7thangel

Let us just put it simply this way, we cannot imagine omnipotence because we have limited knowledge. My understanding that if history is controlled of God(imagine God controls human mind itself), that will be enough to make us to conclude the omnipotence.

I guess, you might be including in your thought about the omnipotence by making circle a square. Or seeing the invisible. I guess that wont work.

7thangel

I said it will be "enough," I could be wrong. But to me God's control of history is persuasive enough for me to believe.

It will be impossible for me to fully know it because I have limited knowledge.

Theli

But that's excacly my point. We shouldn't use words we can't even understand to describe things. I would think that's a basic rule when it comes to language.
No, if god failed to make a square circle the fault doesn't lie in his ability but in our definition of his creation. "Square Circle" is a contradiction, and we shouldn't use that word to describe anything. Because, in the end it is up to us to name the geometric form he created.
But, as I stated before about omnipotence. There isn't even close to being sufficient evidence to support omnipotence.
And we couldn't possibly amass enough evidence to support it either, so why use that word?