I take it you read a lot of Dawkins/Hitchens...
Explain to me in your own words and philosophy why particularly the idea of omnipotence is contradictory.
The idea of omnipotence is contradictory for these/this reason;
Omnipotence describes something with all power. Total, infinite power.
Even so powerful, that one could contradict himself/his infinite power.
E.g. Could God, create a stone so big that not even he could lift it?
Pure Omnipotence suggests that yes, he sure could, create it, lift it, and eat it too.
But, we know that, that idea is contradictory in itself. Something cannot contradict its own infinite power.
More, though, is this idea.
If, God is omnipotent, and can contradict himself, he could surely allow evil. But, God is omnibenevolent as well. He must do 'Good', and not 'Evil'. But, what actions are defined as 'Good' by God? 53And thou shalt eat the fruit of thine own body, the flesh of thy sons and of thy daughters, which the LORD thy God hath given thee, in the siege, and in the straitness, wherewith thine enemies shall distress thee: "Everyone who is captured will be thrust through; all who are caught will fall by the sword. Their infants will be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their ... wives will be ravished."
With no clear indication of Good and Evil by God's standards, it is clear that the entire concept of omnibenevolence is scrapped.
Omnipotence, is impossible. It contradicts itself. God, or the concept of God, contradicts itself. Wether or not 'God' should be allowed to or not is irrelevant.
Is God Good?
No.
And omnipotence is logically impossible. Now, some say that 'God is not like us and therefore, we cannot understand him'.
I ask you this.
Why if God made us, and are made in his image, are we not able to understand his nature? And, when, understanding the contradictions in his behavior/nature, am i told that it's a Godly matter and that I'm just human and I'm incapable of understanding.
Frankly it seems like a cover-up to a false claim.
1.) Assume there exists a being that is a conscious creator of the universe.
2.) By definition, there is an act of creation by a conscious being if, and only if that being is outside of the thing that he creates.
3.) The conscious creator of the universe muse therefore be outside of the universe.
4.) If a separate universe that said conscious creator inhabits wasn't created, then the creator isn't omnipotent, since he will remain dependent on another uncreated universe in order to thrive.
5.) If a separate universe that said conscious creator inhabits was created, then...
6.) ...the creator of that separate universe cannot be the aforementioned creator of the universe below it, since it would produce an impossibility of his creating every possible universe, but inhabiting none of them.
7.) ...the creator of that separate universe cannot be omnipotent because he, too, will be constrained under the same restrictions as the universe creator below him.
8.) Therefore, there are no such things as omnipotent gods.
'The theists tend to respond to arguments like this by saying that one of God's remarkable properties is his unique causal nature - that He is effectively self-caused (causa sui). If the fact that this has a latin tag isn't enough to make you bow down to its reasonableness, the next step is to say that it is mysterious, so stop asking tricky questions.'
A few muddled ideas, but you get the idea.
Nothing is omnipotent. :apig: