Classes started this week at ACT, and I must admit I was ready to get started. Right now, my schedule has three classes, on Mon, Wed, Fri, and two on Tues and Thursday. My five classes are History, Management, Mathematics, Greek and Philosophy. I got to pick from a list of several different General Education classes, but probably the easiest choice was Philosophy. Not only is that a subject where I have an interest, but I feel as a Christian it would be irresponsible for me to not try to understand the philosophies of this area and so the world. In addition, how could I pass up the chance to study philosophy, in it's birth place, Ancient Greece...?
I approached the class a bit too smug I must confess, partly because of my intellectually based Christian education, but also because of the knowledge I had gained at the rigorous two week worldview camp I attended in Colorado this Summer.
I picked my spot in the middle of the 2nd or 3rd middle row as is my custom. Not too close as to be considered a teacher's pet, but close enough so that my hand can easily be seen when raised, and so that the teacher would grow accustomed to seeing my face when he scanned the students so he'd become more familiar with me and learn my name faster. The students filed in quickly when the clock hit 11:30 AM and the teacher sitting on his desk scanned the students stoically in what is commonly called by communication majors as a "power pause". A power pause to those who don't know, is an attempt to gain control over listeners by a confident silence, which psychologically communicates to the viewers that the speaker is somebody who has something important to say and thus should be granted silence to, at least for a moment. After it was quiet, the teacher stood up and began to speak.
"I have a philosophical question for you today." He paused momentarily to let that thought sink in. Since most of the students didn't know what made a question philosophical, they continued to listen. "The question is a famous one that most of you have probably heard, and it is this. Can an all-powerful God create a stone that he cannot lift?"
I'm not going to lie, even I was a bit surprised. I realize that it was a common question, and I had certainly heard it before, but for the life of me, I couldn't remember any Christian responses, not from books or anything told to me. I think even the teacher was surprised at how quiet it got. Finally one student raised their hand and said "Yes, since he is all powerful he could." I felt embarrassed for her because she had walked right into the purpose of the question which was to be a circular paradox. Another student raised their hand, and with his answer brought her statement full circle revealing the error in her judgment, "if he is truly all-powerful, then he would be able to lift the stone." The teacher nodded smiling. He then opened it up again to the class. "So what is the answer?" Everybody remained quiet. Meanwhile, I was racking my brain for an answer, all the while sinking deeper and deeper into shame. This wasn't supposed to be a difficult question, it was only the first day! What would happen later in the semester, when he tried to disprove God and not just his omnipotence. Trying to clear my mind I began frantically writing down thoughts on my notebook paper, trying to come up with a solution. However, then the teacher spoke again, and there are few times I've felt as humiliated in my life, "aren't there any religious people out there? Are there any Christians who believe in God? I just disproved the omnipotence of God, a critical part of your religion, of Christianity, Islam, Hinduism... Is there nobody? After that challenge he paused. Nervously I raised my hand, and gave the answer that I had scratched together on my notebook page, praying that my reasoning had been sound enough despite the pressure. "Your statement is incomplete," I began. "You must first answer whether you believe God to be a rational or an irrational God. If God is omnipotent and rational, then he cannot lift the rock, because God must then follow the laws of Logic which say that there is no rock too big for God to lift, and so he could not create a rock that would be impossible to lift. But if God is omnipotent and irrational, then he could lift the rock, because then there are no laws that God works in accordance with and so he could make a rock he could not lift, just as easily as he could make 2+2=5." I knew while I was writing this that as soon as I said this, he was going to think he saw this as a loophole in my belief in God and would attack that in the following way. "So are you saying that God is subservient to certain laws, or are you admitting to serving a God that can create things he himself cannot do, and thus is not omnipotent?" I already had thought out my personal belief on the subject so I responded, "in regards to my believes, I believe that God is a rational God but also that he is omnipotent. I believe that there is no rock that God cannot lift. However, I believe that God obeys the laws of logic and reason as we understand them. I don't believe that God is in anyway subservient to these laws though, they are laws that HE created and that HE can change at any point, but in his omniscience, he has decided to follow them right now. In conclusion, God is a rational God who can lift any rock. But in his omnipotence, if he wanted he could change the laws of logic so that he could create a rock that he wouldn't be able to lift, but because he controls the laws of logic and reason preventing him from lifting the rock he is still omnipotent."
Feeling slightly relieved at seeing a few nodding heads I thanked God for giving me an answer that at least made sense to a few.
And that was the discourse. Just a note however, this is not literally word for word what transpired. I tired to capture the ideas that were communicated but in certain parts these are slightly different words. I wanted to present the ideas of the discussion in this blogpost in a slightly more professional manner, but the arguments are still the same. The reason I am posting this, is because I was wondering if anybody had some thoughts on the subject. I am not by any means set upon the ideas I presented in this post, and so I would greatly appreciate any feedback or comments. These ideas were what made sense to me, but if you think you see an error in my reasoning, by all means please point it out to me, I don't care about being right, I just want to know the best answer or best way of explaining it.
Josh - I respect and agree with your answer that God could not create a stone he could not lift, but for an additional and slightly different reason. I believe God is omnipotent but therefore all his powers works in unison and one source (power to create ) is not greater then another source ( power to lift ), therefore his power and creation work in tandem. I love your heart and boldness.
ReplyDeleteWhat did the prof say to your answer.
Dad
Hey Josh,
ReplyDeleteHere's my response to the question. Perhaps it's what you were saying, but this is how I would word it.
No. Simply, no. Here's the annoying mistake that so many atheists make, which makes its way into many of their "God disproving" arguments: "Omnipotent" doesn't mean "able to do anything," or "able to complete any action." Look it up in the dictionary; it means, "all-powerful," or "having infinite power." Break it down into its two Latin components and that's what you get; "Omni", "all," and "potestas", which means "power."
The next question is, "what does 'having infinite power' entail?" It implies that one who has infinite power can do anything *within the limits* of what actions can be achieved through power. Can that which is logically possible be achieved through any amount of power? No. That which is impossible cannot be done through any amount of power; it is intrinsically contradictory. Thus God cannot "create a rock which is too heavy to lift," yet this is by no means at odds with His omnipotence, His "infinite power." In a formal sense, this is known as the fallacy of equivocation: "The fallacy of equivocation is committed when a term is used in two or more different senses within a single argument."
The atheists' argument, formally stated:
God is omnipotent.
It is logically impossible to be omnipotent.
Therefore it is logically impossible for God to exist.
In the first premise, the atheist is referring to one sense of "omnipotence"; he is referring to what Christians(and other theists) mean when they say "omnipotence"; he asumes it means "having infinite power." In the second premise, he sneakily presumes a different meaning upon the word; he changes the definition to "able to complete any action, intrinsically possible or intrinsically impossible." That, my friend, is bad logic, and bad philosphy :P
And to argue that "having infinite power" infers "the ability to do that which is intrinsically impossible" is as subjective as claiming that the ontological proof prooves God, hahaha.
Yeah, I know, I could've narrowed that all down. But I just love bantering about this stuff, haha. So, those are my thoughts. Do keep the blog updated about your philosphy class; I'm totally hooked now :P
~Sahm