When responding to the question “can X create a stone that it cannot lift”, another flawed argument is
X can create the stone that it cannot lift but it chooses not to create it. So there is no stone it cannot lift yet. So X has not failed the omnipotence test.
This argument is wrong.
When we ask “can X choose to create a stone that it cannot lift”, we are discussing whether X has an ability. When we discuss ability, it is always about a potential, a possibility.
Y is able to do action B
always means that
“Y does B” is possible,
which is equivalent to
“Y does B” is not contradictory to any logical laws nor physical laws.
“Whether Y has already done B or will do B” is not the point.
If we allow such “Y can do B but it chooses not to” argument, then anyone is omnipotent. For example,
Can you fly?
I can fly but I choose not to. So even though you have never seen me flying and will never see me flying, it is not because I cannot fly; it is just because I choose not to.
Can you choose to fly?
I can choose to fly but I choose not to choose to fly.
This type of arguments make the word “can“ meaningless.
— Me@2020-03-30 06:52:58 AM
2020.04.19 Sunday (c) All rights reserved by ACHK