Ask an Atheist

[Caleb]

Omnipotence and omniscience are contradictory.  They violate logic (I'm not sure if you agree with this, and my asserting it certainly doesn't prove it, but assume it is true and if you want I can defend it later).

I'd love to hear you attempt to prove such a nonsensical statement.  Mental gymnastics are fun to watch.

Omnipotence implies omniscience.  It makes no sense to say that one can do anything ... with the exception that he cannot know everything.  If he cannot know everything, then he is not omnipotent, because there is something that he cannot do.

[Braddogg]

Omnipotence and omniscience are contradictory.  They violate logic (I'm not sure if you agree with this, and my asserting it certainly doesn't prove it, but assume it is true and if you want I can defend it later).

Yes, please do.  This should be interesting.

Sure.  Omnipotence is the power to do everything.  Omniscience is the knowledge of everything.  Let's take an example of eating muffins.  Tomorrow, I may or may not eat a muffin.  I like muffins, so let's assume that I will eat a muffin tomorrow.  God knows, through his omniscience, that I will eat a muffin tomorrow.  If he knows that I will eat a muffin tomorrow, he cannot make me not eat a muffin tomorrow.

If God knows for sure what will happen, then he cannot change it.  Did that make sense?

More broadly, if it can be found that the theistic God is contrary to logic, then can we say it does not exist?  Or, can we at least say that the theistic God does not exist or interact within any bit of the universe subject to the rules of reality?

You could subject any particular religion's deity/deities to that examination.  But there is no singular deity that all religions believe in.

I agree, which is why I said a theistic God, a term that assigns some very specific traits.  The traits I had in mind were simultaneous immanence (God affecting the world) and transcendence (God outside or more than the world).  Like I said, if a religion thinks that God does not affect the world in any way, either presently or in history, then that God concept need not be subjected to reality (nor taken any more seriously than the magic of the Harry Potter series).

[Braddogg]

Omnipotence and omniscience are contradictory.  They violate logic (I'm not sure if you agree with this, and my asserting it certainly doesn't prove it, but assume it is true and if you want I can defend it later).

I'd love to hear you attempt to prove such a nonsensical statement.  Mental gymnastics are fun to watch.

Omnipotence implies omniscience.  It makes no sense to say that one can do anything ... with the exception that he cannot know everything.  If he cannot know everything, then he is not omnipotent, because there is something that he cannot do.

Read my immediately above post.  I still hold that omnipotence and omniscience are incompatible, because if God knows what will happen, he cannot make it not happen, or else his omniscience is imperfect.  I hadn't thought about what you just brought up, that omniscience is a subset of omnipotence.  You may be right.

If omniscience is indeed a subset of omnipotence, and perfect omniscience cannot exist without limiting omnipotence, then the conclusion that makes sense to me is that omnipotence cannot exist.

[TackleTheWorld]

Read my immediately above post.  I still hold that omnipotence and omniscience are incompatible, because if God knows what will happen, he cannot make it not happen, or else his omniscience is imperfect.  I hadn't thought about what you just brought up, that omniscience is a subset of omnipotence.  You may be right.

If omniscience is indeed a subset of omnipotence, and perfect omniscience cannot exist without limiting omnipotence, then the conclusion that makes sense to me is that omnipotence cannot exist.

9.6   9.7   9.7   9.6   0.0   9.9  9.6
The judges award a 9.7 to Braddogg  for mental gymnastics.
I've been an atheist for 50 years or so and never heard about the contradiciton of omniscience and omnipotence. 
I usually rely on the contradiction of unlimited creative powers and unlimited physical power.

I'll bet I could think of a contradiction between any two unlimited concepts because all real entities have limits.

[Braddogg]

I usually rely on the contradiction of unlimited creative powers and unlimited physical power.

Thanks    It's not my own.  I first heard it from Stefan Molyneux, and I think Dawkins mentioned it in a book I read, too.

Could you expand on this contradiction you mentioned a little more?

[TackleTheWorld]

Lauren's favorite god paradox:

Can god create a rock so big even he can't lift it?

If yes his strength is limited.
If no his creative powers are limited.

[Jim Johnson]

A rational person will always start with a premise that is a concrete reality.

"There is no god" is not a reality-grounded premise, as it presupposes unknowble knowledge.

The ground in reality is that 'there is no proof of a god', not that 'there is no god'.  One can not properly say that there is a god with out proof of god, but as a corollary to 'there is no proof of a god' one can properly say 'there is no god'.

[sandm000]

If I was a greek god I would smite you with thunder and lightning for shortening my name.

I don't know what I was thinking about RussellKanning, It must have slipped my homotheistically collectively omnipotent mind, or I could have erased too far after I pasted your name.

So here is your fallible god, stand before yourself, and worship in any way you see fit (assuming of course that this worship does not harm others)

[Caleb]

Sure.  Omnipotence is the power to do everything.  Omniscience is the knowledge of everything.  Let's take an example of eating muffins.  Tomorrow, I may or may not eat a muffin.  I like muffins, so let's assume that I will eat a muffin tomorrow.  God knows, through his omniscience, that I will eat a muffin tomorrow.  If he knows that I will eat a muffin tomorrow, he cannot make me not eat a muffin tomorrow.

If God knows for sure what will happen, then he cannot change it.  Did that make sense?

I've got to agree with Lauren, it was a very nice attempt.    Unfortunately, it fails.  You are implying that God does not take his intention to intervene into account via his omniscience.  If he intended to intervene in you eating a muffin, presumably he would also know of his intention.  You are arguing in a circle.

[TackleTheWorld]

Does god have the power to make himself forget if Braddogg will eat a muffin tomorrow?

If yes, he no longer knows everything.
If no. his power is limited.

[Caleb]

Tackle,

Your questions fall into the category of questions that were originally asked by Jewish theologians.

The question that Jewish theologians wrestled with was this:  "Can God create a being that is entirely like himself in every way, and yet completely unlike himself in every way." 

They were not, of course, trying to sow doubt in God, merely tackling a theological problem.  The solution they came up with was that, when one posits an absurdity, it is as if he has not finished his sentence.    Thus, the question above would be, "Can God create ..." leaving the contradictory question simply unasked.

This was, of course, prior to the integration of Aristotelian thought within Christianity (which wouldn't happen until the time of Aquinas.)  But since that time, the generally accepted viewpoint of omnipotence is that God cannot do that which is logically impossible, contradictory, or absurd.  As you note, A = A, and it cannot be otherwise, or it ceases to be A.

So the standard answer to your questions would typically be that what you are asking falls outside of the generally accepted view of the extent of God's omnipotence.  Indeed, almost all Christian writers qualify omnipotence in this regard.

[Braddogg]

Sure.  Omnipotence is the power to do everything.  Omniscience is the knowledge of everything.  Let's take an example of eating muffins.  Tomorrow, I may or may not eat a muffin.  I like muffins, so let's assume that I will eat a muffin tomorrow.  God knows, through his omniscience, that I will eat a muffin tomorrow.  If he knows that I will eat a muffin tomorrow, he cannot make me not eat a muffin tomorrow.

If God knows for sure what will happen, then he cannot change it.  Did that make sense?

I've got to agree with Lauren, it was a very nice attempt.    Unfortunately, it fails.  You are implying that God does not take his intention to intervene into account via his omniscience.  If he intended to intervene in you eating a muffin, presumably he would also know of his intention.  You are arguing in a circle.

Thanks   I think, though, that the circle is the problem I'm getting at.  If God intended to intervene, he would know that he was going to intervene.  And then he would be unable to not intervene without contradicting omniscience.

[Braddogg]

the generally accepted viewpoint of omnipotence is that God cannot do that which is logically impossible, contradictory, or absurd.  As you note, A = A, and it cannot be otherwise, or it ceases to be A.

So the standard answer to your questions would typically be that what you are asking falls outside of the generally accepted view of the extent of God's omnipotence.  Indeed, almost all Christian writers qualify omnipotence in this regard.

What I don't understand is how many Christian writers say "Of course God's omnipotence is limited to only doing what is logical!  God can't make something a rock and a not-rock, that just doesn't make sense!" and then go on to say "Of course God's omnipotence allows for the ad hoc violation of all we know about science!  Omnipotence means all-powerful!"  Not to assume that that's your position, I wonder if you could shed some light on that.  Why is logic, which is derived from the actions of matter, a barrier for God's omnipotence, but miracles that alter the way matter behaves not?

[Caleb]

Thanks   I think, though, that the circle is the problem I'm getting at.  If God intended to intervene, he would know that he was going to intervene.  And then he would be unable to not intervene without contradicting omniscience.

No, because he would then know of his change of intentions (if it is even reasonable to speak about that.)  You're begging the question.  Your argument assumes some point at which God's omniscience breaks down, and uses that implied reference point to castigate the doctrine of omnipotence.  This makes sense, because if God is not omniscient (as I pointed out earlier) then he is also not omnipotent, because there would be something he couldn't do (namely, know everything).  So once you have begged the question and implied that God is not omniscient, it makes sense that he is not omnipotent.  The problem is not that these concepts are contradictory.  It is that they are equivalent. The doctrine of omniscience says that God sees all ends.  As soon as you start positing an end that he cannot see, you have denied the doctrine, and any conclusion you draw is based on the rejection of the doctrine of omniscience.  So you can't say "the doctrine of omniscience and omnipotence are contradictory," you can only say "once I have rejected the doctrine of omniscience, it makes sense to reject the doctrine of omnipotence."

[Caleb]

What I don't understand is how many Christian writers say "Of course God's omnipotence is limited to only doing what is logical!  God can't make something a rock and a not-rock, that just doesn't make sense!" and then go on to say "Of course God's omnipotence allows for the ad hoc violation of all we know about science!  Omnipotence means all-powerful!"  Not to assume that that's your position, I wonder if you could shed some light on that.  Why is logic, which is derived from the actions of matter, a barrier for God's omnipotence, but miracles that alter the way matter behaves not?

I cannot speak for others.  I speak only for myself, and I'm coming from the process perspective on this particular question.  So I would say that God is *not* acting outside of the bounds of nature.  It may just be that *nature* includes more than we had anticipated.  The ancients knew nothing of the four forces, though they had some limited experience with gravitation and electromagnetism.  An individual with a complex grasp of electromagnetic theory could have put on a show that would have convinced the ancients that he was a God. 

I hold that mind itself has properties that we have not yet begun to explore, and it can perform feats that to us seem miraculous.  But the fault is one of lack of knowledge, not that the laws of nature are really being defied in any substantial way.

In fact, I hold that what God in his power can do, mankind can also do, to a somewhat limited extent, as our minds are faint copies of the original.  If we only knew the power of our own minds, I believe we would be astounded.