sapphi_snake said:
If God is omnipotent then he is capable of doing anything, including beinding logical rules that he himself allegedly created in the first place. If he can't do that, it means that there's something higher than him, that even he must submit to. The problem isn't coming from me, it's coming from the fact that the quality of omnipotence itself is illogical and impossible. |
God didn't create logical rules. They are a product of his rational nature. Being eternal and rational, the logical rules derive from God's essential characteristics, and these rules have existed for eternity. The rules do not exist outside God, and God did not create them. The rules exists consonant with God because his characteristic of rationality embodies logical rules (we wouldn't consider someone rational who did not acknowledge logical rules), and God is supremely rational.
WIth regard to your final sentence, the problem is coming from the fact that you are redefining the word. If you take any word, you can come up with many different definitions for that word, and they will not agree with eachother. For example, this is the problem at the root of your debate with Delio about homosexuality. Both of you are using different definitions of natural but treating them like they are the same. When theologians use the word omnipotence, they utilize it within a specific context. Changing the context of the definition and then arguing the word is non-sense doesn't prove anything because it is ignoring the fact that words are context-sensitive. Point being, your definition of omnipotence is one of the definitions, but it has been abandoned by theologians and atheists because it results in logical absurdities. Whenever you hear the word omnipotence used in a religious discussion (at least a proffessional one), I guarantee you they will be using the word in the way I defined it.
