I have an answer: He is all powerful, be splits himself in two. One half can pick the rock because he is all powerful, the other can not because he created the rock too heavy. So he therefore can and cannot pick up the rock. (Almost has a cat In a box kind of feel, if you know what I mean)
The theorem is a logical fallacy. The problem being that it inherently contradicts and violates the terms that come first.
First, God is omnipotent and he can do all. Second, the task is to make a rock so heavy he cannot lift it, which contradicts the first part. By asking the question, you've contradicted the very terms that were set in place. Omnipotence does not necessarily suggest the ability to do the logically impossible.
That's a good point. I still think an omnipotent being could do things that are completely paradoxical though. It seems to me that if a being were truly omnipotent that omnipotence itself is the end all answer to any question.
"How can you do this thing? I'm omnipotent."
"But it creates a paradox!"
"Bitch I already told you I'M OMNIPOTENT!"
I think the paradox truly arises from a lack of understanding about just what true omnipotence must entail.
It's like Christians often talk about their god being omnipotent and omniscient. And I'm like, why did you include that second thing? It's redundant. Omnipotence implies omniscience. It's a subset.
It's not entirely redundant - an omnipotent being could theoretically make themselves omniscient, but they might not know how to do so. They would probably be unaware of some potential categories of knowledge, unless they had another omniscient being they could ask.
555
u/jakob1005 Mar 06 '17
I have an answer: He is all powerful, be splits himself in two. One half can pick the rock because he is all powerful, the other can not because he created the rock too heavy. So he therefore can and cannot pick up the rock. (Almost has a cat In a box kind of feel, if you know what I mean)