“Matthew” is a cunt
Omnipotence is absolutely self-contradictory, because it is inherently paradoxical, reminds me of the Chinese fable of an arms dealer touting his sword that can defeat any shield, and his shield that can block any sword. Obviously both statements cannot be true, because engineering problems aside, even in theory the first statement falsifies the second, and vice versa.
Anything that is theoretically and philosophically impossible, is impossible on all (other) levels of possibility. I can imagine a future rocket engine that via future technology outputs a billion pounds of thrust per 1 gram of future fuel, because that is – though very far fetched – nevertheless in the realm of philosophical possibility. I can’t say the same thing about an inherently contradictory abstract concept. The number 5, as it is currently defined, is inherently contradictory to the number 6. 5 of an object cannot be 6 of the same exact object. 6 of an object may contain 5 objects, but 6 objects is not itself 5 objects.
The fictional character of god may be powerful, but no amount of magic can make a square circle. Sure, we could play with definitions all day.
Let’s say we renamed the circle to be “Bob”.
Then we renamed the square to be “Bob” as well.
Yay, we did it! “Bob” is now a square circle,
Of course not. Even if the definition of a square or circle were changed, the abstract concept of a square or a circle hasn’t. And nothing, absolutely no philosophy has ever been demonstrated to prove that abstract concepts can be changed, because abstract concepts cannot be falsified.
At this point you, as a theologian may say: alright, so god is an abstract concept. God as an abstract concept cannot be falsified, therefore he exists.
Well, not really. Currently, only the abstract concept of a god exists. The perfect circle is an abstract concept as well. But no planet is a perfect sphere, planet earth with all its bumps and extrusions in the surface called mountains and water and such prohibit it from being a perfect sphere. No rubber ball is a perfect sphere either, you’ll find irregularities once you get your measurement precise enough. And since these objects are not perfect circles, even their gravitational forces will be minutely affected by the imperfections, which means that orbits around these objects cannot be absolutely perfectly circular either.
In fact, NOTHING has ever been demonstrated to be a perfect circle.
A perfect circle is defined as “an absolutely round plane figure whose boundary (the circumference) consists of points absolutely equidistant from the fixed point at the absolute centre).” That means, that even if you had a spherical object that was perfectly circle to the atomic level, I could just measure into the subatomic level and root out its imperfection. And if that doesn’t work, I’ll go further into the sub-sub-sub-sub-subatomic level of precision, and eventually prove that it is not, in fact a perfect sphere.
Of course, is measuring to that level of precision practical? Nope. For your average intents and purposes, a sphere circular to the atomic level is the perfect sphere. Practically perfect.
But in philosophy, it isn’t. A feat of an atomically precise sphere may be the relative closest we’ve come to building a perfect sphere, it may be amazing, but it still does not conform to the abstract ideals of the perfect sphere. In fact, I would wager that nothing in this universe fits the bill of a perfect sphere. And sure, theoretically it could exist. And it’s unfalsifiable because for every unit of precision we gain, the criteria for a perfect circle just progresses one decimal place further. And to insist on pursuing such a theoretically perfect circle is to imply a god-of-the-gaps type “circle of the decimal place”, a never-ending dragon chase for the sake of itself.
A definition is an abstract concept. Definitions can be changed or agreed upon, but they cannot be falsified. And that is also why a definition does not constitute as proof, because all definitions are made up – “a pig is a pig” is just a definition, it’s not an objective truth because you could call a pig anything. And that is why a square circle can never exist, because the abstract concepts of squares and circles are mutually exclusive, call a square or a circle whatever you wish but absolutely nothing can change that what we currently agree to be defined as squares absolutely contradicts what we currently agree to define as circles.
Even a hypothetical god cannot make a square circle, because to do so would be to falsify an abstract concept. And being able to produce a square circle is just one of the practically infinite amount of theoretically impossible things you have to be able to do in order to claim even the possibility of omnipotence.