The Problem of Evil (XXVII)

[Pat Mustard]

The logical incompatibility of the claims "a tri-omni God exists" and "gratuitous suffering exist" is not terribly controversial....To salvage the doctrine of a tri-omni God, theists by and large take the skeptical position and argue that we don't know that God isn't morally justified in permitting such instances of suffering.

You can cry foul all you want. The skeptical objection still contains a positive claim that cannot be proven. That claim is this: there is a possible world without evil.

Secondly, there is no doctrine to salvage. Skeptics' definitions of "tri-omni" are not part of Christian doctrine. Skeptics strain the definition of omnipotent well beyond any reasonable bounds by saying that an all-powerful god could do the impossible. In so doing they are objecting to a god not associated with Christianity.

"...All confess that God is omnipotent; but it seems difficult to explain in what His omnipotence precisely consists: for there may be doubt as to the precise meaning of the word 'all' when we say that God can do all things. If, however, we consider the matter aright, since power is said in reference to possible things, this phrase, "God can do all things," is rightly understood to mean that God can do all things that are possible; and for this reason He is said to be omnipotent." - Thomas Aquinas, Summa, Question 5

Chad's post implied that he speaks for all Christians on their view of God's omnipotence. He certainly doesn't.

Not all. Nearly all. As you can see from the Aquinas quote, my position is eminently traditional and widely accepted.

Aquinas' definituon of omnipotence per you qoute boils down to "being all powerful does not grant you the power to do anything".

And that's a major problem right there because Aquinas defined omnipotence as being the exact opposite of what the word was coined to describe viz "the poewr to do anything". But of course Aquinas had to go that route because being all powerful was a non negotable tenet of christian theology, but being all powerful meant that god was responsible for evil. The only way out of this dilemma that god had two mutually conflicting natures was to redefine all powerful as "not all poweful", a powerfully weak weaseling out of the corner the church had backed itself into.