|Omnipotence paradox is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.|
|This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on January 9, 2006.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia|
|Before adding new material to this article, please be sure to read and understand wikipedia's no original research rule! Thanks, Sdedeo (tips) 18:16, 12 January 2006 (UTC)|
|Threads older than 3 months may be archived by.|
- 1 Nonsense language used in "Proposed Solutions" does not meet Wikipedia standards.
- 2 Can God Create a Stone that He Cannot Lift?
- 3 Doesn't Christianity already adress this?
- 4 "Christian" trinitarian God is the only logical way to believe in an omnipotent God
- 5 removed debate template
- 6 Article needs cleaning up
Nonsense language used in "Proposed Solutions" does not meet Wikipedia standards.
This is completely unacceptable: "In other words, all non-omnipotent agents are concretely synthetic: constructed as contingencies of other, smaller, agents, meaning that they, unlike an omnipotent agent, logically can exist not only in multiple instantiation (by being constructed out of the more basic agents of which they are made), but are each bound to a differentiated location in space contra transcendent omnipresence."
Can God Create a Stone that He Cannot Lift?
This question is more than 800 years old. In asking this question, the questioner had already assumed the existence of gravity because of the word “lift” in the question. What is “lift”? My definition for “lift” is: Moving an object to the opposite direction of gravity. By definition, God created everything. Hence, God created gravity. Since God can create gravity, he can certainly make it disappear. So God can “lift” any stone. Put another way, this question could become: if God were to have an arm wrestling match between his left arm （gravity）and right arm (to “lift” the stone), which one would win? Both arms belong to God. This is not a contest; there is no winning or losing. Therefore this is a stupid question.
If God is omnipotent, God must be everything, everything must be God. Since "Outside everything" is an oxymoron, therefore “Outside God” is an oxymoron: if there is God, then there will be no “outside”; if there is an “outside”, then there will be no God. There is no gravity “outside” God. God doesn’t live in a gravitational field. For an omnipotent God, there is no such concept as “lift”. “Lift” only exists in human experience. Gravity, like everything else, exists inside God. For an omnipotent God, there is no such concept as “stand” either, because there is no ground “outside” God. By the same token，for an omnipotent God, there are no such concepts as “breathe”，“eat”，“drink”，“excrete”, “wear clothes”, “walk”，“sit”, “lie down”. God doesn't have a body. All bodies have skin, skin is the boundary of the body. God doesn't have boundary. Therefore, God doesn't have a face，nor shape. An ant looks at you while you are talking, it could see your lips and tongue moving. The ant asks you: “How do you lift your lips and tongue?” You reply: “It’s a stupid question.” A man sees that the Moon is moving, he asks God: “How do you lift the Moon?” God says: “It’s a stupid question.” — Preceding Tengwang777 (talk) 19:01, 1 July 2013 (UTC SOCIAL PHENOMENA
Doesn't Christianity already adress this?
I've looked at this "paradox" for some time, and I'm surprised I haven't seen an obvious interpretation. Questions like can God devise a task he cannot perform amount to the question of whether an infinite God who is incapable of nothing can become finite and incapable. The state of being finite and limited is a cornerstone of the concept of mortality, a big part of what it is to be a human. There is plenty that humans cannot do, making the state of humanity a very valid state of incapability. While people may struggle with the idea of God making a prison he can't escape from, the concept is one of the central points of Christianity: that God could and did become a mere mortal man. How is the question being asked any different from this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 19:57, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
"Christian" trinitarian God is the only logical way to believe in an omnipotent God
Yes. You are right. And this is why of all the monotheistic religions with an omnipotent God, only Christian trinitarian God is logically possible.
God is omnipotent in the way that s dreaming human is onmipotent in his dream. The dream does not exist outside the dreamer. The creation as a dream of God is the only way man can still have free will and God stay omnipotent.
The dreamer may appear and act in his dream as a finite part of the dream. The dreamer may bend the dream to his conscious will. There you have explained the trinity of Father, Son and the Holy Spirit.
And also: Man can be the image of God can be understood so that also man dreams - creates a world of his own - and while animals dream too, only man is also conscious of his dreams.
Frankly, I don't see how any of that addresses the original point. The fact that we as dreamers often make ourselves characters within a dreamt story simply creates an ambiguity. Can a dreamer dream a stone so big that even he cannot lift it? If we mean "him" as a character, then can the dreamer dream that he has, as a character, encountered an unliftable stone? Yes, of course. Could a dreamer dream a stone so big that it would be impossible for him as the dreamer then to dream of any force or person within the story who could lift it? I'm not sure what the answer is to that as a matter of dream psychology. BUT if we begin by stipulating that the dreamer is omnipotent within the dream world, we have recreated the original paradox. We've done nothing to solve it. --Christofurio (talk) 19:11, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
The whole God as dreamer thing is a silly conjecture to try and make sense of something that we are fundamentally unable to understand. We live in a physical world bound by a set of laws, and no matter how hard we try defining a being so far above and outside this that He could "write" these laws and dimensions, it is beyond us. Calling it a dreamer dreaming and saying that the dreamer can dream things impossible is as valid as any other explanation, since all of them are attempts to explain in physical, three-dimensional terms something/someone completely beyond these. I don't pretend to know how God could make Himself limited and mortal, though I believe He did. As for free will versus omnipotence and omniscience, I believe there are other articles for those matters, though the way I see it the future is written in stone, but we humans are holding the chisels. If God knows everything about us and what we feel, it seems reasonable that He'd be able to tell how our interactions will play out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 20:39, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
removed debate template
The explication of different positions on the paradox does not mean the article was structured as a debate. These different possible solution shave to be included in any good article on a paradox. The template was originally add by user 18.104.22.168 in Nov. 2010 was either incorrect or never updated to reflect the work done by the Cleanup Taskforce. Jjk (talk) 15:48, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Article needs cleaning up
At the moment it reads like a mishmash of individual sentences inserted by different editors. For example, I would have expected a discussion of the physics aspects of the question "can God create a rock so heavy he can't lift it" in the Overview, with associated statements that avoid physics entirely, e.g. "can God create a prison so secure he can't escape from it", and then the article to focus on the thrust of the question, not secondary aspects like the physics (since I'm sure everyone would agree that answering the too-heavy phrasing with "but heavy is meaningless since far from any gravitating body weight has no meaning" is avoiding the question).
- @Banedon: - Yeah. It does badly need clean up. The problem I think is that a number of random individuals have been perplexed by the paradox, and thought it worthwhile to drop-by wikipedia to contribute their two cents on the topic.
- I think there could be a pretty good argument to just going back and reverting to some old version of this article, before it got messed up. NickCT (talk) 03:42, 5 January 2015 (UTC)