On the paradox of the stone
It appears clear to me that the well-known paradox of the stone (an omnipotent God can’t create a stone he can’t lift) is not a paradox. But before diving into that, I just wanted to briefly criticize a family of approaches that I find deeply mistaken. That is, the idea that even God has to obey the laws of logic.
Some argue that since the idea of an omnipotent god contradicts the idea that he is unable to lift a stone, then we should dismiss this paradox because it’s impossible. Yet, why an omnipotent God, who, presumably has also created the laws of logic must obey those laws? Can’t God transcend these laws and make contradictions possible? For instance, can’t God make A ≠ A? If God can’t do that simply because it is a law that he created, then he’s already a non-omnipotent entity. If someone, therefore, is to consider that God is, or may be, omnipotent, one must take God as an entity that can free himself from laws of logic.
The same applies to Fichte’s idea that “God doesn’t have a property for he’s infinite”. I am quoting this directly from Ilgaz’s blog:
If God has a property, namely, the ability to create a stone he cannot lift, he is not omnipotent. The reason is that having a property means filling some space, which limits God’s omnipotence.
This is partially a reformulation of the idea of contradiction. He basically argues that there can’t be a stone that can’t be lifted by an omnipotent being because this is against the laws of logic: God must have some physical property to engage in an act of physical nature, yet this is impossible because having physical features would limit God’s omnipotence. But can’t God, as an omnipotent being, make it possible to possess physical properties and being omnipotent? Even if not being omnipotent is inherent to possessing physical properties, an already omnipotent being must be able to dismiss this contradiction for, I mean come on, he’s able to do every imaginable thing.
So, why do I believe that this paradox isn’t one? Simply because the premise we are asked to assume is that God is omnipotent. So, he should be able to create a stone, independent of the properties of that stone possesses. However, I believe that there are two important qualifications to make:
1- If we read this paradox as “Can God limit his own omnipotence?”, the answer to this paradox should be yes. God, as an omnipotent being, should be able to set limits to its omnipotence because, as I’ve noted, he can do everything.
2- If we read this paradox as “Can God limit his own omnipotence and continue to be omnipotent?”, the answer to this paradox should still be yes. If the only obstacle that precludes him from being omnipotent and not being able to lift a stone is of a logical nature, then since he’s omnipotent, he should be able to dismiss that law and be whatever he wishes to be, simultaneously. Although counterintuitive, I believe that this is the case.
