The concept of an omnipotent being, namely a being with maximal perfection with respect to power, is sometimes believed to involve a contradiction. The most popular reductio ad absurdum case against the existence of omnipotent being is known as “the paradox of the stone.”
The paradox unfolds as follows:
1. If God exists, then He is omnipotent
2. If God is omnipotent then God can create a stone too heavy for anyone to lift.
3. If God can create a stone too heavy for anyone to lift, then God is not omnipotent since He cannot lift the stone He created.
4. If God cannot create a stone too heavy for anyone to lift, then God is not omnipotent since He cannot create the stone too heavy for anyone to lift.
5. Either way God is not omnipotent.
6. Therefore God does not exist.
Since a person offering this case “is assuming throughout that if there is something specifiable that God cannot do, it follows that he lacks omnipotence” as Thomas V. Morris (1991, 73) correctly observed, clarification of the terms used would help show how weak and unsound this case is.
What do we mean by “a being Y can do x ”? According to Morris, we can mean either ability, Y is “able to do x” or capability, Y is “capable of doing x.” Our questions should be then, does it necessarily mean that Y lacks power to do x, if Y cannot do x? Soundly no. Y might have the power to do x but lack reasons or will or skills or opportunity et cetera to do x. Does it necessarily then mean that Y lacks power to do x, if Y is not capable of doing x? Soundly no again, since Y might have the power to do x but lacks moral justification to do x.
Borrowing Morris’ example, God could indeed create a small stone that no one could lift, by simply making the stone impossible to be lifted by any other beings and vow himself not to lift it. Since God is morally perfect, He cannot break His vow not to lift the stone, thus adding himself to a group of all other beings that cannot lift that stone. We can say, in this state of affair, that God cannot lift the stone, but not because of lack of power but of the promise that a perfect being cannot break.
Michael Tooley’s Solution: Atheist Philosopher’s Critique
Tooley deemed this paradox of omnipotence argument as “clearly unsound.” He contended,
[T]his [unsoundness of the case] can be seen if one simply makes explicit the times at which the being acts, or possesses some property. For suppose A is omnipotent at a specific time t1. Then A can act at that time to bring it about that there is a rock that no one can lift. But at what time does the latter state of affairs first exist? It cannot be time t1, since, I would argue, a cause cannot be simultaneous with its effect. So let us suppose that A acts at time t1 to bring it about that there is, at some later time t2, a rock that no one can lift. It then follows that A either no longer exists at time t2, or does exist at time t2, but is no longer omnipotent. So to bring it about that there is a rock that no one can lift—including himself—an omnipotent being must either commit suicide, or at least bring it about that he is no longer omnipotent at the relevant time. This is not, presumably, something that a sensible person—let alone a morally perfect one—would be likely to do. But there is no contradiction in the proposition that A, who is omnipotent at time t1, either does not exist at some later time t2, or else exists at that time, but is not omnipotent. Accordingly, there is no paradox of omnipotence.(Plantinga & Tooley 2008, 87)
Tooley’s solution is of no use to theists, since they believe God, if he exists, is a being greater than which none can be conceived. Omnipotence and necessary existence in all possible worlds are greatness-making properties that a being none greater than which can be conceived must possess. Is there a possible solution that both atheists and theists would accept?
Thomas V. Morris’ Solution: Theist Philosopher’s Critique
Morris offers two solutions, which I find compelling. Probing what kind of stone a defender of this case is asking an omnipotent God to create that He cannot lift, Morris contended,
But what would such a stone be like? What, for example, would it weigh? If God is omnipotent, then, presumably, he can create stones of any possible weight. But if he is omnipotent, then, presumably as well, for any possible weight n, he can lift stones of weight n. Realizing this has led some philosophers to one of the simplest solutions which has been offered to the stone paradox. They have just claimed that ‘creating a stone which even an omnipotent being can’t lift,’ and all its analytical equivalents, is just an incoherent act-description. And since the phrase ‘the power to create a stone which even an omnipotent being can’t lift’ does not designate a logically possible power, it does not follow from the fact that God cannot create such a stone that God lacks any power required for omnipotence, or that he lacks in any other respect. This solution maintains that the proper answer to our original question is no, but that does not cause any problems for the ascription of omnipotence to God. (Morris 1991, 74)
What if the defender of this case keeps insisting that God creating a stone too heavy to be lifted is a logical possibility. Is it possible that God can create such stone and still be omnipotent? Yes. Morris again argued that it still would not follow that God lacks the power to lift such stone. God could simply vow not to lift the stone, thus it would not be because of inability to lift the stone but moral incapability that God cannot lift that stone. “Thus, lacking a power to lift S [stone] is not lacking a possible power, a power possible to have, and so no such lack would detract from God’s being omnipotent. (ibid 75)
Morris awesomely concluded:
If we choose to say that God cannot create a stone he can’t lift, we can block the inference to his lacking omnipotence and explain the apparent divine inability by characterizing the act-description here as incoherent. If we choose to say that he can create such a stone which, once created, he cannot lift, we can block the inference to his lacking omnipotence by explaining that the subsequent inability to lift cannot be thought of as reflecting the lack of any power it is possible to have. But by either strategy the claim of omnipotence for God is defended.”(ibid 76)
Question: Are you persuaded by the Paradox of the Stone as case against omnipotent God?
Bibliography:
Plantinga, Alvin & Tooley, Michael (2008) Knowledge of God. Blackwell Publishing.
Morris, Thomas V. (1991) Our Idea of God: An Introduction to Philosophical Theology. InterVarsity Press.
off topic but check out this interesting defense of anselm’s ontological argument
http://voices.yahoo.com/in-defense-st-anselms-ontological-argument-12167010.html?cat=9
If God wanted to create a rock so heavy that He could not lift it, then He could.
If not then He would not meet my definition of either the word God (with a capital G)
or the word omnipotent, as in maximal Being – unlimited ability.
Suppose God created a rock and He wanted to call it The Universe.
Now suppose God wanted to make Himself at One with the Universe. Can you lift the Universe or lower it back down? Where is up? Nowhere. There is nothing else but the universal rock which cant be lifted by anyone. Literally an immovable object.
This is of course, just sophistry and ambiguous word gaming. But thats what all invented human paradoxes are. And accordingly, thats wherein lies their solution. The heavy rock paradox is an atheist counter-apologetic that was invented in the human mind. Inventing a solution is just as easy.
Hej Lion. I do not see how it follow that if God could not create a stone that He could not lift then He is not omnipotent. Did you read the article?
Hi Prayson W Daniel,
I know it’s not the orthodox approach to the immovable rock “paradox” but I think it can also be resolved in other ways apart from conceding that God is a little bit impotent when it comes to rocks. I hold the view that God can literally do anything He wants and that He is creative enough to do so in a fashion we wouldnt think possible until after He had done it.
(By then we would all be sitting there gobsmacked, realizing that… DOH!… of COURSE! …why didnt we think of that.)
Yes I read the article and I understand that limiting God’s omnipotence solely to the “logically possible” may be a handy way to resolve the paradox. But I have always been suspicious of folk who use human logic to limit God.
Remember, there are rational folk who assert that it is logically impossible for an eternal God to have a Son.
Kind regards – Lion IRC
Or to put it another way, could God create a rock so heavy that Jesus Christ couldnt lift it.
I do not think God the Father creating a rock that God the Son could not lift it would solve the problem because Jesus Christ is thought to be a person with two natures, Human nature, to which would not be able to carry the heavy rock, and Divine nature, to which would be able to carry the heavy rock.
Jesus and the Father[and the Holy Spirit] are, from Christianity, one and only God. Dividing Jesus and the Father to two God’s would be considered a belief foreign to orthodox Christianity and logically impossible to have two beings that which no greater, or equal could be conceived.(Example you cannot have two omnipotent beings)
I do not understand how God’s omnipotence being solely able to the “logically possible” is limiting God’s power in any way, since there is no possible power are being could have to do a logically impossible task. E.g. God cannot make P and not-P true at the same time and in the same sense.
Let me know your thoughts.
I have no contention with the simple method of defining your way out of the paradox and resolving it by saying that God can’t do anything we find “illogical”.
As I said above, the omnipotence paradox originated in the mind of an imaginative human. It is just as easy to deconstruct it and invent a metaphysic wherein immovable objects and irresistable forces can NEVER coexist. And thats just a brute fact that even God is constrained by.
The point I was making though, is that affords people – humans – an opportunity to limit God’s nature anytime they find something they think is illogical such as the problem many monotheists have with God having a Son – The Rising Son. (I’m sure you are quite familiar with Islamic counter-apologetics against The Resurrection and The Triune nature of God)
My point is that we can and should allow, at least for the possibility, that God can, by His own divine prerogative and fiat, do things we might find hard to comprehend according to what know of logic so far.
The caveat of course being that God is not constrained by anything other than His own logical and loving will and to that extent, it seems He does not want square triangles or infinitely heavy rocks to exist before our eyes or in our confounded minds.
Now, take a deep breath everybody.
Could God will Himself permanently out of existence?
Thanks for expounding your point. If by limiting God we mean how we understand God to be, viz., his nature and attributes, then I think everyone, including those who claim not to limit God, limits God in one way or another.
Borrowing your question, for example: Could God will Himself permanently out of existence?
This question already presuppose a limited God. A God who is at-least apprehensible.
Those of us who hold to perfect being theology, namely God is that which none greater nor equal can be conceived, God necessarily exist in every possible world and cannot cease to exist because existence in every possible world is not only a perfection but essential attribute.
Those who hold that God can cease to exist, also limit God in a sense that God is a being that is not necessary.
Strangely both use human logic. Even when we are denying human logic, we cannot escape using it in denying it.
Hi Prayson W Daniel
You honed in on the two salient points with laser guided precision. 🙂
(Thought you might.)
1. God’s ability to think (apprehensively) about His actions.
2. The element of “necessity” of God’s existence as a perfect Being.
On the first point, I find biblical warrant to conclude that God does, and is entitled to, THINK freely about His past and future actions. Several verses come to mind in which we see Gods (righteous) anger, concern, desire, regret, consideration… and so forth. Even if you and I both held that God could NOT actually do some ‘thing’, we would presumably find it hard to assert that God was unable/impotent to even contemplate such a ‘thing’ in His infinite and creative mind. No God, you cannot be apprehensive about the state of the world’s sinfulness in Genesis 6:6
Remember, we don’t think that God ever would change (Malachi 3:6) and act contrary to His determined
will. And God has promised us that He is, and will be there for us forever. IOW – God has already decided how He wants to act and how He wants to be seen to act. Nor are we talking about whether God wants to do a certain ‘thing’, which otherwise seems illogical to us. Merely, that there is no prevailing, external, law of the universe, brute fact, imposed upon God’s potentially infinite mind.
Another example would be God’s self-imposed will to never lie. Since lying (like all sin) is stupid and self-destructive, God is stating the bleeding obvious when
He says He cannot lie. He cannot lie because He has, by His own free will, high personal standards which arise from His knowledge that certain acts are stupid, immoral and ultimately self-destructive. And why would any living soul want to will themself out of existence?
This brings me to the second point. The necessity of God’s being. I’m sure we both hold to the perfect being theology and God’s maximal greatness. And I completely agree that His existence is a logical attribute which we find
necessary. If He doesn’t exist then He is no longer the maximal being who exists. (To be = To exist)
BUT….
Recall I said I would shudder as to the completely unknown consequences that would result from such an (unlikely) thing. There is no presumption in this unparalleled scenario about the metaphysical consequences of such an unthinkable event.
If God deliberated and caused Himself to cease to exist, do we have any reason to think that all of His creation – all space/time/matter/energy which owes its origin and ongoing existence to Him – would continue as normal?
Does the Kingdom of God continue without a King? Do the foxes have dens and the birds have nests if God ceases to provide for them? (Luke 9:58) Does the hair on Jonathans head (and his life) get saved if there is no God to save him? (1st Samuel 14:45)
My point here is that the attribute of God’s ongoing permanent existence is only necessary for US and only so long as we exist. What happens to the ontological argument if there are no beings AT ALL? If there is no God, we do not exist and nobody wonders about the attributes of a maximal being. There aren’t even any Aristotelian rocks left to dream of the nothingness of a permanent eternal void of God permanent eternal absence. No God of the cosmos? No cosmos!
So I think this circumvents the issue you raised of such a proposed scenario also limiting God with human logic.
If anything it amplifies the point (IMHO) because it shows a defect in human logic – namely, the vain and egotistical human thinking that God might cease to exist and yet humans would still be here to pontificate over who the NEXT candidate for maximal being might be. It is plausible that if we have no God…no Maximal Being, then no trace of His logic and His love and His reason.
And His creation is retrospectively rendered ‘uncreated’.That would be a singularity in which everything suddenly ceased to exi…………………………..
As you know, many counter-apologists argue a brute fact that the universe is past-eternal and cannot cease to exist. And they claim this as a (weak) infinite regression counter-argument to biblical theology which holds that the past-eternal God is simply a brute fact. They hold that it is a necessary attribute of the universe(s).
I like reading your blog posts here. And thank you for taking the time to converse with me. I certainly don’t want to appear contentious and I love this kind of deeper theology. I hope you and the Mods here don’t think I’m straying off topic. I’m happy to correspond by email or private message if you want to elaborate further.
Kind regards – Lion IRC
Note to readers
Some of the discussion above touches on issues which might be seen as relating to suicide. 🙁
If you or someone you know, has thoughts about this topic, please know that there is ALWAYS someone who wants to help and who can help. Talk to someone in real life. There is ALWAYS an answer and there are loving people who can and will help. Your problems can be helped. 🙂
http://www.suicideline.org.au
http://www.suicidepreventionlifeline.org
National Suicide Prevention Lifeline 1-800-273-TALK
Hi Lion_IRC. Thank you for your comments, I think that we all share a concern for people with thoughts of suicide.
While we encourage CAA members and our readers to be sensitive to issues such as this, we also want to encourage that all comments be related to the topic/post being discussed.
Again, thank you for all of your contributions to the many articles you have responded to. We enjoy your participation and look forward to more of your input on future articles.
Noted! Agreed.
Hey great post! I’ve actually touched on this from a different angle on my own blog. My answer to the question brings in God as the Trinity, pointing out that each part of the Trinity is capable of working separately from the others. God the Father can (and has) created stones that God the Son cannot lift (or break – which is the version I heard) unless he is empowered by God the Spirit to do so. It’s easy to think literally about the question and see only God the Father as an option and if you check out my blog you’ll see that I struggled with that as well, but studying God always has a way of opening up new ways of seeing things. Anyway, I really enjoyed the post. I hope you all check out my blog as well, just follow the link!
http://solomonbound.wordpress.com/2013/02/22/i-cant/