"I know that you can do all things and that no plan of yours can be thwarted" Job 4:22
Is this truly the case with an Omnipotent force? Can an Omnipresent, Omnibenevolent, Omniscience and Omnipotent being perform an act that is logically inconsistent within the confines of its own reality? Can this still coincide with traditional notions of God through interpretations of text? I may not have an answer, but I have some very compelling debates on the ability of realizing omnipotent outcomes.
Simpsons Did It!
Shouldn't surprise me that as always, The Simpsons did it first. But, in a stoned perplexion homer manages to sum up the entirety of the first paradox in a simple question. The answer to which lies in God's ability or inability to logically contradict himself. As Ned coined it, the question is quite the "honey-doodle" of melon scratchers, but I'd like us all to try and take a minute to and try and dissect this question concerning the first attribute of Omnipotence with a rational thought process.
The burrito argument is itself synonymous with a common line of questioning against the defining attributes of God. Other examples of this type of questioning that concern the ability to simultaneously inflict both dualities of an action at once would be could God create a rock so heavy he cannot lift? Or, could God draw a circle with corners? All of these questions are looking for the same underlying answer that lies in duality. Can God create something too heavy but it still be light enough to lift, something too hot but cool enough to touch, or simply something completely round with corners?
But what about a defense for God's omnipotence? I decided to take a look...
Pseudo-Question
"The fallacy of biasing an exchange by asking a question that has an unjustified assumption built right into the question, influencing the answer given to it." [1]
The description of a pseudo-question described in this video is actually quite inaccurate to the way it is defined in a traditional logic and reasoning analysis, which are the studies that coined the term 'pseudo-questions' along with others common argument fallacies such as Ad Hominem, Strawmaning, and Tu Quoque.[2]
What the gentlemen in the video does is the fallacy of Shifting Conclusions.
The problem of being unclear about what you are actually attempting to prove in an argument, or stating your conclusion in slightly different ways, so that arguments supporting one version do not really apply to others. [1]
Two Halfs of One Whole
The question "Can God beat himself in an arm wrestle?" Is unfortunately logically inconsistent in two ways instead of just the single paradoxical fashion of Homer's question. The first logical inconsistency being the same as the burrito question; can God perform an action that is logically inconsistent with the two qualities of an action, but adding a clause of a action that is categorical of Omniprescence instead of Omnipotence. This question essentially asks two questions; Can God Win and Lose (Omnipotence) but also Can God challenge himself, or be in two places at the same time even if these two places are say across a table (Omniprescence).
Into The Realms of Other Omnis
If we were to ask the question "Can God win an arm wrestle with himself" with the answer 'Yes' we get that he is Omnipresent (be in both seats across the table) and Omnipotent( is both winning/losing), if we answer "can god make a burrito too hot" we only get Omnipotence (can hold, but not hold).
The truth is, with questions concerning these types of logical paradoxes they bubble down to a question that we can't fundamentally answer: Can God break logical operation. The gentleman in the video attempts to refute the question, but that isn't necessary. As we see with Rene Descartes, he answers this question with the interpretation of Omnipotence in which God can, do the logically impossible. Thomas Aquinas, on the other hand, took a more rational approach to Omnipotence. He believed God could only perform that which was logically possible, unable to defy basic laws such as Mathematics. [3]
What all this means is that this question IS really THE honey-doodle of melon scratchers.
Easy Ned, think of the bible...
Even some of the most recognized Christian Philosophers were unable to come to an agreement on this attribute of God's nature. And I won't sit here and be one of those to claim to know the answer either. But the question is valid, and there is a significance to the answer for everyone whether religious or not.
