>>9678881>No, you are just not understanding what a logical flaw is.I think internal inconsistency would universally be considered a logical flaw
>If you define axioms of omnipotenceI didn't define axioms of omnipotence, in my last post I asked YOU to define them
>and then ask for a negativity of these axiomsi did no such thing
>If you define omnipotence as immortal, and then ask if an omnipotent being could also not be immortal, you are not contradicting the first axiom. You are just asking if it is true in a negative way. If a being that is immortal can do anything, can it kill itself?
The answer is quite clearly no, so they can't do "anything".
If you're going to argue that they can do anything with the restriction that it be logically sound, they should be able to create another being that can do anything with the same restriction, because as displayed by the existence such an entity can exist.
So in a scenario where this occurs, can the former overpower the latter?
Neither yes nor no makes logical sense even though the logic progressed naturally, suggesting that the ability to do anything is not logically consistent, even with the restrictions of logical consistency
>It's really mindblowing how stupid you are.I'm really sorry you don't like me anonymous poster
