This property is defined through states of affairs by James Ross, who built on Gottfried Leibniz’s earlier formulation of it. This concept is likened to a Parliament’s sovereignty in a paper contrasting “adequate” and “fallacious” solutions to its other title concept. To rebut a theory of this concept, Alvin Plantinga posited a (-5[1])being named McEar. (-5[2])Plantinga’s (-5[1])free will defense is only (-5[1])admitted (10[1])if this property is denied, according to a paper by (*) J. L. Mackie. In an analysis (-5[2])of this concept, Thomas Aquinas (-5[1])posited a triangle (-5[2])whose angles sum to over 180 degrees and held that it does not apply when considering logically impossible actions. (10[5])A wholly good, all-knowing God with this other property (10[2]-5[2])is central (10[1]-5[1])to logical formulations (-5[1])of (10[1])the problem of (10[1])evil. (10[1])For 10 points, (10[1])the stone paradox (10[1])asks (10[3])if a god with (10[1])what property could create (10[2])an (10[1])unliftable (10[1])stone? (10[1])■END■ (10[9]0[1])