Introduction:

The Paradox of the Stone is an argument created by religious skeptics trying to disprove the omnipotence (eventually leading to the existence) of God by introducing a stone that God would not be able to lift. Essentially, the skeptic reasons that if God created a stone that they would not be able to lift, God would not be omnipotent, or have ultimate power; likewise, if God couldn’t create this stone in the first place, their omnipotence would also be put into question. The Paradox of the Stone is the most famous example of the omnipotence argument, and ultimately provides a line of reasoning for why God is false, hence why this argument has sparked many debates between the theist and the atheist between the validity and soundness of the argument. However, before I divulge my objections/counter-objections (or rather the objections from the Theist and counter objection from the Atheist), to the Paradox of the Stone, I must properly lay out the argument and its premises. 

The Paradox of the Stone and its premises:

The Paradox of the stone follows this format:

1. Either God can:
   1. Create a stone so heavy he can’t lift or,
   2. God cannot create a stone so heavy he can’t lift
2. If (a), then there is something God lacks the power to do (lift the stone), and therefore God is not omnipotent
3. If (b), then there is something that God lacks the power to do (can’t create the stone), and therefore God is not omnipotent
4. Therefore, God is not omnipotent

The Paradox of the Stone, as its name suggests, is a dilemma in which every possible choice leads to an undesirable outcome (at least for the theist), that God does not possess unlimited power. The Atheist then argues that since God does not possess this omnipotence, an essential defining characteristic according to the Theist: then God’s other characteristics, such as being omniscient and omnibenevolent, are also put into doubt. The reason that this argument has sparked the debate that it has, is because of the soundness of the premises, as the atheist who created this argument structured it in a way where the theist’s definition of God would be utilized; therefore any objection to the definition of God would be put to rest, something that was controversial in many other arguments (like Anselm’s ontological argument). In fact, I would go as far as to say that the debates on this argument are not about its soundness of it, but rather the validity of its premises. The Atheist would believe its premises to be true because it does follow a logical path that seems to ultimately ensure the doubt of God’s omnipotence: in other words, the Atheist takes the Theist’s definition of God and creates a dilemma in which God’s omnipotence is questioned, hence why they would believe their premises to be true. The argument itself is quite simple, and its soundness can rarely be put into question. However, objections can be made to the validity of the second and third premises.