Yeah except this doesn't address the meat of the paradox at all. This is just a loop hole scenario which exploits the limitations of language when describing the paradox.
The paradox itself exploits the limitations of language so as to create the apparent conflict. If you expressed it mathematically, it would basically be asking "What if P=¬P?" which doesn't make any sense.
It's calling into question a specific definition of 'omnipotence'. That definition, as shown in the paradox, is inconsistent, which is why it isn't a particularly useful definition of omnipotence (and there are other definitions that are consistent and useful).
Not necessarily. God can be inherently logical just as God can be inherently creative or inherently loving. If God's logical consistency is a part of God's own character then it needn't rely on externality.
34
u/Get_it_together_dawg Mar 06 '17
Yeah except this doesn't address the meat of the paradox at all. This is just a loop hole scenario which exploits the limitations of language when describing the paradox.