That is my opinion as well as the opinion of most christian scholars. But there are a number of people who do view God as absolutely omnipotent and omniscient. If you wish to disprove the existence of God you will need to disprove the existence of both views and not just one.
Of course many great minds throughout history have been trying to disprove God and generally conclude that God can't be disproven. Why do you try so hard?
Most Christian scholars.
It is not an analogy and it is not mine. It is one that has been proposed by mathemeticians and logisticians. They generally agree that it has not been resolved.
Having a more accurate view of God rather than a less accurate view is not a pyrrhic victory. I do not give it up to save a notion of God but to have a more accurate understanding. I sometimes wonder though if you reject a belief in God to save something of yours that you very much want.
I suspect that they are mutually exclusive but I may be wrong. There are limits to logic. After all (as listed below) the idea of a square circle is illogical so if I propose that God should make one I do not prove that God does not exist but rather that there are limits to logic.
Yes, He cannot act contrary to his nature.
Here are some others:
"God is omnipotent. But omnipotence does not mean that God can do literally everything.
As the shorter catechism says "God can do all His holy will."
God cannot sin...God cannot lie...God cannot change His nature.
God cannot deny the demands of His holy character.
God cannot make a square circle, for the notion of a square circle is self–contradictory.
God cannot cease to be God. But all that God wills and promises He can and will do."
http://www.leaderu.com/offices/schaefer/docs/questions.html
You will note that some of that is from the shorter catechism which was written in the 1640's. It is also subscribed to by large numbers of people.
