Talk:Omnipotence paradox

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former featured article 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.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on January 9, 2006.

Can God Create a Stone that He Cannot Lift?[edit]

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.

(Response: you can easily see that the above is false by substituting "yourself" for "God". I am right handed, so my right arm would win against my left arm. The fact that both hands belong to me does not mean there is no contest. Obviously therefore, this is not a proof that the question is stupid).

==I can certainly create a stone that I cannot lift. Q: Can God commit suicide? Can God stop being God? Can God create another God? Can God eat itself? Can God create a Being that it cannot control?

If God is omnipotent, God must be everything, everything must be God.

(Response: you are conflating "omnipotence" with "omnipresence". There are two words because there are two concepts. If you're going to claim that one implies the other, you need an argument to show that, not merely the bald statement without evidence or reasoning which you supplied.)

==God is a self-contradictory concept just like the self-shaving barber. Hence it does not exist.

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.” —Teng Wang, Social Phenomena

Technically Wikipedia isn't a forum. However, I think that what you wrote is a great reason for the changes I'm about to make for the article. The essence of the omnipotence paradox has nothing to do with gravity, and any explanation of the paradox that invokes properties specific to gravity - such as how it does not exist when there is no mass - is missing the point. Admittedly the changes I'm about to make are unsourced, but this is I think for the good of the article. Banedon (talk) 02:33, 26 October 2015 (UTC)


What on earth does this mean: "question is inherently required by the concept". Does this mean that if someone has some concept, then it is somehow impossible for someone not to ask some question? Why would that be so? Why would it even matter if that were the case? Can't I easily refute this by introducing a hypothetical madman who can have the concept but cannot ask the question? Maybe this was intended to say something else? But I can't imagine what. Bits of this article read like total gibberish. I'm sorely tempted to add the 'clarification needed' tag to all of them. Actually, maybe I will; someone can easily revert those changes if they don't like them.

And this too: "concept of omnipotence that requires it is a paradox". Now we're saying that some concept is a paradox. But a paradox is a valid (or seemingly valid) argument leading to a contradiction. Arguments can be paradoxes, but concepts cannot be paradoxes. I think whoever wrote this had a coherent idea in mind but used the wrong words. But I can't figure out the concept so I can fix it.

Ok this just seems to be a distraction onto an irrelevant tangent:

"the central omnipotence paradox issue is whether the concept of 'logically possible' is different for a world in which omnipotence exists than in a world in which omnipotence does not exist"

No it isn't! The central issue is: given a world containing an omnipotent creature (eg God), can we recover an acceptable logic (eg, a clear answer to the question whether God can or cannot perform a certain action). The paradox has nothing to do with some many-worlds theory, comparing different worlds with and without omnipotency.

I'm about to delete the gibberish and this distraction into some sort of many-worlds theory. They really detract from the parts later in the article, which are quite good. It looks like all of this crap was added by the same writer.

Removal of original research from resolutions[edit]

In this edit, I have removed the text from Proposed resolutions that violated WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:OR. Sadly, much of the arguments describing the Christian POV on the omnipotence paradox contained within this section were entirely original syntheses, which were misattributed (without sources) to authors who presented quite different arguments to those given. At some point this needs to be looked into, and useful content written with proper sources and attribution, since the Christian religious POV on the omnipotence paradox does have its place — but presented in a WP:NPOV way. I did however keep what I could from the section that was verifiable and reasonably written and added a few {{cn}} tags where appropriate. --Tristessa (talk) 23:29, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

This is not really a paradox at all !! Why is it listed as such?[edit]

A stone so heavy that God can't lift it, doesn't exist by the very definition of God. That is if there is a God, no such stone can exist. So it is actually equivalent to a null set. And God can create a null set.This dilemma is like one of those maths proofs where they claim to reach a contradictory conclusion like

x = y. Then x^2 = xy. Subtract the same thing from both sides: x^2 - y^2 = xy - y^2 Dividing by (x-y), obtain (wrong since division by 0 is not defined) x + y = y. Since x = y, we see that 2 y = y. Thus 2 = 1, (since we started with y nonzero) Subtracting 1 from both sides, 1 = 0.

But which upon closer inspection completely fails as a valid argument. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rahul m94 (talkcontribs) 17:58, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

I completely agree. A rock that cannot be lifted by man is not the same as a rock that cannot be lifted by god. Creating a rock that cannot be lifted by god is illogical if we have previously stated that god can do all things logical. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:05, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Paradox vs Counter-paradox[edit]

I have a website called which directly targets the Paradox of the Stone by way of a counter-paradox of equal measure. This direct response is titled the, "Circular God Counter-paradox" (Quora link) which uses the powers of omnipotence and omnipresence to turn the paradoxical tables on the Stone Paradox. Omnipresence is exploited to create a uniquely paradoxical situation where our omnipotent being (aka: God) is able to simultaneously lift and not-lift the stone and thus not sacrificing omnipotence in the process. One's first reaction is that this is all hogwash, but upon further inspection the conception of this counter-paradox appears rock solid (pun intended). To date there have been no successful challenges offered to negate this counter-paradoxical resolution.

The CGCP is copyrighted with the U.S Copyright office, available in a downloadable .pdf format and has been published on various websites. There is also a YouTube video series that explains how the CGCP nullifies the Stone paradox. When the Stone Paradox is answered with the CGCP, the end result is a stalemate and no determination can be reached.

Please review the CGCP website and the linked information as I would like to add a simple website link to the "See also" section of the wikipedia "Omnipotence Paradox" page - Thank you in advance for your consideration.--EPROM (talk) 02:17, 16 October 2017 (UTC)