How does one counteract the omnipotent paradox?

[Adam]

Is it possible that there are "things" outside the "universe of discourse"?

 

[ivdavid]

Is it possible that there are "things" outside the "universe of discourse"?

I would not think so - since we have not limited the "universe of discourse" to a subset of "all things" - rather, it is the universe of "all things" wherein our laws of logic operate - thereby, leaving no other 'thing' outside of it. Besides, if a universe apart from this is considered, then the case must be presented for its definition and existence, apart from the burden of proving that the laws of logic, specifically the law of identity, are equally valid there too. But why is there even the necessity to consider a logical framework apart from the universal one we are operating in now?

 

[Free]

Then, for God to be omnipotent, He must be beyond the rules of logic. That presents its own problems, however.

Your definition of omnipotent is not quite correct. Omnipotence cannot mean being able to do anything, as that leads to nonsense, but to do anything that can be done. This precludes breaking the laws of logic. So God is omnipotent and is not beyond the rules of logic. The question, the "paradox," is illogical.

As I have stated elsewhere, C. S. Lewis said: nonsense is still nonsense even when it is spoken of about God (paraphrased, I think).

 

[Adam]

I would not think so - since we have not limited the "universe of discourse" to a subset of "all things" - rather, it is the universe of "all things" wherein our laws of logic operate - thereby, leaving no other 'thing' outside of it. Besides, if a universe apart from this is considered, then the case must be presented for its definition and existence, apart from the burden of proving that the laws of logic, specifically the law of identity, are equally valid there too. But why is there even the necessity to consider a logical framework apart from the universal one we are operating in now?

That doesn't answer the question.

Is it possible that there is such a framework (a thing) outside the one we operate in?

 

[Adam]

Your definition of omnipotent is not quite correct. Omnipotence cannot mean being able to do anything, as that leads to nonsense, but to do anything that can be done. This precludes breaking the laws of logic. So God is omnipotent and is not beyond the rules of logic. The question, the "paradox," is illogical.

As I have stated elsewhere, C. S. Lewis said: nonsense is still nonsense even when it is spoken of about God (paraphrased, I think).

I like this answer..

The only thing I see wrong with it is that the definition of omnipotence that most Christians understand is not addressed by it.

Most Christians understand omnipotence to be absolute power in a sense that allows for God to be able to do anything. I don't actually agree that God cannot break the rules of logic.

I believe that the nature of God is beyond the rules of logic, and by His authory and omnipotence He ventures into the confined world of logic in order to be understood by logical creatures, much in the same sense the Christ took on flesh.

We cannot go where He is, and so He comes to where we are.

 

[ivdavid]

That doesn't answer the question.

Why not?

This was your question - ' Is it possible that there are "things" outside the "universe of discourse"? '
and my answer began with - ' I would not think so..' .

Is it possible that there is such a framework (a thing) outside the one we operate in?

You've simply re-worded your earlier question, (and I perceive this is most probably to erroneously conclude upon the refutation of the Law of identity, which it doesn't) - and my answer is going to be the same. I would not think so.

1. Under the classical logic system, all laws of logic are applicable within the universe of discourse, which happens to be our entire universe.

2. Therefore, it follows that the Law of Identity must be upheld at all times within this logical framework operating in this universe of discourse.

3. Let us consider that a premise is asserted under this universe of discourse as "All things are possible".

4. Applying the law of identity to the above, we infer that every single 'thing' in this universe of discourse is possible.

5. If perhaps there is a 'thing' outside this universe of discourse, then the laws of logic may not be applicable to them, specifically the law of identity and then that outside 'thing' need not be included under the 'all things' of this universe of discourse which is the one necessarily requiring identity to be upheld.

6. So, the premise that "all things(of this universe of discourse) are possible" does not contradict "some/no things(of another universe of discourse) are possible" as long as the laws of classical logic are not shown to be equally applicable across both these universes and not just this one.

The typical example of laws operating only within their defined universes of discourse is shown by the premise: "the mathematical square of a number cannot be 2". Its ambiguity is removed only by the universe of discourse defining whether the number can be irrational or not.

I don't actually agree that God cannot break the rules of logic.

There aren't any independent rules of logic that God may follow or break. God's manifested ways of thinking is what we have perceived and labelled as logic. God is the same forever and does not change His nature and consequently the way He thinks - so, it is not so much as God 'not breaking' any rules as much as Him continuing to be Himself.

 

[Adam]

6. So, the premise that "all things(of this universe of discourse) are possible" does not contradict "some/no things(of another universe of discourse) are possible."

I wouldn't think it would.
But my question does not concern that.
My question concerns the premise that "all things(of this universe of discourse) are possible" being a direct contradiction of "some(of another universe of discourse) are impossible."

If it is not possible that there is such a framework (a thing) outside the one we operate in, that would serve as an example of something that is not possible, thereby refuting the claim "all things being possible."

If the answer is "Yes, there is a possibility that there is a framework of non possibility within the category of 'all'," (which there should be if we are accepting that the word "all" is explicitly all-enompassing) then the recognition of non-possibility within the scope of "all" makes the claim 'all things are possible" self defeating.

There aren't any independent rules of logic that God may follow or break. God's manifested ways of thinking is what we have perceived and labelled as logic. God is the same forever and does not change His nature and consequently the way He thinks - so, it is not so much as God 'not breaking' any rules as much as Him continuing to be Himself.

I like this answer.. It is a somewhat different path to arriving at the same conclusions that I have drawn, but I'll accept it.

But, I think that an individual who is well versed in atheist rhetoric might say that the question is not in regard to whether God changes, but if He has the ability to do so. This type of response does not let us off the hook regarding the original poster's question. While we might be comfortable enough with this approach, it doesn't show us how to remove such doubts from non-believer.


Thanks for taking the time to think this question through with me.

 

[ivdavid]

If the answer is "Yes, there is a possibility that there is a framework of non possibility within the category of 'all'," (which there should be if we are accepting that the word "all" is explicitly all-enompassing)...

1. Under the classical logic system, all laws of logic are applicable within the universe of discourse, which happens to be our entire universe.

2. Therefore, it follows that the Law of Identity must be upheld at all times within this logical framework operating in this universe of discourse.

As I said before, the law of identity can be applied to only our universe of discourse(our entire universe) - and hence when it is applied to "all things", it refers only to every 'thing' of this universe of discourse - and not 'things' of other universes, whose definition, existence and laws of logic are yet to be determined.

"all" is all-encompassing across the current universe of discourse as per the law of identity - it doesn't have a valid definition beyond our universe, since the case has not yet been made to prove that the law of identity extends beyond our universe.

But, I think that an individual who is well versed in atheist rhetoric might say that the question is not in regard to whether God changes, but if He has the ability to do so.

My response would be the same - God does not have the ability to change - and that is due to His omnipotence in being ABLE to remain constant in nature. This is similar to the initial response that God cannot Not lift any rock because He is omnipotent in being ABLE to lift any rock. When I say (A is B) is true, it logically implies (A is not B) is false - and hence permitting (A is not B) as a premise into the logical framework is an illogical and invalid thing to do. Where is the issue here?

 

[Free]

I like this answer..

The only thing I see wrong with it is that the definition of omnipotence that most Christians understand is not addressed by it.

But that's the whole problem, most Christians' definition of omnipotence is incorrect. That is what needs to be addressed, not the irrationality of an answer where God can do what is completely illogical.

Most Christians understand omnipotence to be absolute power in a sense that allows for God to be able to do anything. I don't actually agree that God cannot break the rules of logic.

I believe that the nature of God is beyond the rules of logic, and by His authory and omnipotence He ventures into the confined world of logic in order to be understood by logical creatures, much in the same sense the Christ took on flesh.

We cannot go where He is, and so He comes to where we are.

But even God cannot do what cannot logically be done. He cannot create a square circle, he cannot both exist and not exist at the same time (he can't not exist for that matter), etc. God cannot be beyond the rules of logic since he is a rational being, just as he created us in his image to be. Discourse, understanding and knowledge are all based on the fact God and us are rational beings. If God can do what is nonsensical, then that undermines all notions of rational discourse with God and understanding of him.

Is God beyond full comprehension? Yes, of course. But that does not mean he is beyond logic. Just as he is love, he is truth, he is also rational. These things are who he is; they are a part of his being.

We believe in a rational God, not an irrational one.

 

[Adam]

But that's the whole problem, most Christians' definition of omnipotence is incorrect. That is what needs to be addressed, not the irrationality of an answer where God can do what is completely illogical.


.

How?

 

[Grazer]

http://www.christianforums.net/showthread.php?t=44819

 

[Free]

How?

Through forums such as this, by suggesting books to read, by talking with pastors, etc. In other words, whenever we get the chance we should correct the definition as it is commonly understood.


Grazer,

You raise a good point in that thread. If God can do absolutely anything, including that which is logically impossible, then he could do the most extreme evil. But that would clearly contradict his very nature and lead to all sorts of false doctrines and understandings about God, nature, the universe, redemption, etc.