• ToothyMaw
    1.2k
    This is a related OP to this one that I started a few days ago. It is a reply to the point of view that God could violate the law of non-contradiction and make themselves omnipotent after divesting themselves of it - something I think makes sense on its face.

    My argument is:

    1. God is omnipotent leading up to the possible creation of an unliftable stone.

    2. God must be able to create the unliftable stone to be omnipotent, i.e. divest themselves of their omnipotence.

    3. If God creates the unliftable stone, God must be omnipotent in the moment in which the unliftable stone is created - it is necessitated by the act of creation. Thus:

    4. God is omnipotent in the span of time leading up to and at the moment of time in which she creates the unliftable stone.

    God is no longer omnipotent after the unliftable stone is created unless she violates LNC and affirms that “God is omnipotent” and “God is not omnipotent” are both true, because the unliftable stone can only be lifted if God is omnipotent, and she no longer is; it is the only thing outside of God’s power; the status of the stone determines God’s omnipotence.

    If God violates LNC and makes herself omnipotent again, the contradiction “God is omnipotent” and “God is not omnipotent” is affirmed.

    From this we can deduce that God was omnipotent when creating the unliftable stone and that god was also not omnipotent when creating the unliftable stone:

    1. God is omnipotent.
    2. God is not omnipotent.
    3. God is omnipotent or was not omnipotent when creating the unliftable stone.

    Since 1. is true, the compound statement 3. must be true, however since the negation of 1. is also true, God must not have been omnipotent when creating the stone. A similar case can be made for God being omnipotent when creating the stone.

    However, the very act of creation of the unliftable stone necessitates omnipotence, so we know God had to have been omnipotent when creating the stone. Thus, it comes full circle: God was necessarily omnipotent when creating the unliftable stone, even though it can be shown that she wasn’t.

    Edit: Not to mention, even though logical deductions would fall apart if God affirmed a contradiction, that doesn't mean that the contradiction I point out would not be significant - it is with respect to a characteristic possessed by god, something concrete. Here is a link to the law of non-contradiction and one to the principle of explosion.
  • Agent Smith
    9.5k


    You are HIV Aladeen! :lol:
  • Bartricks
    6k
    Two events can occur at the same time. And typically, causes precede their effects (not always, but typically). So, an omnipotent person can cause at t1 two events to occur simultaneously at t2. And those two events can be the event of divesting herself of omnipotence and the event of creating a stone too heavy for her to lift. These two simultaneously occurring events had the same cause - God - and they constituted God creating a stone too heavy for her to lift. For the stone was created by God and she, the same person who created the stone, can't lift it.
  • EugeneW
    1.7k
    Two events can occur at the same time. And typically, causes precede their effectsBartricks

    If God creates a universe where cause precedes effect, i.e. where the effect becomes cause, the argument doesn't hold.

    What if God created another God more powerful than him? What if he let that God kill him? What if he made a thousand copies of himself? What if he made infinite copies of himself, infinitely more powerful than himself? He can't do that because he is the most powerful. So he's not omnipotent.
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.