PHILOSOPHY A-LEVEL (AQA)
THE CONCEPT AND NATURE OF ‘GOD’
THE PARADOX OF THE STONE
Omnipotence and Various Conceptions
- This is the property of being maximally powerful.
- There are two main understanding of what it means to be omnipotent -
o The Thomist conception of it is that it is the ability to do everything that is logically possible
o The Cartesian conception of this is that the full scope of omnipotence is being our
understanding, and God can do logical impossibilities.
The Paradox
- The paradox of the stone can be expressed thus – ‘If God can create a stone which he cannot lift,
then he is not omnipotent as he cannot lift the stone. If God cannot create a stone which he cannot
lift, then he is not omnipotent as he is unable to bring about this state of affairs.’
- In other words, this tests the logical possibility God’s omnipotence. Omnipotence is the aspect of
Perfect Being Theology (PBT) that this paradox seeks to attack.
- Premise / Conclusion Format –
1. Either x can create a stone which x cannot lift, or x cannot create a stone which x cannot lift.
2. If x can create a stone which x cannot lift, then, necessarily, there is at least one task which x
cannot perform (namely, lift the stone in question).
3. If x cannot create a stone which x cannot lift, then, necessarily, there is at least one act which
x cannot perform (namely, create the stone in question).
4. Hence, there is at least one task which x cannot perform.
5. If x is an omnipotent being, then x can perform any task.
6. Therefore, x is not omnipotent.
Mavrodes’ Solution
- His solution is Thomist, arguing that the paradox itself is flawed. The concept of a stone that is too
heavy for God to lift is contradictory.
- The lifting of this stone would require a logically impossible state of affairs: “a stone too heavy for
God to lift” = “a stone that cannot be lifted by him whose power is sufficient for lifting anything”.
This is contradictory and logically impossible.
- This can be seen as analogous as Aquinas’ answer to whether God is able to sin – since sin is an
imperfection, it would be logically impossible for a perfect being to perform an imperfect act. So God
being unable to sin has no limit on God’s power and does not threaten omnipotence.
Objection to Mavrodes
- His solution assumes that God is omnipotent – it begs the question.
- The main purpose of the paradox is to call into question the coherence of omnipotence – one cannot
use the notion of omnipotence to resolve the paradox, which is what Mavrodes has attempted to
do, until the paradox has been resolved and the coherence of omnipotence established.
… Moreover, Mavrodes’ solution to the paradox of the stone does not succeed as it begs the question.
THE CONCEPT AND NATURE OF ‘GOD’
THE PARADOX OF THE STONE
Omnipotence and Various Conceptions
- This is the property of being maximally powerful.
- There are two main understanding of what it means to be omnipotent -
o The Thomist conception of it is that it is the ability to do everything that is logically possible
o The Cartesian conception of this is that the full scope of omnipotence is being our
understanding, and God can do logical impossibilities.
The Paradox
- The paradox of the stone can be expressed thus – ‘If God can create a stone which he cannot lift,
then he is not omnipotent as he cannot lift the stone. If God cannot create a stone which he cannot
lift, then he is not omnipotent as he is unable to bring about this state of affairs.’
- In other words, this tests the logical possibility God’s omnipotence. Omnipotence is the aspect of
Perfect Being Theology (PBT) that this paradox seeks to attack.
- Premise / Conclusion Format –
1. Either x can create a stone which x cannot lift, or x cannot create a stone which x cannot lift.
2. If x can create a stone which x cannot lift, then, necessarily, there is at least one task which x
cannot perform (namely, lift the stone in question).
3. If x cannot create a stone which x cannot lift, then, necessarily, there is at least one act which
x cannot perform (namely, create the stone in question).
4. Hence, there is at least one task which x cannot perform.
5. If x is an omnipotent being, then x can perform any task.
6. Therefore, x is not omnipotent.
Mavrodes’ Solution
- His solution is Thomist, arguing that the paradox itself is flawed. The concept of a stone that is too
heavy for God to lift is contradictory.
- The lifting of this stone would require a logically impossible state of affairs: “a stone too heavy for
God to lift” = “a stone that cannot be lifted by him whose power is sufficient for lifting anything”.
This is contradictory and logically impossible.
- This can be seen as analogous as Aquinas’ answer to whether God is able to sin – since sin is an
imperfection, it would be logically impossible for a perfect being to perform an imperfect act. So God
being unable to sin has no limit on God’s power and does not threaten omnipotence.
Objection to Mavrodes
- His solution assumes that God is omnipotent – it begs the question.
- The main purpose of the paradox is to call into question the coherence of omnipotence – one cannot
use the notion of omnipotence to resolve the paradox, which is what Mavrodes has attempted to
do, until the paradox has been resolved and the coherence of omnipotence established.
… Moreover, Mavrodes’ solution to the paradox of the stone does not succeed as it begs the question.
