The omnipotence paradox asks whether an all-powerful being can create a task that limits its own power. Its classic form is: “Can God create a stone so heavy that God cannot lift it?” Either answer appears to show that God is not omnipotent.
How the paradox works
Omnipotence is usually understood as unlimited or maximal power. The argument presents a dilemma:
- If God can create the unliftable stone, there is something God cannot do: lift it.
- If God cannot create the stone, there is also something God cannot do: create it.
- Therefore, it appears that no being can possess unlimited power.
The paradox challenges the logical coherence of the traditional theistic concept of God. It is not direct evidence that God does not exist; instead, it questions whether omnipotence can be defined consistently.
Main philosophical responses
| Response | Explanation | Implication |
|---|---|---|
| Logical possibility | Omnipotence means the power to do anything logically possible. Creating an object that an omnipotent being cannot lift is self-contradictory. | Failure to perform a logically impossible “task” does not limit divine power. |
| Aquinas’s response | Thomas Aquinas argues that contradictions do not describe genuine possibilities. They are combinations of words without a possible object. | God cannot make contradictions true, but this is not a weakness. |
| Self-limitation | God might voluntarily surrender or restrict divine power. | This preserves the initial power to self-limit, although it raises questions about whether God remains omnipotent afterward. |
A common misconception is that the paradox straightforwardly disproves God. More precisely, it forces philosophers to clarify whether absolute omnipotence includes logical impossibilities or whether omnipotence should mean maximal power constrained by logic.
IB exam technique
In an IB Philosophy response, define omnipotence, explain both sides of the stone dilemma, and evaluate at least one response. Do not merely state that “God can do anything”; examine whether logically contradictory descriptions count as genuine actions and reach a justified conclusion about the coherence of divine omnipotence.
