Cartoonist J.B. Handelsman used to have a regular strip in the British humor mag Punch, called Freaky Fables. I recall in one he did the story of King Canute and the tide, and one of king’s flatterers said, “Oh, Your Majesty! God Himself could not have failed the way you failed!”
I suppose my point is that there are some things, such as arbitrarily defined systems like logic, that I consider to be independently possible or impossible, as long as one is using the definitions of the system (which one must to properly speak of the things in the system). Such things, therefore, would be true in all universes, including God’s, and therefore, he can’t make logical contradictions happen and he can’t make square circles…period. But if you’re not of a mind to accept the inherentness of an arbitrary definition, then I don’t see that there’s much I can do about that; you just see the world in a way I do not.
Only if one adopts the kindergarden-level definition of omnipotence as “the ability to to anything at all, even that which is logically self-contradictory.” A great many philosophers (including atheists like J.L. Mackie) reject that simplistic definition.
As Sophistry and Illusion said, according to certain views, “logically contradictory actions are not even describable and are not even candidate actions.” Consider the square circle challenge, for example. We can arrange the words “square” and “circle” together, but that does not make the phrase “square circle” meaningful. That is, while this phrase can be formed, it does not correspond to anything.
By it’s very definition, being part of the faith makes it true - it defines truth.
Well, that’s one definition of truth. The one where simply believing that the world is flat will cause the planet to be crushed into a wafer.
This, I think, is the key. For a statement to describe an action that God can do, the statement has to be meaningful. But one of the things that emerges from Wittgenstein’s discussions of alien logics is that to try to say something in an alien logic or to try to say something that is logically incoherent is to say nothing at all. It is meaningless. So to ask, “Can God create a square circle?” is like asking, “Can God slkfjsdl?” It just doesn’t mean anything, and so cannot be used to ask anything about God’s omnipotence.
What’s your basis for assuming that? Our universe could easily be the tinest subset of God’s, with local and artificial rules that don’t apply anywhere else. Once you speculate on a God powerful enough to create a universe, there’s isn’t any point in imposing any limitations on it. If God didn’t create the universe but is simply a resident in it and bound by its laws (i.e. God is a being that evolved to self-awareness and then created lesser life-forms, like us), then he’s no more omnipotent than any highly-advanced lifeform. We might even get there ourselves someday.
Well… sorry. You’re slapping on a contradiction where, as far as I can tell, it’s not necessary or justified.
Feel free to suggest an alternative. Is the God you envision the creator of the universe, or not? If so, he formed the physical laws we now live by. As such, why assume he’s personally bound by them?
If he didn’t create the universe, then what exactly is his role in it?
We have been suggesting an alternative: Omnipotent = not bound by any non-logical law. Although this definition of omnipotence is a bit unsatisfactory since, as we explained above, there is a strong and compelling strain in the tradition according to which it is inaccurate to say that logical laws represent a limit on God’s power. Saying “God’s power is limited by logical laws” is like saying “The integers are limited by infinity.”
And physical law != logical law.
Okay, that may be a compromise that makes us comfortable, but why does God have to heed it?
It’s not a compromise; it’s the way things are. On the position defended by Aquinas (and which I find very plausible), people who say, “Why can’t God make a square circle?” are literally talking nonsense. It’s as though they said, “Why can’t God gslkr sldkj bioowe?” and then thought they scored a point against divine omnipotence. “Square circle” is *nonsense * in the most literal, reductive meaning of the word: non-sense. It has no sense or meaning; it is meaningless. You have to say something before you can challenge God.
And this is coming from an atheist. I have no brief to carry for God; but I don’t think the alleged paradoxes of divine omnipotence are what the theist has to worry about.
Well, if he can’t change the laws of physics to suit him, then what good is he?
Lousy lazy god…
Sure, he can change the laws of physics. No prob. Easy as pie. But he can’t violate the laws of logic.
Why not? Humans do it all the time, often rather successfully.
The trick is for God to do it without his result being invalid. That would make him truly super-omnipotent.
Hey-HEY, now we’re talkin’ God-level stuff!
That’s the thing about faith I’ve never been able to comprehend - the idea that belief can create reality rather than the opposite. I can see how I might believe in something because it is true. But I don’t see how something is true because I believe in it. I think religious people abscribe this power to faith because they want to feel important, like they’re doing their part for God (or Allah or Xemu) by supporting him. (Often with the subconscious thought that they can withhold their support so God better watch out.) Either God exists or He doesn’t - how does my opinion on the subject matter? It doesn’t matter whether a billion people or ten people or no people believe in God - God exists because He exists. Faith is important to the people who have it but it has no effect on God.
I came to the conclusion that my argument is just a modified “heavy stone” paradox. I’m arguing that an omnipotent being should be able to take away his own omniopotence, which is just a roundabout way of saying “can god create a rock even he cannot lift?”
That’s why this argument sounded so weird to me. I’d already heard it before, I just came to it on my own.
None of your examples pertain to the laws of physics. They only have to do with the laws of logic. There’s a rather substantial difference between the two.
Not in the manner that you describe, though. Humans “violate” the laws of logic insofar as they fail to exercise proper logic. (BTW, I think it’s a huge stretch to call this a “violation.” The laws of logic remain intact; it’s just that humans misperceive or misapply those laws.)
You’re asking God to do much more than that, though. You’re not merely suggesting that God should apply logic carelessly. Rather, you’re asking why he doesn’t behave in a manner that produces results which the laws of logic prohibit, e.g., creating a square circle. That’s entirely different from merely misperceiving or misapplying logic itself.
As for whether an omnipotent being can take away his own omnipotence, there are at least three answers to that, all of which are closely related.
[ul]
[li]One is that he could, but that he would not – after all, why should an omnipotent being violate his own character? He’s certainly not obligated to do so. [/li][li]The second response is that the definition of omnipotence does not have to include the ability to violate one’s character. In other words, since an omnipotent being is not obligated to behave in a non-omnipotent manner, why should we define omnipotence to include that ability?[/li][li]Third – and this is related to what Sophistry and Illusion has been saying – one could state that the phrase “a non-omnipotent omnipotent being” is simply a meaningless phrase. It’s gobbledygook. It’s an arrangement of words, but merely arranging words does not produce meaning. It’s like asking, “Why doesn’t God metamorphose the extraction of classical trigylcerides from hypostatic music and lard?” You’ve got a sequence of words there, but they mean nothing whatsoever. [/li][/ul]
Word.
(Or *logos * or whatever I should be saying in this thread.)