Talk:Omnipotence paradox

?

"One such solution is that a being can create the situation and do the impossible and impossible at the same time. For example:" Should this say impossible and possible? I'm scared to edit a feature article :)The-dissonance-reports 05:52, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Really a Paradox?

the question.... can... make a rock... can't lift? or in fact any other question of this type

reduces to

the question....can... do something.... cannot do?

which put another way means...

the question....can... violate logic?

therefore

those criticizing Rene Descrete's answer are in the wrong because his response is the meaningful way to answer the question.

So the response can be 1. the question is invalid because second part basically states in one way or another that ....is not capable of everything... something is impossible for, arm wrestling robot can do things....cannot do etc etc

... which would mean that the (question) is incorrect as ....can do anything...

2. you accept his answer.

Problem solved

Stupid question, not a paradox

Can God Create a Stone that He Cannot Lift?

In asking this question, the questioner has already assumed the existence 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 right arm（gravity) and left arm(to "lift"the stone), which arm would win? Both arms belong to God. This is not a contest; there is no winning or losing. Therefore this is a stupid question. In God's lexicon, there is no such a word as "lift". God started the universe with the Big Bang. He uses 4 "hands" to move everything: gravity, the electromagnetic force, the strong nuclear force and the weak nuclear force. Everything in the universe is moving according to God's will. Nothing stands still. Therefore, in God's lexicon, there is no such a word as "lift". God created inertia, so, God can certainly make it disappear.

By Teng Wang     tengwang777@hotmail.com

My website: http://home.infinet.net/tengwang/index1.htm

you just saidi "in god's lexicon, there is no such a word as "lift"". wow, if that's the case, god is even LESS POTENT then we thought. your paragraph does not contain any coherent set of premises. you have simply dismissed the paradox with the miscellaneous (and ill-conceived) remark "This is not a contest." you've missed the whole point.128.119.237.54 02:44, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Erm. How about this question: "Can God create Himself an arm which can defeat all others in arm-wrestling?"

Or this one: "Can God create a natural law (like gravity) so compelling that He is unable to cancel it?"

Or, "Can God create an axiom system so thorough and careful that it must necessarily have no contradictions or undecideable statements?" Sure, right after He makes a Euclidean triangle with three right angles. . . .

Whoops. My signature got zapped somewhere along the line. You can blame this last passage on me, back on 16 Jul 2004. —Anville.

Actually this is not a stupid question, you simple did not understand the paradox. Our Assumption is, God is omnipotent. But as you said "God can lift any stone", but if he can do that, he violates the first part of a statment. If he can lift everything, than its not possible for him/her to "create a stone, he cannot lift'". If this is the case he is not omnipotent, which was our basic assumption in the first place. trin 4 Aug 2005

Replied Stupid question, not a paradox

The Logic process is, we make an assumption, if the statment is unsatisifiable (all other variable part of the statment had tried but all lead to a false statment(normaly contradiction) ). we proved the assumption statment to be false, which in this case "omnipotent being exist" is proved to be false. This is called proof by contradiction. (Check on formal logic for more info on this) --Zektonic 05:50, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Gravity is irrelevant. Even without gravity, the megalomaniac would have to overcome the rock's inertia to lift it--and inertia is an intrinsic property of an object, based solely on its mass. Kurt Weber 12:31, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

---

"ALMIGHTY GOD DOES NOT EXIST"

The Wikipedia article is biased in favor of assuming that ‘god’ is possible i.e. a non-zero probability. This has not been demonstrated at all. Show that god is possible, (and the best way to do this is to produce at least one ‘god’ in a show and tell) and then we can discuss the properties this ‘god’ may possess.

The best way to discuss the “paradox” is to recognize that it IS a matter of logic and not material reasoning, that is, it is a matter of abstract structure, not semantic content. The best way is the same way logician Louise Carroll approached the matter.

Can an all-powerful being do ‘A’ so Jabberwocky that he can’t ‘B’ it?

This way we’re not speaking of gravity or extra arms. ;-)

Yes, it is a fact that parts of this query are incompatible with other parts, but there is nothing inherently wrong with lifting rocks (or ‘B’) or creating rocks (or ‘A’) but there IS something wrong with the idea of an object with unlimited properties and is what has to go.

If theorem-G leads to existential paradoxes, then theorem-G is false. It is incorrect to say that, ‘we like theorem-G, therefore asking questions that shows that theorem-G leads to existential paradoxes is disallowed.’

That’s a crock.

There CAN NOT be any omnipotent being i.e. a being with unlimited properties. This is not opinion, it is a logical fact.

This is no more a paradox than the law of impossible antecedent is a paradox.

If 'A' leads to 'B', and 'A' leads to not 'B', then not 'A'.

Omnipotent (all-powerful, almighty) 'god' does not exist.

QED

LOGOS

65.114.23.4 00:08, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Just to correct any misapprehensions, I didn't write the passage above by 65.114.23.4. My signature got displaced from the text above it. Anville 16:05, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

It seems to me that the article is not biased. In order to discuss the "omnipotence paradox" at all, it is necessary to take the existence of God (or some omnipotent being whom we might as well call God) as a given, in the sense of a mathematical demonstration, much as it is necessary to ignore any God one happens to believe in, in order to usefully discuss evolution or cosmology from a scientific point of view. Sturgeonslawyer 10:14 AM PDST, 4 My 05

Of course the idea that ignoring the God you believe in is necessary for scientific debate is a controversial thing to say ;) But your point still stands. There is a guideline about when it is reasonable to assume something controversial. Arguments about the existence of God should be redirected to Talk:Existence of God if anywhere (and even then only if they are well known). Hairy Dude 04:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

A Paradox ???

If God is omnipotent, then the rock can not be made to be heavier than God because this unliftable rock would have limitations, ie: physical weight, mass, energy, etc. All of this has already put limitations on the rock, therefore the rock paradox can be obscured easily and can not be used to define/compare to God's omnipotence.

However, a clearer picture of this paradox could be explained.

If God is omnipotent and he was to make this unliftable rock, this would imply by the statement that "the rock" is greater/grander than God. Since God is omnipotent, the only other thing greater/grander than God would be himself, if he so chooses this. The question then would be, could he lift this grander version of Himself (or the rock)? Yes, he could. Since God is omnipotent, he could lift himself and would not contradict anything. The contradiction exist only when we're limiting his omnipotence or comparing it to something of a much lesser nature, ie: a rock. In general, a rock (real rock) heavier than God can not exist in physical reality. This would violate many reality/universal laws. If this rock was to exist outside of physical reality, then it's not a rock. This unliftable rock would fall short of contradicting God's omnipotence.

A better example would be, to liken God to infinity and let's say the unliftable rock to infinity + 100. The question then would be, could God (infinity) be more (lift) than infinity + 100 (the rock). Yes, because since: God = infinity and The rock = infinity + 100 and infinity = infinity + 101 = God

This takes us back to the assumption that if God so desires to create an unliftable rock (something greater than himself) and be able to lift it, then he could because this greater thing would still be himself, this unliftable rock would be God, the Omnipotent.

Comparing God's omnipotence with the unliftable rock is like comparing infinity to the set of numbers between the integers 1 and 10. You can't. I'd say, this isn't a paradox at all. Just some bad comparison/interpretations on God the Omnipotent and an unliftable rock. — Say Yang, July 28-29, 2004

Say Yang, the talk pages aren't really for debate over whether a principle or point of view is valid or not. But have no doubt that many philosophers and particularly (obviously) atheists consider the strong, literal, plain or usual meaning of omnipotence to be logically inconsistent and thus the paradoxical. Many Christians also accept this conclusion with the proviso that God transcends logic and it is rational to accept His incomprehensible transcendance. Regardless of whether the examples and analogies are very good or not, any argument you proffer that there is no inconsistency, incoherency or paradox is going to fall on deaf ears amongst many logicians, philosophers, atheists and Christians. Although most people don't know how to read formal logic, if I care enough, maybe I'll add in an example written in formal logic to demonstrate the logical inconsistency. Frankly, I think the traditional examples work well enough although the Homer Simpson example is my favorite. —B|Talk 19:34, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I'm always wary of arguments which rely upon the properties of infinity, particularly the idea that all infinite quantitites have the same size. This is demonstrably untrue (e.g., the set of all subsets of the integers is larger than the set of integers). Saying that "infinity + 1 = infinity" is true if we understand "infinity" to mean Cantor's $\aleph _{0}$, but false if we interpret it as a surreal number, $\omega$. —Anville 20:54, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

How About "Can god create a rock so heavy he can't make a machine that can lift it?"

JedG

Unstoppable forces and immovable objects

I've never cared for the unstoppable/immovable paradox, and I'm curious if the article could be reworded to avoid it. To me, the conclusion that they are incompatible is a rather Aristotelian way of looking at it. I first encountered this puzzler in the Mindtrap game, where it was posed with an unstoppable cannonball and a wall that nothing could knock down. Mindtrap gave the same solution that this article does, namely that presupposing one entity logically disallows the existence of the other.

Now, consider the Mindtrap version, as a person sitting on the wall would view it. This observer rests in an inertial frame, and all experiments he can perform indicate that he is effectively at rest. An observer riding on the cannonball, however, must come to the same conclusion: since nothing can change the cannonball's state of motion, this observer also finds himself in an inertial reference frame that nothing can disrupt. Both entities are objects of infinite inertia; they merely start off in motion relative to each other.

I can make hand-waving arguments that a solid cannonball is not necessary (although it certainly appears to be the image commonly associated with "unstoppable force"). In classical mechanics, energy is the result of a force acting on an object moving through a distance, and by Einstein's relation $E=mc^{2}$ energy and mass are essentially equivalent. . . yadda yadda, handwave. (Going all the way into general relativity, an object of infinite mass would have an event horizon at an infinite distance, and the curvature of spacetime would be infinite at all points—which is pretty darn weird. GR has enough problems with singularities as it is, I suppose.)

Given the precepts of Aristotelian physics, yes, the situation is a paradox, analagous to the omnipotence conundrum. However, we left Aristotle behind a long time ago, and the idea of two unshakeable reference frames (in Newtonian mechanics) doesn't sound that bad to me. As the limiting case of arbitrarily large finite masses, it's not any worse than the idealizations we do of infinitely long wires, say, or flat planes of infinite extent. (Remember all those old Gauss's Law problems?)

Anville 21:11, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

René Descartes

I am by no means a historian of philosophy, but it was my impression that Descartes claimed God could make a man believe that 2 + 2 = 5, not necessarily changing the truth of the assertion itself. James Burke raises this point in his book The Day the Universe Changed, where he describes Descartes's search for the undoubtable. He can doubt the physical world, his own senses, and even mathematics—but he cannot question doubt itself. This leads to his axiom cogito, ergo sum—the one which Feynman scoffed and Deep Thought used to deduce the existence of rice pudding. . . .

Anville 17:10, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Matter of basic logic: bivalence

Anville, the "paradox" "is a rather Aristotelian way of looking at it" because the paradox was recognized in the era of Aristotelian logic and perpetuated to the present because of its simplicity. However just because logic has become more sophisticated does not mean that the "paradox" is resolved. It is also erroneous to state that "we left Aristotle behind a long time ago"; while Aristotle's physics has long since been discarded, logic still forms the backbone of science, mathematics and all sound reasoning. Intuitionistic logic aside, the principle of bivalence in classical logic is no less an axiom of logic now as it was in Aristotle's time. Given that this "paradox" is just as subject to bivalent parsing as any other proposition, as 65.114.23.4 implies above, this "paradox" is really only a paradox for those who reject the principle of bivalence because the strict definition of an omnipotent being is illogical under that principle. Sure a more modern version of the paradox can be phrased in predicate logic...but that doesn't avoid the principle of bivalence. Also the physics examples that you give more or less demonstrate intuitionistic principles of logic or modal logic, and why a bivalence parsing may not tell the whole story...but your examples also reflect why rejecting bivalence is problematic. Because of the assumption of intuitionistic logic this "paradox" becomes intertwined with unsettled theories about the nature of truth and unsettled issues in the philosophy of mind. Until those issues are settled, mathematical objects (object of infinite mass, infinitely long wires, flat planes of infinite extent, etc) are interesting possibilities to consider in relation to this "paradox" but far from being proved to have any ontological existence outside of the mind or outside of a mathematical formula. —B|Talk 23:55, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Granted, granted. You can't make the "paradox" go away by throwing in some Galilean relativity. My real point (insofar as anything I say in a talk page has a point) is that stating the problem in a way which depends on outdated physics is probably a bad idea—especially when the more recent physical ideas which change the interpretation are very important ones: inertia, relative motion, and reference frames.

I'm glad that people have invented words for this sort of thing: bivalence is a useful one to know. Isn't it great that the same word applies to arguments about God and to atoms which have lost electrons?

Anville 14:20, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It probably makes more sense to avoid presenting the paradox with any physics example because the paradox is primarily a logical problem and a physics example may only confuse the issue. Consider that in your handwaving example "unshakeable reference frames . . . [do]n't sound that bad to [you]" because it examines whether there really is an "unshakeable reference frame" in the first place. But that conclusion merely drives home the point of the paradox: an omnipotent being (as that concept is traditionally defined in a strict sense) has the power to create what does not exist...an unshakeable reference frame. If unshakeable reference frames really do exist, then how could an omnipotent being create more than one, etc. etc. As I said before, modern physics presents some interesting things to consider along with this "paradox", but a modern physics version of the paradox does not avoid the bivalence issue. With all of that said, at a minimum, the classic examples should be stated in the article since that is how the paradox first arose, but the "paradox" should also be stated in formal logic for clarity's sake. —B|Talk 22:30, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Sometimes I wonder: can God make a Wikipedia article so perfect that it invites no discussion? After all, the perfect Wikipedia article should have, among its many excellent attributes, the attribute of existence.

Anville 23:05, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

But Kant's assertion - existence is not a predicate. -- Anon. Dec. 30, 2004

Religious response

I started to get confused. Does the article say that the orthodox religious (rather than philosophical) response is that God could create an unmoveable stone, and having done so God could then move it? It should. See [1] and University of Paris (Condemnations). The arguement goes that it doesn't matter whether humans think this is logically possible or not, since one of the things that makes humans describe God as God is the ability to do what seems impossible to human minds (known as a miracle). Not that God would do anything like this, as providing entertainment to philosophers is probably not one of God's aims.--Henrygb 14:30, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

That is an answer to the paradox I saw published by Alvin Plantinga. He argued that if God can do one impossible thing - make a rock he is incapable of lifting, given that he is omnipotent - then he can do another, lift it. The problem comes when we consider what this says about God. Miracles are merely physical impossibilities - that is, they violate the ordinary physical laws of the universe - not LOGICAL impossibilities. If God can do the logically impossible then he has an impossible property. Any being with an impossible property is by definition impossible - cannot exist. When this crosses into the region of metaphilosophy is when we ask if perhaps the logically impossible could exist: in a round-the-houses not-really-but-I-see-where-you're-coming-from way, yes but by definition no. If the omnipotence paradox is solved in the manner you suggest one must conceed that God is impossible, i.e. cannot exist. A belief in the existence of the impossible requires a suspension of rationality and thus forfeiture of one's status as an agent. Essentially, if you believe the impossible exists then you are no longer capable of engaging in meaningful discussion.

Removed section

I snipped the following paragraph from the end of the article.

An omnipotent being can be considered an infinite one, since there are no limits on what the being is able to do. Therefore by asking the question if 'an infinite being can create a stone that the being can not lift' contains the impossible of doing operations on infinities: 'can the infinity of the being be less than the infinity of the stone?'. Of course such question can not be formulated, since infinity + infinity is undefined. Therefore, is does not make sense to ask that question.

My reasons:

• Wikipedia is not a forum for personal thoughts on philosophical matters (well, not in the articles, anyway), as per the "no original research" policy.
• If I define the weight of an object to be a surreal number, then it is perfectly permissible to have a stone weighing ω ("infinity") which can be lifted by a being of strength 2ω ("infinity plus infinity"). What paradoxes this leads to I haven't figured out: God would have to be an entity whose strength is greater than all constructible surreals, etc.

Anville 21:43, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

logical validity or fallacy

I understand it is hard to get a conclusion. However, I think it is not appropriate to simply set a head line to make conclusing. It prevents anyone to add a counter argument and violate the spirit of wikipedia.

• The above user is simply changing the heading "logical fallacy" to "logical validity", which makes no sense in relation to the content of that section. Read the article on logical fallacy, and the section in question. 24.76.141.220 04:04, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• The section discusses the validity of the statement. Logical fallacy imply the question is in logical fallacy. I don't think it is fair to conclude here. I did not simply change the heading and I have stated the reason: let the heading neutual!. I know the article logical fallacy well. But there are a counter arguement to state the question not logical fallacy. It is still controversal to see if it is logical fallacy. Just refer to a article means nothing. Please respect the wikipedia here. It is not a religious home page.
  • Wake up and smell whatever roses need smelling, or something. The section called "Logical Fallacy/Validity" is talking about one arguement (among the many on this article), that states that the "God can create something he can not lift" is a logical fallacy. The arguement does not state that it is a "logical validity", as that makes no sense. Sheesh, "Proof by Contradiction", by your arguement, should be called "Possible Contradition", which is stupid. 24.76.141.237 03:10, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • logical validity, in my original sense, means the status whether it is valid or invalid. It is neutral and left to discuss. "God can create something he can not lift" is a logical fallacy by no means. But the debate is on what causes the fallacy: The action - creating something himself cannot left or omnipotence? The action alone is feasible as said before. How about Omnipotence(I don't like the word God), it can make many many contradict sentence as the last section of the article. Ok. I can't say I am right but please use the neutral topic --203.112.80.139 03:12, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• • Also, read this: "Another response to those positing these questions of omnipotence and alleged conflict is that the questions of super heavy stones, along with all the other ability-based arguments etc., are actually a clever logical fallacy,". That's in the section of the article. It clearly states that it's a "fallacy", so hiding it with "validity" does nothing. 24.76.141.237 03:10, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• • • the statement you quoted just stated it is a fallacy but without any point to make his statment supportive. It is just an assertion. It can't make any conclusion by no means.

--203.112.80.139 03:12, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• • • And it's changed again. Does this one appease you? 24.76.141.237 03:12, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• I will add a seperate sub-topic to show arguments against the assertion of fallacy on which not all agrees. It will make the article in a more neutral view.--203.112.80.139 05:41, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • That's fine, it's just that the section that you kept renaming argued for logical fallacy, and so it was originally named as such. 24.76.141.237 21:18, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Cleanup

Removal of the "proof by contradiction"

I have just removed the following section:

==== Proof by contradiction ====

One response is to use proof by contradiction:

1) Assumption: An omnipotent body exists

2) From 1: An omnipotent can create any stones.

3) From 1: There are no stones too heavy to lift up for an omnipotent.

4) From 2 and 3, an omnipotent cannot create a stone too heavy to lift up.

5) A non-omnipotent body can create a stone too heavy to lift up.

6) From 4 and 5, a non-omnipotent is superior to an omnipotent, which is contradictory.

The result is an omnipotent body cannot exists.

This "proof" is completely irrelevant, and flawed also. Nothing is said anywhere in the paradox formulation about superiority of omnipotence or non-omnipotence, and "superiority" is not defined. The paradox does not attempt to demonstrate anything; it's a clever contradiction only.

It is clear, also given the above discussion and the tone of the "logical fallacy" argument and counterargument, that is has turned into a discussion about the Christian God's supposed attributes. The "logical fallacy" issue simply cannot be addressed that way.

--Pablo D. Flores 11:16, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Removed text

I have removed the following section from the article, since it does not seem to add enough content (and brims with mechanical errors anyway).

Some have another view. It is said it is totally different from a case of a squared triangle.The logical fallacy is not due to the action of creating a stone too heavy to lift up. A squared triangle is seft-contractory and drawing it is logically impossible. However, It is not a illogical or difficult task to create a stone too heavy to lif up even for a layman. The logical difficulty is due to the term omnipotence. If someone attributes the action as a fallacy for a omnipotent, he forgets that the term omnipotence is being investigated. There is another logical fallacy: begging the question.

Although some try to defend the existance of an omnipotent being by defining other meanings to the term omnipotence, the new definitions deviate from the common perception of the term and are hard to understand. For example,

":Power is not ability, nor knowledge, they are separate categories, and not mutually exclusive if [power] were unlimited.

Such definitions need to be further clarifed, or run the risk to make the term omnipotence void.

I also nixed the following sentence, which was placed after the discussion of Averroes.

However, the answer above can be restated even if one does not already accept that God cannot do logically impossible things: one can answer that the question is literally meaningless, and therefore there is not even a logically impossible task being set.

If I ask, "What is the sum of the internal angles of a triangle?", one could guess a wide variety of answers. Only one of them is correct—provably correct, given Euclidean geometry—but before doing the proof, who's to say what the answer should be? The mere fact that there exists only one correct answer does not make the question meaningless. Note that Averroes never asked for a four-sided triangle, which would be a contradiction in terms. Instead, he asked if God could evade the consequences of defining a triangle in a particular way.

One could formulate an analagous conundrum for any theorem in mathematics, I suppose. Can God draw a circle whose ratio of circumference to diameter is not π? If God decides that the only appropriate tools are compass and straightedge, can He construct a square with the same area as a given circle, in a finite number of steps? God can make Abraham sacrifice Isaac, but can He trisect an angle?

I recall a line from Donald Knuth's novella Surreal Numbers, which goes something like this: "The difference, as I see it, is between proof and calculation. We can prove that $2\times \pi =\pi +\pi$, but we can't calculate $\pi +\pi$ in a finite number of steps. Only God can finish the calculations, but we can finish the proofs." (I lent my copy and never got it back, so this quote is probably somewhat garbled.)

Anville 02:09, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Modified "Philosophical discussions," Removed "The argument from will"

I have modified "Philosophical discussions" by adding in various sections categorized by definitions of omnipotence (since that seems to be upon what the entire paradox depends). Each of these sections can be expanded to further discuss that particular way of treating the omnipotence paradox. Some more references would be a good idea too.

I've also removed "The argument from will" section because most of it discusses what I placed in the "Logical impossibility" section, and otherwise was duplicating a lot of content that belongs near to the beginning of the article. I haven't touched the "Logical fallacy" section because I don't grasp the concept well enough to be rewritten, but it needs to be rewritten because the paragraphs are lengthy and need more wikilinks, in my opinion. Ben Babcock 13:07, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

The logical fallacy section should be removed, if only because it's horribly confusing, and also rather transparently POV. Power is not ability? To me they are synonyms, but I'd like to see the difference explained somewhere. Myself, I'll give it a few days, unless somebody can come up with a better explanation of this "fallacy". --Pablo D. Flores 14:27, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

I agree with your, Pablo. Although I have seen a distinguishment between power and ability (Power should be distinguished from ability. Power is ability plus opportunity), the Logical Fallacy section makes it even more confusing, breaks the coherence of the article, and unless someone can seriously rewrite it, I'd rather it is just removed. Ben Babcock 16:04, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

'Tis done. The "power vs. ability" issue, BTW, is extremely interesting. It should appear somewhere, though not here (it doesn't have to do with the paradox, and more importantly, it refers to maximally powerful beings, not to absolutely omnipotent beings as the definition of omnipotence suggests). --Pablo D. Flores 10:31, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Another block of removed text

Criticism to this view

However, the above argument cannot have no weakness. Using the similar induction above, one can also prove that the paradox Is A Squared Triangle Being Is Triangular? can be resolved and a squared triangle exists too. The squared triangle being is essentially of the shape of a squared triangle, and therefore it is impossible for it to be of the shape of a non-squared triangle.Furthermore, the squared triangle being cannot do what is logically impossible.A squared triangle being is triangular would be an impossibility, and therefore the squared triangle being is not required to be triangular. The squared triangle being cannot be triangular, but nevertheless retains the shape of Squared Triangle.The flaw of the argument results from Begging the question, so does the original argument. It assumes the concept of omnipotence valid and then asserts the consequence(contradiction) invalid by the assumption itself. If the argument is valid, every proof by Reductio ad absurdum is void.The critics claim that the concept of omnipotence is being questioned, like the squared triangle. We cannot use it to disprove/resolve the difficulty(paradox) by the assumption(cause) itself.The concept of Essential Omnipotence remains self-contradictory, just like a squared triangle.

Neither Averroes, Tempier, Burke or I spoke of a "squared triangle". A criticism should, ideally, be phrased using the same terms in which the original view was stated. If I am correctly parsing the sentence "It assumes the concept of omnipotence valid ...", then this paragraph is denying the validity of all proofs by contradiction. Euclid would not be pleased.

I have no problem with providing counterarguments to Averroes's little puzzle. That's what this article is here for, after all. Those counterarguments, however, should be renditions of the arguments which were, historically, presented to buttress the Church's position against such devilishly logical infidels. Cite a source? Quote a source?

Anville 11:58, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Do you mean that every view here shoud be quoted? I doubt. Even so, it is just the view of someone and the view cannot be said as truth. Why can you said another view is false and remove them? If the argument of Essential Omnipontence, "The omnipotent being is essentially omnipotent, and therefore it is impossible for it to be non-omnipotent. ", this sentence make any induction meaningless. An analog, which is non-sense too, can be that " I am the most clever persion in the world, so no one can be clever than me. Any view that I am not the most clever must be made by someone which is more stupid than me. So I am still the most clever. "

For the sentence he asked whether God could create a triangle whose internal angles did not add up to 180 degrees., is it something like "squared trangle"? 61.10.7.173 12:30, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have to agree with Anville's removal of this section. Firstly, the grammatical structure of that text is horrendous—a transistion word should not be used to begin a paragraph. "Cannot have no weakness" is a double negative. I would fix the article myself, but have really no clue what it is trying to say.

To say "cannot have no weakness" is terrible grammar, but I think that they are trying to say that it "cannot be without weakness", or something along those lines. --Kirk Surber 15:36, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

"Do you mean that every view here shoud be quoted? I doubt. Even so, it is just the view of someone and the view cannot be said as truth. Why can you said another view is false and remove them?" (61.10.7.173 12:30, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC))

Er . . . yes, every view should be sourced from other material. According to Wikipedia:No original research: "In fact, all articles on Wikipedia should be based on information collected from primary and secondary sources. This is called source-based research, and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia." No one is saying the view is false, just that it lacks the proper sources to be included in the article, Wikipedia is not the place to espouse one's own philosophical postulates. If the same counter-argument can be included along with some sources, then that would be great. Also, please sign your posts. Ben Babcock 13:04, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

A "squared triangle" might be one of two things:

1. A triangle somehow constructed with four equal sides, or
2. A square constructed with the same area as a given triangle.

The first possibility is meaningless, by definition. An omnipotent being would have to pretty damn omnipotent to make one of these, i.e., strong enough to survive a logical contradiction. The article already discusses this. The second possibility is a bit stranger, grammatically, but it seems a valid way to use the words, by analogy with "squaring the circle". One "squares" a circle by constructing a square with the same area as the circle given (πr²). Since π is a transcendental number, this cannot be done in a finite number of compass-and-straightedge manipulations—that is, it is impossible within the realm of classical Euclidean tools. (It is possible with higher-order mathematics, involving curves like the quadratrix, but it takes an infinite number of steps to construct such curves. See Petr Beckmann's History of Pi.) One statement of the omnipotence paradox might be the following:

If God restricts Himself to using only compass and straightedge, in the manner of Euclid, can He square a circle in a finite number of steps?

This is an interesting re-statement, I think, but it is not what the paragraph in question seems to discuss.

I find it hard to believe that no one in the last several centuries has tried to resolve or dismiss Averroes's paradox using traditional Christian thinking. Surely all those bishops and clerics would have taken a few days off debating how many angels could dance on a pinhead to set down their thoughts. Such a rebuttal, translated from Latin, would fit nicely into this article.

Anville 01:25, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Pop culture and humorous responses section

I've tried to cleanup this section as it was the most unprofessional part of the article. I gave it a slightly stronger lead and then organised the references into a list. Then I removed some of the information because it was extremely informal (used the first person) and did not seem to be in the right place. Lastly, I am not sure if the point about quantum superposition belongs there, since the title is "pop-culture and humorous" responses, not just "responses."

Humorous to a physicist or a student of physics, no doubt. Doesn't all humor depend upon the audience? 18.53.6.239 21:39, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

P.S. I think the article is almost ready to move to the closed issues part of the taskforce. We can still work on it but I think the major cleanup issues have been dealt with, as long as the dispute over the "Another block of removed text" is resolved. Ben Babcock 01:00, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Distinction of GOD and Omnipotence Being

In Christianity, GOD is an omnipotence. However, in other religions, their gods are not omnipotent. In this sense, GOD and Omnipotence Being are not intercheagable. The topic is talking about the Omnipotence paradox. If we use the word GOD here, it will fall into the debate about religions.--61.10.7.2 17:53, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Suggest removal of "neutrality disputed" banner

I am of the opinion that the "Neutrality is disputed" banner on this article should be removed now, as I can't find anything that could be construed as a particular POV in terms of the content of the article. If no one raises any objections, I shall remove the banner. --NicholasTurnbull 3 July 2005 01:51 (UTC), Cleanup Taskforce

Simple solution.

An omnipotent being can control everything, being "all-powerful", correct? So why is the flow of logic outside of his/her/it's sphere of control? An omnipotent being lift the unliftable rock simply because it can alter the flow of logic to make it liftable and unliftable at the same time. There.

Well if God lifts the "unliftable rock", no matter what logic you apply, than its not an "unliftable rock" anymore, isn't it? There is no such thing as a liftable "unliftable rock". Its a question of definition.

What is "no such thing"? In your logic, "liftable" and "unliftable" is mutually exclusive. Using a logic which allow these two properties coexist would be okay then.Billyswong 07:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Also, if he lifts the "unliftable rock", it would prove that he is NOT almighty, because he cannot create a rock, that he can't lift. As you have proven yourself.

God is not the author of absurdity.

Points raised on peer review

For quick reference, the following is a list of points raised on this article's peer review. The next time I have to procrastinate on something important, I'll try knocking them down, unless someone beats me to it.

• Expand lead by at least one more paragraph.
• Use the semantics and logical positivism we have as "see also" items, and elaborate upon modern approaches to the problem, e.g., Wittgenstein.

I have added some Wittgenstein (and also Ethan Allen), but whether I did the Tractatus justice I can't really say. Anville 16:38, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

• The quantum-mechanical "joke response" is confusingly written. Fix it up.
• The picture of Averroes needs source information.

It originally came from http://www.ibn-rushd.org/English/BiographicalInfoIbnRushd.htm, and was used as "public domain" on the French Wikipedia. The original picture is a detail from a fourteenth-century Florentine painting; I have found a color version and put the source info in its description page. Anville 09:57, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

More will follow if other people post to peer review. Anville 09:21, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Final Answer

Can God create a stone so heavy that He cannot lift it? This question is asking if God has the power to make Himself powerless. The answer is no. God's inability to be powerless is precisely what makes Him All-Powerful; lacking weakness is not a weakness. Lacking powerlessness means "having all power".

Can an omnipotent being create a stone too heavy to lift? The answer is yes. An omnipotent being can only logically exist in the absence of anything else, since the moment any one alternative is chosen over others, all alternative not chosen can no longer be chosen. In other words, an omnipotent being can make the choice to create a stone too heavy to lift, and will then no longer be omnipotent. Taken further, an omnipotent being can create the universe as we know it at the expense of it's own omnipotence! "Atheism The Case Against God" by George H. Smith (ISBN 0840211155 and ISBN 087975124X) provides the argument that an omnipotent being cannot exist in a rational world, creation dilemma covered somewhat by Alston in response to Hartshorne, Mr. Bene 18:30, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Tomorrow's Featured Article discussion

Wikipedia talk:Tomorrow's featured article/Omnipotence paradox discussion

Whoa. Kudos to Brian0918 for suggesting it in the first place, and showing just how touchy an issue philosophy can be! Anville 18:43, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Need for references

This article leaves me gasping for references to the discussions in Averroes and Aquinas, and the other unnamed 'medieval philosophers' referred to. I can try and find the relevant Aquinas passages myself as I know ST is on the web - but doesn't anyone have more primary sources?Bengalski 19:53, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I believe Augustine addresses something very much like this question in The City of God, and decides that God cannot do anything to reduce his own power because it would be logically incosistent - something like the Aquinas position mentioned in the article. A quick search: Book 5, chapter 10 [2] - scroll down to chapter 10. See also [3] for some leads. --Reuben 05:06, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

God/omnipotent being

The article says "Could an omnipotent being create a rock so heavy that even that being could not lift it?" The only way I've ever heard that used is "Could God creat a rock so heavy the even He could not lift it?" Can I change the quote? The current version seems awkward and unnecessarily PC.--Kuciwalker 18:04, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, there are many kinds and varieties of gods worshipped throughout the world, and not all of them are believed to be omnipotent. The paradox wouldn't apply to a non-omnipotent deity. For instance, in Norse, Greek, and Hindu mythology, gods struggle with each other, each meeting success at times and failure at other times. For wikipedia to use the term "god", singular, in this article would very clearly be granting special consideration to the Judeo-Christian-Islamic deity. -Kasreyn 00:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

God with a capital G is usually used to refer to the Judeo-Christian or Muslim deity, or occasionally a deity in another religion like Buddhism that (as far as I understand) occupies a similar place. Particularly in English it usually refers to the Judeo-Christian deity, with the Muslim one referred to as Allah. I don't see anything particularly POV about including the most common version of a quote rather than a more awkward but PC version, especially when it claims to be the classic example.--Kuciwalker 05:37, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

rm original research

I have removed the following paragraphs:

===Semantics===

Many years later, the philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein formalized Allen's attitude in the concluding pages of his Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus. Up until proposition 6.4, the Tractatus stays generally within the realm of logical positivism, but 6.41 and the succeeding propositions argue that ethics is a "transcendental" subject which we cannot examine with language, as it is a form of aesthetics and cannot be expressed. Wittgenstein then begins talking of the will, life after death, and God; he argues that all discussion of such issues is a misuse of logic. Specifically, since logical language can only reflect the world, any discussion of the mystical, that which lies outside of the metaphysical subject's world, is meaningless. This suggests that many of the traditional domains of philosophy—e.g., ethics and metaphysics—cannot in fact be discussed meaningfully. Any attempt to discuss them immediately loses all sense. This also suggests that Wittgenstein's own project of trying to explain language is impossible, for exactly these reasons, and so he suggests that the project of philosophy must ultimately be abandoned for those logical practices which attempt to reflect the world, not what is outside of it.

Wittgenstein's work makes the omnipotence paradox a problem in semantics, the study of how symbols are given meaning. (The retort "That's only semantics" is a way of saying that a statement only concerns the definitions of words, instead of anything important in the physical world.) According to the Tractatus, then, even attempting to formulate the omnipotence paradox is futile, since language cannot refer to the entities the paradox considers. The final proposition of the Tractatus gives Wittgenstein's dictum for these circumstances: "What we cannot speak of, we must pass over in silence."

One should note that in his later years, Wittgenstein himself revised or renounced outright much of what he wrote in the Tractatus. His second major work, Philosophical Investigations (published posthumously), argues that many philosophical problems which had seemingly been intractable to logical analysis are in truth artifacts of the way philosophers misuse language. Typically, commentators divide Wittgenstein's work into "early" and "late" periods, though beyond this simple distinction, it is difficult to find any consensus among Wittgenstein's interpreters.

from the article. They are both original research, and also advance a rather poorly-phrased interpretation of the Tractatus and PI, niether of which make any mention of the "omnipotence paradox". Indeed, Wittgenstein mostly steered clear of discussing religious beliefs and wrote very little on these sorts of "paradoxes" (he preferred to invent his own.) If someone has written an article applying LW's work to this particular question, great, let's cite and describe it, but this bit of amateur philosophy is not what we should be doing.

Sdedeo (tips) 00:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Interesting. I'm rather curious, how does one recognize original research in an article on philosophy? It's not exactly a hard science... -Kasreyn 00:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Hee hee. Well, for the purposes of wikipedia it's pretty clear. Friends of mine in philosophy departments certaintly say some original things, but I have a feeling the "research" part of the phrase dates back to the 1960s when Universities had to apply for government grants and everyone wanted to look scientific. Sdedeo (tips) 00:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Heh, thanks. I didn't mean that to sound disrespectful to philosophy, it's one of my favorite pastimes... which is how I know about the habit of philosophical BS'ing, just randomly speculating with friends. It would be terribly tempting to put some of that stuff in an article on Wikipedia. -Kasreyn 00:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

If you ever hang out with analytic philosophers, you'll be in for quite a ride. It's like half college bull sessions and half insanely exacting reasoning. Very amusing. Sdedeo (tips) 00:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Omniscience

Eh. The Omnipotence thing doesn't bother me much. If a being is all-powerful, then it can do whatever it wants. Therefore whether it can create the rock depends at any given moment on whether or not it wants to be able to lift it later.

What interests me a lot more is, assuming an omniscient, omnipotent creator who has total knowledge of the future, how can there be such a thing as free will? Of course, that's wildly off-topic, but it seems much harder to approach with the same kind of reasoning being used for the omnipotence paradox. Kudos to all of you for a great featured article! -Kasreyn 00:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

There can be such a thing as free will and predestination at the same time, but because our minds our limited, it is hard to accept the concept. I can explain it with an example. Light is made up of many particles, but it is also a wave. Theoretically that is impossible. It is both at the same time, but for a very long time, ever since scientists discovered this, there was a split among the scientists, some said its only a particle, others said its only a wave, and others had no idea what was going on. This split has been resolved, as mention in the article one Wave-Particle Duality. This is happening today with the predestination vs. free will debate, and it has not been resolved, even though there is an answer. --Kirk Surber 15:05, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Can God destroy Itself? Can God commit suicide? Can God create a temple so heavy he cannot carry?

Well, man can.

• Will you please read the article before you start posting this garbage? I'm sure God could commit suicide (which is the same as destroying Himself), but why would He desire to? And for the latter, it is explained in the article!

Link9er 14:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't matter, he can still send you to hell

Should there be an objection to the paradox along the lines of "just because God can't create this rock, doesn't mean he can't torture you eternally". After all, the point of God's omnipotence is that God punishes those who reject him. (As it happens I don't come close to believing in hell or God. But see it as a possible answer to the problem) BillMasen 01:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

• The reasoning behind this is actually to prove that an omnipotent being is impossible. Link9er 14:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

"Squaring the circle" link removed

I removed the link " square circle " in the article because "to create a square circle" has absolutely nothing to do with squaring the circle, the latter one meaning to use "a finite ruler-and-compass construction to make a square with the same area as a given circle" (from Wikipedia). Whoever created that link is totally irresponsible and deserves to be smashed by a stone so heavy that an omnipotent being cannot lift. F15x28 02:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Yet more removed text

I have removed the following from the end of the section Logically impossible:

Still, this explanation is not at all irrational given a certain train of events:

1. An omnipotent creator-being exists.
2. They created logic.
3. Ergo they existed apart from or before logic and must necessarily transcend logic.

The argument is simply superfluous; it does not add anything to the debate, and also provides a somewhat biasing "parting shot". It also seems to have been introduced to replace bias from the other side. Hairy Dude 03:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I've also changed a reference to God where in context it was not appropriate. I think this article should generally refrain from mentioning God specifically when describing arguments for or against the paradox, as it is (in this purest form) not specifically concerned with any God.

On a related note, would people please refrain from posting arguments about the attributes of God? These arguments are largely irrelevant here. Hairy Dude 03:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Suppose that a omnipotenet being is "living" and i use that term losely, in a infinite universe. And this being was constantly expanding. For an example i'll use three stages. Stage one- thinks to create a stone so heavy it itself could not lift it, Stage two- begins expanding, Stage three- this being has expanded by an infinite amount and now the stone is no longer to heavy. Is this still an example?, has the rock grown with the being?, must the being increase the size of the rock?. Perhaps our defintion of the universe is wrong, maybe the stone will always be to heavy but yet maybe the being will always be strong enough to lift it. Also by the ever expanding theory, does the being remain omnipotent or does he "transcend" to a higher calling?. And still along with the expanding theory will there always be an infinte higher calling because of the infinte universe and the infinity of the expanding being. Phytos 06:19:53 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Definitely not

the classic example is, "Could an omnipotent being create a stone so heavy that even that being could not lift it?" - the classic example is a gender-nonspecific, faith-decentralized question? No, I'm pretty sure the "Classic Example" includes the words "God" and "he" (or "He", but Wikipedia shouldn't be capitalizing He, just as we don't write "Mohammad(pbuh)") Sherurcij ^{(talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject)} 08:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

See above to Talk:Omnipotence paradox#God/omnipotent being for a reason as to why the phrasing is as it is. GeeJo _{(t) (c)} • 08:49, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Which is a fine way to summarize the theological paradox, but it is not the "Classic example", which the article claims it is. Sherurcij ^{(talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject)} 09:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

It's the concept that is classical, not the exact wording. --Vagodin 15:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Mention in popular culture

There's a simpsons episode where Homer says something like "Could Jesus microwave a burrito so hot that even He could not eat it?".

robert grant blog article

robg -- the reason people are removing your new section "Christian responses" is both because it only contains a one sentence paragraph linking to your blog (generally considered bad taste to link to your own article off-wiki -- let others determine if it meets wikipedia source requirements), and because segregating discussions by faith are probably not the way to go (i.e., we don't have a Jewish responses, Muslim responses, etc. section, and organize the article differently.) Sdedeo (tips) 12:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

George Carlin

didn't the comedian George Carlin use this paradox in his nightclub act years ago? It was supposed to be one of the questions he and other "neighborhood kids" used to ask their parish priest, IIRC. --Christofurio 13:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

If you can find the reference, please, by all means add it under "Popular culture and humorous responses"! Anville 15:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Very Nice

I would like to applaud to everyone who worked on this article. Very nice :D Link9er 13:59, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't get it

The article says:

One can also attempt to resolve the paradox by postulating that omnipotence does not necessarily demand that a being must be able to do all things at all times. Thus, one reasons,

1. The being can create a stone which it cannot at that moment lift.
2. However, being omnipotent, the being can always later reduce the weight of the stone to a weight where it can lift it. Therefore the being is still legitimately omnipotent.

but if the 2nd statement is correct, doesn't that mean that this "omnipotent being" cannot lift the unliftable rock in its original (and unliftable) state? that means that the omnipotent being is not omnipotent anymore. Oh, and can this "omnipotent being" limit its own omnipotence, in which case it would no longer be omnipotent anymore? If it can't, then it's not not omnipotent. If it can, then it's also not omnipotent. Iownwikipedia 14:38, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Can Omnipotence be self-limiting?

I could answer that question, but I might not. rikjoh 14:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Conundrum

"Able to be lifted by an omnipotent being" isnt a physical property of an object, its a conundrum. Since an omnipotent being has unlimited for and unlimited power, then yes, they can lift anything. --Cronosquall 15:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes but if they truly did have unlimited power then they would be able to create something so heavy that nothing can lift it. If it cannot create such an object then it does not have unlimited power. --Cyde Weys _vote^talk 18:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

The Main Page and beyond...

I look forward to putting the pieces of this article back together after it leaves the Main Page. (sigh and smile)

As to the Wittgenstein stuff, well, see the FAC and peer review discussions for why it got put there. Anville 15:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Just revert to before this article reached the main page. With a topic such as this it really can't become better from widespread exposure. --Cyde Weys _vote^talk 19:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Are the laws of physics or logic superior?

Several times during this discussion, I have noticed that people say the omnipotent being can defy physics, but not logic. Does logic surpass physics? Since our brains are contained within physics, and we originate logic within our brains, through means which are a part of physics, isn't physics superior? Of course, we often imagine things which are impossible by the laws of physics, but are imagined through the laws of physics. How do we determine the superiority of Logic or Physics? - Scourgeofsmallishinsects

They are equal in my opinion. Both are absolutely binding. --Vagodin 15:35, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Math which turned out to be applicable to phenomena is physics. It's as binding as it's good, which means pretty good but imperfect. A related consideration is if mathematics or logic are real or merely artifacts of human mentation, however this diverts to ruminating on omniscience, rather than sticking to the omnipotence paradox. 207.172.134.175 19:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Both are equal, but God is above both. Simple proof of this is that we exist. Scientists still don't understand every thing that happens in nature, much less in our bodies. Also, the Laws of physics and logic state that matter cannot be created from nothing, nor can it be completely destroyed, it turns into energy. However, God completely defied both laws by creating the world, and if you don't believe in creationis, then the big bang theory is still illogical. The big bang theory states that everything was contained something the size of a golf ball, and then it exploded, forming the universe. so where did the golf ball come from?--Kirk Surber 14:54, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Poorly Framed Question

Everytime I see this paradox presented it's done poorly. The unliftable rock example is poor because it relies upon some liftin mechanism. I far prefer asking if an omnipotent being can create an indestructible object. But why even bother with examples? By definition, an omnipotent being can do any thing. That set of doable things must, necessarily, include robbing itself of its own omnipotence. Therefore, all omnipotent beings are necessarily only contingently omnipotent, as their continued omnipotence relies upon them not depriving themsleves of their own omnipotence. --Llewdor 19:52, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Yay for someone who makes sense! This is the only way I have ever seen God as being omnipotent.-The Scurvy Eye 23:49, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Not a paradox, temporally solvable

• If an omnipotent being can do anything... ie. make a rock it cannot lift, make itself no longer omnipotent, then being omnipotent, it should be able to do so.
• AFTER doing such, the being is no longer omnipotent, having restricted its own omnipotence.
• It may be able to regain omnipotence by removing the restriction, if the restriction it gave itself was not structured in such a way as to make it impossible.
  • IF the restriction was made in such a way as to be irreversible, then it's a permanent reduction from omnipotence.

- 132.205.45.110 20:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Good logic..... but somehow, that seems like it is side-stepping the issue. There is a flaw in your logic. The omnipotent being must create something that it as an omnipotent being must not be able to lift. Just creating something that it can lift, then becoming non-omnipotent, then becoming omnipotent again, doesn't cut it. However, assuming that that would cut it, and that it created something it couldn't lift as an omnipotent being, just turning unomnipotent, when it turned omnipotent again, it still couldn't lift it. Scourgeofsmallishinsects 20:51, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

If it changed the object that it couldn't lift to be something it could lift, then object is no longer the same object that it was before... So, an omnipotent being cannot create an object it cannot lift and remain omnipotent... But it can do so, at the cost of its omnipotence... To remain omnipotent and create an object it cannot lift would cause the paradox. ..... So the example has a flaw. 132.205.45.110 23:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

That was my point, above. Omnipotence is necessarily contingent. --Llewdor 23:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Change the question to, "Can God make a boulder so heavy that he can never lift it?" --Cyde Weys _vote^talk 01:10, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Wrong

Whoever wrote this article, is completely wrong... God IS omnipotent and he IS real. ALL things are possible with God. It's not 'good' logic, God is good, and the philosophical jargon bs they are posting still can't hide the truth. The truth stands- God created the heavens and the earth. He created all things. He is all powerful, He spoke and the world was. The real 'false dilemma' are the lies and deception in opposition to the truth. These philosophers can try to analyze and try to explain away with their 'logic', but they can't outsmart God.

Alright, now please make this npov and then we'll see if it's worthy for inclusion. **snort** Cyde Weys _vote^talk 01:09, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Philosophical responses

I'm not an expert on this paradox, but to me this section has an air of 'original research', lumping together various not particularly closely related paradoxes (without much sourcing either). Ben Finn 22:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

potentia absoluta; potentia ordinaria

Orthodox Catholic theology - including Aquinas but preceding him - generally holds that God limits himself in order to relate to finite, sinful humanity.

God's potentia absoluta (absolute power) is unlimited. God's potentia ordinaria (ordinary power) is limited by what God has himself decreed. For example, by his absolute power God could preserve human beings from death; but in the present order this is impossible, since he has decreed otherwise because of Original Sin. In other words, God keeps his promises or, perhaps better, God has no limits other than those he has freely chosen to impose on himself.

It seems to me that each of the major monotheisms believes in God's self limitation in one way or the other. The heart of Judaism is the Covenant, in which God has limited himself to the promises he made to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. The heart of Islam is the Kor'an, in which God has expressed himself in Arabic, a limited human language. Most of all, the heart of Christianity is the Incarnation, in which the eternal, omnipotent God emptied himself to become a human being.

I think the theme of God's willing self-limitation needs to be brought out a bit more in the article.

BTW - Was Averroës condemned by Bishop Tempier for advancing the omnipotence paradox? I thought he was condemned for his belief in the universal soul. --Joey1898 23:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

According to the Amplified Bible,(which I completely agree with), "God's promises are invariably dependent upon the other party meeting his conditions, whether He says so or not." (footnote to First Chronicles 28:9) --Kirk Surber 14:44, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Just thinking, People

The definition of Omnipotence, is to be all-powerful, infinitely so, yes?

That means Gods power - God used for the sake of sanity - is infinitely expanding and growing every second?

That means, in the time for God to create an incredibly infinitely heavy rock, his power will have increased, yes?

After all, is not our metaphysical definitions of 'big' and 'infinite' ever largening? In economics, a large sum of money has changed over the dedicates. A million dollars has been decreased in value, yes?

Then, by logic, God can carry the rock, because a rocks weight is never all-increasing.

If God created an all-increasing weight rock, he'd be able to carry it because of the instant between "no rock" and "rock"

Yes?

No?

Link to God

This section, with above header, was in the article; I couldn't see how to clean it up, so I'm moving it to here. If anyone can make it worthwhile, go ahead and put it back in, but in current form it shouldn't be in an article with a link from the front page. --Robth^Talk 00:59, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

• Omnipotence is to be considered as a whole. An Omnipotent being can do a stone which he cannot lift. Yes. But "being able to" doesn't mean that the omnipotent being will create that stone he cannot lift. Moreover he may decide to create it, and after that decide in his great omnipotence to make that stone "liftable" at least by himself… Where is the problem ? The omnipotent being can do things, even thing that he can't do because he have just to decide to make things feasible or not.

 An omnipotent being decide and things are. That's why there is only one Omnipotent being.

This too. It's a good suggestion, but doesn't belong in the article. --Robth^Talk 01:01, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

What is missing here is Pantheism, which argues, that this Omnipotent being is in all things as well as every matter is part of this omnipotent being. See Nikolaus von Cues and Giordano Bruno.

"a triangle with internal angles that did not add up to 180 degrees" is a inappropriate analogy to the paradox

internal angles that did not add up to 180 degrees is self-contradictory while a stone even the creater cannot lift it. It is a inappropriate analogy. If no one oppose it, I will add this remark to that paragraph--192.193.160.5 04:17, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Why God is related to this article?

The topic of this article talks nothing about gods. And not all gods are omniptent. It is a severe flaw on this article. All reasonings based on gods' attribute(especially christian god) is invalid. If no one opposes it, I will remove or amend all reasonings based on gods. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.193.160.5 (talk • contribs) 04:24, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

The article talks about gods so much because rarely is any other type of entity conceived as being omnipotent. --Mr. Billion 05:30, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Please don't. BrianH123 05:38, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Spirituality

don't fear the paradox, embrace it. What if the whole point of the universe is for the omnipotent being to find out what 'it' can do: what it can achieve as a non-omnipotent being. The point of being here is to be the 'best' non-omnipotent being you can. That's what Jesus was doing. That's what Mohammed was doing. That's what Buddha was doing. Don't ask "What would Jesus do?"; "What would Mohammed do?". Instead, know that we are all the same manifestations of the one creative God. Know that Jesus and all the prophets were as much manifestations of that God as you and I are, and do the most, be the most, do the best, be the best, incarnation of that creative being that you can be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.126.110.66 (talk • contribs) 07:33, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Easy now

All right. As the history page shows, this article has become somewhat unstable since being featured on the Main Page, on January 9. I've particularly noticed the misuse of the {{NPOV}} tag. But there's also a lot of vandalism and content dispute going on.
I would like to request that everybody get a grip, or I will enforce temporary protection of the article. Thank you. Redux 12:05, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

rock example

Though not without certain flaws (discussed below) the above is the most well-known form of the statement, and still serves adequately for illustrating the different ways the paradox has been analyzed.

This sentence seems to massively understate the flaws with the God/rock example, while providing a flimsy excuse for using it. It seems fairly obvious to me that if an article is to explain a philosophical paradox clearly, it should chose relevant, clear examples, not simply those that are most widely known. In this case, the standard example is well known, but extremely poor, so it needs to be mentioned as a historical fact, but it has no place in an explanation of the paradox.

For one thing, the example contributes to the problem present throughout the article of conflating two issues: the paradox at issue, whether an Omnipotent being could limit its omnipotence, and the more general question of whether omnipotence entails the ability to do anything that is logically possible, or the ability to do anything, whether logically possible or not. Some responses to the former involve classifying it as an example of the latter, but the two are not identical on the face of it.

The rock example is poorly thought out, and can be seen as addressing either question. The weight of an object obviously has no bearing on the ability of an omnipotent being to lift it, anymore than does its color, which allows the question to be viewed as one about God's ability to do the incoherent. But it is a very misleading example of this, since the weight of the rock appears to be important: the question "could God create a rock so green he couldn't lift it?" is equally meaningful.

The question relates to the paradox directly only if it is really asking: "can God take away his own ability to lift indefinitely heavy rocks?"but it is not phrased that way, and, once we acknowledge that that is really the question at hand, there is no need for him to create a new rock at all. a better question would then be, "could God make himself so weak that he couldnt lift this rock right here?"

The standard question confuses these issues, and seems to imply that not being able to create a rock so heavy that an omnipotent being can't lift it entails some sort of deficiency in all-powerful rock-creation, which is foolish; he can create any rock, and lift any rock; 'rock so heavy he can't lift it', does not refer in any possible world.

Sorry to be so long winded, basically, the example is bad, it makes an interesting paradox seem silly, and the article suffers.

Ncsaint 14:05, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

If you say that "God" is not an effect, then it should not be that in theory be logically possible to trace back the effects that led from "God" to the present situation? But before anything else; if an omnipotent being exists, then can it prove its existence?

Same lines, but a different arguement. --The1exile 16:45, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

God's debris

I've re-added the following that was deleted by an anon.

• God's Debris by Scott Adams treads ground similar to the omnipotence paradox; the treatment is more serious than humourous. According to the central character of the book, the only challenge for an omnipotent being is to annihilate Himself to see if the resulting components can re-combine into Him - thus, all objects, animate and inanimate in this universe are God's debris.

It would be interesting to know if others feel the above is inappropriate and specify their reasons, before deleting it. --Gurubrahma 17:02, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

FWIW, that seems a perfectly appropriate addition to me. --Christofurio 20:45, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

What about other theologies?

What I miss in this whole article is what light other theologies than Christian / Muslim / Jewish might shed on this paradox; for instance Hinduism.

--Tim

Category Mistake - Logic: "The Law of Non-Contradiction"

Great stuff in this article and discission...

I did not see the "category mistake" arguement made in reference to the Omnipotence Paradox article. It seems somewhat obvious that the apparent contradiction of the two premises should point us to the conclusion that neither one is logical. In other words, "If God cannot lift the stone, then he is not God" and likewise, "if God cannot create a stone so heavy that he cannot lift, then He is not omnipotent". This "neither-nor" answer shows that the question is simply not a valid question to ask. Similarly, if I ask "Can God smell the color 9?" If he cannot, then he must not be omnipotent, right! But,this question is to ask God to violate logic, which (assuming God is the author and creator of all things)would be against his nature.

So, the conclusion is that to ask the question "Can God create a stone so heavy that he cannnot lift it?" is a category mistake. This arguement from logic also addresses the question "If God created everything, then who created God?" This, also is a logical category mistake, because there is a tacit assumption that God is subject to the "Law of Cause and Effect". But God is not an effect, and therefore, does not require a cause.

Corey Hampton