The logical consequences of omnipotence

[John V]

Sorry is this specific version of this question has already been asked here, I did search but couldn't find it, and I want to know: Theists, is your god omnipotent and infinite? Is there something he cannot do?

If he is indeed omnipotent, why does he allow suffering?

Before you answer that last one, I should tell you that I'm aware of the standard brands of apologetics: god doesn't want to interfere in free will, suffering must exist to give contrast to pleasure, etc, and that's why god allows murders and such.

Only all of that is wrong: an omnipotent god is capable of envisioning a method by which he can intervene in the world to stop suffering without interfering with free will, and has the power to employ such a strategy. An omnipotent god can envision ways to do absolutely anything regardless of whatever justification for inaction anyone can come up with, by definition.

So, what's the answer? Is god capable yet inactive, either through disinterest or malice? Or is he limited, thereby making any religious text that claims his omnipotence to be flawed?

As you define it, I would say that no, the God of the Bible is not omnipotent. Few English versions of the Bible claim he is. The only time I've seen it is one instance in the KJV, which was made famous by Handel. The same underlying word is translated as "almighty" elsewhere in the KJV. Once I searched nine common English versions for "omnipotent" and that one instance in the KJV is the only one I found.

Seems to me that a being which is almighty can do anything achievable by might. A being which is all powerful can do anything achievable by power. One could conceivably be all powerful yet unable to complete the TV Guide crossword puzzle, as power isn't used to solve the puzzle.

Before you reply, I should tell you I'm aware of standard atheist apologetics, which attempt to expand power to include knowledge, logic, and pretty much everything else.