In a message dated April 10, 1998, Grassynymph writes:

Thanks, Grassynymph, for this wonderful question. Such questions as these reveal the absurdity of religionist claims about their gods. No matter how one answers that question (as if someone could claim to have an answer), the answer contradicts the original premise, that premise being that his god is omnipotent.

If god is so omnipotent, can he make a square circle? How about a married bachelor? A sunlit night? Or any other self-contradictory entity that one cannot even imagine?

I laughed when one theologian said (and he was being serious) that - perhaps god cannot make a square circle or a married bachelor (which are inherently self-contradictory and impossible no matter who is god for a day) - God can do whatever you can imagine in a cartoon. In other words, if it can be illustrated in a cartoon, God could do it. That is how one theologian tried to evade the absurdity of his god-belief claims. (I apologize that I do not have this theologian's name at this time.)

The problem with such claims is as "god is omnipotent" is that such assertions directly violate the Law of Identity, which states that anything that exists (or is said to exist) has a nature - an identity, that it is itself, no more, no less - and that it can 'behave' if you will only within the constraints of that nature. No thing can act against its nature in a metaphysical sense.

The Law of Identity also precludes any assertion that an existing entity or thing is infinite, as this defies the nature of identity itself: a thing is itself, and no more; a man cannot be alive and dead at the same time; a geographical location cannot be both flooded at drought-ridden at the same time; a thing cannot be a rock and a rabbit at the same time; an ocean-liner is not a moon, a bowl of rice is not a political doctrine, etc. The question that Grassynymph asks in her post demonstrates the ridiculous nature of the religionist's claims about his god, simply because they are a blatant violation of the principles of objective metaphysics.

Someone recently tried to bait me into accepting his erroneous premises in a recent argument about god-beliefs by asking: "God is omnipotent, correct?" I answered: "I don't know, he's not my invention." I really don’t' know any other way to answer such a question.

That is how I would approach your questions, Grassynymph.

Cheers,

Tindrbox

_________________________________