You're saying that from the 2007 point of view. Put yourself in Dark Ages Europe, heavily influenced by the Earth-centric Bible.
Your example of how it is possible to be infinite but not unlimited in no way precludes the possibility of being both.
I have no particular definition of omnipotence. It is a theistic concept, and I leave it to the theists to define their own jargon. I even conceded (once to Klaymore, earlier in the thread, and more recently to you), that by the definitions you were using, you were correct. It is you that cling to a single definition and allow for no other interpretation. Surely you note the irony in that two paragraphs after accusing me of rigid adherence to a definition you "insist" upon your own?
Don't weasel out of this. Zeno logically argued the impossibility of the arrow hitting the target, and yet in reality, the arrow hits the target.
YOu mean like how something can be a particle and a wave at the same time, or how matter can appear out of nothing and then disappear, or how if one electron in a pair is given a different spin, the other electron reacts immediately, even if it happens faster than the speed of light? Inherent contradictions like that, that nevertheless are observed facts?
Ad hom
YES! But unfortunately for theists, the fact that a being is omnipotent in no way proves that the being is a magic sky daddy who created us, so it is still a completely useless argument. Just because a being CAN do anything doesn't mean that the being DID do any particular thing. Thus, the failure of the omnipotence paradox means absolutely nothing.
Why? Does your definition of omnipotence include a caveat that the feats can't seem like a trick to you? "Just because you are ignorant of how something happens doesn't mean it is a trick." Like I said, refer to Clarke's statement.
Sure, and when someone defines their own jargon, you leap on it. If you're not going to define the terms you use, you really have no right to discuss the term. It seems like you are just keeping your options open, switching definitions based upon the definition of the person you are arguing with. Perhaps if you were able to nail down and maintain a single definition of the word 'omnipotent' instead of fluctuating, it might be easier to discuss this with you.
If you said 'makes further logical discussion impossible', I'd be right there with you, as beliefs are often not based on logic. 'Worthless' is more of a personal comment.
No weaseling, but start another thread if you wish to discuss it further. Not everyone finds Zeno's logic sound (even in his own time).
No, I mean inherent contradictions like "a four-sided three-sided two-dimensional shape".
Nope, wrong again. It was not an attack. You have shown yourself not to be aware of other definitions of omnipotent, and of the fact that other definitions are not things I just made up, but have a fairly lengthy tradition in theological thought. This means, simply, that you are ignorant of these facts. If you would like, I will gladly repost the links.
Quite right. That the omnipotence paradox is a futile argument does not in any way prove the existence of an omnipotent being. I truly hope I did not imply anywhere that I felt this was so. I am just particularly averse to weak arguments, even--perhaps, especially--when they are used by those on "my side".
Actually, it is your definition of omnipotence I was using there. Of course, an omnipotent being can do it with trickery, but if an omnipotent being can do anything that I can put into words, it must be able to do it without the trickery as well. It must, for instance, be able to "create a four-sided triangle without apparent resort to trickery".
I would quite agree with you if I were trying to make any argument about a particular definition of omnipotence, but I am not. I am not endorsing any definition as the right one, merely pointing out that there are alternative definitions. My entire point has been to show that the omnipotence paradox is only a paradox for certain interpretations of omnipotence.
Well, I did not intend it to be any sort of putdown, but so be it, I will accept your reformulation with impossible.
Why do you need to say that? I know there are different definitions of omnipotent - that's what dictionaries are for, after all. I thought it was obvious that while people claimed there were many definitions, I was using only one of them. I was discussing something with YOU, not a dictionary. I mistakenly assumed that you had a position and that you weren't just Marquis de Carabas as Cliff Clavin. My mistake.
Grasping at straws. I asked you a question, and you imply I made a statement for some attempt at hypocrisy detection. IN fact, my question was an attempt to discover what definition you were using, and my frustrations were over your lack thereof.
Question?
Huh? First of all, logic is logic. It doesn't change as time goes by. Secondly, you said "Let's start with the logical impossibility that the sun revolves around the earth." I replied that it's not a logical impossibility. If we look at it from a "Dark Ages" point of view, they would be even more certain that it is not a logical impossibility.
Yes, but if there is something that a being has up to now not created, isn't that a limitation on the achievements of the being?
