There have been numerous variations on the omnipotence paradoxical questions with some of them becoming fairly outrageous.

So the 'Paradox of the Stone' question reads as follows: 'Can God create a stone so heavy that he cannot lift it?' However, to ask God to create something new, so pure and simple as a rock, strikes at the very heart of God's omnipotence. We already know that 2+2≠5 and that circles are not squares by design, so we haven’t given an omnipotent, all-powerful God a fair shot at demonstrating pure omnipotence. The beauty of this particular version of an omnipotence paradox is that it is not based on a flawed premise or error in logical from the very start (such as, 'Can God make 2+2=5?' or 'Can God make a square circle?'). The classic 'Paradox of the Stone' has existed for literally centuries. This results in the disproving, discrediting or otherwise negating of whatever the original argument or hypothesis may have been. An argument's premises or conclusions are pushed to their logical limits leading to the most ridiculous, absurd, or impractical conclusions.

The design of the omnipotence paradox is based on reductio ad absurdum (Latin for “reduction to absurdity”) which is the process of reducing an argument or hypothesis to the state of absurdity. This paradox is commonly used as an argument against the existence of an omnipotent God and any concepts of true omnipotence. The omnipotence paradox refers to a paradoxical situation where an omnipotent being is forced to limit its powers while remaining omnipotent and do so all at the same time. In more recent times the omnipotence paradox has been addressed by modern theologians such as Alvin Plantinga. The question was later addressed by Saint Thomas Aquinas who argued the merits of the question along with Rene Descartes.

If such a rock existed, it would nullify God's Perfect Strength, thus nullifying God's Perfection, thus nullifying God.The roots of the omnipotence paradox can be traced back to as early as the twelfth century where it was addressed by Averroes who often wrote of logic, Aristotelian and Islamic philosophy. God is meant to be Perfect, in this system of thought the existence of anything more than God, inside or outside of this cosmos, nullifies God. The next counter would be 'Can God make a cosmos in which such a rock can exist?' The Theological ResponseĪt this point, we threaten to tread into the murky waters of theology, but suffice it to say that the theological response would also be 'No', at least in our current view of monotheistic thinking. Just like gneurshk makes no sense in our cosmos, rock makes no sense outside of our cosmos. You might respond with 'Ok, can said rock be made outside of our cosmos?' and the basic response would be no. Just like the gneurshk, the rock that God cannot lift does not, and cannot exist, because it cannot exist within our cosmos. There is such a thing as stars, and ice, but no gneurshk. I could not ask God to 'bring me a gneurshk', because there's no such thing as a gneurshk. Let's put it another way: I could ask God to turn a star into ice, instantly, and God could do so. What does that look like?įor example, I am not omnipotent, because if I wanted to move a rock from point A to point B, I am both bounded by potency (my ability to lift the rock) and by time (I am still bound by time I cannot move the rock instantly).Īn omnipotent entity could move any rock that can possibly exist, instantaneously. The main school of thought I've seen on this is that omnipotence means one can do anything that is possible within our cosmos, unbounded by time or potency.

In mainstream Christian theological thought, these views on omnipotence have become more and more restrictive as more questions are asked. There are a lot of different, nuanced views on omnipotence, that I advise you go and read about in more detail, but I'll present the basic, most common answer I've heard here.

Omnipotence and omnipresence paradox