The Omnipotence Paradox

[First American Empire]

I'm sure many of you are familiar with the Omnipotence Paradox, often known as the Paradox of the Rock. The most common example is to ask whether God (or another omnipotent being) can create a rock so heavy that He cannot lift it. There are other examples, but they all ask whether an omnipotent being can place limits on His or Her own omnipotence. This question has been debated for a thousand years, and I think it's finally time we got an answer.

I, personally, am of the opinion that an omnipotent being could create a rock too heavy to lift."Omnipotence", by definition, means one is able to do anything, and "anything" includes giving up one's own omnipotence. To use a forum analogy, it would be like an admin having the power to ban themself. It makes no sense to do it, but it is still theoretically possible.

(Note: This is not specifically about the Abrahamic God. If you don't believe that God is omnipotent, use another theoretical omnipotent being for the purposes of this discussion.)

[United Muscovite Nations]

It's not a paradox at all because it's sophistry. It's not asking a real question.

[Galloism]

It's not a paradox at all because it's sophistry. It's not asking a real question.

Well, more to the point it’s a nonsensical question.

It’s premised on the notion that there’s something an omnipotent being cannot do, and so if the being is omnipotent, there’s nothing it cannot do, so asking if it can do something that requires it to be limited is nonsensical.

Could an omnipotent being create a rock the size of earth and lift it? Sure.
The size of the sun? Sure.
The size of the Milky Way? Well, it’s a black hole now, but sure.
The size of the universe? Sure.
The size of ten universes?
Fifty?
A hundred?
A million?

Sure. An omnipotent being can make a rock of literally any size. But there’s no such thing as a rock it can’t lift.

[United Muscovite Nations]

It's not a paradox at all because it's sophistry. It's not asking a real question.

Well, more to the point it’s a nonsensical question.

It’s premised on the notion that there’s something an omnipotent being cannot do, and so if the being is omnipotent, there’s nothing it cannot do, so asking if it can do something that requires it to be limited is nonsensical.

Could an omnipotent being create a rock the size of earth and lift it? Sure.
The size of the sun? Sure.
The size of the Milky Way? Well, it’s a black hole now, but sure.
The size of the universe? Sure.
The size of ten universes?
Fifty?
A hundred?
A million?

Sure. An omnipotent being can make a rock of literally any size. But there’s no such thing as a rock it can’t lift.

I like to phrase it this way: "Can God count to the highest number?"

[Grenartia]

I, personally, am of the opinion that an omnipotent being could create a rock too heavy to lift."Omnipotence", by definition, means one is able to do anything, and "anything" includes giving up one's own omnipotence. To use a forum analogy, it would be like an admin having the power to ban themself. It makes no sense to do it, but it is still theoretically possible.

Shockingly, this argument has convinced me. Well done.

[Risottia]

It's not a paradox at all because it's sophistry. It's not asking a real question.

A paradox is a statement that isn't either true or false.
As the answer to that question must be a paradox, that question is paradoxical.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

Imma go with what Gallo and UMN say.

[United Muscovite Nations]

It's not a paradox at all because it's sophistry. It's not asking a real question.

A paradox is exactly something that isn't either true or false.

And it's not that. The question doesn't make logical sense. It's like saying God isn't omnipotent because he can't count to the highest number, or can't draw a square circle. The question's premise is based on something that doesn't make logical sense.

[Lord Dominator]

Personally I prefer the answer that you're presuming an omnipotent being is bound by logic.

Or, they can create a rock they can't lift and the lift it anyways

[Earthbound Immortal Squad]

The rock would have to be heavy but not in a literal sense. If the rock had a symbolic sense/power that the being could not overcome then they could not lift it. Now for an omnipotent being that would be extremely difficult and the only thing which comes to mind is something from the beings past which they have never overcome maybe a deep loss or a failure despite all their power. If they have not overcome this then they will not have the power to lift the rock as the rocks power comes from their feeling of failure.

[-Ocelot-]

It's a paradox because it's based on a false assumption; the assumption that an omnipotent being can exist. So I guess the answer is no because there can't be an omnipotent being in the first place.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

It's a paradox because it's based on a false assumption; the assumption that an omnipotent being can exist. So I guess the answer is no because there can't be an omnipotent being in the first place.

Well said fellow intellectual. *Tips fedora*

[The Two Jerseys]

No. A truly omnipotent being would have infinite capabilities.

[Lost Memories]

/im14andthisisdeep

Actually most popular paradoxes self-resolve once it becomes clear they contain a logical error or misuse words.

[United Muscovite Nations]

It's a paradox because it's based on a false assumption; the assumption that an omnipotent being can exist. So I guess the answer is no because there can't be an omnipotent being in the first place.

No, it's based on the false assumption that there is a value higher than infinite value.

[Pacomia]

If the omnipotent being could do anything, wouldn’t that mean they would be able to lift the rock, too?

[The Empire of Pretantia]

When did we decide that omnipotence meant being able to do literally anything and not unlimited power anyway?

[Kowani]

Personally I prefer the answer that you're presuming an omnipotent being is bound by logic.

Or, they can create a rock they can't lift and the lift it anyways

They kinda have to be bound by logic.

[First American Empire]

It's not a paradox at all because it's sophistry. It's not asking a real question.

A paradox is a statement that isn't either true or false.
As the answer to that question must be a paradox, that question is paradoxical.

I didn't name it, okay.

[First American Empire]

It's a paradox because it's based on a false assumption; the assumption that an omnipotent being can exist. So I guess the answer is no because there can't be an omnipotent being in the first place.

I don't believe in an omnipotent being either. (My religion's Gods aren't omnipotent.) Treat this as a thought experiment for if an omnipotent being did exist.

[Lord Dominator]

Personally I prefer the answer that you're presuming an omnipotent being is bound by logic.

Or, they can create a rock they can't lift and the lift it anyways

They kinda have to be bound by logic.

Why?

Admittedly this answer makes more sense when dealing with God (any of them), since they would have presumably created logic, but I see no reason why it wouldn't be applicable in this hypothetical.

[Kowani]

They kinda have to be bound by logic.

Why?

Admittedly this answer makes more sense when dealing with God (any of them), since they would have presumably created logic, but I see no reason why it wouldn't be applicable in this hypothetical.

The example I gave in the IDT: Square Circles.

[The V O I D]

It's a paradox because it's based on a false assumption; the assumption that an omnipotent being can exist. So I guess the answer is no because there can't be an omnipotent being in the first place.

No, it's based on the false assumption that there is a value higher than infinite value.

Wouldn't an omnipotent being - if they were truly omnipotent - be able to create a value higher than infinity or multiple infinities? Or even infinite infinities?

If they can't, then that leads back into the Rock question and makes them no longer omnipotent. If they can, then your argument is invalid, and the Rock question is still a valid question, and regardless of if an omnipotent does create this hypothetical rock, it has then surrendered its omnipotence in the sense that it cannot lift this rock it has created. It could still erase the rock, or otherwise, take and remove the rock from existence, but it cannot physically lift the rock in a physical form.

Now, the truly important thing about this is that this means a truly omnipotent being ought to be able to surrender their omnipotence more permanently - that is, create an object that they can no longer affect in any form, physically or metaphysically or nonphysically or whatever else, by any means.

...actually, this could prove why any hypothetical omnipotent "god" or "gods" out there are now non-interventionist: they made the Universe an inviolable object immune to their own power.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

They kinda have to be bound by logic.

Why?

Admittedly this answer makes more sense when dealing with God (any of them), since they would have presumably created logic, but I see no reason why it wouldn't be applicable in this hypothetical.

Logic was developed from the human mind to explain phenomena and abstract concepts.

[United Muscovite Nations]

It's a paradox because it's based on a false assumption; the assumption that an omnipotent being can exist. So I guess the answer is no because there can't be an omnipotent being in the first place.

I don't believe in an omnipotent being either. (My religion's Gods aren't omnipotent.) Treat this as a thought experiment for if an omnipotent being did exist.

It's not a thought experiment. The question is nonsense. Lets reduce it to mathematics to show this:

The omnipotent being's power is infinite, represented by ∞, the rock's power is an undetermined value, represented by X

What the question is asking is: Can X > ∞ ?

There is no such concept as "> ∞" , so the question is asking something that is ridiculous.