I say this because what's truly impossible in human terms are contradictions. — TheMadFool

Technically if what a human being can understand or what actions a human being can perform metaphysically are determined/governed descriptively by the laws of classical logic then what a human being could understand or perform would remain within the classical regime. It would be impossible for a human being to understand or perform contradictory actions because by their own nature they are unable to do so.

We may one day rule the universe, create another one for all we know but we would never be able to both affirm and deny something at the same time without the whole thing morphing into nonsense. — TheMadFool

As far as you know and understand the ontological ramifications for these metaphysical descriptors that underlie many aspects of our analysis of reality which we dub classical logic.

I think it's safe to say that when we talk of god's omnipotence the gold standard for that should be the ability to defy the law of non-contradiction i.e. god is able to perform a contradiction. — TheMadFool

Why? Why defy the law of non-contradiction and not that of the law identity or hold onto any other tens of different non-classical logic? Do you know that what you could happen to derive in one may not be derivable in another so in some cases it wouldn't be considered more powerful to hold one set of axioms over another.

God, being omnipotent, would be able to do contradictions and still make complete sense. — TheMadFool

Why should he be able to do contradictions? What makes this a necessary attribute of being omnipotent. . . especially given I nor you know the extant to which reality beyond our senses is more friendly to one axiomatic system of logic than another.

Only when there's only ONE god does war and peace both emanating from the same source amount to a contradiction. — TheMadFool

I think you are playing loosely with your anthropomorphic biases here in defining god. Reality just is and while there are differences among it these could be considered merely aspects or parts of god that do not amount to the whole.

Since to be omnipotent, and god has to be omnipotent, there has to be contradictions — TheMadFool

I reject this premise as to be omnipotent you would merely need to exercise more power (not defined or specified) as an entity than any other entity in existence and perhaps in all potentialities capable that the future holds. It merely is "the most powerful entity that exists". This could entail that they do hold onto within their nature an arbitrary set of governing non-classical axioms but this could also easily mean one that is logically bound by classical logic yet can still possess more power (still ill-defined or specified) than any entity that does exist, will exist, has existed, or could potentially exist. The arbitrary logical grounding that underlies such an entity is really rather second in importance.

It would be impossible for a human being to understand or perform contradictory actions because by their own nature they are unable to do so — substantivalism

:ok:

Why? Why defy the law of non-contradiction and not that of the law identity or hold onto any other tens of different non-classical logic? Do you know that what you could happen to derive in one may not be derivable in another so in some cases it wouldn't be considered more powerful to hold one set of axioms over another. — substantivalism

Good question. The law of noncontradiction is the right choice if the objective is to do something impossible.

I reject this premise — substantivalism

1. If there is omnipotence then there has to be contradictions
2. If there has to be contradictions then there's only one god
3. There is omnipotence (god is defined thus)
Ergo,
4. There has to contradictions (1, 3 modus ponens)
Ergo,
5. There's only one god (2, 4 modus ponens)

Good question. The law of noncontradiction is the right choice if the objective is to do something impossible. — TheMadFool

If you are able to do something that is impossible then it actually isn't impossible and rather not categorized correctly or specified. If something is impossible by definition then it CANNOT be possible if it's then clearly you do not understand your definitions enough to have changed your labeling.

If you are to abide by a non-classical logic then you can perform actions that would be consistent with the axioms of that logical structure chosen to ground the nature of such an entity. If the action is implicitly to be one that must abide by classical logic then actions which you cannot perform and would be impossible would be ones in which you aren't following classical logic.

1. If there is omnipotence then there has to be contradictions — TheMadFool

Something can only perform logically consistent actions with respect to classical logic and yet be more influential, powerful, or bring about more (perhaps infinitely many) various states of affairs than any other creature that does or could potentially (or did) exist. Thusly deserving of the label of being omnipotent. . . intuitively though you haven't really specified a PRECISE definition of omnipotence in our discussion.

It's also of suspect whether a being could exist, period, that could perform logically contradictory actions or better stated what specific axioms of logic can potentially differ (or actually are) versus those that are set in stone metaphysically.

1. If there is omnipotence then there has to be contradictions
2. If there has to be contradictions then there's only one god
3. There is omnipotence (god is defined thus)
Ergo,
4. There has to contradictions (1, 3 modus ponens)
Ergo,
5. There's only one god (2, 4 modus ponens) — TheMadFool

I wasn't disagreeing with the validity of your argument but rather its soundness. I reject premise one. . . though this would require you to precisely define what omnipotence is with no VAGUE notions.

If you are able to do something that is impossible then it actually isn't impossible and rather not categorized correctly or specified. If something is impossible by definition then it CANNOT be possible if it's then clearly you do not understand your definitions enough to have changed your labeling.

If you are to abide by a non-classical logic then you can perform actions that would be consistent with the axioms of that logical structure chosen to ground the nature of such an entity. If the action is implicitly to be one that must abide by classical logic then actions which you cannot perform and would be impossible would be ones in which you aren't following classical logic. — substantivalism

It's not that there's failure in categorization of possible and impossible. You're using human logic to try and comprehend this particular aspect of divine omnipotence and it has led you to the conclusion that there's been a miscategorization. No such thing has occurred. A contradiction is impossible and this makes sense, it is also possible and this too makes sense, but only to god and not to us.

It's not that there's failure in categorization of possible and impossible. You're using human logic to try and comprehend this particular aspect of divine omnipotence and it has led you to the conclusion that there's been a miscategorization. — TheMadFool

Is it possible under the accepted logical axiomatic structure (fuzzy logic, classical logic, para-consistent, etc) for such an action to be performed? Is this logic assumed to hold with such an entity? Then it's possible only with a certain logical structure otherwise it cannot be done with another logical structure. An entity not following nature wise classical logic can then perhaps perform an action that could not be done if said entity was by nature bound to classical logic.

No such thing has occurred. A contradiction is impossible and this makes sense, it is also possible and this too makes sense, but only to god and not to us. — TheMadFool

Is it possible for an entity to bring about a state of affairs (even one that is in classical logic to be considered contradictory) then it was never impossible in the first place. It was possible all along just that you had to have a non-classical logic for it to be the case.

It's impossible for a human being to jump thirty feet off the ground. This is implicit in the definition of a human being which would include our nomological restrictions and may include but is not limited to the inability to perform said action. Does this make jumping thirty feet impossible? Depending on your nature it may be rather hidden as a tautology that you could not so it wouldn't be possible if you desired to. So when we create a robotic entity that is able to jump thirty feet off the ground then it's rather implicit (or more explicit here) that its accompanying nomological restrictions do not force it to have a jump height of less than thirty feet so it's also possible. The key point here is that to say something is possible or not is vague as it doesn't specify the specific entity's nature or restrictions.