Omnipotence Paradox and my proposed answer

[InformedIgnorance]

For me the rock scenario has always been one I found to be rather absurd... it queries whether or not an entity's creation capacity supersedes it's manipulation capacity whilst maintaining that the entity itself is 'omnipotent'... if characterization of the entity entire as 'omnipotent' requires that it's various individual capabilities (such as creation and manipulation) are also 'omni' then it is merely attempting to compare infinity to infinity (with no indication of whether or not the two infinite capabilities are inherently on different orders of magnitude or that the 'omnipotent' god is more effective or efficient in certain functions despite that omnipotence, for example better at creation of new things than at manipulation of existing things or vice versa).

Personally rather than seeing a paradox I see a nonsensical inquiry, given standard definitions of omnipotence (regardless of logical interposition)

[Willamena]

Originally Posted by Koldo

[If a being is accidentally omnipotent, then it can resolve the paradox by creating a stone which it cannot lift and thereby becoming non-omnipotent. Unlike essentially omnipotent entities, it is possible for an accidentally omnipotent being to be non-omnipotent. This raises the question, however, of whether or not the being was ever truly omnipotent, or just capable of great power.[8] On the other hand, the ability to voluntarily give up great power is often thought of as central to the notion of the Christian Incarnation.[19]]

Now my proposed answer, in my words:

An omnipotent being may create a stone that it can not lift , however the fact that he hasn't created it makes him stay omnipotent. In other words, an omnipotent being may choose to [not] be omnipotent if he wishes, however as long as he doesn't wish for it to happen he stays omnipotent.

My answer seems to fit in the definition of "accidentally omnipotent". So, any criticism to it?

"Accidental" in philosophy describes a characteristic or property that is not essential. A chair can be made of wood, but it isn't necessary to being a chair that it be made of wood: wood is accidental to a chair.

In the Wikipedia explanation, if omnipotence is accidental then omnipotence is not essential to God being God. If you're okay with that, in however you've defined "God," then your paradox solution can work. Others would say it is essential.

[PolyHedral]

Originally Posted by Absolute Zero

In my opinon I would want a GOD to be the very first defintion of Omnipotence as stated in wikipedias omnipoence pardox page . Id hate for a GOD to be bound by logic and not Absolute because/for in my mindthat being would not be GOD. Thats why im Agnostic and actually hope with all my being that there is a one and only true GOD prefrably Abrhamic/Old Testament style GOD out there who goes by the first defintion on the wikipedia Omnipotence pardox page OR IS COMPLETELY ABSOLUTLY OMNI IN THE SENCE THAT HE CAN DO THE IRRATIONAL,CAN NOT BE COMPHRENDED BY HUMANS / SENTIENT BEINGS ETC........

Well, that version doesn't exist. (Because you can use the fact that he exists to derive the fact that he doesn't.)

[Riverwolf]

Originally Posted by The Sum of Awe

Are you saying, what we can imagine to be done? The logically possible?

If yes, logically possible is relative to experience, so there could be many other things God can do than we can imagine.

If no, you mean possible by laws of physics, then... this debunks 99% of gods.

Don't forget that I wrote that a year and a half ago.

Logic is independent of human imagination, so I'm not sure what you're asking.

Gods don't break the laws of physics; they manipulate them. In addition, stories of Gods are not necessarily accurate representations of them, so just because they're stories are fictitious, doesn't mean the Gods therein are.