Can we do what God can't?

[THOR]

If God is omnipotent, then surely he can do anything. He knows everything. Present and past and in the future.

So, can God toss a coin and not know before it lands if the result is heads or tails?

If he is omnipotent, he knows beforehand, the result every time, and humans don’t.

This means humans can do something that God can't

Comments please.

[Calrid]

I like the idea. A good and wholesome paradox, but then God never made sense anyway, it's up to apologists to make sure the meme survives.

God can't do something we can, that is remain in doubt about an outcome. Classic.

[James S Saint]

You are merely proposing that if God is omniscient then he cannot be omnipotent else he would have the power to not be omniscient.

It falls into that category of trying to defame religion based on denying their definitions.

[Calrid]

You are merely proposing that if God is omniscient then he cannot be omnipotent else he would have the power to not be omniscient.

Well does he have that power? Can he chose not to know something?

It falls into that category of trying to defame religion based on denying their definitions.

No one needs to defame religion, it does that very well all on its own.

[Uccisore]

God is said to be both perfect, and everywhere at once (omni-present).

If God is perfect, He would be the perfect soccer-player.

If God is everywhere at once, he would always be offsides.

Somebody who is always offsides would be the worst possible soccer player.

Therefore, God cannot be both perfect or everywhere at once.

*************
Here's another, more obvious example of what I'm trying to say.

*******************


If God is perfect, He would be the best at playing Atheistball.

In Atheistball, if you believe in God you automatically lose.

God, knowing everything, certainly believes in Himself.

God is the worst possible Atheistball player.

Therefore, God isn't perfect.

The point is, you can make shit up to screw with the definition of any superlative. The interactions between definitions of words has absolutely nothing to do with the existence of things or their nature. Even if your argument successfully showed that 'omnipotence' was incoherent for a given definition of 'omnipotence', it would still be entirely possible that a Being created the Universe out of an act of love, did and said all the things attributed to Him in a particular Holy Book, and is absolutely deserving of the worship given Him, including honorifics such as 'All-Powerful'.

[Oughtist]

The interactions between definitions of words has absolutely nothing to do with the existence of things or their nature.

Well, surely it has something to do with our perspective on the existence of things, and our perspective on things likewise has something to do with nature? Such that when it is said God is omnipotent, this leads us to see matters in a certain way, e.g. one where "someone is in absolute control" ... and so the nature of our own existence is influenced accordingly...?

Even if your argument successfully showed that 'omnipotence' was incoherent for a given definition of 'omnipotence', it would still be entirely possible that a Being created the Universe out of an act of love, did and said all the things attributed to Him in a particular Holy Book, and is absolutely deserving of the worship given Him, including honorifics such as 'All-Powerful'

That matters may stand as they will outside our mind, independent of what we think, is, I'd suggest, beside the point of our endeavoring to contemplate them in our own terms... given that our own terms are all we have by which to examine them, no?

So, when the question of a superlative deity arises, surely we must cut ourselves some slack when we notice that the honourifics of language which describes It creates rather impossible scenarios. Indeed, perhaps such gives sufficient reason to allow ourselves cause to abandon positive theology, and relax in negation... this might well be a healthy prescription for those whose existence is unduely aggrivated by the paradox of what others dogmatically believe.

If God is everywhere at once, he would always be offsides.

Only if both His feet were not on the field... but assuming his feet must be as omnipresent as any other part of Him, I would suggest He is never off-side. He would also have to be in uniform, which may cause a supply issue in the textile industry.

God is the worst possible Atheistball player.

Yes, either that or Atheistball does not exist.

[Moreno]

If God is omnipotent, then surely he can do anything. He knows everything. Present and past and in the future.

So, can God toss a coin and not know before it lands if the result is heads or tails?

If he is omnipotent, he knows beforehand, the result every time, and humans don’t.

This means humans can do something that God can't

Comments please.

I don't think this example works. Unless one considers not knowing something a doing. It seems a lack rather than an action.

However, it would seem that humans can be unfair and unjust, and supposedly the Abrahamic God will never do this. I suppose someone might say he could do it but does not want to, but in any case, we have humans all the time doing something that God will never do.

[Uccisore]

Well, surely it has something to do with our perspective on the existence of things, and our perspective on things likewise has something to do with nature? Such that when it is said God is omnipotent, this leads us to see matters in a certain way, e.g. one where "someone is in absolute control" ... and so the nature of our own existence is influenced accordingly...?

Only in a representative sense. We hope and strive that our definitions relate to reality, and thereby their interactions do too. But reality of course doesn't depend on them in any way- the flow of entailment goes precisely in one direction. Sure, I suppose our words and our understanding of them affects how we behave- but I think that limited situation is what tempts us to think that when we've shown something about word definitions, we've shown something about the world. When people say 'omnipotent' it makes them feel a certain way about God and their relationship with him, sure. I think it's that emotional reaction that tempts us to think these definition-arguments really mean something.

That matters may stand as they will outside our mind, independent of what we think, is, I'd suggest, beside the point of our endeavoring to contemplate them in our own terms... given that our own terms are all we have by which to examine them, no?

You're assuming contemplation! The other thing about my arguments, other than them not working because of how definitions map (or fail to map) on reality, is that they were made in bad faith. Anybody who conjures a definition of a word, knocks the definition down again, and in so doing declares that they have discovered something about the world is operating in bad faith. Nobody is going to read "God can't win at Atheistball therefore he's not perfect" and change anything they believed about theism. It's not for that. It's for something purely rhetorical.

Or at least that's what I allege- I think that's the only explanation for why we all sense my Atheistball argument is bad. I'd like to see somebody either admit that my atheistball argument successfully shows that God doesn't have some of his alleged attributes, or else explain why my argument is fundamentally different than the one in the opening post. I submit I'm doing the same thing the OP did- just more brazenly.

So, when the question of a superlative deity arises, surely we must cut ourselves some slack when we notice that the honourifics of language which describes It creates rather impossible scenarios.

But what constitutes a scenario? Seriously now- does the prospect of an allegedly all-powerful entity being "unable to fail to know the future" really strike you as something that should puzzle and dismay somebody who believes in this being? Suppose I say 'rich' means 'being able to buy whatever you want'. You point out that Bill Gates can't buy a dinosaur, therefore he must not be rich. We both know what this REALLY calls for is for me to adjust my definition, NOT for me to agree with you that Bill Gates isn't rich (and that perhaps therefore his tax rates should be lowered). So it is with discussions like this- the definition needs to be adjusted. When you consider how many of these debates begin with the SKEPTIC doing the defining of the very terms he's out to show are incoherent, a second reason for my suspicion of bad faith emerges.

The important question is, can I define 'rich' in any way at all that doesn't allow some philosopher to knock it down through a fanciful 'scenario'?

Only if both His feet were not on the field... but assuming his feet must be as omnipresent as any other part of Him, I would suggest He is never off-side. He would also have to be in uniform, which may cause a supply issue in the textile industry.

I suppose you have me there. I guess I'll have to adjust my argument to some other sport that only requires any part of you to be offsides. Easily done, I think American Football qualifies.

Yes, either that or Atheistball does not exist.

So I have to actually play a round of Atheistball with my friends this afternoon in order for the argument to work? I mean, I suppose I COULD, but it seems rather redundant since I already know my team is going to lose.

[Oughtist]

Only in a representative sense.

Yes, but is there any other sense really on the table?

When we are taking the question of belief out from general discourse and considering it critically, are we not simply attending to plausibility? And is not consistency of definitions central to that task?

When people say 'omnipotent' it makes them feel a certain way about God and their relationship with him, sure. I think it's that emotional reaction that tempts us to think these definition-arguments really mean something.

Well, at very least they mean something in terms of how (the idea of) God is represented, which may well have some pragmatic value.

You're assuming contemplation!

I can't help but feel the notion of an omnimax deity causes at least a modicum of pause and reflection amongst any who are introduced to it. The concern then turns to how one is to think in that space. Is one simply to accept the discourse on God at face value and worship, or is one to inspect it more closely. I'm thinking contemplation becomes unavoidable, at least to the extent that the idea of God bears any real weight for a person.

The other thing about my arguments, other than them not working because of how definitions map (or fail to map) on reality, is that they were made in bad faith. Anybody who conjures a definition of a word, knocks the definition down again, and in so doing declares that they have discovered something about the world is operating in bad faith. Nobody is going to read "God can't win at Atheistball therefore he's not perfect" and change anything they believed about theism. It's not for that. It's for something purely rhetorical.

Or at least that's what I allege- I think that's the only explanation for why we all sense my Atheistball argument is bad. I'd like to see somebody either admit that my atheistball argument successfully shows that God doesn't have some of his alleged attributes, or else explain why my argument is fundamentally different than the one in the opening post. I submit I'm doing the same thing the OP did- just more brazenly.

I'm thinking the notion of omnipotence is relatively stable amongst the faithful, and that critique of it is a time-honoured practice. The conjuring of definitions is, at least in this case, pretty much already a done deal, isn't it?

But what constitutes a scenario? Seriously now- does the prospect of an allegedly all-powerful entity being "unable to fail to know the future" really strike you as something that should puzzle and dismay somebody who believes in this being?

Yes, I truly do, having once believed such.

Suppose I say 'rich' means 'being able to buy whatever you want'. You point out that Bill Gates can't buy a dinosaur, therefore he must not be rich. We both know what this REALLY calls for is for me to adjust my definition, NOT for me to agree with you that Bill Gates isn't rich (and that perhaps therefore his tax rates should be lowered). So it is with discussions like this- the definition needs to be adjusted. When you consider how many of these debates begin with the SKEPTIC doing the defining of the very terms he's out to show are incoherent, a second reason for my suspicion of bad faith emerges.

I don't know, Ucci, most of the believers I engage with assume pretty much the same definition as I want to critique. And again, I think the defining bit is already there for the skeptic to use.

The important question is, can I define 'rich' in any way at all that doesn't allow some philosopher to knock it down through a fanciful 'scenario'?

...or rather, can we define "omnipotent' in a way that the vast majority of believers would find acceptable...

Easily done, I think American Football qualifies.

hmm, I think the uniform issue is still a concern.

So I have to actually play a round of Atheistball with my friends this afternoon in order for the argument to work? I mean, I suppose I COULD, but it seems rather redundant since I already know my team is going to lose.

If you let me play, I'll spot you five yards and a free kick!

[The Watcher]

If God is omnipotent, then surely he can do anything. He knows everything. Present and past and in the future.

So, can God toss a coin and not know before it lands if the result is heads or tails?

If he is omnipotent, he knows beforehand, the result every time, and humans don’t.

This means humans can do something that God can't

Comments please.

Actually Thor, "Omnipotent" means "All powerful", the correct God killer to this power is "Can God make a Rock so Big he Can't lift it?"

* Your Coin example fits the "Omniscient" Power or "All Knowing"

And the 3rd one is "Omnipresent" or "Everywhere at once"

So to recap, You need to disprove:

~Omnipotence - All Powerful
~Omniscience - All Knowing
~Omnipresence - All Places at once

Which being a God requires that the entity is all 3 (and which while logically not possible, is metaphysically and Illogically possible. And if you successfully become all 3 well your basically immobilized by such and loose the ability and will to act, which means you become a God, but wont do anything because of the intrinsic workings of the powers themselves when combined. But I wont go into that right now).

Just trying to help.

[Oughtist]

^^...and also Omnibenevolent. It's the quickest one to be circumscribed and diluted, of course, but still...

[Calrid]

Let's face it no God can be logical and have all the properties of God, hence if God does exist he must be outside of logic, but that just makes his position even more untenable...

If god can make a circle square and the universe doesn't work if it is what is the point? God changes reality to suit his aims? Why not just be real?

This sort of inconsitency is why I gave up on faith a long time ago. I admit Jesus could of been a real man just as Santa and Robin Hood could of and may of been, but the mythical bullshit that comes with it is just too hard to swallow.

If God really is that perfect he should of been damned better at making his message understandable.

I once asked a Theologian PhD and a self confessed agnostic what the universe would be like if God existed. He said simply, if he did, he would be far more believable and the world would be a far better place than it is.

[Moreno]

Let's face it no God can be logical and have all the properties of God, hence if God does exist he must be outside of logic, but that just makes his position even more untenable...

Our sense of what is logical depends on what we know and what we know changes and many things we once thought illogical can turn out to be, in fact the case. That said, I think you are thinking of the Abrahamic God.

If god can make a circle square and the universe doesn't work if it is what is the point? God changes reality to suit his aims? Why not just be real?

I'm not sure I understood this argument. Can you reword and or expand.

If God really is that perfect he should of been damned better at making his message understandable.

I sympathize with this, at the same time, this implies that you know what a perfect God would act like. Again, though it sounds like an Abrahamic God.

[Calrid]

Let's face it no God can be logical and have all the properties of God, hence if God does exist he must be outside of logic, but that just makes his position even more untenable...

Our sense of what is logical depends on what we know and what we know changes and many things we once thought illogical can turn out to be, in fact the case. That said, I think you are thinking of the Abrahamic God.

If god can make a circle square and the universe doesn't work if it is what is the point? God changes reality to suit his aims? Why not just be real?

I'm not sure I understood this argument. Can you reword and or expand.

If God really is that perfect he should of been damned better at making his message understandable.

I sympathize with this, at the same time, this implies that you know what a perfect God would act like. Again, though it sounds like an Abrahamic God.

Well yes of course the Abrahamic god is simply false he makes no sense.

What is it you want me to describe though?

[Uccisore]

Yes, but is there any other sense really on the table?

When we are taking the question of belief out from general discourse and considering it critically, are we not simply attending to plausibility? And is not consistency of definitions central to that task?

I think there are some things (concepts, moral notions, matters of mathematics) that exist primarily as definitions, and examining those definitions leads to real truths about the world. I think there are other things (entities, physical objects, events in history) where definitions are really secondary, descriptive qualities, and examining those definitions primarily reveals truths about our (un)successful word usage.

I can't help but feel the notion of an omnimax deity causes at least a modicum of pause and reflection amongst any who are introduced to it.

Then you need to spend more time on the internet, my friend. Maybe in the days of quill and ink, that was true. These days, the notion of an omnimax deity is more likely to provoke a 5-minute stint on YouTube and nothing more. That's why these rhetorical issues become so important! Playing with definitions was a fine exercise when it was done by the pros who knew what the ramifications were. These days we need to pay careful attention to what work a clever syllogism can really do- people are memorizing and reciting arguments they barely understand, and assuming they have thereby proven something. So an examination of what 'proof' is and what an 'argument' is for has never been more important. That's kind of my point here. I think the original post in this thread, if it is meant as a criticism of theism (and certainly responders have taken it as such), is suffering from a huge lapse of understanding in what it is arguments DO.

I'm thinking the notion of omnipotence is relatively stable amongst the faithful, and that critique of it is a time-honoured practice. The conjuring of definitions is, at least in this case, pretty much already a done deal, isn't it?

People die too quickly, nothing is ever a done deal. The Original Poster hasn't, I suspect, ever heard omnipotence defined as 'the maximal degree of power', or else he wouldn't have bothered with his post.

Yes, I truly do, having once believed such.

Well, then that's something truly worth discussing them. I'm a believer, and I've had periods of doubt, but nothing I'd say that every rose to true atheism. I also believe that God can't choose to fail to know something. The idea that failing at something is a limitation to his power is absurd to me- and even if it 'is', it is purely as a function of linguistics. I surely don't feel duplicitous in calling God 'all powerful' with the knowledge in the back of my head that he can't fail at knowing something.
So what exactly is the problem? Is it that a real God, a truly awesome God, would be able to fail to know things, and therefore my merely omnipotent God is somehow diminished? That certainly doesn't seem right- after all, we only arrived at this limitation as a consequence of his knowing everything, which hardly seems like a limitation. Is the ability to fail to know things required for a being to be worthy of worship? Is it required in performing the acts attributed to God in the Bible? Not as far as I can tell.
Is it that somehow the concept of God becomes incoherent, and thus unable-to-be-rationally-believed because an omniscient and omnipotent being doesn't have the power to fail to know things? This doesn't seem right either- It's not as though the practicing Christian was imagining a God that failed to know things, had the inconsistency of this pointed out to him, and was forced to revise his view. Instead, a scenario that doesn't matter AT ALL to the practice of Christianity has been brought to the fore. The Christian seems free to me to acknowledge the situation, revise the definitions of a couple terms like 'omnipotent' accordingly, and go on believing exactly the same thing as he believed before without any revision whatsoever to anything beyond linguistics.

Simply put, no 'definitional incoherence' argument has been able to show the incoherence in a Being creating the universe, loving mankind, seeking our worship, performing the acts described in a given Holy Book, etc. Whatever sort of words you use to describe such a Being, it seems adequate to fit the bill of the Christian God.

I don't know, Ucci, most of the believers I engage with assume pretty much the same definition as I want to critique. And again, I think the defining bit is already there for the skeptic to use.

But in this case a definition is purely a rhetorical device. Again, look at my Bill Gates example. I think Bill Gates is rich, and I declare so. You ask me to define 'rich'. I say "The ability to buy whatever you want". You point out that Bill Gates can't buy a dinosaur.
So where was my mistake? Was it in thinking Bill Gates was rich, when in fact he was not? No, because clearly he is by anybody's estimation. Was it in thinking Bill Gates could buy whatever he wanted, when in fact he can't? Maybe....but I probably didn't think Bill Gates could buy a dinosaur- I simply didn't think of it one way or the other. And in any event, it's not like you proved he couldn't buy a dinosaur, you just said it and I immediately acquiesced. This shows that whatever I might have said, I certainly wasn't conceptualizing a Bill Gates that can buy dinosaurs, or I wouldn't have been so quick to agree. So what I'm really guilty of, is an incautious defining of a word. And I maintain that your criticizing of that word ought have no impact on my underlying belief. The result of your dinosaur quip should NOT be me ceasing to believe Bill Gates is rich, but rather in coming up with a stronger definition.
Similarly, when a person says "God can do anything", and you point out something (such as dying, or failing to know something, or whatever) that God can't do, I see three possibilities- 1.) The person really thinks God can do that thing, and you need to prove logically that it's impossible, not merely assert it. 2.) The person doesn't think the thing you suggested properly fits the set 'anything'. Maybe they believe failing isn't an action or something, I don't know. 3.) The person simply wasn't thinking of the kind of thing you suggest that God can't do, and they were speaking imprecisely. I suspect 3.) is by far the most common, and IN that case, the best your argument can do is refute their definition, not the concept they were attempting to describe.

...or rather, can we define "omnipotent' in a way that the vast majority of believers would find acceptable...

As far as I know, such a definition would be 'maximally powerful, including but not limited to the capability of performing the great works of the Bible' if you mean Christian believers. If by 'believers' you mean 'all theists', there likely is no such definition nor is there a need for one. It would require a subtle definition of power, but not a counter-intuitive one. I think it's easy for a person to understand that power is more properly understood such that failing to do something is not an example of it- whatever power is, it's more than just the ability to check off the greatest number of 'can you do it' things on a list, where that list includes things like failing, dying, losing, being humiliated, etc. Clearly there are things that can be done such that doing them is not a case of 'being powerful'.

[Uccisore]

Let's face it no God can be logical and have all the properties of God, hence if God does exist he must be outside of logic, but that just makes his position even more untenable...

I see no reason to 'face it', that's a pretty controversial proposition that most philosophers of religion would actually disagree with.

[Moreno]

If God really is that perfect he should of been damned better at making his message understandable.

I sympathize with this, at the same time, this implies that you know what a perfect God would act like. Again, though it sounds like an Abrahamic God.

Well yes of course the Abrahamic god is simply false he makes no sense.

A 'thing' isn't true or false, but a description of it can be. A description can be true or false or also a mixture. Generally I think we see mixtures. I am thinking here not just about religion or philosophy.

What is it you want me to describe though?

Nothing. I was just pointing out that saying 'a perfect God would do X' is a claim to knowledge. Objective knowledge just to be redundant.

[Calrid]

Let's face it no God can be logical and have all the properties of God, hence if God does exist he must be outside of logic, but that just makes his position even more untenable...

I see no reason to 'face it', that's a pretty controversial proposition that most philosophers of religion would actually disagree with.

Who cares, your willingness to involve yourself in self delusion is your own affair.

[Uccisore]

Let's face it no God can be logical and have all the properties of God, hence if God does exist he must be outside of logic, but that just makes his position even more untenable...

I see no reason to 'face it', that's a pretty controversial proposition that most philosophers of religion would actually disagree with.

Who cares, your willingness to involve yourself in self delusion is your own affair.

You made a controversial assertion as though it were a well-accepted fact, when in reality it's anything but (in fact I say it's not even true, or defensible) When I pointed this out to you, you refused to defend your assertion and insulted me instead.

What is it you think these forums are for?

[James S Saint]

I think there are some things (concepts, moral notions, matters of mathematics) that exist primarily as definitions, and examining those definitions leads to real truths about the world. I think there are other things (entities, physical objects, events in history) where definitions are really secondary, descriptive qualities, and examining those definitions primarily reveals truths about our (un)successful word usage.

Well now there is a welcome understatement.

Let's face it no God can be logical and have all the properties of God, hence if God does exist he must be outside of logic, but that just makes his position even more untenable...

If god can make a circle square and the universe doesn't work if it is what is the point? God changes reality to suit his aims? Why not just be real?

This sort of inconsitency is why I gave up on faith a long time ago. I admit Jesus could of been a real man just as Santa and Robin Hood could of and may of been, but the mythical bullshit that comes with it is just too hard to swallow.

If God really is that perfect he should of been damned better at making his message understandable.

Your inability to understand logic has nothing to do with its God's existence.
Should I accept that Quantum Mechanics is entirely fiction because you also don't understand it either?
Perhaps there is a logical reason for your your confusion.

And to answer THOR's OP;
"Yes. You can get deceived and die."

[Calrid]

I think there are some things (concepts, moral notions, matters of mathematics) that exist primarily as definitions, and examining those definitions leads to real truths about the world. I think there are other things (entities, physical objects, events in history) where definitions are really secondary, descriptive qualities, and examining those definitions primarily reveals truths about our (un)successful word usage.

Well now there is a welcome understatement.

Let's face it no God can be logical and have all the properties of God, hence if God does exist he must be outside of logic, but that just makes his position even more untenable...

If god can make a circle square and the universe doesn't work if it is what is the point? God changes reality to suit his aims? Why not just be real?

This sort of inconsitency is why I gave up on faith a long time ago. I admit Jesus could of been a real man just as Santa and Robin Hood could of and may of been, but the mythical bullshit that comes with it is just too hard to swallow.

If God really is that perfect he should of been damned better at making his message understandable.

Your inability to understand logic has nothing to do with its God's existence.
Should I accept that Quantum Mechanics is entirely fiction because you also don't understand it either?
Perhaps there is a logical reason for your your confusion.

And to answer THOR's OP;
"Yes. You can get deceived and die."

You don't understand quantum mechanics either though. You make absurd claims about it but that is not qm or science.

James you're an intelligent guy but when you say things like this I think you are a moron.

[James S Saint]

I think...

You over estimate your abilities.

..you are a moron.

Reference above.

[Abstract]

If God is omnipotent, then surely he can do anything. He knows everything. Present and past and in the future.

So, can God toss a coin and not know before it lands if the result is heads or tails?

If he is omnipotent, he knows beforehand, the result every time, and humans don’t.

This means humans can do something that God can't

Comments please.

omnipotent means all powerful... not necessarily that god can do anything... as the set of anything contains both powers and non-powers...

[Oughtist]

Yes, but is there any other sense really on the table?

When we are taking the question of belief out from general discourse and considering it critically, are we not simply attending to plausibility? And is not consistency of definitions central to that task?

I think there are some things (concepts, moral notions, matters of mathematics) that exist primarily as definitions, and examining those definitions leads to real truths about the world. I think there are other things (entities, physical objects, events in history) where definitions are really secondary, descriptive qualities, and examining those definitions primarily reveals truths about our (un)successful word usage.

I can't help but feel the notion of an omnimax deity causes at least a modicum of pause and reflection amongst any who are introduced to it.

Then you need to spend more time on the internet, my friend. Maybe in the days of quill and ink, that was true. These days, the notion of an omnimax deity is more likely to provoke a 5-minute stint on YouTube and nothing more. That's why these rhetorical issues become so important! Playing with definitions was a fine exercise when it was done by the pros who knew what the ramifications were. These days we need to pay careful attention to what work a clever syllogism can really do- people are memorizing and reciting arguments they barely understand, and assuming they have thereby proven something. So an examination of what 'proof' is and what an 'argument' is for has never been more important. That's kind of my point here. I think the original post in this thread, if it is meant as a criticism of theism (and certainly responders have taken it as such), is suffering from a huge lapse of understanding in what it is arguments DO.

I'm thinking the notion of omnipotence is relatively stable amongst the faithful, and that critique of it is a time-honoured practice. The conjuring of definitions is, at least in this case, pretty much already a done deal, isn't it?

People die too quickly, nothing is ever a done deal. The Original Poster hasn't, I suspect, ever heard omnipotence defined as 'the maximal degree of power', or else he wouldn't have bothered with his post.

Yes, I truly do, having once believed such.

Well, then that's something truly worth discussing them. I'm a believer, and I've had periods of doubt, but nothing I'd say that every rose to true atheism. I also believe that God can't choose to fail to know something. The idea that failing at something is a limitation to his power is absurd to me- and even if it 'is', it is purely as a function of linguistics. I surely don't feel duplicitous in calling God 'all powerful' with the knowledge in the back of my head that he can't fail at knowing something.
So what exactly is the problem? Is it that a real God, a truly awesome God, would be able to fail to know things, and therefore my merely omnipotent God is somehow diminished? That certainly doesn't seem right- after all, we only arrived at this limitation as a consequence of his knowing everything, which hardly seems like a limitation. Is the ability to fail to know things required for a being to be worthy of worship? Is it required in performing the acts attributed to God in the Bible? Not as far as I can tell.
Is it that somehow the concept of God becomes incoherent, and thus unable-to-be-rationally-believed because an omniscient and omnipotent being doesn't have the power to fail to know things? This doesn't seem right either- It's not as though the practicing Christian was imagining a God that failed to know things, had the inconsistency of this pointed out to him, and was forced to revise his view. Instead, a scenario that doesn't matter AT ALL to the practice of Christianity has been brought to the fore. The Christian seems free to me to acknowledge the situation, revise the definitions of a couple terms like 'omnipotent' accordingly, and go on believing exactly the same thing as he believed before without any revision whatsoever to anything beyond linguistics.

Simply put, no 'definitional incoherence' argument has been able to show the incoherence in a Being creating the universe, loving mankind, seeking our worship, performing the acts described in a given Holy Book, etc. Whatever sort of words you use to describe such a Being, it seems adequate to fit the bill of the Christian God.

I don't know, Ucci, most of the believers I engage with assume pretty much the same definition as I want to critique. And again, I think the defining bit is already there for the skeptic to use.

But in this case a definition is purely a rhetorical device. Again, look at my Bill Gates example. I think Bill Gates is rich, and I declare so. You ask me to define 'rich'. I say "The ability to buy whatever you want". You point out that Bill Gates can't buy a dinosaur.
So where was my mistake? Was it in thinking Bill Gates was rich, when in fact he was not? No, because clearly he is by anybody's estimation. Was it in thinking Bill Gates could buy whatever he wanted, when in fact he can't? Maybe....but I probably didn't think Bill Gates could buy a dinosaur- I simply didn't think of it one way or the other. And in any event, it's not like you proved he couldn't buy a dinosaur, you just said it and I immediately acquiesced. This shows that whatever I might have said, I certainly wasn't conceptualizing a Bill Gates that can buy dinosaurs, or I wouldn't have been so quick to agree. So what I'm really guilty of, is an incautious defining of a word. And I maintain that your criticizing of that word ought have no impact on my underlying belief. The result of your dinosaur quip should NOT be me ceasing to believe Bill Gates is rich, but rather in coming up with a stronger definition.
Similarly, when a person says "God can do anything", and you point out something (such as dying, or failing to know something, or whatever) that God can't do, I see three possibilities- 1.) The person really thinks God can do that thing, and you need to prove logically that it's impossible, not merely assert it. 2.) The person doesn't think the thing you suggested properly fits the set 'anything'. Maybe they believe failing isn't an action or something, I don't know. 3.) The person simply wasn't thinking of the kind of thing you suggest that God can't do, and they were speaking imprecisely. I suspect 3.) is by far the most common, and IN that case, the best your argument can do is refute their definition, not the concept they were attempting to describe.

...or rather, can we define "omnipotent' in a way that the vast majority of believers would find acceptable...

As far as I know, such a definition would be 'maximally powerful, including but not limited to the capability of performing the great works of the Bible' if you mean Christian believers. If by 'believers' you mean 'all theists', there likely is no such definition nor is there a need for one. It would require a subtle definition of power, but not a counter-intuitive one. I think it's easy for a person to understand that power is more properly understood such that failing to do something is not an example of it- whatever power is, it's more than just the ability to check off the greatest number of 'can you do it' things on a list, where that list includes things like failing, dying, losing, being humiliated, etc. Clearly there are things that can be done such that doing them is not a case of 'being powerful'.

Sorry Ucci, been meaning to get back to this one, but haven't sustained the thought yet...