Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Conceptual paper argues the Omnipotence Paradox does not decisively refute omnipotence, suggesting new interpretations.
The Omnipotence Paradox is commonly expressed through the question: Can an omnipotent being create a rock so heavy that it cannot lift it? The paradox appears to show that omnipotence is incoherent, since either answer seems to imply a limitation. This conceptual paper argues that the Omnipotence Paradox is not decisive as a general refutation of omnipotence because it can be resisted under two major interpretations. If omnipotence is understood as logic-bound, then the paradox describes an incoherent task rather than a genuine limitation. If omnipotence is understood as supra-logical, then contradiction cannot function as a decisive refutation of a being defined as transcending logical limitation. The paper’s original contribution is the concept of Negative Power, defined as the power to actualize limitation, inability, restraint, negation, non-performance, or self-restriction. Negative Power is distinguished from weakness: weakness is passive incapacity, while Negative Power is active limitation-production. The paper does not attempt to prove the existence of an omnipotent being. Nor does it claim that Negative Power explains all contradictions. Its aim is narrower: to challenge whether the Omnipotence Paradox successfully refutes omnipotence, especially where the paradox depends on the assumption that inability must always signify deficiency.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Azimuth (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 8 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: