Is the concept of God coherent?
In this essay I will look at and evaluate many different views on God and his attributes such as
his omnipotence, which means all powerful, his omnibenevolence which means all loving and
his omniscience which means all knowing. I will look at these traits and look at the problems
that come with them such as the paradox of the stone, the Euthyphro dilemma and the
arguments for God being eternal vs God being everlasting and then come to the conclusion that
due to the overwhelming amount of problems that occur, the concept of God is not coherent.
One famous challenge to the coherence of God's omnipotence is the paradox of the stone,
which asks the question: can God create a stone so heavy that He cannot lift it? If God can
create such a stone, then there is something He cannot do (i.e., lift the stone), which implies He
is not omnipotent. If He cannot create the stone, then there is something He cannot do (i.e.,
create the stone), which again implies He is not omnipotent. Philosophers like Thomas Aquinas
argue that this paradox presents a misunderstanding of omnipotence. Aquinas suggests that
omnipotence does not entail the ability to do the logically impossible. Creating a stone so heavy
that an omnipotent being cannot lift it is a logically contradictory task, similar to creating a
square circle. Therefore, the paradox does not undermine the coherence of omnipotence when
properly understood.
The Euthyphro dilemma looks at whether morality is created by, or independent of, God.
Applied to the moral judgement torturing babies is wrong, we can ask: Is torturing babies wrong
because God says it’s wrong? Or does God say don’t torture babies because it is wrong? If the
second option is the correct one – in other words morality is independent of God – then it’s a
challenge to God’s omnipotence. The reason for this is that God’s power would be limited by
morality. God is not powerful enough to make ‘torturing babies is good’ true, for example. But if
the first option is true – and so God created morality – then God could say ‘torturing babies is
good’, or whatever He wanted, and it would be true. Why, then, does God say some things are
bad and not others? What reason is there for choosing the rule ‘torturing babies is wrong’ over
the rule ‘torturing babies is good’? The answer, surely, is nothing and so good and bad are
subjective. But if goodness is subjective, it’s hard to make sense of the claim ‘God is good’ or
why anyone would praise God for being good. This presents a challenge to God’s
omnibenevolence. This shows a clear problem in the concept of God, and presents a very similar
one that the paradox of the stone does. If we look at the main view of God and all his attributes
(omnipotent, omnibenevolent and omniscient) we can easily find ways to attack them and make
reasons why they don’t work such as both these examples. So this is one of the reasons why the
main concept of God may not be coherent because there are so many different examples and
paradoxes against his supposed attributes.
However, some could argue that God chooses the rules of morality based on His other
attributes, such as love. For example, God could have chosen to make ‘torturing babies is good’
true. However, God loves humanity and doesn’t like to see us suffer and so for this reason God
chose to make ‘torturing babies is bad’ true instead. This would mean goodness and badness are
not random whims but are instead grounded in some justification (God’s love).
Another way we can question the attributes of God, is looking at God being eternal vs
everlasting. First, we must define these terms. Everlasting is where God exists within time.
However, Eternal is where God exists outside of time. If God exists within time, then he is
everlasting. This is to say He was there at the beginning of time and will continue to exist
In this essay I will look at and evaluate many different views on God and his attributes such as
his omnipotence, which means all powerful, his omnibenevolence which means all loving and
his omniscience which means all knowing. I will look at these traits and look at the problems
that come with them such as the paradox of the stone, the Euthyphro dilemma and the
arguments for God being eternal vs God being everlasting and then come to the conclusion that
due to the overwhelming amount of problems that occur, the concept of God is not coherent.
One famous challenge to the coherence of God's omnipotence is the paradox of the stone,
which asks the question: can God create a stone so heavy that He cannot lift it? If God can
create such a stone, then there is something He cannot do (i.e., lift the stone), which implies He
is not omnipotent. If He cannot create the stone, then there is something He cannot do (i.e.,
create the stone), which again implies He is not omnipotent. Philosophers like Thomas Aquinas
argue that this paradox presents a misunderstanding of omnipotence. Aquinas suggests that
omnipotence does not entail the ability to do the logically impossible. Creating a stone so heavy
that an omnipotent being cannot lift it is a logically contradictory task, similar to creating a
square circle. Therefore, the paradox does not undermine the coherence of omnipotence when
properly understood.
The Euthyphro dilemma looks at whether morality is created by, or independent of, God.
Applied to the moral judgement torturing babies is wrong, we can ask: Is torturing babies wrong
because God says it’s wrong? Or does God say don’t torture babies because it is wrong? If the
second option is the correct one – in other words morality is independent of God – then it’s a
challenge to God’s omnipotence. The reason for this is that God’s power would be limited by
morality. God is not powerful enough to make ‘torturing babies is good’ true, for example. But if
the first option is true – and so God created morality – then God could say ‘torturing babies is
good’, or whatever He wanted, and it would be true. Why, then, does God say some things are
bad and not others? What reason is there for choosing the rule ‘torturing babies is wrong’ over
the rule ‘torturing babies is good’? The answer, surely, is nothing and so good and bad are
subjective. But if goodness is subjective, it’s hard to make sense of the claim ‘God is good’ or
why anyone would praise God for being good. This presents a challenge to God’s
omnibenevolence. This shows a clear problem in the concept of God, and presents a very similar
one that the paradox of the stone does. If we look at the main view of God and all his attributes
(omnipotent, omnibenevolent and omniscient) we can easily find ways to attack them and make
reasons why they don’t work such as both these examples. So this is one of the reasons why the
main concept of God may not be coherent because there are so many different examples and
paradoxes against his supposed attributes.
However, some could argue that God chooses the rules of morality based on His other
attributes, such as love. For example, God could have chosen to make ‘torturing babies is good’
true. However, God loves humanity and doesn’t like to see us suffer and so for this reason God
chose to make ‘torturing babies is bad’ true instead. This would mean goodness and badness are
not random whims but are instead grounded in some justification (God’s love).
Another way we can question the attributes of God, is looking at God being eternal vs
everlasting. First, we must define these terms. Everlasting is where God exists within time.
However, Eternal is where God exists outside of time. If God exists within time, then he is
everlasting. This is to say He was there at the beginning of time and will continue to exist
