How can a god, that apparently loves everyone, allow this kind of thing to happen?

[John V]

You guys should actually read up on the subject. You'll find that some people have indeed settled on the definition "able to do anything," but there are other views as well. Here's a good place to start.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/omnipotence/
IMO the Biblical use of almighty is closest to this explanation from the link:

A second sense of ‘omnipotence’ is that of maximal power, meaning just that no being could exceed the overall power of an omnipotent being. It does not follow that a maximally powerful being can bring about any state of affairs, since, as observed above, bringing about some such states of affairs is impossible. Nor does it follow that a being with maximal power can bring about whatever any other agent can bring about. If a can bring about s, and b cannot, it does not follow that b is not overall more powerful than a, since it could be that b can bring about more states of affairs than a can, rather than the other way around. For the remainder of this entry the discussion concentrates on this comparative sense of ‘omnipotence’ as maximal power. Within the context of that discussion, it will be assumed that it is not possible for an agent to have the power to bring about any state of affairs whatsoever.

[Doubting Thomas]

And you're just using the "lost in translation" defense.

I'm not familiar with that one. What is it?

It's when a certain word in the bible means something which Christians either don't want to believe or is something embarrassing to Christianity, so they claim that a particular word means something other than what it means, usually claiming that the mistake occurred in the past when the bible was translated from one language to another. In your particular case you seem to get hung up on the term "almighty" meaning "all-powerful," so you claim it means not all-powerful. Yet, when I look at dictionary.com I find:

al·might·y
[awl-mahy-tee]
adjective
1. having unlimited power; omnipotent, as God.

If I'm not mistaken, that's almost exactly the same as the definition they give for "omnipotent," both actually mentioning God. At any rate, "almighty" and "omnipotent" are synonyms. That means they mean the same thing. Notice how the definition of "almighty" contains the word "omnipotent?"

[Esquilax]

You guys should actually read up on the subject. You'll find that some people have indeed settled on the definition "able to do anything," but there are other views as well. Here's a good place to start.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/omnipotence/
IMO the Biblical use of almighty is closest to this explanation from the link:

Hey John? Big hint: that last part, your opinion, also needs to be justified. Surprisingly, not many of us are willing to accept, sight unseen, whatever definition of the word allows you to better make your case.

Your opinion isn't what matters: the intent of the people who wrote the book does.

[Faith No More]

Do you think god should be able to create an indivisible object, and also a half of that object?

That is a logical contradiction. Was god not responsible for creating the rules of logic?

[John V]

Hey John? Big hint: that last part, your opinion, also needs to be justified. Surprisingly, not many of us are willing to accept, sight unseen, whatever definition of the word allows you to better make your case.

Your opinion isn't what matters: the intent of the people who wrote the book does.

Hey Exlax: I already did. I gave a passage which clearly shows something that was not possible for god - effecting salvation in a manner other than the cross.

---

You guys also need to consider if your position on omnipotence is ad hoc.

For instance, suppose an atheist argues that omniscience precludes free will, yadda yadda.

Christian responds: God's omniscient, which means he can do anything, so we can have free will despite omniscience, or even predestination.

Do you simply accept that application of omniscience?

Be honest with yourself...

[Esquilax]

Hey Exlax: I already did. I gave a passage which clearly shows something that was not possible for god - effecting salvation in a manner other than the cross.

Okay, fair enough.

That said, I don't see how it applies to the initial argument here, given that a god that conforms to the events in the bible is still evidently powerful enough to alter the current situation with little thought.

You guys also need to consider if your position on omnipotence is ad hoc.

For instance, suppose an atheist argues that omniscience precludes free will, yadda yadda.

Christian responds: God's omniscient, which means he can do anything, so we can have free will despite omniscience, or even predestination.

Do you simply accept that application of omniscience?

No, but mostly because the response was phrased as a bare assertion, and I'm unlikely to take any of those at face value. You might not that, once you corrected me above, I acknowledged it and moved on right away; I don't think the argument has much bearing on things within this thread, but I accept you've got a basis for it. I was wrong, at least tentatively.

I mean, it could just be a contradiction.

[John V]

No, but mostly because the response was phrased as a bare assertion, and I'm unlikely to take any of those at face value.

OK, I reject it as a bare assertion.

[Faith No More]

You guys also need to consider if your position on omnipotence is ad hoc.

For instance, suppose an atheist argues that omniscience precludes free will, yadda yadda.

Christian responds: God's omniscient, which means he can do anything, so we can have free will despite omniscience, or even predestination.

Do you simply accept that application of omniscience?

Be honest with yourself...

Only because that is a contradiction. The definition of free will is making a choice free of control, but if god is omniscient and knows the future, that choice is predetermined and not free of control. Therefore, free will cannot exist. So, for you to say that god couldn't avoid creating suffering requires you to demonstrate such a contradiction.

[John V]

Only because that is a contradiction. The definition of free will is making a choice free of control, but if god is omniscient and knows the future, that choice is predetermined and not free of control. Therefore, free will cannot exist. So, for you to say that god couldn't avoid creating suffering requires you to demonstrate such a contradiction.

And I did. It's contradictory to say that we can learn compassion etc. without suffering in the world.

[Faith No More]

And I did. It's contradictory to say that we can learn compassion etc. without suffering in the world.

But there is no need for compassion if suffering didn't exist.