Quote:
Originally Posted by Mightyboosh
Your sentence is a paradox, as is the burrito example, and all the others mentioned so far. I don't think they're logically equivalent to what I'm asking.
You're welcome to think that. But now make the argument that it's different. The fact that it's a paradox doesn't appear to be the problem.
What I'm saying is that there is the semantic content of the statement, and then there's the logical content.
"This sentence is false" carries semantic meaning. I understand what the sentence is saying. But then I also see that the sentence is saying something that is a logical contradiction.
"Can God microwave a burrito that's so hot that even he can't eat it?" Again, it has a semantic meaning. I understand what the sentence is saying. But then I also see that there are troubles in trying to apply logic to it. If God is somehow "all-powerful" then can he do something that puts him beyond his own power?
"Can an omnipotent god remove the ability to do something he's normally able to do and make himself temporarily not omnipotent?" This seems to be the exact same situation. If God is somehow "all-powerful" then can he do something that puts him (even temporarily) beyond his own power?
Quote:
[The definition of omnipotent is 'having unlimited power and able to do anything', so that's what I'm using.]
I'll first point out that by saying this is "the" definition of omnipotence, you're already giving away the game. Earlier, you had imbued the term with limitations that do not exist here.
The fundamental sticking point is simply that you are asking whether unlimited power can be limited. I don't see how this can ever not be a type of contradiction. So at some level, you're probably going to make an exception, either explicit or implicit that messes with the idea of "unlimited."