Friend: Omnipotence initself is logically contradictory
Although volumes have been written with thorough disagreement. See the works of Paul Copan, William Lane Craig, and J.P. Moreland. They’ll provide a robust response.
Friend: thanks , will check these guys out.
Leonard: Various suggestions in order of increasing difficulty:
– The Case for the Creator, Lee Strobel
– Contending With Christianity’s Critics, Paul Copan and William Lane Craig
– Christian Apologetics, Norman Geisler
If you’re referring to ‘logical contradiction’ of something such as the ‘rock too big he himself cannot carry it’, that first listed argument provides a short condensed read which will approach the issue. If not I can provide a condensed response, simply asserting the fact that omnipotence is restrained to reality and the law of contradictions, given the logical impossibility of something like a squared circle, 2+2=5, etc.
Friend: ah carm ive been there quite a bit .
Leonard: If you want some stuff with more meat, go through that list in that order.
Also Norman Geisler’s Apologetic Encyclopedia is an excellence reference, such as this very topic.
Osmani: here is an interesting conversation on that.. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j484o6VovjI&feature=related
Leonard: Didn’t find the conversation interesting. Nor do I find the Atheist Experience all that engaging.
They referenced the rock scenario, which is easily answered regarding something needing to be logical to logically exist (a primary law, whereas we know things do not exist that are pure contradictions, and interesting enough, to argue the logical existence of omniscience with illogical tools to begin with is an error and illogic of the usage of tools, not the concept/idea/reality of omnipotence).
Stating God can do all things logically possible merely affirms what the argument presumes: the necessity of logic to maintain existence. However, to use illogic to prove the logic of an idea is an error on behalf of the illogical tools, and not the concept (such as speaking of a squared circle to prove that mathematics is imperfect, when the issue is not the perfection of math, but the imperfect and illogical nature of squared circles). It is itself illogical!
What’s really at play is the illogical assumptions of the person, which would only prove their lack of omniscience.
He moved on to state that the various omni’s are logically inconsistent in that they contradict. This issue is not no longer about the illogical nature of omnipotence (which from my observation he moves over in favor of another argument). The issue is the Logical Problem of evil.
To see some excellent responses to what the host is referring to, read Draper’s objection and Platinga’s Free Will argument.
A response is also contained in the Copan Craig book.
Friend: yes i see what you mean.. i found it interesting that most christians do use this argument.. and they dont really know half of what they believe in.
Leonard: I find that to be the case even more with non-believers. Most Christians I know have a constructed worldview, and can acknowledge from their worldview where certain moral, philosophical, etc assumptions stem from.
On the other hand, when I interview non-christians, I find that they have no real understanding of where their presuppositions come from. They simply have assumed beliefs, with no constructed worldview in which they can acknowledge to account for said beliefs.
An example: Someone saying God does not exist because there is evil in the world, without even being able to account or define, absolutely, Evil. Rather, they simply presume evil, which begs the question further, how they can even presume and define good. They presume they can prove God’s nonexistence by acknowledging evil, yet their worldview cannot even account for, or define, evil. The Christian Worldview, however, can, and most of the time this nonbeliever is actually borrowing from such a worldview to mae their point, without them noticing. Irony.
Friend: makes sense.. yes its true alot of non believers are kinda lost in this .. i believe in a creator ive gotten as far as to there.. ive been all over the place.. christianity does not convince.. me but if there would ever be a lifestyle to choose besides what im in now would be to be a real christian . but i still think christianity was just an ideal and the morals within the same.. my example for that would be .. when people claim that athiest communist have caused more damage than any religion … which is bull it wasnt because of them being an athiest it was their ideals that did so.. in other words.. you cant draw the logical line to i dont believe in unicorns to im a huge political dictator..
Leonard: I would like to talk to you day on why I believe you should take the leap from Deism to Jesus.
I would approach it from an argument of the best answer. The question is what provides the best explanation for the empty tomb, given certain historical facts.
We can utilize our reason to approach the question of the empty tomb, and if we can observe that the best explanation is in fact a supernatural resurrection, I think you may guess the ramifications.
If you would allow me to engage with you on this topic sometime in the future, I’m sure you may find it challenging.
Friend: i would like to understand this more, along with the whole debate on the gospels contradiction claim . it would be a nice conversation to have.
and yeah i like a challenge in this field.
Leonard: Well bud, I’m here for any of that. It’s what I’ve studied, and I would welcome as hard a question as you’ve asked yourself and would like answers.