He might behave in a way that God categorically disapproves of.

I think, perhaps, you're not taking the time to understand the view I am expressing. Again: an omnipotent being would have to be able to constitutively determine the content of morality, otherwise they wouldn't be able to do everything. Thus, whether an act is right or wrong is going to be determined by God's will.

Kant noted, correctly, that moral imperatives are categorical imperatives of Reason. He didn't, however, clarify who or what Reason was. That's what I'm doing: Reason is God. Thus, to be behaving immorally is to be behaving in a way that Reason - that is, God - categorically disapproves of.

Of course, if you meant that Robinson Crusoe is the lone person in the universe, then he'd be unable to do wrong because rightness and wrongness wouldn't exist.

He might behave in a way that God categorically disapproves of. — Bartricks

Then he's not alone. Again, Robinson Crusoe is on a desert island alone. How can he be immoral?

Can you elaborate on why my belief in reality is not skeptical enough? How did you reach that conclusion, and how do you know how skeptical of reality I am?
I dont agree with how you’ve defined magical thinking here, thats certainly not I how was using the term.

I've just told you: he couldn't be able to be. What you've asked, in effect, is "if morality doesn't exist, how can Robinson Crusoe be immoral?"

Like I say, you're not taking the time or trouble to understand the view I am expressing.

Again, then. Morality - you know, moral directives, moral values - are. the. directives. and. values. of. God.

If you think they're not, fine. But a) they demonstrably are and b) this thread is about what it means to be omnipotent, and if you're omnipotent moral directives and values would have to be your own directives and values otherwise they'd not be under your control.

So if this omnipotent being, or God, or whatever - hasn't created anything, how can he be benevolent?

Can you elaborate on why my belief in reality is not skeptical enough? How did you reach that conclusion, and how do you know how skeptical of reality I am? — DingoJones

I am just guessing. And I provided definitions and speculation because none was forthcoming from you.

I literally just explained that to you a post or so ago. Learn what words mean and then read it.

Values. have. no. meaning. to. someone. who. is. alone.

No. They. Don't. You don't know what the words you're using mean, do you?

Omnibenevolence doesn't mean 'all benevolent'. It means 'all good' or 'morally perfect'. Okay?

And you obviously can be benevolent and be all alone, irrelevant though that is to this discussion (just imagine a benevolent person, and then imagine them alone.....they're still benevolent).

Fair enough. To me magical thinking is when a person just skips over inconvenient data and reasoning that doesnt support the conclusion they want to reach, like a kind of confirmation bias.
As far as being skeptical, I would say Im quite skeptical in general. I temper that with an open mind and willingness to explore things even if im skeptical of it.

No. They. Don't. — Bartricks

You said he was an omnibenevolent being, or God, which is to say he created something to be benevolent toward, or created the universe. One cannot be omnibenevolent alone, however you define it.

He cannot redefine what is good and bad because it's established in the act of Creation.

So, the answer to the question "Can God do anything?" - is no.

God can't do anything because he would know the consequences of his actions, or the consequences of the consequences would be non-benevolent in some way, eventually.

Omnibenevolence is an absolute limitation on his omnipotence.

I pity your teachers. Omnibenevolence doesn't mean 'very benevolent'. Look it up if you don't believe me.

omnibenevolence
[ˌɒmnɪbəˈnɛv(ə)l(ə)ns]
NOUN
(with reference to a deity) perfect or unlimited goodness.

So now we both know what it means, I make the same argument.

God can't do anything...at all, because he would know the consequences of his actions, or the consequences of the consequences would be non-benevolent in some way, eventually. — counterpunch

Yes, so it means what I said it means - perfect goodness. You get a star for that.

Now try understanding the rest of what I said. I'll help - this is the first question: what does perfect goodness involve?

You can't sidestep my argument by condescending to me. The answer is no. God can't do anything.

Someone who believes in it.

ah, now you've lost your star. "No" isn't a coherent answer to the question I asked you. Anyway, lovely as this is, it's clearly a waste of time as we've reached the point where you're reduced to just asserting things (a point we reached a while ago, frankly).

Ah, go be benevolent unto thyself!

I don't understand. My question was "what does perfect goodness involve?" and your answer is

Someone who believes in it. — Daniel

Do you mean that if you believe you're morally perfect, then you are? What would you be believing?

Thought you said that was impossible.

Even the gods must follow the laws of nature. Logos, reason, the controlling force of the universe made manifest in speech. The gods do not manifest logos but are subject to it and science is discovering the reason. cause of, manifestation/ effect.

Conscience is coming out of science/knowledge.

Truly, there is nothing that an imaginary God could not do, since there are no limits to the imagination! — Present awareness

Really? You can imagine square circles?

Now, once more, a being who can do anything is not going to be bound by the laws of logic, for if they were they would not be able to do anything, but only those things that logic permits. — Bartricks

Are you able to see a square circle?
If a square circle would be presented to you, would you recognize it as such?

If that's correct, then one could be omnipotent and have created nothing. Indeed, to insist otherwise would be once more to put restrictions on an omnipotent being.

So, God could have created everything if he had so wished, but whether he actually did so or not is an open question and it is not inconsistent with his being omnipotent that he created nothing at all. Or so I think at the moment..... — Bartricks

Just go read some Hindu theologies, and you'll have the whole gamut of options on this ...

It seems we agree - I don't know by how much. But I view science as valid knowledge of reality/Creation. I don't know if God exists - but if he does, understanding the Creation in which we are placed, and acting according to true knowledge of Creation is surely the path to God, for reality is, in effect - God's word made manifest. And worse case scenario - we'd make the world into a paradise and secure a prosperous sustainable future!

er, no. If you can do anything, you can do anything.

...a square circle is not a thing. It's just running words together that one shouldn't; like the little man ho wasn't there. Like flying pink Democracy.

He can make a flying pink democracy too. He can do 'anything'. Not hard to grasp really. And he can make anything a thing, and then do it. That's what being 'all powerful' involves.
Whereas if you say that being all powerful involves only being able to do the logically possible, then God won't be able to do a ton of things that even I can.
Here:

1. If P, then Q
2. Q
3. therefore P

I just drew that conclusion, but God couldn't. What a weed.

Saying god cannot do what is logically impossible is not putting a restriction on his omnipotence.

If it is restricting anything, it is restricting language. It is saying "let's not talk nonsense". Square circles and triangles with four sides are nonsense.

This comes back to your "Can we dispense with necessity?" thread. You showed there that you have not read much about modal logic. You are just a bit confused. Same for your thread on "Are necessary and contingent truths necessary?".

It's good to see you thinking about this stuff; it would be good to also see you learning a bit about it.

I agree that my opinion or your opinion are irrelevant when it comes to what actually is! However, your example of a square circle reminds me of the question “what happens when a unstoppable force meets an immovable object? Is it possible that something which is all powerful, could override that which is logically impossible? Once again, it matters not what you or I think, because it does not change the way things actually are.