Questions for Christians

[southern cross]

These questions will only come one at a time. If you attempt to quantify the question then your answer will be void.
The first very EASY question:
Is god omnipotent?

[Mithrae]

From Post 4:

From the roots omni (all) potent (power), do you mean 'having all power there is'?
Do you mean 'having power to do all things logically possible'?
Do you mean 'having power to do anything whatsover'?

What 'logic' lies in, "God's all powerful, only he lacks the power to do that which he can't do"?

I don't understand your question. You seem to be talking about semantics, not logic; ie, asking (like I am) what 'all powerful' is supposed to mean.

If God is 'omnipotent,' surely she can create a completely immovable rock, one that even she cannot move; but if God is 'omnipotent,' surely she can move anything, even that rock. That's obviously a logical contradiction. It cannot even be coherently conceived that a being can both move, and not move an object. Is that what Southern Cross meant by 'omnipotent' - having power to do anything whatsoever, however absurd?

If God is 'omnipotent,' then surely he can do things which are utterly unjust, morally contemptible, completely stupid, thoroughly pointless and entirely contrary to his own goals. Those do not entail logical contradictions, but some theists would say that such behaviour would be fundamentally contrary to God's nature. Behaving fundamentally contrary to its own nature might not be a power which exists for anything, whether God, human, animal or object. Is that what Southern Cross meant by 'omnipotent' - having the power to do anything logically possible, anything that can be coherently conceived, but with no constraints of reality/existence or nature?

If God is 'omnipotent,' having all power, then obviously at the very least it must have all power which actually exists. Is that what Southern Cross meant by 'omnipotent' - that whatever 'power' there actually is in reality, God possesses it?

Without clearly explaining what he means by the term 'omnipotent,' his request for a simple yes or no answer to the question "Is God omnipotent?" is meaningless in its ambiguity.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 9:

Lord, if you're up there, and right now I'm hoping ya are, I beg you empower me with the wisdom it takes to even confront this dude, much less refute him.

What 'logic' lies in, "God's all powerful, only he lacks the power to do that which he can't do"?

I don't understand your question. You seem to be talking about semantics, not logic; ie, asking (like I am) what 'all powerful' is supposed to mean.

Best I can tell, "all" means "all of it", and "powerful", means "full of power" (adhering strictly to common understandings of terms).

If God is 'omnipotent,' surely she can create a completely immovable rock, one that even she cannot move; but if God is 'omnipotent,' surely she can move anything, even that rock. That's obviously a logical contradiction. It cannot even be coherently conceived that a being can both move, and not move an object. Is that what Southern Cross meant by 'omnipotent' - having power to do anything whatsoever, however absurd?

"God can do all, 'cept for that he can't do."

Do you consider that statement a logical contradiction?

...
If God is 'omnipotent,' then surely he can do things which are utterly unjust...

Is it not "just" that an omnipotent entity can do the unjust?

...
Those do not entail logical contradictions, but some theists would say that such behaviour would be fundamentally contrary to God's nature.

"God is omnipotent, 'cept for that which is contrary to his nature" indicates a condition of not being near as 'omnipotent', as proud about how he won't do what it is he ain't proud to do.

Behaving fundamentally contrary to its own nature might not be a power which exists for anything, whether God, human, animal or object.

So we stop using, "omnipotent", and replace it with such as, "can do a sure bunch of stuff, and we're proud of him for it, but only he can't do that bunch of it he can't do."

Is that what Southern Cross meant by 'omnipotent' - having the power to do anything logically possible, anything that can be coherently conceived, but with no constraints of reality/existence or nature?

I prefer not to speak on behalf of others regarding this matter. Hopefully ya see I ain't just trying to dodge ya here, but that I only seek to defend my own arguments.

It is my contention that, logically speaking, an inability to do something means that there you sit, you're just inabilitying like all get out.

If God is 'omnipotent,' having all power, then obviously at the very least it must have all power which actually exists.

And therein lies the rub - "God can do it all, only he can't do all of that that he can't do!"

...
Without clearly explaining what he means by the term 'omnipotent,' his request for a simple yes or no answer to the question "Is God omnipotent?" is meaningless in its ambiguity.

I was and am trying to hold directly to how you defined it (realizing we're mixing conversations here, but I still think my position relevant).

As you define the terms, is it not that "omni" means "all"?

As you define the terms, is it not that "powerful" means "full of power"?

If so, it is my firm conviction that "all full of power" should mean "all the power".

In this regard then, I propose the declaration that a god is "omnipotent", except for that which he can't do, is as goofy as my declaring I can beat the ol' lady up, but for the fact I can't hit a girl.

[Mithrae]

If God is 'omnipotent,' surely she can create a completely immovable rock, one that even she cannot move; but if God is 'omnipotent,' surely she can move anything, even that rock. That's obviously a logical contradiction. It cannot even be coherently conceived that a being can both move, and not move an object. Is that what Southern Cross meant by 'omnipotent' - having power to do anything whatsoever, however absurd?

"God can do all, 'cept for that he can't do."

Do you consider that statement a logical contradiction?

. . . . .

...
Without clearly explaining what he means by the term 'omnipotent,' his request for a simple yes or no answer to the question "Is God omnipotent?" is meaningless in its ambiguity.

I was and am trying to hold directly to how you defined it (realizing we're mixing conversations here, but I still think my position relevant).

As you define the terms, is it not that "omni" means "all"?

As you define the terms, is it not that "powerful" means "full of power"?

If so, it is my firm conviction that "all full of power" should mean "all the power".

In this regard then, I propose the declaration that a god is "omnipotent", except for that which he can't do, is as goofy as my declaring I can beat the ol' lady up, but for the fact I can't hit a girl.

I can see where you're coming from, but I think that's precisely the reason defining terms like that is important (particularly if, for some as-yet unknown reason, you wanted only a yes-or-no answer). The blue comment isn't a contradiction (as two separate comments, 'god can do all' and 'god can't do that' they'd contradict each other of course) but I agree that it'd be a pretty goofy thing to say unless the hyperbole is well-recognised. For example on the one hand it would be goofy to say that "Pete can do anything, except the things he can't do"; whereas on the other hand we'd more or less know what is meant if someone says "The king can do anything," and wouldn't consider it goofy (redundant maybe) to add "The king can't destroy the sun."

Similarly we might say that the universe has all atoms. Does the universe have the sqwglfst atoms? Does it have the atoms of Sauron's one ring? According to some folk, to say that god has all power means simply that it has all 'power' that there is. That's not goofy, is it?

There's a bit of a gap between "has all power" and "can do anything" (though that depends on what 'power' means, I imagine), and more importantly another leap again before we reach "can do absolutely anything, no matter how absurd or contradictory." Some theists (apparently Rkrause, for example) do apply that last one to their god, while others do not. So before expecting folk to answer YES or NO to his question about 'omnipotence,' Southern Cross ought to explain precisely what he means by the term to avoid that ambiguity.