Video: the incoherence of omnipotence

[Copernicus]

...you seem to have concluded that omnipotence entails omniscience and that entails absolute knowledge of all future events

Nope.
Again, that's not my view/conclusion.
Try using the quote function.

I have already stated that IF (for the sake of the argument)

a) God has already predestined all future events - absolutely predestined - and that nothing apart from those events will ever take place;

and

b) God always (voluntarily) tells the truth.

...then there is no wiggle room for God to change future events.

But (a) has to be true if God's knowledge of all future events is perfect. So the truth of (a) is determined by how you and other believers have chosen to define God's omniscience, not by divine choice. You put it in a conditional clause in order to make it look like willful act, but an omniscient being, by definition, cannot render itself ignorant of future events. So you are stuck with the logical consequence of omniscience whether you like it or not. I don't see the relevance of (b), given that God's perfect knowledge of the future renders it impossible for him to change it. Whether he lies or not has nothing to do with it. Maybe he is predestined to lie.

BUT...
I don't hold the view that God has to predestine everything.

Just to be clear, I never accused you of that. I do not hold this view of your god either, since I believe that omniscience robs him of the ability to change his mind about anything from a purely logical perspective.

Neither do I hold the view that God's future creativite potential is limited because He has no need to declare His future actions in advance.

Obviously God knows what He intends to do. But that in no way compels us to some logical inference that therefore God has to rule out in advance everything that He will never do. God is logically/theologically enabled to do anything He wants. How can THAT possibly translate as
...God isn't able to spontaneosly, creatively think of something brand new at will.

Well, God knows more than what he intends to do, given omniscience. He knows exactly what he will do and cannot change that without cancelling his omniscience. When you say that "God is logically/theologically enabled to do anything He wants", I can agree perfectly well with you. It's just that he can't ever change what he wants. So being "enabled" to do what he wants is kind of a moot point.

 

[Lion IRC]

Ditto my post about defining omnipotence if you want to define omniscience in a way that compels God to know every single thing He will ever do (and not do) in advance.

 

[Copernicus]

Ditto my post about defining omnipotence if you want to define omniscience in a way that compels God to know every single thing He will ever do (and not do) in advance.

I may have misconstrued your use of the term "omniscience", although you don't seem to have been very clear on how. Are you saying that an all-knowing deity does not know every single thing every human will do (and not do) in advance? That is, do you maintain that God is ignorant of what each and every human being will choose to do throughout his or her life? If not, then what does "omniscient" mean that allows this deity to be ignorant of the future choices of its creations? Bear in mind that God's choices would factor into the choices of his creations.

 

[Learner]

I may have misconstrued your use of the term "omniscience", although you don't seem to have been very clear on how. Are you saying that an all-knowing deity does not know every single thing every human will do (and not do) in advance? That is, do you maintain that God is ignorant of what each and every human being will choose to do throughout his or her life? If not, then what does "omniscient" mean that allows this deity to be ignorant of the future choices of its creations?

As I understand it: If GOD is "omniscient" HE should therefore KNOW every variable ... all possible paths to one destination which doesn't conflict but corroborates with the theology (Judgment) of an individuals free-will by "how" he chooses to get to there.

 

[Copernicus]

I may have misconstrued your use of the term "omniscience", although you don't seem to have been very clear on how. Are you saying that an all-knowing deity does not know every single thing every human will do (and not do) in advance? That is, do you maintain that God is ignorant of what each and every human being will choose to do throughout his or her life? If not, then what does "omniscient" mean that allows this deity to be ignorant of the future choices of its creations?

As I understand it: If GOD is "omniscient" HE should therefore KNOW every variable ... all possible paths to one destination which doesn't conflict but corroborates with the theology (Judgment) of an individuals free-will by "how" he chooses to get to there.

I'm not sure where you get that understanding from, but let's go with it. God knows every value that a variable can be instantiated with. He also knows the exact values that they will be instantiated with, does he not? And does that not, in effect, turn those variables into constants? IOW, they aren't really variables, since they can only ever hold just the one value that God knows they will hold.

 

[Underseer]

If you ask me, the ancient theists were more intelligent. They never tried to attribute omnipotence nor omniscience to any of their imaginary friends.

 

[Learner]

If you ask me, the ancient theists were more intelligent. They never tried to attribute omnipotence nor omniscience to human logic sense.

FIFY

To some point I would agree with you only that I would point this to non theists (like the above in bold).

 

[Tom Sawyer]

If you ask me, the ancient theists were more intelligent. They never tried to attribute omnipotence nor omniscience to any of their imaginary friends.

When did the Omni powers come into the Christian mythology anyways? The guy in the OT clearly didn't have either and the guy in the NT needed to magic up a human surrogate to get stuff done. When did they start saying they had an Omni guy?

 

[Copernicus]

If you ask me, the ancient theists were more intelligent. They never tried to attribute omnipotence nor omniscience to any of their imaginary friends.

When did the Omni powers come into the Christian mythology anyways? The guy in the OT clearly didn't have either and the guy in the NT needed to magic up a human surrogate to get stuff done. When did they start saying they had an Omni guy?

Actually, it is Plato that we look back to for the concept of perfection, including perfect knowledge and perfect power. He argued that gods were immutable in that they could not change in any way but for becoming worse in some aspect. Christianity was a Hellenized offshoot Judaism, so it had some Greek baggage. Plato was one of the Pagan philosophers whose works the RCC did not neglect or suppress.

Indian philosophers, whose ideas were well known to the Greeks, also debated omni powers. Since the Hebrews were dominated by the Persian/Greek sphere of culture for centuries, they would have absorbed many of their religious views under that influence before Christianity evolved. IOW, Abraham's religion was not the first to attribute perfect knowledge to gods.

The problem with the omni powers is that they create a paradox similar to that of the irresistible force vs. the immovable object. The only way out of the paradox is to declare that for an irresistible force to exist, there can exist no immovable object. Or vice versa. Lion and the theologians who support his tack are essentially claiming that there is a way out--to simply declare that the irresistible force never meets the immovable object. God can change his mind, but he just chooses not to. The problem with the argument is that the paradox doesn't go away just because one declares it gone. God cannot change his mind in principle lest the potential for a meeting exist. God's omnipotence suggests that he can change the future, but his omniscience suggests he cannot. Hence, the omnipotent/omniscient God really does disappear in a puff of logic.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

If you ask me, the ancient theists were more intelligent. They never tried to attribute omnipotence nor omniscience to any of their imaginary friends.

When did the Omni powers come into the Christian mythology anyways? The guy in the OT clearly didn't have either and the guy in the NT needed to magic up a human surrogate to get stuff done. When did they start saying they had an Omni guy?

Actually, it is Plato that we look back to for the concept of perfection, including perfect knowledge and perfect power. He argued that gods were immutable in that they could not change in any way but for becoming worse in some aspect. Christianity was a Hellenized offshoot Judaism, so it had some Greek baggage. Plato was one of the Pagan philosophers whose works the RCC did not neglect or suppress.

Indian philosophers, whose ideas were well known to the Greeks, also debated omni powers. Since the Hebrews were dominated by the Persian/Greek sphere of culture for centuries, they would have absorbed many of their religious views under that influence before Christianity evolved. IOW, Abraham's religion was not the first to attribute perfect knowledge to gods.

The problem with the omni powers is that they create a paradox similar to that of the irresistible force vs. the immovable object. The only way out of the paradox is to declare that for an irresistible force to exist, there can exist no immovable object. Or vice versa. Lion and the theologians who support his tack are essentially claiming that there is a way out--to simply declare that the irresistible force never meets the immovable object. God can change his mind, but he just chooses not to. The problem with the argument is that the paradox doesn't go away just because one declares it gone. God cannot change his mind in principle unless the potential for a meeting exist. God's omnipotence suggests that he can change the future, but his omniscience suggests he cannot. Hence, the omnipotent/omniscient God really does disappear in a puff of logic.

But, as has been previously mentioned, there is no paradox at all. Either omnipotence means that you can do logically impossible things, in which case logical contradictions don't apply, or omnipotence means that you can do whatever is logically possible, in which case no logical contradictions are part of the definition. The first allows for both an irresistible force and immovable object to simultaneously exist and the second means that it can create a force with the maximum possible irresistibility and an object with the maximum possible immovability and whichever one is higher would win.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

If you ask me, the ancient theists were more intelligent. They never tried to attribute omnipotence nor omniscience to human logic sense.

FIFY

To some point I would agree with you only that I would point this to non theists (like the above in bold).

The problem is, is it that the majority of today's theologians that hold to the claim that God is omnipotent. It is an idea that doesn't work as a rational hypothesis, so naturally, it is going to be attacked because it is unreasonable. A few theologies, such as Open Theology and Proces Theology have abandoned the claim.

One can fill libraries with theology books trying to explain how it is God is omnipotent and trying to square that with the existence of evil et al. Much of the claims about omnipotence started to be made during the era of Augustine and other theologians. Nobody wants to have to develop a hypothetical lesser God and fill out the details of why that must be so, and what is God's nature as far as his abilities and powers are if he is not.

Aquinas and others argued, God cannot do the illogical, others, such as Descartes argued God creates the logic of the Universe and could change it if he desired. So he could do the illogical. Theologians are stilltrying to maximize God's omnipotence and avoid the paradoxes and incoherences surrounding that idea.

 

[Copernicus]

Actually, it is Plato that we look back to for the concept of perfection, including perfect knowledge and perfect power. He argued that gods were immutable in that they could not change in any way but for becoming worse in some aspect. Christianity was a Hellenized offshoot Judaism, so it had some Greek baggage. Plato was one of the Pagan philosophers whose works the RCC did not neglect or suppress.

Indian philosophers, whose ideas were well known to the Greeks, also debated omni powers. Since the Hebrews were dominated by the Persian/Greek sphere of culture for centuries, they would have absorbed many of their religious views under that influence before Christianity evolved. IOW, Abraham's religion was not the first to attribute perfect knowledge to gods.

The problem with the omni powers is that they create a paradox similar to that of the irresistible force vs. the immovable object. The only way out of the paradox is to declare that for an irresistible force to exist, there can exist no immovable object. Or vice versa. Lion and the theologians who support his tack are essentially claiming that there is a way out--to simply declare that the irresistible force never meets the immovable object. God can change his mind, but he just chooses not to. The problem with the argument is that the paradox doesn't go away just because one declares it gone. God cannot change his mind in principle unless the potential for a meeting exist. God's omnipotence suggests that he can change the future, but his omniscience suggests he cannot. Hence, the omnipotent/omniscient God really does disappear in a puff of logic.

But, as has been previously mentioned, there is no paradox at all. Either omnipotence means that you can do logically impossible things, in which case logical contradictions don't apply, or omnipotence means that you can do whatever is logically possible, in which case no logical contradictions are part of the definition. The first allows for both an irresistible force and immovable object to simultaneously exist and the second means that it can create a force with the maximum possible irresistibility and an object with the maximum possible immovability and whichever one is higher would win.

I think that you have created a false dilemma here. There is no logical argument to support the claim that one can do logically impossible things, so I would rule that option out as a viable premise in an argument. To assume a contradiction is to embrace incoherence. Your second point is trivially true, but I have not claimed that omnipotence is logically contradictory. Quite the opposite. The logical contradiction arises only when you combine it with omniscience. As you see in my above discussion of irresistible force vs immovable object, one can exist only if the other does not. Otherwise, you end up with a paradox.

Now, what you did with "maximum possible irresistibility" and "maximum possible immovability" is to muddy the waters with a completely different argument, since the scalar maxima have to balance each other. The terms "maximal irresistibility" and "maximal immovability" then reduce to "resistability" and "movability" whose limits are mutually bound. I don't think that that is going to help the omnipotence/omniscience paradox any, since it simply changes the meaning of the terms being referenced. It is a subtle way of trying to eliminate a paradox by choosing to ignore it, which I think is the very ploy that Lion has been banking on.

Regarding  omniscience, there are two recognized senses of the term: inherent omniscience and total omniscience. The former refers to knowledge of anything that one chooses to know and that can be known. Some theologians do rely on inherent omniscience as God's method of conferring free will on individuals by choosing to limit his foreknowledge. However, that then runs into problems with other doctrinal planks grounded in the interpretation of scripture. What theists usually believe in is total omniscience, which entails knowledge of all future events. (Lion seems to have rejected the idea that God's knowledge of the future is limited in his claim that God could change the future but doesn't have a desire to do so.)

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Actually, it is Plato that we look back to for the concept of perfection, including perfect knowledge and perfect power. He argued that gods were immutable in that they could not change in any way but for becoming worse in some aspect. Christianity was a Hellenized offshoot Judaism, so it had some Greek baggage. Plato was one of the Pagan philosophers whose works the RCC did not neglect or suppress.

Indian philosophers, whose ideas were well known to the Greeks, also debated omni powers. Since the Hebrews were dominated by the Persian/Greek sphere of culture for centuries, they would have absorbed many of their religious views under that influence before Christianity evolved. IOW, Abraham's religion was not the first to attribute perfect knowledge to gods.

The problem with the omni powers is that they create a paradox similar to that of the irresistible force vs. the immovable object. The only way out of the paradox is to declare that for an irresistible force to exist, there can exist no immovable object. Or vice versa. Lion and the theologians who support his tack are essentially claiming that there is a way out--to simply declare that the irresistible force never meets the immovable object. God can change his mind, but he just chooses not to. The problem with the argument is that the paradox doesn't go away just because one declares it gone. God cannot change his mind in principle unless the potential for a meeting exist. God's omnipotence suggests that he can change the future, but his omniscience suggests he cannot. Hence, the omnipotent/omniscient God really does disappear in a puff of logic.

But, as has been previously mentioned, there is no paradox at all. Either omnipotence means that you can do logically impossible things, in which case logical contradictions don't apply, or omnipotence means that you can do whatever is logically possible, in which case no logical contradictions are part of the definition. The first allows for both an irresistible force and immovable object to simultaneously exist and the second means that it can create a force with the maximum possible irresistibility and an object with the maximum possible immovability and whichever one is higher would win.

I think that you have created a false dilemma here. There is no logical argument to support the claim that one can do logically impossible things, so I would rule that option out as a viable premise in an argument. To assume a contradiction is to embrace incoherence. Your second point is trivially true, but I have not claimed that omnipotence is logically contradictory. Quite the opposite. The logical contradiction arises only when you combine it with omniscience. As you see in my above discussion of irresistible force vs immovable object, one can exist only if the other does not. Otherwise, you end up with a paradox.

Sure, technically there is a paradox, but the point is that the paradox resolves itself in a totally logical manner simply because the omnipotent person says so. If logic is subservient to omnipotence (as it is using this definition), then what is or is not logical rearranges itself at his whim. The problems we have putting that situation into our logical framework is no more troublesome than seeing that if we shrink a container in half, it now only holds half as much. That's not some kind of conundrum it's just a statement that the container is different now. Same with the logical framework - it is now different and can have irresistible forces and immovable objects existing simultaneously.

Now, what you did with "maximum possible irresistibility" and "maximum possible immovability" is to muddy the waters with a completely different argument, since the scalar maxima have to balance each other. The terms "maximal irresistibility" and "maximal immovability" then reduce to "resistability" and "movability" whose limits are mutually bound. I don't think that that is going to help the omnipotence/omniscience paradox any, since it simply changes the meaning of the terms being referenced. It is a subtle way of trying to eliminate a paradox by choosing to ignore it, which I think is the very ploy that Lion has been banking on.

Well, then you can just say that omnipotent people cannot create both irresistible forces and immovable objects. That's fine, too. If you limit the definition of omnipotence to being able to do what is logically possible, then you're going to run into limits on what omnipotent people can do without running into any trouble about what the word means.

So either way, you don't run into any problems. The illogical stuff happens in a logical manner because that's a thing when omnipotent people want it to be or the illogical stuff doesn't happen at all because that's not part of the definition of the word. Whichever definition of the word you choose, there's no issues that arise.

 

[Copernicus]

...Sure, technically there is a paradox, but the point is that the paradox resolves itself in a totally logical manner simply because the omnipotent person says so. If logic is subservient to omnipotence (as it is using this definition), then what is or is not logical rearranges itself at his whim. The problems we have putting that situation into our logical framework is no more troublesome than seeing that if we shrink a container in half, it now only holds half as much. That's not some kind of conundrum it's just a statement that the container is different now. Same with the logical framework - it is now different and can have irresistible forces and immovable objects existing simultaneously.

You keep using phrases like "in this definition", as if definitions determined usage rather than the other way around. This is a common type of fallacy known as " appeal to definition", and it smacks of the kind of sophistry we get in Anselm's scholasticism, where God's existence is "proven" by merely defining God as existing. Has Lion actually convinced you that he can get away with defining away the paradox? Redefining word meanings is not magic. It can't change reality.

...Well, then you can just say that omnipotent people cannot create both irresistible forces and immovable objects. That's fine, too. If you limit the definition of omnipotence to being able to do what is logically possible, then you're going to run into limits on what omnipotent people can do without running into any trouble about what the word means.

Consider what you are saying here: That people who have trouble with a word meaning can change the meaning and then--Poof!--no more problem with the meaning. Well, that isn't quite how language works. All you are doing is ceasing to talk about the trouble that started the conversation. Moving semantic goalposts doesn't make the trouble go away any more than ceasing to call Donald Trump the President makes him not be the President. From a linguistic perspective, the person who wishes to change usage-based meaning needs to get agreement from the community using the meaning. Nobody gets to unilaterally dictate what words mean.

So either way, you don't run into any problems. The illogical stuff happens in a logical manner because that's a thing when omnipotent people want it to be or the illogical stuff doesn't happen at all because that's not part of the definition of the word. Whichever definition of the word you choose, there's no issues that arise.

One final comment on what strikes me as a very bizarre semantic argument. You keep referring to "omnipotent people". Who are you talking about? Gods? They don't define logic. Ordinary people do. Aristotle was sort of the prime mover in that area, not God.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

You keep using phrases like "in this definition", as if definitions determined usage rather than the other way around. This is a common type of fallacy known as " appeal to definition", and it smacks of the kind of sophistry we get in Anselm's scholasticism, where God's existence is "proven" by merely defining God as existing. Has Lion actually convinced you that he can get away with defining away the paradox? Redefining word meanings is not magic. It can't change reality.

It's not an "appeal to definition", it's a word which has multiple definitions and the scenario is very different depending on which of those definitions you use. You can't just say "omnipotent" and have it mean something without defining which of those meanings you're referring to. If you take the absolutist view, the answer is yes, no matter what the question is and logic and reason transform themselves to conform with his whims. If you take a scholastic view, there are limits to his power levels and he can't do illogical things.

In neither case is there any kind of contradiction. If you ask if he can create an irresistible force and an immovable object, the answer is either "Yes, because reality now works that way" or "No, because that's not logically possible". The only way you get to a contradiction is to use one definition of the word to describe what he can do and another definition of the word in examining what he did. This has nothing to do with Lion's arguments, it's a continuation of an argument about the matter which has gone on for centuries.

So, when you use the word omnipotent to come to a contradiction, what is it that you mean by that word?

Consider what you are saying here: That people who have trouble with a word meaning can change the meaning and then--Poof!--no more problem with the meaning. Well, that isn't quite how language works. All you are doing is ceasing to talk about the trouble that started the conversation. Moving semantic goalposts doesn't make the trouble go away any more than ceasing to call Donald Trump the President makes him not be the President. From a linguistic perspective, the person who wishes to change usage-based meaning needs to get agreement from the community using the meaning. Nobody gets to unilaterally dictate what words mean.

Of course nobody gets to unilaterally dictate that. That sums up my entire point. People use the same word in different ways and the results of using that word are different as a result. God's power is either constrained by logic or it's not and the list of actions he can take is different in either case.

So either way, you don't run into any problems. The illogical stuff happens in a logical manner because that's a thing when omnipotent people want it to be or the illogical stuff doesn't happen at all because that's not part of the definition of the word. Whichever definition of the word you choose, there's no issues that arise.

One final comment on what strikes me as a very bizarre semantic argument. You keep referring to "omnipotent people". Who are you talking about? Gods? They don't define logic. Ordinary people do. Aristotle was sort of the prime mover in that area, not God.

Omnipotent people are theoretical people who are omnipotent and who exist for the purposes of discussion. If they have a power level which supersedes logic, they do define logic because logic would change based on their opinions. If their power level is subservient to logic, they never run into any logical contradictions about what they can do, so it doesn't matter.

 

[Lion IRC]

Ditto my post about defining omnipotence if you want to define omniscience in a way that compels God to know every single thing He will ever do (and not do) in advance.

I may have misconstrued your use of the term "omniscience", although you don't seem to have been very clear on how...

I will say it again one last time.
God's future optional prerogatives are not constrained because He has not, and does not need to, pre-commit to things against His will. God is completely free to wait until Thursday morning to decide what He wants for breakfast on that day. He is not 'ignorant' of what He will have for breakfast on that day. His omniscience isn't in question and it's not like God is getting anxious as the day approaches because He 'needs' to know everything single He will ever possibly have for breakfast every day from now into infinity.

Omnipotence is the ability to do things, not the compulsion to do things. And omniscience is a subset of the ability to do anything. "To know" is a verb. Yes God can know in advance what He will have for breakfast on Thursday - anything He wants to have. And if God wants to wait till Thursday to decide what He feels like having on that day He can because He is....wait for it
...able to do anything He wants.

Copernicus - if you come back one more time claiming not to understand what I'm saying, or misstating my position, or accusing me of holding a position which is tantamount to God lacking some ability or lacking knowledge of events that will never happen, then I'm going to have to conclude that we have a communication problem.

 

[Lion IRC]

...irresistible force vs immovable object, one can exist only if the other does not. Otherwise, you end up with a paradox.

All metaphysical paradoxes are conceived in the human mind.
That same human mind can conceive a solution in the exact same way as it imagined the concept of "immovable object" or "irresistible force".

You used the word "exist". Surely we can find an ontological way to use the word co-exist.

Irresistible force "meets" immovable object. The word "meet" doesn't preclude us from resolving the (false) dilemma by conceiving that the universe is the immovable object and God is the irresistible force. A good way for them to meet would be Taoist pantheism.

Paradox solved. They co-exist. Simple.

 

[bilby]

If you ask me, the ancient theists were more intelligent. They never tried to attribute omnipotence nor omniscience to any of their imaginary friends.

When did the Omni powers come into the Christian mythology anyways? The guy in the OT clearly didn't have either and the guy in the NT needed to magic up a human surrogate to get stuff done. When did they start saying they had an Omni guy?

Actually, it is Plato that we look back to for the concept of perfection, including perfect knowledge and perfect power. He argued that gods were immutable in that they could not change in any way but for becoming worse in some aspect. Christianity was a Hellenized offshoot Judaism, so it had some Greek baggage. Plato was one of the Pagan philosophers whose works the RCC did not neglect or suppress.

Indian philosophers, whose ideas were well known to the Greeks, also debated omni powers. Since the Hebrews were dominated by the Persian/Greek sphere of culture for centuries, they would have absorbed many of their religious views under that influence before Christianity evolved. IOW, Abraham's religion was not the first to attribute perfect knowledge to gods.

The problem with the omni powers is that they create a paradox similar to that of the irresistible force vs. the immovable object. The only way out of the paradox is to declare that for an irresistible force to exist, there can exist no immovable object. Or vice versa. Lion and the theologians who support his tack are essentially claiming that there is a way out--to simply declare that the irresistible force never meets the immovable object. God can change his mind, but he just chooses not to. The problem with the argument is that the paradox doesn't go away just because one declares it gone. God cannot change his mind in principle lest the potential for a meeting exist. God's omnipotence suggests that he can change the future, but his omniscience suggests he cannot. Hence, the omnipotent/omniscient God really does disappear in a puff of logic.

[science]According to physics, all forces are irresistible, and there are no immovable objects.[/science]

 

[Juma]

...irresistible force vs immovable object, one can exist only if the other does not. Otherwise, you end up with a paradox.

All metaphysical paradoxes are conceived in the human mind.
That same human mind can conceive a solution in the exact same way as it imagined the concept of "immovable object" or "irresistible force".

You used the word "exist". Surely we can find an ontological way to use the word co-exist.

Irresistible force "meets" immovable object. The word "meet" doesn't preclude us from resolving the (false) dilemma by conceiving that the universe is the immovable object and God is the irresistible force. A good way for them to meet would be Taoist pantheism.

Paradox solved. They co-exist. Simple.

View attachment 15189

A good summary: the theistic mind
Is nothing but a brainfart...

 

[Speakpigeon]

Theist: God exists and is omnipotent.
Atheist: What do you mean by omnipotent?
(Hilarity ensues)

AntiCitizenX explores the different definitions of omnipotence used by religious philosophers.

Definition 1: logically incoherent, and would make the existence of God impossible
Definition 2: logically incoherent, and would make the existence of God impossible
Definition 3: An omnipotent God under this definition can possibly exist, but by this definition, every single thing that exists is omnipotent, including rocks. Rocks are omnipotent according to this definition.

What's really funny is that these are all their definitions.

Nah, doesn't work.

All this does is gets you an easy win against the Pope's minions. How many divisions? Stalin is supposed to have asked, but this can be understood in two very different ways. Humans are indeed divisible.

So, you win one against the divisible Christians. Good. So what? Does it mean an omnipotent God cannot exist? No, it just means the Pope's minions are not too good at arguing anything much, which isn't even specific to them. No human is. Oh, well, sure, remember, we're not omnipotent! Basically, most people are too stupid to either explain how omnipotence is supposed to work or stop pretending they know God is omnipotent. But that I am unable to even begin to explain how come something exists rather than nothing isn't a very good argument that nothing exists. I certainly won't stop claiming I know something exists. OK, not really the same thing but close enough.

So there.
EB