Why do people debate this as though it’s some sort of real world logic problem? One might as well debate whether Goldilocks could have crushed the Big Bad Wolf’s throat or whether Rocky could have realistically taken a championship bout with Apollo Creed to 15 rounds.
You can have God do whatever the fuck you want him to… you (and the rest of us) created Him… so knock yourselves out! Get creative! Give him 18 legs and 13 eyes that fire ice cream cones at acorns and snails.
Some Christian apologists prove God’s existence by saying that logic itself had to have a creator, therefore God. So does God have to be bound by the rules of logic, or is he responsible for creating them?
If I programmed a virtual world, where I could create or destroy any mass or energy, change the laws of physics, introduce new arbitrary ones, rewind or fast-forward time and change any detail at any time I wanted…
…would that not be enough to consider me omnipotent in that world?
If you’re getting hung up on the particulars of it being a rock, substitute “Can God create a task so difficult that He cannot accomplish it?”. My answer is still the same: He could, but He hasn’t.
Multi or pluripotent but not omnipotent. Omnipotence is self-contradictory assuming God is constrained by logical laws. If God is illogical, then one can word Saint Anselm’s gambit in reverse. The more powerful an entity is, the more it can accomplish with less mass. The greatest God could create the universe without existing, thus God does not exist. That’s not the only perversion of Saint Anselm’s argument I’ve come across though, the other is that humans are imperfect and thus any conception of perfection humans can come up with is bound to be imperfect, so no God we believe in will exist in the form in which we believe.
