No. He's. Not.

A concept is another word for an idea. God is not an idea. He's something there's an idea 'of'. Christ!

So, you think that if someone has the idea of God, then God exists??

God is NOT a concept. There is a concept 'of' God. All concepts are concepts 'of' things. It's called their intentionality. They're about things. Apart from the concept of a concept, concepts are not the things they are concepts of.

We’re talking about the concept of God. According to your concept of him he can potentially not be omnipotent. This is inconsistent with your affirmation that he stops being God when he ceases to be omnipotent. You tried to escape this by referring to a bachelor’s potential to be married, but you were referring to an instance of a bachelor and not the concept. We’re talking about the concept of God.

God can do anything. So anything you can do, God can do. Kinda obvious. — Bartricks

Ok, so god can be incoherent.

Glad that's settled.

Ok, so god can be incoherent. — Banno

Yes, can be, but isn't. Can be. Isn't. Can be. Isn't.

You: but can he be?

Me: yes

You: is he?

Me: no

You: can he be?

Me. Yes

You: is he?

Me: no

You: can he be?

Me: yes

You: he is?

Me: no.

We’re talking about the concept of God. — AJJ

No, we're talking about God. God is omnipotent. The concept of God is not omnipotent.

My chair is comfy. THe concept of my chair is not comfy.

You are a confused person. The concept of a confused person is not, however, confused.

Yes, can be, but isn't. Can be. Isn't. Can be. Isn't.

You: but can he be?

Me: yes

You: is he?

Me: no

You: can he be?

Me. Yes

You: is he?

Me: no

You: can he be?

Me: yes

You: he is?

Me: no. — Bartricks

Oh, no. I've broken Bartricks.

That's not an ability you have. You haven't and can't.

:lol: Well, to be fair, you were broken before I came along.

The core error is in your thinking that god is outside of logic, as if logic were a limit on god's powers. Logic is just grammar, it's what can be coherently stated. In erroneously defending god against logic, you have broken you own capacity to construct coherent arguments.

But I've explained this before, and you can't see it. In trying to save god from logic you have rendered god incoherent - illogical.

Well, to be fair, you were broken before I came along. — Banno

Banno: "this bread is broken!"

Me: "It's sliced bread. It's not broken, it is improved - you can make sandwiches with it"

Banno: "It is broken. And to make a sandwich one simply butters two loaves and combines them"

Yes, that's right - I'm so bad at philosophy I'm paid to do it.

as if logic were a limit on god's powers — Banno

Er, I think the exact opposite of that - as you'd know if you bothered paying any attention at all or understood what you read. God is the source of the laws of logic and is thus in no way bound by them. No point in me saying that, is there? Not going to stick.

In erroneously defending god against logic, you have broken you own capacity to construct coherent arguments. — Banno

Er, what?

In trying to save god from logic you have rendered god incoherent - illogical. — Banno

No I haven't. Demonstrate, by means of an argument (no squiggling and squoggling) that the idea of an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent being contains a contradiction. Do that without confusing being able to do something with doing it.

Cheers.

me: provide an argument in support of your claim that God is incoherent.

You: thanks.

Note: I didn't ask you to be incoherent. Am I to suppose that you think you are God and that the incoherence of your remark was a practical demonstration?

We’re talking about the concept of God. We can’t be talking about his instantiation, because we’ve both offered different views about what that would be, and the argument doesn’t even require that he exists at all.

And your argument doesn’t work either way.

God’s omnipotence is essential to him. Bachelorhood is not essential to a man. A man can get married and remain essentially what he is - he has the potential to be married. God cannot lose his omnipotence and remain what he his - he does not have the potential not to be omnipotent.

You are confused. God is essentially omnipotent just as bachelor's are essentially unmarried. That's means is that it is necessary to qualify as God that one be omnipotent and that it is necessary to qualify as a bachelor that one is an unmarried male. It does not mean that the person who is God is essentially omnipotent. That's as dumb as thinking that a person who is a bachelor - Tim, say is essentially unmarried.

If God can't stop being God, he's not omnipotent because there's something he can't do!!!!!!!!!

Do you believe that God’s personhood takes priority over his divinity?

I haven't the faintest idea what you mean.

A bachelor is essentially unmarried. He can get married because his manhood takes priority over his bachelorhood.

God is essentially omnipotent. So if he can make himself not be so, then his personhood must be what is taking priority over his divinity (omnipotence etc.).

No, omnipotence is a property a person can have. But it is not had essentially by any person, as having it involves being able to do anything, including ceasing to be omnipotent.

You are profoundly confused. Your reasoning is exactly the same as someone who reasons that as Tim is a bachelor and it is essential to being a bachelor that one lacks a wife Tim essentially lacks a wife. That's fallacious.

This doesn’t address what I said.

You said earlier that God stops being God once he ceases his omnipotence. Do you still agree with this?

Yes it does.

Once more: omnipotence is a property of a person.

It essentially involves being able to do anything.

That doesn't mean that it is essential to the person who has it that they can do anything.

You are just reasoning really badly.

You are thinking Tim must essentially be unmarried - that he could not be Tim and have a wife.

And when I point out your very poor reasoning all you do is insist that the person of God is essentially omnipotent! No argument. Just an assertion.

And a demonstrably false one for it is incoherent. Once more,for the thousandth time, if you are essentially omnipotent that means you can't cease to be. Which is an inability!!!!!! Which is incompatible with being able to do anything. Sheesh, my cat can vaguely understand this, so what - what - is your major malfunction buddio?

Yes! Of course I do.

This doesn’t address what I said. — AJJ

You won't get an honest or constructive exchange with this one. Just dogma, insults and, ultimately, nonsense.

How do you know that?

You’ve not tracked the argument.

The problem is your view of omnipotence rests on a peculiar and contentious concept of God, where he’s a person whose personhood takes priority over those traits that make him divine.

A bachelor is first and foremost a man, and this man happens to be unmarried. On your view God is first and foremost a person, who happens to have certain traits that make him God.

I was by default giving priority to God as God, not priority to some personhood (I take the classical view of God).

That's just a convoluted way of asserting once more that an omnipotent person is essentially omnipotent, a claim that is incoherent - as I explained a billion times to no avail - and unsupported.

Do you have any actual arguments for anything you are saying?

It isn’t at all. Really, it isn’t.

Oh good point. Bravo. Excellent argument. You reason soooooo well.

What I’ve just said accepts what you’ve been saying, and points out that what you’ve been saying entails a peculiar and contentious concept of God.

Argue something!