(January 5, 2013 at 6:08 pm)Brian37 Wrote: I never disagreed with that. I simply am saying that defies the concept of "all powerful", and the way they make that god work is to keep re defining what God is and what "all powerful" means'.It's been redefined by philosophers, not just Christian theologians. The concept of "all powerful" as "completely unlimited power" is as illogical as the concept of a square circle. It leads to the breakdown of logic, as a truly all-powerful being could perform the impossible. There is no point using the concept of "all powerful" in that way, hence why there are multiple uses of the concept.
Quote:"all" as a word does not imply limits. It implies unlimited. Otherwise why use the word "all".The word "all" itself is not a synonym for "unlimited"; having "all the power" does not mean you have unlimited power.
Quote:I have heard the "within his nature" as the excuse to doge the broken concept.I don't think anyone here has ever called God unlimited, nor have any Christians I've come across. You seem to be setting up strawmen now.
But if he cannot defy his own nature, there is no reason to call this god unlimited which you just claimed they do set limits on.
"unlimited in his own nature" is just another dodge and back peddle.
Quote:And again, of course there definition works because they have already started with "God can do what he wants". As soon as you swallow that crap, you can make any definition you want and when called on it, move the goal posts.I don't see how "God can do what he wants" violates any of what has been said about the nature of omnipotence.
"within his nature" is just another woo way of saying "pulling shit out of my ass to make it suit my own desires"