http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnipotence_paradox is a much better description of this argument.
- Of course it is, en does not have to use Simple English so the explanations can be lengthy and detailed. Incidentally, I see no paradox whatever because, for me, there is no God and hence no paradox. Whats more, the unknown cannot be discussed since the characteristics of the unknown must be unknown! - Adrian Pingstone (but not signed in to Simple) 188.8.131.52 09:59, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Please look at the changes I made. Make sure that everything makes sense. Wynand.winterbach 19:14, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- I have changed this page a lot. Do we still need to leave the warning at the top of the article? Wynand.winterbach 12:11, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
God cannot do the illogical[change source]
What is involved in this question is largely a definition game. As soon as you give a mountain the designation "too heavy to lift," you have made a hypothetical object that by its very definition is unliftable. It has no set size or weight. Its only characteristic is its inability to be lifted. Logically then, no amount of power can lift this mountain or it ceases to be.
- Actually, there are at least two characteristics of the object, the first being that it is a mountain (along with the implied geological characteristics), the second being that it is too heavy to lift. The paragraph above states that in lifting the mountain it "ceases to be". A more correct statement would be that it "ceases to be too heavy to lift". Any material object, (which is implied in this context) has inherited characteristics. An example would be a mass greater than zero. This makes the statement "ceases to be" arguable even in the sense of a generic object.
- I enjoyed this article so much that I didn't edit the original text. It is the best retort I've read thus far to this classic sophomoric paradox. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zenmomentum (talk • contribs)
The problem here is that the phraseology was conveniently changed to support the answer. It is not that the mountain is "too heavy to lift", it is that the mountain is "too heavy for God to lift". That carries entirely different implications. More generally, the question can be phrased, "Can God create a condition that he/she cannot resolve." Arguing the point that a mountain to heavy to lift misses the philosophical challenge inherent in the original quesion - Can God create a mountain too heavy for HIM to lift?
Consider this the old classic v constructivism debate.