The argument that God is not absolutely omnipotent has been raised multiple times by different philosophers and represented as omnipotent paradox. Omnipotent paradox is a group of related arguments that take up the point of omnipotent being and what it can actually do. Basically, the question is whether an omnipotent being capable of creating something greater than itself, for if not, it would mean that this particular being is not absolutely all-powerful. Along with other philosophers, Rene Descartes and Michel de Montaigne debate the belief that God is all-powerful, all-seeing, and all-knowing and actually provide reasoning and sufficient arguments in their works.

In his Meditations Descartes highlights the idea of the human being to be intimately spiritual in its essence, but impermanently banded to a material body, which actually perceives the world around based on the belief that God can not deceive others. On the other hand, we would not possibly recognize God as the image of perfection and supremacy, unless God had put it into our minds. He implies the idea that human knowledge depends totally on assumptions that has not been proved or tested, thus making it hard to differentiate between what is true and what is not, for we can not positively determine the genuine knowledge. Montaigne tends to disconnect the image of God from a human being through reasoning that this particular idea is unapproachable and beyond comprehension. Montaigne emphasises a point that a human being is a part of nature thus complying with its laws. For example, he states: “Is it possible to imagine anything so ridiculous as that this wretched and cowardly creature, who is not even master of himself, exposed to threats from all things, should call himself master and emperor of the universe when he lacks the power to understand its least part, let alone to command it?”(Montaigne, Ariew, Grene 12) According to his ideas, only the objects that emerge simultaneously as the consequence of human activity and the foundations of nature can truly be relevant to the things of grace and magnificence. On the other hand, things that come forth against the rules of nature, thus created by non-natural activity of a human being can not be referred to as a cultural value. Both Descartes and Montaigne do not in any case deny or argue the existence of God, but provide a sufficient evidence of his essence. However, what they are trying to point out is the fact that God may not be absolutely omnipotent as it seems on the first glance. Both of them also try to claim that a man can barely differentiate the essential truth from common assumptions. Descartes chooses to reason the existence of God through ontological argument. In other words, the idea of God as an infinitely perfect being implies the fact that an infinitely perfect being must have essence.