Better reasons to quit Christianity

[spockrates]

Rather than saying a God who exists in a dimension outside space and time cannot change anything, I'd say it is possible such a God (if he exists) has already changed things. That is, he has if he has the power to reach into time at any point in time and make changes any time he wants. For him (as the Rush song puts it), "time stands still." He would have all the time he needed to enter any point in time any time he wanted and make any change he wanted and then see the result at the end of time. The timeline of time, we might imagine, is not a done deal, but a work in progress. You have to think outside the box of time and imagine what someone who existed in a time outside of time might be able to do.

If 'time stands still' he doesn't have any time at all. A shorter way of saying 'doesn't exist in space or time' is 'doesn't exist'. Nowhere, nowhen. Maybe you should consider thinking outside of the box of time: a God who exists in time and space but not our time and space would be more logically coherent, like a programmer who exists outside of an elaborate simulation; but can stop, rewind, alter, and erase at will.

Or it means that it is possible to exist in a fifth dimension, which is not timeless any more than the fourth dimension is without height, depth, or width. Such a dimension would have time, plus something that surpasses time, which one might call eternity. Physicists have good reason to believe there are more dimensions than the four you and I experience every day, so I don't see anything wrong with assuming that something beyond the fourth dimension of time actually does exist.

True, your concept of omnipotence might have no referent in reality, but that does not mean that my concept (or the concept someone else has) of omnipotence does not have a referent in reality, I think. To say that your concept is unreal and so no concept is real is to create a straw man and knock it down, I think. Why not consider the concept of someone else before dismissing it as unreal as your own?

Because if 'omnipotent' means whatever you want it to mean, discussing it is pointless. You take it to mean something other than all-powerful so you can keep using the word and avoid the logical inconsistencies. Good for you. Why should I use your definition instead of this one?

om·nip·o·tent (m-np-tnt)
adj.
Having unlimited or universal power, authority, or force; all-powerful.

Your dictionary definition is incomplete. This link gives a more complete explanation of the different understandings of the word:

Between people of different faiths, or indeed between people of the same faith, the term omnipotent has been used to connote a number of different positions. These positions include, but are not limited to, the following:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnipotence

Of the possible definitions,

1. A deity is able to do absolutely anything, even the logically impossible, i.e., pure agency.
   
2. A deity is able to do anything that it chooses to do.[1]
   
3. A deity is able to do anything that is in accord with its own nature (thus, for instance, if it is a logical consequence of a deity's nature that what it speaks is truth, then it is not able to lie).
   
4. Hold that it is part of a deity's nature to be consistent and that it would be inconsistent for said deity to go against its own laws unless there was a reason to do so.[2]
   
5. A deity is able to do anything that corresponds with its omniscience and therefore with its world plan.
   

you propose that (1) is the only valid understanding of the word. But I'm not so sure. I don't yet see why (3) is not a valid possibility. BTW, the Latin for omnipotent does not mean infinite power, it means having all power. There is a subtle, but significant difference, I think.

...

I propose we use the meaning of the word omnipotent that is not logically absurd.

I propose we reject words with logically absurd meanings as applying to anything real. How about 'ultrapotent' instead?

If we say, like some mistakenly believe, that omnipotence is the power to do anything at all, then that means it is the power to make a person 100% honest 100% of the time and (at the same time) 100% dishonest 100% of the time. If we say omnipotence is the power to do anything at all, then it would be the power to make a circle that is not only perfectly round, but also has four right angles at the same time. If we say omnipotence is the power to do anything at all, then it would be the power to make an object that is completely white and completely black at the same time. Such propositions are self-contradictory, illogical and absurd!

Yet rather than conclude the problem is in the concept of omnipotence, you will change the meaning to what you want it to be so you can keep saying it. I'll point out that changing the meaning to 'able to do anything that is logically possible' still has problems. It is logically possible to have free will and make the choices that get you into heaven (if you think anyone does this, you think it's possible), so it is logically possible for God to make such beings.

So I don't see anyway it is logically possible for omnipotence to be the power to do absolutely anything at all--no matter how utterly ridiculous it is.

It's just a word. It has the meaning given to it. Words can be absurd. If 'invisipink' means 'invisibly pink', we conclude that there's nothing that's invisipink, not that 'invisipink' must have its definition changed.

What I suggest is that omnipotence is instead the power to do anything that is not self-contradictory, is not illogical and is not absurd. Would you agree with this definition of the word? Or do you think it nonsensical for me to make such a suggestion?

It's not nonsensical, you represent a long tradition of efforts to try to define God's attributes in a way that retains traditional wording while making what they refer to more unfalsifiable. There are plenty of arguments about what words mean, and trying to agree on terms is a sound discussion practice. I both don't agree and don't think it's nonsensical.

Here's a suggestion: just use 'logical omnipotence' or 'coherent omnipotence' where you would normally use 'omnipotence' so we know what kind of omnipotence you mean. Like we will sometimes use 'agnostic atheism' when distinguishing it from 'gnostic atheism' is meaningful. You don't need to use it all the time, just enough to be clear that you're not talking about re-writing logic. Bear in mind, this form of omnipotence still has problems in relation to the other 'omnis', even though it has the virtue of not contradicting itself.

Interestingly, this leaves me in the position of being able to accomplish a feat that God can't: I can make something so heavy that I can't lift it.

Mister Agenda:

I appreciate your pointing out that the idea of an omnipotent being is absurd, given definition (1) of the word, as cited above. Any Christian who believes that God can do anything at all, no matter how illogically nonsensical is irrational, and isn't thinking clearly. So we've made some progress, as my signature suggests. We've eliminated one understanding of omnipotence as being impossible. But our task is not finished, I think. For there are still four other understandings of the word omnipotent that challenge us to prove them wrong. If a soldier takes down one opponent on the battlefield, is the battle won? No, not if there are more opponents still standing against him! So let's take up the sword against the other four and bring them down, too. Then we won't be mocked by Christians when we tell them confidently that omnipotence (according to all their popular conceptions) is illogical and not worthy of our belief.