The doctrine of divine omnipotence causes too many problems and makes the concept of God incoherent.

Do you agree?

I do agree that there are too many problems caused by the attribute, most of those problems lead to the conclusion that God does not exist, and the way in which the attributes contradict each other make the concept of God very unclear. God, if he exists, is said to be omnipotent. It is often argued, that the concept of omnipotence is logically incoherent, and so that it is logically impossible that there be any being that is omnipotent. This suggestion, if proven can then preclude the existence of God. The main argument that causes problems with Gods omnipotence is the paradox of the rock; Can God create a rock so heavy that he cannot lift it? The reasoning for this is God either can or cannot create a rock that is so heavy that he cannot lift it. If God can create a rock that is so heavy that he cannot lift it, then God is not omnipotent. If God cannot create a rock that is so heavy that he cannot lift it, and then God is not omnipotent, therefore God is not omnipotent. If God exists then he is omnipotent, therefore God does not exist. However there are many philosophers who would argue against this, such as G B Keene who claimed that there was a grammatical error with the phrasing, and when you get rid of the double negative in the sentence God cannot create a stone that he cannot lift then the paradox does not exist. Other arguments are that of Frankfurt who said that God can break the logic by creating a stone he cannot lift, the just as logically God can lift it. You cannot ask an illogical question and expect a logical answer. I agree with Frankfurts argument as it is not possible to get a logical answer from an illogical question, and I feel that G B Keene just rephrased the question in order to get rid of the problem. J.L. Mackie reformulated the paradox of the rock with another issue of God being a creator and us having free will. These two ideas are not consistent because he wouldnt be able to make us want to do things, God can create such beings as humans with free will, but he cannot control them, this contradicts the idea of him being all powerful. The inconsistent triad and the problem of evil causes for debate over Gods omnipotence. The three are logically inconsistent. If God is omnipotent, he is aware of the existence of evil and suffering and knows how to put a stop to it. If God is Omni-benevolent he will want to put a stop to it, yet evil and suffering does exist. This is a very strong argument against the validity of Gods existence, although it is said that suffering allows us to understand pleasure, and allows us to grow as people and possibly become better, and without evil we cannot truly comprehend the concept of good, but this is a somewhat simplistic argument which can easily be contradicted. The problem is, in fact, easily resolved by denying one of the inconsistent elements: the existence of evil itself, or Gods omnipotence or benevolence. If any of these are abandoned, the logical inconsistency disappears. Though it is very difficult to deny the existence of evil, and if you denied Gods omnipotence or benevolence then

youre getting into a very heated debate. However, if God made us with free will, if he stops all evil then we no longer have free will, so in a way we must have evil in order to have free will. The notion of God as being omnipotent is not very coherent and meaningful. But there is no single or obvious way to understand what omnipotence means, and there are very good reasons to think that whatever definition is given, it will either contradict with other characteristics or it will be reduced to meaninglessness. Thus, the attribute of omnipotence needs to be treated with some scepticism and care.