Christianity; the World's Most Violently Persecuted Religion

[Angrboda]

I understand your point, but I'm pointing out that you can't have it both ways.  If omnipotence means no limits, then you cannot then argue that such an omnipotence is limited by the law of noncontradiction. 
 

Except I am not trying to have it both ways, as I am not making claims that any kind of omniscience or omnipotence is possible, I am just pointing out contradictions in certain ideas like omniscience and omnipotence that I have seen apologists present, nor did I invent the principles of logic, the efficacy of which is well supported. If the beliefs of others are irrational, that is for them to address, or not. FWIW the only beliefs that logic don't apply to, are irrational ones, by definition.

Yes, the efficacy of logic is well supported, as when it's used to point out that you're equivocating on the meaning of omnipotence by arguing that it is both limitless and limited within the same argument.  That makes your argument logically invalid.

You have to pick a lane.   That's fine if you want to grouse that theists shouldn't be allowed to define their god in a way that you find inconvenient, but that isn't a logical objection.  

Nor is it remotely what I am doing, is this not a debate forum, am I not aloud to examine ideas and claims?  That certain ideas I have seen apologists present, violate principles of logic, is absolutely a logical objection to those ideas. 

Moreover, anyone with even passing familiarity with the god of the bible knows that the idea that god has limits isn't something that apologists just conveniently pulled out of their ass, it's very plain from the biblical text that God has limits, such as his inability to lie.  

Great, care to show a single post of mine remotely stating or implying otherwise? You seem to have presented a straw man. 

You've been arguing about a god that is omniscient and omnipotent, it's no mystery which god you are arguing about.  It was heavily implied by the characteristics of the god you described.  One can identify a thing by a name or a description. You're just trying to avoid accepting responsibility for having been wrong about the meaning of omnipotence when it comes to the Judeo-Christian god.  If you want to be thorough about it, which god that is well-known to be omnipotent and omniscient are you claiming, now, that your argument applies to?

If you have a problem with that, tough.  And no, I haven't strawmanned you. 

Yes you have, here again, plainly. I can only suggest you read my original post, and go through this exchange, it's not that long, and explain where you think I said the bible doesn't suggest the deity depicted has limits to its power? I even quoted my original post, and very specifically emboldened my qualification of this view as held by "some apologists". Though apart from this being another straw man, the bible also has passages that make claim the deity's power has no limits of course, shall I sententiously suggest anyone with a "passing familiarity of the bible should know this" as you just did to me? 

You have repeatedly asserted that a god described as omnipotent and omniscient (the god of the bible) is defined as having "limitless power" (being omnipotent, and that's a direct quote).  As I've already noted, you want to have it both ways, that this god is both limited (by the principle of non-contradiction), and limitless (by the definition of omnipotence).  That is an inconsistency in your argument and it is fatal.  It has nothing to do with whether you personally believe such a god exists.

 I've pointed out facts that you find inconvenient about your position. 

You have not honestly represented any position I hold, and none of the claims you've made are inconvenient to any point I have made, you entirely ignored the context of my original post despite me requoting it and emboldening the part you've misrepresented. Try this. without going back roughly type what you think my original point was...in the context of the post I was responding to.
That there are different  views among theists an aphorists one what  they believe omniscience and omnipotence to mean has never remotely been disputed by me, nor have I once remotely suggested the view I assigned to some apologists I have encountered, was a mainstream view. my main original point was about a claim a theist made, about his chosen deity not being culpable in any way for its creation, you seem determined to ignore this, who knows why?

I could care less what your "original" point was.  I was interested in your claim that omniscience and omnipotence were essentially incoherent.   I am not under any obligation to address any and all points you have ever made.     I was interested in one thing, your arguments about omnipotence and omniscience, which I've shown to be flawed.  In no place have I argued against positions that you do not hold.  I appreciate that you want to talk about culpability, but that in no way obligates me to oblige.  I'm coming to the conclusion that you're a bit of a weasel.  Instead of responding to any point straight on, you throw up a bunch of evasions, qualifiers, and bogus accusations of having been misrepresented, none of which holds any water.