Can anyone give me a justifiable reason why the omnipotence paradox is a good argument against omnipotence?

For the record I am defining omnipotence as "the ability to do anything logically possible"

Logically possible: If you can make a statement without a logical contradiction it is logically possible.

The so called "paradox" is just semantics. God's power/sovereignty is supreme relative to that of humans.

I don't think there is any theology that holds God is absolutely all powerful regardless of logic.

Well, some people hold this belief. It was actually very common during Descartes days of religious apologetics.. However, I specifically defined omnipotence as "the ability to do anything logically possible" not "the ability to do anything"

Yes, and this is an important qualifier.

Discussions about whether or not God could make a rock too heavy to lift are irrelevant. That is why I think it makes more sense to simply say God is powerful relative to humans. Philosophizing about the limits of omnipotence are fruitless IMO.

They held what belief specifically?

The problem is not our understanding of gods limits to power. This is a logical argument and it really has nothing to do with existential reality. It either does or doesn't hold up analytically.


That god can even do the logically impossible. That has obvious problems so I am not using that definition.

"the ability to do anything logically possible"

The qualifier you've used is exactly what defeats the objections of "a rock so heavy he couldn't lift it".

There's no objection to the claim that "Things which are logically possible are logically possible". And no paradox emerges either.

So no, it's not an argument against anyone other than the specific apologists you're thinking of.

I agree with you. Some philosophers are still using the argument though. So I was wondering if maybe I missed something.

"a rock so heavy that an omnipotent being couldn't lift it" is itself an absurdity. I don't see how one could even logically form the question.

That is the point, it is logically impossible so in my opinion it is a bad argument. I was wondering if anyone had any objections.. That is all.

OK, we're on same page. :-)

If you're interested in the counter position, it was Martin Luther (i think? going by memory here) who basically said "could God make a rock so heavy he couldn't move it? yes, and then he'd move it."

Yes, I have listened to arguments for the omnipotence paradox but I find they don't work for the same reasons you do.

Quantum computers can already do this very thing - perform two contradictory actions simultaneously - so I'm not seeing why God couldn't.

His existence may not be refuted through appeals to the paradox, but his existence cannot also be affirmed by resolving the paradox.

The contradiction isn't about him doing two simultaneously contradictory actions. It is that there is no rock "god" couldn't lift by definition, so asking him to make this hypothetical rock is asking him to do something logically impossible. Which isn't required for omnipotence.

Not sure I required clarification, but thanks anyway.

God can create a rock so heavy that he both can't and can lift it at the same time. This is performing two contradictory actions simultaneously, just as quantum computers are designed to do.

I doubt the truth of this claim. What do you mean by this?

That isn't the problem with the paradox. The problem is there is not a rock god can not lift and he is asked to create such a rock.

Can you give any examples of such things that quantum computers can do?

It seems as though you're merely asserting that God can be contradictory and I don't see how it holds. The rock that can't be lifted simply doesn't exist if God can lift it. It's not two contradictory states, it's that the definition of the rock hasn't been fulfilled. The rock can never exist in the first place.

The other example, which feels less mealy mouthed to talk about, is the square circle, and whether God can create it. I maintain that he can't because the square circle doesn't even exist conceptually. It's meaningless to suggest he could.

Another good example would be if you asked an immortal being to kill themselves.. They can't do it, they are immortal so the statement is not logically possible.

Well that sucks for Jesus.

God could be in two places at one time, performing two contradictory actions simultaneously. Thereby cancelling out any paradox.

For example - he can be in a place where he can't create the rock, and at the same time - in a place where he can.
A place where can lift it and a place where he can't. Simultaneously.

Objects in the macro/deterministic world are incapable of being in two places at any one time. But in a micro-world it's not only possible, but the its the very basis of a non-deterministic structure.

Logic is bound by space-time, and what reason should we suspect that a 'God' would be too? Why should God's abilities be tied to the deterministic (cause-effect) macro-world?

Google 'quantum computer'. 0s and 1s firing at the same time. Traditional computers can only operate with one or the other firing, thereby making quantum computers infinitely faster. Also ridiculously more expensive and difficult to manufacture.

"Whereas digital computers require data to be encoded into binary digits (bits), each of which is always in one of two definite states (0 or 1), quantum computation uses quantum bits (qubits), which can be in superpositions of states".

I think this all comes down to what is "logically possible". Human's understanding of the Universe is so infantile, that I don't think we are capable of performing the logic necessary to even begin to validate this paradox. To assume that an omnipotent being is not capable of contradiction when His creation is capable of that same contradiction at the micro-level is not a logical argument. I don't see how this paradox relates to the existence of God on any meaningful level.

This isn't an accurate reflection of theology or quantum computing.

Being in a superposition of states is not the same as "performing contradictory actions simultaneously." The "actions" themselves are perfectly well defined (basically, rotations of vectors) and cannot be understood as "contradictory actions."

Logically possible is something that can be spoken without a logical contradiction.

For example: If I define "bachelor" as a man who isn't married. Then I say "tom" is a "bachelor" I can not say Tom is a "married bachelor" it is a logical contradiction. It is not possible (based on the definitions used) that tom can both be a bachelor and married.

There is not amount of knowledge that can change something being logically impossible. It is based on definitions and how we use words. It is not based on any real understanding of existential reality.

It's usually not the best idea for me to get tied down in a discussion on quantum physics because, honestly, I have very little understanding of it. In my time doing AS Physics, all I can say is I remember doing superposition and nobody told me anything logically impossible was happening. So I'll bow to Aaron and assume he knows more than me.