Omnipotence paradox
The omnipotence paradox is a philosophical paradox that occurs when applying logic to an omnipotent being. The paradox is often applied to the God of the Abrahamic religions , but this is not absolutely necessary. The paradox is based on the question of whether an omnipotent being is able to do something that restricts its own omnipotence , whereby it would lose its omnipotence. Some philosophers consider this line of argument to be evidence of the impossibility of such a being; others claim that this paradox arises from a misunderstanding of omnipotence.
Formulation of the paradox
Since the Middle Ages , philosophers have formulated the paradox in many ways, the classic example being: “Can an almighty being create a stone so heavy that it cannot lift it up itself?” This particular formulation has some flaws because it is based on an Aristotelian view of the world. From the point of view of modern physics, this example is a bad one, because the stone is always raised when you e.g. B. viewed the sun as a reference point.
If the formulation of the paradox is generalized to such an extent that the stone and the lifting process are omitted, the paradox is reduced to:
"Can an omnipotent being create something that it has no power over and still remain omnipotent?"
If one further reduces the paradox to the process of creating an object, the formulation arises:
"Can an almighty being give up its omnipotence and keep it at the same time?"
If the action to be tested (in the example relinquishing omnipotence) is not precisely defined, the general form arises:
"Can an almighty being take an action without taking it?"
Resolution of the paradox
Omnipotence can have different meanings in connection with the omnipotence paradox. In order to analyze the omnipotence paradox, a precise definition of omnipotence is required. This varies between cultures , religions and philosophers. This paradox cannot be applied, for example, when defining omnipotence as the ability to act outside the limits of logic. Modern approaches include the findings of semantics in the discussion in order to clarify whether language and thus philosophy can sensibly grasp omnipotence.
Inalienable omnipotence
If a being is absolutely omnipotent , it can lose or give up its omnipotence. The almighty being creates a stone that it cannot lift and thereby loses its omnipotence. As a result, an indispensably omnipotent being is never omnipotent, but only a being with very great power. Because it was not in the power of the being to give up its omnipotence and to keep it at the same time.
The attempt to undo the paradox by establishing the postulate that an almighty being can temporarily limit its omnipotence by creating a stone which it cannot lift at that moment, but later reduces the weight of the stone so much that it can can lift it fails because the being obviously does not have the power to create a stone that it can lift at the same time and yet cannot lift.
Essential omnipotence
If the being's omnipotence is essential , it is by definition impossible that the being can lose its omnipotence. Under this postulate a distinction must be made whether the being is bound by the laws of logic or whether it is above the laws of logic and can even change them. The distinction between these two ways of thinking is important when considering the omnipotence paradox, as it implies a limitation on the meaning of omnipotence.
Omnipotence bound to logic
Some philosophers, like Aquinas , claim that a being does not have to be able to accomplish the logically impossible in order to be omnipotent. In this case a being could do anything logically thinkable. Objects or actions that are self-contradicting therefore do not fall within the scope of creation and action of omnipotence. Accordingly, a being is omnipotent, even if it is not in its power to give up its omnipotence and to keep it at the same time.
The Irish writer and literary scholar CS Lewis defends the essential, logic-bound omnipotence according to which one can attribute miracles to God, but not nonsense. The claim that God could e.g. B. Giving a being free will and at the same time depriving him of free will is simply not a meaningful combination of words. Senseless combinations of words do not make sense simply by putting the words God can in front of them.
From this point of view, the question of whether God can create a stone that he cannot lift himself is not a meaningful question, and it is therefore superfluous to answer. Accordingly, the existence of omnipotence cannot be refuted with the omnipotence paradox.
Omnipotence that is above logic
Other philosophers like Descartes believe that omnipotence includes the ability to accomplish the logically impossible. For example, in our universe it is not possible to create an edgeless cube or to make 1 equal to 2 in our commonly used number system. If an omnipotent being created an edgeless cube, this would prove that such a being is not bound by the laws of logic. The philosopher Averroes expanded the omnipotence paradox and asked whether God could create a (flat) triangle whose interior angles did not total 180 degrees ( non-Euclidean geometry was not known at the time).
By virtue of this definition, a being that can do everything can also create stones that cannot be lifted, which it can nevertheless lift; it could also draw square circles, because it could simply change or cancel the laws of logic that make the aforementioned phenomena seem impossible. Such a being would indeed be contradictory and therefore logically impossible, but could actually exist, because logic and reality do not have to correlate. If one assumes an omnipotence that once carried out creation, one can even assume that the omnipotence also created logic and can therefore change it again. For Harry G. Frankfurt an absolutely omnipotent being would at least be conceivable.
If the omnipotence of the being is understood in such a way that its power is also not limited by logic, then its omnipotence is absolute. In this case, the attempt to refute the existence of omnipotence with the omnipotence paradox fails because the omnipotence paradox is designed to cite illogic as evidence of non-existence.
See also
literature
- Jan Bauke-Ruegg: The omnipotence of God. Systematic theological considerations between metaphysics, postmodern and poetry (= Theological Library Töpelmann . No. 96 ). de Gruyter, Berlin / New York 1998, ISBN 3-11-015905-8 .
Individual evidence
- ↑ Aquinas, Thomas Summa Theologica Book 1 Question 25 Article 3
- ↑ CS Lewis: On Pain , 1988
- ↑ See also Bauke-Ruegg: Die Allmacht Gottes , 1998, p. 14, fn. 42 with further information.
- ↑ Averroes , Tahafut al-Tahafut (The Incoherence of the Incoherence) trans. Simon Van Den Bergh, Luzac & Company 1969, sections 529-536
- ↑ The Logic of Omnipotence , in: The Philosophical Review 73/2 (April 1964), pp. 262-263.