Sort:  

You totally skipped my argument - it is possible to have both power to self destruct and power to resist such destruction. If omnipotence is A, lack of omnipotence is ~A. Indestructibility is not ~A, it is different dimension of existence (omnipotence tells about potential - what can you potentially do, indestructibility tells about practice - assured continued existence). Being that is both omnipotent and indestructible is not self contradictory.

There is also scope to be considered. You can only view omnipotence/indestructibility within the defined set of axioms that build certain reality. F.e. if you have 2D plane and flat objects that move around it, if you add a 3D object to the mix it forms a new 2D object through intersection - that object can vanish (be destroyed) in reality of 2D plane, but its 3D existence is intact.

Other example of scope: I can potentially stop the flow of time for any computer application, analyze and correct its behavior, change its data (memories), modify its environment - I am omnipotent in that scope. Yet due to the nature of my reality I can only influence application reality via proxy - other applications (angels/demons). I "emanate my omnipotence" to my proxies, inside computer I am my proxies and they are me - there is no other me in that scope. My proxies are therefore omnipotent. They are also destructible yet I am not, I can always return to that reality with new proxies that will be just as "me" as previous ones.

Yes, they are different dimensions, but they are linked/related. The structure of the argument is sound:

Omnipotence = A, Indestructible = B.

A -> ~B
A -> B
Therefore, ~A.

Generally, the scope of this argument is existence (that which exists)...if we wish to suppose some dimension beyond existence, then we are no longer doing logic.

Coin Marketplace

STEEM 0.27
TRX 0.21
JST 0.039
BTC 97426.90
ETH 3593.28
USDT 1.00
SBD 3.88