Hey, so far as I know, Guccione and Bova stopped publishing Omni magazine and Atlanta tore its Omni down.
Which is to say, when we decide to do the “Can God do…” thing, it’s good for a bull session of brain-stretching around arcane logic, but not a constructive discussion about the world we know. “Would it be possible to have a world where hydrogen is a solid and iron a gas?” is a fun question to explore the bounds of physics and the causes for physical properties, but it hardly does anything for one’s knowledge of how the real world operates, except maybe in consequence of the expanded understanding of physical properties that comes out of the discussion. Doing a similar thing in theology is not a whole lot different.
For me, the best definition of God’s powers and abilities, and limitations, is that He is self-limiting. That is, there is no outside force constraining Him to be what He is and do what He does; He is the creator of all such forces, and they exist at His will.
Could God have made the world to be other than what it is? Absolutely – and then we’d have had a different bunch of agenda items: “The unicorns trampled the lotos plants again! God must be evil to permit such a thing to happen!”
Bottom line on what I’m saying is, regardless of what God can do, what we’re looking at is what He did do. Duns Scotus claimed that the Incarnation and Atonement was a part of God’s original plan for the universe, at least as it applies to humanity – the Fall being not the cause of it but merely the shaping of how it came to be the way it was.
Race, the Doctrine of the Trinity is probably the classic example of what happens when theory outruns data. What we have on hand is evidence that (1) there is one God; accept no substitutes before Him! (2) that God manifests Himself in three distinct Persons, viz. the Creator and Sustainer of All Things and Lawgiver, the Actuating Principle (“Word” in Philo and John’s jargon) of the previous – which became a human being in the person of Jesus of Nazareth, and the indwelling of God’s Spirit within each person’s spirit, and (3) each functions integrally with and yet separately from the others. So the gawdawful Nicene and Chalcedonian definitions and the Athanasian Creed get trotted out to try to explain this apparent paradox. (Pause to let Zev do a disclaimer here. :)) The doctrine is not illogical, any more than a three-sided pyramid (ignoring the base) is both a single object and possessed of three distinct faces. It merely challenges our human presumption that individuality and personhood are in 1:1 correspondence – each individual is a separate person and only one personhood to the individual.