![omnipotence and omnipresence paradox omnipotence and omnipresence paradox](https://www.blogtalkradio.com/api/image/resize/400x297/aHR0cHM6Ly9kYXNnN3h3bWxkaXg2LmNsb3VkZnJvbnQubmV0L2VwaXNvZGVzLzE4MzE5N19ZR1ZMVFExNy5wbmc/183197_YGVLTQ17.png)
![omnipotence and omnipresence paradox omnipotence and omnipresence paradox](https://sites.google.com/site/alexisbrookex/_/rsrc/1314663272312/omnipotence/Omnipotence.jpg)
Therefore, there is no contradiction involving him changing some future he already knows, because from his perspective there is no future. This idea implies that God's omniscience does not tell him what he "will" do (nor what he "has done" or "is doing"), but what is done, not in the past, present, or future, but as part of the existence of the universe itself. Naturally we cannot easily imagine this, but again, it is perfectly physically valid.
Omnipotence and omnipresence paradox free#
What does this mean for the question? Well, if God exists free from time (that is, not traveling through it as we are, but able to observe it entirely), that means that no time passes from God's perspective. ultrasound), we may be viewing a four dimensional universe passing by along a three dimensional image we're limited to seeing. Similarly to when you move a three dimensional object through a two dimensional cross-cut (e.g.
![omnipotence and omnipresence paradox omnipotence and omnipresence paradox](https://i.pinimg.com/originals/b8/a4/4d/b8a44d3a12e41c85cf1769c7529e20bc.jpg)
A relevant point to bring up here is the theory that time is an " emergent property" of our view of a four dimensional universe. This is an absolutely physically valid suggestion, as time is just another dimension (albeit an unusual one to humans), and just as it is possible to look at all of the length, width, and breadth of an object at once for us, it makes sense for God to be able to see all the time of an object at once. Specifically, what reason is there to assume that God must exist trapped in the dimension of time as we are? Why would God have to view the world passing by in a strictly past-to-future sense? It is entirely viable to have God existing free from a constrained time, looking at the universe all at once (not just everywhere, but everywhen). The problem with asserting inconsistencies like these (see also this closely related question) is not that they apply logic to a conception of God, but that they assume that God would have to exist confined within our physical dimensions. I understand Dawkins was not speaking solely in reference to the Christian God.* **NOTE: I am using Christianity and the Christian God as an example to illustrate the importance of defining terms and understanding a claim within the framework in which it is made. Since the whole intent of such a claim is to refute the idea of God (including the Christian God*), and it falls short of doing so, the reasoning is not sound. Thus, Dawkins has not succeeded in refuting the Christian God*, but has succeeded in refuting his own idea of God (which is of very questionable value)Īs a result, if a person were to use Dawkins' reasoning to try to refute the Christian idea of God, the reasoning would amount to a " strawman argument". Using the Christian* definitions, Dawkins' claim is not true Using Dawkins definitions, his claim is true ( See here.) This omnipotence does not necessitate the capacity for changing His mind, and does not preclude Him from knowing what He wants to do (and is going to do) "ahead of time". When a Christian* claims that "God is omnipotent", their meaning is that God has the power to do whatever He wants to do.
![omnipotence and omnipresence paradox omnipotence and omnipresence paradox](https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/fcoc-vs-battles/images/a/a4/Rare_Akuma.jpg)
Many read this statement and think Richard Dawkins has successfully refuted the Christian God*, but he has really only succeeded in refuting his own idea of God.Ĭhristians* do not use the word "omnipotent" in the same way that Richard Dawkins uses the word.ĭawkins' assumes that if God "can't change his mind about his intervention, he is not omnipotent" This claim comes from the belief that God must, by definition, be capable of doing anything (even changing His mind.) The "validity" of a statement like this depends entirely on the assumptions and definitions (of "omnipotent", "omniscient", etc.) that are being used - both by the person making the statement, and by the audience.