Logically inconsistent statements include those where one can deduce a direct contradiction from them, as in (1) through (4) of this set. Atheologians claim that believing these theist claims is unreasonable.
Plantinga offers an answer to the logical problem of evil by proposing that God creates morally significant free will for the greater good, yet this doesn’t explain why natural evil exists.
The Omnipotence Paradox is a philosophical problem regarding the possibility of an all-powerful being doing things that are physically impossible. This question often takes the form of asking whether an omnipotent being could create something so heavy it cannot lift, which has no answers in reality. A similar scenario would ask whether an omnipotent being could create a square triangle without right angles, where 2 + 2 equals 5, etc; these answers also remain no.
Philosophers have attempted to address this dilemma by revising the definition of omnipotence. Some have proposed that it should be defined as the ability to perform any action or bring about any result that conforms with one’s nature; but this approach has its own issues: one being that it presupposes an unlimited conception of omnipotence, as well as creating states of affairs not consistent with it – this phenomenon known as McEar’s objection.
Other philosophers have attempted to resolve this issue by suggesting that an entity’s omnipotence can be limited in certain states of affairs; however, this approach does not address the concerns arising from the McEar objection or other paradoxes. Another approach might be limiting it by temporal or spatial boundaries – although these arguments face similar difficulties as earlier approaches.
Thirdly, one strategy for approaching this problem involves considering that an omnipotent agent is capable of creating situations which do not fall in line with its nature – for instance if Jane were an omnipotent being it may be possible for her to create an environment in which she was no longer powerful enough. Another approach uses unrestricted repetition. If it was impossible for beings to create certain state of affairs once, they should never again attempt this feat – though this approach won’t solve the issue entirely, it certainly improves on previous solutions!
Omniscience refers to the knowledge of everything existing or possible – past, present and future events alike. While often associated with omnipotence, some philosophers have proposed that God is not truly omniscient by suggesting there may be propositions He does not know about such as causally undetermined events at quantum levels or free creaturely actions which He may miss – this argument has been used by some philosophers against believing in Him.
First, philosophers from the 10th century onward have raised this problem of God being both powerful and intelligent; yet He cannot accomplish everything He knows of; for instance He cannot destroy Himself due to this breaking His standard of perfection – something philosophers from that era began deliberating upon.
Another argument against God’s omniscience is that it implies He knows all truths, when this may not necessarily be the case. Aristotle and Descartes raised this concern in the 13th century; unfortunately they could not come up with a way around this problem but suggested it is not necessary for his knowledge to be exhaustive.
Thirdly, some argue that omnipotence and omniscience cannot coexist simultaneously. This viewpoint stems from the assumption that God must be all-good; to fulfill this role effectively he needs the freedom to perform good deeds despite knowing what people will do in the future; therefore it would be impossible for Him to simultaneously possess both powers of being all powerful as well as all knowing. For this reason it cannot exist within one God who can both omnipotent and all knowing at the same time.
Finally, evil must be dealt with. Had God known that humans would sin, He may never have allowed their creation as anyone capable of engaging in acts that are against his/her will isn’t fully good.
There are various approaches to these issues. Philosophers use molecular reasoning, which asserts that it is impossible for any being to know everything, while other philosophers suggest God is limited in his omniscience only to necessary mathematical and logical truths; yet still others contend it includes knowledge of contingent truths such as Adam eating fruit or the Steelers winning Super Bowl XLVII.
Traditional Western theism places great importance on God’s omnipresence as one of his powers, as part of His perfection or maximal greatness (or perfectness). Yet this concept seems strange to many philosophers; for instance, it may be hard to understand how an all-powerful being could exist even within Hell, where sinners suffer His unceasing fury.
There are various approaches to understanding omnipresence. One approach, advocated by Alvin Plantinga and Richard La Croix as their “omnipotence-as-location-in-space” interpretation of omnipotence, avoids apparent paradoxes caused by God being present everywhere at once. Christopher Conn has also supported this view of omnipotence.
Another way of understanding omnipresence is to view it as the ability to bring about every possible state of affairs – an approach also advocated by Alvin Plantinga and Richard La Croix. This “omnipotence-as-omnipotence-in-time” interpretation helps avoid apparent paradoxes caused by beings who are “omnipotent in time,” since such beings cannot create something like a cube-shaped object or move too heavy a stone at once.
Robert Oakes proposed another definition of omnipresence that considers its ability to exist at any place in space regardless of any other occupants, or lack thereof. Although this approach seems promising, its consequences are significant: for one thing it implies that God resides everywhere within space while everything within it remains distinct from Him – something taught through Scripture emphasizes immateriality and transcendence of all space as its core value.
Richard Swinburne and other authors have noted the problems with this solution as not accurately representing omnipotence’s essence; specifically if something can bring about situations in which its power becomes limited despite being all-powerful itself, then such beings do not qualify as truly omnipotent in the first sense of the term. Another possible approach may be taking an approach similar to Medieval notions that omnipotence requires beings without defects or infirmities – however this would run into McEar’s counterexample!
Free will is one of the most debated aspects of God’s existence, with many believing it would prevent an all-powerful deity from creating an evil world with suffering and evil. Yet opinions differ on how this paradox should be solved.
Free will is often confused with God’s omnipotence; however, these concepts should be distinguished. The omnipotence paradox asks whether an all-powerful deity still has a free will despite having all possible power at their disposal; yes is an answer but not easy to comprehend.
The God paradox is a philosophical conundrum created when you assume that God can do anything, including making a mountain too heavy for Him to lift. While this might appear straightforward, it brings up numerous additional issues related to omnipotence – for instance if He created such an obstacle and then became strong enough to lift it – thus contradicting his omnipotence – forcing Him to choose between doing something and becoming stronger – an apparent contradiction of his being an all-powerful being!
This argument is often used to discredit Christianity, however its logic details are flawed and its use of paradox doesn’t guarantee truth; there are other paradoxes found throughout philosophy, logic, math and linguistics which do not disprove God.
Kierkegaard discussed this paradox in three works published under his pseudonym Johannes Climacus and Anti-Climacus, wherein he described its elements such as likeness and otherness in an attempt to explain its essence. These works also discussed how its existence generates self-contradictory statements without disproving God-Man Reality altogether.