This Objection to Omnipotence is just Semantics
To claim that this defeats omnipotence is like saying God (or any power) isn't omnipotent because it can't destroy itself. And, yes, God is subject to logic, which is not a thing, but a relationship to things, again illustrating the same idea. It's like saying Russell's Paradox and Godel's Incompleteness Theorems means mathematics and logic are wrong just because you can't ever have a mathematical system that can prove every statement from a given set of axioms. 2602:306:CD96:CC10:992B:713D:4593:7B86 (talk) 01:56, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
- You're wrong and have no idea how to do logic. Bye! ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 02:20, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
Only a certain proportion of deities claim to be omnipotent (some even know when and how they are going to die).
Perhaps the issue is actually a trade-off - either 'God is omnipotent in a universe that exists without sentient life, but according to strict scientific laws' or 'God delegates some of [relevant pronoun] potency to the sentient entities that God has created - and the omnipotence is collective (we, after all, can conceive of the concept of omnipotence). Anna Livia (talk) 00:38, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
A possible solution
An omnipotent God 'creates the universe' which is not 'a solid thing' and so can be moved around like a liquid (there is nothing that says that 'the large thing has to be a solid object).
The universe generates black holes which 'suck bits of God into them' and fast-spinning neutron stars which 'twisty-up' other bits of God.