But why do you think he can do anything?

________________________________________

I guess you are thinking about the nature of impossibility... In a way that is what this is about, I guess.

Do you know where the philosophical notion of possibility and impossibility came from? (Do you want to?)

It is a formal notion. That is to say it defines operations. I'll attempt to show you in a simple example:

let p = it is hot (the right side doesn't matter we could have picked any proposition. what matters is that p is a stand in variable for any proposition. defining propositions is tricky)
let q = it is wet (ditto)

Now in english we often say things like 'it is hot and it is wet'. I'm interested in the AND boolean operator...
p AND q (in this instance means 'it is hot and it is wet'). This is sometimes written as:
p . q (where . is the symbol for AND)
We can then define a truth table for the operator .

when p is true and q is true then p . q is true
when p is true and q is false then p . q is false
when p is false and q is true then p . q is false
when p is false and q is false then p . q is false

the above definition is usually written as a table, but it is hard.

each line of the above (each row on the truth table) is a possible world. we have considered all the possible worlds (all the logical distributions of truth values for 2 variables). all the relevant possibilities. then we assess the claim p . q at each world and depending on the way the world is (whether p is true or false, whether q is true or false) a truth value for the expression p . q is delivered.

Kripke discovered / invented truth tables... And then philosophers have gone on to consider possible worlds in more depth. possible worlds are OBJECTIVE or mind independent. it is a fact that there are four possible worlds that are relevant to assessing the claim p . q... we can say what the truth conditions are in each possible world (for the statement)...

can god make it that the . operator is defined differently? so it delivers a verdict of 'true' for the expression 'p . q' in a world where p was false and q was false? if . was defined differently, then it would not be the . operator, it would be a DIFFERENT operator, however.

but words words words (or alternatively... formal operations formal operations formal operations)... contradictions are an artifact of language (or formal operations) methinks... while it is correct to say that contradictory states of affairs cannot obtain that doesn't limit God at all I don't think...

though it does show us something of the nature of our formal operations and how we get ourselves into trouble sometimes because of language.

i find it interesting because usually theists say 'we can't comprehend god and of course he can do the impossible'. i think it is more that we haven't comprehended possibility / impossibility to see that it isn't a limit on god that he can't do the impossible.

but i dunno... intuitionist logicians would probably be more sympathetic (they don't think you can do proof by contradiction)