This discussion centers too much on the definitions of words like superintelligent and reminds me a lot of philosophical discussion about omnipotence. Both seem to rely more on defining concepts first and then assuming their existence as a consequence.
Super-intelligence, not so much — there's plenty of examples of above-average humans in many areas, and no reason to think that putting the top expert in each field into one room is impossible, and no reason to think that this configuration cannot be implemented in software with a sufficiently powerful computer.
And that's without the things that machines already beat us at, because super-human chess playing software is easily available, and computers that do arithmetic better than the entire human species even if we were all trained to the level of the current world record holder are cheap enough to be given away free glued to the front of a magazine, so there's no single person who has a particular advantage with those things.
What chess does do, is give an example: if I was playing a game with Kasparov, I would have no idea which move he might make at any given moment, but despite that I'd still expect him to win.
With an AI, I don't even necessarily know what "game" it's playing even if I'm the one who wrote the utility function it's trying to maximise.
God could make a burrito too hot for himself to eat. Then he could make himself capable of eating it. Rinse and repeat.
Either way I'd say Matthew 4:1 solves that paradox in a way that satisfies billions of people. Though I am getting a kick out of imagining Mexican/American Jesus munching on burritos.
I don't understand why that would have any effect?
"Then Jesus was led by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil."
First, if you want to sidestep if Jesus is omnipotent, then it's no longer saying anything about omnipotence.
Second, you also have to make the devil omnipotent.
Actually, the second point has a sub-point, because if it's two different entities then you get "an unstoppable force meets an immovable object" which is more easily resolved by "the force just passes right through the object without influencing it" — for the self-contradiction I gave to even be present, you would need to regard the devil as being another aspect of Yahweh in the same regard that Jesus is an incarnation of Yahweh within Christianity (not to be confused with how Jesus is seen in Islam, which totally rejects this as polytheistic idolatry).
Can we? What constituent things would make up a superintelligence? Who's to say that our answer to that question is what is actually true in the case of a real superintelligence?
> Both seem to rely more on defining concepts first and then assuming their existence as a consequence.
Unlike religious philosophers like Anselm of Canterbury and Descartes and their ontological argument for the existence of a supreme being merely by imagining it, I don't believe anyone in the study of superintelligence is presupposing that they exist, or even can exist, they only presuppose how one might hypothetically exist.
It seems much more realistic to me that AI will be running systems that humans used to run, and therefore will understand at some level.