God doesn't exist

== Omnipotence Paradox == I found Pro’s argument surprisingly weak. When it comes to disproving God, all it does is affirm the following: a) Something which can perform any action is contradictory b) ??? C: God does not exist Pro completely fails to establish the crucial premise that links the first premise with the resolution. An entity which is ‘all powerful’ is not one that can perform any action. ‘All powerful’ is synonymous with having the attribute of omnipotence. But ‘omnipotence’ has multiple meanings. “A deity [is omnipotent if it] can bring about any state of affairs which is logically possible for anyone to bring about in that situation.” [1] Bringing about a contradiction as a state of affairs is logically impossible, therefore an omnipotent being wouldn’t do that anyway. The argument doesn’t link to the resolution. Additionally, an omnipotent being has no limitations of power, therefore its power should be considered ‘boundless’. This means that the being cannot be constrained ontologically. If p is ‘constrained’, there is a state of affairs q such that q → ~p, and, in the actual world, q is true. Therefore, p’s ‘being’ is constrained by q. But if p were actually ‘boundless’, then it would entail that []p, which means either (i) p and q are not mutually exclusive due to lack of logical constraint, or (ii) []~q. In this case, (i) is true as an omnipotent being is not constrained by logic, since it has ‘limitless’ power, or is ‘all-powerful’. The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy argues that “as [the omnipotence paradox] stands it is not quite valid. From the fact that a particular being is able to create a stone it cannot lift, it does not follow that there is in fact something that that being cannot do. It only follows that if the being were to create the stone, then there would be something it could not do. As a result, the paradox is a problem only for necessary omnitemporal omnipotence, that is, for the view that there is a being who exists necessarily and is necessarily omnipotent at every time. There is no problem for a being who is only omnipotent at certain times, because the being in question might very well be omnipotent prior to creating the stone (but not after). Furthermore, the stone paradox provides no reason to suppose there could not be a contingently omnitemporally omnipotent being; all the being in question would need to do is to decide not to create the stone, and then it would be omnipotent at every time.” [2] The paradox has to assume that the laws of logic constrain God. But that would imply that logic is necessary, which fails to account for []G, because if []G where G is ‘all-powerful’ (as established by the modal ontological argument), then l (logic) cannot apply in a possible world where there is nothing except G, therefore is not necessary. When God is ‘omnipotent’, it’s incoherent to say “could not” -- God is defined as being omnipotent, therefore using the term ‘could not’ next to God is meaningless, simply because it imposes logical constraint on a boundless being [3]. Presume Con because: a) The argument fails to link, since it assumes ‘all-powerful’ implies ‘absolute omnipotence’ b) The being referenced is not omnitemporal c) Argument assumes God’s power can be constrained ontologically by logic d) It is incoherent to say God ‘cannot’ perform an action Therefore, the omnipotence paradox fails. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org... 2. http://www.iep.utm.edu... 3. Paul Copan. Loving Wisdom, p 46.