(January 7, 2013 at 3:22 pm)Ryantology Wrote: Definition 2 is a practical (and technically incorrect) usage, but note which of the entries has God's name attached to it.It's not technically incorrect. If it appears in the dictionary, it's a correct definition. This is supported by the list of meanings in the Wikipedia article as well.
It doesn't matter which definition has God's name attached to it. There is no reason why the second definition cannot apply to God either.
Quote:And, here is where I have the verbal beef in this discussion: calling "almost unlimited power" omnipotence is like saying 9/10s equals 100%.No it isn't. What you are doing is the same thing Brian was doing. You're using the first definition to scrutinize the second. I'm well aware that the definitions are at odds with one another, but that is why they are different definitions, and not the same definition.
It's like the whole argument about the definition of an atheist. Originally, it means a person without God, from the Greek "atheos". However, additional meanings have been added over time, including "person who denies the existence of God", and "person who does not believe in God". One can argue that the last two are similar but have very different meanings; the "denial" being the stronger of the two.
However, one cannot use the "denial" definition to say that the "does not believe" definition is like saying 9/10s equals 100%.
Quote:Of course. But, if God invented reality, he must have invented the rules, and if the creator of all things invents rules (as is assumed by his believers) and he cannot possibly circumvent them, then he is not all-powerful.Did God invent reality? Reality surely, is everything that exists. If God exists, he cannot have invented reality, since he would have already been in reality.
Quote:Anything less than technical omnipotence can only accurately be called "near-omnipotence", at best, especially when we're in a discussion about God, the only being to whom most would apply the word 'omnipotent' in any seriousness (except for the fictional characters people don't actually believe are real).No it can't. You are simply using one definition of a word to try and devalue another definition of a word. It doesn't work like that. Omnipotence has multiple meanings; one is not more correct (as a definition) than any other, but in some situations, one is a more accurate definition of a concept.
In this case, the definition of omnipotence which limits a being to only being able to perform the logically possible is a more accurate definition of the kind of omnipotence the God of the Bible portrays.
