God’s stone lifting: a theological problem

Role

Philosophers have long been discussing the idea of God being omnipotent. At the center of this discussion is a seemingly very simple and simple question: ‘Can God make a stone that he cannot lift himself?’ Although this question seems to be a common question, deep in it lies a kind of logical conflict, which has created controversy among various theologians and philosophers since ancient times. This paradox is considered an important challenge for the concept of ‘God’s omnipotence’. In this article we will analyze the main content of that question and the philosophical view of its solution. We will discuss the topic mainly based on the thought and other philosophical ideas of Thomas Aquinas.

What is paradox?

The correct Bengali of Paradox is ‘Reverse’ Or ‘Contradiction’the It refers to an idea or proposition, which seems seemingly correct but reveals an underlying conflict or opposition when going deep. The philosophical paradoxes often provoke deep thought and sometimes force reality to see a new light. Paradoxes are used to verify the truth or falsehood of various proposals in the world of philosophy. The paradox highlights the limitations of the rules and ideas used in general thought, and these limitations bring us to the center of philosophical analysis.

Example: Simple Explanation of Paradox

Example 1: Donald Trump’s Wealth

• Recommendation: Mr. Donald Trump is a very rich man.
• Decision: Mr. Donald Trump has so much money that he can buy whatever he wants.
• Is the decision right or wrong paradox for his exam: If Donald Trump wants, he will buy another Donald Trump, can he buy it?
• Answer: No, you can’t. Because it is not possible to buy another Donald Trump. That is, the decision that was said while making the decision, can buy whatever Donald Trump wants, this decision is wrong. He can’t buy what he wants, only buy some of the ones that are being sold.

Example 2: God’s omnipotence

• Proposition: God is infinitely powerful, He is omnipotent.
• Decision: God can do everything impossible.
• Is the decision right or wrong paradox for his trial: Can God create another God equal to him by his power?
• Answer: No, you can’t. Because it is logically impossible to create one God from another and have infinite power. That is, the decision that God can do everything that was said while making the decision is wrong. He can’t do everything, his ability to do must be within the framework of logic.

Example 3: God’s Suicide

• Proposition: God is infinitely powerful, He is able to do everything.
• Decision: Man or any other entity can and cannot, he can do everything.
• Paradox to test whether the decision is right or wrong: A man can end his physical existence by committing suicide. What can God do?
• Answer: No, you can’t. Because it is not logically possible that one God has that power. The idea of God is eternal infinite, He has no power to end that eternal God. That is, God can do everything, this decision is wrong. He can’t do everything, even what man can do he can’t. He has a limit to his ability to do it, and he has to be within the framework of logic.

God’s Stone Paradox: Problems and Analysis

This question is very useful in verifying the concept of God’s omnipotence. The question is largely raised as: If God is omnipotent, can he create a stone that he cannot lift himself? This paradox leads to two types of results, and in both cases the idea of God being omnipotent is questionable.

• Recommendations: According to religious beliefs, God is omnipotent.
• Decision: He can do ‘everything’.
• Is the decision right or wrong paradox for his test: Can he create such a heavy stone that will be so heavy that he cannot lift it himself?
• Answer: Yes, you can create. But if he can create that stone, he cannot lift it. That is, the limit of his power was created, that is, he is not omnipotent. The original suggestion is wrong here.
• Answer: No, you can’t create. If he could not do that, his inability was proved that there were some things he could not do. That is, he cannot do everything. That is, the original suggestion is wrong.

This question creates a limit to God’s power. If God cannot create a stone that He cannot lift Himself, then He is not omnipotent. Again, if he makes that stone and cannot lift it, he is still not omnipotent. This conflict is the root cause of the paradox.

The nature of God’s power

The key question in this paradox is actually about the nature of God’s power. If God is omnipotent, it is not logical to have a limit of his power. But, this paradox challenges that idea. If God is truly omnipotent, it is impossible to have any logical or logical limits of his power. However, one question remains: is it possible to do all kinds of work? For example, is something logically impossible at all possible? If not, is God bound by the rules of reason? That is, is God under the natural law, or is the natural law subject to him?

Some philosophers believe that something logically impossible is beyond the power of God. That is, God is subject to reason. As such, it is not possible to quadruple a sphere at the same time. Similarly, it is not possible to make a stone a self-contradictory idea that it is beyond the power of God to lift it. In this case, it can be said that God cannot do a thing that is self-contradictory or logically impossible. In this situation, God’s power is under the rule of reason. Renowned philosopher and theologian Thomas Aquinas in his book ‘Summa Theologica’ has determined the limits of God’s all-powerful concept. According to him, God cannot do anything that is against his own nature, such as lying or denying himself or killing himself. ^[1]

The vision of Thomas Aquinas

According to Thomas Aquinas, God is omnipotent but he cannot do anything beyond reasonable rules. Aquinas argues that God’s power is not limited to reason, but he respects the laws of logic. He says, ‘Any being that goes against his own being is beyond the power of God.’

According to Aquinas, God has a limit of power, which is under reason. He further argues that God’s power must be consistent with his nature. So, if God creates a stone that he cannot lift, that work will be in conflict with the nature of God or with natural laws.

God’s omnipotence and logic

A present-day claim of believers is that the idea of being omnipotent is misinterpreted in this paradox. Being omnipotent or doing everything does not mean being unreasonable or reasonably impossible. In this case, the boundaries of God’s power are determined based on logic, natural laws and reality. As such, God cannot create a quadrilateral circle, because it is logically impossible and beyond the natural rules. Likewise, ‘making a stone out of the power of the lifting of God’ is logically impossible and beyond the natural norms.

God’s Sovereignty: Logic vs Power

In other words, this paradox raises a fundamental question about the nature of God. God’s power depends on logic. That is, sovereignty is not of God, but of logic. If God exists, He is also subject to logic or rules and has to follow natural laws. This paradox actually refutes a wrong claim about God’s nature. It is logically impossible to do whatever is almighty or willing, even if there is God, it is impossible for him.

Criticism and its refutation

Modern philosophical discussions about God’s stone lifting paradox (Omnipotence Paradox) have led to various criticisms, which essentially reinforce this paradox and show that the idea of Almighty God is logically inconsistent or impossible. These criticisms come from an ethist or logical skeptic approach, such as the work of thinkers such as Graham OP, Wes Morriston or Richard Dawkins. They argue that the paradox is not just a linguistic game, but rather an inconsistency in the basic definition of omnipotence, which makes the existence of God logically impossible. Below are the major modern criticisms, along with the logical weakness or refutation of the attempted refutation of theists (theists). This part argues for the paradox, showing that the astic fragments are insufficient and the paradox remains intact.

Logic Subordination Critique

Modern atheist critics, such as Graham OP or Michael Rin, argue that, If God is subject to logic or logic, then he is not truly omnipotent—because logic limits his power. It strengthens the paradox, because the definition of omnipotence is ‘being able to do everything’ If the limits of logic (such as the omission of impossible tasks) make it inconsistent. Like René Descartes, God is above logic, they are also contradicted, because then God can do the impossible (such as the square circle), which breaks the foundation of logic. This criticism shows that, Omnipotence is logically impossible, because it either limits logic (ie God is a slave to logic, or God’s sovereignty is fragmented and bound to obey the rules of logic) or breaks (that is, everything becomes inconsistent).

Criticism of theistic refutation: Theists like Thomas Aquinas say that Omnipotence ‘Doing everything logically possible’, so the impossible task (such as the stone lifting paradox) is excluded. But this fragment is criticized because it is question-begging: It limits the omnipotence by reinterpreting, which is not a true ‘all power’. Critics like Wes Morriston say that God’s power becomes dependent on logic, which contradicts God’s sovereignty and does not avoid the paradox—rather it admits that omnipotence is inconsistent. Like William Lane Craig who says logic lies in the mind of God, they also fail because it implies that God cannot change logic, which keeps the paradox intact.

Self-referential problems (self-referential paradox)

In this criticism, modern atheists, such as Nelson Pike or Philosophy Stack Exchange negotiators, argue that the paradox is self-referential, that is, it is self-contradictory in itself and calls into question the existence of omnipotence. Example: If God makes stones, it is a weakness not being able to lift; If not, the inability to create. It extends not only to rocks, but also in other areas—such as changing the past (such as a change in a raindrop) or free will control of another (like without forcing Plato to write a dialogue). This criticism shows that omnipotence is logically impossible, because it creates contradictions and makes the existence of the almighty God impossible.

Criticism of theistic refutation: Alvin Plantinga says that omnipotence means ‘basically all-powerful’—where the impossible is not part of any power. And God allows evil for the free will of man. But critics say it’s a failed argument because in it God can’t do everything (like preventing evil by ignoring the free will), which is a ‘Rival Agent’ (such as sinful man) makes him stronger than God’s will. Accepting this makes it questionable to God’s sovereignty. George Mavrodes or C.S. Like Lewis, those who say it’s a ‘nonsense’ question are also criticized because it doesn’t ignore the paradox—rather admits that omnipotence is limited, which is inconsistent with the idea of God. Thus the paradox remains intact.

Paraconsistent Logic (Paraconsistent Logic Resolution)

Modern critics, such as Earl Cooney or other rationalists, argue through paraconstant logic that if contradictions are allowed, God can do the impossible—but it actually strengthens the paradox, because this logic is everything (like True) contradiction) becomes acceptable, which breaks the basis of logic. Atheists say it makes omnipotence more inconsistent, because in logic this paradox proves an impossibility.

Criticism of theistic refutation: Some theists take this logic so that God can contend, but most philosophers (such as Hoffmann and Rosencrantz) reject it because it ‘Explosion Principal’ is created (everything is proven from any contradiction). Critics say this fragmentation is unsuccessful because it makes logic meaningless, and thinkers like Ludwig Wittgenstein say that such a question is meaningless to the limits of language, so paraconstant logic is not needed—rather it confirms the logical impossibility of the paradox.

Conclusion

The stone lifting paradox of God is a great challenge for believers or believers in God from a philosophical point of view. For ages, the pious have been looking for the answer to this question, angry at not being able to answer, attacked, intimidated, cursed. If it is not possible to do them, they want to insult the philosophers. But could not answer. Later forced to admit that the omnipotent idea of God means that he is not everything, but something reasonable. He can do what is reasonable and realistic, that is, God has to live within the laws of physics or nature. This paradox teaches us to think and opens the way for critical thinking. So it is very important to think about such logical questions and think about them.