Stone Paradox

Formulation of the Paradox

The Stone Paradox, often stated as the question “Can an omnipotent being create a stone so heavy that it cannot lift it?”, is a classic challenge to the coherence of omnipotence. The paradox aims to show that the very idea of an all‑powerful being leads to contradiction.

In its standard form, the paradox goes as follows. If the being can create such a stone, then there is at least one thing it cannot do—namely, lift the stone—so it is not omnipotent. If the being cannot create such a stone, then there is also something it cannot do—namely, create the stone—so again it is not omnipotent. Either way, omnipotence seems impossible.

This line of reasoning is one instance of the broader omnipotence paradox, which questions whether power “without limit” is logically consistent when combined with familiar notions of ability, self‑limitation, and logical possibility.

Historical Background and Variants

The underlying problem predates its familiar “stone” formulation. Medieval scholastic thinkers such as Thomas Aquinas and Peter Damian debated whether God could perform tasks like creating a square circle, making the past not have been, or annihilating himself. These discussions already exposed tensions between divine power and logical contradiction.

In modern analytic philosophy, the paradox is associated with authors such as J. L. Mackie, who discussed it in the context of the logical problem of evil and the nature of divine attributes. The stone version became especially popular in 20th‑century philosophy of religion as a vivid, easily communicated example.

Closely related formulations include:

• Self‑binding tasks: “Can God create a law that even God cannot break?”
• Self‑destructive power: “Can God annihilate himself?” or “Can God commit suicide?”
• Logical impossibilities: “Can God make a square circle?” or “Can God create a married bachelor?”

These variations explore the same underlying concern: whether omnipotence includes the ability to bring about logically incoherent states of affairs, or to limit one’s own power in ways that generate apparent contradictions.

Major Responses

Philosophers and theologians have offered several main strategies to address the Stone Paradox. No single response commands universal agreement, which is why the paradox remains a central topic in the philosophy of religion.

1. Restricting Omnipotence to the Logically Possible

One influential approach defines omnipotence as the ability to do all things that are logically possible. Under this view, God cannot do what is logically contradictory—not because of a limitation in power, but because contradictions do not describe genuine “things” to be done.

On this account, the description “a stone too heavy for an omnipotent being to lift” is itself logically incoherent. If a being is omnipotent, nothing is too heavy for it. To ask for such a stone is to ask for an object with an impossible property. Thus, the request does not pick out a real possibility, much like asking for a “square circle.”

Proponents argue:

• The paradox trades on combining omnipotence with a self‑contradictory task.
• Denying the possibility of the task does not weaken omnipotence, because omnipotence never included the power to do what is nonsensical.

Critics respond that this move can seem ad hoc: it may appear to redefine omnipotence merely to avoid the paradox, and some question what exactly counts as “logically possible” and who decides this boundary.

2. Self‑Limitation and Temporal Omnipotence

Another strategy holds that an omnipotent being can freely limit its own power. On this view, the being could create a stone such that, having made it, it then lacks the ability to lift it—because it has voluntarily relinquished that specific ability.

Defenders of this response distinguish between:

• Absolute omnipotence (having all powers at a time), and
• Maximal but revisable power (having the capacity to bring about any state of affairs but perhaps choosing to restrict this capacity at later times).

They argue that it is coherent for an omnipotent being at time t₁ to perform an act that results in its being non‑omnipotent at time t₂.

Opponents contend that this redefines omnipotence in a temporary or historical way and may conflict with traditional theistic claims that God is eternally and essentially omnipotent. They also question whether a being that can cease to be omnipotent ever truly counts as omnipotent in the strongest sense.

3. Rejecting Omnipotence as Incoherent

A more sceptical reaction accepts the paradox’s conclusion: omnipotence is logically incoherent. On this reading, the argument shows that there can be no being that is literally “able to do anything,” because such a concept inevitably generates contradictions.

Philosophers taking this route may still allow for a very powerful or even “maximally great” being, but deny that unrestricted omnipotence is a coherent attribute. Some critics of classical theism use the Stone Paradox as part of a broader case that certain traditional divine attributes (omnipotence, omniscience, perfect goodness) cannot be jointly instantiated without contradiction.

4. Reformulating Omnipotence

A more nuanced family of responses aims to refine the definition of omnipotence rather than simply limit or reject it:

• Power over all contingent states of affairs: Omnipotence is the ability to actualize any logically possible world or state of affairs, not the ability to perform every linguistically describable “task.”
• Ability model vs. task model: Some argue that talk of “tasks” (like lifting stones) is misleading; the deeper notion is having the most comprehensive set of fundamental powers compatible with logic.
• Anselmian and perfect‑being approaches: On these views, a “maximally great” being must be free of irrational or self‑defeating capacities; the inability to produce contradictions is reframed as a perfection.

These reconstruals try to preserve a robust sense of divine greatness while explaining why paradox‑generating questions fail to latch onto real possibilities.

Philosophical Significance

The Stone Paradox plays several important roles in contemporary philosophy:

1. Conceptual analysis of omnipotence
   It forces precise distinctions between:

   • Physical versus logical possibility
   • Tasks versus states of affairs
   • Temporary versus essential powers

   Debates over the paradox have shaped many technical definitions of omnipotence in analytic theology and metaphysics.

2. Methodological lesson about paradoxes
   The paradox illustrates how seemingly simple questions can conceal hidden contradictions in our concepts. It serves as a case study in how philosophers use paradoxes to test, refine, or abandon problematic notions.

3. Implications for perfect being theology
   If omnipotence is incoherent, or coherent only in a much weaker sense, this has ramifications for classical theism, which traditionally attributes unrestricted omnipotence to God. The Stone Paradox thus intersects with arguments about divine attributes, the problem of evil, and the nature of rational belief in God.

4. Broader issues about logical limits
   Discussion of the paradox raises general questions about:

   • Whether logic constrains reality or merely our descriptions
   • Whether a truly ultimate being would be “beyond logic”
   • How to treat self‑referential or self‑limiting capacities in any system, divine or otherwise

In sum, the Stone Paradox is not only a memorable puzzle about an all‑powerful being but also a focal point for examining the limits of power, the role of logic, and the coherence of some of philosophy’s most ambitious concepts. Its status remains contested: some view it as a decisive objection to omnipotence, others as a misunderstanding resolved by clarifying what omnipotence properly entails.