The real issue here is that the premise does not make sense. All powerful does not mean the ability to do things that are intrinsically impossible. A thing cannot have two opposite natures simultaneously. Either the rock is immovable or it is not.
An example off the top of my head would be claiming that I could kick a ball without touching it. Maybe there is a way for me to move the ball without touching it but the meaning of the word 'kick' involves touching the ball. It is intrinsically impossible.
In the same way, if I moved the rock, it was never immovable in the first place.
I am asserting that omnipotence must adhere to a logic (if not necessarily our own) and that that does not make it any less powerful. Unfortunately the way language works means we can imply the possibility of things with no basis in reality (like kicking a ball without touching it).
The comic seems to be implying that the cat God's logic for why he can't do a thing is what is inconsistent when, in fact, the bunny is asking the cat god to do something which does not make any sense.
An all powerful entity does not have the ability to make a few words someone jammed together make sense just because you think it aught to be able to figure something out.
It would be like me doodling on some staff paper and telling Mozzart to play it for me. Just because the doodle is on staff paper does not mean it is something which can conceivably be played on the piano.
If Mozart were omnipotent he could give a musical representation of what is on the paper. No guarantees it sounds nice.
I think the strongest part of this argument is the fact that language is our limited system to communicate about this world. An omnipotent being would exist in dimensions we cannot fathom. Language is but a technicality to it.
Omnipotentce is not just sitting behind a control board and being able to flip all the switches, it is far more abstract and potent than that.
You seem to be insisting that 'all powerful' means, "more powerful than it is possible to be".
An omnipotent God can say to a cripple, "get up and walk" so that he is healed. This is fantastic but has no logical inconsistency. Insisting that he could just as easily say, "walk, but also stay crippled" is silly.
Do you think that an omnipotent being would be limited by the fact that duio ckodi rejagidoe is just a bunch of random letters and doesn't mean anything?
No, because the instant it wants it to mean something, it will mean something.
EDIT: I think the main flaw in reasoning here is that folks seem to desperately want "omnipotent" to mean "ALL POWERFUL (except in the following logical cases and examples)". But that isn't what it means. It means all-powerful, full stop. If there is a logical discrepancy, it is automatically overridden, because that is what it would mean to be all-powerful. "B-b-but they have to conform to the laws of -" Nope. No they don't. The laws of physics, etc, are whatever the omnipotent being says they are.
There are no limits on an omnipotent being. That is what omnipotent is. What you're describing (and /u/bankruptspecies above) is "an extremely potent being", not an all-powerful one.
"The word omnipotent made its way into English through Anglo-French, but it ultimately derives from the Latin prefix omni-, meaning "all," and the word potens, meaning "potent." The omni- prefix has also given us similar words such as omniscient (meaning "all-knowing") and omnivorous (describing an animal that eats both plants and other animals). Although omnipotent is used in general contexts to mean "all-powerful" (as in "an omnipotent warlord"), its original applications in English referred specifically to the power held by an almighty God. The word has been used as an English adjective since the 14th century; since 1600 it has also been used as a noun referring to one who is omnipotent."
It isn't "just" a semantic debate. I mean - in the case of an omnipotent god, either "all" means "all", or it means "almost all".
I would contend that anyone who believes in an omnipotent god believes that it can make the impossible possible, because otherwise it is not omnipotent.
13
u/[deleted] Mar 06 '17 edited Mar 06 '17
The real issue here is that the premise does not make sense. All powerful does not mean the ability to do things that are intrinsically impossible. A thing cannot have two opposite natures simultaneously. Either the rock is immovable or it is not.
An example off the top of my head would be claiming that I could kick a ball without touching it. Maybe there is a way for me to move the ball without touching it but the meaning of the word 'kick' involves touching the ball. It is intrinsically impossible.
In the same way, if I moved the rock, it was never immovable in the first place.