Sorry for the long text, but you’re asking a complex question that’s difficult to settle, so it can’t be answered with a simple slogan. (Disclaimer: I wasn’t able to write this in English directly, I wrote it in French and automatically translated it into English)

At last, a good question. My remark about rounded squares wasn’t entirely off topic. I simply wanted to point out that it was important to understand why the philosophical definition of omnipotence posed fewer problems than its general definition. And that didn’t come out of nowhere: by the time the paradox in question was devised (it doesn’t date back to Epicurus, but it did arise much later), debates about how to define omnipotence were already underway. To understand what this paradox means, we also have to take account of the debates of its time.

If we don’t reject God simply because he is unable to do what is impossible, then we have to examine the state of the world and the presence of evil by asking whether a world without evil could have existed. If the answer is yes, then we can indeed say that God is evil. If the answer is no, the question shifts: the problem—or mystery—of evil becomes this: would it have been better to exist with evil and suffering, or not to exist at all?

Let’s begin with the first point: could God have created a world without suffering or evil? We must first define who God is. Of course, this definition is confessional; it is not universal. I base it on my own religion. Other religions will probably have different answers, just as legitimate, but I cannot speak on their behalf.

Let’s return to the so-called Epicurean paradox, since that is where this discussion begins. Imagine a God who is omniscient, good, and able to do everything that is possible. Could he have created a world different from ours?

If we stick to the fundamental principles, there are three possibilities. The first would have been to create nothing. But would a good God want to remain alone for all eternity? Is it good for there never to be a universe, existence, life, sun, stars, happiness, or laughter? A good God can only be a creator God, because he wants happiness to spread.

The second possibility would have been to create a world entirely subject to his will. God is good and knows what is good, so all he would have to do is decide, and his creation would obey him perfectly. But the world he created in this way would not be independent of God. It would be no more than a play, a puppet, something that looked alive without really being alive. So a good God cannot create such a world: he must create a world independent of him—and, precisely because he is good, a world capable of evil.

Here we need to take a detour to define evil. In my view (and I recognize that this is a personal definition, among others that are possible), evil is not a reality in itself, in the same way that good is. It is the absence of good. Imagine God as the Good, with a capital G, like a radiant sun: the farther one moves away from God, the farther one moves from the good, and the more evil there is. The only way for there to be nothing but good would therefore be for there to be nothing but God. Consequently, a good God could not create a world that was nothing but good. That leaves a third possibility: to create our world, a world created for good and by the good, but different from God and therefore different from the good. A world in which evil is possible.

But if God is all-powerful, can he create a world governed by different logical laws? What would prevent him from creating a world entirely different from him and yet perfectly good? In other words, do the laws of logic apply to God? And if so, where do they come from? My answer is that the laws of logic do not apply to God from outside; they are in God and are part of him. The only limit to divine omnipotence is omnipotence itself. God cannot do anything other than love, or be anything other than logical, because that is part of his very being.

In short, a good, omniscient God, able to do everything that is possible, would have had no choice but to create a world like ours. The question that remains is whether that is better than not existing at all. This question remains open and complex; we cannot fully resolve it. The absence of a universe is impossible to imagine, so we have no way to think, analyze, or compare in order to reach a conclusion.

By contrast, the dichotomy you draw between a God capable of anything, including creating a perfectly good world completely different from himself, and a God who abandons the world to evil is false. The Bible tackles this question head-on. A good God who created a world in which evil exists cannot leave it as it is. He acts in the world, but not in a way that would crush it and turn it back into the kind of play we saw he could not create, because such a world would be worse than the one we have today.

Evil does not concern humanity alone. As I said, evil is the absence of God. The world is, by definition, other than God. Evil therefore does not concern only beings with free will: natural disasters, death—including the illnesses of young children you mentioned earlier—are also consequences of the fact that the cosmos is not God. In other words, evil is not only a moral question; I would even say it is not primarily a moral question, since our moral judgments and reactions are themselves shaped by biological, social, psychological, and other factors.

That is also why the Bible is not a manual that can be understood immediately, but rather a place where God and human beings encounter one another through reading, meditation, and prayer. God is so different, so powerful, so much greater than our human words and minds that we cannot measure up to his greatness. We cannot understand the divine will. That is not a limitation of God, but of us.

To avoid crushing the world with his omnipotence, God holds back while also entering the world: he himself becomes part of it. That is the whole meaning of the incarnation of Jesus Christ. The incarnation is God choosing to become human in order to share in human life, death, and resurrection.

It is in the promise of resurrection that we find one of the two ways God acts in the world. He does not merely watch what happens; he prepares what comes after. That future is a reconciled cosmos, one that has known evil and can now choose the good—not because it is compelled to, but because it knows it, understands it, and has experienced it. Its choice is therefore free and fully informed, without divine intervention that, by the very force of divine omnipotence, would once again turn the world into a play.

The other way God acts in the world is mysterious, but powerful: he awakens in us the desire for good and the desire to love. He guides those who are willing to be guided, while fully preserving their freedom, never becoming a controller.

God’s omnipotence is therefore not expressed through absolute control that denies the other, but through an infinite capacity to accompany. The paradox is not resolved through force, but through love: a love great enough to accept the risk of evil, humble enough to become incarnate in suffering, and powerful enough to transform the world through the reconciliation to come.

It’s a wordplay, it’s true. It’s the necessary precondition for a discussion: to use the same definition for words.

Now, the interesting question is:

In any case, why would I want or need such a god?

Is the ability to make a squared circle necessary for a God to be worthy of worship?

Religion is believing in myths as literal happenings

That’s absolutely not what religion is. But stay in your ignorance if you want… You became insulting, so I’ll ignore you from now.

God is not completely omnipotent, like I said more than once. He can’t do anything. He does have maximal power though; he can do everything possible.

myth, literally

A myth, by definition, is not something that should be read literally.

can do what it is possible to be done, but is not all powerful

Easy. Our world was the one he was able to create.

Yeah, I generally don’t read usernames. I care about the arguments, not the people who use them. If you think that’s a criteria of intelligence… it’s not very flattering for you.

But now you became insulting, so as I said in my first message, I’ll now ignore you. I’ll have to read usernames now, so you should be happy.

_It’s the first time i’m hearing someone use the term “omnipotent” not in its most literal sens

You don’t discuss with philosophers often then. It’s not an arbitrary definition, but one often used by philosophers. Isn’t normal, while discussing philosophy, to use the technical words of philosophy?

The dictionary gives a broad, ordinary-language definition; it doesn’t settle the technical or philosophical interpretation. Someone asked something similar, and I answered here.

people usually assume

Words are polysemous. In all fields, most words have different technical and general meanings. When discussing statistics for example, it’s normal to use “significant” with a different sense than when you’re speaking about something else. I can say that a totally unimportant statistical result is significant. It wouldn’t be demagogic, would it be? In philosophy and theology, omnipotence always had a different meaning than in the general population. But again, the chosen word is absolutely not important. God can be omnipotent of the word is technically defined, and not omnipotent when it’s not. I don’t understand why you think it’s important, as I have already said more than once that I have no problem saying that God is not omnipotent if the word is broadly defined, for the Bible never describe God as capable to break the laws of logics.

Then, you should explain how in your opinion these texts contradict my thesis, even if they are myths.

Nobody and nothing. If you read the beginning of Genesis carefully, God doesn’t create out of nothing; he transforms matter that is already there. Of course, it’s a myth, not a practical description of the beginning of the universe. But it suggests that some things simply are. I think the laws of logic simply are, or, put differently, God is logic itself. He can’t go against himself. He is his own limit.

All these texts are myths.

the story of Noah is God deciding he didn’t like his creation so they hit the reset button and wiped everyone out

This story is a myth. God didn’t wipe anyone out. In fact, the story answers your question: the text presents the Flood as a bad thing. The destruction of everything because evil exists is portrayed negatively; that’s why God promises never to do it again. Instead, he promises to walk alongside humanity. For Christians, he fulfills that promise by becoming human and suffering with us.

He had only three choices: to create nothing, to create something completely obedient, or to create something capable of not following his will. He chose the third because it was the best option. But he knew that, in creating it, he was also creating the possibility of suffering. He didn’t wish for suffering, but it was a necessary consequence. In response, he had two options: simply let suffering continue, or accompany his creation through it. He chose the second.

So no, he doesn’t do nothing. He does what he can to help us while still respecting us as independent beings.

I squirm nothing. The discussion about exceptions to omnipotence predates Christianity by several centuries. You can’t use a term without studying how people use it: words don’t have meanings on their own; their meanings are given to them by their users. And when a word has meant “maximal power” (and not “absolute power”) for at least 2500 years, you can’t reject that definition as illegitimate simply because of its etymology. That would be like refusing to call a smartphone a smartphone because it isn’t “smart” in the strict sense.

And the word itself doesn’t appear in the Bible at all.

God can’t create a squared circle. He did not decided that, it just is. If you think that this kind of limitation makes him not omnipotent, then again, I’ll happily recognize that he is not omnipotent. But I’ll still hold that he can do everything possible.

And I used both a philological and a philosophical argument. So both a scientific one and one that didn’t pretend to be scientific (but can be true nonetheless).

No. Omnipotence is the ability to do everything possible, regardless of who or what is acting. The limitation is on the reality side, not on the actor.

Etymology doesn’t work like that, or a pineapple would be an apple that grows on pines. For real, omnipotence is defined by philosophy as maximal power.

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.

This is not a necessary conclusion. Omnipotence does not mean the ability to do anything whatsoever, but the ability to do everything that is possible. Since God is Love, he could not create something distinct from himself unless his creation were at least capable of not loving. Evil is simply a consequence of creation’s capacity for unlovingness. So he’s not able to prevent evil even if he’s willing to, but he’s still is omnipotent of the word is correctly defined. If you want to keep the maximalist definition then I, as a Christian, will cheerfully say that God is not omnipotent. But it’s just a wordplay.

I’m ready to respectfully discuss this idea, but will ignore any disrespectful or insulting message.