Instead of saying specific possibility, say specific instance. He can create an instance or situation where he can, and can't, lift the same rock. Ultimately he can lift the rock as much as he can not. I.e. he could take a rock, and designate himself to be able to lift it. In that instance, he can lift the rock. He can then now say he can not lift the rock, and in that instance he can not lift the rock. He would be able to freely toggle between being able to lift the rock and not being able to. Not that the different instances would be seperate in our view of time, even though an omnipotent infinite god would be able to create different instances occurring simultaneously outside of time, that's irrelevent to my point in the preceding paragraph. Saying that though, he could create two seperate, simutaneously occuring instances, with the same rock, one he can lift, and one he can't. Irrelevent Concept An omnipotent, infinite god, who operates in infinity, regardless of the world and human perception, could literally create different possibilities within infinity. He could create one situation with a rock he could lift, erase that situation, and create a new situation where he can't lift the same rock.
Yes somebody already suggested this idea of god shifting his powers. He wills to loose a power and then wills to gain it back. In such a case however imo god never looses his omnipotence, he just makes it more difficult to excersise it. He still can lift the rock, he just now needs to make one more step and wish his power back first. So he didn't create a rock he cannot lift, just a rock he needs to make 2 steps to lift not 1. But if you say that because he first needs to wish his power back then he can't at this moment be considered omnipotent then ok he's not omnipotent then. To me god either can or can't lift a specific rock. Both these things at the same time makes absolutely zero sense to me whether you call it 'instance' or 'possibility'. I just don't understand it and frankly I think neither do you. I think you're mixing it with different rocks in different parallel universes or something like that.
The answer is simple. God is OMNIPOTENT to the extent that he cannot do any logical contradiction. For example. He cannot make you stand and sit at the same time. It's either you are standing or sitting. For it is a logical contradiction if you were to stand and sit at the same time. For the same reason, GOD cannot change the past. Example: You were late at class 6am at the date July 19, 2015 HE cannot make you not late at class at 6am at the date July 19, 2015 For if GOD does, You will be both late and not late in HIS knowledge which is a logical contradiction which is not possible. Using the example of the Paradox. We assume that GOD is OMNIPOTENT. Since GOD is OMNIPOTENT. He cannot make a stone so heavy that he cannot lift it because it is a logical contradiction to the fact that he is OMNIPOTENT. To be precise God cannot make a stone so heavy he cannot lift it is because it would be a logical contradiction to his OMNIPOTENCE. PROBLEM SOLVED!
But nothing is solved at all!!! You're saying 'we assume god is omnipotent'. We don't assume that. Whether he's omnipotent or not is what at stake here and according to paradox he's not omnipotent either way. You're saying creating contradictory things is out of question and I completely agree with you. However 'creating a stone one cannot lift' is not creating a contradictory thing. Creating contradictory thing here would be creating a stone that god can and at the same time cannot lift, stone which is black and not-black, which has a shape of a square circle etc. A stone you cannot lift is a real thing and not a self contradiction and if god cannot do that it MEANS he's not omnipotent.
We assume God is omnipotent because of the very concept of God. What is the concept of God then? God is what then? Answer - God: "that than which nothing greater can be conceived" You don't need to believe on something to know what the concept of something is.
Ok then yes we assume the god is omnipotent but according to paradox our assumption is wrong either way you put it. Hence there's no such thing as god, since omnipotence is his necessary attribute.
I don't know somebody is lifting us allright I remembered American Dad episode Rupture's Delight where everybody started to ascend to heaven but Stan was left out
Refer to my first post. Since we assumed God is OMNIPOTENT. God is a being that can lift all stones. God cannot do any logical contradictions. This means HE can only do anything that is POSSIBLE but not anything IMPOSSIBLE. Therefore, A stone that is so heavy that God cannot lift it is therefore an impossible object. You must remember that. God is able to do anything POSSIBLE, but not anything IMPOSSIBLE, and creating a stone that God cannot lift is something IMPOSSIBLE. The dilemma really is about how you want to make out of the word OMNIPOTENT. It is how you understand the word itself. If you mean OMNIPOTENT as God able to do anything like Descartes' understanding, then God can do the logically impossible. HE can make 2+2=5 HE can make you stand and sit at the same time. Disproving God using logic becomes meaningless because he can do what is logically impossible. He is outside of logic. Using this understanding with the paradox. GOD can both create a stone so heavy that he cannot lift it, and lift it, and so can do all things. This is a contradiction but so what GOD can make contradictions true using this understanding. Or if you want to stick with the laws of logic and mathematics refer to my first argument using Aquinas. The POSSIBLE, IMPOSSIBLE Argument. God is OMNIPOTENT. Either way you look at it. The answer to the question using the Aquinas is a No yet preserves God's OMNIPOTENCE or using Descartes the answer is YES.
About logically impossible I already stated my point you can look it up. In short I don't believe into discussing things that don't make sense to me. Whether you say 'god can make 2 plus 2 equals 5' or 'god cannot make 2 plus 2 equals 5' both these sentences make zero sense to me since '2 plus 2 equals 5' makes zero sense to me. So I'm not even considering this aspect. How a god making a stone he cannot lift though is anything like it? There's absolutely no logical contradiction here. Except you say it's a contradiction to god's omnipotent status. And it's true it's a direct contradiction to the existence of such a status. But that's the exact point of the paradox. That an omnipotent god doesn't exist. That which you assume is not really there.
I won't argue anymore. All my arguments are all laid out clear. Anyone who has read and understand the philosophies of Descartes and Aquinas can understand this. The fact that 2 + 2 = 5 Does not make sense to you because it is illogical. I suggest you read on Descartes and Aquinas on how they demolish the Paradox. Peace out brother. Good luck with your journey in understanding this dilemma.
I'm not going to read either to be honest My journey in understanding this dilema already ended as expressed in my OP. But thanx for stopping by