Musings about omnipotence and perfection.

[theVOID]

With all due respect to you (and I do), it should be self-evident that they do not say the same thing. To say "God cannot actualize X" says something about God and nothing about X;

If that is all you were trying to claim then I agree that they don't say the same thing so much as they mean the same thing, we are talking about the abilities of an omnipotent entity that has the power to perform all members of U, to ask what this being could not perform yeilds the same answer as asking 'what statements are not things that can be performed' thus I see no reason to think it is more exact to use one over the other.

it could be that X is capable of being actualized but God is limited by some inability.

An inability such as?

But that is at once both obfuscating and necessarily false, where X is a self-contradicting state of affairs, because it carries the implication that the law of non-contradiction is only contingently true, that self-contradictions are only impossible extrinsically, that there is no such thing as logically impossible, tossing logic out the window as meaningless. It implies that self-contradicting states of affairs are not necessarily (intrinsically) impossible; they are just contingently (extrinsically) impossible but actualizable given the right circumstances.

For clarity, do you have an example?

Thus it is more correct to say "X is incapable of actualization," which says something about X and nothing about God; it makes the crucial and substantive point that self-contradictions are impossible intrinsically, that there is such a thing as logically impossible, that the law of non-contradiction is necessarily true, affirming logic as meaningful. It implies that self-contradicting states of affairs are necessarily (intrinsically) impossible, never actualizable by definition regardless of circumstances.

I'm on board with all of this already, my point put simply was that they yeild the same results. Perhaps the example I requested above of the exception might help...

If statement A says something about God and nothing about X, and statement B says something about X and nothing about God, then statement A and B do not say the exact same thing—especially when statement A implicitly denies the fundamental laws of logic and statement B explicitly upholds them.

What exactly are you using as example A and for what reasons does it deny the fundamental laws of logic?

I see no problem in saying, "I cannot produce that which is logically impossible."

The problem lies in the implication that you COULD if given the right circumstances.

How so? I could say "I cannot produce a square circle" and that doesn't in any way imply that i could create such a thing given different circumstances.