You're right, it's not undefined any more than "square" or "circle" are undefined.
No, the definition is very specific. It means "all-powerful". The paradox you are highlighting doesn't arise from its supposed lack of definition, but from the conflicting strands of information which are created by the use of the word "all". The "all" is too encompassing for the word "powerful" - it creates different avenues of meaning which eventually overlap and conflict with each other.
Right. Like I said earlier. There are potentially big problems with language when you use the word "all" and when a statement refers to itself as in "this post is false."
The point also remains that, logically, there can be no such thing as an "omnipotent being who is conscious". Such a thing is a contradiction in terms - like "square circle". Hence, this issue, as amusing as it is, has nothing do with reality.
Well I don't see it that way necessarily. That could be one option but the other option is that the problem is not that God is not really omnipotent but that the language used to talk about God is flawed. Or maybe both.
I'm not interested in what fuddy-duddy people think. Their conception of God is imaginary and irrational, and therefore has nothing to do with reality.
Fair enough, but you can't say it has nothing to do with God except in your own personal world where it doesn't. You're basically defining a circle to be a square and then saying that there is such a thing as a square circle. That's what you do when you remove "omnipotent" from the definition of God.
There is only one sense in which God (the Totality) is omnipotent - namely, that it is both indestructible and the creator of all things. Nothing can ever overpower it, because, by definition, there is nothing other than it.
Those sure are strange senses for one to be omnipotent. There's a big difference between omnipotence and invulerability and between omnipotence and being the creator. Sounds like you're saying it is the most powerful "thing" that exists, which I can certainly live with for the reason you stated. And that certainly wouldn't lead to any silly paradoxes.
I was deadly serious.
Ok. Well, I don't believe you know everything about God. God contains the set of natural numbers because that set exists. So you're saying that you know everything about this tiny, tiny, tiny corner of God. Then what's the solution to the Collatz Problem, the Goldbach conjecture, the Riemann Hypothesis, or the Catalan Conjecture? Or better yet, let p(n) be the nth prime number. Factorize p(g^g^g^g^g^g) where g = 1 googleplex. You know everything about God means you know everything about everything. God also contains as a tiny, tiny, tiny subthing the planet Earth. Since you know everything about God, you can tell me how many neutrios are hitting the atmosphere at any given instant, or what President Bush is thinking at this very moment.
Besides, even if you did know everything about God, that is a far cry from knowing God.
I can certainly do far more than an imaginary God. Can't you?
Yes though God is not imaginary.