The Circular God Counter-paradox

This page will guide you through the entire "Circular God Counter-paradox" response to the "Paradox of the Stone," how the process was derived and how it is applied. Before the process is explained we must explain the strategy behind this counter-paradoxical response.

Let's Play Some Football!

Consider logical thinking within an argument in the same way you would an active play during a game of professional football. There are specific rules that must be followed during the game and both teams must abide by these rules. If a player on either team breaks one of these rules, then the team is assessed a penalty. Should a player commit a personal foul, a yellow flag gets tossed and a fifteen yard penalty is assessed to the offending team. Should this personal foul go unpunished or unresolved, then the helmets fly off, chaos ensues and the victimized team argues that the entire game is unfair.

On the unusual occasion that a personal foul is committed by players from both teams, the result is a situation consisting of conflicting penalties. So how should we proceed? The only fair and logical thing to do is consider both personal fouls as offsetting penalties. In this situation, no yards or downs are gained or lost by either team, the entire play is nullified and everyone returns to the original line of scrimmage as if nothing ever happened.

The only penalty that is suffered is that a few seconds of time have slipped away from the game clock.

Like football, there are specific rules to be followed when presenting a valid argument, one of which is that any questions or statements relating to a valid argument must be founded in logical thinking. Forming a question in a way that results in a logical paradox is technically breaking a rules of logical thinking. You knowingly create an unfair advantage over any logic-based opposition to your argument by trapping them within a seemingly unanswerable paradox.

If you break this rule and get away with it, whomever is attempting to counter your argument will argue that the entire debate is unfair. In the case of the paradox of the stone, the presenter of this question has gotten away with this rule violation for literally centuries.

So now we have a situation where the “Paradox of the Stone” has been resolved with another paradox of equal power called the “Circular God Counter-paradox.” The end result is that the premise of the question is nullified, the two conflicting paradoxes are considered offsetting penalties and everyone is required to return to the intellectual line of scrimmage as if nothing ever happened. The only penalty that is suffered is that eight centuries of time have slipped away from history’s game clock.

So how is this “offsetting penalties” philosophy applied to the paradox of the stone? Let's find out by applying the CGCP response to the Stone Paradox question.

Paradoxical questions cannot be answered or solved. They can only be resolved by developing a specific counter-paradox response. A suitable counter-paradox must have the ability to nullify the original Stone Paradox by way of a paradox of equal power. So our first step is to find out exactly what is required to fulfill all requirements of the Stone Paradox. These are the only items referenced within the stone paradox question:







Now that we have all of our necessary items we can craft our counter-paradoxical response. In order for it to work against the Stone Paradox, it must be able to nullify the original paradoxical question while only using the specific items referenced in the question. ...So let's wee what we get!

The CGCP Response with Explanation:

God, being omnipotent, space-savvy and ubiquitous, would have himself exist simultaneously on Plane (A) and Plane (B). After fashioning a rock with a weight sufficient to exceed his ability to lift, the rock is positioned on Plane (B) where we find God attempting to lift the rock. On Plane (A) we have God physically lifting Plane (B), which already holds both God and the very heavy rock and all done so at the exact same moment. See figure (a). ...So the answer is “Yes!” God can create a rock so heavy that he couldn’t lift it while simultaneously maintaining omnipotence.


The original paradoxical question hasn’t really been answered or solved as no paradoxical question can be answered or solved by design. What has happened is that the entire premise of “questionable omnipotence” found within the original paradoxical question has been resolved by way of a counter-paradox. The original paradoxical question no longer possesses any power... It has been neutralized.

The “Circular God Counter-Paradox” response to the “Paradox of the Stone” can be infinitely expanded to help in the understanding of omnipotence. This also counters any attempts at regression should the “Paradox of the Stone” be modified to ask, “Can God create a stone so heavy that he cannot lift it ...and the plane that it is on?”

Infinite Expansion of the Circular God Counter-paradox

Infinite Expansion Explained

Planes (A) and (B) can be placed within a self-contained universe (Universe A) and then the Circular God formula reapplied to the entire situation within Universe (B).

While everything is simultaneously playing out in Universe (A), we also find God on Plane (D) attempting to lift Universe (A). On Plane (C) we have God physically lifting Plane (D), which already holds God, Universe (A), two more of God which are contained within Universe (A) and, of course, the very heavy rock …and all done so at the exact same moment. See figure (b).

The entire process can be taken to yet another level within Universe (C). This same Circular God scenario can be continued throughout infinity. See figure (c).

Download the CGCP Process
(.PDF Document)

Click on the above CGCP Logo above to download a copy of the Circular God Counter-paradox in .PDF form. You can also download the file by clicking this link: CGCP Process.