im sorry, what? you seem to be trying to say something along the lines of "im right, you're wrong".

then you're giving me some pretty lame and illogical reasons as to why i am speaking falsely.

is omnipotency not a philosophical idea? if it is not, then i apolagize, you're right, it is, indeed, just a silly play on words without any purpose, just to show that the idea of omnipotency can be impossible.


if it is a philosophical idea, then you cannot disprove it with a play on words, it is a philosophical idea, of being all powerful without limits beyond your own controll.

besides, it is not a physical being who uses omnipotency; they cannot create a themselves so heavy that themself cannot lift, you might say the being to become omnipotent IS the omnipotency itself; god.

so therefore, YES, GOD could create a boulder that is so heavy that a BODY THAT GOD CREATED could not lift it, but god could create another body which COULD lift it, or in fact recreate a body, without visible signs of tampering, to then lift the boulder.

at which point, god could decide to tamper with the boulder and add mass to it, without visible signs of tampering.


why is omnipotency impossible because another, unrelated, play on words is impossible?

omnipotency could make a red blue, and humans could be so unevolved that we see purple instead.

thinking inside the box does not disprove the existance of anything that is outside the box.