The Omnipotence Paradox, And Douglas Walton's Theory Of Equality And Egalitarianism

Unfortunately, this revolution was never initiated by the proletariat like Marx had envisioned. The working men did not unite against the ruling class and failed to bring Marx’s perfect ideology to life. Other leaders were, however, inspired by his writing to create the perfect ideology of Communism. Leaders like Lenin during the Russian Revolution wished to create a socialist society which would ensure equality and egalitarianism for everyone in the country similar to what Marx had attempted. He placed the Bolshevik Party in a position of power to make them responsible for distributing equality. This party was called the Vanguard Party and was supposed to act like the “philosopher king” in Plato’s Republic. Galian Golan explained in his article
However, this claim is highly controversial in the sense that the existence of God itself is a highly disputed topic. An ancient philosopher named Averroes created one of the most intriguing paradoxes of philosophy: The Omnipotence Paradox. In his article, Douglas Walton uses the classic example of the rock to explain the paradox by asking the question “can an omnipotent being create a stone too heavy for him to lift?”(705). In Walton’s article, the logic behind omnipotence is questioned by stating that an omnipotent being cannot possibly do everything. By creating a rock that is so heavy that even the being itself cannot lift it, the omnipotent entity has created a situation where there is something he cannot do. For example, if the being did create such a rock, it would mean that lifting the rock is a task that is impossible for him. At the same time, however, if he can manage to lift the rock it would mean that he has failed to create a rock too heavy for him to lift. In both cases, the being finds that he is unable to perform one action or the other and hence his power is logically restricted. If any such restriction exists, the omnipotence of the being ceases to exist and hence logically speaking the idea of God itself seems illogical. This counters the argument of the theologians who claim that God is a perfect being due to His omnipotence,
All attempts to achieve perfection throughout history have had severe costs, such as the lives of tens of millions, and have ultimately failed to meet their goal even after such atrocious acts had been undertaken. Ideologies have failed to achieve perfect unity and equality among the masses and the perfect society has never once been achieved throughout history several revolutions come to pass. Evidently, it seems that it is best to not pursue perfection at all. A perfect society, ideology or being will never be achieved because no one can maintain perfect standard; it is paradoxical and non-existent. It is not right to spend the lives of millions of innocents in the name of revolutions that aim to achieve a goal which isn’t real. It is not wise to try to achieve the dream of a perfect person which does not even exist. Imperfections and flaws are what makes people human. They are therefore necessary and must not be frowned upon. The Lucilio Vanini paradox of perfection appears to be a part of us. It is a paradox that exists and always will exist alongside people. Historically, people have tried to try to overcome it; perhaps it is about time they stop