According to absolutists like Descartes (and more recently Nick Trakakis), an omnipotent being is able to do anything, including things that are logically impossible. As we discussed in class, most philosophers take this view to be false and dismiss it as implausible. However, it's difficult to find an argument that is dialectically persuasive. What I mean by this is that the sorts of criticisms of absolutism that are typically provided rely on certain basic assumptions about the status of logic and argumentation, but these assumptions are not shared by the absolutist. So there's no way to "get your foot in the door," as it were. I wonder what readers of this blog think about absolutism and how, if at all, one might go about undermining it.
For an interesting take on this debate, you might find this article by Louis Groarke interesting.