Evolution, Atheism, and Religious Beliefs

[jonathan180iq]

Richard Dawkins has stated that once he understood the explanatory power of evolution, he abandoned all belief in God. This is interesting, and it seems that many individuals transition from theistic to atheistic beliefs shortly after they understand and realize the fact that evolution can fully explain the complexity and diversity of life. Yet, many religious people (including many priests) fully accept evolution while still holding a strong belief in God.

So, my question is, for both atheists and theists who accept evolution, how much does recognition of the fact of evolution affect your beliefs? For atheists, did it ultimately lead you to abandon belief in God? For theists who accept the fact of naturalistic evolution, does the fact that all species with all of their complexities were formed by entirely naturalistic processes ever cause you to question your theistic faith?

God was always a bonkers idea, regardless of Evolutionary study.

From the time I was a little kid, I didn't understand why people would sing, pray, and sometimes cry to the ceiling of a fellowship hall, and I had never even heard the world "evolution".

I think all of these God vs. Evolution debates are wholly misguided, as we seriously underestimate how ludicrous the God claim is in the first place...

 

[Quintessence]

So, my question is, for both atheists and theists who accept evolution, how much does recognition of the fact of evolution affect your beliefs? For atheists, did it ultimately lead you to abandon belief in God? For theists who accept the fact of naturalistic evolution, does the fact that all species with all of their complexities were formed by entirely naturalistic processes ever cause you to question your theistic faith?

At the time I was learning about biological evolution, it's probably accurate to say I was both atheistic and irreligious as far as the common standard for those terms goes. As such, there was no conflict to be had as the sciences were already front and center with respect to how I understood the world. In retrospect, this was a strongly religious orientation, but at the time, I was incapable of recognizing it as such and would have angrily objected to any such characterization (because, ew, religion). Yeah, I was one of those angstheists.

Then, in college, my insufferable curiosity sparked me to learn about the topic of religion in spite of thinking it was total rubbish. Details aside, the journey challenged my narrow conception of what "theism" was and what "religion" was. It prompted me to ask a lot of deep questions and my foundation in the sciences grounded my answers. I came to the conclusion that there were few things better qualified for the title "higher power" than the entire universe upon which I depended for my existence. Nature, the universe, and all of the things in it became my gods - as it was for our polytheistic ancestors.

In such a system, biological evolution is simply another one of the many gods and there is no grounds for any conflict. In no small respect, my theology and my religion are an outgrowth of my love of the sciences. It's no surprise then, that I tend to be that guy who calls "bollocks" whenever someone goes on about how sciences and religions supposedly conflict all the time, or that annoying person who goes "um... theistic evolution?"

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Creationist students, listen to me very carefully: There is evidence for evolution, and evolution is an extremely successful scientific theory. That doesn't make it ultimately true, and it doesn't mean that there could not possibly be viable alternatives. It is my own faith choice to reject evolution, because I believe the Bible reveals true information about the history of the earth that is fundamentally incompatible with evolution. I am motivated to understand God's creation from what I believe to be a biblical, creationist perspective. Evolution itself is not flawed or without evidence. Please don't be duped into thinking that somehow evolution itself is a failure. Please don't idolize your own ability to reason. Faith is enough. If God said it, that should settle it. Maybe that's not enough for your scoffing professor or your non-Christian friends, but it should be enough for you.

That's a refreshing admission. He's basically saying that the theory of evolution is very robustly supported, but that he chooses to believe his Bible instead.

But as a matter of impression I'd say most people belong to a religion for reasons other than a deep and central conviction that God exists in some relevant sense.

Agreed.

Like the source of the above, they are content to conform to religious beliefs without too much concern about whether they are correct or not because it feels more right to do so than to be correct about reality. Others value being correct over being comfortable.

ID is just Creationism with a white lab coat on.

Also agreed.

That was what was determined at the Dover (or Kitzmiller) Trial that Subduction Zone referred to. This 2 hour videois one of the most interesting documentaries I have ever seen, and actually quite dramatic in places (astrology as a scientific theory, "cdesign proponentsists"):

You or somebody else also said that they considered ID and creationism synonymous. I agree there as well. Every creation myth, for example, whether it be the Viking version, or the Babylonian version, or any other, is a story of intelligent design leading to creation of our universe, each version featuring a different intelligent designer or designers doing the creating.

omniscience is incompatible with free will

You're on a roll.

We don't get this from Christians very often. Instead, they tend to exist that the two can coexist. Free will seems necessary to Christianity. Original sin and the fall of man, perdition, the need for salvation seem to depend on Adam and Eve having free will and choosing disobedience, and therefore deserving punishment.

An omnipotent god can be omniscient and mere human mortals can still have free will.

Not if free will means the freedom to make a choice at the time it is made rather than the mere illusion of this freedom. If free will means only the experience of becoming aware of a desire, like thirst, and being free to act in order to accomplish some desired outcome such as to get a drink, then yes, we have that even if God exists and is omniscient.

The neuroscientists suggesting that free will is an illusion grant that we have such experiences - how could they not? - but are generally considering the something else - the ability to be more than a passive observer of urges and desires being fulfilled by neural circuits outside of consciousness that generate them and the motor signals that result in their fulfillment. This observer needs to be the source of these desires and their execution at the time they are made.

If it's the latter to which you refer, then I agree with @Axe Elf that such a state of affairs is incompatible with divine omniscience.

I think that what he is telling you is that life is more like the replay of a taped sporting event than a live game, except with the players being conscious at the time of the replay, and experiencing desires. To them, it's more like a live game, with the future unknown to them.

Yet to the one watching the movie from a metaspace, every move - every play, every score, every infraction - is known in advance. The players are confined to following a predetermined script notwithstanding their sense of free will. The future is not just unknown to them. but feels undetermined.

But there are things that cannot be done with ANY amount of power, such as drawing a four-sided triangle, introducing me to a married bachelor, making a one-sided coin (and therein lies part of the solution to the Problem of Evil), or be omniscient and still not know what's going to happen.

Agreed again.

So does God have free will? Can an omniscient entity do anything other than what it already knows it will do?

It is simply a choice on my part to assume those axioms, much like the choice one makes between two competing parallel postulates, depending on what kind of work one wants to do. I want to do my work in a universe where the omni-God exists, so that is how I define Him.

And now you are the refreshingly honest one. You believe what you believe because you want it to be true. Who can argue with what another person wants?

 

[dianaiad]

Even if God exists, evolution would have nothing to do with God "doing" anything. Natural selection is an entirely blind and naturalistic process that by definition works in the absence of any "intelligent" selecting agent.

IS it, then?

I've seen computer programs that, once started running, seem to replicate themselves, grow and change in entirely random ways. Certainly anybody unaware of the mathematical principles behind the programming would call it 'blind." However, it's not 'blind...' and neither is evolution. In fact, evolution is very...uhmn....'results driven,' with an 'eye,' so to speak, on the prize. All selection is done for the ultimate goal...as if there was an entity to have such a goal...of 'survival of the species.'

Ain't nothin' BLIND about evolution. If one looks at how a species develops, one can make a fairly good prediction of where it's going, at least in the short term. Ask any farmer, live stock breeder or the AKC. There are rules, even 'laws' about it. Now this doesn't prove that a deity designed those laws, of course, but it doesn't disprove that idea, either.

As for 'naturalistic,' if you are defining that as 'something that happens without intelligent interference?" If that's so, you are begging a very big question.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

evolution is very...uhmn....'results driven,' with an 'eye,' so to speak, on the prize. All selection is done for the ultimate goal...as if there was an entity to have such a goal...of 'survival of the species.'

Shhh! We were just told that science and religion are not in conflict.

Ain't nothin' BLIND about evolution. If one looks at how a species develops, one can make a fairly good prediction of where it's going, at least in the short term.

Even if you could predict what direction the biological evolution of any species will go, that wouldn't make evolution not naturalistic. I can predict what will happen when I drop an apple, but that doesn't mean that the process is not blind.

Ask any farmer, live stock breeder or the AKC. There are rules, even 'laws' about it.

Are you using the existence of results driven evolution - artificial selection - to argue that only results driven evolution is possible?

As for 'naturalistic,' if you are defining that as 'something that happens without intelligent interference?" If that's so, you are begging a very big question.

Begging the question is a logical error in an argument. Definitions are not arguments.

The reason scientific theories are naturalistic is because even if there were evidence of supernaturalism, it would add no explanatory or predictive power to any scientific theory. Try it yourself. Find a scientific theory - perhaps the heliocentric theory. The theory says that despite appearances, the sun and planets are not actually orbiting a stationary earth, but that earth and the planets are orbiting the solar system's center of mass, which resides in the sun.

Can you show how adding supernaturalism helps any there? If not, perhaps you'll agree that there is no need for more than naturalsim

 

[dianaiad]

Shhh! We were just told that science and religion are not in conflict.

Yes. I said so myself. I don't think they ARE in conflict.

..........Can you show how adding supernaturalism helps any there? If not, perhaps you'll agree that there is no need for more than naturalsim

On one level, no it doesn't, and one should NOT add 'supernaturalism" into searches using scientific methods. Indeed, it's lazy.

Remember, I'm a devout theist here and I do believe that God created everything. With that in mind, I ALSO believe that He gave us two 'texts' to learn about Him. One is the scripture He gave His prophets, very fallible people who were products of their own ages and learning, and who wrote as they understood stuff. This is the instruction book we are given on how to treat one another, and to start to understand Him, as much as we can.

The OTHER 'text,' is the universe: His creation. HOW things happen, and WHAT happened? Those things are the purview of scientific examination, and I believe strongly that this is something we can, and should, do. Coming to a wall where we can't figure out 'what's next" and just saying 'God did it," IS lazy. Yeah, God did it. WE ARE SUPPOSED TO FIGURE OUT HOW. Scriptures are given to us third hand and filtered. The universe is a...letter, a text book, written directly BY Him and given directly to us.

There's nothing 'supernatural' about a Creator God, after all. What there is, is 'natural' we don't know about yet.

Finding out HOW the universe works does not preclude the existence of a Creator, though, does it? It just means that throwing up one's hands and settling for 'Godidit" isn't going to help us learn anything. Believing in Deity and working to understand His creations through science are NOT incompatible.

At all.

At least, not in my belief system. Now if I were one of those 'turtles all the way down' folks, I might have a problem, but I'm not.

 

[ecco]

An omnipotent god can be omniscient and mere human mortals can still have free will.

Not if free will means the freedom to make a choice at the time it is made ... then I agree with @Axe Elf that such a state of affairs is incompatible with divine omniscience.

What do you base that on? Logic? Common Sense? Your understanding of the mind of god?

See my post #79 to @Axe Elf regarding ants and humans.

So does God have free will? Can an omniscient entity do anything other than what it already knows it will do?

Sure.

 

[ecco]

However, it's not 'blind...'
and neither is evolution. In fact, evolution is very...uhmn....'results driven,' with an 'eye,' so to speak, on the prize. All selection is done for the ultimate goal...as if there was an entity to have such a goal...of 'survival of the species.'

Evolution is not "results" driven.

• Plants don't select their mates.
• Animals don't select their mates with the idea that one day, millions of years from now, their descendants will have evolved into a new species.
• Living things reproduce to produce offspring of themselves. They do not reproduce because they want their species to survive.

Evolution is "conditions" driven.

• Climate change drives evolution.
• Meteor strikes drive evolution.
• Food supply drives evolution.

 

[Segev Moran]

This is interesting, and it seems that many individuals transition from theistic to atheistic beliefs

There is no such thing atheistic belief.
atheism is not believing there is a god. that's it.

So, my question is, for both atheists and theists who accept evolution, how much does recognition of the fact of evolution affect your beliefs? For atheists, did it ultimately lead you to abandon belief in God?

Nope.
It did however was another mystery that seems to be solved.
there are many things we don't know yet.

I think that most atheists become so as they develop a more secular way of thought.
it will many time be more dramatic when one learns more scientific subjects that causes your way of thought to be different.

I know many atheists, none of them became such only due to "discovering" evolution. it was usually a process of slowly finding out that religion and god don't really provide a clear answer to anything.

there are of course people who became atheist for many other reasons and there are many atheists who lack secular thought...

but from my own experience, most atheists are more scientific in the way they think of reality and evolution is just another thing that can be explained without the need for a divine intervention

cheers

 

[dianaiad]

Evolution is not "results" driven.

• Plants don't select their mates.
• Animals don't select their mates with the idea that one day, millions of years from now, their descendants will have evolved into a new species.
• Living things reproduce to produce offspring of themselves. They do not reproduce because they want their species to survive.

Evolution is "conditions" driven.

• Climate change drives evolution.
• Meteor strikes drive evolution.
• Food supply drives evolution.

These things do not DRIVE evolution. They AFFECT evolution. The process of evolution is all about survival; who survives...and perhaps thrives....and who doesn't. No matter what the climate does, what food is available or whether a rock falls from the sky, that's the final 'determiner,' I guess; that which works (and stays alive under whatever circumstances, and reproduces) stays around, and that which doesn't....doesn't.

This is true no matter what may change around an organism.

Perhaps it's something as (on the surface) silly as a gigantic tail of feathers that make flying difficult, is hard to groom and in the long run, shortens the life of the male that has one (I think this goes for horns and antlers and bright feathers on birds that would live longer if they were camouflaged). Doesn't matter. The OFFSPRING of these males...at least the female ones...are better able to survive. So those fancy tails are 'selected for.'

The whole point is survival. If that wasn't the point, there would be nothing for climate to 'drive,' now, would there?

We do not have to assume that God "programmed" this to be so, and we don't have to toss the entire idea of God out the window in order to understand evolutionary processes, and even to manipulate them. You aren't going to prove God exists by researching evolution, or anything else. You are also not going to DISPROVE His existence.

That (the existence of deity) has to be established by very different means. Don't confuse the two processes.

 

[Axe Elf]

That's an unsubstantiated assertion based on nothing more than your belief system. Insofar as the future is concerned, quantum fluctuations have everything to do with it. And as you said, "they're just things that happen. There is substantial evidence to support the view that they truly are random. If they are random, there is no predestination.

What poppycock is this? You're suggesting that random events cannot be predestined? My "belief system" says otherwise:

"The lot is cast into the lap, but the decision is wholly of the Lord [even the events that seem accidental are really ordered by Him]." --Proverbs 16:33 (Amplified Bible)

But the Word of God notwithstanding, surely you agree that every moment in the PAST is fixed and unalterable, don't you? So why would the moments that we haven't gotten to yet be any different? Everything that ever has happened, is happening, and will happen, already exists, frozen in the amber of its moment--quantum fluctuations included. The outcome of a dice roll is no different just because it's random.

 

[Axe Elf]

That is not a "common apperception", that is the definition of omnipotent. If you don't like it, make up a different word for the powers you attribute to your deity. However, since you attribute omnipotence to your god, then you have to accept the common definition and usage.

I don't know what dictionary you're using, but the word "omnipotent" comes from two Latin words, "omni" (meaning "all") and "potens" (meaning "power"). The meaning of "omnipotent" is therefore "all-powerful." God has infinite, unlimited power.

Dictionary.com:
1. almighty or infinite in power, as God.
2. having very great or unlimited authority or power.

Wikipedia:
Omnipotence is the quality of having unlimited power. Monotheistic religions generally attribute omnipotence to only the deity of their faith. In the monotheistic philosophies of Abrahamic religions, omnipotence is often listed as one of a deity's characteristics among many, including omniscience, omnipresence, and omnibenevolence.

So you can see, this does not mean that God can do anything whatsoever; God can do anything that can be done with power, but there are some things that cannot be done with any amount of power, and these are outside of the abilities of even an omnipotent being.

But if it's just the word that's confusing you, and you'd like me to choose a different one, then whenever you see me say "omnipotent," just pretend that I'm using the term "all-powerful" instead. That should remove any confusion, since obviously things like making a one-sided coin are impossible with any amount of power.

An ant cannot comprehend man's Golden Gate Bridge. It cannot comprehend the size of it. It cannot comprehend the usage of it. It cannot comprehend the construction of it. Yet the Golden Gate Bridge does exist.

You, and many others, cannot comprehend that a god can be omniscient and omnipotent while his creations have free will.

That's because nonsense is incomprehensible to me, and many others. As C.S. Lewis once wrote:

"His Omnipotence means power to do all that is intrinsically possible, not to do the intrinsically impossible. You may attribute miracles to him, but not nonsense. This is no limit to his power. If you choose to say 'God can give a creature free will and at the same time withhold free will from it,' you have not succeeded in saying anything about God: meaningless combinations of words do not suddenly acquire meaning simply because we prefix to them the two other words 'God can.'... It is no more possible for God than for the weakest of his creatures to carry out both of two mutually exclusive alternatives; not because his power meets an obstacle, but because nonsense remains nonsense even when we talk it about God."

 

[Axe Elf]

So, people who interpret the bible in the way you do, are people who "can think rationally about abstract concepts" and conclude "If God is omniscient, then I can't have free will!"

Some of them are probably just good students of those who can think rationally about abstract concepts, if they are not that sort of people themselves, but yes, the statement, "If God is omniscient, then I can't have free will" is an abstract concept that is rationally valid.

To the contrary...

• People who conclude "If God is omniscient, then I can't have free will!" are taking a very simplistic view.

Occam's Razor suggests that the simplest explanation is most likely the correct one. Do you have any evidence or argument to demonstrate that the conditional is not valid?

People who can think rationally about abstract concepts would would have to acknowledge that godly omniscience and human free will are not mutually exclusive regardless of how illogical it may seem to the human mind.

Did you read what you just wrote? People who can think RATIONALLY have to acknowledge truth regardless of how ILLOGICAL it is? Did you suddenly become a Young Earth Creationist or a Flat Earther?

I'm pretty sure that people who can think rationally are going to reject the truth of something that is illogical every time. But here again, the burden of proof is yours to support the claim that omniscience and free will are not mutually exclusive--and just saying that it doesn't make sense so we have to accept it on faith isn't going to cut it.

 

[Axe Elf]

We don't get this from Christians very often. Instead, they tend to exist that the two can coexist. Free will seems necessary to Christianity. Original sin and the fall of man, perdition, the need for salvation seem to depend on Adam and Eve having free will and choosing disobedience, and therefore deserving punishment.

I'm always amazed at how many Christians will readily assert that "God is in control of everything!" and then turn around in pride and add, "Except ME!"

I see the need for salvation arising not from the free will of mythical characters, but from the nature of human beings that are well-equipped to survive and thrive in this physical universe; i.e., beings that are by nature very selfish, self-invested, self-serving and self-interested. If we were not that, we would not be suited to survive the processes of natural selection. But selfishness (not hate) is the opposite of love, and being selfish by nature, we cannot enter into the presence of God, whose nature is love. Therein lies the need for Jesus to bridge the gap and allow us as humans to "crucify our old nature (selfishness) with Christ to take on a new nature of love" with which we can spend eternity in the presence of God.

The Adam and Eve myth is an allegory that shows us how our nature of selfishness, our desire to be our own gods (including the desire to have free will) has fundamentally separated us from God, setting the stage for the journey of reconciliation documented by the rest of the Bible. Parenthetically, it was this same selfish desire to be his own god that got Lucifer kicked out of the pool beforehand, and to this day, true Satanists have no interest in "devil worship" per se, Satanism is merely a religion for indulging oneself as one's own god.

If it's the latter to which you refer, then I agree with @Axe Elf that such a state of affairs is incompatible with divine omniscience.
I think that what he is telling you is that life is more like the replay of a taped sporting event than a live game, except with the players being conscious at the time of the replay, and experiencing desires. To them, it's more like a live game, with the future unknown to them.
Yet to the one watching the movie from a metaspace, every move - every play, every score, every infraction - is known in advance. The players are confined to following a predetermined script notwithstanding their sense of free will. The future is not just unknown to them. but feels undetermined.

That's exactly what I mean. Time is a movie that is already in the can; we're just watching a small part of it unfold.

So does God have free will? Can an omniscient entity do anything other than what it already knows it will do?

Everything that God knows He is going to do, He has determined that He will do. That's how He knows it.

And now you are the refreshingly honest one. You believe what you believe because you want it to be true. Who can argue with what another person wants?

Exactly. I've said it in other threads, but all facts are based in faith--the axioms one chooses to endorse (the statements you choose to have faith in) determine the facts that can be derived from them.

 

[David T]

Richard Dawkins has stated that once he understood the explanatory power of evolution, he abandoned all belief in God. This is interesting, and it seems that many individuals transition from theistic to atheistic beliefs shortly after they understand and realize the fact that evolution can fully explain the complexity and diversity of life. Yet, many religious people (including many priests) fully accept evolution while still holding a strong belief in God.

So, my question is, for both atheists and theists who accept evolution, how much does recognition of the fact of evolution affect your beliefs? For atheists, did it ultimately lead you to abandon belief in God? For theists who accept the fact of naturalistic evolution, does the fact that all species with all of their complexities were formed by entirely naturalistic processes ever cause you to question your theistic faith?

Richard Dawkins has stated that once he understood the explanatory power of evolution, he abandoned all belief in God... So he was clueless believer before he became a clueless atheist!!! Now he makes sense!!! I always wondered how that worked.

 

[Estro Felino]

Richard Dawkins has stated that once he understood the explanatory power of evolution, he abandoned all belief in God... So he was clueless believer before he became a clueless atheist!!! Now he makes sense!!! I always wondered how that worked.

By discovering in detail the randomness of genetic mutations and how only the fittest specimens can adapt themselves, it is absolutely logical to conclude that that loving Creator-God described by Christians doesn't exist.

I also think it is twisted to believe that the chaos of natural selection exists in God's mind.

 

[ecco]

These things do not DRIVE evolution. They AFFECT evolution. The process of evolution is all about survival; who survives...and perhaps thrives....and who doesn't. No matter what the climate does, what food is available or whether a rock falls from the sky, that's the final 'determiner,' I guess; that which works (and stays alive under whatever circumstances, and reproduces) stays around, and that which doesn't....doesn't.

This is true no matter what may change around an organism.

How much evolution occurred in the ten million years before the big meteor?
How much evolution occurred in the ten million years after the big meteor?

When the environment is static, there is no pressure on a species and there is very little change - no evolving.

Perhaps it's something as (on the surface) silly as a gigantic tail of feathers that make flying difficult, is hard to groom and in the long run, shortens the life of the male that has one ...

Why did this species develop gigantic tail feathers to begin with? There must have been a reason. Perhaps it was to shoo away deadly flies. Those with the bigger tail feathers survived to produce offspring a tiny bit more often than those with lesser tails.

When the deadly flies died out (because the climate got colder?), the gigantic tail feathers became less of an asset and more of a liability.

The whole point is survival.

The whole point of what? Organisms acquire energy. Organisms reproduce. Organisms die. Organisms, with the possible exception of humans, are not concerned with survival of the species. Why do you propose there is a point?

We do not have to assume that God "programmed" this to be so,

I don't.

and we don't have to toss the entire idea of God out the window in order to understand evolutionary processes, and even to manipulate them.

I tossed god out of the window long before I ever heard of evolution.

You aren't going to prove God exists by researching evolution, or anything else.

One cannot prove the existence of non-entities.

You are also not going to DISPROVE His existence.

One cannot disprove the existence of non-entities.

That (the existence of deity) has to be established by very different means.

Let me know when you have figured out how to establish the existence of any deity.

 

[David T]

By discovering in detail the randomness of genetic mutations and how only the fittest specimens can adapt themselves, it is absolutely logical to conclude that that loving Creator-God described by Christians doesn't exist.

I also think it is twisted to believe that the chaos of natural selection exists in God's mind.

Wasn't I clear? He was a clueless believer that became a clueless atheist!!! Really not much of a change actually!!! Evolution oh deep .... a dog is an evolutionist wow.

 

[ecco]

What poppycock is this? You're suggesting that random events cannot be predestined? My "belief system" says otherwise:

Then perhaps your "belief system" is poppycock.

 

[ecco]

I don't know what dictionary you're using, but the word "omnipotent" comes from two Latin words, "omni" (meaning "all") and "potens" (meaning "power"). The meaning of "omnipotent" is therefore "all-powerful." God has infinite, unlimited power.

Dictionary.com:
1. almighty or infinite in power, as God.
2. having very great or unlimited authority or power.

Wikipedia:
Omnipotence is the quality of having unlimited power.

I never said nor implied anything different.

Monotheistic religions generally attribute omnipotence to only the deity of their faith. In the monotheistic philosophies of Abrahamic religions, omnipotence is often listed as one of a deity's characteristics among many, including omniscience, omnipresence, and omnibenevolence.

True.

So you can see, this does not mean that God can do anything whatsoever;

No, I don't see. Do you even understand what you, yourself write?
If your god is omnipotent, he can do anything whatsoever.
If your god cannot do anything whatsoever he is not omnipotent.

God can do anything that can be done with power, but there are some things that cannot be done with any amount of power, and these are outside of the abilities of even an omnipotent being.

So, omnipotent doesn't really mean omnipotent. Hmmm.

But if it's just the word that's confusing you, and you'd like me to choose a different one, then whenever you see me say "omnipotent," just pretend that I'm using the term "all-powerful" instead. That should remove any confusion, since obviously things like making a one-sided coin are impossible with any amount of power.

I'm not the one hedging on the definition of omnipotent. Here you seem to be trying to equate power with just strength. Wrong. If your god is all-powerful, then he can create a one sided coin. That you cannot accept that is your problem.

That's because nonsense is incomprehensible to me, ...

No, that's because omnipotence is incomprehensible to you, that's because omniscience is incomprehensible to you.

Again, that's not my problem.

As C.S. Lewis once wrote:

"His Omnipotence means power to do all that is intrinsically possible, not to do the intrinsically impossible. You may attribute miracles to him, but not nonsense. This is no limit to his power. If you choose to say 'God can give a creature free will and at the same time withhold free will from it,' you have not succeeded in saying anything about God: meaningless combinations of words do not suddenly acquire meaning simply because we prefix to them the two other words 'God can.'... It is no more possible for God than for the weakest of his creatures to carry out both of two mutually exclusive alternatives; not because his power meets an obstacle, but because nonsense remains nonsense even when we talk it about God."

Do you think quoting C.S. Lewis lends credibility to your argument? It doesn't.