Talk:Omnipotence paradox - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by SineBot (talk | contribs) at 15:36, 12 November 2018 (Signing comment by EPROM - "→Why is there no "External Links" section for this topic?: new section"). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 15:36, 12 November 2018 by SineBot (talk | contribs) (Signing comment by EPROM - "→Why is there no "External Links" section for this topic?: new section")(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Before adding new material to this article, please be sure to read and understand wikipedia's no original research rule! Thanks, Sdedeo (tips) 18:16, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Omnipotence paradox is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.

This article appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page as Today's featured article on January 9, 2006.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
July 3, 2005	WikiProject peer review	Reviewed
November 17, 2005	Peer review	Reviewed
November 28, 2005	Featured article candidate	Promoted
February 16, 2006	Featured article review	Kept
September 17, 2006	Featured article review	Kept
June 9, 2009	Featured article review	Demoted
Current status: Former featured article

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Template:WP1.0 Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Atheism Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Atheism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of atheism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AtheismWikipedia:WikiProject AtheismTemplate:WikiProject AtheismAtheism

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

For more information and how you can help, click the link opposite:

If you would like to participate, you can edit this article and visit the project page.

Quick help

Recent activity

To do

Join WikiProject atheism and be bold.

Add a userbox to your page ({{User WikiProject Atheism}} or {{User WPA2}}) and attract potential members.
Help with articles.
See this month's adopt-an-article.
Help out with this to-do list.

Be consistent

Use a "standard" layout for atheism-related articles (see layout style, "The perfect article" and Featured articles).
Add Atheism info box to all atheism related talk pages (use {{WikiProject Atheism}} or see info box)
Ensure atheism-related articles are members of Atheism by checking whether ] has been added to atheism-related articles – and, where it hasn't, adding it.

Maintenance, etc.

Find sources for all positions of an article (see Citing sources and atheism references).
Try to expand stubs. Ideas and theories about life, however, are prone to generating neologisms, so some stubs may be suitable for deletion (see deletion process).
Watch the list of atheism-related articles and add to accordingly.
Always write for an encyclopedia.

Articles to improve

Agnosticism

Create

Articles on notable atheists

Expand

an atheism stub

Immediate attention

State atheism needs a reassessment of its Importance level, as it has little to do with atheism and is instead an article about anti-theist/anti-religious actions of governments.
False choice into False dilemma: discuss whether you are for or against this merge here
Clarify references in Atheism using footnotes.
Secular movement defines it as a being restricted to America in the 21st century.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Religion Mid‑importance

	Religion portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Misplaced Pages's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Philosophy: Logic / Religion Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Misplaced Pages.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Logic
	Philosophy of religion

Spoken Misplaced Pages

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spoken Misplaced Pages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that are spoken on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Spoken WikipediaWikipedia:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaTemplate:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaSpoken Misplaced Pages

Archives

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages rule that whatever Banedon deems is "okay" stays and whatever Banedon doesn't like gets deleted? ...Is that the way Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages'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:

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.
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.
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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages "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 Misplaced Pages, so the data on the stoneparadox.ORG website is not contrary to what is already presented here on Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages. There is no contrary argument being presented that is in direct conflict with what Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages proves you are in error.

NONE of this information is actually "added" to the content found on Misplaced Pages. The only addition is the LINK in the "See Also" section which is absolutely appropriate and well within Misplaced Pages 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. Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages. --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 Misplaced Pages "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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages 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. Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages:What Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages guidelines that you are not supposed to be so regimented in enforcing rules and that certain situations allow for special consideration. (See Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages 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, Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages.--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, Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages page and therefore needs to be included? Why does Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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? — Preceding unsigned comment added by EPROM (talk • contribs) 15:35, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Categories: