Table of Contents
Introduction
Philosophers have long debated the concept of divine omnipotence. At the heart of this debate lies a deceptively simple question: “Can God create a stone so heavy that even He cannot lift it?” Though it appears trivial, the question conceals a profound logical contradiction that has provoked intense discussion among theologians and philosophers since medieval times. This is widely regarded as a serious challenge to the traditional notion of God’s omnipotence. In this article, we examine the core logic of the paradox and explore major philosophical responses to it, focusing primarily on Thomas Aquinas and incorporating other key perspectives.
What Is a Paradox?
A paradox (from Greek: para + doxa, “contrary to expectation”) refers to a statement or proposition that appears plausible on the surface but, upon deeper examination, reveals an inherent contradiction or absurdity. Philosophical paradoxes often stimulate profound reflection and compel us to reconsider our assumptions about reality. They serve as tools to test the truth or falsity of ideas, exposing the hidden limits of common concepts and rules, and thereby placing us at the core of philosophical inquiry.
Examples: Simple Illustrations of Paradox
Example 1: Donald Trump’s Wealth
- Proposition: Mr. Donald Trump is an extremely wealthy man.
- Claim: He has so much money that he can buy anything he wants.
- Paradox to test the claim: If Donald Trump wants to, can he buy another Donald Trump?
- Answer: No. It is logically impossible to purchase another identical Donald Trump. Therefore, the claim that he can buy “anything” is false—he can only buy what is actually available for sale.
Example 2: God’s Omnipotence
- Proposition: God is infinitely powerful; He is omnipotent.
- Claim: God can do even the impossible.
- Paradox to test the claim: Can God, through His power, create another God equal to Himself?
- Answer: No. It is logically impossible for one infinite, omnipotent being to create another identical one. Thus, the claim that God can do “everything” is false—His power must operate within the bounds of logic.
Example 3: God’s Suicide
- Proposition: God is infinitely powerful and capable of everything.
- Claim: Anything a human or other being can or cannot do, God can do.
- Paradox to test the claim: A human can commit suicide and end their physical existence. Can God do the same?
- Answer: No. It is logically impossible. The concept of God is eternal and infinite; an eternal being cannot terminate itself. Thus, the claim that God can do “everything” fails—His power remains constrained by logic.
The Stone Paradox: Problem and Analysis
This question effectively tests the coherence of omnipotence. Formulated as: If God is omnipotent, can He create a stone so heavy that He Himself cannot lift it? The paradox yields two outcomes, both of which undermine omnipotence.
- Proposition: According to religious belief, God is omnipotent.
- Claim: He can do “everything.”
- Paradox: Can He create a stone so heavy that He cannot lift it?
- If yes: He creates it but cannot lift it → power is limited → not omnipotent.
- If no: He cannot create it → power is limited → not omnipotent.
In either case, omnipotence collapses. The paradox forces a boundary on divine power.
The Nature of God’s Power
The real issue in this paradox concerns the nature of divine power. If God is truly omnipotent, His power should have no limits. Yet the paradox challenges this. Is every conceivable act possible? Are there tasks that are logically impossible? If so, is God bound by the laws of logic? In other words, is logic subject to God, or is God subject to logic?
Many philosophers hold that logically impossible acts lie beyond even divine power. For example, making a square circle or a married bachelor is impossible—not because of any lack of power, but because such descriptions are self-contradictory. Thomas Aquinas, in his Summa Theologica (Ia, q. 25, a. 3), argues that God cannot do what is logically impossible or contrary to His own nature, such as lying, denying Himself, or self-destructing.
Thomas Aquinas’s View
Aquinas maintains that God is omnipotent but cannot perform acts that are intrinsically impossible or inconsistent with His nature. Omnipotence does not extend to contradictions; God respects the laws of logic. He states that anything contradicting a being’s own existence lies beyond divine power.
Thus, creating a stone too heavy for an omnipotent being to lift would be self-contradictory and therefore not a genuine “task.” God’s power aligns with His nature and logical possibility.
Omnipotence and Logic
Most contemporary theists respond that omnipotence means the ability to do everything that is logically possible. Logically impossible “tasks” (e.g., square circles or the stone paradox) are not genuine actions; failing to perform them does not diminish power. God’s omnipotence is bounded by logic, natural laws, and reality itself.
Divine Sovereignty: Logic vs. Power
In essence, the paradox raises a fundamental question about God’s nature. If God exists, He too is subject to logic. Omnipotence cannot include performing logically impossible acts—even for God. What is intrinsically contradictory remains impossible for any being.
Criticisms and Refutations
Modern atheists (e.g., Graham Oppy, Wes Morriston, J.L. Mackie, Richard Dawkins) view the paradox not as mere wordplay but as revealing an inherent incoherence in the concept of omnipotence. It renders the traditional notion of an omnipotent God logically impossible. Below are key criticisms and why theistic responses fall short.
Critique of Subordination to Logic
If God is bound by logic, He is not truly omnipotent—logic limits Him. If God is above logic (as Descartes suggested), He could perform contradictions (e.g., square circles), rendering all logic meaningless. Either way, omnipotence becomes incoherent: God is either enslaved to logic or destroys the foundation of rational thought.
Theistic responses (Aquinas, William Lane Craig, etc.) redefine omnipotence as “doing all that is logically possible.” Critics (e.g., Morriston) argue this is question-begging—it redefines omnipotence to avoid the paradox rather than resolving it, admitting inherent limits.
Self-Referential Problems
The paradox is self-referential: Creating the stone implies inability to lift; inability to create implies inability to create. This extends to other domains (e.g., changing the past, overriding free will). It demonstrates that omnipotence generates unavoidable contradictions, making it logically impossible.
Theistic responses (e.g., Alvin Plantinga: God is “maximally great” but cannot do the impossible; George Mavrodes: the task is a “pseudo-task”) are criticized as admitting limits on power, undermining sovereignty. Allowing evil due to free will also implies God cannot prevent it without violating freedom—making free agents “stronger” than divine will in some respects.
Paraconsistent Logic as Resolution?
Some suggest paraconsistent logic (which tolerates contradictions without explosion) could allow omnipotence to include contradictions. However, this collapses rational thought entirely (via the principle of explosion in classical logic) and makes logic meaningless. Critics argue it confirms rather than resolves the paradox: omnipotence remains logically impossible in coherent systems.
Conclusion
The stone paradox poses a devastating logical challenge to the traditional concept of an omnipotent God. For centuries, believers have evaded, raged against, attacked, or cursed the question—yet no fully satisfactory answer has emerged. Most are eventually forced to concede that “omnipotence” does not mean “can do literally everything,” but only what is logically and naturally possible. God, if He exists, must operate within the framework of logic and physics.
This paradox underscores the necessity of critical thinking. Rather than avoiding such questions, we must confront them head-on with reason and evidence.