Talk:Omnipotence paradox/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Paragraphs

The first paragraph is awful: "These paradoxes pose the question whether it makes sense to attribute omnipotence to anything..." etc. No they don't. The paradoxes ask much simpler questions about God, rocks and such.

The second paragraph takes for granted that the paradox has already morphed into an "argument"(!), instead of the paradox the article is ostensibly about.

The different directions you can go from the paradox (word play, argument, philosopy, etc etc) are properly the content of the article.

Hope someone can clean up.

The paradox does pose the question whether it makes sense to attribute omnipotence to anything. Anything with omnipotence can replace God in the paradox, and anything requiring power can replace the rock. If God cannot do everything, He is not omnipotent, and if He can't create the stone, He can't do everything. This does raise questions about how omnipotent God can be (given the supplementary assumption that philosophy can describe God, and hence that the assumptions of philosophy and hence those of logic apply to and bind Him [which is assumed by considering the paradox]), as it questions whether He is truly unable to do what humans can do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.30.171.128 (talk) 10:02, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Can God Create a Stone that He Cannot Lift?

This question is more than 800 years old. In asking this question, the questioner had already assumed the existence of gravity because of the word “lift” in the question. What exactly is “lift”? My definition for “lift” is: Moving an object to the opposite direction of gravity. By definition, God created everything. Hence, God created gravity. Since God can create gravity, he can certainly make it disappear. So God can “lift” any stone. Put another way, this question could become: if God were to have an arm wrestling match between his left arm （gravity）and right arm (to “lift” the stone), which one would win? Both arms belong to God. This is not a contest; there is no winning or losing. Therefore this is a stupid question，not a paradox.

According Conversations With God(by Neale Donald Walsch) God is everything, everything is God. There is nothing outside God, not even empty space, because God created space and time. The fact is, “Outside God” is an oxymoron,just like "Outside everything". If there is God, then there will be no “outside”; if there is an “outside”, then there will be no God. There is no gravity “outside” God. God doesn’t live in a gravitational field. For an omnipotent God, there is no such concept as “lift”. “Lift” only exists in human experience. Gravity, like everything else, exists inside God. For an omnipotent God, there is no such concept as “stand”either, because there is no ground “outside” God. By the same token，for an omnipotent God, there are no such concepts as “breathe”，“eat”，“drink”，“excrete”, “wear clothes”, “walk”，“sit”, “lie down”. God doesn't have a body. All bodies have skin, skin is the boundary of the body. God doesn't have boundary. Therefore, God doesn't have a face，nor shape. An ant looks at you while you are talking, it could see your lips and tongue moving. The ant asks you: “How do you lift your lips and tongue?” You reply: “It is a stupid question.” A man sees that the Moon is moving, he asks God: “How do you lift the Moon?” God says: “It is a stupid question.” --Teng Wang 18:55, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

If god IS everything that has ever existed, how and why would such a....being..... have "created" everything that ever existed? If nothing preceded him or succeeded him and he already contains everything within himself, then the concept of creation is logically unnecessary. You say "God can make logical contradictions true?" In that case, his existence and non-existence can both be true and both be false. The concept of god is absurd. Credo quia absurdum est? I think the universe is absurd enough as it is without adding an extraordinary extra layer which itself needs to be explained. If god does not provide an explanation but further confusion, then the hypothesis is not only "dispensable", as Laplace put it, but deleterious. --Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 08:47, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Plenty of absurd things exist. The universe is full of absurdities, and the fact that a hypothesis would be absurd or would make explanation harder isn't really much of a strike against the hypothesis. Credo quia absurdum est, might be going a little too far but res absurda credo is a pill I swallowed long ago, but then I'm a dialetheist. Bmorton3 14:11, 24 August 2006

When it is asserted (as it often is) that the hypothesis of the existence of a supreme being provides explanation and comfort that is otherwise unavailable and it turns out that such an hypothesis generates greater confusion and needs its own impossible explanation, then the hypothesis is certainly weakened. The problem of the absurdity of the universe is supposed to be alleviated by the existence of god. If the notion of god generates its own absurdities, then it does not provide neither the service of rational explanation nor alleviating the absurdities of the universe. However, I agree that an act of faith is necessary, whether classical logic holds or not. For what would be the meaning of "faith" if the existence of god could be logically or empirically proved. --Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 14:29, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

If the function of asserting the hypothesis of a supreme being, was to alleviate the absurdity of the universe, I agree that one would by hypothesizing in vain. This hypothesis won't do that work. All good hypotheses provide explanation and comfort on one front while providing additional questions and confusion on other fronts. In philosophy of science this is called "richness," and its the heart of the difference between an open research program and a degenerate one. The fact that hypothesizing a supreme being creates as much confusion as it settles, and raises more questions than it settles is not a mark against it, but for it, and is part and parcel with hypothesis in general.

If the hypothesis of a supreme being can't do any work at all for us, it is in trouble, but the fact that it can't make the universe less absurd, and that it raises more questions than it answers are neither marks against it, any more than they are marks against hypotheses like atoms or black holes. The faith and empirical proof bit is a dodge too. I have faith in my wife despite empirical evidence for her existence, and I could say similar things about other divinities that are easy to prove the existence of (say Julius Caesar or the Mississippi river, where it is the divinity of the entity which is disputed rather than the existence of it). I can rehearse all the arguments for the existence of a supreme being, and that isn't the same thing as faith, but you could still have faith even if you took the arguments to be persuasive. Proof does not demolish faith, although ala Kierkegaard is does demolish risk, which makes it difficult to demonstrate one's faith. Bmorton3 14:48, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

All good hypotheses provide explanation and comfort on one front while providing additional questions and confusion on other fronts. True. But that hypothesis of god exists does not explain anything that I can imagine any better that the hypothesis that there is only the universe and nothing supernatural phenomena (BTW; if it is supernatural how can it be a phenomenon in the first place. How can something that is not a part of nature, according to most versions, intelligibly interact with nature and its constituents). Since the hypothesis does not provide a positive function of explanation (what progress, what fruits, what new predictions has the hypothesis of god created for us over the last two thousand years??),then it is a superfluous hypothesis which should be eliminated by Occam's razor. --Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 15:16, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

The hypothesis "God exists" is a logical absurdity. It cannot be proven so it is not a serious hypothesis in the scientific sense. It is a faith, and as a faith it answers faith-based questions to which it is probably impossible to find the answer, generally of the form "Why is the Universe the way it is?" This has been reduced to a formal consequence of the four fundamental forces of the Universe [and possibly some unexplained impurity in the Big Bang (I am not an astrophysicist); for the sake of argument assume it was just the forces], but however far back we push the "These forces were inevitable because of X", "X was implied by Q" discoveries, it is a logical impossibility that we will exer arrive at a final "The Universe had to exist in this form because..." without discovering a new cause to be questioned (discovering an Unmoved mover). God is this; any question about why God is as he is can be answered "Because it pleases Him that it is so", and the question why it pleases Him that it is so can also be answered "Because it pleases Him that it is so". The statement "God exists" is almost the opposite of a hypothesis in that it cannot be proved and answers questions unanswerable by thier very nature, so it is contrary to reason and relies on faith.

If God did not solve any questions, it is to be wondered how the "hypothesis" He exists survived for the milleniia in which the problem of the stone has been noticed.211.30.171.128 (talk) 10:25, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

And, of course, if god IS everything (this is not what omnipotence means, but pantheism), then he is all the evil, darkness and destruction that has ever existed, exists, and will ever exist in the universe. god IS the Holocaust and its executioners, for example. These things were done by god. Adolf Hitler is god. The next time someone tries to rape, torture and shred your wife, child or mother to pieces, just remember that it was god who, not only willed it, but WAS IT---the event itself. Please don't try to stop it from happening.--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 09:04, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Well if evil, darkness, and destruction exist rather than being lacks, as Plato and Plotinus and such argue. Pantheism doesn't require that God IS these things, only that these things are part or God, or that God is present in them (in the same way that you are not your liver). The Hindus and Neo-Pagans sometimes really do take this line, (and Jews often take the line that all bad things are from God take a look at the book of Job again sometime). Its hard for some people to swallow the line that rape and shoah are aspects of the Divine, but for others it is a kind of comfort, God dwells in even the most terrible things imaginable. Even the most terrible things have some degree of good otherwise they wouldn't exist. Also none of that would imply that we shouldn't attempt to stop terrible things, that's just strawmanning pantheism. Bmorton3 14:11, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

(edit-conflicted)

Well, I will grant you that pantheism may not be so simply characterized. But this was the position expressed by the previous commentator. That was the I was arguing against. My error was in mischaracterizing that position as pantheism, then. No intentional straw manning of pantheism. the argument the other commentator made was that God IS everything (of course this is ambiguous, but i take it to mean the IS of "identity" and not "compositionality"). I suggested that: if God is everything, every being, every even, already, then the concept of "creation" (bringing into being) is logically nonsensical (unless you are a dialetheist, of course, and nonsense and sense are indistinguishable it seems to me). I cannot agree that "even the most terrible things" have some degree of good. I will not argue against this theodicy, however. It is just something I reject based on personal experience. But, in any case, even if it did, the balance of good versus evil may be far outweighed by the evil. This is the pointless argument between pessimists and optimists. As Nietzsche put it somewhere, I cannot get outside of the universe and take a god's-eye view (or view from nowhere, in Nagel's term) and judge whether the universe has more good in it or bad in it. I can only look from my own tiny, inescapable perspective. And, finally, if you accept the sort of fatalism that results from the view described above (not necessarily from pantheism) then you really would be logically confused to act against evil. --Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 14:53, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah lots of cool stuff here. 1) fair enough about the God IS everything stuff. 2) Dialetheism does NOT break down the distinction between sense and nonsense, but many people say "nonsense" when they mean "false." Ibble Glibble Bleeble remains a piece of nonsense, as does A if and only if, if and only if B (because of the repeated connectives). Dialetheism has no direct effect on which claims are or are not well-formed, which are sensical and which are nonsensical. What does happen is that reductio ad absurdum fails in some cases. It might even be that some claims about which claims are sensical and nonsensical are themselves dialetheia, I've got a paper on some plausible cases of that somewhere if you're interested. Dialetheism means that just because something is false, doesn't imply that it isn't also true (although on many pictures that is rare). In a fully consistent logic, absurd and nonsense are often confused even though they technically mean different things, but a paraconsistent logic the absurd and the nonsensical are quite different beasties. 3) We shan't fight theodicies them, I wasn't trying to convince you, merely to point out that some people find that theodicy comforting although others do not. 4) The balance of evil thing I will fight on. Even if the balance of evil where higher than the overall good for a particular universe, what would that prove? There would still be a motive to maximize the good of that universe, there would still be a motive to fight til Ragnarok's brink despite the doom. Any creator of that universe would still have created good as well as evil. Probably there would still even be particular goods unique to that universe which could not be realized in a less terrible universe. We can't get an outside view of our "eigenuniverse," (hee hee) but we can have an outside view of other possible worlds. Take a world W where we will stipulate that the evil it is clearly outweighs the good. What would follow from that? Bmorton3 15:17, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

No, I'm aware of the error I fell into about dialetheism. It's basically the view that contradictions do not lead to everything, if I understand correctly. You're correct: nonsense is about well-formedness and contradiction is about truth and falsity of the same claims. Still, it is considered a rather bizarre view with bizarre consequences by most logicians. I try to remain as open-minded as I can about such things: it often turns out that some new logic that is minimized or ridiculed winds up leading to extraordinary and valuable insights about something, somewhere. Fuzzy logic is a good example. Though it's generally considered defective in many ways, yet it has been of great use in robotics and other areas. On the last point, I'm mot even close to believing that from the existence of a great amount of evil in the universe, it follows that man should do nothing. I was saying that if you are a fatalist of a certain extreme type, who believes that God IS everything an everything is predestined with no becoming or change, then there seems to be no meaning in acting to prevent evil. My point about pessimism and optimism is just that there is no way to tell, one way or the other. It's on this sense that I don't really think the problem of evil has any relevance for the question of god's existence or non-existence. Your way of putting the case, in fact, in terms of possible world W which has M amount of evil and possible world M' which has a greater quantity of evil, shows that the possibilities are infinite in both directions. What does this mean? I don't know. But I cant see why world W would have been created by god, world W' not created by god because it contained less or more evil, etc.. Perhaps the problem of evil is irrelevant. Anyway, if there more evil a possible world rather than less, one should fight against it on moral and humanitarian grounds. Whether a belief in god aids someone in this process of striving to do the good will most likely be up to the individual case. I know belief helps my mother to be a more morally exceptional persons than she could otherwise be. My brother, who does not believe, is also morally exceptional but without any belief in God.--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 15:49, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

We are in much agreement here. Dialetheism is still considered pretty bizarre among logicians from the western traditions, it has been a normal assumption in the Indian logical tradition for thousands of years, and I ain't confident which tradition represents "most logicians." The view that contradictions don't lead to everything is Paraconsistent Logic, it's a less extreme position that whether contradictions exist or not, they still shouldn't lead to triviality. It emerges out of mainstream worries about relevency requirements for the conditional, error-tolerant reasoning, etc. I don't think it is considered that bizarre anymore, even in the West. Dialetheism goes one step further and says, oh and some contradictions are actual, rather than just errors of reasoning. I also agree that different beliefs aid different people in becoming the morally best people they can be. The plurality of possible world thought experiment has a lot of weird effects for theodicies, especially the more of a modal realist one is. One possibility I'll mention (which I take to be the Gnostic line) is that God actualizes a wide variety of worlds some of which are far better than others on the belief that the best of all possible worlds is the sum of all possible worlds (or at least every world where there is a single drop of good to be realized). If so then God should realize every world from the best to the most foul, even though this actualizes lots of suffering too. Actual then becomes an indexical term much like "here" or "now." A modal non-realist (or a Catholic) isn't going to like this "pleroma" approach, but its quite natural for a modal realist. Bmorton3 20:03, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I was pondering the possibiity of some such argument but in the other direction: if god is omnipotent, then he could actualize all possible worlds which comtain more happines, without corrsponsing suffereing, than this one. If he is omnibenevloent, then he would do so. So why doesn't he make the world woth greatest quanity of happnines the actual world. Anway, modal realists object that transworld identity either violates Leibniz law or requires weird entities such as modal parts and Lweis counterpart theory is truly odd (though very ingenous). I don't see why Catholics would object to the sort of approach you just described. --Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 10:17, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah it all comes down to many different picture of just what "benevolence" is supposed to be. Does it mean the being actualizes all worlds with any good at all? All worlds with more good than evil? All worlds with no evil at all? Only the best of all possible worlds? When do we think of a human as benevolent? When they refrain from any action with negative consequences? (I might call that fastidious, but not benevolent) When they do foul actions that nonetheless create more good than evil in the long run? (Like dutiful utilitarians). When they love all men? When they love all men equally? partially? When they are great Confucian sages? Heck there are a whole host of omnibenevolence paradoxes that are harder to fight than the omnipotence ones, even Plantinga the great defender of Catholic lines within Analytic traditions, basically gave up and said OK fine God is "morally perfect" but not really "omnibenevolent." Transworld identity isn't a problem for a picture of God in which God is prior to each of the worlds he creates. In fact I'm not certain why that would be a problem here. (Although people have complained that transworld identity problems sink my free-will account, I have to retreat to "relative identity" theory, but I'm enough of a Heraclitian to think that strict identity claims are never true anyway, so retreating to relative identity isn't much of a retreat.) Catholics don't like the Pleroma account, partially because of the links to Gnosticism in the early Church, but I've also never found Catholics particularly comfortable with the notion of God creating more than one world (even though they admit he could). Are there humans in the other worlds? Did the second person incarnate multiple times? Did he incarnate into non-human forms? Are there worlds where humans never fell? Are there whole worlds worth of fore-damned folk with no hope of salvation? My experience is that multiple worlds open a whole can of worms that gives most Christians the willies (although Mormons love exploring the possibilities). Bmorton3 14:52, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with the article because it forgets that God (referring to Judeo-Christianity) can do all things that are "intrinsically possible." For example, God does not know "round circles", nor is he able to "sin" (for there is no darkness in Him), thus the entire argument rests on an inaccurate premise. This information will not be included within the article because the article merely explains the argument.--[[User:NWalters

torf|NWalterstorf]] 03:00, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

"for there is no darkness in Him". Then why does "Him" allow so much darkness in the world? --Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 08:50, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

C'mon you know several answers people have given to this one. Check problem of evil if you need reminders. Or do you want to fight the problem of evil again here on the talk pages? Bmorton3 14:11, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Of course, the argument has gone on since the beginning of rational communication, probably. I don't want to rehearse the whole thing. My point was simply to respond to the almost-arrogant theological platitudes that have put forth on this page by several people. I did not intend to open up a new chapter and revolutionize the debate about the existence of god. You're very good at this stuff and you're a much, much, faster typist than I am. In another context, I might be able to hold my own. Here I'm almost certain to be edit-conflicted three times by the time I get one response in. Post!!--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 15:04, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

HEHE, fair enough. Arrogant platitudes annoy me too. Just don't beat up too much on good hearted folk who are trying to work with platitudes in good faith. Some folk thrive on intellectual dispute and some on platitutes. Arguing intellectually against someone presenting an epigram is like boxing in art class. Bmorton3 20:03, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, this IS a philosophy page and people seem to love to just throw out their opinions on here without any argument or reflection whatsoever. So I am often tempted to provoke them to justify themselves. I generallly do not beat up on the good-hearted folk who thrive on platitudes; its usually the other way around (espcially over here in Italy). I live a small, out-of-the-way village in which my cousin (a divorce lawyer) is considered to be a serious philospher and intellectual because he wrote a book (self-published) insisting that the strory of Genesis is literally true, Darwin was evil and so on. You do not argue with such people. You do not even dare to disgree!! You are an infidel and you are going to hell. I was declared that I didn't beleive in god to one of my cousins and she just looked at me as if I had declared that I had killed and eaten several realtives. LOL!! I'm roughed up with such platitues every day. Even the Pope, who knows better but is poltically astute, foments this kind of dangerous nonsense by distorting words like "relativism" to be identical with datheism, atehsim to be identical with degenearetion and evil and the death of Western civilization. If the center-left bring up the possibility of legalizing "civil unions" between non-married couple and homosexcuals, it is prooof that "relativism" is taking over. Cardinal Ruini will come out and declare that Catholics must follow their "conscience" (i.e. the dogmas and dictates of the Church) and combat the spread of the indisipus disease of unbelief and relativism. Give me a break. I rarely get to discuss this stuff in a serious, philosophical context.--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 10:04, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

(reseting too many tabs) HA! Fair enough. Since I teach both philosophy and religion in Indiana, I'm used to my philosophy students roughing up the few good hearted religious types willing to brave a philosophy class, I can imagine that in the Italy the reverse problem is far more common. Philosophers and non-philosophers are sharing this wiki-location, and omniscience paradox and free will are places likely to get cross over where we need to work together. But yeah challange and provoke to think are good impulses. If you want to, next time your cousin annoys you on this stuff ask him in the most polite way you can, whether Genesis literally teaches that God made man before birds or birds before man, and then watch to see him reconcile Gen 1 and Gen 2. You are right you don't argue or disagree with people who are convinced they are right, there is no point. But as good old Socrates teaches, you can ask them polite questions designed to get them thinking, uncertain and and beginning to doubt. If you come on strong they'll bluster and shout, if you come on curious they often can't resist showing off. Or screw him and don't bother. All I'm saying is chat philosophy with people who are willing and able to chat back with you, or if you want to bother with interacting with religious folk, try to do so from within their framework, otherwise they'll just shrug you off, and you're wasting your time. And here in wiki-land try to share space with people while assuming good faith. I subscribe to a strong version of the Davidsonian principle of charity which says that I personally learn more when I assume the other guy is saying the smartest thing I can interpret them as saying, so it benefits ME to assume the best. Just like you did with the Pope, you could assume he's screwing up the philosophy, but instead you assumed he was playing politics. But of course I'm not as good at actually doing it when someone ticks me off ... Oh well. Bmorton3 14:33, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

We humans can know round circles, and even "square circles" Bmorton3 20:20, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I have heavily edited the page, re-organizing and re-structuring things in terms of P. T. Geach's article on omnipotence. Bmorton3 20:20, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what it means to "disagree with the article" since the article doesn't make an argument. Are you, NW, trying to say even acknowledging that people have historically discussed such a paradox is itself non-encyclopedia and silence on the subject would be better? --Christofurio 16:05, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Interestingly though, Christofurio, the article is categorized as an "atheism"-related article. What is an "atheism-related" article? An article about Richard Dawkins might fall in that cat perhaps, but I thought this was a philosophy article. --Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 15:59, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Lots of philosophy articles that might be taken as arguments against the existence of God get that tag, and I suppose the Omnipotence Paradox might be taken as an argument against the existence of God. Bmorton3 20:03, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Hem,wikipedia is not a soapbox.I think that you are overwelmly in that fealed at this section.--Pixel ;-) 00:40, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

It isn't a soapbox, but it is an attempt to make the basic arguments on various sides availible and free to the public in as NPOV a way as possible. We present information about atheism, Christianity, Chad, Star Trek, First Order Logics, whatever. Atheism has as much right to have a WikiProject and categorize the pages they want to keep track of, as Philosophy, or Christianity, or Chad does. The Atheism folks haven't been helping much on this page recently, but they have in the past, and might do so again someday. At the moment the page cites far more Christian defenders of somekind of Omnipotent Being, than atheist opponents of it, but we do try to do both. Bmorton3 12:55, 18 September 2006 (UTC) Bmorton3 12:55, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

bmorton3&lacatocias how fascinating your interchange, my 1 query when infinite powers are assigned to a being and next impossible tasks demanded would not the wait be infinity? theodicy, dialetheism,multiple worlds,ahh.

GOD can create multiple universe in which there is one where he cannot lift the stone he makes, but in another he can... and so can do anything still.Jiohdi (talk) 16:01, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Would it not make sense that if an omnipotent being could create a stone that he could not lift that he could also make himself strong enough to lift it if he so choose. Choosing to do something or not to do something does not mean that it cannot be done. (Drinkin' Beer In The Hot Sun (talk) 04:52, 16 July 2008 (UTC))

"arguments against the existence of God"/"atheism"

I am sure this has been so used on the internets, but as it stands the article is completely unaware that anyone has used this paradox to argue against the existence of God. Certainly not the medieval scholasticists who originally debated it in the 12th and 13th centuries. Nor any of the later scholars the article is aware of. Most just wave it away as a game with semantics, telling you something about language more than about God. I doubt any intelligent atheist is going to rely on this for any sort of argument. If there is a quotable atheist using this, it would of course be perfectly in order to dedicate an "in atheism" section to it, but pending that I have removed the atheism category. --dab (𒁳) 11:37, 22 June 2010 (UTC)4

"god" is a lie, like religion.

Someone has apparently put it back. For what it's worth, I agree that this is at best grade-school level argument in favor of atheism... only slightly superior to the immediately preceding unsigned statement in terms of its rigor and persuasiveness. 174.65.175.154 (talk) 06:09, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Summarizing Proposed Answers Section

According to wp:lead:

Wikipedia:Lead states: The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies.

Keeping an important section out of the summary of article is in violation of this guideline.Back2back2back (talk) 01:51, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't know on what basis you are calling your edit "an important section". You seem to have decided it is the particular answer you like the most, and hence it should be in the lede rather than the section for answers. NickCT (talk) 22:44, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

The answers to a paradox is an important section to the paradox's article. I am not adding simply one answer or the other, but am trying to give a summary of them. You seem to be opposed to any mention of that section in the lead section. Back2back2back (talk) 23:37, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Ok. Well I've summarized and removed the answer you were giving undue emphasis. NickCT (talk) 15:58, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Problematic Paragraph

This paragraph

This argument, while seeming ingenious, is indefensible since once the stone is lifted, then it can be said that the being never created a stone that it could not lift in the first place, thereby not demonstrating the implied level of omnipotence. Also, the idea in this argument that there are "two logically impossible tasks" is misleading since the logical impossibility of an omnipotent being creating the stone consists in not being able to lift it once it exists, and the logical impossibility of lifting such a stone consists in the fact that the stone exists solely to resist any such attempts. That is, it's one logical impossibility connected to both actions of creation and lifting

Seems problematic to me for a couple of reasons,

1.) It does not appear to be cited.

2.) It is stated as if were unequivocally true and flat out calls the argument wrong.

3.) The phrase, "seeming ingenious", sounds very npov and amateurish for an encyclopeia.

4.) The point about there being only one logical impossiblity seems to miss the point of what it is criticizing, and isn't quite right anyways; Imagine instead two beings, A and B, both omnipotent. A generates a stone that B cannot lift. B, then, lifts it while not violating his inability to lift it. One contradiction involves the creation, the other the preservation of a property being violated, quite different. Or, at least, arguably diffrent, thus point 2. above. Phoenix1177 (talk) 09:22, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Logical answer to this via the Actus Purus

If God is "pure act" as Thomists & Scholastics maintain, and is therefore in potency to nothing else, then God's act would become as it were, a fact (something put over to the power of an act) that puts everything that *was* God into the potency of, say, the stone which he could not lift; but since God continues as act and not fact, the objective/factual God would be limited, but it would make, as an object, a new one-true-God that would then become something that transcends the former abstracted fact about God. God would in essence make his entire history obsolete, as a shell of his former self, but it would be an abstract fact that he would immediately transcend being himself act rather than fact. Unrelative subject rather than relative object of a past instance, no matter how pervasive the past instance was in encompassing all his nature formerly.

This could be interpreted as the nature of 'Lucifer' or the devil, as God's most powerful angel; he was an extension of God made from the omnipotence of God to do something that would in fact limit his omnipotence, leaving behind a 'husk' or 'shell' of everything that God was before the need of the paradox and being nearly omnipotent in every other capacity. Take for example of 'two-prong'd' symbolism of Satan; a pitchfork, cloven hooves, two horns; everything is 'split', duality as opposed to unity, separateness, the necessary of observer and thing observed. For one thing to exist as manifest, it needs another for its contrast as that 'one, single, sole, thing' to be realized.

This calls to mind the paradox of nonexistence: if nothingness were truly without principles of any type or degree; then staying still and having no qualities is a quality of stasis & fixity in emptiness which defines and limits the infinite lack of qualities nothingness must maintain to truly be nothing. Therefore being & nonbeing are the same, and prove their infinity of lacking anything by becoming (or existing as act, and not fact) all things, or infinite fact, which continually negates act but is always in the potency of it. This passage from oneness to everything is the process of duality, or "God's most powerful angel/messenger", which does nothing else but bring dissent & strife by the conflict of multiplicity (though to justify the unity and wholeness of God). God, being always oneness, always pervades all duality. God = the unity of unity & duality - the Devil = the duality of unity & duality 74.209.54.156 (talk) 17:28, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Kenotic conception of omnipotence.

I know Kierkegaard has had a viewpoint in his work that has been interpreted as Kenosis with regard to the idea of omnipotence. Has any author associated this type of position to the idea of an overcoming of omnipotence paradox to the knowledge of anyone? Nagelfar (talk) 03:20, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

The question simplified

Basically this question is just asking, "Is God so powerful that he can have a weakness?"

Since God is All-Powerful, he cannot have a weakness (a.k.a. he cannot create a rock he can't lift), and that is what makes him omnipotent! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.164.236.198 (talk) 16:48, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

No, it's not. It's a question asking: can god do something even he can't undo? If he can, then there is something he can't undo, so he's not omnipotent. If he can't, than he's not omnipotent simply because of that. 178.222.94.208 (talk) 16:32, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

That sounds to me to be saying that the paradox consists in 'pure' ideas (ideas that have no ultimate relation to the necessary, empirical ontologies of limitation). In that case, I think its just an exercise in arbitrary one-up-man-ship (like what two little boys might engage in against each other's claim to having the stronger dad).PatternOfPersona (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:18, 22 May 2012 (UTC).

It seems to me this is simply another way to state the well known "Set of all sets" problem, and thus a real logical paradox. Am I wrong? --92.104.205.247 (talk) 13:02, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

 --Yeah this goes beyond Thomas Aquinas.  Plato in "Parmanides" has Socrates talking to Parmenides about the form of largeness, and if you add the worldly form of largeness to the perfect form of largeness (which it must already have, otherwise it wouldn't be perfectly large), then you have to make the perfect form of largeness even bigger to encompass this new idea of largeness, ad infinitum.

Further, I'm sure people have been thinking about this as long there as there has been an idea of omnipotence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.173.0.16 (talk) 04:36, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

What I would love to see somewhere!

I am one of those (probably rare) fellows who reads symbols better than text. if there were a symbolic offering of this (either given or linked) I'd love to read it.

I would also like to see a few other members of the "family of semantic paradoxes". Are there any interesting variations other than thoes paradoxes with other objects substituted for 'rock' and other actions substituted for 'lifting'? (eg. "can god create a banana which he cant scratch his back with?")

For instance I think the question "Can God do something that he cant?" might be an interesting variation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markopolo141 (talk • contribs) 12:36, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Stone does not work for Omnipotence Paradox

The use of a stone for this argument should have died out with Sir Isaac Newton's Theory of Gravity. Lift is a function of gravity and has no meaning apart from gravity. So Newton's theory provides two possible ways to answer "yes" to the question without paradox: remove gravity or make the stone so large that it is the largest source of gravity in the universe. When there is nothing bigger to lift it from, it cannot be lifted. Somewhere in the universe, such a "stone" exists.

As for the Immovable Object vs. the Irresistible Force, "He who falls on this stone will be broken to pieces, but he on whom it falls will be crushed," Jesus Christ says according to the Gospel of Matthew as translated by the New International Version of the Bible. In two phrases, Jesus shows that He thinks of both as being the same thing, as the Irresistible Force being projected by the Immovable Object.

DeanDaleFry (talk) 02:09, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

You really lack comprehension on this subject if you think this is a question of physics. It isn't. It is asking whether God can do something which implies his own lack of omnipotence while omnipotence is a given. Replace it with any flavour of the paradox that you prefer. For instance:

Can God create a massive object so massive that not even he could not could reverse its trajectory in one second as judged by a local cesium clock?24.199.116.152 (talk) 15:27, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Final answer?

God can create the stone? YES. But if he do it he will not be able to lift it. Thats because he dont want to lift it. Why the hell he would create a stone he can't lift if he wanted to lift it later? But and if he needs to lift this stone later because of some reason? He has Omniscience and if he created a stone that he can't lift it, its because he knows that he will not be able to lift it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.78.129.182 (talk) 17:39, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Critical notes and alternatives

From the first moment I heard of this paradox, I always liked it and pondered about it.

Reading all the comments, I suddenly realized that I have always used a different concept of omnipotence: "X is omnipotent" if "X can do Y" where Y is a desirable action, Y is not inconsistent and nobody can do Y.

Examples: 1. Y could be "to feed humanity". Nobody can feed humanity, but an omnipotent being can. In the Bible, the feeding with manna comes to mind, of which it is conceivable that manna could appear anywhere (not just in a desert). If God caused the manna to appear and it was enough for all present, then God could cause manna to appear anywhere on earth and feed humanity. Also, in the new testament, the feeding of the five thousand (Mar 6:37-44) and the feeding of the four thousand (Mar 8:1-9) come to mind. If a quantity of this size can be fed, why not the whole world? A related question becomes: If God is omnipotent, and God can do Y, why do we not see God do Y? If God is omnipotent, what do we see happening that confirms it?

2. A new disease is discovered and medicine has no cure for it yet. However, it is desirable that there is a cure for such diseases. There is no reason to believe that there is no cure for that disease because for all diseases that were discovered in the past, some cure exist. Therefore, if God is omnipotent, he has a cure for the disease.

Yet, another variation is this: "X is omnipotent" if "X can do Y" where Y is something that somebody can do. The point is that X is omnipotent because he can do all possible Y!

But this is not omnipotent with the previous example in mind. If there are diseases for which no cures exist, it does not mean that there never will be a cure. To be omnipotent would imply to at least create a cure for a disease. It seems that with time progressing humanity is omnipotent in this sense. Maybe the definition of omnipotent is not fixed but progresses with time!

Another thing came to mind, showing the absurdity of some of the definitions of omnipotence in the article. Consider the answer to this question: "Can God drink water?"

Isn't that the most simple thing for a human being, to drink water? However, in order for God to do it, what do we suppose God looks like and how, if he is spirit, is he going to drink water (physical)? If God is omnipotent but it prevents him from doing simple things that humans can do, why would we trust him to do things that we can NOT do? How did it come about that most people consider God to be omnipotent? (I must admit that there was a time that I did not question this either.)

The answer to all this is, that the question of omnipotence of God has never been related to the things that God can actually do, regardless of whether he is omnipotent. We also need to consider that if action Y is desirable, what are the conditions for Y to occur? If God is omnipotent, he may be preparing to do Y, but we have no way of knowing when he is going to do it. In other words, if we have certainty about the things that God is able to do, then and only then can we ever consider whether he is omnipotent in any sense and whether or not there is a time lapse involved preventing us to see action Y in the present.

If the things that God can do are related to the spiritual world (inherently invisible), and we consider human beings as being physical beings, we can readily see that the omnipotence of God should be restricted to the things that can not be seen. For instance, God may be considered omnipotent because he is love (whatever that means, it certainly is not a physical object) and he can cause love in a human heart (invisible). I have no idea how such a thing could be proven and henceforth how such a thing could be attributed to God, let alone how it could prove or disprove God's omnipotence, since it is always a human being that has an experience that he attributes to God, whether there is a God or not and whether God is omnipotent or not. This does not falsify any experience, but it questions the source of the experience and the explanation of the experience. Therefore, to answer questions about the omnipotence of God, we should also answer questions about the nature of being human. Bcurfs (talk) 02:24, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I saw some things in here that are original research! According to all the known laws of physics it is impossible for there to be a massive object that is not influenced by gravity at all! Such a thing would be able to escape from a black hole through the event horizon! That is a flat impossibility! (Matter that 'escapes' from a black hole via Hawking radiation does not go through the event horizon.) You can check anywhere you like and you'll find that all physics references agree with me! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yonathan Arief Kurniawan (talk • contribs) 16:48, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

A stone that is the largest source of gravity in the universe would collapse to form a black hole! There is no way to move a black hole because all energy hitting it would simply be lost behind the event horizon, and, as far as mankind is able to tell, disappear forever from our physical universe! Again, all physics references agree with me! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yonathan Arief Kurniawan (talk • contribs) 17:07, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Possible solution?

For the "Can X make a stone that X cannot lift?", nothing says that X itself has to be the holder of the stone. Nothing says that X cannot try to hold the stone from, say, a piece of string. Obviously a boulder that weighs several tons can't be held by a piece of string, so it could be possible to create something that cannot be lifted (via a material that isn't strong enough for the task). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.35.238.126 (talk) 16:07, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Saying "a god" is more appropriate than saying that there is one God. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.192.58.149 (talk) 16:51, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Doesn't Christianity already adress this?

I've looked at this "paradox" for some time, and I'm surprised I haven't seen an obvious interpretation. Questions like can God devise a task he cannot perform amount to the question of whether an infinite God who is incapable of nothing can become finite and incapable. The state of being finite and limited is a cornerstone of the concept of mortality, a big part of what it is to be a human. There is plenty that humans cannot do, making the state of humanity a very valid state of incapability. While people may struggle with the idea of God making a prison he can't escape from, the concept is one of the central points of Christianity: that God could and did become a mere mortal man. How is the question being asked any different from this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.45.169.2 (talk) 19:57, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

removed debate template

The explication of different positions on the paradox does not mean the article was structured as a debate. These different possible solution shave to be included in any good article on a paradox. The template was originally add by user 211.31.236.51 in Nov. 2010 was either incorrect or never updated to reflect the work done by the Cleanup Taskforce. Jjk (talk) 15:48, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

"Christian" trinitarian God is the only logical way to believe in an omnipotent God

Yes. You are right. And this is why of all the monotheistic religions with an omnipotent God, only Christian trinitarian God is logically possible.

God is omnipotent in the way that s dreaming human is onmipotent in his dream. The dream does not exist outside the dreamer. The creation as a dream of God is the only way man can still have free will and God stay omnipotent.

The dreamer may appear and act in his dream as a finite part of the dream. The dreamer may bend the dream to his conscious will. There you have explained the trinity of Father, Son and the Holy Spirit.

And also: Man can be the image of God can be understood so that also man dreams - creates a world of his own - and while animals dream too, only man is also conscious of his dreams.

---

Frankly, I don't see how any of that addresses the original point. The fact that we as dreamers often make ourselves characters within a dreamt story simply creates an ambiguity. Can a dreamer dream a stone so big that even he cannot lift it? If we mean "him" as a character, then can the dreamer dream that he has, as a character, encountered an unliftable stone? Yes, of course. Could a dreamer dream a stone so big that it would be impossible for him as the dreamer then to dream of any force or person within the story who could lift it? I'm not sure what the answer is to that as a matter of dream psychology. BUT if we begin by stipulating that the dreamer is omnipotent within the dream world, we have recreated the original paradox. We've done nothing to solve it. --Christofurio (talk) 19:11, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

The whole God as dreamer thing is a silly conjecture to try and make sense of something that we are fundamentally unable to understand. We live in a physical world bound by a set of laws, and no matter how hard we try defining a being so far above and outside this that He could "write" these laws and dimensions, it is beyond us. Calling it a dreamer dreaming and saying that the dreamer can dream things impossible is as valid as any other explanation, since all of them are attempts to explain in physical, three-dimensional terms something/someone completely beyond these. I don't pretend to know how God could make Himself limited and mortal, though I believe He did. As for free will versus omnipotence and omniscience, I believe there are other articles for those matters, though the way I see it the future is written in stone, but we humans are holding the chisels. If God knows everything about us and what we feel, it seems reasonable that He'd be able to tell how our interactions will play out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.30.50.240 (talk) 20:39, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Nonsense language used in "Proposed Solutions" does not meet Wikipedia standards.

This is completely unacceptable: "In other words, all non-omnipotent agents are concretely synthetic: constructed as contingencies of other, smaller, agents, meaning that they, unlike an omnipotent agent, logically can exist not only in multiple instantiation (by being constructed out of the more basic agents of which they are made), but are each bound to a differentiated location in space contra transcendent omnipresence."

The entire section needs to be rewritten. This is just nonsense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.197.161.162 (talk) 18:13, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

As a start, I've removed the "Mathematically" section, which appeared to be an original argument with no citations or references. 2620:0:1008:1101:BE30:5BFF:FEDB:F16 (talk) 21:02, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Article needs cleaning up

At the moment it reads like a mishmash of individual sentences inserted by different editors. For example, I would have expected a discussion of the physics aspects of the question "can God create a rock so heavy he can't lift it" in the Overview, with associated statements that avoid physics entirely, e.g. "can God create a prison so secure he can't escape from it", and then the article to focus on the thrust of the question, not secondary aspects like the physics (since I'm sure everyone would agree that answering the too-heavy phrasing with "but heavy is meaningless since far from any gravitating body weight has no meaning" is avoiding the question).

I don't have time to edit the article myself, but I'm going to tag it. Banedon (talk) 02:59, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

@Banedon: - Yeah. It does badly need clean up. The problem I think is that a number of random individuals have been perplexed by the paradox, and thought it worthwhile to drop-by wikipedia to contribute their two cents on the topic.

I think there could be a pretty good argument to just going back and reverting to some old version of this article, before it got messed up. NickCT (talk) 03:42, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Human heart

One answer to the paradox of the stone that I think should be included in this article somehow is: "Yes, and God has done so: he created the human heart." While this answer is a wisecrack of sorts, it does contain an interesting reflection on the human condition, and is reasonably often quoted. I'm not quite sure how to include it in the article, though, especially because I cannot find any decent sources. It tends to be attributed to "a wise Jew" or "a nun". – gpvos (talk) 09:44, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Can God Create a Stone that He Cannot Lift?

This question is more than 800 years old. In asking this question, the questioner had already assumed the existence of gravity because of the word “lift” in the question. What is “lift”? My definition for “lift” is: Moving an object to the opposite direction of gravity. By definition, God created everything. Hence, God created gravity. Since God can create gravity, he can certainly make it disappear. So God can “lift” any stone. Put another way, this question could become: if God were to have an arm wrestling match between his left arm （gravity）and right arm (to “lift” the stone), which one would win? Both arms belong to God. This is not a contest; there is no winning or losing. Therefore this is a stupid question.

(Response: you can easily see that the above is false by substituting "yourself" for "God". I am right handed, so my right arm would win against my left arm. The fact that both hands belong to me does not mean there is no contest. Obviously therefore, this is not a proof that the question is stupid).

==I can certainly create a stone that I cannot lift. Q: Can God commit suicide? Can God stop being God? Can God create another God? Can God eat itself? Can God create a Being that it cannot control?

If God is omnipotent, God must be everything, everything must be God.

(Response: you are conflating "omnipotence" with "omnipresence". There are two words because there are two concepts. If you're going to claim that one implies the other, you need an argument to show that, not merely the bald statement without evidence or reasoning which you supplied.)

==God is a self-contradictory concept just like the self-shaving barber. Hence it does not exist.

Since "Outside everything" is an oxymoron, therefore “Outside God” is an oxymoron: if there is God, then there will be no “outside”; if there is an “outside”, then there will be no God. There is no gravity “outside” God. God doesn’t live in a gravitational field. For an omnipotent God, there is no such concept as “lift”. “Lift” only exists in human experience. Gravity, like everything else, exists inside God. For an omnipotent God, there is no such concept as “stand” either, because there is no ground “outside” God. By the same token，for an omnipotent God, there are no such concepts as “breathe”，“eat”，“drink”，“excrete”, “wear clothes”, “walk”，“sit”, “lie down”. God doesn't have a body. All bodies have skin, skin is the boundary of the body. God doesn't have boundary. Therefore, God doesn't have a face，nor shape. An ant looks at you while you are talking, it could see your lips and tongue moving. The ant asks you: “How do you lift your lips and tongue?” You reply: “It’s a stupid question.” A man sees that the Moon is moving, he asks God: “How do you lift the Moon?” God says: “It’s a stupid question.” —Teng Wang, Social Phenomena

Technically Wikipedia isn't a forum. However, I think that what you wrote is a great reason for the changes I'm about to make for the article. The essence of the omnipotence paradox has nothing to do with gravity, and any explanation of the paradox that invokes properties specific to gravity - such as how it does not exist when there is no mass - is missing the point. Admittedly the changes I'm about to make are unsourced, but this is I think for the good of the article. Banedon (talk) 02:33, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, well, well Banedon... Did I just actually read where you are going to make edits to Wikipedia's Omnipotence Paradox page with "Unsourced" content that you feel is for the "good of the article?" Did I also just read where you claimed Wikipedia's talk page is "not a forum" but since you happen to like what you are reading, you've deemed it perfectly okay?

So is the new Wikipedia rule that whatever Banedon deems is "okay" stays and whatever Banedon doesn't like gets deleted? ...Is that the way Wikipedia works now?--EPROM (talk) 14:48, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Teng Wan: Omnipotence and Omnipresence are directly related and yes, I can make a logical argument as to why. In any circumstance where one is attempting to define what Omnipotence (all power) represents you have to ask the question, "What prevents an Omnipotent Being from being able to do this?" So if you ask the question, "Can an Omnipotent Being be in two or more places at the same time" the answer would be "Yes!" as there is nothing preventing it from doing so. If an Omnipotent Being was not able to be ubiquitous, then it wouldn't be Omnipotent in the first place. This sole reason why the Stone Paradox is considered effective is because it forces an Omnipotent Being to thwart its own will. This is because the only thing that can STOP an Omnipotent Being's power is its own power. Theoretically, anything that doesn't result in an inner conflict within an Omnipotent Being can be accomplished by an Omnipotent Being.... and I can easily illustrate how an Omnipotent being can paradoxically resolve even these types of inner conflicts via Omnipotence. Unfortunately, a few select ideologically-driven individuals here on Wikipedia don't want me to be able to do that.

You also wrote, "If God is omnipotent, God must be everything, everything must be God." which is false dichotomy. That's not the only possibility present. If you deem God is "required" to be all things or be everywhere, then you have retroactively deemed God as powerless to not be all things. Once again, if you ask the question, "What prevents an Omnipotent Being from being able to do this?" you see that there is nothing preventing an Omnipotent Being from being whatever the hell it wants to be. If it wants to be everything and everywhere it most certainly can do so. Likewise if it wanted to be nothing it could equally do so.

The most common mistake people make when attempting to define Omnipotence is to place restrictions on the concept or have Omnipotence be considered a "mandatory requirement" instead of an "ability" (which is what you just did). If you are considering what an Omnipotent Being can do, then YOU (not God) are required to consider everything surrounding Omnipotence as an "ability." An Omnipotent Being is "able" to do whatever the hell it wants to and is not "required" to do anything at all. If I am wrong, then explain how an Omnipotent Being would not have total control over it's own power? How can an entity be considered "all powerful" yet not possess the ability to control its own power?--EPROM (talk) 14:48, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Gibberish

What on earth does this mean: "question is inherently required by the concept". Does this mean that if someone has some concept, then it is somehow impossible for someone not to ask some question? Why would that be so? Why would it even matter if that were the case? Can't I easily refute this by introducing a hypothetical madman who can have the concept but cannot ask the question? Maybe this was intended to say something else? But I can't imagine what. Bits of this article read like total gibberish. I'm sorely tempted to add the 'clarification needed' tag to all of them. Actually, maybe I will; someone can easily revert those changes if they don't like them.

And this too: "concept of omnipotence that requires it is a paradox". Now we're saying that some concept is a paradox. But a paradox is a valid (or seemingly valid) argument leading to a contradiction. Arguments can be paradoxes, but concepts cannot be paradoxes. I think whoever wrote this had a coherent idea in mind but used the wrong words. But I can't figure out the concept so I can fix it.

Ok this just seems to be a distraction onto an irrelevant tangent:

"the central omnipotence paradox issue is whether the concept of 'logically possible' is different for a world in which omnipotence exists than in a world in which omnipotence does not exist"

No it isn't! The central issue is: given a world containing an omnipotent creature (eg God), can we recover an acceptable logic (eg, a clear answer to the question whether God can or cannot perform a certain action). The paradox has nothing to do with some many-worlds theory, comparing different worlds with and without omnipotency.

I'm about to delete the gibberish and this distraction into some sort of many-worlds theory. They really detract from the parts later in the article, which are quite good. It looks like all of this crap was added by the same writer.

Removal of original research from resolutions

In this edit, I have removed the text from Proposed resolutions that violated WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:OR. Sadly, much of the arguments describing the Christian POV on the omnipotence paradox contained within this section were entirely original syntheses, which were misattributed (without sources) to authors who presented quite different arguments to those given. At some point this needs to be looked into, and useful content written with proper sources and attribution, since the Christian religious POV on the omnipotence paradox does have its place — but presented in a WP:NPOV way. I did however keep what I could from the section that was verifiable and reasonably written and added a few {{cn}} tags where appropriate. --Tristessa (talk) 23:29, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

I am not a Christian (nor have any belief system) yet I have a bullet-proof resolution to the Stone Paradox. It addresses the fallacious use of paradoxical logic within the construction of the Stone Paradox's question. It is NOT a "Christian POV" because it deals with the concept of an Omnipotent Being and paradoxical logic. I have what's called the "Circular God Counter-paradox" which nullifies the Stone Paradox in the same paradoxical manner that the SP attempts to nullify Omnipotence.

However, when you make a unilateral decree that "resolutions" should NOT be included on Wikipedia's Omnipotence Paradox page you are technically eliminating 50% of the entire Omnipotence issue. 50% of the Omnipotence Paradox is represented in the form of questions and the other 50% is represented in the form of responses. It seems you only want the "question" half included here on Wikipedia and do not any of the responses - and especially any responses from those nasty ol' "Christitans" right?

Look, the Stone Paradox (and other Omnipotence Paradoxes) are merely thought experiments. There is no scientific basis for the concept of Omnipotence nor any qualified research into the subject. It's just "humanity" trying to dissect and understand an extremely complex intellectual concept. The best contribution the Stone Paradox has made is NOT the perceived elimination of the concept of Omnipotence, but rather forcing humanity to think far more deeply regarding paradoxical logic. ...That's a two-way street, my friend!

For you to not want the other 50% of the topic to be included on Wikipedia's Omnipotence Paradox page does a disservice to everyone who accesses the page since the many diverse "responses" represent 50^% of the entire subject. Since an Omnipotent Being is often referred to as "God" then even the responses from those who have a religion-based understanding of Omnipotence should be considered as well. --EPROM (talk) 15:14, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

This is not really a paradox at all !! Why is it listed as such?

A stone so heavy that God can't lift it, doesn't exist by the very definition of God. That is if there is a God, no such stone can exist. So it is actually equivalent to a null set. And God can create a null set.This dilemma is like one of those maths proofs where they claim to reach a contradictory conclusion like

x = y. Then x^2 = xy. Subtract the same thing from both sides: x^2 - y^2 = xy - y^2 Dividing by (x-y), obtain (wrong since division by 0 is not defined) x + y = y. Since x = y, we see that 2 y = y. Thus 2 = 1, (since we started with y nonzero) Subtracting 1 from both sides, 1 = 0.

But which upon closer inspection completely fails as a valid argument. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rahul m94 (talk • contribs) 17:58, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

You're right about the non-existence of such a stone, but you ignore the consequence for the concept of omnipotence. If such stone is impossible to exist, then even God can not create it. If God is omnipotent, then if God can not create such a stone, he is not omnipotent. The problem is that the predicate "can create a stone that he can not lift" is logically possible for any man; mainly because a man is not said to be omnipotent. They can use tools and blast it off a mountain, transport it by trucks and what not, but presented in front of them, the man who made it can not lift it. But if we apply the same predicate to God, suddenly the existence of the rock AND the omnipotence of God are at stake. The paradox points to the paradoxical nature of either the concept of God, of omnipotence, or of the logic that makes the statement acceptable. However, if the logic itself is paradoxical, then we are left with no device to answer the question, and discussions are futile! But we know that arguments, if sound and valid, have a justifying power for changing our minds. So, as long as we avoid fallacies, the use of logic is deemed useful, and also desirable. So, it must be one of the other two reasons . . . Bcurfs (talk) 01:37, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

I completely agree. A rock that cannot be lifted by man is not the same as a rock that cannot be lifted by god. Creating a rock that cannot be lifted by god is illogical if we have previously stated that god can do all things logical. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.70.174.186 (talk) 16:05, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

You don't understand problem isn't it ? Just creating another omnipotent being is paradoxical, since both are now limited by the other. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alcyon007 (talk • contribs) 15:24, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Why do you automatically assume there would be a conflict in a situation where two "Omnipotent Beings" are present? Both omnipotent beings would be identical in all respects and agree on all issues. In addition, both beings would be equally omniscient, so they would both know exactly what to do in all circumstances which would always produce the exact same results. Any difference in outcome between the actions of two omnipotent beings would mean that one of them must have been wrong... which cannot happen with an omnipotent being!EPROM (talk) 16:19, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Then you have 2 "omnipotent" beings limited by each other. They are omnipotent but if they fight against each other, at least one of them cannot win, by definition. What's boring with the apologetics is their habit to not define the words they use. Omnipotence is similar to the "set of all sets" in (one version of) Russell's pardox.

1) Omnipotence is limited by self-referential sentences (and by extension, logic).

2) Omnipotence is limited by another omnipotent being

Alcyon007 (talk) 22:26, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Alcyon007 wrote: "Then you have 2 "omnipotent" beings limited by each other." ...You're just claiming that, but you can't support your claim. How are they limited by each other? If both are "Omniscient" then they would always be on the same page. No Omniscient Being would ever do something in error, so another Omniscient Being would logically do the same. You have to state where the conflict would arise. Try doing so and you'll see the problem with that.

You also wrote: "They are omnipotent but if they fight against each other, at least one of them cannot win, by definition." ...Why would two Omnipotent Beings (who are always "perfect" and always know what the best options are) ever end up in a conflict? If an Omnipotent Being always knows what is best, then any other Omnipotent Being would also know the exact same thing(s). If one OB thought one way was best and another OB thought a different way was best,then one of them must be wrong, correct?

So tell me, Alcyon007, how can either of these two Omnipotent Beings be "wrong" on anything at all (based on definition)? And logic states that if they both always agree on all issues, then where exactly would a fight ever ensue -- and for what reason?--EPROM (talk) 04:04, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

OMNIPOTENCE. Define it. To me, OMNIPOTENCE is the ability to do ANYTHING (logically possible). Winning a "fight" (or a game of chess, or anything like that) against EVERY SINGLE OPPONENT is SOMETHING (logically possible). Where do you need a reason in OMNIPOTENCE ? Seriously, we are talking about logic here, not some gibberish talk from apologetics. And I am always bored to hear so much nonsense from apoloiogetics. "Perfect" has not meaning alone, "best option" without context doesn't mean anything. And by the way, An OP being doesn't need to be benevolent. But this isn't a forum, this is my last post, if you don't understand basic logic, go educate yourself and stop spamming your ignorance.

Alcyon007 (talk) 22:11, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Alcyon007 wrote: "OMNIPOTENCE. Define it." ...Not a problem! It's the literal translation of the word "Omnipotence" which is "all power." You also totally failed to answer my question ...and the reason is because you can't. If you have two Omnipotent/Omniscient Beings then they would both be "identical" in all ways and equally have absolutely no conflicts at all. The only way a conflict could arise is if one Omnipotent Being thought something should go one way and the other thought it should go a different way. But how could this ever happen if they are Omnipotent/Omniscient Beings who already know the best case scenario at all times (based on the definition being "all power" and Omniscience as "all knowledge")? Again, for there to be any conflict at ALL, then one of the Omnipotent Beings is required to be "wrong." This is where your argument totally falls flat, my content-censoring friend.

And I am absolutely NOT an apologist for any god or religion. I'm simply far more able than you to dissect the concept of Omnipotence and find paradoxical responses that you refuse to even consider because of your Atheistic ideology. Your particular ideology is unfortunately limiting your intellect in the same way that a person of faith's is self-limiting. If you are intellectually "controlled" by any ideology (even Atheism) then your intellect is compromised.

Alcyon007 also wrote: "if you don't understand basic logic, go educate yourself and stop spamming your ignorance." which is very "interesting" coming from someone who constantly deletes my words on this page all-the-while claiming "this is not a forum." But hey, let's talk "Logic" since you feel I don't possess any.

The stone Paradox requires an Omnipotent Being to give up its Omnipotence in order to prove that it is Omnipotent. That is tantamount to me requiring you to kill yourself in order to prove that you are alive. So tell me, Cap'm Logic, ...does that sound "logical" to you?

The truth is that you haven't even intellectually scratched the surface regarding the concept of Omnipotence (and the subsequent use of paradoxical logic). I can easily tell because you were totally unable to answer my questions. ...Next time don't ask a question if you aren't intellectually prepared for an answer.--EPROM (talk) 16:06, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Paradox vs Counter-paradox

I have a website called stoneparadox.org which directly targets the Paradox of the Stone by way of a counter-paradox of equal measure. This direct response is titled the, "Circular God Counter-paradox" (Quora link) which uses the powers of omnipotence and omnipresence to turn the paradoxical tables on the Stone Paradox. Omnipresence is exploited to create a uniquely paradoxical situation where our omnipotent being (aka: God) is able to simultaneously lift and not-lift the stone and thus not sacrificing omnipotence in the process. One's first reaction is that this is all hogwash, but upon further inspection the conception of this counter-paradox appears rock solid (pun intended). To date there have been no successful challenges offered to negate this counter-paradoxical resolution.

The CGCP is copyrighted with the U.S Copyright office, available in a downloadable .pdf format and has been published on various websites. There is also a YouTube video series that explains how the CGCP nullifies the Stone paradox. When the Stone Paradox is answered with the CGCP, the end result is a stalemate and no determination can be reached.

Please review the CGCP website and the linked information as I would like to add a simple website link to the "See also" section of the wikipedia "Omnipotence Paradox" page - Thank you in advance for your consideration.--EPROM (talk) 02:17, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

I've undone the addition because of several reasons:

1. No evidence the CGCP website is authoritative. In fact it seems to be a single-author effort by someone who has made no mark in philosophy. The signature at the bottom for example says "Circular God Counter-paradox / stoneparadox.org, Copyright © 2017 Darryl Lankford, EPROM, Inc." Who is Darryl Lankford? Why should anyone care about what Darryl Lankford says about the omnipotence paradox? The website doesn't say, and Google doesn't find answers.
2. The webpage contains many typos. For example in this page, we have "So let's wee what we get!" If the website is authoritative it's unlikely this kind of typo would still be there.
3. The webpage itself semi-acknowledges it's not authoritative. The CGCP news page details attempts to add this explanation to RationalWiki.org, which is not something an authoritative website would do.

Accordingly I have undone the addition. Banedon (talk) 08:36, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Banedon, your reasoning for the removal of a link to an unprecedented resolution to the Stone Paradox based on a "typo" is unwarranted. This link was added a long time ago and open to discussion at that point. No objections were ever raised and the link was permitted by everyone involved. There are no other resolutions to the SP that directly target paradoxical logic and which are able to directly shut down the question. In addition, virtually all links (even Wikipedia itself) include typos from time to time. This does not negate the validity of the information provided. Are you also prepared to delete any and all references found on Wikipedia that include a typo anywhere within their data as well? ...I certainly hope not!

You even wrote, "details attempts" in your response which is a grammatically incorrect (a "typo"), so here you are censoring a pertinent link to the subject in question based on a "typo," and yet you had a "typo" included within your reasoning as for why you deleted it. ...That speaks volumes!

If you question the legitimacy of the information found in the link, then STATE what your questions are rather than merely 'assuming" that it must not be relevant and opting for censorship.

Lastly, people who are not famous have valuable information as well. They are found all over Wikipedia. One does not require a gold star on Broadway or a degree from Harvard to possess valuable data. Removing people's pertinent contributions without proper justification results in a disservice to Wikipedia, our community of knowledge and represents blatant censorship. You do not decide for everyone else what is relevant and what is not. ...The people who read it decide for themselves!

Take your finger off the delete button, Banedon. Censorship is never a good option when dealing with ground breaking information that you don't necessarily agree with. Again, let the people decide for themselves.--EPROM (talk) 14:46, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

I gave three reasons for rejecting the edit, of which only one involved a typo (and there are multiple in the site). You have not answered the others. For example, who is Darryl Lankford? More concerningly, your Wikipedia name is EPROM, and that website is by EPROM Inc. Have you read WP:COI? I'm reverting again, please do not reinsert the material until you get consensus here. It's just you and me right now, but if you reject these reasons, there are other venues to get more people to look at this, e.g. the talk pages of the three Wikiprojects Atheism, Philosophy and Religion. Banedon (talk) 21:02, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

The link to stoneparadox.org is clearly relevant to the Wikipedia "Omnipotence Paradox" page and was accepted without any issues nearly a year ago. That is well documented. You were not the one that originally deleted the link as it was inadvertently swept up in a previous cleaning edit back in May. Again, virtually all of the data is already echoed here on Wikipedia, so the data on the stoneparadox.ORG website is not contrary to what is already presented here on Wikipedia. The only part that can be considered in any way "new" is the counter-paradoxical response to which anyone can express their own personal opinion. Omnipotence is merely an unproven theoretical concept, so there is no "authority" on the topic nor can anyone logically/rationally claim that they are. As a result of these facts, your "lack of authority" claim is rendered moot.

There is no COI present because the only contribution is merely a "link" to more information on the topic. There is no controversial information included in the text of the link (or in the link's target) that is contrary to what has already been contributed here on Wikipedia. There is no contrary argument being presented that is in direct conflict with what Wikipedia is presenting either. Based on these facts, your COI argument is invalid.

Who I am, what the website is about, where the information has been published and the CGCP's footprint has already been clearly stated within my Talk Page post from October of 2017. You failed to review this information before choosing to censor it - which speaks volumes! You want to see where it has been published? Just type in "Stone Paradox" on Google and look for the stick figure drawing. There are six different references to the CGCP resolution found on the very first page of the search results - two of which appear before Wikipedia link even shows up.

The "Circular God Counter-Paradox" is the #1 answer out of over 600 responses provided by very learned individuals dating all the way back to 2010 (many of which have PhD's). The CGCP video is listed as the #1 video on the topic on YouTube and is the resolution is also copyrighted by the U.S. Copyright office. Based on these "previously available" facts, your argument that it has not been published anywhere is also invalid.

Likewise, your argument that the website lacks authority is also invalid as it has triumphed over all other propositions on other websites. The fact that it echoes what has already been deemed as "authoritative" here on Wikipedia proves you are in error.

NONE of this information is actually "added" to the content found on Wikipedia. The only addition is the LINK in the "See Also" section which is absolutely appropriate and well within Wikipedia standards. So your argument that I am forwarding a "personal opinion" is not valid either.

SUMMARY:

Your are clearly attempting to censor this link and subsequent data because you simply don't like the overall effect it has on the Stone Paradox. It has been proven effective and you know that it has. This why you have seemingly dedicated your life to removing it. This isn't a ideology-driven website (like Rationalwiki), Banedon. Wikipedia remains neutral on all issues. You need to keep it that way and stop deleting/censoring other people's valuable contributions merely because you personally don't like what it represents. That makes you no different than Pope Paul V when he censored and deleted Galileo because he was presenting information he personally didn't like (see Galileo Affair).

You are clearly deleting content based on personal reasons (perhaps a vendetta, who knows?) Any further censorship efforts by you will be reported and potentially result in your removal from the Wikipedia website. You present yourself as a tyrannical ideologue hell bent on deleting other people's contributions if they fail to adhere to your specific ideology. ...That is not a good person to have here on Wikipedia. --EPROM (talk) 03:41, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm contacting the various project pages, see what others say. Banedon (talk) 04:59, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

(outdent) The relevant guideline here is WP:ELNO: "one should generally avoid providing external links to: Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research" --Omnipaedista (talk) 05:29, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

WP:ELNO also discourages links to personal websites. Also, external links should not be in See Also sections. This link should be removed. --RL0919 (talk) 05:38, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Banedon, Omnipaedista, and RL0919. And this has nothing to do with censorship. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:01, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Banedon, you didn't really go seek other people's input. You merely got yourself some of your friends to support you in order to outnumber me. Hell, I can't even present an argument in my defense when I am outnumbered by multiple ideologues hell bent on keep my information concealed from the public.

The truth is that anyone visiting the link I contributed to the Wikipedia "Omnipotence Paradox" page would walk away with a far greater understanding of "Omnipotence", an "Omnipotent Being" and how paradoxical logic factors into the equation. That is an UNARGUABLE FACT! The purpose of Wikipedia is considered to be a "valuable resource" for any and all information that benefits the enhancement of knowledge and that is EXACTLY what anyone contemplating the "Circular God Counter-paradox" achieves.

If you were true to Wikipedia's mission of enhancing knowledge, then you all would be trying to figure out a way that the link can be added instead of launching a censorship campaign against it. When someone asks the Stone Paradox and the CGCP is offered as a response, the exchange of knowledge and "creative thinking" that ensues is unprecedented! I have witnessed people who have just a very simple understanding of what "Omnipotence" represents become far more "knowledgeable" after being exposed to this counter-paradoxical response.

If you genuinely honor Wikipedia's commitment to enhancing public knowledge, then you should be trying to find a way to have the link included on the "Omnipotence Paradox" page as it is CLEARLY a benefit to anyone researching the subject. I suggest the addition of an "External Links" section to the page and the stoneparadox.org link added to that section. That would be the honorable thing to do and in keeping with Wikipedia's commitment to enhancing public knowledge.--EPROM (talk) 15:00, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

I can't speak for what drew others here, but Banedon posted a neutrally-worded message at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Philosophy asking for input. I don't know Banedon, and I have no strong interest in the omnipotence paradox, so your aspersions about "friends" and "ideologues" are misplaced. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and as such it summarizes the established understanding about topics -- it is not intended to "enhance knowledge" with new arguments or views that are not attested in reliable sources. You should probably read Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, especially the sections at WP:NOTFORUM and WP:NOTADVOCACY. Whatever benefits you might believe it brings, linking to your essay is not consistent with the usual guidelines about what Wikipedia articles should include. If you believe your commentary on the subject is valuable, you should refocus your efforts on getting it into an outlet for publishing new ideas and arguments, such as a journal or magazine, rather than here. --RL0919 (talk) 18:22, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Similarly speaking only for myself, I became aware of this discussion through the neutrally-worded posting at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Atheism. I don't have any particular history with Banedon, and nobody contacted me individually. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:49, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Tryptofish: Anyone associated with "Project Atheism" should not be censoring other people's contributions just because it doesn't forward your particular ideology on this Wikipedia page. Clearly your motives are agenda-driven and you don't like the fact that Omnipotence survives when using the CGCP resolution as a response to the Stone Paradox. Believe me, you aren't the first to do this.

While all of you are busy searching for any and all reasons for keeping my link off of Wikipedia, I suggest you do a google search for "stone paradox solution" and tell me what the very first result is on the very first page of the results (out of 7.1M results).

It is clearly written in Wikipedia guidelines that you are not supposed to be so regimented in enforcing rules and that certain situations allow for special consideration. (See Wikipedia:External_Links) "It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply."

Everyone else in the world is putting the "Circular God Counter-paradox" in the forefront, whereas select ideology-driven individuals here on Wikipedia seem to be dedicated to keeping it hidden. Like I said, I can't stand against a small group of rule-book-pounding Atheists hell bent on keeping this resolution hidden from the public. However, Wikipedia ends up "behind the times" in regard to being an online encyclopedia.

Just remember, while you are busy citing your specific regulations and deleting the link, scores of college and high school students out there who could greatly benefit from the depth of thought this resolution facilitates cannot find the link ...thanks to your efforts.

You should be very proud in what you have achieved! Go team Atheism! At the end of the day you are no different than Pope Paul V when he punished Galileo (Galileo affair).--EPROM (talk) 14:34, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

@ Alcyon007 You keep deleting my contributions to this talk page and that is a violation of Wikipedia's Talk page guidelines as follows: "The basic rule—with exceptions outlined below—is to not edit or delete others' posts without their permission. Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning, even on your own talk page. Striking text constitutes a change in meaning, and should only be done by the user who wrote it or someone acting at their explicit request."

...If you continue to brazenly violate Wikipedia editing policy then you will be reported. This is your last chance.--EPROM (talk) 13:23, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm going to notify AN/EW over the ongoing edit war. Banedon (talk) 20:09, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

You could have stepped in much earlier and easily stopped Alcyon007's constant deletion of my talk page content. Nobody delete's people's words on a talk page. ...You know that!

I've already come to the obvious conclusion that any content or information that has an Omnipotent Being surviving the Stone Paradox will never be allowed to be added to Wikipedia's Omnipotence Paradox page because of certain individuals. This represents an ideologically-driven censorship agenda (to which you and others are an active participant). Example: When Tryptofish wrote, "Similarly speaking only for myself, I became aware of this discussion through the neutrally-worded posting at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Atheism." it was clear to me that I am up against a small group of militant Atheists who don't want anything that has an Omnipotent Being surviving the Stone Paradox being added to the Wikipedia Omnipotence Paradox page. ...The goal now is to bury it at all cost.

If a small group of ideologically-driven Christians started censoring content on Wikipedia's Christopher Hitchens page, there would be an outcry of unimaginable proportions. But that's obviously not the case when it comes to Atheists deleting content that doesn't match up with their particular ideology. They are curiously allowed the double-standard here on Wikipedia.--EPROM (talk) 14:00, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Why is there no "External Links" section for this topic?

The Omnipotence paradox is usually made manifest in the form of a very well-orchestrated paradoxical question based on semantics. The Stone Paradox represents the cornerstone (pun intended) of the Omnipotence Paradox series of questions, however, these Omnipotence Paradox questions represent only 50% of the equation. These are all questions offered by "people" to other 'people" and "people" are the ones tasked with providing the answers. So the other 50% of the equation is found in the many diverse responses that have emerged over the past 800 years.

True, Wikipedia does have a section designated for "Proposed Answers" but it only includes a few generalized responses that really don't speak to the problem of trying to use fallacious paradoxical logic to evaluate the existence of something. They simply try to "explain away" the question as being meaningless (or relying on an incorrect definition of Omnipotence).

This section on Wikipedia's OP page doesn't include any responses that show where Omnipotence can prevail in these types of highly-questionable paradoxical situations. In fact, when an Omnipotence Paradox question is paired with a counter-paradoxical response, the entire Omnipotence Paradox issue totally breaks down and no determination can be reached either way regarding the existence of Omnipotence.

Shouldn't this fact be deemed fairly important to the readers of this Omnipotence Paradox Wikipedia page and therefore needs to be included? Why does Wikipedia not wish to even address this issue?

I have one such response that nullifies the Stone Paradox and I've also accomplished the same with other OP variations, but I am not allowed to even mention a link to it here on Wikipedia for fear of being punished or banned. It's called the "Circular God Counter-paradox" (Google it - it's everywhere) and Omnipotence ultimately survives the Stone Paradox challenge. Unfortunately there doesn't seem to be a way to have any resolutions that actually work included on this particular Wikipedia page. It's not "original research" because you cannot "research" something that cannot be scientifically shown to exist and which is only represented in the form of a "question" ...so that cannot be the reason.

There also isn't a panel of highly-celebrated Philosophers sitting around waiting to read responses to the Stone Paradox so that they can offer their seal of approval ...so lack of "peer reviewed" data cannot be the reason either.

Look, paradoxical questions are flawed from the start because they rely on a fallacious use of logic at their very core ...and when you can expose this flaw, suddenly the question becomes irrelevant. The question itself ironically ends up being the target of termination instead of Omnipotence. Here's an example: One person who had fully conceded that my CGCP resolution had nullified the Stone Paradox asked an alternative OP question, "Can God create a switch that he cannot turn on?" to which I replied with (Click here for the Response).

Game over! His question now has a counter-paradoxical response that nullifies the question.

So why is it that on this Wikipedia page that only 50% of the issue is addressed and resolutions that actually defeat the question cannot be included or even referenced at all without suffering retribution? Why does this particular Wikipedia page seemingly desire to keep resolutions and responses that actually WORK from ever being referenced on the topic page? This doesn't make sense to me, so please make a solid argument as to why there is no "External Links" section that allows for "people" who ask these questions to access the many interesting and diverse responses from other "people" who answer them?