Received,
of course you are basically correct: one can´t cover all god concepts out there with one single argument; which also means that with little modifications of your god concept you can find an easy ad hoc answer to an argument such as the PoE.
(Like: The PoE wouldn´t even begin to apply to a god that isn´t a personal, sentient entity).
However, what we have to keep in mind is that even only minor modifications of a god concept can have tremendous implications for other parts of the theological discussion, and each time the entire discussion would have to start anew. To be honest, it is my impression that the theological blanket is simply too small - of course, any time a problem is pointed out you can draw the blanket so that it covers it, but you´ll uncover another spot.
There is a reason why my user line is "God? What do you mean??", and when it comes to fluffy terms like "omnipotent" the first question should be also "Omnipotent? What do you mean??"
All that being said, I´ll try to address your points:
Let's imagine for a moment that laws can't be any other way than they are;
Ok. Do I understand that correctly: We do away with the entire "With god everything is possible/God is beyond time, space, logic, whatnot/Who are you to put god in a small human box?" concept, and basically replace it by "With god
everything that´s possible is possible (i.e. with god everything is possible that would be possible without god as well)"?
Fine with me. However, I just hope you are aware that the implications I have spoken about above would be huge. If god in creating the universe was bound by the very laws/rules/conditions that we are subjected to within the universe, an entire field of theology would be out the window: E.g. god wouldn´t be necessary, and "god did it by virtue of his omnipotence" would not be acceptable as an explanation. The entire "God is able to create matter from nothing (or from spirituality") wouldn´t be applicable because this is exactly what the rules/laws/conditions within this universe do
not allow for) .
Anyway, if you postulate that "omnipotent" doesn´t mean "all-powerful" (but just "some sort of pretty powerful"), for purposes of a meaningful discussion I would like you to define upfront what powers actually entails in your understanding.
And while we are at it and so that I´m not in for another surprise it would be great if you could give your definition of "omniscient" - after all, chances are that at some point you will reveal to me that "omniscient" doesn´t mean "all-knowing" but "knowing that which is knowable within the realm of our imagination" or something. Thanks.
that is, the law of contradiction applies and can't be negated in another world. I really can't even begin to imagine how our basic laws could be reversed in any type of way; therefore, talking about these possibilities is talking nonsense.
Well, when considering god concepts I am asked to accept a lot of stuff that I can´t even begin to imagine all the time (actually that´s the very foremost support for most god concepts: God is beyond our limited imagination), so I guess the same could be asked from you.
On a more serious note, I am glad to see we agree that all these god concepts are nonsense.
However, when saying "laws/rules/conditions" I wasn´t even thinking of such a basic thing as the law of non-contradiction (or logic in general). Rather, I was thinking of simple things that are easily imaginable to have been created differently. Just to name one very simple example: I don´t see any necessity for a creatorgod to create the condition that injuries hurt and/or that certain injuries cause death.
Re "reversed": Naturally (and particularly in light of the claims that god is omniscient and unchanging) I don´t think the PoE would expect god to reverse his/her/its creation but to have done it right from the beginning.
But let's imagine that laws can't be any other way than they are. If these laws necessitate suffering, this means that suffering is necessary. If it's necessary, does this mean that God isn't omnipotent? Is omnipotence negated because you create a three-sided object and it therefore is a triangle?
Now, tackling my proposition as if I meant to say that god could have created a three sided object with four sides is certainly convenient but completely besides the point.
Likewise with some suffering -- especially suffering from so-called free will, but also (in possibility) with other types of suffering. If God chooses to create the world using evolution (which, after all, is clearly the only option if we assume that God exists), then evolution is obviously going to allow the possibility of bad mutations -- matter-of-factly, most mutations are regressive. Does God's use of evolution mean he's limited in power?
No, and your wording "chooses to create the world using evolution" implies that there must have been other options. Which is exactly my starting point.
Same goes for "freewill" (whatever that´s supposed to mean - I guess I will never get a coherent explanation, and therefore I´d like you to understand that I am not willing to discuss it in detail for the time being). If freewill necessitates evil, and if god wanted to keep evil from us, god could have created us without this ominous "freewill".
Only if you assume that a world where evolution isn't the vehicle of creation is somehow "better" than one that isn't. But how on earth do we go about determining whether an evolutionary or non-evolutionary world would be better?
For purposes of discussing the PoE (or the Problem of Suffering in which you have changed it) we don´t need to go there: If we assume that god could have created a world without suffering, the argument applies fully (no matter whether you or I think that a world without suffering would be a "better" or "worse" world).
For example god could have created a world without animated objects (and this isn´t even asking much from his omnipotence but comparably little): zadong, no suffering, no evil.
That brings me to a second point: determining what is "better" or "best" or "greater", or any other type of comparative adjective, really is vague when we're speaking about the grand scheme of things.
Yes, sure (and I may add they are vague even if we don´t speak about the grand scheme of things.
Fortunately, though, those terms aren´t part of the PoE argument, and thus the relevance of this point escapes me.
This makes questions of God's omnipotence murky in addition to concerns about whether God is good or not.
Again: It strikes me as somewhat funny, that such murkiness, nonsense and absurdity isn´t pointed out when the claims are made but not before they are hypothetically accepted, considered or rejected.
If I understand you correctly, I am well advised to simply ignore statements such as "God is omnipotent" or "God is good" because they are void of conceivable meaning - or else I will be criticized for trying to take them seriously.
