God’s Omnipotence vs. Logical Impossibilities
Christian Truth vs. Atheistic Delusion/Craigian Apologetic
The Insufficient Rebuttal of Dr. Craig
Assuming you watched the video, the atheist attempts to refute the divine concept by pitting two of His attributes against each other. This is a common objection that atheism attempts to do away with God as an essential concept for ethics, human origin, and psyche. His objection to the divine concept follows: “If God is all-powerful, then He could fulfill this morally sufficient reason; for example, having people know Him through any means. He could create any universe without natural evil that would fulfill this morally sufficient reason because by definition He is omnipotent.” So far, his objection springs from an honest review of His attributes. But William Lane Craig doesn’t offer a complete and satisfying refutation to this honest question of the atheist. He answers or rebuts by asserting: “God being omnipotent doesn’t mean that He has the ability to do logically impossible things and it’s logically impossible to make someone to do something freely,” and then he says, “We don’t know if there is a world feasible for God in which He could bring as many people to eternal life and salvation freely as this world, or worlds suffused with natural evil or suffering.” Although, it is true that the atheist could be appealing to a self-contradictory, wishful, and naive notion, the given answer brought by Dr. Craig doesn’t satisfy the genuine inquiry of the atheist. You could say that man’s definition of omnipotence is distinct from God’s view of it, but saying this doesn’t address what that alternative definition would be. The term ‘omnipotence’ means the ability to do all things. Then Dr. Craig’s second argument is the appeal to human ignorance, which might seem clever at first to the viewer, but God isn’t constrained to our ignorance of a world model. So far, Dr. Craig gave no compelling argument against the atheist’s question. Then he says that the burden of proof is on the atheist to prove if there is a better alternative to the current world model that we follow. But this still doesn’t address the question in a complete sense; he is sort of encircling around the question without any direct rebuttal. The atheist rebuts by saying, “It seems you are limiting the definition of omnipotence at that point”. The issue here is that Craig still hasn’t addressed the question fairly, which is why the atheist raises this objection. In a sense, if God cannot do the logically impossible, then it seems like a limitation on God despite the question presupposing paradoxical thinking. I mean it is absurd to say, “Can God use power to create a world without power?” This question would contradict itself, except the absence of such a fulfilling answer and the true definition of His omnipotence still remains. I heard someone claim that they heard Dr. Craig say that apokatastasis is possible for God, yet He chooses eternal torment. Dr. Craig may be a good philosopher but his skill is restrained by his doctrinal bias and by his narrow-mindedness. As for his last given answer in the video, it still fails to fully purge away the question raised.
The Reverse Ontology Argument
It is evident that the atheist was surely frustrated with Craig’s insufficient rebuttals to the raised question. Atheists commonly attempt to find contradictions in the Theos concept by asserting that if God is all-powerful and all-loving, then He cannot sin; therefore, He is not omnipotent. But where Dr. Craig failed to understand, I do not. The atheist presupposes that sin is an ability but sin is more so a disability in my view. A disability is not merely the absence of power, but also an alternative, reverse, and negative ontology. In the same way, heat is opposed to cold, and the force and ontology of cold temperature is evident. Can we really say ‘cold’ as an ontological and tangible force doesn’t exist? Of course not. Can we really say ‘darkness’ as a reversed ontology and visual occurrence is defined as nothing? Well, what is nothing? Is nothing tangible? Is nothing visible and determined by color? If we see darkness as the color black, then can we say that darkness is nothing? Not really, because nothing has no tangible and visual reference. It is impossible to experience ‘nothing’ as an ontology. If God violates His moral nature as an appeal to His omnipotence for the atheist’s logic, then He not only isn’t omni-benevolent, but also He isn’t omnipotent because sin is a ‘disability’, not an ability from His divine ontology.
The Logical/Orderly Nature of God (and the Magic assertion)
In response to that atheist’s question, if God were to do the logically impossible, He would violate His logical/orderly nature. And if He violates His logical nature, then He violates His omnipotence. Why? Because His logical/orderly nature rests upon His omnipotence since the orderly quality is an ability of His divinity. In other words, the atheist wants God to hypothetically violate His omnipotence in exchange for his wishful thinking. This proposed answer is superior to Craig’s arguments because it actually addresses the question without fail or compromise to genuine logic. For God to do the logically impossible, He violates His logical/orderly ability which comes from His omnipotence, so the question proposed by the atheist is rendered self-refuting. Doing the logically impossible is a disability for God rather than an ability of His ontology.
One might argue that God is capable of magic, which they presuppose to be without logical order. However, this is human assumption. Magic as a misconception doesn’t exist since even spiritual realities are governed by laws. Even ‘magic’ is based upon principles; for instance, the magic of voodoo dolls rely on the law of quantum entanglement. Of course, the atheist could try to assert that God could base this world upon better and alternative laws, yet this again flows from dissatisfaction of objective reality and another presupposed naive set. Overall, the omnipotence question has already been answered fairly and directly. Surely, I don’t think an infinite being of wisdom and knowledge should listen to the suggestions of finite beings with corruptible mindsets. At this point, I would advise the atheist to find another and better objection apart from this “what if” world topic, or become agnostic or a Christian theist. God is no longer omnipotent if He does the logically impossible and violates His logical ability; thus, the matter of inquiry and answer is closed.
*The gang jumps and shouts behind me while I put on my sunglasses of wisdom*