Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Omnipotence paradox

Omnipotence paradox[edit]

Self-nom. This page has gone through some trauma, but the Cleanup Taskforce left it in good shape, and it was stable for several months afterward. Following the references added during cleanup and those suggested during peer review, I expanded the article to cover more twentieth-century philosophy. To the best of my knowledge, it is a decently comprehensive treatment of a fairly ticklish subject. (I realized I rushed this through peer review a little faster than normal, but my gut feeling was that it wouldn't attract too many more comments, and in a couple weeks, I won't have the time to address comments that I do right now.) Thank you in advance for your input. Anville 22:56, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Very well-written and informative. At first I didn't like the parenthetical style of citations, but after reading more I think it's the best way to do them. Very nice job. The Catfish 00:13, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Great job on what could have been a boring topic. Balanced and easily comprehended by the layman. Hydriotaphia 03:49, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. A very accessible rendering of the topic. One quibble: the paragraph that begins "it should be noted that this particular derivative of the omnipotence paradox is inherently flawed" tends to vitiate the main example around which the article is constructed. If the stone example is inherently flawed, should the article discuss it at such length? That section in general could be slightly re-jigged. Topically, the paragraphs go A, B, A, B, C, and then more or less discuss of A for the remainder. Marskell 12:21, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I can reprhase all of the step-by-step lists in terms of Homer Simpson's version. Would that help? (Half-joking.) I have rearranged a few pagagraphs under "Philosophical responses", since I think your point is quite valid, and I added a note on how the examples can be rephrased. Anville 15:27, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

At the risk of being humourless, I'm going to ignore the Homer Simpson reference and oppose until the sentence I referenced is altered. It simply does not follow for me that you can construct an article around "x example" and simultaneously suggest "x example is inherently flawed." Marskell 22:27, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's about the example because the example is famous [even though it may be flawed]. I understand it and I think the article is very good. I am hesistant to support because I don't if it's referenced enough (I'd like footnotes for some things, but there are lots of references, so I'm not sure). Broken S 01:29, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with BrokenSegue that it would be strange for the article to not be written in terms of "Can God make a rock he can't lift?", even if it does have some interesting flaws. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:27, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Para 1 introduces the stone example, 2 and 3 introduce similar examples, 4 offers one answer to the stone example, 5 suggests the stone example is inherently flawed, 6 notes similar problems for irresistible force, and 7 actually reads as an introduction "this article will..." This just doesn't hang together for me--and this is the single largest section of the article. By all means use the best known example, just introduce it with consistency and don't hop about. Marskell 08:56, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sentence was moderated, therefore no oppose. I'm still uncertain about the movements between topics in the intro to that section but not enough to oppose. Marskell 17:50, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral/Question: Averroës advanced the omnipotence paradox for this reason (for which he was condemned by Bishop Tempier), although instead of phrasing it in terms of stones, he asked whether God could create a triangle with internal angles that did not add up to 180 degrees.

Can that really be considered the same paradox, or a paradox at all? I think it only takes on the flavor of the being the same paradox if you also posit that God created the universe that contains these rules that he can't break. I realize that Averroës almost certainly believed God created the universe, but the article doesn't make this explicit in discussing his version of the paradox. Am I making sense? —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:19, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have continued to shuffle, expand and elaborate the "Philosophical responses" introductory section, and it may go some way towards replying to these (very nicely presented) comments. Whatever else happens, the article will probably leave FAC stronger than when it came in, which is a good thing. Anville 10:20, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Is the "pop culture" section necessary? Jkelly 02:56, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'd say "yes", weakly. First of all, articles tend to accumulate cruft, and any device which helps keep the inevitable trivia away from the "real" material is, in my book, a Good Thing. It may be less "serious" than the Wittgenstein, but at least it's all in one place. The same thing happened at Schrödinger's cat, and the excess material was eventually spun off into Schrödinger's cat in fiction. Second, and this is only anecdotal evidence on my part, I've heard more people use the Simpsons version than any other, save the rock-He-cannot-lift one (around 11,200 Google hits for "could Jesus microwave a burrito", 2,200 for "omnipotence paradox"). Anville 08:11, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support, as the article lives up to its standards, good job! 64.231.163.172 23:06, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support, and I quote: "The purpose of a supreme being is to create a universe. The laws of physics serve as a flexible framework to support that purpose, but if the nature of reality gets in the way of a little rock lifting, then simply use omnipotence as you go about working on the universe. Being too wrapped up in natural laws can cause you to lose godhood, so there are times when it is best to ignore all rules ... including this one." --zippedmartin 17:39, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support, well written and all, no reason to reject it. -- Ashmodai 21:32, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose.

This is not a paradox at all, as is easily seen and has been explained on the talk page. It is a shame on Western rationalism to be unable to perceive such simple things in the right light. The article does not even try to explain this. --Yecril (talk) 18:44, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]