There have been many threads that you've started that you created where you clearly had a point you were trying to make.

You will notice that I've said/done *nothing* that tries to challenge whether you've proved or disproved that. I'm telling you that it's not really a question of "logic" because you're using terms in a way that is wrought with difficulties. It's hard to square "unlimited except" as a meaningful interpretation of "unlimited." Do you not understand this?

LOL -- Do what you want. It's your life.

Good luck with that analogy. I think you're setting yourself up for something stupid by trying to do it that way.

I have no idea how to interpret "unlimited except" as a way of saying "unlimited." *YOU* are the one who is giving the specific definition of omnipotence, not me. And I've already pointed that out to you.

So if there's more to this question, then I don't know what it is.

Yes. A subroutine is a particular instance of a process. But there's a difference between a process and the process of making that process.

Wut? It's the same concept, 'sovereignty' 'omnipotence'... I'll tell you now mate, I'm on zero tolerance for this kind of stuff, aaron just went back on ignore and you'll be hot on his heels if you accuse me of dishonesty again. wtf....

Please post on topic, be useful/helpful or there's little point to your posts being visible to me.

No, they aren't the same.

Sovereignty (see "reign") is the ability to exert one's will over a different entity.

Omnipotence is a measure of power independent of whatever else is there.

Poor MB... People tell him he's wrong and making mistakes, and puts those people on ignore. No wonder he never learns anything.

118:6.1 God is truly omnipotent, but he is not omnificent—he does not personally do all that is done. Omnipotence embraces the power-potential of the Almighty Supreme and the Supreme Being, but the volitional acts of God the Supreme are not the personal doings of God the Infinite.

118:6.2 To advocate the omnificence of primal Deity would be equal to disenfranchising well-nigh a million Creator Sons of Paradise, not to mention the innumerable hosts of various other orders of concurring creative assistants. There is but one uncaused Cause in the whole universe. All other causes are derivatives of this one First Great Source and Center. And none of this philosophy does any violence to the free-willness of the myriads of the children of Deity scattered through a vast universe.

118:6.3 Within a local frame, volition may appear to function as an uncaused cause, but it unfailingly exhibits inheritance factors which establish relationship with the unique, original, and absolute First Causes.

118:6.4 All volition is relative. In the originating sense, only the Father-I AM possesses finality of volition; in the absolute sense, only the Father, the Son, and the Spirit exhibit the prerogatives of volition unconditioned by time and unlimited by space. Mortal man is endowed with free will, the power of choice, and though such choosing is not absolute, nevertheless, it is relatively final on the finite level and concerning the destiny of the choosing personality.

118:6.5 Volition on any level short of the absolute encounters limitations which are constitutive in the very personality exercising the power of choice. Man cannot choose beyond the range of that which is choosable. He cannot, for instance, choose to be other than a human being except that he can elect to become more than a man; he can choose to embark upon the voyage of universe ascension, but this is because the human choice and the divine will happen to be coincident upon this point. And what a son desires and the Father wills will certainly come to pass.

118:6.6 In the mortal life, paths of differential conduct are continually opening and closing, and during the times when choice is possible the human personality is constantly deciding between these many courses of action. Temporal volition is linked to time, and it must await the passing of time to find opportunity for expression. Spiritual volition has begun to taste liberation from the fetters of time, having achieved partial escape from time sequence, and that is because spiritual volition is self-identifying with the will of God.

118:6.7 Volition, the act of choosing, must function within the universe frame which has actualized in response to higher and prior choosing. The entire range of human will is strictly finite-limited except in one particular: When man chooses to find God and to be like him, such a choice is superfinite; only eternity can disclose whether this choice is also superabsonite.

118:6.8 To recognize Deity omnipotence is to enjoy security in your experience of cosmic citizenship, to possess assurance of safety in the long journey to Paradise. But to accept the fallacy of omnificence is to embrace the colossal error of pantheism.

but hes here to learn! he said so himself, at least twice in this thread

I don't know if "he" is or isn't ... what does it say in the book from thousands of years ago that said mental and physical illness was caused by demons???? Let's take that as a reliable source.

What do you think they're caused by?

Chemical imbalances, inheritance, trauma and defense mechanisms, viruses, bacteria, environmental, auto-immune ... You going with Satan because it says so in a book from thousands of years ago when they thought the earth was flat and burned you at the stake for proving differently????

I did, and I am. Aaron always makes it personal, he can't stay on topic and I just don't have time or the inclination for that, and he's actually the only person I've put on ignore in about 6 years. It's shame, I'm sure he's smarter than me, but he's not useful to me.

I welcome disagreement, as long as it's on topic and I'm learning something from it.

It depends.

So if God’s omnipotence is an essential property, then it would be impossible for him to delimit it. On the other hand, if it’s an accidental property, he could.

This is done pretty easily using CodeDom in C#, not requiring any sort of "AI", but if you want some pseudocode in for, e.g. BASIC (i.e. DOS BASIC), I couild prob do that for you too, using an emulator.

Deleting a function while retaining the ability to rewrite it is not hugely impressive.

Poor him indeed. Tell us all again how you prennially refuse to answer the question "what is it you actually believe?"

Cue snake oil salesman Aaron explaining how it's a malformed question, or someting.

Answer the question.

I don't see any truth in that at all, it's more that he's constantly
pointing out your faulty argumentation, and that gets under your skin.

Why do you care so much?

Nope, he always makes it personal, as you are now doing. What part of what you just posted (and this reply) is on topic and advancing the conversation? Would you like to try that instead of these pointless asides?

My tolerance for this is currently almost zero, i.e. this was your one warning. I'd like to see your thoughts on the topic, not on me.

Perhaps you could do this on a different thread rather than derailing this one.

Ok, thanks. So this would support then that it's logically possible for something to remove one of it's own abilities whilst retaining the ability to restore that power. I don't see why that wouldn't apply to omnipotence.

Thank you, that's where I am on this.

If it's essential, then god couldn't remove any of his powers, and that probably means that can't not have the powers he has. In many ways, god is constrained to be what he is (but only based on the claims Christians make about his characteristics)

God is omnipotent all powerful BUT your questions shows your lack of wisdom and understanding...

Before you ask a question about God and then try to answer it yourself showing your unbelief you need to know Gods nature and all of His characteristics

I see. You know all of god's characteristics??

"It is only the savage, whether of the African bush or the American revival tent, that claims to know the full nature of god." ~ H.L. Mencken

"What does the Bible say?" as a line of reasoning is a joke. The Bible says kill babies, kill disobedient children, kill homosexuals, kill whole nieghboring towns, kill witches, kill the unfaithful, blessed is he who bashes babies brains out..." It's murderous savage non-sense that to call it righteous is evil.

It's "personal" because I'm telling *YOU* that *YOUR* argumentation is bad. I've also pointed out patterns in *YOUR* posting because those patterns are intended to help *YOU* to see what *YOU* do in *YOUR* argumentation in a broader sense.

So yeah, I guess you can say it's "personal" for those reasons.

Lol... You should almost just stop trying. You're not learning because you're refusing to learn. So while you think you're welcome to disagreement, you really don't. And yes, this is historically validated.

I'll agree that it shows my lack of understanding, hence the question... so, would you like to try to answer it instead of speculating as to why I don't already know the asnwer?

An explanation of the underlying issue (usage of definition using a term such as "unlimited" while trying to impose a limit) has been given to you in posts #6, 8, 10, 16, and 19.

And you are the one who claims to believe in God.

If you believe that the God you worship is omnipotent, you must have some idea of what that term means.

And it shouldn't be slippery. Because it's kind of important. You see, part of the sales pitch that believers make to nonbelievers is that God is all powerful. That God knows everything you do and can intervene either to make your life better or to cast you off into a place of eternal torture.

If God is only all powerful in a kind of technical sense but doesn't/can't actually act in that way, then Christian prosletyzers are lying to their victims.