The atheistic argument is that either alternative forces the conclusion that God is not omnipotent. It is sometimes argued, however, that the concept of omnipotence is paradoxical, logically incoherent, and so that it is logically impossible that there be any being that is omnipotent. Toulmin analysis advertisement essay anti drug legalization essays on the great essays in index number theory lecture signpost language essay art blakey theory of art essay articles of confederation and constitution essay.
In his Tractatus Logico-Philosophicushe stays generally within the realm of logical positivism until claim 6. The paradox can be resolved by simply stipulating that omnipotence does not require that the being have abilities that are logically impossible, but only be able to do anything that conforms to the laws of logic.
In other words, if God creates it, God can lift it, and God can create any stone. The question raised is like asking an artist to draw a "white black crow" to prove he can draw, or a mathematician to draw a "circle triangle" So to conclude: In these, one of the constituent propositions is explicitly rejected, but it is covertly re-asserted or assumed elsewhere in the system.
And it is a logical problem, the problem of clarifying and reconciling a number of beliefs: This view of God as limited by causal laws also conflicts with the view that causal laws are themselves made by God, which is more widely held than the corresponding view about the laws of logic.
Savage believes that premises one and two are true, but premise three is false. If I say, "I am a liar", then how can it be true if I am telling the truth therewith, and, if I am telling the truth therewith, then how can I be a liar.
The analogy between omnipotence and sovereignty shows that the paradox of omnipotence can be solved in a similar way.
However, one might think that since the paradox of the stone holds the same idea as the Irresistible Force Paradox, we have just killed two birds with one stone.
If you are prepared to say that God is not wholly good, or not quite omnipotent, or that evil does not exist, or that good is not opposed to the kind of evil that exists, or that there are limits to what an omnipotent thing can do, then the problem of evil will not arise for you.
These are just the minimum requirements.
We have contradicted the paradox and found a theoretical solution. Because when the glass is absolutely full then there is no place for emptiness, so in that case, that question does not make sense.
To say god is real and then say that god exists in one universe and not in another universe is an absurd idea.
Such a "task" is termed by him a "pseudo-task" as it is self-contradictory and inherently nonsense. The second word that I believe deserves clarification is the word: In either case, this solution usually starts from the assumption that the evil whose existence gives rise to the problem of evil is primarily what is called physical evil, that is to say, pain.
It would appear that this paradox in particular applies to those who have faith in an omniscient being or believe in an omnipotent god. Apa research paper pptp Apa research paper pptp. There has been considerable philosophical dispute since Mackie, as to the best way to formulate the paradox of omnipotence in formal logic.
The dilemma of omnipotence is similar to another classic paradox—the irresistible force paradox: But if we answer "No", we are immediately asserting that there are things which he cannot do, that is to say that he is already not omnipotent.
The Paradox of the Stone (thesanfranista.comophy) submitted 7 years ago * by Magister_Ludi I've been looking at the omnipotence paradox for an essay that I have to write and thinking about the idea of omnipotent stone creating ability vs omnipotent stone lifting ability.
Omnipotence - In the article by P. T. Greach, Omnipotence, we are faced with the issue of whether God, by the Christian understanding of him, is omnipotent, or almighty, by the true definitions of the word and the English understandings of them. Not to mention, since the paradox of the stone specifically says that an omnipotent being created the “un-liftable stone”, we have take this into consideration when answering the question.
In this case, the stone HAS to exist, but ONLY if God exists; otherwise, the stone does not exist. The difference between your paradox and the Paradox of the Stone is that the Paradox of the Stone is a question of god's ultimate strength.
Your question seems to deal with less of god's almighty abilities and more on the concepts of what is considered readable writing. Categories: Philosophy of Religion, Metaphysics Author: Bailie Peterson Word Count: Theists believe God exists, atheists believe that God does not exist, and agnostics suspend judgment on the issue.
But what do each of these mean by ‘God’? What is the concept of God that underlies the debate? This essay explains three important features of.
The omnipotence paradox refers to the apparently paradoxical ability of an omnipotent entity to both limit its powers and remain omnipotent.
The paradox is used both as an argument against an omnipotent God and against the concept of true omnipotence.The paradox of omnipotence philosophy essay