EMAIL THIS PAGE
PRINT
RSS
So far, that was a quotation from renowned atheist philosopher Michael Tooley. Though Tooley does not endorse this argument, I thought it would be instructive to examine it since many atheists think there is something to this old chestnut. The argument aims to show that nothing could be omnipotent, since that would lead to a contradiction. Christians, since they believe in an omnipotent God, therefore believe something absurd and contradictory. (That's bad for us.) But how does the argument go exactly? I think it's something like this: -----PART I-------- (1) For any X and Y, if X is omnipotent and Y is a possible state of affairs, X can bring about Y. (definition of omnipotence) (2) It is possible for the world to contain a rock too large for anyone to lift. Call that possibility ROCK. (assumption) (3) If God exists, he is omnipotent. (assumption) (4) Therefore, if God exists, he can bring about ROCK. (from 1, 2, and 3) (5) If ROCK is brought about, then there is an action that no one can do: lift that rock. (from 2) (6) Therefore, If God exists, there is an action that he cannot do: lift that rock. (from 4 and 5) --- PART II ------- (7) An omnipotent being can lift any rock. (assumption) (8) Therefore, if ROCK is brought about, there is an action that God can do: lift that rock. (from 7) (9) Therefore, if God exists, there is an action that he can do: lift that rock (from 4 and 8) But now, if we suppose God exists, we get into trouble: (10) God exists (assumption) (11) God cannot lift that rock (from 6) (12) God can lift that rock (from 9) And that's certainly bad news for the Christian. It seems that supposing God exists and is omnipotent leads to absurdity. What should we Christians say for ourselves? |
Comments
Well, some people like to respond that the question is meaningless. CS Lewis takes this route. I don't know if that is correct though. If what such respondents are saying is correct, there would need to be some logical contradiction somewhere in the argument. Frankly, I don't know where they would find it.
I am wondering though if we are so sure of the truth of premises (2) and (7). Maybe (7) is the problematic one. Let's just assume that ROCK is actualized already. Then would there be any sense in saying that somebody could lift the rock in question, if said rock simply is "a rock too large for anyone to lift"? Wouldn't it just be the case that no one, even a divine person, could lift this rock? Now I know some might think that would impinge on God's being omnipotent, but I'm not so sure. Let's consider an altered version of (7), say (7*), where (7*) is the following:
"An omnipotent being can lift an unliftable rock".
Now I would contend that (7*) is in contradiction with (1). I would suggest that (1) is true while (7*) is nonsense, or logically incoherent. Thus, I think there only APPEARS to be a problem for the conception of an omnipotent God because some people think (7) as you have stated it entails (7*); however, I don't think (7) ought to entail (7*) because (7*) is incoherent. So I think the apparent problem arises primarily out of the vagueness of (7). I could be wrong. What do you think?
I think you're exactly right to question (2) and (7), and I like the way you've done it. I'll post what I think in my next blog.
Thanks for the comment.
Any thoughts on my last blog, with the novel argument for dualism?
Perhaps that God is capable of anything but nonsense which this clearly falls into?
God is omnipotent
God is omniscient
God created man with a potential for good and evil, knowing (since He is omniscient) that man would (at least some times) choose evil.
God is righteous, unable (unwilling?) to tolerate sin, to even look upon the sinner, demanding that there be punishment for sin. The wages of sin are death.
God is merciful and forgiving and even loving toward the sinner. He wants to forgive.
So we are faced with a logical impossibility. God has created a rock too big to be lifted. He created man, loved him, yet allowed him, in his free will, to sin. His righteousness demands justice but His love demands mercy. He wants to forgive, but righteousness demands punishment. How can He be omnipotent and allow this tension to exist? The reason this does not seem as hard a conundrum as the “rock” is only that we have heard the answer for 2000 years.
By taking the consequences of sin upon Himself, one person of the Godhead, was able to provide the path to reconciliation, fulfilling both the righteousness and the loving mercy of God. The Sinless became sin. The Eternal died. The Perfect was broken. The Prince of Peace died from violence. He did the unimaginable.
God is not bound by what is logically impossible to us. He provides solutions by going “outside the box.” He is not constrained to follow our rules of logic or our concepts of reality.
We may joust with atheists, but we are unlikely to convince them by superior intellectual arguments. If we are jousting among ourselves, we are reduced to a game of “gotcha.” If we think we have really figured out the secrets of the universe, physical or metaphysical, we are guilty of hubris on a grand scale.
doc