Talk:Omnipotence paradox

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former featured articleOmnipotence paradox is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on January 9, 2006.
Article milestones
July 3, 2005WikiProject peer reviewReviewed
November 17, 2005Peer reviewReviewed
November 28, 2005Featured article candidatePromoted
February 16, 2006Featured article reviewKept
September 17, 2006Featured article reviewKept
June 9, 2009Featured article reviewDemoted
Current status: Former featured article

Archived recent discussions[edit]

Leaving this note here to say that after the recent slow-motion edit war over a particular contributor's comments (which eventually resulted in him being blocked), I've proactively archived all the recent discussions. MiszaBot should resume archiving in the future once the defined archive parameters are reached. --RL0919 (talk) 16:37, 15 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

New section[edit]

It should be noted that another solution to the paradox is 'The stone is too heavy to lift until that point that God decides it to be otherwise' which fulfills both the implied limitation and the infinite ability. Most monotheistic religions see God as having willed the universe into existence and as such the evidence can be demonstrated by imagining to yourself trying to lift some object and being unable. Continue to do this. Now imagine yourself lifting the object. Paradox solved. (talk) 06:38, 8 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Could the zealots stop claiming "paradox solved" ? You are just waving an equivocation fallacy by changing the meaning of "lift" and "create".Alcyon007 (talk) 16:04, 22 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's not a solution to the actual question. The Paradox of the Stone has no "after," it's asking if the stone could be created at all. The general form of the question is "can an omnipotent being create something that defeats its omnipotence?" It's a paradox because it simultaneously should have the power to do it due to being omnipotent, but would not be omnipotent if it did. It can be applied to anything based around infinite possibilities: for example the multiverse example is "if there are an infinite number of possible universes which encompass all possible states, should there not logically be universes where there are only a finite number of universes?" Bones Jones (talk) 08:29, 6 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The most commonly accepted meaning of "omnipotence" is that you can do anything. Literally anything. However, looking at the linguistics of the word, "omni-" just means "all-", hence "almighty" or "all-mighty". What if we redfine it as only meaning that omnipotence means you can do anything that can be done in the universe? As in, you have all the power in the universe, not any power imaginable. Humans can imagine things the universe cannot cause to happen, but that doesn't mean that is part of what can be done under such a definition. I still love these paradoxes and think they make sense under the common definition of the term though. I do believe the Bible states God can literally do anything though, does it not? If so, please point me to any of those passages. That would certainly destroy my "argument" though. --Luka1184 (talk) 02:40, 28 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Harry Frankfurt quote as presented here is not relevant to the article[edit]

It strikes me as odd that the Harry Frankfurt quote is given here, and addressed in detail, considering that it does not in fact give a solution at all - it merely *asserts* that doing two logically impossible things is no greater task than doing one impossible thing. So, in fact, it does not address the paradox itself at all, it merely cuts the paradox in two (thus removing the entirety of what makes it paradoxical), and without any supporting arguments asserts each half to be possible in the form of rhetorical questions. Ironically, a later section deals with the sophistry of the paradox - Frankfurt's supposed 'solution' is purely sophistic in nature itself. I don't see how the quote or the discussion thereof contributes anything to the understanding or the history of the paradox in question, and as such am at a loss to see how inclusion improves the article in any way. I would suggest removing the quote and discussion and replacing it with the simple statement that Frankfurt asserts each of the two premises to be logically impossible. (talk) 11:19, 17 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]