7

Your puzzle turns on an ambiguity in the words 'can' and 'could'. In "God can do anything that is logically possible", we have the 'can' of ability. This is the same sense in which I can ride a bicycle or lift a heavy bag. But in asking "Could God have created such a world" you are using the 'could' (or 'can') not of ability but of possibility. In the same ...


6

I think that killing oneself is contrary to the goodness of God, so I don't mind saying that "God could not do that". Here's how William Lane Craig addresses this thought: ...omnipotence should not be defined in terms of ability to do certain tasks. This is the presupposition of your question. Rather omnipotence should be defined in terms of ability to ...


5

I'm... not only not seeing a problem here, but barely anything of interest. If god is omniscient, then he can see into everyone's future, including his own. Okay. That's consistent with a reasonable definition of "omniscient". If god is omnipotent, then he could in theory end his own existence at any moment. Okay. An omnipotent being can do any ...


5

You can do something like that if you are willing to give up classical logic. Paraconsistent logics can withstand honest contradictions (sentences that are both true and false), called dialetheias, without collapsing into triviality, see Dialetheism. Sentences like "God can create a stone he can not lift, and then he can lift it" are somewhat similar in ...


4

I guess I'd answer the question in two parts. The first issue is to parse out what is meant by "an object Q cannot move." Here, you give the helpful example of whether we humans (or we bears?) can create objects that we ourselves cannot move. The answer to this is obviously yes. But this merely means the object is relatively immovable. When referring to ...


3

Suppose there are two omnipotent beings -- X and Y. If there are more than one omnipotent being, that means neither of those omnipotent beings is less in its power. That is, neither X < Y nor X > Y. We can't say X ≮ Y or X ≯ Y either. That means X = Y. But this also is impossible because X or Y can't delete or destroy the other. That means ...


3

tl;dr– Since there's no meaningful distinction between an omnipotent, omnibenevolent God who can do evil vs. one who can't, either framing can be applied without contradiction. This is a question of frame selection. By analogy, is the glass half empty or half full? Is a fully transparent object more red or blue? If your glass is fully empty, then ...


3

I wrote a little something about this exact issue, over ten years ago. Here it is in full. If it's a little over the top, apologies— I was much younger and sillier then. Or maybe I'm sillier now. Pfah. The Burrito Challenge The hallmark of philosophical acuity is the ability to explain in rich detail and flawless clarity humanity's most commonly made ...


2

Let me refer you to this post where I distinguish between a few possible definitions of omnipotence and omniscience, and which are self-contradictory and which are not. After you read that, let me address one of your (implicit) questions that hasn't been answered, namely whether or not the argument "If God is omnipotent, then there is no boulder that cannot ...


2

Most philosophers and theologians I've read would not see a contradiction. One theologian that does a good job of explaining this way of thinking is Frank Sheed. In his book Theology and Sanity, he explains: Just as time is the duration of that which changes, eternity is the duration of that which simply IS, the duration of the Being who, in one infinite ...


2

The question can be boiled down to: Can an omnipotent god restrict his own omnipotence? I would say, if he is truly omnipotent, then he certainly can do that. But of course if he ever actually did it, he'd cease to be omnipotent, and therefore it would be unwise for him to do it. And therefore if he's wise (another quality commonly attributed to god), he ...


2

I assume you use "weak omnipotence" for the fourth definition on the Wikipedia article, namely that a weakly omnipotent entity is one that can do anything that is logically possible. In that case I agree that it is not inconsistent that a weakly omnipotent entity can create another weakly omnipotent entity. But one must be careful; the definition of "weak ...


2

This is an interesting question, but ultimately the answer is "No, a non-linear view of time doesn't solve the paradox". Here's why: At the heart of the paradox is the fact of God's omniscience, which presumably includes knowledge of all future events (knowledge of Ghaib includes knowledge of the future). So God's perception of time is already non-linear, ...


2

My concept of God is that it is not meaningful to describe the omnipotent God as bound by any human constructs of logic or any other mortal rule. Just doesn't make sense to say that "God must do this or God must do that or God cannot do this other thing." I think that God chose to give people (as well as other creatures) free will and to make that will ...


2

Here's an argument that comes close. I have seen it somewhere, but I don't remember where. If A is omnipotent, A can bring about anything that is logically possible. A's being omniscient is logically possible. Therefore: If A is omnipotent, A can bring about his or her own omniscience.


2

Well, the ideas are certainly closely related. I would say that both omnipotence and omniscience are possible only for something which is purely actual, and that which is purely actual must be both omnipotent and omniscient. Feser argues this at length in Five Proofs of the Existence of God. In Chapter 6, The Nature of God and of His Relationship to the ...


2

You raise an intriguing issue. I'm not sure, however, that your question is best framed in terms of 'ethical subjectivism'. This term can cover a number of views. ETHICAL SUBJECTIVISM There are four formulations of ethical subjectivism which readily come to mind. 1) A moral judgment is subjective if it cannot be made and justified independently of ...


2

This question hinges on the fuzzy and difficult distinction between logical contradiction and paradox. A logical contradiction is a statement made from within a logical system that expresses antithetical propositions as simultaneously true: the classic 'p and not-p' condition. Within that logical system, a logical contradiction points to a failure of logic. ...


2

One common response to this kind of problem is to focus on the immutability or unchangeability of God. God only acts in ways that are true to who he is. Omnipotence in turn is the belief that God never faces any kind of resistance to acting out and shaping the universe to fit his own character. Just as omnipotence does not imply the power to do the logically ...


1

Phrased simply: An omnipotent, omnibenevolent God can do as much evil as 'he' (for lack of a better word) chooses to do. Being omnibenevolent, God never chooses to do any evil.


1

The boring answer: If you are omnipotent, by definition, you can be anything and exist wherever/whenever/however you want. On the more longwinded side: The question doesn't make much sense. When using any of the "omni-"s, you kind of have to accept that ordinary logic doesn't apply. Omnipotence especially, almost requires that it doesn't adhere to any ...


1

For logic to be respected we need to specify all the assumptions to the best of our abilities. Also there is no point in assuming that God's omniscience includes knowing something that is not knowable. In addition to assuming that God can know future events, we need to agree on a premise that there actually are future events that can be known. We can't use ...


1

It depends on how you understand 'omniscience' and 'omnipotence': 'God is omniscient.' I shall take this to mean that God knows everything which logically can be known. 'God is omnipotent.' I shall take this to mean that God can produce, alter, or destroy everything that is logically capable of being produced, altered, or destroyed. This ...


1

The objection to the Free Will Defense that the OP presents is similar to what J. L. Mackie presents and Alvin Plantinga quotes (page 32). Plantinga summarizes it as follows: (page 33) Surely there are possible worlds that contain moral good but no moral evil. But God, if He is omnipotent, can create any possible world He chooses. So it is not ...


1

I'm not a philosopher, but yes: moral realism and ethical subjectivism overlap under the right theistic conditions. Let's say that the ethical subjectivist is on Facebook. Suppose that Mark Zuckerberg employs a proprietary fake-news-prevention algorithm in order to remove problem users from the network. Each user's actions are judged according to the same ...


1

omnipotent adjective almighty or infinite in power, as God. having very great or unlimited authority or power. power noun ability to do or act; capability of doing or accomplishing something. So an omnipotent Being's abilities are unlimited. Now, what kind of abilities can exist? Since the abilities of an omnipotent Being do not diminish in potency, in ...


1

We, as humans, cannot attribute such quality to God, because we cannot perceive or understand its entirety, integrity, wholeness. That would be equivalent for fools to define intelligence (yes, that happens on facebook, twitter, instantgram). A lot of fools think of Kim Jong-un, Donald Trump or Hitler as intelligent persons. But such is a fallacious point ...


1

I think that the main problem with this argument is that it is too vague and the words - 'can', mainly - are being employed too loosely. You're basically leaving the concept of omnipotence vague enough and then just finding contradictions of using 'can' too generously - that "God can then create a rock which he cannot lift" sentence looks to me like it is ...


1

Being able to make any change to the state of reality pretty much makes everything an meaningless endeavor. - Most Christians would say something slightly different - creation was unnecessary for God to do, which is different than it being meaningless. Since it was an unnecessary act, Christians usually say that creation itself is an act of Love, and ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible