Musings about omnipotence and perfection.

[Edwardo Piet]

It's not obvious. I know you're being very reasonable and trying to redefine the word into something more sensible, but this is bigger underlying problem with labels such 'omnipotence' and 'supernatural', in everyday application they're meaningless words.

Yeah I guess I was wrong with my application of the word 'obvious'.

I'll try to make my point very simple: If true omnipotence is supposed to not be limited even by logic then true omnipotence doesn't exist.

However:

The current accepted definition of omnipotent is "infinite power".

Since nothing existent is non-logical in the sense of self-contradictory (statements can be self-contradictory but the things themselves that they refer to cannot be, a thing that is self-contradictory can't exist and so isn't a thing at all but is instead nothing) and logic itself may be infinite then in that sense omnipotence can exist.

You can talk to the majority of theists right now and they will argue a deity with omnipotence has the ability to do whatever it intends to, it made the reality in question; it can do anything with it, manipulate time and space, even the logically impossible.

Such theists must be wrong.

But, to reiterate, although logically impossible omnipotence indeed must be impossible, since logic itself may be infinite (as opposed to its concept which isn't) - in the same way that existence may be infinite - then omnipotence that can do anything logically possible may in that sense be infinitely powerful.

The conceptualization of logic cannot be infinite because it can contradict itself but the absoluteness of logic itself - the totality of all logical things in existence: In other words the totality of all things period - or in other words, existence itself may be infinite.

Furthermore: The so-called Paradox of Omnipotence commits the loaded question fallacy. It asks both "Can God create a rock?" and "Can he lift it?" in one go. It's like asking "When did you stop beating your wife?" rather than "Have you ever had a wife and beated her?...If so have you stopped beating her?".

---

I wonder if you are missing the crucial point here, which is that all three scenarios described are 'possible': (1) that he never had the accident is possible and not actual; (2) that he had the accident and surived is possible and actual; (3) that he had the accident and died is possible and not actual. The one thing that all three have in common is that they are all possible. Only one is actual, of course, but it is not the best or worst one possible; it is merely the one possible that was actual.

What I am saying is that for something to genuinely possibly be other than it is at any exact instant or moment that requires the actuality of at least one other instant or moment. If we have only one exact actualized instant or moment and no other exact actualized instant moments then in what sense can that one exact actualized instant moment 'possibly' be otherwise? Possibility would require an additional actual moment that is distinct from it. (And the one exact actualized instant moment itself can't be any different without changing into another additional moment because it would have to contradict its own definition and hence be non-tautological and therefore impossible by not conforming to the Law of Identity.)