The question could be rephrased, ‘can an omnipotent being exist in contradictory states?’ By definition, probably. Could we objectively wrap our brains around it, probably not.
I’ve been trying to compose a reply to this for a while, although zwaldd has encapsulated so much in his one line (in my browser) of what I’ve been trying to say that I feel pretty silly.
Meatros, I understand in pure Aristotelean logic terms how a successful conversation demonstrates the identity axiom; however, the logic model falls short. We may not be in a universe with a perfect identity axiom, but only a 99.999% identity law. That would lead to mostly coherent conversations. It’s easy for you to say that if it’s not 100% coherent, it’s not coherent - that’s what Aristotelean logic says - but it’s the model telling us about reality, rather than finding a model that accurately reflects reality.
I realize it’s been too long since I’ve studied logic, and especially fuzzy logic, so I’m going to go read about some other models of logic for a while. Maybe next time I’ll be able to counter this better (don’t worry - I’m not headed to a Christian bookstore).
LHoD, the proof that all Q are true if P and ~P are both true is a trick. It uses Aristotelean logic, together with a state that Aristotelean logic does not allow, to come to its conclusion. It’s like the algebra ‘proof’ that 2 = 1, that sneaks a division by zero into the mix.
I don’t think that allowing a universe where for some P, P and ~P are both true, really means our universe makes all statements Q true. You need a new set of logic rules to say anything.
And I disagree that all evidence points to ‘P & ~P’ not ever happening. All you ever did was say that the “I’m lying” paradox was nonsense. It’s not logically coherent, and yet it exists. And most religious folks (and religious is different from acknowledging the possibility of God) probably wouldn’t care much about the literal logical incoherence - they already know they believe something beyond the ken of humans.
The statement is neither true nor false. Why is that so difficult to understand?
My point is that, if God can surprise himself, he’s not omniscient. That’s got nothign to do with"I’m lying"; it’s not contradictory at all.
If God can’t surprise himself, he’s not omnipotent. That’s also not contradictory at all.
Your paradox is irrelevant to this question.
My point is that claiming an Omniscient, Omnipotent God is like saying I own a completely red, completely white shirt. It’s something that cannot exist, because an object cannot have both properties.
Once more: “I’m lying” doesn’t have both the properties of truthfulness and falseness; it has neither of these properties. Therefore its existence does nothing to buttress the existence of an entity with contradictory properties.
Daniel
Well, I don’t know, but a lot of people smarter than me don’t claim to understand either 
. It’s a time-honored paradox that people are still working on. The “I’m lying” paradox does have a truth value - or should. I brought it up because it demonstrates nothing about omniscience - it demonstrates that logical paradoxes exist.
So saying that a logical paradox precludes the existence of something doesn’t fly.
Again, my question about God doesn’t point to God’s being a paradox: it points to the concept being logically impossible. That’s not the same thing as a statement.
Daniel
running in circles
I should add that a lot of people smarter than both of us are saying essentially what I’m saying.
Daniel
I admit that I might be wrong and that you could very well be right-but I just don’t see how the axiom couldn’t be 100%, you know? I’m not trying to be stubborn, but I honestly don’t see how it’s possible.
Sounds good to me, and I will be doing the same…heh, perhaps next time our positions will have changed and I will be arguing against the axioms. 
LHoD, prepare to shut your eyes, pinch the bridge of your nose, and slowly shake your head in wonder and disgust. Are you ready to do that? OK, now read ahead:
I read through the whole page you linked, went away, came back, and read through the whole page again. I came to the conclusion both times that it supports what I have been saying, not what you have been. There have been propositions to resolve the liar paradox, but not widespread agreement.
Please don’t hit me. I have also re-read all your posts in this thread, and I see that you were very careful to always say that omnipotence, or the existence of God, is logically incoherent, rather than, for instance absurd, or nonsense.
I agree that the concept is logically incoherent, very literally - for Western logic, and for incoherent meaning ‘anything less than 100% coherent.’ I just perceive that you give the phrase ‘logically incoherent’ a lot more gravitas than I am willing to, especially in discussing properties of a supernatural being. Maybe I’m wrong about that too. Maybe you mean ‘logically incoherent’ as narrowly as I do. Whatever. I can’t dispute the phrase.
Now I’m really going to stop replying to this thread or any like it until I finish “Shades of Reality” (by Mr. Logic!) that I picked up at the library last night.
What there seems to be widespread agreement on is that the liar paradox doesn’t have the logic-unravelling effects that you seem to be suggesting it has. Some people suggest that logic needs a third state, whether that’s called “meaningless” or “neither.” That’s about as radical a change to formal logic as anyone is suggesting. Nobody except you, as far as I can tell, uses the statement to prove that something logically possessing the characteristics P and ~P can exist in reality.
Yeah, I’m trying to be careful with that phrase, and here’s why: I’m not convinced we live in a logical universe. After all, if we didn’t, how would we know? None of our tools of argument would suffice, since they’re all predicated on logic.
The existence of an omnipotent, omniscient being would mean that we lived in an illogical universe, a universe in which entitites possessing mutually exclusive traits could exist. If that were the case, it would call into question every logical conclusion anyone ever reached.
I’m not convinced we live in a logical universe, but acting as if we do has served me pretty well. It seems to me to be an extremely useful assumption. So I continue to act as if it’s correct, even if I’m not completely convinced.
And part of acting as if it’s correct means that I don’t accept the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient being.
Daniel
Logic is based on only what we know…Since we know so little of all the information yet to be discovered, how can we apply logic to the OP.
An illustration: If God is perfect and a 100% loving God, you could equate this concept with 100% pure Gold. If this is the case, how can lead, silver, come from something so pure? Stock answer: "God’s will!
Logically makes no sense…once again as has been said a trillion times before and more: Noone can provide an answer with any authority to the question entertained by the OP. Absolutely impossible to conceptualize.
Faith must be utilized.
In one sense I agree with you: claims that God can be proven logically all fall far short of the mark as far as I can tell. And that’s really what I’m arguing here: if you are going to play ball using the rules of logic, you’ve got to reject the existence of an omniscient, omnipotent being. If you want to play ball by other rules, you’ve got no such obligation. As long as theists recognize that they’re operating in a fundamentally illogical cosmos, I got no beef with them.
The last sentence of your OP, however, seems incomplete: I believe the clause, “. . . if we are to believe in such a God,” was implied, yes?
Daniel