One of the oldest and most widely repeated objections to the concept of God's omnipotence is the so-called omnipotence paradox. The objection goes something like this:
"Can God create a stone so heavy that even He can't lift it?"
At first glance, this seems like a clever trap. If you answer "yes," then it seems there's something God can't do: lift the stone. If you answer "no," then there’s something else He can’t do: create the stone. Either way, it seems you're admitting that God is not truly all-powerful. Case closed, right?
Not quite.
This "stone paradox" is a textbook example of a logical trick. It attempts to define omnipotence in a way that is itself incoherent—demanding that an all-powerful being perform a task that is, by nature, self-contradictory.
This objection is not only old but also deeply flawed, and that’s why even most serious atheists no longer rely on it in academic debates. It's more of a rhetorical gotcha than a philosophically grounded argument. In fact, well-known Christian philosopher Dr. William Lane Craig has addressed it directly in a public Q&A session.
The question posed to Craig was:
"Can God disobey logical truths? For example, can He create a stone so heavy that even He can't lift it?"
Craig answered simply: God cannot do logically impossible tasks.
Words Matter: What Does 'All-Powerful' Mean?
The question ultimately comes down to definition. What do we mean by "all-powerful" or "omnipotent"? Often, Christians casually say, "God can do anything." But in the same breath, those same believers will also affirm that God cannot sin or God cannot lie.
Is this a contradiction? Not if you understand the classical theistic definition of omnipotence: God can do all things that are logically possible.
God cannot do what is logically absurd or self-contradictory—not because He lacks power, but because such "tasks" aren’t actually tasks at all. They are just a self-contradictory combination of words.
Imagine asking:
Can God make a square circle?
Can God create a married bachelor?
Can God exist and not exist at the same time?
These aren't real challenges to God's power because they don't describe genuine possibilities. They're just contradictions in language.
As Craig explained, a logically impossible task isn’t a task at all, so God’s inability to perform it says nothing about His omnipotence. Classical theism has always taught this.
The Paradox of the Paradox
After Craig answered that God cannot disobey logical truths, "God cannot do logically impossible tasks", the questioner followed up by asking "..then how is God all powerful?". This follow-up question reveals the problem altogether. The question as a paradox is supposed to call into question omnipotence, implying two contradictory things God should be able to do, but can't (therefore not all powerful). When confronted with the option that God can't do logically impossible tasks, the follow-up question implies that an omnipotent being should be able to. Suppose God could do the logically impossible. Then the paradox disappears entirely. God could create a stone too heavy for Him to lift—and then He could lift it anyway.
Now the Paradox is flipped back. There are two choices:
1. Omnipotence is not defined as including logical impossibilities, problem resolved.
2. Omnipotence is defined as including logical impossibilities, so he can do both, problem resolved.
When this objection is raised, have them pick one of the two options of what they include in omnipotence. The problem resolves itself.
However, the logically correct answer is 1.
Understanding the Concept
If we're using the Stone example, we have two premises that an omnipotent should be able to do:
1. The ability to create all stones.
2. The ability to lift all stones.
If both of these premises are true, which is implied in the paradox, then the concept of "a stone too heavy for him to lift" would contradict 2. There is no actual stone that's too heavy for a being that can lift any stone, which is definitionally true. You can translate the same concept into a different articulation of the question.
When the question is posed as a paradox, it sounds coherent in our language and grammar, not violating any of the grammatically rules. That does not mean it's a logically coherent concept. This is what is meant by saying its just a self contradictory combination of words. That doesn't mean it sounds contradictory by the grammar. It's like the difference between "married bachelor" and "a married unmarried man". Both have the same content, even if one doesn't have it as explicitly noticeable.