(Note: for my convenience, God will consistently be refered to as a Him. ) A common argument against an all-powerfull entity is the omnipotence paradox; can God make a stone so heavy not even He can lift it, a burrito so warm even He can't eat it, etc. If He can, He isn't omnipotent. If He can't, He isn't omnipotent. The paradox is often regarded as preposterous by believers in an omnipotent God, in that He, of course, cannot make the logically impossible; He cannot make a triangular cube, He cannot make 1+1=3, because these things cannot exist. Example: Some of the arguments against omnipotence are plain silly and stupid. Can God create a spherical triangle? Saying that omnipotence requires the ability to do logically impossible things is stupid. God cannot turn truth into a lie. If humans define a triangle as a two dimensional object formed by the intersection of three lines, it makes no sense to ask if God could make one that was spherical. When one says that God is all-powerful, one means that God is able to accomplish all that He desires to do. Even an all-powerful being cannot do what is impossible by definition. God can do many things that are humanly impossible. However, there are some things that even an all-powerful being cannot do. -From godandscience.org There is the counterargument that He should be able to do those things, because if He obeys any laws other than His own, He, again, cannot be omnipotent, and it is a valid argument, but not the problem I would like to explore. Let's go with the idea of a rational God; He can do anything possible. He can manipulate any and every particle in space in whatever fashion He desires as conforms to His rules, the rules of logic. But if this is so, and every particle in the universe is equally under his command, where then does God end and the universe begin? Is there really a distinction between Him and His creation? I would say no, God is his creation, of which many believers would agree with me (on a side note; this would make God the ultimate schizophrenic, unable to distinguish Himself from His surroundings). He is omnipresent. This, however, conflicts with the idea of God as a conscious entity. The definition of consiousness is the ability to react. When someone throws something to me, I calculate its velocity, its size, its supposed weight, its distance, my own dexterity and many other factors. When I am offered something new to eat, I react to how it looks, smells and, finally, tastes. Even someone blind, deaf and lame reacts to subconscious impulses, the nature of the intravenous nourishment she's given and the consistency of the air her respirators give her. God, however, could not logically react to anything, because nothing exists outside Him, nothing is not known to Him. He cannot be stimulated, because nothing exists to stimulate Him. He does not have a subconscious, He cannot be surprised, because any and all of these factors would limit Him to something not omnipotent. And so God does not think. And so God does not influence the Universe. And so God, in is omnipotence, is impotent; the all-powerfull powerless. This could be seen as absolute proof that an omnipotent entity cannot exist, or absolute proof that he does exist, as there is no difference between a universe with such a God and one without. It is important to note, however, that this only refutes the idea of God operating within rational boundaries. The concequence of this refutation, however, is that God should be able to do what is impossible by definition, and so the omnipotence paradox is as valid as ever.
i.e. this God is logically consistent with something that doesn't exist. But it doesn't require God to be omnipotent for this to be the case. It merely requires an absolute lack of evidence.
While long term absence of evidence is indeed strong evidence for non existence it not a proof in the same way that a true paradox could provide.
This argument only moves the problem one step back - it does not remove it, for it leads to the paradox of a limited unlimitedness. This is just as absurd as the initial problems of omnipotence. How can the creator of all existence be limited by logic? First of all, logic is a man made system of preserving truth value in arguments, logic is not a set of physical, or metaphysical laws. Next, <I>any</i> set of parameters that exists, would only exist because of this omnipotent entity. Ergo to hold that this god is 'limited by logic' not only makes the grave error of confusing an a priori system for physics, it also leads to the absurdity that an omnipotent being is limited by a set of laws that he himself created! this 'god' would not only be responsible for defining what is impossible in the first place, it would be responsible for creating the concept of impossibility! Omnipotence obviates necessity, it obviates any and all restrictions and limits. No, on the contrary, holding to the claim that something 'omnipotent' can be understood logically is wrongheaded - omnipotence is a negative trait, absent of any universe of discourse, and as a supernatural concept it necessarily is beyond reason/logic/rationality. in short, it doesn't make sense because its not supposed to make sense. To make sense, one must have limits and identity.[/quote]
