…they usually develop more problems.

Once a question has been answered, typically the answer reveals additional questions or additional problems. That is what seems to be so with the problem of evil. In my last post, I pointed out how POE hinges on certain attributes, and when closely examined, appear to be flawed themselves.

What is Omnipotence?

Omnipotence in the most narrow and clear form means a being which no being is more powerful than.

Does this say whether or not an omnipotent being can do illogical things?

No.

It actually would seem absurd to even assume that the term encapsulates this idea. How could we even come to terms with a being that works outside the very rules that we utilize to conclude a thing being true? It is non-sensical. So, a theist may answer my Reductio ad absurdum with a negation of premise 12:

It is not the case that there is an explicit contradiction between Premise 8 and Premise 10

Now Premise 10 is concluded from Premise 6:

If God can do all things, then God can bound himself by logic

Notice that this is not saying that God is bound by logic, but that God can bind himself by logic (If he wills it).

There doesn’t seem to be anything absurd about it.

.

.

.

But let’s replace the consequent of 6:

6. If God can do all things, then God can do things in such a way that God is bound by logic

Derived from the consequent we can add an additional Premise:

6A. If God can do things in such a way that God is bound by logic, then God can’t do all things

6B. Thus, If God can do all things, then God can’t do all things (Hypothetical Syllogism)

Woah. Hold the phones! It seems that by accepting the logically boundless God, we then accept the logically bounded God.

So, we can create a more seal-tight argument that appears to show that Premise 14 is still True.

Assuming Premise 8, one will be led to premise 9, and then, will systematically (with an additional step through our premises labeled 6A and 6B) still come to premise 11; although Premise 8 and 10 are not explicit contradictions, Premise 9 and 11 are explicit contradictions.

.

.

Or Are they?

I know I said i would get to some solutions, but we should discuss this while it is hot and then we can get to a solution.