The omnipotence paradox is a family of paradoxes that arise with some understandings of the term omnipotent. The paradox arises, for example, if one assumes that an omnipotent being has no limits and is capable of realizing any outcome, even logically contradictory ideas such as creating square circles. A no-limit understanding of omnipotence such as this has been rejected by theologians from St Thomas Aquinas to contemporary philosophers of religion, such as Alvin Platinga. Atheological arguments based on omnipotence paradox are sometimes described as evidence for atheism, though Christian theologians and philosophers, such as Norman Geisler and William Lane Craig, contend that a no-limits understanding of omnipotence is not relevant to orthodox Christian theology. Other resolutions to the paradox hinge on the definition of omnipotence applied and the nature of God regarding this application and whether omnipotence is directed towards God himself or outward toward his external surroundings.
The omnipotence paradox has midieval origins, dating at least to the 12th century. It was addressed by Averroës, and later by St Thomas Aquinas. Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite (before 532 AD) has a predecessor version of the paradox, asking whether it is possible for God to "deny himself."
The most well-known version of the omnipotence paradox is the paradox of the stone: "Could God create a stone so heavy that even he could not lift it?" This phrasing of the omnipotence paradox is vulnerable to objections based on the physical nature of gravity, such as how the weight of an object depends on what the local gravitational field is. Alternative statements of the paradox that do not involve such difficulties include: "If given the axioms of Euclidean geometry, can an omnipotent being create a triangle whose angles do not add up to 180 degrees?" and "Can God create a prison so secure that he cannot escape from it himself?"
x----x
Picture from Pixabay.
Comments
Post a Comment