The Omnipotence Paradox… SERIOUSLY AGAIN?!?!?

If you have been following my channel on YouTube for any amount of time, you will have seen that I have an issue with the defence of the omnipotence paradox that theists often rely upon. For example, see D-Slapping… derezzed83 (Re: What Omnipotence Paradox?) and The Omnipotence Paradox… IT’S NOT THAT DIFFICULT. As I explained in my last couple of videos I made on the subject, I went through the fact that the problem with the theist’s reasoning is that they seem to rely on this line of reasoning.
P1) God exists

P2) The proposition “God exists” means, that there exists some entity which has, as part of its a nature the traits of omniscience, omnipresence and omnipotence

P3) If an entity is omnipotent, then such a being can do everything which is logically possible

P4) God is omnipotent

C1) Therefore, God can do everything which is logically possible

P5) If God is able to do everything which is logically possible, then God cannot create a rock so heavy he cannot lift it

P6) God can do everything which is logically possible

C2) Therefore, God cannot create a rock so heavy he cannot lift it

C) Therefore, the objection of “creating a rock so heavy God cannot lift” is not possible and thus, the paradox does not actually address the concept of God which theists believe.
Of course, you probably won’t find many theists presenting this argument. However, it certainly captures the sentiment of what many actually believe. The reason being, that most theists affirm that omnipotence means being able to do only things which are logically possible. Therefore, if creating such a rock is indeed impossible, then this does not detract from the concept of omnipotence because it does not include the ability to do anything logically impossible. Case closed right?
Well, I need to stress, I don’t actually have a problem line of reasoning in the sense that if an entity is omnipotent, then that entails that they can lift all rocks they have created. Thus, to ask a being to lift all rocks they have created to create a rock they cannot lift is a contradiction. However, the problem which the omnipotence paradox highlights is that omnipotence does not mean simply “an entity which can lift all rocks they have created.” Instead, the definition of omnipotence, as is generally defined by theists, means “able to do everything logically possible.” Thus, the entire response to the omnipotence paradox hinges on the notion that an omnipotent being cannot create a rock so heavy they can’t lift it. However, the issue is, while I agree that being able to do everything logically possible entails this, it also entails being able to create a rock so heavy the entity who made it cannot lift it. In other words, it entails an entity can both lift all rocks they have created and can also create a rock so heavy they cannot lift it, because both are logically possible. And that is the whole point of the paradox!
Fundamentally, the issue is, the way theists talk about the omnipotence paradox is that it is just so obvious that an omnipotent being cannot create a rock so heavy they cannot lift it by definition and thus, they treat it in the same way as saying that a bachelor is by definition unmarried. Of course, this is analytically true given how “bachelor” and “unmarried” are defined. However, omnipotence is not a synonym for “a being which can lift all rocks they have created” which is how theists seem to treat the concept of omnipotence. The trouble is, the purpose of the omnipotence paradox is to show that if omnipotence means the ability to do everything logically possible, this includes two mutually incompatible things, like lifting all rocks you have created and creating a rock so heavy you cannot lift. In other words, it is not possible for an entity to perform all actions which are considered to be logically possible, because there are two things which are both logically possible which exclude each other.
In other words, if you say that omnipotence means the ability to do everything logically possible, then you cannot claim on the one hand that omnipotence means such a being can do everything logically possible but then claim such a being cannot do something which is logically possible. In other words, the paradox of the stone highlights that there are things which are logically possible to do, which an omnipotent being apparently can’t. And this is a contradiction in terms, because it would be saying that an omnipotent being can do everything logically possible, apart from some logically possible things.
Hopefully this explains why the the omnipotence paradox is a paradox and something that cannot be easily dismissed by simply saying “well God can’t create a rock so heavy he can’t lift because such a rock cannot exist.” The reason being, all you have to do to reply to that, is point out that the whole point of the paradox is to show that the traditional definition of omnipotence entails that such an entity can both create a rock so heavy he can’t lift and lift all rocks they have created. And that is the point of the omnipotence paradox that needs to be addressed!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s