Talk:Omnipotence paradox/Archive1

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This is an archive page, last updated 30 September 2018. Please do not make edits to this page.
Archives for this talk page: , (new)(back)


  1. The model of logic used in the first section is inadequate to the question, as it fails to take time into account. One would agree that the omnipotent being has to be capable of giving up his omnipotence; creating a stone too heavy for him to lift, and other such self-tasks, simply entail his giving up omnipotence, without imposing any restrictions upon him in his omnipotent state.
  2. It must also be noted that a omnipotent being would also be in charge of writing the laws of logic and hence would not be subject to any contradictions. The consequences of this are perhaps best illustrated by a quote from the article:
Or similarly, could God create a flat circle where π = 3? To do so would be to create a shape which cannot possibly exist in our universe. (emphasis mine)
The omnipotent being could have created this universe with certain rules that, though capable of breaking, he chooses not to.

Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 21:36, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

This is why the general case of the paradox is whether an omnipotent being can limit its own powers - and so cease to be omnipotent. But the paradox doesn't need to take into account time (such a constraint would be beside the point). It is whether an omnipotent being can limit their own power and remain omnipotent. Hence the paradox - merely saying that the being is giving up (even temporarily) its omnipotent powers is uninteresting. Scarlet A.pngnarchist 21:43, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
True; in that case one would have to fall back on the second objection, that the omnipotent being has the capacity to ignore the laws of logic. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 21:55, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Surely it would be impossible to make any argument about a being to which the laws of logic do not apply. How would you ever know if your argument about the being were valid? --BobSpring is sprung! 22:18, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
In which case we add additional caveats to reform the paradox; Can an omnipotent being limit its own powers under the consistent set of logical rules observed in our universe. Scarlet A.pngnarchist 22:34, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
"Eliezer Yudkowsky can consistently assert the sentence 'Eliezer Yudkowsky cannot consistently assert this sentence.'" Scarlet A.pngnarchist 22:35, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Bob, welcome to the monotheist's world; it is a whole other mind-set, in which the world is ultimately governed by God instead of reason and orderly natural law.
Armondikov, God is considered to be outside the universe, and to have set all the rules, including the laws of logic, by which the universe operates, but is not considered to be bound by them himself. The best analogy for this is with a simulated reality; the flesh-and-blood user of a computer can do things that are not possible for a computer process to do. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 05:34, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
That was a creationist escape hatch... If God is outside the universe, yet he created it, then he must have a detectable impact on our natural world. This would render God to be an observable supernatural entity. This is a paradox in itself, supernature that violates nature existing in nature.[1]As for the simulated reality analogy, the people simulating the reality would have no ability to communicate with us directly, only through the computer program. If they tried to bring their own laws into our simulated reality it would ruin the simulation because the laws of nature would clash, leading to a fatal simulation error.Several ingredients (talk) 08:19, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
Sticking with a God to which is not subject to logic. Imagine said God says "If you are evil you will go to hell and if you are good you will go to heaven."
A human being would logically assume that following these instructions will lead to the outcomes specified. But if we say that God is not bound by logic then he might, in fact, apply the heaven and hell destinations randomly. So you can certainly imagine a God not bound by logic but there would seem to be little point is serving It. --BobSpring is sprung! 13:59, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
That's pretty much the exact reason why the whole "outside the universe" thing is bullshit. If you say that you're saying that God has no effect on the world (equivalent to non-existence by definition). It's a fundamentally stupid position and a perfect example of "escape hatch" mentality. Scarlet A.pngnarchist 19:12, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
Bob, the "random application" is exactly what the Calvinists say; God, being in complete control of everything, determines who serves him and who does not.
Armondikov and Several ingredients, you are approaching not even wrong territory. The "outside the universe" argument is correctly labeled as a creationist escape hatch because creationists try to use it within the scope of scientific arguments, when it is clearly unscientific. However, that does not make it an invalid argument in general.
For starters, the two sentences ending in "fatal simulation error" are complete blather. It is in theory entirely possible to muck about with a simulation without anyone inside the simulation being aware of it; recent cinematic examples are the black cat "glitch" in The Matrix and the midnight reshuffles in Dark City (which also involved people's minds being altered).
I think that also suffices to demonstrate why it is nothing more than silliness to suggest that an extra-universal God could have no effect on the universe. And it is also quite possible that these effects would not be observable or measurable, at least in any way that could differentiate between a theistic and an atheistic cause. Science only tells us how the machine works; it says nothing about who, if anybody, is turning the crank. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 04:56, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Of course, it's pure speculation for what might be controlling the universe from the outside. As for the "fatal simulation error" I didn't mean it as in the error would kill all life and destroy the universe, but like a fatal error in computing, which requires a restart. Now, the simulator could, in theory, keep on restarting and restoring the universe every time it wanted to change nature. It just seems an extraordinary claim, one which could explain our reality, but isn't the most straight-forward method of explaining it.Several ingredients (talk) 05:38, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
As for the "fatal simulation error"... I am entirely unaware how you got the notion that I thought this meant a universe-destroying error.
It is one thing to say a belief is speculative or is silly or requires extraordinary evidence or is a multiplication beyond necessity, and quite another to say it is logically inconsistent. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 05:58, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Then what do you mean by "fatal simulation error" being blather, when my point was that it was a computational fatal error? You also say that I'm approaching "not even wrong" territory, seeing as I'm not yet in it, could you please explain how I'm wrong?Several ingredients (talk) 06:21, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
As I attempted to demonstrate with the cinematic examples, it is (1) possible for the simulators to communicate with the simulated in ways not in conformance with the rules of the simulated universe; (2) this does not "ruin the simulation." Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 06:28, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Okay, that finally makes some sense. Now, this discussion has taken a right-angled turn and we need to get back on track. Are the simulators omnipotent? I doubt they really are, and they barely fit the most commonly accepted idea of "God". Unless you define God as limited in his abilities in our universe- which is not omnipotence- then you can't solve the paradox.Several ingredients (talk) 06:35, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── The simulators are omnipotent as far as the simulated system is concerned, in that they can set the rules of the system as they wish, and alter the state of the system in ways not in conformance with those rules. As with all analogies, the parallels break down at some point, but it serves to illustrate the idea of an extra-universal deity interacting with it in arbitrary ways. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 06:56, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

"The simulators are omnipotent as far as the simlulation system is concerned". Hmmm, too bad this hasn't been demonstrated to us in any way, all nature has taken it's course. Your idea of an extra-universal deity is unfalsifiable as we have no way of observing it from our own. Please don't go on about miracle, as they too are unfalsifiable, thus not science. Anyway, it does raise some serious questions about the deity in question, for example, why does it not use its "omnipotence" to do away with evil. Or why doesn't this God help advance our understanding. Again, we are left to nature's devices. If this is all an illusion, and this God is hiding himself from us then he is undeserving of worship. How can one rationally worship something they have no evidence for?Several ingredients (talk) 07:07, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
For some reason it has never helped for me to keep repeating that I am not pretending that any of this is at all scientific, demonstrable, falsifiable, more than speculation, etc., etc.
It is rather ridiculous to speak of "demonstrations" in reference to a hypothetical situation used to illustrate an idea. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 07:48, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
"For some reason it has never helped for me to keep repeating that I am not pretending that any of this is at all scientific, demonstrable, falsifiable, more than speculation, etc., etc." ...And we are on RationalWiki. One of our goals is to refute pseudoscience and a wide range of crank ideas. Your speculation seems a bit crank, so I suggest we stop speculating and use what logic and evidence we have in the best manner.Several ingredients (talk) 07:55, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
If God is unbound by logic then trying to formulate logical questions & answers about what He/She can/can't do is a fool's task as the question becomes meaningless. The answer to the question will be neither "yes" nor "no", since both "can" and "can't" are expressions of logic which cannot apply to such a being. ŴêâŝêîôîďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 08:32, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Precisely. If we assume this whole "beyond time" and "beyond logic" horseshit, you become able to consistently say the phrase "God does not exist because he exists". It becomes fundamentally pointless to even argue the point. Scarlet A.pngnarchist 13:19, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Your speculation seems a bit crank... To which I can only reply: You wish.
Again, I am not arguing for the existence of an omnipotent, extra-universal deity. I do not even think there to be any such argument, or any such deity. I am merely refuting the argument here that it is impossible for such a deity to exist.
Weaseloid, the only relevant question and answer there is (Q) "What can God do?"; (A) "There's nothing he can't." Besides, any inability of ours to enumerate divine abilities has no bearing whatsoever on the existence of the deity in question; similarly our inability to enumerate the members of the "halting set" has no bearing on which computer programs halt and which do not.
Armondikov, if indeed such ideas are "horses***," it is because they were plucked out of the air, not because of this so-called "paradox." Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 03:43, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
The link to Wikipedia only shows how popular religions are... What's not to make us say that religions are crank? Popularity does not determine truth or credibility of an argument, only evidence can do so. As for you doubting this omnipotence paradox, I'm a but unsure as to how you define omnipotent. I always defined it as "all powerful; with infinite power" which would lead to a paradox reguarding its abilities, pitting infinite abilities against itself would logically result in those abilities being described as finite. Thus, it is reasonable to say that when people say their God can "do anything" or is "all powerful" they can't be telling the truth. They could say it can have great powers so that it can create the universe, but not infinite powers. Now, as for you saying that you are not arguing for the existence of an extra-universal, omnipotent deity, but that your refuting the idea that such a deity is impossible. Fair enough, but so far all you've done is show that this argument could be right. Could? Yes, could. But is this argument for an extra-universal deity not subject to laws, yet has some effect on our natural universe without us knowing a very likely one? Using our own logic breaks down at this point, as it has no bearing on a deity that can change it. Though there is no doubt this deity is a possibility, it is just as likely a possibility as the universe being a computer simulation, or the universe being completely and utterly random in every sense of every sub-atomic particle to give us a picture of reality, or the doctrine of solipsism. All of these are indeed possibilities, yet they are unfalsifiable, untestable and unprovable. This makes them NOT science. As we are on RationalWiki, we prefer SCIENCE or LOGIC to such unproveable claims.Several ingredients (talk) 06:31, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Again, I am not disagreeing with most of the remarks about science (although atheists are often loath to include the non-self-refuting variants of strong rationalism on that list of equal possibilities).
The link to Wikipedia only shows... That was not a discussion about the truth of the ideas in question, but their crankishness, in which popularity is a definite factor. Monotheism is a mainstream notion, not a crank one. A far greater proportion of atheists promote their beliefs in a crankish manner, and that is not even counting the non-Objectivists.
I'm a but unsure as to how you define omnipotent. I am going by the definition of omnipotence assumed by the article, viz., the Cartesian definition, by which an omnipotent entity can do anything, even create impossible worlds. Other definitions do not make the pretense that an omnipotent entity can perform logically impossible tasks.
...all you've done is show that this argument could be right... But is this argument... Precisely what argument is that?
As we are on RationalWiki... When you have been editing the Wiki for over half its life, perhaps you can credibly tell me what the place is about; not before. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 06:35, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
Precisely what argument is that? from what I read, it was that you were refuting the idea that an omnipotent deity is impossible to exist. Your reasoning seems to be that this deity is omnipotent such that it can bend logic. I pointed this out to be speculation. You then provided a link to Wikipedia about the popularity of religion. I said that religion can still be crank and popularity doesn't make it any more credible. And now you say that...well, I'm not quite sure so I'll take it straight from the horse's mouth :That was not a discussion about the truth of the ideas in question, but their crankishness, in which popularity is a definite factor. Monotheism is a mainstream notion, not a crank one. A far greater proportion of atheists promote their beliefs in a crankish manner, and that is not even counting the non-Objectivists. I'm not quite sure what you mean by atheists spreading beliefs. Atheists don't promote their beleifs, they promote their lack of belief[2]. Besides that you say that this discussion is not about the truth of the idea of an omnipotent deity, but of its crankiness. Well, I'll concede to you that monotheism- due to its popularity- is not crank. Its just false. You also seem to think that because I'm relatively new here that I am not entitled to have a say about RationalWiki. Well, I've read and understand our community standards, style and our point of view. I should be able to make an educated statement on what our aim is as well.Several ingredients (talk) 05:30, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
When I said, "That was not a discussion about the truth...", I was referring to the thread stemming from your claim that monotheism is crankish. If a reductio ad absurdum is based on some speculation, that speculation may be freely used in refuting that argument.
Atheists don't promote their beleifs [sic]... The belief in question is what distinguishes the explicit atheist from the implicit atheist: the belief that a non-belief in God is to be preferred (or, if the atheist is also a strong rationalist, the belief that there is no truth beyond what the scientific method tells us).
Well, I've read and understand our Community Standards... Well, I was here when said standards were drafted and I do not need reminding of what they say (stick around long enough and you will understand that wikilink). Take a look at the final section in the last of the pages you cited; you might see why I took such objection to your remarks. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 06:45, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
No, you weren't. "10 November 2008" was xis months later. A Whiter Shade of Pale (talk) 06:52, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
Your link to Wikipedia's toilet paper article reminded me of a rather humorous piece of vandalism on Conservapedia[3]. I am, however, puzzled as to what criticism of RW has to do with discussion of the omnipotence paradox? Is it because you object to the style of the main article? Because so far you've just said an omnipotent God can exist, given certain restrictions- and that monotheism is not crank. I disagree with the former and agree with the latter. Also, I'd really prefer it if you didn't pay attention to my newness at this wiki but to what points I bring up. Unless, of course, these points show an obvious lack of understanding of the subject. In which case I'd prefer constructive criticism over quick dismissals. Thank you.Several ingredients (talk) 08:46, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
A Whiter Shade, I was referring to the massive overhaul that took place about January of 2009, shortly after I arrived.
Several ingredients, as the "criticism of RationalWiki" section notes, it is considered bad form in RationalWiki debates to dismiss the opposing side by citing the Wiki's name. If you do not wish any hay to be made of your being new to the Wiki, kindly do not presume to know the Wiki's ways better than more established editors.
Also, I'd really prefer it if you didn't pay attention to my newness at this wiki but to what points I bring up. If you will notice, I have been doing so. Your last few posts have been pure argument by assertion with little to respond to; in the others you seemed to be confusing possibility () with necessity (), in that you were responding to my arguments that an omnipotent God could exist (or, more narrowly, that this "omnipotence paradox" is invalid) with refutations designed for arguments that an omnipotent God does exist. Another error you made was to appeal to science in an argument about matters outside its purview. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 06:00, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
I got lost with who you were replying to there, ListenerX, but if I have some question of protocol, does this mean I can come to you to verify/check things out before sticking my neck out? Cheers, A Whiter Shade of Pale (talk) 06:06, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Each of my paragraphs in the above post is headed with either the name of the editor to which it is addressed, or a quote from that editor. As to your question, we appear to follow an exaggerated form of WP:BOLD here; no worries. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 06:31, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Ah, I see now. This discussion was never intended to be about science. Or logic. Or even reality. It was just that an omnipotent God can exist in some form or another. Whatever, I'm getting rather tired of having to repeat my points, so please- don't be "refuting" the ideas I put forth. Instead, validate your own objections to the omnipotence paradox.Several ingredients (talk) 09:25, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── The burden of proof is not on me, as I am not the one with the "proof" (i.e., the omnipotence paradox). I have presented a refutation to that particular "proof," which is that the necessary use of the Cartesian definition of omnipotence in this case places the argument's scope outside the purview of logic. This may be a tricky concept to grasp for someone who has not studied meta-logic, but to give a nudge in the right direction, it is not difficult to see that one cannot discount in the premise a principle to which one appeals in drawing the conclusion. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 05:12, 20 December 2010 (UTC)


This is the response I am familiar with, and the one I subscribe to personally. I think it is a quite common approach, but the current version of the article doesn't explain it well:

  1. A being is omnipotent if it can bring about any logically possible state of affairs
  2. The existence of a rock heavier than an omnipotent being can lift is not a logically possible state of affairs
  3. Hence, an omnipotent being can't create such a rock
  4. But they do not cease to be omnipotent for being unable to do so

The same argument disposes of the square circle, the square both black and white all over, and similar such examples. Responses? (((Zack Martin))) 12:13, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

That's just a definitions issue with "omnipotence". Omnipotence in the usual religious sense usually means defying a lot of laws, including maths and physics, in order to enact miracles. If said being can't break out of "logically possible" states, then it is not omnipotent by that standards that most people ascribe to God and indeed what would need to be ascribed to God for an interventionist omnipotent being to exist. ADK...I'll speak your operating system! 12:29, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
If you look at how omnipotence is traditionally defined in Catholic theology, it includes the ability for God to violate the laws of physics, but not the laws of mathematics. The difference is, they argue, it is logically (albeit not physically) possible to violate the laws of physics; it is not logically possible to violate the laws of mathematics; God can do anything logically possible, but nothing logically impossible. I believe the definition of omnipotence I propose is the traditional one in Catholic, and probably more broadly most Christian, theology. Maybe, not the popular definition, but certainly the official one. (For more discussion on Catholic view on omnipotence, see here.) (((Zack Martin))) 12:38, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Isn't most - if not all - of physics described by and hence governed by maths?--BobSpring is sprung! 16:44, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Yes; but that doesn't mean violating the laws of physics requires a violation of the laws of maths. Physics works like this: we do some measurements (determining initial conditions); plug them into some equation, solve it, we pick out some of its solutions to use as predictions; perform some more measurements; wow, the predictions we got out of the equation match the actual measurements. Now, suppose hypothetically an omnipotent God decides to intervene, and changes things - now, suddenly, our measurements don't match the predictions from the equation. So the laws of physics have been violated, but not the laws of mathematics. I think, mainstream Catholic theology would say, the laws of physics are contingent, it is logically possible they could be other than they are, so an omnipotent God is free to violate them; the laws of mathematics are logically necessary, there is no logically possible state of affairs where they are different than they are, hence the omnipotent God can't alter them. (I think they would say, the laws of mathematics are part of God's nature, and God can't alter his own nature.) (((Zack Martin))) 10:52, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
I think this is straining it quite far... ADK...I'll feel your lollipop! 14:32, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
The point is, if you pick up a "popular" definition of omnipotence, and find the logical holes in it, that is really a strawman argument. The theologians have already wrestled with those issues centuries ago, and they have come up with a definition of omnipotence which arguably doesn't have the same holes. Finding holes in the "popular" definition of omnipotence, is like pointing out the logical holes in Joe the Plumber's scientific views, and using that to condemn science as incoherent. (((Zack Martin))) 00:03, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
I'd say it's even begging the question. If you use a logically impossible definition of omnipotence and then determine that omnipotence is logically impossible, you've proven absolutely nothing. (talk) 19:35, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

BoN Addition 16/4/15[edit]

+ THIS IS NOT A Paradox. The stone question is a fallacy of composition because , through the use of vague seemingly different terms, the question is the contradiction. Here's why the question is invalid.

1)Can God make a rock (yes)

2) By definition God could therefore "unmake" the rock.(yes)

3) could God make the rock anywhere (yes)

4) Therefore God could make the rock say in Texas laying anywhere on the ground (yes)

5) God could then unmake the same rock in Texas and then remake it on the moon (yes)

Conclusion, It has just been explained, by definition, the ability to make a rock includes the ability to lift it as a subset of what is within the method of making a rock and what the definition of lifting the rock entails. I.e. make it In Texas than make it on the moon, therefore in regards to the definition of lifting it was lifted from Texas to the moon. Unless you disagree with what constitutes lifting, if so please inform NASA the term liftoff is incorrect.

All omnipotent paradoxes, or so called paradoxes, are nothing more than the projection of human limitations onto God usually based in contradictions in composition or straw man fallacies that redefine God differently in order to achieve the idea of a paradox.

Let's do one more. Can God create a being more powerful than God? This contradicts the definition of God being ALL powerful, which entails having all possible power that exists or could exist. So if a being was MORE powerful than God, even created by God for example, it would negate the definition of God possessing all power this this question merely straw man's how God is defined making the question about a different God.

Added by Doxys Midnight Runner (talk) 10:12, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

This objection to God's existence fails the same way as the irresistable force paradox[edit]

If it is impossible for anything to be beyond God's power such a thing cannot exist. I don't see why RW makes hay out of this argument. There are many other paradoxes involved in God existing that could be explained here.--Individuallikeveryone (talk) 01:41, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Is this a solution to the omnipotence paradox?[edit]

I have thought up a way that god could create a stone so heavy that he could not lift it.

It goes the following way: 1: God splits itself into two entities. Entity one can create a stone so heavy that he cannot lift it, while entity two can lift every stone, no matter how heavy it is. 2: Entity one creates a stone so heavy that he cannot lift it. 3: Entity two lifts the stone. 4: Both merge together to form God. Hex4 (talk) 17:48, 29 October 2016

A better phrasing would be: can God create a stone so heavy no one,including God, could lift it. Allthough your idea does seem to get out of the paradox as it is currently stated. Christopher (talk) 11:34, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
Just saw the time stamp, I'm unlikely to get a reply! Christopher (talk) 11:35, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
I decided for this reply to retranslate the problem as God building a set of machines. With mathematical induction I will then proceed to prove or disprove the statement. The original problem stated that God should be able to create a stone so heavy that God could not lift it. If God created one machine as himself and that machine created a stone so heavy it could not lift it it would prove that God is not omnipotent as the machine could not lift the stone. If he could not create such a stone then it would disprove his omnipotence as he could not lift such a stone. Suppose we have proven for a set of n machines that show that he is not omnipotent, by either creating a stone so heavy they could not lift it or by being able to lift every stone. We thus have to prove for n+1 machines that he is not. If the n+1th machine created a stone so heavy the other n could not lift it it would show that he is not omnipotent as the machines can not lift the stone. If the n+1th machine could lift every stone like every other machine it would show that he is not omnipotent as he is not able to create a stone so heavy he could not lift it. However, the n+1th machine, also in God's image, may still be able to lift a stone so heavy that the other n, that are also God, could not and the n+1th machine, which is God, can create a stone so heavy that the n+1th machine can not lift but that can be lifted by all other n machines. I show now what happens when we add the restriction that no one, including God should be able to lift it. The "No one" in the statement includes all the other machines with God's name, else the above remains true. If the n+1th machine is able to lift a stone so heavy that the other n could not the n have failed to make a stone no one could lift. If the n+1th machine create a stone that it itself could not lift but that can be lifted by all other machines the n+1th machine has failed to make a stone others could not lift. We have thus proven that God is unable to create a stone so heavy that no one, including God, could lift. Thus we have proven that God (or any being for that matter) is not omnipotent. User:Hex4 (talk) 23:49, 11 august 2017

This is fun, let me have a try. The problems with the omnipotence paradox, and there are several, are it is a word puzzle stated as if the laws of physics do not apply to physical objects, and omnipotence is understood as magic rather than as unlimited constructive abilities to create the universe that must operate under physical laws.. Consider omnipotence as having infinite energy resources, and even the power to adjust the laws of physics. There is no such thing as an infinitely heavy object in the universe which we currently occupy. So, an omnipotent god could not make an object infinitely heavy without changing the very physical structure of the universe, to accomodate an object of infinite mass. Unfortunately, at the very point of its creation, the universe would begin to collapse and would disappear in a very small fraction of a second, leaving nothing to pick up. Ariel31459 (talk) 03:28, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Uh, the above solves absolutely nothing. The whole idea about machines and God splitting into two serve the single function of trying to juke past the paradox rather than solve it. An omnipotent God wouldn't need machines or to split into two, he's omnipotent. By definition, taking any type of proactive step is unparsimonious for an omnipotent being. Omnipotence means there's no restriction to his power, period. This is the God theism imagines. And that God is inherently paradoxical. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 21:14, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

For people that don't know, the above statement was made just before I corrected the statement. I had forgotten at one point that the statement "no one, including God" could also be interpreted as "no one around God, including God", which made me think that indeed an omnipotent being could exist. I have now corrected the statement following the realization, which ended up being a good proof that an omnipotent being can't logically exist. As for the accusation, I say that I indeed agree that God has to have no need to split into two or build new machines. They however, allow for a visualization of how such a feet could be accomplished and give us insight. There is nothing that says that these two entities can't be separate mechanisms inside God itself and the same applies for machines. Why should God be just a singular body? (Hex4) (talk) 0:02, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Sure, there's a solution. God doesn't exist, thus the paradox is moot.—€h33s3βurg3rF@€3 Spinning-Burger.gif (talkstalk) 22:27, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Not exactly. Donald Trump, for instance, does exist. If someone said that Donald Trump is omnipotent, using the omnipotence paradox to prove that he doesn't exist won't get you far, but you can use the omnipotence paradox proves that nothing can be omnipotent, which thus means that Donald Trump isn't omnipotent. (Hex4) (User talk:Hex4) 1:04, 12 august 2017 (UTC)
I guess what you're saying. I was saying that if we already know for a fact that X doesn't exist, we can be sure that X not omnipotent in the same way that X didn't drink a soda, or something. However, this argument doesn't go far with a creationist, so the omnipotence paradox is a better argument.—€h33s3βurg3rF@€3 Spinning-Burger.gif (talkstalk) 00:01, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
Just because I'm a philosophy geek... The angle you take above — that any supposed omnipotence of God becomes a practical non-issue since God doesn't even exist in the first place — is actually distinct from the paradox of omnipotence itself.
The angle you take concerns the question of non-existent objects; i.e., if things that don't exist can still have properties or not. As the internal link likely reveal, I personally find the very concept of a "non-existent object" to be ill-formed.
Now, this is a completely valid angle for you to take. I hope it is apparent that I agree with your conclusion, and that none of this is said in protest of your point (it isn't). I write this entirely as a "the moar you know" type of thing.
Again, as a total philosophy geek, I just wanted to note that it's one thing to discuss if a specific property is inherently paradoxical on its own (on the one hand), and quite another to discuss wether or not only that which actually exists can possess properties or not (on the other).
Still, you're not wrong. But this is philosophy. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 12:12, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

The answer to the question[edit]

Involves Schrodinger's cat and 'pulling oneself up by one's bootstraps.'

And is not 'I #can# do this, but I #choose# not to do it' a form of omnipotence? Does God have omni-potential or omni-capability? Or God decides that to follow through the concept will result in an omni-shambles. (talk) 21:48, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Another website[edit]

I know it is another wiki - but can reference be made to the equivalent Apologetics Wiki page which seems measured and reasonable. Anna Livia (talk) 10:57, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Birdman's background[edit]


  1. Several typos on the website.
  2. Putting your arguments on your website rather than getting into print first.
  3. Being 'rather less than friendly' towards other participants on the RW article talk page.
  4. Refusing to answer legitimate questions. Anna Livia (talk) 10:57, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
I also like to add being unnecessarily pretentious and wordy, devoting most of those words to condescension. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 18:54, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
Lefty, I happened to notice that you made absolutely no mention of the fact that I have developed a counter-paradoxical resolution to the Stone Paradox. Isn't that why we are all here?--Birdman (talk) 14:16, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

God and time[edit]

'The universe as we know it' is composed of space-time - but the time component appears to be not included in the discussion of the paradox. (This would not necessarily involve moving 'the stone' atom by atom.) Any thoughts anyone? Anna Livia (talk) 12:44, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

A Direct Response to the Question - Rejected?[edit]

I have made numerous attempts at adding a contribution (a simple link) to the RationalWiki Omnipotence Paradox page which directly addresses the paradoxical logic used in regard to omnipotence and each time it is deleted by rogue individuals who simply don't like it or personally feel omnipotence is not possible. They are acting out of raw emotion and not logic.

Here is a link to the website:
Here is a link to the video series that explains the entire construct of the CGCP counter-paradoxical response: Circular God Counter-paradox (complete response)
Here is a link to the #1 response out of over 365 response (including what is argued here on RationalWiki) offered to the Paradox of the Stone on since the website first came online: #1 Answer to the Paradox of the Stone

Now, RationalWiki has a section called "External Links" and I am not even able to include a link to an entire website dedicated to the most famous of all Omnipotence Paradox questions? ...Does that really seem "rational" to you?

The website provides a direct response to the Stone Paradox that uses the same form of paradoxical logic that the Stone Paradox uses to destroy omnipotence, but instead turns it around and uses it to destroy the Stone Paradox. The end result is that no determination can be reached regarding the existence of omnipotence other than a paradox cannot determine the existence (or non-existence of anything at all.

There are literally SCORES of objections and challenges offered to the CGCP resolution demonstrated on this website and not a single one of them has been able to defeat or negate this counter-paradoxical response. ...Not a single one!

What I'm running into on RationalWiki is these rogue individuals that cannot think past even the most simple and basic of these challenges (that are very easy to counter), yet they are deleting my simple contribution regardless. This is not the way RationalWiki is supposed to operate! If the information is available, cannot be refuted and is fashioned by using a solid reasoning, then it needs inclusion at the very LEAST within the "External Links" section of the Omnipotence Paradox page.

If you don't agree to allow this counter-paradoxical response to be included, then you are purposely refusing to allow a revolutionary response to the very topic of your RatioinalWiki page from being considered by your website's viewers. Let whoever reads this counter-paradoxical response decide for themselves if it is "worthy" on their own! They don't need your censorship help on this one, I assure you.--Birdman (talk) 15:42, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

It seems like your website has built at least 90% of their objections around the introduction of an unnecessary confounding variable they call "Plane" that provides no resolution to the underlying conjecture.

Exempli gratia

Challenge: If it's a rock that he can't lift, how can he lift it even if he uses more the power of omnipresence? Infinity x infinity is still infinity, and the rock is infinitely heavy, so infinity = infinity, therefore he cannot lift the rock."

Response: The stone has an established weight that does not increase or decrease as per the requirements of the Stone Paradox. The stone's weight remains as a constant the moment it is created. At that specific moment, the weight of the rock is grater than the capacity of God on Plane (B) to lift, but this inability is compensated for by God on Plane (A) who is able to simultaneously lift the stone, God and Plane (B).

They introduce a third variable that bifricates their solution space, creating a god A, rock A, and "plane" A, then pointedly ignore that their supposedly omnipotent god A cannot lift their rock A, making it non-omnipotent, thus non-god. They just pretend that scenario doesn't exist anymore. It's... well... dumb. Is there a better word? All I've got is "They didn't think 3 seconds about their position" ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:57, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

That is not accurate as I have received a wide variety of reasonings as to why they feel the CGCP resolution is wrong. There is no unnecessary complication involved with the addition of a "plane" as it is acceptable to offer an unspecified surface to provide a measurable amount of distance for the rock to be raised. From the way you have described the CGCP response it is more like you spent less that 3 seconds researching how it works. You have completely misstated what is happening and then rendered an emotion-based decision. That is not what RationalWiki is about, my friend.

But here is my dilemma: You (and all the others) will just keep hacking away at my counter-paradox response without ever reaching a determination. It can go on forever! I am confident that I can adequately counter any and all arguments, but if at the end of the day it makes no difference to whether the website link gets added, then what is the purpose in even offering a counter-argument to your claims?

You just wrote, "It's... well... dumb." That's not a rational argument. That's just an emotional response! That's the same as what a Theist would say when someone asks them the Stone Paradox question. I had one individual say it was "stupid" and then 99 responses later he's still trying to defeat the CGCP response. If it was so "Stupid" then why was he hanging around 99 comments later still trying to support his claim? Do I have to suffer another 99 arguments from you now that you have just said that it's dumb?

Before I get slammed with a myriad of objections from you and everyone else that have already been fully responded to on the website, you need to offer me a way to which if I can successfully provide counter-arguments that the link can be added. You may not "like" how I counter, but if it is a valid counter-argument, then you have to allow for the addition of the link. Otherwise I am required to take it to the chicken coup and show everyone else how you just kept "arguing away" even though all of the counter-arguments are accurate.
So before I respond, what is an acceptable criteria in this forum that can fairly decide if the link gets added? How many questions am I required to answer?
 What am I required to do that results in a final decision?--Birdman (talk) 18:13, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
Am I right in thinking (a) that infinity x infinity = a different sort of infinity, and (b) when someone claims they have a solution to a philosophical/scientific/logic/mathematical problem but does not have a background in that field or the relevant field in which they are approaching it from they are probably wrong.
There is a typo in the first paragraph here and which variety of football? And on [4] why should God be 'He' and the challenge/response goes rather off-topic. Anna Livia (talk) 21:31, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
Annnnnnnnnnnnnd there it is! I have "Christopher" deleting my contribution without even explaining why. This is followed by "ikanreed" who completely misrepresents what I have proposed... and now we have "Anna Livia" whose only intellectual contribution to the issue is to offer some strange claim about infinity which I have not made, point out a typo and "rationally deduce" that whenever someone works out something complex that they don't have a phD in that "it's probably wrong." ...So this represents "RationalWiki"? This is what "rational thinking" is considered?

I asked for a what would be considered a fair and legitimate criteria for me to use in order to have a final decision reached on adding the link. Nobody seems to want to provide me with one and no one seems to have a legitimate argument against the CGCP resolution as well. All you can do is delete my contribution. All I can say is that I'm documenting all of this! When you can offer me a finite criteria (conditions that are able to be met) on how the link can be added, then I will respond to any and all of your challenges.--Birdman (talk) 23:25, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
I did not say you had to have a PhD - only that persons making claims should have some background in the subject: the infinity question was a comment by the by. Which variety of football and why should the Deity be masculine?
And I could not follow your arguments. Anna Livia (talk) 11:26, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
That's right, Anna, I don't have a PhD, but how do you know I don't have a background in philosophy or any experience in these conceptual matters? You just "assumed" this, didn't you? Is that what you call being rational? And really? ...Which football? Offsetting penalties is only found in American football and the default pronoun for an unknown gender has been "he" for centuries and still remains the academic writing default. Is that the very best you've got to add to this RationalWiki discussion? Seriously?

Your inability to follow a simple stick figure drawing speaks volumes as one only needs a degree in hangman to understand it. I'm very sorry to break this to you, Anna, but there is no game called "Hangwoman" either.

Even with stating the same thing over and over, you STILL have not provided me with a criteria for having the link added. This has greatly confused me, so I did some research and now I know why. I had NO IDEA RationalWiki was a skeptics website in full support of Atheism. I've now read about the website's bitterness towards Conservapedia and your (SPOV) policy. I had no idea! You all aren't interested in things that are considered "rational" or interesting logic-based resolutions to paradoxes. You're only interested in things that support a militant Atheist agenda. This is why I have been so confused on why you all have been so dedicated to deleting my simple website link contribution. The idea that your precious little Stone Paradox might be compromised in some way has caused you to circle your wagons and protect it at all cost. The truly sad part is that I have no connection at all to the religious aspects of the Stone Paradox because it has nothing to do with my perception of universal existence. It was just a frickin' paradox (a puzzle) and something that is intellectually desirable to try to solve.

However, Atheists actually believe that this paradox eliminates the possibility for the existence of God and therefore you need this paradox to remain unscathed. You are emotionally and psychologically connected to a stupid paradox, and that literally blows my mind!

I know now what this RationalWiki website is all about and that you really don't care about the subject matter as much as forwarding an Atheist agenda. Because of this I now know that I will never get my link added to your agenda-driven website. But at the same time, you know deep inside that you cannot successfully argue against the Circular God Counter-paradox, and that's just a simple fact. Yah, you can delete my counter-paradox link, call it stupid and toss out a straw man (or straw woman) argument on what is the default use of a proper pronoun, but at the end of the day, you can't rescue your precious little Stone Paradox from being nullified. ...And that's just a undeniable fact based on a rational conclusion. ...Go team Atheism!— Unsigned, by: Birdman / talk / contribs
Since when was the stone paradox needed to "disprove" God? The total lack of evidence for God's existence rules out most of the the popular ones. Christopher (talk) 13:21, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
Check out Christopher returning to the fray with his blatant "Circular Argument" offered to a supposedly "rationally-based" website!
Christopher: "God doesn't exist."
Birdman: "How do you know?"
Christopher: "Here's why: Can God make a stone so heavy that he cannot lift it?"
Birdman: "Here's the Circular God Counter-paradox to answer your question."
Christopher: "That doesn't work."
Birdman: "Why not?"
Christopher: "Because god doesn't exist."
....Unfrickinbelievable! ...Go team Atheism! Rah! Rah! Rah!--Birdman (talk) 14:18, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
When did I say that? Christopher (talk) 17:34, 14 October 2017 (UTC)


Only moments ago, my friend!--Birdman (talk) 18:58, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Except I didn't, I said the stone paradox isn't the only reason someone could be an atheist, as you implied. Christopher (talk) 19:29, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Maybe not, but it's the reason you and your Atheist buddies "need" to delete/censor my contribution. I actually thought I found a true "logic and reasoning" based website that would be interested in a counter-paradoxical response. Instead I unknowingly walked into a room full of delete-happy snowflake Atheists who get all butt-hurt at the idea that their precious little Stone Paradox has gone down in flames. The only way you can actually sleep at night while believing your life has no meaning or purposes is if the Stone Paradox has eliminated the existence of God... so you'll do anything (even defying logic and reason) in order to protect your nothingness-based zero-sum ideology. After all, if this were not true, then you would have provided me with a mutually-agreeable method for determining if the link should be added instead of crying, "There is no God!"--Birdman (talk) 20:18, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
BM - you are abusive, #you give no actual proof# that you have a background in philosophy, you have not said which sort of football you are using and what about the offside rule - and why should god be male?
Perhaps there are several gods (of various, multiple and no genders) - and 'one or several' turn the stone into scree/the equivalent of one of the 'snake water toy.'
If RW users are snowflakes they are as pure as the driven slush. Anna Livia (talk) 21:31, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
And perhaps the reason why nobody has 'refuted' your arguments is that they have better things to do (like watching paint dry) than discussing something that appears to be wronger than wrong. Anna Livia (talk) 21:33, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
Well lookie here! My favorite little Atheist Snowflake Angel, Anna Livia, has resurfaced and once again brings absolutely nothing to the intellectual table. Anna's not interested at all in the validity of any proposed counter-paradoxical resolutions offered to an 800 year old paradox. No way! Anna's biggest concern is whatever my degree is in, what type of football I'm referencing, if I've made a typo somewhere ...and if God sports a wanker.

You can spew out, "It's wronger than wrong!" all day long but you are not able to demonstrate what you are spewing with any proof or logical arguments. It's bulletproof and you know it! Your only option at this point is to try to censor it or bury it to keep it from being discovered by others. Having someone be able to draw a stick figure drawing that totally destroys your precious Stone Paradox strikes at the very core of your existence!

The sad part is what you are doing is even worse that what a Theist does. A Theist will try to censor/delete something that has the capacity to destroy what they believe in, but this is because having to accept a senseless life that has no meaning or purpose represents an unthinkable horror to them. So it's better for them to bury something and hold onto their belief that there's something more to life than the empty Atheist's version of a purposeless zero-sum life shrouded in complete nothingness.

However, here we have YOU doing the exact same thing! You NEED Atheism to be the truth, so you'll try to bury something that has the capacity to destroy the truth you've come to believe all your life. Here's the sad part: You are willing to bury something that challenges the truth that you've held all your life through censorship in order to protect a belief that life is a zero-sum existence void of any meaning or purpose at all. .......What's that say about you?

Blah blah blah blah. I don't see why anyone here cares or should care about this discussion filled with this boring wordy condescending rambling. But you seem to care a lot about it, carry on. Don't be surprised that people don't want to be subjected to your rants, though. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 04:51, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Well, well, well, there's just so many little snowflake Atheists falling from the sky it's almost like a blizzard here on this supposed rationalwiki talk page. Now we've got ourselves another one! So what do they call a large grouping of delete-happy Atheists anyway? Is it a gaggle? ...a brood? ...flock, maybe? Don't you want to know if God has a pee-pee? That's the biggest concern for Anna Livia. Talk about wasting people's time, geeeze! And, Mr. leftyGreenMario, what stupid topic would you rather discuss other than Omnipotence? The democratic party? ...Green energy? ...Super Mario bros? Yah, really hard to guess what you're all about. As for me, I brought a counter-paradoxical response to an 800 year old paradox to the table and tried to add a relevant link to the RationalWiki omnipotence page. What have you brought other than your pretty little rainbow-colored user name and a mindless rant?--Birdman (talk) 10:29, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
'I thought this was Rationalwiki' - drink.
Describing RW users as atheists who do not want their worldview challenged in any way - drink (there are probably a range of viewpoints among the creative contributors).
'You (negative term or terms) (derogatory term for group) of (negative terms) - drinks.
Misattributing what I, Anna Livia, say, my interests, and calling me an atheist (when I tend to present a more agnostic viewpoint) - how can anyone take you seriously (especially as #you do not answer my questions#).
Calling me a snowflake - you wish. Anna Livia (talk) 10:46, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
If you're here for a thoughtful argument, focus more on the argument, less on being a smug twat. Thanks. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 19:01, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
To whom are you talking (trying to be mildly pretentious) LGM? Anna Livia (talk) 22:01, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
Responding to Birdman. I'm sorry if you took it the wrong way. I've tried reading the discussion and I can feel the exasperated frustration going on and I just want to be honest about things. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 22:59, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
LGM I could see the comments were criss-crossing, so clarifying (and hence my 'pretentious'). I have lost track - are we discussing 'wronger than wrong' or 'not even wrong' (or is it a case of 'Why are you banging your head against a brick wall?', 'Because it is so nice when I stop.'?) Anna Livia (talk) 16:39, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
I don't know anymore, but this is a ton of prose likely wasted for a person who doesn't really care about our efforts. Honestly, @Anna Livia, I think we should move on at this point. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 19:31, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

The whole point is[edit]

... we are 'mere mortals' with limitations on what we can understand, even if we can come up with complex ideas and lines of research (and have a sense of wonder and a sense of humour) while 'the deity' #whether or not omnipotent# and #whether or not being able to do something or choosing to do something# (which are two different things) will have a different perspective on the matter of this category paradoxes (as we define them). Anna Livia (talk) 10:21, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

But can God make a video game so difficult, he can't beat it? Can he make a goat so hairy, he can't shave it completely? Can he make the sun so hot it can burn him? Can he fit a triangle into a circular peg without modifying the peg or the triangle? Can God create another god that's more powerful than him? Can he make something that's in negative Kelvin? Can God create an argument so contrived he doesn't want to finish it? Can he just not make a tree so his complete responsibility created "in his image" doesn't inevitably screw up? --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 19:43, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
To coin a phrase - God only knows. Anna Livia (talk) 21:04, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

I think the point is: Can we apply logic and other reasoning skills to true omnipotence? If yes, omnipotence is necessarily limited to these criteria and we can come up with all kinds of example of how our logical omnipotence isn't really true omnipotence. If no, we can't apply reason, so why even talk about it? RSamys (bla) 08:44, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

We are constrained by the limitations on our capacities and 'the logic of the universe in which we exist' - but we can make use of what we have, and can decide what examples are relevant and which are examples of straw-omnipotence.
'Somewhere in the wherever' various deities have been considering such things for (longer than several universes reaching their respective heat deaths) - so why should we be able to solve such things - or they set us mortal and constrained species such logic problems to see what we can come up with (as we have to use our ingenuity/have not spent that long considering the matter). Anna Livia (talk) 11:11, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
"various deities have been considering such things"[citation needed] :-)
"so why should we be able to solve such things" Solve a logical paradox? Why would we want that, what would we base our arguments on if not on logic? But if we wanted that, we would need to try before giving up.
I'm able to imagine a hypothetical god interfering with this universe in a way that defies reason. But in that case, arguing about the god wouldn't make any sense. There would be contradictions, so we can't reach any definite conclusions. As soon as you're saying we can't argue rationally, I don't see why I would continue the argument. RSamys (bla) 13:21, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
I was indulging in speculation as to what god/deities get up to/discuss - and that they will have fewer (or possibly different) limitations to us (we have to find out our limitations/decide that these are strengths/find ways of getting round the limitations). And there is a story trope - the narrator character completes the quest because they did not know it was impossible.
We can use (and accept the validity of) logic - but also accept that there are various areas/topics which appear to be problematic as far as logic is concerned - what happens within a black hole where the laws of physics appear to break down might be another. Anna Livia (talk) 13:43, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
Didn't Godel prove, logically (Well, mathematically, but that is practically the same thing) that if a system is consistent (ie. no contradictions) then there are certain true things within the system that cannot be proven (or disproven) from within said system? --Bertrc (talk) 17:18, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Glass Houses[edit]

I've read all of the snarky comments that you all have left. I have most of them copied and documented. Has anyone gone to the very top of my entries or my talk page to read the friendly little "greeting" I received from you all for submitting a simple link to a website that direclty deals with the "Paradox of the Stone"? The very first comment I received I was mocked and my concept was deemed "Stupid" without anyone asking a single question first. Yah, I've been a complete asshole, and I know it! I chose to be an asshole because you all chose to be assholes from the very start! I have had no trouble at all adding this link to other wiki websites, yet here you all clearly have an agenda. And then you get all pissy about it when your agenda gets pointed out to you. The fact is that my counter-paradoxical resolution could be 100% rock-solid (pun intended) and you STILL wouldn't allow so much as a link to be added you your omnipotence paradox page. So you tell me? ...Why should I kiss any one of your asses? What's my motivation?--Birdman (talk) 00:45, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, we have an agenda. Our agenda is strongly oriented towards viewing things in light of evidence. See Essay:I thought this was supposed to be RATIONALWiki, if you haven't already. If you were originally greeted rudely, that doesn't justify further impolite action on your behalf. Whoever did treat you poorly probably shouldn't have. I don't see anyone getting "pissy" for having our "agenda" pointed out, I'd think RationalWiki is pretty openly atheist etc. But the reason for that is that atheism is, in light of the available evidence (which covers a huge range of fields), the seemingly most "rational" viewpoint. The main issue is that your response to this paradox doesn't address the paradox, just adds extra information to it. I've detailed these issue on your talk page. —Kazitor, pending 05:01, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
Well, Kazitor, it is ironic that this whole CGCP resolution is based on the mating of a paradox with a counter-paradox and the subsequent nullification of them both in the process, because that's exactly what has happened with your many Atheist buddies slamming me and my counter-slamming them in return. We end up with mutual-nullification. Since you are many and I am only one, then logic states that I will be tossing out more slams to balance the condition.
By the way, the entire argument you made on my talk page went down in flames (thanks to Christopher's argument). Would you like me to post it over here for the rest of your Atheist buddies to "empirically witness?"
In regard to your claim of: "atheism is, in light of the available evidence (which covers a huge range of fields), the seemingly most "rational" viewpoint." ...Well, one empirically-based fact remains that even though your argument on my talk page was completely nullified by Christopher's counter-argument (just like the CGCP does to the Stone paradox) the link will never be added - NEVER! This is because it goes against your intellectually-protected ideology that you claim is so purely defined by "logic and reason." However, is it "reasonable and logical" to claim you are justified in doing so if both of you have negated each other arguments? ...And does Atheism still remain this supposed bastion of reason when you stand in complete denial of the facts that have just been presented to you? --Birdman (talk) 13:07, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
It didn't go down in flames. See your talk page for my attempt at explaining.
If you were right, the only fact you could point out that we have a poor understanding of omnipotence. This is possible, we are not infallible. That doesn't change an atheist's stance, because the burden of proof still hasn't been met. This paradox is fun, but ultimately not very useful for us. Maybe there is a god defying all logic or our understanding and its existence can be shown or reasonably assumed. But this isn't yet the case. RSamys (talk) 13:20, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
Nope, I'm sorry, but both of their arguments remain nothing more then blackened embers and all that is left is a puffy cloud of smoke that's sloooowly drifting away. I have responded to your follow-up and you will see why their arguments have gone up in flames.
And RSamys, you are emotionally attaching the concept of "omnipotence" to god and that is why you brought up the Atheists' desire for empirical proof. If you strip out this "god thing" from the concept of omnipotence, then it merely remains as a mind-bending puzzle. It is only when you feel compelled to assign omnipotence to possibly supporting the existence of God does the Atheist limit their ability to logically process the data to which they have been presented.
When you wrote: "if you were right, the only fact you could point out that we have a poor understanding of omnipotence." that is what someone who has a bias which is slanting their determination might say. What you wrote is not a proper conclusion and is based more on an emotional connection than anything else. I'm not "right" about anything as the CGCP does not prove the existence of God in any way or anything else for that matter. It's not even designed to do that! All my counter-paradox is designed to do is destroy the Stone Paradox using the same paradoxical logic that the stone paradox is using to destroy omnipotence. None of this has anything to do with god. It has everything to do with how we process paradoxical logic.
It is good that we keep all of this on someone's talk page and not on the page in question, isn't it? That way nobody else will find it! Once again, the fact remains that the link will NEVER be added to this rationalwiki page even if it is valid. You state that Atheism is the clearest pathway to truth, so tell me, what I have just stated not the truth? --Birdman (talk) 14:38, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
OK, we'll see.
Wait, wait, wait, I am? I thought I had detached myself from god necessitates omnipotence with my statement... Let me re-state, then: I could accept a demonstration of omnipotence as a demonstration of a god. And I could accept a demonstration of a god and not know if they're really omnipotent yet, because that doesn't necessarily follow.
I freely admit, I am biased. I think there are no gods (under most definitions), even though I could be wrong. But all I said was that the concept alone doesn't prove the concept has become reality. An argument is useless if it can't be applied outside my mind. I didn't state it disproves a god. I responded to your claims about "the facts that have just been presented to you" - and the facts just presented could only point to a possibility of the paradox being valid or invalid. Just as I can't prove that way that all gods are impossible, you can't prove that a god automatically follows from disproving the argument (if you did do that). I agree with you that this doesn't actually have anything to do with gods unless we posit that they are necessarily and absolutely omnipotent.
I don't know if it's better on one talk page or another, nor do I care. I don't care about the article, right now. I don't care about the link, right now. I also haven't made such a statement, mostly because "clear" is a bit ambiguous. But yes, I agreed with you that this has nothing to do with gods.RSamys (talk) 15:06, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

My version of our existence has nothing to do with "Omnipotence" and the Stone Paradox represents nothing more than a fun puzzle to me. However, the design of the Stone Paradox provides a logic-based method for eliminating the possibility of omnipotence existing (and retroactively eliminating God in the process). Atheists LOVE this because in their minds it gives them an easy argument to toss out at those stupid Theists which logical dis-proves god.

So +800 years later some crazy guy comes up with a counter-paradoxical response that destroys the Stone Paradox using the same form of paradoxical logic that the Stone Paradox uses to destroy omnipotence. Now the Atheists end up all butt-hurt and emotionally wounded because they can no longer toss out their logic-based elimination of the existence of God to the many disgruntled Theists cringing on the business end of the Stone Paradox. Atheists mistakenly fear that this is in some represents "triumph for Theism" and that I have somehow attempted to prove the existence of God. The TRUTH is that the only thing the CGCP has done is eliminate a frickin' paradox - nothing more! It hasn't proven the existence of anything at all.

So as long as the agenda-driven ideologues of Atheism perceive this CGCP response as a threat, then I'm just wasting my time here on rationalWiki and my link will never be added. However, you Atheists still have to deal with reality that my CGCP resolution has defeated the Stone Paradox no matter if the link gets added or not.--Birdman (talk) 16:08, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

The problem is - the rest of those who are engaged in this discussion, whether atheist or of some other viewpoint, and whatever our agendas (collectively or individually), do not see your proposition as a threat - we do not understand it/do not see it as relevant to the discussion of the actual paradox. Anna Livia (talk) 16:53, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
Birdman: Another problem is that you seem to fail to understand our argument time and time again. I've seen repeated comebacks as "you haven't responded to my statement" and you repeatedly failed to directly counter some points. I've looked at your arguments and it lies mostly creating an ad hoc argument of some exterior existing Plane B. Virtually, it's the same as "he can and can't lift it at the same time". This "answer" has logical problems of its own. My own problem with this paradox, the liar's paradox, sums up my thoughts: the question itself is a paradox. "The self-referential aspect (Can God do something He cannot do) renders the entire statement meaningless." I don't think you need to undergo mental gymnastics with convoluted Plane A and Plane B stuff and just say the question is self-defeating. I'd look elsewhere. Finally, your "Plane B" thing doesn't really hold up when presented with "Can God kill himself?" or "Can God create a wall so strong, he can't destroy it?" or "Can God limit his power?" and the response "it doesn’t deal with something that is already impossible by design" still means God is constrained by logic and therefore is not omnipotent. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 19:40, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
Another answer might involve recourse to a Schrödinger's cat situation. Anna Livia (talk) 21:43, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
Here's the truth, Lefty: The first comment I received after submitting my link and having it deleted was, "this is ... well ...stupid." yet here you all are over a month later trying to break my counter-paradox. There have been so many comments buried in huge block of text that I haven't been able to find them all. Some of them I don't answer because there's no motivation for me to do so. Since we are talking "truth" here, then it is the truth that you will never allow for the link to be added no matter if it does nullify the Stone Paradox because it goes against your ideology. I'm not nice to you because most of you have been complete asses from the onset and there is no real need for me to be nice in return, because nothing is gained in doing so.
The truth is that I have already refuted all of the challenges tossed out by every one of you on other websites. You are simply using different words than they do, but your arguments are just as easily countered none the less (and my main point is coming, I assure you). The TRUTH is that I set you all up. I knew sooner or later one of you would argue the CGCP is flawed because "God lifts the stone" and another would argue the CGCP is flawed because "God fails to lift the stone." Once these two Atheists stepped on this intellectual land mine you both blew your entire arguments that the Circular God Counter-paradox is flawed. If you are the ones deleting the link and yet you offer diametrically-opposed arguments in the process, then you have no business whatsoever deciding for everyone else in the world if the link is "on mission" (whatever the hell that means?).
And here's my main point (as I promised earlier):
For over 800 years everyone has enjoyed asking the "Paradox of the Stone" question: It's fun to watch people squirm in trying to answer it. There have been scores of world renowned theologians, scholars, philosophers including the likes of St. Thomas Aquinas, Rene Descartes, and Alvin Plantinga throughout the past 800 years who have all been forced to try to "explain away" the Stone Paradox because they cannot answer it. They argue against the "merit" of the question instead. They all argued how the Stone Paradox was an unfair question, how it didn't reflect the true nature of God, how it wasn't a fair test of omnipotence and a litany of other reasons. They did this because the couldn't answer the damned question!
So fast forward to 2017 and a specifically-designed counter-paradox can now be used to counter the Stone Paradox and no determination can be made either way regarding the existence of Omnipotence. So what happens? Just like all of those historic scholars, theologians and philosophers from the past had to do, you are now reduced to "explain away" the Circular God Counter-paradox ...because you cannot defeat the damned answer! The tables have been turned! You are now reduced to arguing against the "merit" of the answer. And here's a news update for you: Arguing against the merit didn't work against the question - and it doesn't work against the response. The moment Christopher and Kazitor made their diametrically-opposed determinations in an attempt at showing a flaw... your fate was sealed!
And lastly, in 1633 Galileo was indefinitely imprisoned by the Catholic church because he was telling them the truth that none of them wanted to hear (or be known by others). The church's "ideology" was considered far more important than whatever Galileo had discovered. Now here we are 384 years later and you all doing the exact same thing as the Catholic church did. You are banning my counter-paradox that I discovered because your ideology is considered more important than the truth. There is a reason why this is called the "Glass Houses" section. — Unsigned, by: Birdman / talk / contribs
Resort to the Galileo argument - drink.
For every Galileo afterwards proved right, there will be tens of 'possibilities considered worth exploring but found to be irrelevant/non-viable etc (eg the 'steady state' theory of the universe) and 'many, many' that prove to be wrong on many, many grounds, despite the protests of their proponents.
The 'ideology' of RW is that 'arguments, discussions, and theses' should have a certain minimum level of correctness, understanding of the concepts, verifiableness and external support - and the consensus is that your 'counter-paradox' does not achieve this. Anna Livia (talk) 09:52, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Exactly this. You seem to think our "ideology" is just "OMG they're just atheists blinded by their ideology and won't listen to my perfectly reasonable argument!!1!!11!" We don't disbelieve you because we're hardcore atheists (as I said, the omnipotence paradox has little to do with religions and as far as I know, the bible doesn't ever claim that its god is omnipotent anyway), it's because your reasoning is flawed. That simple. Anyway, you're pulling the Galileo gambit; just because your reasoning goes against popular consensus, doesn't mean you get a free pass and are automatically right. Also note: the Catholic church put Galileo under house arrest. All you've had are a short-term block (that still enabled discussion on your talk page, i.e. not completely silencing you) and unproductive edits to this page reverted. I can't speak for anyone else, but the impression I get (by the fact that anyone is debating you in the first place) is that we are all being open-minded and are fully willing to accept your argument, it's just that you can't adequately defend it. Maybe you should acknowledge that perhaps, just maybe, it might actually be flawed? Please consider that. —Kazitor, pending 10:13, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Anyone care to rework and extend my definition into a 'what Rationalwiki is' entry (comparable to the definitions on the other place)? Anna Livia (talk) 10:53, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Galileo affair: "Responding to mounting controversy over theology, astronomy and philosophy, the Roman Inquisition tried Galileo in 1633 and found him "vehemently suspect of heresy", sentencing him to indefinite imprisonment. Galileo was kept under house arrest until his death in 1642." Kazitor writes: "is that we are all being open-minded and are fully willing to accept your argument, it's just that you can't adequately defend it." .......Oh, really? That's complete BS! You all are the complete opposite of "open minded" and you have behaved exactly like the Catholic church. I had my link submission deleted and then Christopher banned me from editing this talk page proclaiming I was "just generally being a dick." He did this because YOUR SIDE could not be defended.
And I have FULLY DEFENDED my counter-paradox and you know it! Hell, we're into our second month on this and not a single one of you has defeated the CGCP's foundation. It works - PERIOD! You and Christopher have both adequately defended my counter-paradox in my behalf! So don't hand me that crap! Where's the "smoking gun" flaw, Kaz? Where is it? Also, where's Nog Bogmire now eh? He called it "stupid" from the very start, but just as soon as he saw his many Atheist buddies get handed an intellectual smack-down he's suddenly nowhere to be found anymore. ...Isn't that rather strange?
As I stated before, you all have defended my CGCP for me! You did! I didn't even have to defend it and I find that extremely funny! Now you are reduced to rhetoric because you've got nothing else to offer. ...So either produce a "smoking gun" flaw in the CGCP or stay out of the discussion!--Birdman (talk) 13:45, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
(Panto voice) 'Oh no they haven't!'
We all have different points at which watching the film on paint drying (607 minutes) becomes a better option than discussions such as this. Anna Livia (talk) 16:44, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Okay, let's say your stone trick worked, it still doesn't solve all problems and it still doesn't actually counter the actual point, "can an unstoppable force do the impossible?" or something along those lines. But hey, let's shift the wording around. "Can God create something so big he can't eat it?" "Can God transform into an imperfect being?" "Can God create a wall so tough he can't break it?" "Can God mutilate himself?" which all operate on similar logic. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 19:57, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
One more thing, if God is omnipotent, can he make an argument so good he can't argue against it? --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 22:27, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

LeftyGreenMario writes: "let's say your stone trick worked." It's not a trick at all. It's a specifically designed counter-paradox called the "Circular God Counter-paradox" based on circular-moving events that develop throughout all stages of infinite regress. If you had RESEARCHED the CGCP you would have read NUMEROUS TIMES that it is "specifically designed to counter the Paradox of the Stone." It also clearly states that other omnipotence paradoxes would require a "specifically-designed counter-paradox to meet whatever challenge is presented." I have encountered other omnipotence paradox to which I can apply a similar paradoxical design that addresses the challenge, but the Stone Paradox is the one history shows as the "cornerstone" (pun intended) of omnipotence paradoxes. One I was recently presented was "Can God create a switch that he can't turn on? On this one, no omnipresence was required. All that was needed was omniscience. (Counter-paradoxical response).

The "ET Effect" comes into play on this one, Lefty. Right now there is no proof of intelligent life elsewhere in our universe. However, should one single alien land on planet Earth and introduce itself, then we know that there is at the very least "one" other form of intelligent life outside of planet Earth. There is no proof of "more than one" but what is absolutely known is the fact that "complex life does indeed exist elsewhere in our universe." Before there was zero - and now it is one. That's one major frickin' change, my friend. And it also becomes possible that where there is one, then there can be more than one.

The same applies for the omnipotence paradox. Before, ALL omnipotence paradoxes were left unresolved. Now one of them has been RESOLVED! However, if one omnipotence paradox can be resolved, then that means others can be resolved as well. This logically leads to the "possibility" that all omnipotence paradoxes can be resolved. To not include my link on the rationalWiki page titled "Omnipotence Paradox" is to deny the philosophical history that has just taken place before your very eyes with the introduction of this CGCP response.--Birdman (talk) 00:41, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Your "specifically designed counter-paradox" sounds exactly like a trick and it's not resolved at all, it's just extra contrived mental gymnastics that doesn't address the crux of the paradox. Even you admitted its limitations and because of this, it's hardly applicable to this article. For some reason, you seem to think that just because you can challenge a specific example of the paradox means the paradox itself is in question when it's more likely that the example isn't the best example and the extreme specifics required for your counter to work makes it pretty worthless as people can easily change examples and make you require a completely different clusterfuck of a thought jungle. The stone thing is merely a well-known example of the paradox since it's easier to think by concrete example. The page is not the stone paradox. The page is the omnipotent paradox. And if completely different contrived answers have to be made for every single possibly infinite examples in existence, you can't synthesize them into a coherent refutation for the paradox and we can be here forever arguing the merits of this one example you gave.
This isn't "philosophical history", this is painful mental contrivance. Frankly, it is pretty stupid, doesn't deserve any attention whatsoever, and given your attitude, I don't think people should waste so much breath trying to debate with someone who seems intellectually dishonest by several things: 1) constantly "conveniently" forgetting (I think you're dodging) counterpoints such as when I have to spell it out why your super specific example is not applicable to the whole picture of the omnipotence paradox but Anna and Christopher also have to constantly "remind" you of their counterpoints. 2) strawmanning users at RationalWiki and accusing them of serving an "agenda". 3) Projecting us as "dodging". 4) Assuming Kazitor has malicious intentions beyond the friendly reminder he gave you about the preview button and going into an unnecessary spat with him.
I'll sum up this entire discussion by a statement by Anna Livia that I agree with:

As far as I can see - Birdman states his point - 'one or other or several of us' who have decided to engage in this debate decide(s) to respond/suggest alternative lines of approach/refutes one aspect; Birdman reiterates his point without adapting his arguments - there are responses to him and amongst the rest of us; Birdman reiterates his point again and complains nobody takes him seriously.

I'll be frank: you don't deserve to be taken seriously and you honestly don't deserve this kind of discussion. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 19:27, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
@LeftyGreenMario You wrote: "Your "specifically designed counter-paradox" sounds exactly like a trick and it's not resolved at all..."
Well Lefty, whenever I read "sounds like" used in someone's argument, then I know they have absolutely nothing to offer. The truth is that there are logically only two possibilities in this regard:
(1) What it actually is.
(2) What it sounds like it is.
The only way something can "sound like" something else is when one personally chooses to disregard the true nature of what it actually is and SPIN it as something else. This is typically done out of desperation. When you state that my CGCP "sounds like" a trick, you are succumbing to an agenda-driven narrative that you would rather accept than the truth of what it actually is. You are actually admitting defeat by doing so!
For example: I don't have to say that LeftyGreenMario's latest argument "sounds like" a dodge due to the fact that he never could find a critical flaw in my Circular God Counter-paradox. Nope! I can just come right out and openly state it: You've totally dodged my argument!
FACT: "You NEVER FOUND A CRITICAL FLAW in my CGCP resolution to the Stone Paradox and this fact drives you literally NUTS!"
No "sounds like" spin is necessary because this is already a demonstrated fact. My CGCP resolution is not a "trick" because it doesn't need to be a trick in order to do its intended job. It is what it is -- it doesn't "sound like" anything other than what it is -- it works -- It's flawless -- you cannot expose a flaw because it is a paradox -- the Stone Paradox has been nullified ...and at the end of the day there's not a damn thing you can do about it, Lefty ---- End of story!
I just thought I'd stop in today and set the record straight (as was required of me so many times before). --Birdman (talk) 13:09, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
Sounds like you care an awful lot about this but everyone else at this point stopped caring about this. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 03:20, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Protected Ideology = irrationalWiki[edit]

Well, folks, it's been very interesting reading the wide variety of arguments offered from everyone who chimed in. I loved the fact that after Nog Bogmire declared my CGCP resolution as "stupid" on day one that the discussion continued on for nearly six weeks. Poor ol' Noggy obviously didn't know what he was dealing with, did he? Very interesting how something deemed so "stupid" at first glance managed to bring out all kinds of logic-based arguments once everyone realized the high levels of abstract thinking this counter-paradox actually requires. I think I've counted nine users on the two talk pages that have struggled in vain over the past six weeks to find a critical flaw. ...Isn't that correct?

I think the highlight of the entire six weeks of debating was when Chirstopher and Kazitor both chimed in with their very best arguments as to why the Circular God Counter-paradox supposedly didn't work. Christopher determined that "God lifts the rock, therefore he's not omnipotent!" and Kazitor determined that "God cannot lift the rock, therefore he is not omnipotent!" Yep, that's right! ...Diametrically-opposed determinations reached by two of your own rationalWiki users! I'm tellin' ya, ...Ya just can't write this stuff!

It was hilarious to observe how these two (and others) intellectually circled their wagons to try to save their failed arguments, but everything became crystal clear to everyone else right at that point. And as I've stated all along, it is your inner need to protect your Atheist ideology at all costs that has prevented you from adding the link to the rationalWiki "Omnipotence Paradox" page. Any rationally thinking person would have accepted the validity of my counter-paradox right at the point where Kazitor and Christopher clearly contradicted their own arguments.

It is sad to see this counter-paradoxical resolution which has been demonstrated to be 100% valid by way of your own arguments end up censored by rationalWiki. Many who frequent this website might have enjoyed discussing it with others as well? I wonder what arguments they would have made? However, it is the truth that wherever censorship is to be found, you will always find a protected ideology somewhere behind the curtains and manning the controls.

Good luck to you all! ...I'm off to the many other non-ideologically driven websites that still possess the desire to discover something intellectually revolutionary and freely present it to the world!

Sincerely, Birdman -- --Birdman (talk) 02:34, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

On Birdman's resolution of the paradox[edit]

To accept the solution to this paradox implies the following premises have to be established: 1: That God can be two beings at the same time. 2: That the ground he resides on is a mass that can be lifted. 3: That in lifting the rock the rock is automatically lifted.

However, suppose that he creates a stone so heavy that he could not lift it and that the ground below it can be, logic would dictate that he's going to lift the ground and the rock he's supposed to lift is going to fall straight through it to the ground he resides on. When creating a stone so heavy that he can't lift logic dictates that the three premises can't be true at the same time. Thus, the third premise never applies in comparison to the first two.

Confused yet, I've got a video on the topic:

User:Hex4talk 10:15, 4 november 2017 (UTC)

Birdman (supposedly) left; there's no use discussing this further. The majority (i.e. everyone except Birdman) opinion was that it was fundamentally flawed. —Kazitor, pending 09:28, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
No problem. I just wanted to give you my thoughts on the matter. User:Hex4 talk 12:34, 5 november 2017 (UTC)
@Hex4 Hello Hex (and Kazitor), I check in on this talk page from time to time as I find it extremely humorous. It's unbelievable how Atheists think! I like to see how very little depth is actually demonstrated in their comprehension the concept of "Omnipotence." Here's a perfect example:
1: That God can be two beings at the same time.
...It's called "Omnipresence." And if you feel an "Omnipotent Being" cannot have multiplicity, then you have already limited the power of omnipotence before even asking the Stone Paradox question. If I have "all power" then why the hell WOULDN'T I be able to be omnipresent? Think people! ...Think!
2: That the ground he resides on is a mass that can be lifted.
...Once again, why the hell wouldn't it be something that can be lifted by an Omnipotent Being? (especially since the Omnipotent Being is the one that made it!) If you think an omnipotent being cannot make a 2-dimensional plane that nothing it creates can pass through it (and have it be able to lift it afterward) then you haven't thought deep enough about what it would be like to possess "all power." You're thinking like a damn mortal.
3: That in lifting the rock the rock is automatically lifted.
...That is an absolutely nonsensical statement - one just one of MANY that were posted by the "Angry Atheists" who got all upset because someone finally came along and crushed their precious Stone Paradox. When is something that is lifted not lifted?
Every agenda-driven Atheist found on this RationalWiki talk page has only been able to "claim" that my CGCP resolution is flawed, but anyone who is NOT "agenda driven" that reads this talk page can easily see that not one single person has been able to DEMONSTRATE where it is flawed. That's why my CGCP is constantly increasing in popularity, being linked in more places and why RationalWiki remains "behind the times" in this regard. I know it sucks for you to have to deal with it... but it is what it is!--Birdman (talk) 12:02, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
I never argued that any of the premises in and of itself were wrong. I just stated that a combination of the first two premises leads to a physical problem that can only be solved by assuming premise 3 to be wrong. That being said, I agree that there was an error in premise 3. It should have said: that in lifting the ground the rock is automatically lifted. --Hex4 (talk) 20:57, 7 may 2018 (UTC)

Further discourse on the issue of omnipotence[edit]

I like to mention my previous answer in regard to the first two: 1: God splits itself into two entities. Entity one can create a stone so heavy that he cannot lift it, while entity two can lift every stone, no matter how heavy it is. 2: Entity one creates a stone so heavy that he cannot lift it. 3: Entity two lifts the stone. 4: Both merge together to form God.

Now, the answer above did resolve the paradox as stated, but not a stronger version of it, which can be defined as follows: "Can God create a stone so heavy that no one, including God, could not lift it". Via mathematical induction on those machines I have proven that he's not omnipotent under those circumstances.

However, I just noticed something rather strange when rethinking about it. It is that God in this instance is defined as a superposition between these two abilities. On one hand he can create a stone so heavy he could not lift it and on the other hand he can lift every stone. An omnipotent God can perfectly randomize the chance that he may or may not lift the stone in such a way that it's unpredictable. At one point he may create a stone so heavy he could not lift it, but at another point he's completely able to lift the stone and in the majority of the times there is a certain probable chance that he'll lift it. We can at all times assess the moment, but we don't know with what probability he'll lift the stone. However, since that he's perfectly able to be in control of that particular chance, this seems to prove his omnipotence.

That however, seems to contradict with the proof I just mentioned, which I for simplicity will add here:

I decided for this reply to retranslate the problem as God building a set of machines. With mathematical induction I will then proceed to prove or disprove the statement. The original problem stated that God should be able to create a stone so heavy that God could not lift it. If God created one machine as himself and that machine created a stone so heavy it could not lift it it would prove that God is not omnipotent as the machine could not lift the stone. If he could not create such a stone then it would disprove his omnipotence as he could not lift such a stone. Suppose we have proven for a set of n machines that show that he is not omnipotent, by either creating a stone so heavy they could not lift it or by being able to lift every stone. We thus have to prove for n+1 machines that he is not. If the n+1th machine created a stone so heavy the other n could not lift it it would show that he is not omnipotent as the machines can not lift the stone. If the n+1th machine could lift every stone like every other machine it would show that he is not omnipotent as he is not able to create a stone so heavy he could not lift it. However, the n+1th machine, also in God's image, may still be able to lift a stone so heavy that the other n, that are also God, could not and the n+1th machine, which is God, can create a stone so heavy that the n+1th machine can not lift but that can be lifted by all other n machines. I show now what happens when we add the restriction that no one, including God should be able to lift it. The "No one" in the statement includes all the other machines with God's name, else the above remains true. If the n+1th machine is able to lift a stone so heavy that the other n could not the n have failed to make a stone no one could lift. If the n+1th machine create a stone that it itself could not lift but that can be lifted by all other machines the n+1th machine has failed to make a stone others could not lift. We have thus proven that God is unable to create a stone so heavy that no one, including God, could lift. Thus we have proven that God (or any being for that matter) is not omnipotent.

How would you know what is right and what is wrong based on those two contradictory conclusions? User:Hex4(talk) 10:43 8 november 2017 (UTC)

First thought - God is not a machine. Anna Livia (talk) 10:13, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

I tend to agree, though as said, this is God as a builder of omnipotent machines. If he is omnipotent, he should be able to build an omnipotent machine that does the work for him. The second problem here was translated to that of a set of omnipotent machines and is a supposed proof that a being can't be omnipotent, in contrast to the previous statement which is a proof that a being can be omnipotent. User: Hex4 (talk) 12:31 8 november 2017 (UTC)
Can 'someone' state whether this argument is not a paradox of the 1=0 category? (And where does 'God becomes identical with the stone and cannot pull (reflexive pronoun) up' fit into the discussion?)
Having more than one omnipotent entity (Deity, 'deity divided'. machine or some other category) is likely to lead to bizarre outcomes.
Unless the proponent(s) of the argument can come up with new angles/approaches the discussion does appear to be meandering into the 'who will make the last comment' territory. Anna Livia (talk) 14:28, 8 November 2017 (UTC)