The PuritanBoard - View Single Post

Brian Bosse · #19 (**permalink**) 07-10-2007, 03:15 PM

Hello Everyone,

Let me try and flesh out the formal argument against God implied by the question. I am using a Reductio Ad Absurdum proof...

Let A: The God of Christianity does not exist.
Let B: God is omnipotent.
Let C: God can create anything.
Let D: God can create a rock too heavy to lift.

1. Prove: A
2. Assume: ¬A (RAA Proof Form)
3. ¬A → B
4. B → C
5. C → D
6. ¬D (The Christian says, "No, God cannot create a rock too heavy to lift.)
7. ¬C (Modus Tollens on steps 5 and 6)
8. ¬B (Modus Tollens on steps 4 and 7)
9. ¬¬A(Modus Tollens on steps 3 and 8)
10. A (Law of negation)
Q.E.D.

This proof is valid. However, the Christian would argue that the proposition in step 4 is false, thereby making the proof unsound. As Scott pointed out, being omnipotent does not mean being able to do anything. Here is a definition for omnipotence...

Definition: Person A is omnipotent if and only if person A can do what he wills.

Once the definition is provided for omnipotence, then the sting is taken out of the question in relation to the property of being omnipotent. If I were an atheist, upon hearing this response I would ask: Can God will to create a rock too heavy to lift? Now, my reponse would be that God cannot will to create any object that has contradictory properties. The property of being a rock and the property of being "too heavy for God to lift" are not compatible. Again, if I were an atheist I would ask: Why are these two properties contradictory?

Does anyone care to give this last question a go?

Brian