy and therefore is unsound. The truth of a proposition about an individual’s future actions does not make it necessary i.e. it could not be done in any other way, unlike contingency which is the opposite – it is the way it is but it could be otherwise. Rather me writing this blog article is a contingent fact even if the God’s knowledge of it is timelessly true (Perhaps if God was in time then another solution alongside this one would be that God does not foreknow future contingent acts because they are not things that can be known as it would result in a logical impossibility but this is just speculation). God’s knowledge of me writing this blog is contingent and therefore, it does not force me to write. If God’s knowledge of things was necessary then it would lead to a modal collapse where everything is necessary. One could easily reword the third premise to say, “If I am going to write this blog, then God would already know about it”. God’s knowledge is descriptive not causative.