Talk:Omnipotence paradox/Archive 1

message: Of course, if one follows Wikipedia's rules, the entire article must be deleted, because nothing in philosophy is verifiable (it fails the verifiability rule of Wikipedia). And most of the statements in the article qualify as "original research" as well (although that is true for the bulk of articles in Wikipedia, so if one is to follow the rules strictly, just about everything has to go). Thanks, Agateller 20:03, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

message: I added a section that explains how the paradox can be resolved by removing temporal constraints, which is entirely reasonable when one is discussing an omnipotent being.  I don't know why the rest of the article fails to cover this possibility, although it comes close to mentioning it in the "Pop culture" section.  A truly omnipotent being cannot be omnipotent unless it can create everything, and that would necessarily include such things as time.  Therefore an omnipotent being would logically be independent of time.  Therefore paradoxes that exist only because they assume temporal constraints would not exist for the omnipotent being, and the omnipotence paradox ceases to exist.
Agateller 11:16, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Resolving the paradox

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

message: The Wikipedia article is biased in favor of assuming that ‘god’ is possible i.e. a non-zero probability. This has not been demonstrated at all. Show that god is possible, (and the best way to do this is to produce at least one ‘god’ in a show and tell) and then we can discuss the properties this ‘god’ may possess. 
The best way to discuss the “paradox” is to recognize that it IS a matter of logic and not material reasoning, that is, it is a matter of abstract structure, not semantic content. The best way is the same way logician Louise Carroll approached the matter. 
Can an all-powerful being do ‘A’ so Jabberwocky that he can’t ‘B’ it?
This way we’re not speaking of gravity or extra arms. ;-)
Yes, it is a fact that parts of this query are incompatible with other parts, but there is nothing inherently wrong with lifting rocks (or ‘B’) or creating rocks (or ‘A’) but there IS something wrong with the idea of an object with unlimited properties and is what has to go. 
If theorem-G leads to existential paradoxes, then theorem-G is false. It is incorrect to say that, ‘we like theorem-G, therefore asking questions that shows that theorem-G leads to existential paradoxes is disallowed.’
That’s a crock. 
There CAN NOT be any omnipotent being i.e. a being with unlimited properties. This is not opinion, it is a logical fact. 
This is no more a paradox than the law of impossible antecedent is a paradox. 
If 'A' leads to 'B', and 'A' leads to not 'B', then not 'A'. 
Omnipotent (all-powerful, almighty) 'god' does not exist. 
QED
LOGOS
65.114.23.4 00:08, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to correct any misapprehensions, I didn't write the passage above by 65.114.23.4.  My signature got displaced from the text above it. Anville 16:05, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

text: Of course the idea that ignoring the God you believe in is necessary for scientific debate is a controversial thing to say ;) But your point still stands. There is a guideline about when it is reasonable to assume something controversial. Arguments about the existence of God should be redirected to Talk:Existence of God if anywhere (and even then only if they are well known). Hairy Dude 04:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "ALMIGHTY GOD DOES NOT EXIST" 

message: I've never cared for the unstoppable/immovable paradox, and I'm curious if the article could be reworded to avoid it.  To me, the conclusion that they are incompatible is a rather Aristotelian way of looking at it.  I first encountered this puzzler in the Mindtrap game, where it was posed with an unstoppable cannonball and a wall that nothing could knock down.  Mindtrap gave the same solution that this article does, namely that presupposing one entity logically disallows the existence of the other.
Now, consider the Mindtrap version, as a person sitting on the wall would view it.  This observer rests in an inertial frame, and all experiments he can perform indicate that he is effectively at rest.  An observer riding on the cannonball, however, must come to the same conclusion:  since nothing can change the cannonball's state of motion, this observer also finds himself in an inertial reference frame that nothing can disrupt.  Both entities are objects of infinite inertia; they merely start off in motion relative to each other.
I can make hand-waving arguments that a solid cannonball is not necessary (although it certainly appears to be the image commonly associated with "unstoppable force").  In classical mechanics, energy is the result of a force acting on an object moving through a distance, and by Einstein's relation E = mc^2 energy and mass are essentially equivalent. . . yadda yadda, handwave.  (Going all the way into general relativity, an object of infinite mass would have an event horizon at an infinite distance, and the curvature of spacetime would be infinite at all points—which is pretty darn weird.  GR has enough problems with singularities as it is, I suppose.)
Given the precepts of Aristotelian physics, yes, the situation is a paradox, analagous to the omnipotence conundrum.  However, we left Aristotle behind a long time ago, and the idea of two unshakeable reference frames (in Newtonian mechanics) doesn't sound that bad to me.  As the limiting case of arbitrarily large finite masses, it's not any worse than the idealizations we do of infinitely long wires, say, or flat planes of infinite extent.  (Remember all those old Gauss's Law problems?)
Anville 21:11, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unstoppable forces and immovable objects 

message: I am by no means a historian of philosophy, but it was my impression that Descartes claimed God could make a man believe that 2 + 2 = 5, not necessarily changing the truth of the assertion itself.  James Burke raises this point in his book The Day the Universe Changed, where he describes Descartes's search for the undoubtable.  He can doubt the physical world, his own senses, and even mathematics—but he cannot question doubt itself.  This leads to his axiom cogito, ergo sum—the one which Feynman scoffed and Deep Thought used to deduce the existence of rice pudding. . . .
Anville 17:10, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: René Descartes

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

message: I snipped the following paragraph from the end of the article.
:An omnipotent being can be considered an infinite one, since there are no limits on what the being is able to do. Therefore by asking the question if 'an infinite being can create a stone that the being can not lift' contains the impossible of doing operations on infinities: 'can the infinity of the being be less than the infinity of the stone?'. Of course such question can not be formulated, since infinity + infinity is undefined. Therefore, is does not make sense to ask that question.
My reasons:
* Wikipedia is not a forum for personal thoughts on philosophical matters (well, not in the articles, anyway), as per the "no original research" policy.
* If I define the weight of an object to be a surreal number, then it is perfectly permissible to have a stone weighing ω ("infinity") which can be lifted by a being of strength 2ω ("infinity plus infinity").  What paradoxes this leads to I haven't figured out:  God would have to be an entity whose strength is greater than all constructible surreals, etc.
Anville 21:43, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed section 

message: I understand it is hard to get a conclusion. However, I think it is not appropriate to simply set a head line to make conclusing. It prevents anyone to add a counter argument and violate the spirit of wikipedia.
*The above user is simply changing the heading "logical fallacy" to "logical validity", which makes no sense in relation to the content of that section. Read the article on logical fallacy, and the section in question. 24.76.141.220 04:04, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  logical validity or fallacy 

message: I have just removed the following section:
:==== Proof by contradiction ====
:One response is to use proof by contradiction:
::1) Assumption: An omnipotent body exists
::2) From 1: An omnipotent can create any stones.
::3) From 1: There are no stones too heavy to lift up for an omnipotent.
::4) From 2 and 3, an omnipotent cannot create a stone too heavy to lift up.
::5) A non-omnipotent body can create a stone too heavy to lift up.
::6) From 4 and 5, a non-omnipotent is superior to an omnipotent, which is contradictory.
:The result is an omnipotent body cannot exists.
This "proof" is completely irrelevant, and flawed also. Nothing is said anywhere in the paradox formulation about superiority of omnipotence or non-omnipotence, and "superiority" is not defined. The paradox does not attempt to demonstrate anything; it's a clever contradiction only.
It is clear, also given the above discussion and the tone of the "logical fallacy" argument and counterargument, that is has turned into a discussion about the Christian God's supposed attributes. The "logical fallacy" issue simply cannot be addressed that way.
--Pablo D. Flores 11:16, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Removal of the "proof by contradiction"

message: I have removed the following section from the article, since it does not seem to add enough content (and brims with mechanical errors anyway).
:Some have another view. It is said it is totally different from a case of a squared triangle.The logical fallacy is not due to the action of creating a stone too heavy to lift up. A squared triangle is seft-contractory and drawing it is logically impossible. However, It is not a illogical or difficult task to create a stone too heavy to lif up even for a layman. The logical difficulty is due to the term omnipotence. If someone attributes the action as a fallacy for a omnipotent, he forgets that the term omnipotence is being investigated. There is another logical fallacy: begging the question.
:Although some try to defend the existance of an omnipotent being by defining other meanings to the term omnipotence, the new definitions deviate from the common perception of the term and are hard to understand. For example, 
":Power is not ability, nor knowledge, they are separate categories, and not mutually exclusive if [power] were unlimited.
 
:Such definitions need to be further clarifed, or run the risk to make the term omnipotence void.
I also nixed the following sentence, which was placed after the discussion of Averroes.
:However, the answer above can be restated even if one does not already accept that God cannot do logically impossible things: one can answer that the question is literally meaningless, and therefore there is not even a logically impossible task being set.
If I ask, "What is the sum of the internal angles of a triangle?", one could guess a wide variety of answers.  Only one of them is correct—provably correct, given Euclidean geometry—but before doing the proof, who's to say what the answer should be?    The mere fact that there exists only one correct answer does not make the question meaningless.  Note that Averroes never asked for a four-sided triangle, which would be a contradiction in terms.  Instead, he asked if God could evade the consequences of defining a triangle in a particular way.
One could formulate an analagous conundrum for any theorem in mathematics, I suppose.  Can God draw a circle whose ratio of circumference to diameter is not π?  If God decides that the only appropriate tools are compass and straightedge, can He construct a square with the same area as a given circle, in a finite number of steps?  God can make Abraham sacrifice Isaac, but can He trisect an angle?
I recall a line from Donald Knuth's novella Surreal Numbers, which goes something like this:  "The difference, as I see it, is between proof and calculation.  We can prove that 2\times\pi = \pi + \pi, but we can't calculate \pi + \pi in a finite number of steps.  Only God can finish the calculations, but we can finish the proofs."  (I lent my copy and never got it back, so this quote is probably somewhat garbled.)
Anville 02:09, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed text

message: I have modified "Philosophical discussions" by adding in various sections categorized by definitions of omnipotence (since that seems to be upon what the entire paradox depends).  Each of these sections can be expanded to further discuss that particular way of treating the omnipotence paradox.  Some more references would be a good idea too.
I've also removed "The argument from will" section because most of it discusses what I placed in the "Logical impossibility" section, and otherwise was duplicating a lot of content that belongs near to the beginning of the article.  I haven't touched the "Logical fallacy" section because I don't grasp the concept well enough to be rewritten, but it needs to be rewritten because the paragraphs are lengthy and need more wikilinks, in my opinion. Ben Babcock 13:07, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The logical fallacy section should be removed, if only because it's horribly confusing, and also rather transparently POV. Power is not ability? To me they are synonyms, but I'd like to see the difference explained somewhere. Myself, I'll give it a few days, unless somebody can come up with a better explanation of this "fallacy". --Pablo D. Flores 14:27, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with your, Pablo.  Although I have seen a distinguishment between power and ability (Power should be distinguished from ability. Power is ability plus opportunity), the Logical Fallacy section makes it even more confusing, breaks the coherence of the article, and unless someone can seriously rewrite it, I'd rather it is just removed. Ben Babcock 16:04, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

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

message: I've tried to cleanup this section as it was the most unprofessional part of the article.  I gave it a slightly stronger lead and then organised the references into a list.  Then I removed some of the information because it was extremely informal (used the first person) and did not seem to be in the right place.  Lastly, I am not sure if the point about quantum superposition belongs there, since the title is "pop-culture and humorous" responses, not just "responses."
:Humorous to a physicist or a student of physics, no doubt.  Doesn't all humor depend upon the audience? 18.53.6.239 21:39, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Pop culture and humorous responses section

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

message: For quick reference, the following is a list of points raised on this article's peer review.  The next time I have to procrastinate on something important, I'll try knocking them down, unless someone beats me to it.
* Expand lead by at least one more paragraph.
* Use the semantics and logical positivism we have as "see also" items, and elaborate upon modern approaches to the problem, e.g., Wittgenstein.
::I have added some Wittgenstein (and also Ethan Allen), but whether I did the Tractatus justice I can't really say.  Anville 16:38, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It originally came from http://www.ibn-rushd.org/English/BiographicalInfoIbnRushd.htm, and was used as "public domain" on the French Wikipedia.  The original picture is a detail from a fourteenth-century Florentine painting; I have found a color version and put the source info in its description page.  Anville 09:57, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Points raised on peer review 

message: Can God create a stone so heavy that He cannot lift it?  This question is asking if God has the power to make Himself powerless.  The answer is no.  God's inability to be powerless is precisely what makes Him All-Powerful; lacking weakness is not a weakness. Lacking powerlessness means "having all power".
::Can an omnipotent being create a stone too heavy to lift?  The answer is yes.  An omnipotent being can only logically exist in the absence of anything else, since the moment any one alternative is chosen over others, all alternative not chosen can no longer be chosen.  In other words, an omnipotent being can make the choice to create a stone too heavy to lift, and will then no longer be omnipotent.  Taken further, an omnipotent being can create the universe as we know it at the expense of it's own omnipotence!  "Atheism The Case Against God" by George H. Smith ( and ) provides the argument that an omnipotent being cannot exist in a rational world, creation dilemma covered somewhat by Alston in response to Hartshorne, Mr. Bene 18:30, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Final Answer 

message: Wikipedia talk:Tomorrow's featured article/Omnipotence paradox discussion
Whoa.  Kudos to Brian0918 for suggesting it in the first place, and showing just how touchy an issue philosophy can be!  Anville 18:43, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tomorrow's Featured Article discussion 

message: This article leaves me gasping for references to the discussions in Averroes and Aquinas, and the other unnamed 'medieval philosophers' referred to. I can try and find the relevant Aquinas passages myself as I know ST is on the web - but doesn't anyone have more primary sources?Bengalski 19:53, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe Augustine addresses something very much like this question in The City of God, and decides that God cannot do anything to reduce his own power because it would be logically incosistent - something like the Aquinas position mentioned in the article.  A quick search: Book 5, chapter 10  - scroll down to chapter 10.  See also  for some leads.  --Reuben 05:06, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need for references 

message: The article says "Could an omnipotent being create a rock so heavy that even that being could not lift it?"  The only way I've ever heard that used is "Could God creat a rock so heavy the even He could not lift it?"  Can I change the quote?  The current version seems awkward and unnecessarily PC.--Kuciwalker 18:04, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, there are many kinds and varieties of gods worshipped throughout the world, and not all of them are believed to be omnipotent.  The paradox wouldn't apply to a non-omnipotent deity.  For instance, in Norse, Greek, and Hindu mythology, gods struggle with each other, each meeting success at times and failure at other times.  For wikipedia to use the term "god", singular, in this article would very clearly be granting special consideration to the Judeo-Christian-Islamic deity.  -Kasreyn 00:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: God with a capital G is usually used to refer to the Judeo-Christian or Muslim deity, or occasionally a deity in another religion like Buddhism that (as far as I understand) occupies a similar place.  Particularly in English it usually refers to the Judeo-Christian deity, with the Muslim one referred to as Allah.  I don't see anything particularly POV about including the most common version of a quote rather than a more awkward but PC version, especially when it claims to be the classic example.--Kuciwalker 05:37, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  God/omnipotent being