**PARADOX with GOD**

You're trying to trap everything into the rules of semantics. Hey, I think God is better than that. Let's take another example. Premise one: God can do everything. Premise two: Can God sin? No. God cannot sin. Conclusion: Then God cannot do everything. But therein lies the problem. We cannot ascribe God contradictories. God cannot turn square into circles. God cannot not exists or implode into nonexistence. God's ability to do everything excludes impossibilities. We cannot ascribe nonsenselessness to God. If we ask God to do what is metaphysically improbable, or what is illogical, then that would be an outright slap on the nature of God. What falls into contradiction is something that does not make sense. And we cannot have God do something that we ourselves cannot conceive. The real essence of divine omnipotence lies in his ability to do everything that is conceivably possible. That in no way is a limitation. It is just making sense. God's omnipotence lies in the fact that he created us, and we owe our finite existence from him. Check Aquinas. I think he also tells something about this.

Hello siddharthlife Another user asked the same question when I joined here. This paradox is a famous one, usually put up by Atheists as an argument against omnipotence of GOD. But, it is a fallacious paradox based on two logically false presumptions (actually false presumptions are more but I’ll focus on two): 1. Anthropomorphism of GOD 2. Absoluteness of physical concept of weight Many people try to personify The GOD just as a human (anthropomorphism), attributing to HIM…human traits, features and concepts. Your question is also based on faulty presumption of similarity of concept of weight between humans and the GOD. These physical aspects and phenomenon are just human and have nothing to do with the GOD. For GOD, nothing got weight, however mammoth or gigantic it might be. As for the other presumption, have you noticed that we seldom bother to think that majority of human concepts are relative and not absolute. We seldom think that the concepts of weight, time, space, energy, heat, power, production and reproduction and similarly all other physical aspects are nothing but human concepts and that too relative (not absolute) and defined in a particular frame of reference. Newtonian physics while being excellent in inertial frame is not applicable (or even acceptable) to non inertial frames of reference. In non inertial frames Newtonian physics has no value at all. Similarly our definition of time doesn't apply to even other creatures in this very physical world (in the same inertial frame, earth), a fly has different time framing and time scaling than humans though being simultaneously present. Same is the case with many other creatures living simultaneously with human species. Moreover, weight is due to gravity, it is not a constant or absolute value, even for you and me. So, something having great weight at one place can be of lesser weight on another or even weightless. Like a 1000kg block would be of 9800N weight at one place, same block will weigh 5000 at another or even nothing in space or at the center of the earth. So, I would conclude that this Paradox is itself flawed.

God cannot do things that are logically contradictory. By the way, a stone that can be made, but is so heavy to be lifted is a non-existent entity. It's a language which has no ontological meaning... so the question is a meaningless one.

But knowing God, he will probably create someone or something who can life that "stone-so-heavy-that-he-himself-cannot-lift-it" and thus by association he actually sorta-kinda lifted it. I don't really know what I'm rambling about. But seriously, that's a really good argument. :)

God has expanded himself in every living thing. God is present in an elephant, human as well as ant, bee etc. God is everywhere. So consider a bee building a beehive. Its something which he cannot lift. On the other hand a human can lift it and squeeze out honey. So God was both in bee and human. So it exactly did what you said. Now one has to understand that this earth is a perverted image of the spiritual planet where God resides. What we call "good" comes from the superior nature of God and what we call "evil" comes from the inferior nature of God. I will quote from the holy book of Hindus called 'Bhagvad Gita'. Krishna says that his inferior nature consists of 'earth, water, fire, air and akasa(sky), manas(mind), buddhi(intellect), and ahankara(ego). Krishna's superior nature is the indwelling spririt(the supersoul or the God in our heart). So God is all, all is God. God can do everything, yet do nothing. You have to understand this concept.

I really like Kamran12's response to this. I don't think I could have put it so eloquently. To phrase the question in such a way is to misunderstand the nature of "God" or to place human like limitations on the concept of something that is beyond our concept. Like trying to explain the killing your grandfather paradox in a past time traveling scenario or explaining a higher dimensional level to someone of a lower dimension. The question doesn't apply because it is asking "limited" questions of an "unlimited" being. Like asking "what is the very last number in an infinite set" You can't place limits on an infinite set and you can't place human limits on an entity to whom you've ascribed infinite attributes.

here is another question. If God exists, but he does not want to give ultimate prof of his existence then whether he exists or not does not matter.