Omnipotence paradox

The omnipotence paradox is a philosophical paradox that occurs in the application of logic to an omnipotent being. The paradox is based on the question of whether an omnipotent being is able to do something that his own omnipotence limits, which would make it lose its omnipotence. Some philosophers consider this argument as evidence of the impossibility of the existence of such a being; others argue that this paradox stems from a misunderstanding of omnipotence. In addition, some philosophers appear the assumption that a being is either omnipotent or non- omnipotent, as inadmissible because there is the possibility of different gradations left out.

Often, the paradox is applied to the God of the Abrahamic religions, which is not mandatory but. Since the Middle Ages, philosophers have formulated the paradox in many ways, the classic example of these is: " Can an omnipotent being create a stone so heavy that it itself can not lift it? ". This special formulation has some blemish on (for more discussion below ), but as most well-known version, it is nevertheless appropriate to illustrate the paradox appropriate.

In order to analyze the omnipotence paradox, a precise definition of omnipotence is required. This varies between cultures, religions and philosophers. A common, but inadequate definition is "all being able to ". This paradox can, for example, will not be applied when defining omnipotence as the ability to act outside the bounds of logic. Modern approaches to relate the findings of the semantics into the discussion in order to clarify whether the language and thus also the philosophy can capture the sense of omnipotence.

Definition of omnipotence

This section deals only with relevant issues for the product. More information can be found in the article omnipotence.

Omnipotence can be associated with the omnipotence paradox have different meanings. It is the power to bring about any situation. However, is the importance of the question. Some philosophers such as Descartes believe omnipotence close one's ability to logically accomplish the impossible. It is, for example, in our universe is not possible to create an edgeless cubes, or to let it be equal to 2 in our commonly used number system 1. Would an omnipotent being create an edgeless cube, this would prove that such a being is not bound by the laws of logic. Also, would thus proved the existence of such a being.

Other philosophers, such as Thomas Aquinas, claim that a creature can do nothing logically impossible, in order to be omnipotent. In this case, a being could do anything logically thinkable. The distinction between these two ways of thinking is important when considering the Allmachtsparadoxa, as it means a restriction of the meaning of omnipotence.

Omnipotence can be applied to an entity in different ways. An essential omnipotent being is always powerful. In contrast, a dispensable omnipotent being for a time is all-powerful and loses its omnipotence then. The omnipotence paradox can be differently applied to each creature.

Philosophical answers

A common formulation of the omnipotence paradox is the question: "Can an omnipotent being create a stone so heavy that even he can not lift? " It is possible to consider the question in the following ways:

This resembles a similar paradox: " What happens when an unstoppable force meets an immovable object? " One answer is that it can accordingly be no truly immovable object definition, if there is an unstoppable force; accordingly, there are no really unstoppable force when there is an immovable object. In the transmission of the paradox the basic message remains, but this is not the definition of omnipotence is considered.

It may also be trying to pick up the paradox by postulating that an omnipotent being can not necessarily do anything at any time must. So one could argue:

According to this argument, but the paradox can continue knitting: Can an omnipotent being create a stone that is so heavy that it can not lift it, and so unchangeable, that it can not reduce its weight? Moreover, this situation makes demands on the almighty being, for example, that it is the weight of the stone reduced, which raises the question of whether his free will is not thereby to some extent limited.

Sometimes there are scientific statements that contradict known examples of paradoxes, but these do not contradict the paradoxes per se. They affect only the selection of the examples in order to illustrate that. The classic example - a stone that is so heavy that his all-powerful creator can not lift it - is based on an Aristotelian worldview. Today, ask new questions, for example, if a stone can only be lifted relative to the planet's surface. Looking at the position of the stone relative to the Sun, one could speak of a constant upper stone. Seen from the point of view of modern physics, it follows that the example of the stone to be lifted is a bad one. However, this does not contradict the fundamental concept of the omnipotence paradox. The train of thought Stephen Hawking about the relationship between divinity and laws of nature follow, the question could be rephrased as follows:

Transactionable omnipotence

Is a being dispensable omnipotent, so the paradox can be resolved:

Other than for essential all-powerful beings, it is dispensable omnipotent beings possible not to be omnipotent. This, however, raises the question of whether the nature ever was omnipotent or only a creature with very great power.

Essential omnipotence

Is the omnipotence of being essential, so attempts to resolve the paradox as follows:

The philosopher Averroes expanded the omnipotence paradox, therefore, and asked if God could create a triangle whose interior angles do not give a total of 180 degrees.

It should be noted that the later discovery of non-Euclidean geometry does not solve this problem, since one might well ask whether God could create a triangle with more or less than 180 degrees interior angle sum on the basis of Euclidean geometry. In both cases, the actual question of whether an omnipotent being has the ability to evade the consequences that brings the he created system of axioms with it.

Absolute omnipotence

If the omnipotence of being absolute ( = no restriction of conduct, in particular no logical impossibilities ) understood, the paradox is resolved or does not arise erst A creature that can do everything, may by virtue of this definition also create unhebbare stones, it nevertheless can lift; it could also be square circles or draw intersecting parallels. It could create a white black by white and black redefined so that it no longer exclude these terms are mutually exclusive. Because it could be the logical laws, the above make, amend or repeal ( seemingly impossible ) phenomena possible. The linguistic definition of absolute omnipotence understood here dictates the rules for the logical conclusion that consist precisely in the fact that these rules are overridden. This is quite feasible, because it is not excluded per se, that logically impossible is indeed the case. Assuming an omnipotence that once performed the creation, you can even assume that the omnipotence has also created logic and they can change them again. Therefore, one can suspend the rules of logic for certain ( metaphysical ) areas, so everything is possible and nothing is impossible. This will then also answer above-mentioned paradoxical questions.

The solution of the paradox on an absolute omnipotence understanding is felt by all people as satisfactory. Because the solution defined the paradox just gone and argues that the criticism of the omnipotence can not be formulated because the criticism is based on a logic that does not apply to the omnipotence. It also criticized the resolution that they

René Descartes has this understanding of omnipotence, however, at least being considered, but never really consistently represented (because his idealistic theory of knowledge with the cogito then would have been impossible as unbezweifelbarem fixed point ). Harry G. Frankfurt, it is also ahead.