Refuting the Omnipotence Argument

Introduction:

The omnipotence paradox is an argument that tries to contest the divine attribute of divine omnipotence, this argument was possibly addressed in the Middle Ages by Saint Thomas Aquinas.

Philosopher J. L Cowan believes that this argument is sufficient to reject the possibility of the existence of a deity. On the other hand, St. Thomas Aquinas claimed that this argument was based on a misinterpretation of omnipotence.

Envelope or argument:

Can God make a stone that He cannot lift?

The argument is limited to two perspectives:

1. Not. So He is not omnipotent, for He is a limited being (of building or making stone);
2. Yup. Then He would not be an omnipotent being, for He would have this limitation (He cannot lift the stone).

The argument has some flaws, among them the lack of understanding of what divine omnipotence is.

What would divine omnipotence be? Can God do everything?

When we say that God is omnipotent, we emphasize that He is a powerful being and can do everything according to His will, but some critics have trouble understanding this, for example:

God cannot lie and repent (Number 23.19), if this happened, it would be incoherent and illogical, we can understand from this perspective that God cannot act in a contradictory way.

Eg

Let's suppose that there are three aspects that are the basis of omnipotence, which would be:

Natural limitations (lying, stealing, sinning, repenting);

another aspect would be self-imposed limitations (breaking some promise) and the last would be limitations by consistency (making a square triangle or a married bachelor).

Thus, as Aquinas would say: “God is called omnipotent because he can absolutely everything possible”.

Responding or argument:

We must think this way: the stone may or may not be created. For it to be created, it cannot be incoherent, that is, the problem with this object existing is in the object itself.

Thus, the creation of a given object is incoherent or impossible by the same and not by divine omnipotence.

You may also like

• Know the differences between religion and spirituality
• Practice tolerance on the International Day of Religion
• Investigate why atheist countries are more peaceful

We can summarize the failure of the argument as follows:

1. God is omnipotent, that is, He can raise or create any object (possible and logical);
2. The stone cannot be lifted by an omnipotent being (it is incoherent, that is, illogical);
3. But an omnipotent being can raise or create anything;
4. Therefore, a stone that cannot be lifted or created by an omnipotent being cannot exist because of its inconsistency.

Conclusion:

The argument fails, as expressed by Saint Thomas, due to the bad interpretation of omnipotence, in the moment that a stone or any object cannot exist, the problem is not the being in question, for the fact that God can all logical and possible things.

In this way, the argument poses no danger to divine omnipotence, by the feeble attempt at the trick in question. The limitation is due to the object and not to being omnipotent.