The rock God can't lift.

[Tiberius]

Again, once they swallow "God can do what he wants", then they can move the goal posts, so in that context, sure it does work.

My point was, in any context it works. The set of logically possible things must exist, given that we can name items that it contains. We can also name things in the set that are logically possible, but which humans cannot perform. It stands to reason, then, that there could exist a being that was able to perform every item in the set.

I'm not saying such a being exists; just that there is no reason why such a being could not.

It doesn't matter.

"When he can" if taken literally, makes no sense because he is all powerful which would mean "all the time or whenever he feels like it", not limited to "when he can".

It does matter, and you're doing it again...applying one specific definition of omnipotence to another one, pointing out that they aren't the same, and concluding that your definition is the only one around. It's not. There are many definitions, one of which is that omnipotence is the ability to perform everything that is logically possible to perform. One is the same thing, but with the additional caveat that such a being is limited by its own nature, which is essentially stating that a being cannot perform two contradictory actions. In the context of the Christian God, if it is a perfect moral being (the action of being a perfect moral being), it cannot also lie (the action of lying), since if it were to lie, it would cease to be a perfect moral being. This is essentially a statement that one cannot violate laws of logic; if one is performing the action A, it cannot simultaneously perform the action ¬A, or any subset of actions which contains ¬A.

"When he can" if only taken metaphorically would also mean nothing because it does nothing to go to empirical evidence.

Why on earth are you bringing up empirical evidence for? We're talking about philosophy and logic, not science.

In the end both are part of the same tactic, when it doesn't work switch.

I'm not discussing tactics with you, I'm discussing the validity of various definitions of omnipotence. I've asked you what would happen if they switched (or even started with) a logically valid definition, such as the one I have suggested. You have yet to respond on that point.

Neither of these do anything to make such a claim definable to testable degree and are merely the imaginations of those who invent such concepts.

It does not matter if it is testable. A lot of things in philosophy are not testable. Being untestable does not mean something is logically invalid.

---

I submit that the guy who wrote that piece means "literally." You are a great guy, boss, but you live in a civilized country that doesn't have a whole lot of crazy jesus freaks handling snakes and rolling around on the floor.

I was talking generally. As in, do you accept that this is a valid explanation of omnipotence if meant in a non-literal way.

---

With all due respect, Tibbs, I think this God constrained by logical possibility is an invention created to fix a broken concept.

Granted, it may well be, but if it fixes it, why do you dismiss it? Can you point out why such a definition of omnipotence is logically invalid?

There are plenty of people currently and historically who believe in the concept without any awareness of these fixes, nor even positive knowledge that the concept itself needs fixing.

Irrelevant. We're talking about the concept that has been fixed, not if people know the original was full of flaws or not.

So, your claim that some people have a more sophisticated concept of omnipotence does nothing to ameliorate the fact that most believers don't have such a nuanced concept. Moreover, your attempting to substitute the understanding of a few for the understanding of the many appears fallacious (though it's not clear what the specific fallacy is).

I'm aware it does nothing to ameliorate the fact that most believers don't have such a nuanced concept. I've never said any differently. My entry into this debate was when someone (Brian) tried to disprove God's omnipotence by using the invalid concept that we're all talking about.

Demonstrating that a concept like absolute omnipotence is invalid is easy. However, when someone comes along and points to another (valid) definition of the concept, you can't just keep going back to the invalid version and trying to use that the new concept is invalid. It doesn't work like that.

Brian is stuck in his mindset that the only version of omnipotence that exists in Christianity is the absolute kind. That is factually and scriptually inaccurate. I've pointed it out to him numerous times.

It's like the following argument:

A: All four sided objects are squares.
B: But a rhombus has four sides and is not a square.
A: Ok, all four sided objects that have four right-angles are squares.
B: But a rectangle has four sides and four right-angles and is not a square.
A: Ok, all four sided objects that have four right-angles and all sides the same length are squares.
B: You're just moving the goal posts! You started with one definition and now you're changing it when I come up with contradictions!

Does it matter that they are switching definitions when contradictions arise? Certainly, it shows that their initial premise was ill-thought out. However, it also matters than through the process of noticing contradictions and fixing them, they came to a valid definition for a square. A definition or a concept doesn't lose its validity just because someone had to go through a load of invalid ones to get to one that was valid. It's a sign of poor debate skills, but nothing else.