Originally Posted by Lusankya
It's not my definition. It's the definition used in the Problem. You don't seem to understand. The Problem of Evil only arises when God is assumed to be omnipotent by the definition used in the Problem. By using a different definition, you are thus admitting that God is not omnipotent according to the definition of the Problem of Evil, and thus that the Problem of Evil is resolved in that God is not omnipotent.
It's true, in a vacuum, you could be using different definitions of the same word. This, however, is not a vacuum. All the terms we use: God, evil, omnipotence, are used in the context of the Problem we are debating. Thus, if you do not use the definition given by the Problem, then you are not arguing the Problem and your argument is irrelevant and meaningless. As far as the Problem is concerned, by your argument, God is not omnipotent.
As far as the Problem is concerned, yes, God is not omnipotent. You're absolutely right. However, the Problem is irrelevant, because no one makes the argument that God is omnipotent by the definition given within the Problem. I have never once disagreed that the Problem of Evil is false, only that it does not prove that religious teachings proclaiming God to be "omnipotent" as it were are wrong.