So sorry about that, life and work get in the way of interesting discussions 😭

Okay let’s see..

Hope you dont mind if i break these up into separate replies. My phone keeps wiping my typed responses when i step away too long.

1) yup, i agree—suffering in itself shouldnt be considered an evil. There’s suffering that occurs during growth, and that definitely shouldnt be considered evil. Poor phrasing in my part! I shouldve called if unnecessary suffering instead. If it helps, rename the argument as “the problem of unnecessary suffering”, and ill give a specific example to discuss

If a hurricane struck a remote village, and everyone except a small child passes away from the initial impact. Let’s further say the child is too injured to sufficiently find food. Surely we can agree that letting the small child die in agony from injuries and starvation would be unnecessary suffering. If this scenario happened, wouldnt you be asking god why he let this happen? The pain and starvation didnt serve as a lesson, and it wasnt a result of choice. So why let the child bear the agony of pain and hunger to only have the child die later?

I would expect any compassionate father to step in if he was aware of the situation and if it were within his power to prevent it or help in the aftermath, so likewise i would expect an all-powerful + all-knowing + all-caring god to do the same

Is the scenario too unrealistic? Or is there a way that youre able to reconcile the inaction with a 3x omni god?

2) I dont think ive heard about TAG before. Could you present it (ideally in a structured form, like a syllogism) to show how it argues for the existence of a god?

It sounds like you see convincing evidence that the Christian god is the true god, that all other religions are mistaken, and their followers worship a false idol. So im guessing TAG exclusively supports the existence of a Christian god

3) ive heard the “making a square circle” argument before but it sounds incredibly weak. Circle vs square is a mutually exclusive property. By definition, it’s not possible. But note that this isnt my argument—im not saying that an omnipotent god needs to be able to defy logic. Instead, in saying that following logic, an omnipotent god cannot exist

Strength is something that can be measured—you can lift 10lbs, 20lbs, etc. And there’s no limit to how powerful your strength is. Likewise, the ability to create is presumably something that can be measured—you can create a rock weighing 1lb, or an asteroid weighing much more, or a planet weighing far more than even that. Presumably, there isnt a bound that limits how heavy of an object a creator can create—lmk if you think there is, and i can modify the argument to use different competing measures instead

First, let me just say that omnipotence (at least the way the argument uses it) is not possible. So perhaps you dont believe the argument’s omnipotence is possible, but you believe a different omnipotence is possible?

In any case, for any measurable property (eg, strength), even if your strength is measured to be infinity, then well youre still not at the strongest possible strength because someone else could have your strength plus 10 more pounds of weightlifting strength (ie, a larger infinity). For unbound properties, there will always be something more superior that’s theoretically possible. The argument simply uses 2 different measurable + unbound properties to show this issue

So to reiterate—
- im not saying an omnipotent god needs to show us that it can violate logic
- rather, im saying that logic simply doesnt allow omnipotence
- it may be a difference in definition that we’re having though

4) Ive always heard people talk of it as a punishment. I dont know much scripture so forgive me for using AI to look it up (lmk if it hallucinated these), but here are some relevant scripture that strongly suggest hell is punishment

- Matthew 25:46 – “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”
- Thessalonians 1:8–9 – “He will punish those who do not know God… They will be punished with everlasting destruction.”

Regardless of whether hell is intended as punishment or not, wouldnt it be unjust to let people suffer infinitely for finite sins?
- an all-knowing god would know it’s happening
- an all-powerful god would have the power to stop it (eg, maybe an otherwise okay nonbeliever goes to hell for 500 years instead of forever?)
- an all-good god would want equal punishment for equal sins

Why would a 3x omni god let moderately bad people suffer for eternity if he has the power to stop it? It’s not like the suffering is building up to any additional choices or helping them learn any lesson. Even if they chose wrong previously, it seems unjust to willingly let others suffer forever—the outcome doesnt match the sins

This post was edited by AlwaysFair on Oct 2 2025 04:34pm

Gott mit uns!

nothing more to say. The father, the son and holy spirit is a trinity which is omni present.

You have two presuppositions in this that are not true in the Christian worldview that pain and starvation do not serve a lesson or purpose and that death and deprivation are not the results of someone's choice ultimately. While in the hypothetical situation the pain the child suffers is terrible, ultimately in the Christian worldview the child may have an eternally good outcome despite the consequences of humanity. You seem to be demanding God prevent all consequences of sin on humanity, which would violate humanities free will. Alternatively in an atheistic worldview, everyone dies and suffers and terrible consequences for no reason, though we can't actually call anything bad or good objectively.



Focusing on the TAG argument would necessarily make every other question/answer here no longer the focus. I will only focus on TAG if it becomes the singular focus as this conversation is already too broad.
Also, it's a metalogical argument that is in two parts, one comparing world views via coherentism and the other part justification for universals themselves including logic so I don't think a syllogism is a valid or typical form of argumentation for such an argument as far as I am aware


Is there an argument here? I have explained what omnipotence is, under the working definition of omnipotence impossible things which are incoherent are not possible, yes. I gave the definition several times so I am not sure the issue with the "difference in definition". Do you reject my previously given definition or something?

your response remains a category error; you aren't coherently 'defeating' omnipotence logically but instead not correctly constructing a sentence that applies to the concept in discussion.

The performative contradiction here you seem to be making is "If I can describe a logical contradiction (a non-thing), God must be able to resolve it, and if He can't, He's not omnipotent." Logical contradictions aren't something to solve, they are meaningless arrangements of words which are categories errors when applied to a valid discussion of omnipotence.


This is an issue with Protestantism, everyone has their own interpretation of the bible. The descriptions I gave earlier are aligned with the first 1000 years of the church and remain to be aligned with the true church today. We could go verse by verse to give a detailed understanding, but it would be more relevant to read church fathers and attend divine liturgy over picking random parts of scripture and attempt to interpret them alone without a holistic understanding of salvation.

I have already answered the other questions, so I don't really see the confusion. God allows people to make their choice, forcing someone to do something other than what they freely choose is not love. While Scripture here uses the term 'punishment,' it is understood relationally and not a legalistic punishment: The consequence of being distant from God is death, disorderliness, destruction, etc and He gives us a choice to reunite with him and the normative method is often called theosis.

It's not an on/off switch as I have mentioned, you have the free choice right now to unite with God despite any previous things you have done and the same applies to everyone else.

salvation isn't a problem of theological knowledge, it's a problem of the heart.

(Sorry, i need to break this up into one by one chunks so my phone doesnt clear my typed response whenever i walk away for a min. Also, might need to continue some or these tmrw)

1) yup, if it doesnt serve a purpose, then the suffering is pointless, and a caring father should stop it if he knows about it and has the ability to stop it. I think i see what youre trying to say though—the child’s suffering in that scenario would be due to humanity’s sins? Sins led to the fall, the fall led to the subsequent natural disasters, and the natural disasters caused the child’s pointless suffering?

If that’s the case, let me adjust the focus of the argument— isnt it unjust to punish an innocent child for the sins of others? We would be in outrage if we punished every child for their parents’ sins. Surely a just god wouldnt allow this, right? Or what’s the explanation for this?

2) No worries, we can discuss TAG later if you want. Sounds interesting!

3) sorry missed it, i see your definition now. That definition is sufficient for showing that omnipotence is impossible. Same initial argument holds true.

There’s obviously a problem with making a “square” a “circle” since this involves changing a mutually exclusive property. There’s nothing mutually exclusive about ability to lift heavy objects vs creating heavy objects though

4) I still dont get what your stance is on the topic of why a 3x omni god allows people to be tortured eternally for their finite sins. Could you answer these questions before we continue please? I think this would help establish a baseline so i can understand your view a bit more

So god knows that people are suffering and will continue to suffer eternally in hell.
1) does god have the ability to intervene in their suffering?
2) if yes, then why doesnt god intervene? (Let nonbelievers just burn in hell for 500 years. Why let a nonbeliever’s stay in hell go on for eternity?)
3) maybe instead of #2, how about — what would be so wrong if god decided to intervene and made a nonbeliever burn only for 500yrs in hell rather than for eternity? (Im thinking you believe there’s some sort of consequence to this)

This post was edited by AlwaysFair on Oct 2 2025 06:26pm