Hello, hope all are good, this is my first post
Quote:
1) If God is omnipotent, he can do anything.
2) If he can do anything, he can create a rock which he cannot lift
3) If he cannot lift that rock which he created, then he cannot do anything and he is not omnipotent
4) If he can lift that rock which he created, then he has not created a rock that he cannot lift
5) If he cannot create a rock that he cannot lift, then he is not omnipotent
|
The reasoning is very interesting however it has 1 major flaw that I think makes it invalid. Omnipotent according to Wikipedia means unlimited power. That would be the unlimited power to do something. What you are asking is the Unlimited power to not be able to do something. This doesn't make sense. You want unlimited power to "not" be able to lift a rock. This negation,"not" cannot be used in contest as it contradicts the purpose of the definition. You can ask for unlimited power to be able to do something. You can ask for unlimited power to be able to stop something. You cannot however contradict ask for unlimited power to stop you from doing what you want to do.
In summary what you're saying is: I want the power of not being able to have the power to lift a rock. "Not power" + "power" in the same purpose of the same statement, hence self contradiction.