(January 7, 2013 at 4:41 pm)Tiberius Wrote: 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 is a technically incorrect definition in that 'omni' implies totality. Words often enter dictionaries because of colloquial usage, even if that usage is incorrect.
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:However, one cannot use the "denial" definition to say that the "does not believe" definition is like saying 9/10s equals 100%.
Apples and oranges, as 'non-belief in gods' is common to all of those definitions.
A better comparison would be as follows: Applying the term 'omnipotence' to a being whose powers have limits is the same as applying the term 'atheist' to a person who still holds some belief in gods.
Quote: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.
That's the other side of the coin. If God is an effect, he cannot be the First Cause.
Quote: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.
We can quibble about this forever, but if a word is supposed to mean 'all power', anything less than that fails to qualify for the term, and a new, more accurate term is needed.
Point is, if God does not meet the technical definition of omnipotent, his alleged perfection is false, and it calls everything else into question. Watering down the term "omnipotent" so that God meets its criteria is nothing more than moving the goalposts.
