At lunch, among six logically minded non-theists, we had a discussion on the three omnis (omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent). I enjoy these discussions and I haven’t had one in a while.

This discussion really centered on the idea of omnipotence and whether it really means all powerful or if actually just means really powerful. Ultimately it comes down to the question of whether an omnipotent being/force can do logically inconsistent things.

I argued that for omnipotence to mean all powerful, logical inconsistency must be possible. My co-worker’s argument was that since he couldn’t imagine a square circle or divergent realities between different perceptive agents within a logically consistent framework, therefore omnipotence didn’t include the ability to create logically inconsistency.

Phrased that way, which of course is not exactly how he phrased it, it is clearly an argument from personal incredulity. An argument from personal incredulity is logical fallacy it is sometimes called an argument by lack of imagination.

Of course it was a fruitless discussion because any of these sorts of discussions are ultimately about the meaning of words. To me the idea of omnipotence means the ability to do all things not merely things which are humanly conceivable. The limitation of human conception becomes considerable when dealing with concepts of the infinite.

Unless there is way to break the premise or definition problem on what omnipotence means it is no different that people saying “Is to”, “Is not”, etc. ad infinitum and calling it fruitful discussion.

But it remains an entertaining way to spend a lunch.