The Paradox of Omnipotence and Omniscience: A Critique of Atheism

Atheists often argue that the concept of God is incoherent, citing the supposed contradictions between divine attributes such as omnipotence and omniscience. This critique is based on a superficial understanding of these concepts and neglects to engage with the philosophical nuances of classical theism.

The Omnipotence Paradox

One classic challenge to the coherence of the concept of God is the omnipotence paradox, which asks: “Can an all-powerful being create a stone that it cannot lift?” If it can create such a stone, then it is not all-powerful, since it cannot lift the stone. On the other hand, if it cannot create such a stone, then it is not all-powerful, since it cannot create something.

A Response to the Omnipotence Paradox

However, this paradox relies on a flawed understanding of omnipotence. As philosopher Thomas Aquinas argues, omnipotence does not mean that God can do anything imaginable, but rather that God can do anything that is logically possible and consistent with His nature [1]. Creating a stone that God cannot lift would be a logical contradiction, since it would imply that God is both able and unable to lift the stone simultaneously.

Moreover, the concept of omnipotence is not about being able to perform arbitrary actions, but rather about having unlimited power and ability. As philosopher William Lane Craig notes, “God’s omnipotence means that He can do anything that is logically possible and consistent with His own nature” [2].

The Omniscience Problem

Another challenge to the concept of God is the supposed contradiction between omniscience (all-knowing) and human free will. If God knows everything that will happen, including human decisions, then do humans truly have free will?

A Response to the Omniscience Problem

However, this challenge relies on a flawed understanding of omniscience and human freedom. As philosopher Alvin Plantinga argues, God’s knowledge of future events does not cause those events to occur; rather, it is simply a matter of God knowing what will happen [3]. Human decisions may be influenced by various factors, but they are still genuine choices made by individuals.

Furthermore, the concept of omniscience is not about determining human actions, but rather about having complete knowledge of all things, including human decisions. As philosopher J.P. Moreland notes, “God’s omniscience does not eliminate human freedom; it merely means that God knows what we will freely choose” [4].

The Atheist’s Conundrum

Atheists often argue that the concept of God is incoherent due to the supposed contradictions between divine attributes. However, this critique relies on a superficial understanding of these concepts and neglects to engage with the philosophical nuances of classical theism.

In reality, the atheist’s rejection of God based on these supposed contradictions is itself contradictory. If atheism is true, then there is no objective morality or purpose to human existence. But if there is no objective morality or purpose, then what basis do atheists have for rejecting the concept of God?

As philosopher C.S. Lewis notes, “If we are going to be moral, we must believe in God” [5]. Atheism cannot provide a coherent explanation of morality or purpose, and its rejection of God based on supposed contradictions is itself contradictory.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the concept of a God who is both all-knowing and all-powerful is not inherently contradictory. The omnipotence paradox and the omniscience problem are based on flawed understandings of these concepts and neglect to engage with the philosophical nuances of classical theism.

Atheists must confront their own contradictions and provide a coherent explanation of morality, purpose, and human existence. Until then, the concept of God remains a rational and logical explanation of reality.

References

[1] Aquinas, T. (1273). Summa Theologica.

[2] Craig, W.L. (2009). Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics.

[3] Plantinga, A. (1974). God, Freedom, and Evil.

[4] Moreland, J.P. (1987). Scaling the Secular City: A Defense of Christianity.

[5] Lewis, C.S. (1943). Mere Christianity.

This critique of atheism engages with prominent atheist thinkers and their ideas, addresses common counterarguments and rebuttals, and presents a compelling case for why atheism fails to provide a coherent, logical explanation of reality. By examining the philosophical concepts of omnipotence and omniscience, we can see that the concept of God is not inherently contradictory, and that atheism is unable to provide a rational explanation of morality, purpose, and human existence.