Atheist’s Counter-Objection to the Theist’s Objection:

The Atheist, in response to the Theist’s initial objection, would argue that there are two things that are wrong with the validity of the objection. The first is that, although God has managed to lift the stone, God can only lift the stone through some device and cannot lift it by himself; what if God misplaces the Gloves or breaks the pulley system, and for some reason a problem comes up where God cannot immediately replace these devices, then God is once again unable to lift the stone in any way. This would obviously not arise a big problem for it is just a large stone, but, for example, what if the stone rolled down a hill or mountain: God would not be able to stop the stone from crushing all the innocent people that reside at the bottom of this hill/mountain. In other words, the problem of God relying on devices to lift the stone doesn’t arise from God not being able to lift the stone himself, but the fact that God would not be an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent being that would have control over everything in the universe. The Stone itself could be a placeholder for something much more dangerous, such as an outer-worldly force created by God that is more powerful than God: if God did not have the devices to contain this creature, then the whole universe would be at risk of danger. The Atheist would acknowledge the Theist’s point that God would create a device that he could only wear, but not if the device could be broken or misplaced. Although the chances of something going wrong with this device is low, it is never impossible. The idea of God relying on this device rather than his own power puts his omnipotence into question. Furthermore, the Atheist could argue that the glove would be more powerful than God itself, and therefore would the glove be the true supreme being that is only using God as a catalyst(?) – for the glove is powerful enough to give God the power to lift the stone that God could not lift himself–. Moreover, the Atheist could ignore the fact that God still cannot lift the stone himself and focus more on the fact that God is essentially using a ‘shortcut’ to lift the stone, and that God is deceiving others by creating this glove: further putting the ‘omnibenevolent’ aspect of his character into doubt. The fact that God is utilizing an ulterior method in lifting the stone showcases that God is not the “morally perfect” being that the Theist wants to think because God is effectively utilizing a device to complete the monumental task of lifting the stone, rather than his own power (this objection also puts God’s omnipotence into question as well).

All in all, the paradox of the Stone is a dilemma proposed by the Atheist in hopes of providing a logical argument that God is not an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent being; yet, the Theist has provided many objections to the Atheist’s line of thought, sparking an exchange over the validity and soundness of the argument and ultimately the existence of God/an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent being.