Let me begin by stating that this is not a religious (or anti-religious) post. This is entirely about logic, language, and potential uses for the purpose of fiction. For the purpose of this journal, whosoever reads this may just assume that whatever religious affiliation they may or may not have, is (or is not) also my own.
This journal will discuss "omnipotent entities" a lot. For brevity's sake, I will refer to them as lowercase-g "god", and assign male pronouns. Whatever other meaning the term may have in whatever religious beliefs, fictional universes, or general commonly used language, is suspended for the duration of this journal.
Additionally, "move" can also mean "change (his/her/its/their) movement vector", depending of what kind of space/reference frame we're talking about.
Now. The Problem Of Omnipotence is the logical self-contradiction of the term "omnipotence". The most literal meaning of the term undeniably leads to logical contradictions, such as "can god create a rock so heavy even he can't lift it?" and similar cases. Some people like to suspend logic and reason and simply say that god is somehow above logic. I consider this nonsensical, but let's not get into that.
This renders the term effectively meaningless, as the thing it means is now invalid. So the term has to be redefined. This gives rise to "logical omnipotence", which means "the ability to do anything that isn't logically impossible". With this definition, our example contradiction is no more, and a clear answer presents itself: Since weight is irrelevant to god, he cannot create a rock that is so heavy that he cannot lift it.
Some people (I know of at least one specific person) object even to Logical Omnipotence by bringing up the "irresistible force" and the "immovable object". The argument goes like this:
It is logically possible to create an immovable object. It is logically possible to create an irresistible force. Can god create an irresistible force and an immovable object, and then make them collide? Note: The irresistible force affects anything that occupies the same space as itself, so if they collide, the force cannot move through the object without affecting it.
Now we have a contradiction again. The object cannot move, it is by definition immovable. The force cannot be resisted, it by definition moves anything it touches. The irresistible force moves the immovable object, but the immovable object resists the irresistible force, but this both of these are not possible, so they don't happen, but they must happen, so they do happen, so they both do and don't happen at the same time. Logic is broken and god created, figuratively speaking, a rock so heavy he can't lift it.
The argument goes on from there, people who believe in god redefine omnipotence again, people who don't believe in god point out that omnipotence doesn't even mean anything anymore, etc. But all of that is pointless, because The Problem Of (Logical) Omnipotence is wrong. The above argument is wrong.
Here's why: The argument misses an important question (or at least gets the answer wrong): What does it mean for something to be "logically possible"? Well, it means something that doesn't cause a logical contradiction. But as we just explored, creating both the irresistible force and the immovable object, in such a way as to make it possible for them to collide, does cause a logical contradiction. Creating both and letting them collide is therefore logically impossible, even though it's logically possible to create either one. It's even logically possible to create both, so long as it's impossible for them to ever touch.
Think of it this way: The "immovable" object is either immune to the "irresistible" force, or not. If it immune, then the force is not irresistible, because something exists that can resist it. If it is not immune, then it is not immovable because something exists that can move it. Likewise, the force is either able to override the object's "immovability" or not. If it is, then the object is by definition not immune to the force. If the force isn't able to override the object's "immovability", then the force is not irresistible because because something exists that can resist it. If the force and the object cannot touch, then there is nothing that can resist the force, and nothing that can move the object, and neither needs to be exempt from the other's special property because they cannot coexist in the same space and effectively don't exist to each other.
By definition, any other contradiction that could conceivably be created, would also be logically impossible, and thus cannot actually be created by god. Thus, Logical Omnipotence retains its meaning, and you can continue to use it in your fictional realities, religious beliefs, and language, without fear of being illogical for it.
And since this is a religiously neutral journal, I will not say anything else on the matter.
