Omnipotence paradox

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Averroes (1126–98), a philosopher who discussed the omnipotence paradox.^[1]

The omnipotence paradox is actually a family of related paradoxes, having to do with the question of what an omnipotent being can do, especially whether or not a being that is able to perform all actions can perform an action that would limit its own ability to perform actions. The argument states that if the being can perform such actions, then it can limit its own ability to perform actions and hence it cannot perform all actions, and if it cannot limit its own actions, then it could never have performed all actions.^[2] This paradox is often formulated in terms of the God of the Abrahamic religions, though this is not a requirement. One version of the omnipotence paradox is the so-called paradox of the stone: "Could an omnipotent being create a stone so heavy that even that being could not lift it?" If so, then it seems that the being could cease to be omnipotent; if not, it seems that the being was not omnipotent to begin with.^[3] A similar problem occurs when accessing legislative or parliamentary sovereignty, which holds a specific legal institution to be omnipotent in legal power, and in particular such an institution's ability to regulate itself.

Some philosophers, such as J. L Cowan, see this paradox as a reason to reject the possibility of any absolutely omnipotent entity.^[4] Others, such as Thomas Aquinas, assert that the paradox arises from a misunderstanding of the concept of omnipotence.^[5] The paradox can indeed be viewed as a straightforward logical impossibility, in that it frames an inability ("cannot lift it") as an attribute of total ability (omnipotence), rather than its absence or negation.

Still others, such as René Descartes, argue that God is absolutely omnipotent, despite the apparent problem.^[6] In addition, some philosophers have considered the assumption that a being is either omnipotent or non-omnipotent to be a false dilemma, as it neglects the possibility of varying degrees of omnipotence.^{[7][cite this quote]} Some modern approaches to the problem have involved semantic debates over whether language — and therefore philosophy — can meaningfully address the concept of omnipotence itself.^[8]

To analyze the omnipotence paradox rigorously, a precise definition of omnipotence must be established. The common definition, "all powerful", is not specific enough to deal with the issues raised by the paradox. Several other versions of the paradox have been advanced besides the "heavy stone", which has problems with respect to modern physics.

[edit] Overview

A common modern version of the omnipotence paradox is expressed in the question: "Can an omnipotent being create a stone so heavy that it cannot lift it?" This question generates a dilemma. The being can either create a stone which it cannot lift, or it cannot create a stone which it cannot lift. If the being can create a stone that it cannot lift, then it seems that it can cease to be omnipotent. If the being cannot create a stone which it cannot lift, then it seems it is already not omnipotent.

The problem is similar to another classic paradox, the irresistible force paradox: What happens when an irresistible force meets an immovable object? One response to this paradox is that if a force is irresistible, then by definition there is no truly immovable object; conversely, if an immovable object were to exist, then no force could be defined as being truly irresistible. But this way out is not possible in the omnipotence case, because the purpose is to ask if the being's omnipotence makes its own omnipotence impossible. In legal contexts, the paradox of omnipotence is sometimes phrased in terms of parliamentary, legislative, or sovereign omnipotence: the power to make any law at any time.^[2]

In order to analyze the omnipotence paradox in a rigorous way, one of several definitions of omnipotence must be established as in use. For example, Peter Geach describes four different kinds of omnipotence and distinguishes all of them from the notion of being "almighty".^[9]

C.S Lewis in his book the "Problem of Pain" holds that the nature of the paradox is internal to the statement. To quote: "This is no limit to His power. If you choose to say God can give a creature free will and at the same time withhold free will from it', you have not succeeded in saying anything about God: meaningless combination of words do not suddenly acquire meaning simply because we prefix to them to other words `God can'" (p. 18). In the end, "not because His power meets an obstacle, but because nonsense remains nonsense even when we talk it about God". (p.18) ^[10]

[edit] Pop culture

The possibility of God acting in a logically inconsistent fashion has been a source of humor, as in these panels from Ruben Bolling's God-Man series.

• The omnipotence paradox has infiltrated popular culture. In an episode of popular US animated series The Simpsons entitled 'Weekend at Burnsie's', Homer asks rhetorically, "Could Jesus microwave a burrito so hot that he himself could not eat it?".

• One Chuck Norris Fact reads: "Chuck Norris can create a rock so heavy that even he can't lift it. And then he lifts it anyways, just to show you who Chuck Norris is."^{[citation needed]}

• Stephen Hawking's A Brief History of Time introduces the omnipotence paradox within a more general discussion of what role a creator deity might play in relation to natural laws. In a later book, Black Holes and Baby Universes, Hawking notes half-jokingly that including these religious speculations—including the book's last line, "for then we would know the mind of God"—probably doubled A Brief History's sales.^[11]

• In the television show Star Trek: The Next Generation, the entity known as "Q" claims to be omnipotent, and a number of episodes explore the paradoxical consequences, typically in a humorous vein.

• In the television show Babylon 5, two characters discuss the paradox in a slightly different formulation (Can the Universe [God] create a riddle so complex that it cannot be solved?).^{[citation needed]}

• In his nightclub sketch, American comedian George Carlin used to mention the "heavy stone" question as one that mischievous boys in his neighborhood would ask their priest.^[12]

• In several comics series, Marvel Comics in particular, many characters are allegedly omnipotent, but some seem to be more omnipotent than others. Characters like Korvac are omnipotent, but are below such entities as Galactus who is also all-powerful. Galactus is in turn considered 'less-omnipotent' than a being such as Eternity.

• In the comics series Runaways, Chase uses an omnipotence paradox to short circuit the cyborg Victor in order to escape. He asks Victor: "Could God makes a sandwich so big that even he couldn't finish it?"

[edit] See also

• Logical positivism
• Problem of evil
• Semantics
• Parliamentary sovereignty

[edit] Notes

[edit] References

• Allen, Ethan. Reason: The Only Oracle of Man. J.P. Mendum, Cornill; 1854. Originally published 1784, Available online.Accessed 19 April 2006.
• Augustine. City of God and Christian Doctrine. The Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1890 Available online. Accessed 26 September 2006.
• Burke, James. The Day the Universe Changed. Little, Brown; 1995 (paperback edition). ISBN 0-316-11704-8.
• Gleick, James. Genius. Pantheon, 1992. ISBN 0-679-40836-3.
• Haeckel, Ernst. The Riddle of the Universe. Harper and Brothers, 1900.
• Hoffman, Joshua, Rosenkrantz, Gary. "Omnipotence" The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2002 Edition). Edward N. Zalta (ed.) Available online. Accessed 19 April 2006.
• Mackie, J. L., "Evil and Omnipotence." Mind LXIV, No, 254 (April 1955).
• Wierenga, Edward. "Omnipotence" The Nature of God: An Inquiry into Divine Attributes. Cornell University Press, 1989. Available online. Accessed 19 April 2006.
• Wittgenstein, Ludwig. Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus. Available online via Project Gutenberg. Accessed 19 April 2006.