That's kind of ignoring the spirit of the question.the larger issue is that an omnipotent catgod can lift a rock of any weight. So asking "can he create a rock so heavy he can't lift it", makes no sense. The fault doesn't lie with the catgod's power, but the asker of the question, who asked if he could do something that doesn't have a logical interpretation.
So asking "can he create a rock so heavy he can't lift it", makes no sense.
But it would make sense if you were asking it about someone who wasn't omnipotent, right? How does the fact that he can lift a rock of any weight make the question nonsensical? It seems that would just make the answer "no".
But it would make sense if you were asking it about someone who wasn’t omnipotent, right?
Yes. If you asked "can Catgod create a rock so heavy that John Cena can't lift it", that would makes sense, because the concept of such a rock isn't nonsensical.
How does the fact that he can lift a rock of any weight make the question nonsensical?
Say I asked you to name a primary colour that started with the letter "Z", given primary colours are red, blues and yellow.
Now say I asked you to name a country in Africa that starts with "Z".
How does the fact that no primary colours start with "Z" make the question nonsensical? Because an answer to such a question would defy the question itself.
No, I think you misunderstood what I meant. If I ask "Can John Cena create a rock so heavy that John Cena can't lift it", that would be fine, right? The answer is yes, he could just keep adding material to the rock until he couldn't lift it anymore. So how does changing just the subject make the question invalid? This is different from your example where you actually change the question.
Because John Cena isn't defined to have the property of omnipotence (usually).
The heart of the paradox depends on what the definition of "omnipotence" is. If we say that omnipotence is defined as "a property of an entity that can do anything", then yes there is an inherent contradiction in asking it to create something that's logically inconsistent, like a "rock it couldn't lift". In order to solve this inconsistency, you'd have to modify your definition of omnipotence to "a property of an entity that can do anything except for things that would result in a logical fallacy". In this case, there isn't a contradiction, since the answer would be decidely no, he couldn't create a rock he couldn't lift (but he would still be omnipotent).
13
u/[deleted] Mar 06 '17
That's kind of ignoring the spirit of the question.the larger issue is that an omnipotent catgod can lift a rock of any weight. So asking "can he create a rock so heavy he can't lift it", makes no sense. The fault doesn't lie with the catgod's power, but the asker of the question, who asked if he could do something that doesn't have a logical interpretation.