Total Posts:71|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

God can't be omnipotent and omniscient...

PervRat
Posts: 963
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2011 7:22:12 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/7/2011 6:42:27 PM, willywonka wrote:
It's not possible for him to be both. So I'm just curious as to whether people beleive in the omnipotent or omniscient side ?

I don't believe either, as I am an atheist. :P

I'd like to throw in there, though, that being a "jealous God" as the Christian bible describes is contadictory to the other biblical claims of "God" being either just or merciful, and certainly contradictory to the numerous examples of God either smiting innocent children directly or challenging his subjects to prove themselves to him by slaying their own children.

I suppose some of it could be chalked up to the replete translations and re-translations and the ancient era having no notions of mercy or justice as we have today.
willywonka
Posts: 12
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2011 10:56:17 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Because god can't be omnipotent in our lives if he is omniscient. If he created us and is an influence to change our daily lives that means he did not know all that would come to be and is therefore not omniscient. If he is omniscient he could create things to go just the way he wanted to and would have no need to interfere in our daily lives.
willywonka
Posts: 12
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2011 2:35:50 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Actually if you read into my argument compatibilism doesn't work here. Generally for compatibilism to be a logical idea you have to construe the boundries of free will. When I say Free Will I mean Complete freedom to make ones own choices. Interesting philosophy, but it doesn't really apply here. Omniscient god and Omnipotent god can't be one in the same. If anyone thinks otherwise and can give a decent reasoning why I'd love to hear it !
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2011 3:45:02 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
You haven't done any debates yet ?

If you think you can argue for the logical contradiction of something being all powerful and all knowing, why not let this be your first debate topic ?
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2011 1:42:54 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/7/2011 10:33:50 PM, Cliff.Stamp wrote:
At 4/7/2011 6:42:27 PM, willywonka wrote:
It's not possible for him to be both.

Why not?

The Omniscience vs. Omnipotence Argument

P1: If God exists he is omniscient.
P2: If God exists he is omnipotent.
P3: God knows what he will do tomorrow. (P1)
P4: God is limited to the actions he knows he will take tomorrow and cannot do otherwise. (P3)
P5: If God doesn't possess the ability to do a logically possible action (especially one that a human can choose to do), then he is not omnipotent. (P2, P4)
Conclusion: It is impossible for God to exist.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
m93samman
Posts: 2,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2011 1:45:23 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/11/2011 1:42:54 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 4/7/2011 10:33:50 PM, Cliff.Stamp wrote:
At 4/7/2011 6:42:27 PM, willywonka wrote:
It's not possible for him to be both.

Why not?

The Omniscience vs. Omnipotence Argument

P1: If God exists he is omniscient.
P2: If God exists he is omnipotent.
P3: God knows what he will do tomorrow. (P1)
P4: God is limited to the actions he knows he will take tomorrow and cannot do otherwise. (P3)
P5: If God doesn't possess the ability to do a logically possible action (especially one that a human can choose to do), then he is not omnipotent. (P2, P4)
Conclusion: It is impossible for God to exist.

P4 is more than shaky

inb4 WHY?! I'm in class right now I don't have time.
: At 4/15/2011 5:29:37 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
: Pascal's wager is for poosies.
:
: I mean that sincerly, because it's basically an argument from poooosie.
:
: I'm pretty sure that's like a fallacy.. Argument ad Pussium or something like that.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2011 2:30:09 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/11/2011 1:45:23 PM, m93samman wrote:
At 4/11/2011 1:42:54 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 4/7/2011 10:33:50 PM, Cliff.Stamp wrote:
At 4/7/2011 6:42:27 PM, willywonka wrote:
It's not possible for him to be both.

Why not?

The Omniscience vs. Omnipotence Argument

P1: If God exists he is omniscient.
P2: If God exists he is omnipotent.
P3: God knows what he will do tomorrow. (P1)
P4: God is limited to the actions he knows he will take tomorrow and cannot do otherwise. (P3)
P5: If God doesn't possess the ability to do a logically possible action (especially one that a human can choose to do), then he is not omnipotent. (P2, P4)
Conclusion: It is impossible for God to exist.

P4 is more than shaky

inb4 WHY?! I'm in class right now I don't have time.

I see nothin wrong with P4. Let me explain further.

God knows he will do x tomorrow.
This event WILL happen because God KNOWS it will happen.
Since that event is not alterable, God cannot do an alternative action (such as a, b, c, y, or z) different from what he expected to do.
Therefore, he is not omnipotent.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2011 2:34:29 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/7/2011 6:42:27 PM, willywonka wrote:
It's not possible for him to logically be both. So I'm just curious as to whether people beleive in the omnipotent or omniscient side ?

Fix'd

God can possibly be both as the omnipotence part automatically absolves him of logical contradictions. This means he could be omnipotent and omniscient albeit illogically. So you would be right if you said god couldn't be omniscient and omnipotent logically.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2011 2:51:52 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/11/2011 2:34:29 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 4/7/2011 6:42:27 PM, willywonka wrote:
It's not possible for him to logically be both. So I'm just curious as to whether people beleive in the omnipotent or omniscient side ?

Fix'd

God can possibly be both as the omnipotence part automatically absolves him of logical contradictions. This means he could be omnipotent and omniscient albeit illogically. So you would be right if you said god couldn't be omniscient and omnipotent logically.

False. It is most accepted that omnipotence means God can do anything that is logically possible. Omnipotence doesn't absolve him from logical contradiction. If omnipotence meant God could do anything logical or illogical, then the stone paradox would effectively refute such a God, but it doesn't because God isn't that kind of omnipotent.

Also, logic isn't a "thing" that God can overcome with extreme power, logic is a method of discerning truth so how could anyone say God is either bound or not bound by logic? It's nonsensical to speak of anything being bound by logic.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2011 3:15:33 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/11/2011 2:30:09 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 4/11/2011 1:45:23 PM, m93samman wrote:
At 4/11/2011 1:42:54 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 4/7/2011 10:33:50 PM, Cliff.Stamp wrote:
At 4/7/2011 6:42:27 PM, willywonka wrote:
It's not possible for him to be both.

Why not?

The Omniscience vs. Omnipotence Argument

P1: If God exists he is omniscient.
P2: If God exists he is omnipotent.
P3: God knows what he will do tomorrow. (P1)
P4: God is limited to the actions he knows he will take tomorrow and cannot do otherwise. (P3)
P5: If God doesn't possess the ability to do a logically possible action (especially one that a human can choose to do), then he is not omnipotent. (P2, P4)
Conclusion: It is impossible for God to exist.

P4 is more than shaky

inb4 WHY?! I'm in class right now I don't have time.

I see nothin wrong with P4. Let me explain further.

God knows he will do x tomorrow.
This event WILL happen because God KNOWS it will happen.
Since that event is not alterable, God cannot do an alternative action (such as a, b, c, y, or z) different from what he expected to do.
Therefore, he is not omnipotent.

Your P3 doesn't follow from p2. Just because I know something will happen it doesn't follow that it necessarily had to happen that way. Knowedge doesn't have that kind of causal influence.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2011 3:16:38 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/11/2011 1:42:54 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 4/7/2011 10:33:50 PM, Cliff.Stamp wrote:
At 4/7/2011 6:42:27 PM, willywonka wrote:
It's not possible for him to be both.

Why not?

The Omniscience vs. Omnipotence Argument

P1: If God exists he is omniscient.
P2: If God exists he is omnipotent.
P3: God knows what he will do tomorrow. (P1)
P4: God is limited to the actions he knows he will take tomorrow and cannot do otherwise. (P3)
P5: If God doesn't possess the ability to do a logically possible action (especially one that a human can choose to do), then he is not omnipotent. (P2, P4)
Conclusion: It is impossible for God to exist.

Your P3 (p1) could easily be denied by an open theist.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2011 3:37:21 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/11/2011 3:15:33 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 4/11/2011 2:30:09 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 4/11/2011 1:45:23 PM, m93samman wrote:
At 4/11/2011 1:42:54 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 4/7/2011 10:33:50 PM, Cliff.Stamp wrote:
At 4/7/2011 6:42:27 PM, willywonka wrote:
It's not possible for him to be both.

Why not?

The Omniscience vs. Omnipotence Argument

P1: If God exists he is omniscient.
P2: If God exists he is omnipotent.
P3: God knows what he will do tomorrow. (P1)
P4: God is limited to the actions he knows he will take tomorrow and cannot do otherwise. (P3)
P5: If God doesn't possess the ability to do a logically possible action (especially one that a human can choose to do), then he is not omnipotent. (P2, P4)
Conclusion: It is impossible for God to exist.

P4 is more than shaky

inb4 WHY?! I'm in class right now I don't have time.

I see nothin wrong with P4. Let me explain further.

God knows he will do x tomorrow.
This event WILL happen because God KNOWS it will happen.
Since that event is not alterable, God cannot do an alternative action (such as a, b, c, y, or z) different from what he expected to do.
Therefore, he is not omnipotent.

Your P3 doesn't follow from p2. Just because I know something will happen it doesn't follow that it necessarily had to happen that way. Knowedge doesn't have that kind of causal influence.

God knows x will happen tomorrow.
x MUST happen tomorrow because Gods perfect knowledge says it will.
y CANNOT happen because God knows that the contrary is true.
Gods omnipotence cannot do y.
If Gods omnipotence does do y, then Gods omniscience predicted the wrong action for tomorrow and thus he's not omniscient. There's just no way to reconcile the two.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2011 3:53:09 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Also, I never said that Gods knowledge of what will happen means it necessarily had to happen. I'm just saying that IT WILL happen whether it was necessary or not.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2011 3:58:41 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
None of this contradicts determinism.

God knows all. God is all powerful. God made everything out to go exactly as God intended. God knows what is going to happen, as God set it out to happen that way.

The only thing this makes illogical is the idea of supernaturalism, which is like God changing his mind or using cheat codes when God screws up.

If you personify God, or have built in assumptions as to what God has to be, of course it isn't going to make sense.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2011 4:01:01 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/11/2011 3:37:21 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 4/11/2011 3:15:33 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 4/11/2011 2:30:09 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 4/11/2011 1:45:23 PM, m93samman wrote:
At 4/11/2011 1:42:54 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 4/7/2011 10:33:50 PM, Cliff.Stamp wrote:
At 4/7/2011 6:42:27 PM, willywonka wrote:
It's not possible for him to be both.

Why not?

The Omniscience vs. Omnipotence Argument

P1: If God exists he is omniscient.
P2: If God exists he is omnipotent.
P3: God knows what he will do tomorrow. (P1)
P4: God is limited to the actions he knows he will take tomorrow and cannot do otherwise. (P3)
P5: If God doesn't possess the ability to do a logically possible action (especially one that a human can choose to do), then he is not omnipotent. (P2, P4)
Conclusion: It is impossible for God to exist.

P4 is more than shaky

inb4 WHY?! I'm in class right now I don't have time.

I see nothin wrong with P4. Let me explain further.

God knows he will do x tomorrow.
This event WILL happen because God KNOWS it will happen.
Since that event is not alterable, God cannot do an alternative action (such as a, b, c, y, or z) different from what he expected to do.
Therefore, he is not omnipotent.

Your P3 doesn't follow from p2. Just because I know something will happen it doesn't follow that it necessarily had to happen that way. Knowedge doesn't have that kind of causal influence.

God knows x will happen tomorrow.
x MUST happen tomorrow because Gods perfect knowledge says it will.
y CANNOT happen because God knows that the contrary is true.
Gods omnipotence cannot do y.
If Gods omnipotence does do y, then Gods omniscience predicted the wrong action for tomorrow and thus he's not omniscient. There's just no way to reconcile the two.

Saying something will happen is not the same as saying something must happen.

"b. The Modal Fallacy in Epistemic Determinism
Let's recall Maimonides's argument:

… "Does God know or does He not know that a certain individual will be good or bad? If thou sayest ‘He knows', then it necessarily follows that [that] man is compelled to act as God knew beforehand he would act, otherwise God's knowledge would be imperfect."

We can symbolize the core of this argument, using "∴" for "it necessarily follows"; and "☐" for "compelled"; and "D" for the proposition describing what some particular person does tomorrow.

gKD

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

∴ ☐D

There seems to be (at least) one missing premise. [In the terminology of logicians, the argument isenthymematic.] One tacit assumption of this argument is the necessary truth, "it is not possible both for God to know that D and for D to be false", or, in symbols, "~◊(gKD & ~D)". So the argument becomes:

gKD
~◊(gKD & ~D)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

∴ ☐D

But even with this repair, the argument remains invalid. The conclusion does not follow from the two premises. To derive the conclusion, a third premise is needed, and it is easy to see what it is. Most persons, with hardly a moment's thought, virtually as a reflex action, will tacitly assume that the second premise is logically equivalent to:

gKD ⊃ ☐D

and will tacitly (/unconsciously) add this further premise, so as to yield, finally:

gKD
~◊(gKD & ~D)
gKD ⊃ ☐D

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

∴ ☐D

But this third premise, we have seen above, is false; it commits the modal fallacy. Without this premise, Maimonides' argument is invalid; with it, the argument becomes valid but unsound (that is, has a false and essential premise [namely the third one]). Either way, the argument is a logical botch.

Once the logical error is detected, and removed, the argument for epistemic determinism simply collapses. If some future action/choice is known prior to its occurrence, that event does not thereby become "necessary", "compelled", "forced", or what have you. Inasmuch as its description was, is, and will remain forever contingent, both it and its negation remain possible. Of course only one of the two was, is, and will remain true; while the other was, is, and will remain false. But truth and falsity, per se, do not determine a proposition's modality. Whether true or false, each of these propositions was, is, and will remain possible. Knowing – whether by God or a human being – some future event no more forces that event to occur than our learning that dinosaurs lived in (what is now) South Dakota forced those reptiles to take up residence there."

http://www.iep.utm.edu...
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2011 4:04:10 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/11/2011 3:53:09 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Also, I never said that Gods knowledge of what will happen means it necessarily had to happen. I'm just saying that IT WILL happen whether it was necessary or not.

If your saying it MUST happen and this "Since that event is not alterable, God cannot do an alternative action (such as a, b, c, y, or z) different from what he expected to do" then you are saying that out of necessity God must do action a or whatever. Again, something that will happen need not happen by necessity.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2011 4:21:44 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/11/2011 4:04:10 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 4/11/2011 3:53:09 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Also, I never said that Gods knowledge of what will happen means it necessarily had to happen. I'm just saying that IT WILL happen whether it was necessary or not.

If your saying it MUST happen and this "Since that event is not alterable, God cannot do an alternative action (such as a, b, c, y, or z) different from what he expected to do" then you are saying that out of necessity God must do action a or whatever. Again, something that will happen need not happen by necessity.

That's kind of irrelevant even if true. Here's why.

x will happen tomorrow.
God can't do y tomorrow because he's doing x tomorrow. (x and y are contrary actions of course like "x = flood earth" and "y = not flood earth")
If God can't do y, he's not omnipotent.

It has nothing to do with whether an action must occur with necessity, just that an action will happen. If something will happen, the opposite can't be true.

It's really based off the law of identity.
A = A
A =/= B

I'm not saying that A necessarily is A and necessarily not B, it's just A is A and A is not B.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Cliff.Stamp
Posts: 2,169
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2011 7:03:00 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/11/2011 3:15:33 PM, popculturepooka wrote:

Just because I know something will happen it doesn't follow that it necessarily had to happen that way. Knowedge doesn't have that kind of causal influence.

Pop, isn't the real problem here applying causality from our frame of reference to a being which does not have the same paradigm. There is no before/after, cause/effect for God, all things are simultaneous in time. God does not exist as we do where we perceive now, it exists in all times and thus the entire concepts of cause/effect are nonsensical. God does not decide to do something as we do as that implies there was a time when this decision was not known, i.e. at point A he made a decision and < point A he was not aware of this decision.

The argument that knowledge thus constraints action is completely nonsensical and it reduces down to can you claim omnipotence because God can not act other than it has acted and that claim is also nonsensical. There is no limit on what can be done, but from our perspective of limited time all such "decisions" have been decided. Saying there was no choice is like saying you had no choice in the past because you can not change it, that is obviously silly, choice only applies to the now and there is no exclusive now to God.

I am using God of course in the omni-sense, not God as Thor, etc. .
Cliff.Stamp
Posts: 2,169
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2011 7:05:11 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/11/2011 1:42:54 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:

P1: If God exists he is omniscient.
P2: If God exists he is omnipotent.
P3: God knows what he will do tomorrow. (P1)
P4: God is limited to the actions he knows he will take tomorrow and cannot do otherwise. (P3)
P5: If God doesn't possess the ability to do a logically possible action (especially one that a human can choose to do), then he is not omnipotent. (P2, P4)
Conclusion: It is impossible for God to exist.

You should debate that, P3, P4 and P5 are nonsensical when applied to God.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2011 7:13:13 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/11/2011 7:03:00 PM, Cliff.Stamp wrote:
At 4/11/2011 3:15:33 PM, popculturepooka wrote:

Just because I know something will happen it doesn't follow that it necessarily had to happen that way. Knowedge doesn't have that kind of causal influence.

Pop, isn't the real problem here applying causality from our frame of reference to a being which does not have the same paradigm. There is no before/after, cause/effect for God, all things are simultaneous in time. God does not exist as we do where we perceive now, it exists in all times and thus the entire concepts of cause/effect are nonsensical. God does not decide to do something as we do as that implies there was a time when this decision was not known, i.e. at point A he made a decision and < point A he was not aware of this decision.

The argument that knowledge thus constraints action is completely nonsensical and it reduces down to can you claim omnipotence because God can not act other than it has acted and that claim is also nonsensical. There is no limit on what can be done, but from our perspective of limited time all such "decisions" have been decided. Saying there was no choice is like saying you had no choice in the past because you can not change it, that is obviously silly, choice only applies to the now and there is no exclusive now to God.

I am using God of course in the omni-sense, not God as Thor, etc. .

Yes, this is essentially Boethius' solution (God as being outside of time/atemporal) to the foreknowledge-freewill problem; I do think it's a good one but I was arguing that even on the assumption that God exists in time it's not a genuine issue.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Cliff.Stamp
Posts: 2,169
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2011 8:18:20 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/11/2011 7:13:13 PM, popculturepooka wrote:

I do think it's a good one but I was arguing that even on the assumption that God exists in time it's not a genuine issue.

Yes,you are arguing for contingent truth, and applying the modal fallacy - if something is true it is necessarily true. That is of course false, in general, however I would ask, if gKD (god knows D will happen) how can D be contingent - what is it contingent on exactly and if it is contingent than can it truly said to be known by an omni-max thing? I think you are redefining omniscient here similar to how omnipotent is redefined to be ~ all that is possible given the nature of God.

(again all of this with the assumption of God being in time and action/effect as we are - it is gibberish if this is not the paradigm)
m93samman
Posts: 2,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2011 8:22:18 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/11/2011 2:30:09 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 4/11/2011 1:45:23 PM, m93samman wrote:
At 4/11/2011 1:42:54 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 4/7/2011 10:33:50 PM, Cliff.Stamp wrote:
At 4/7/2011 6:42:27 PM, willywonka wrote:
It's not possible for him to be both.

Why not?

The Omniscience vs. Omnipotence Argument

P1: If God exists he is omniscient.
P2: If God exists he is omnipotent.
P3: God knows what he will do tomorrow. (P1)
P4: God is limited to the actions he knows he will take tomorrow and cannot do otherwise. (P3)
P5: If God doesn't possess the ability to do a logically possible action (especially one that a human can choose to do), then he is not omnipotent. (P2, P4)
Conclusion: It is impossible for God to exist.

P4 is more than shaky

inb4 WHY?! I'm in class right now I don't have time.

I see nothin wrong with P4. Let me explain further.

God knows he will do x tomorrow.
This event WILL happen because God KNOWS it will happen.
Since that event is not alterable, God cannot do an alternative action (such as a, b, c, y, or z) different from what he expected to do.
Therefore, he is not omnipotent.

Sorry, I meant P3. I read it too fast
: At 4/15/2011 5:29:37 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
: Pascal's wager is for poosies.
:
: I mean that sincerly, because it's basically an argument from poooosie.
:
: I'm pretty sure that's like a fallacy.. Argument ad Pussium or something like that.
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2011 8:31:18 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/11/2011 1:42:54 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 4/7/2011 10:33:50 PM, Cliff.Stamp wrote:
At 4/7/2011 6:42:27 PM, willywonka wrote:
It's not possible for him to be both.

Why not?

The Omniscience vs. Omnipotence Argument

P1: If God exists he is omniscient.
P2: If God exists he is omnipotent.
P3: God knows what he will do tomorrow. (P1)
Incorrect. Omniscience does not mean that God knows what will occur tomorrow, period. It means that God knows what will happen given each of his avaliable choices. He knows that if he floods the Earth, X people will die, and if does not flood the Earth, Y people will die. If He were to play a game of chess, He would not know through omniscience that He will move His piece a certain way; instead, He would know the entire game tree for the game of chess, and play accordingly. He would only know His future action because He determined it to be best, and it's not that He can't make a different move; it's that there's no reason to make a different move, as God had already taken all possible factors into account.
P4: God is limited to the actions he knows he will take tomorrow and cannot do otherwise. (P3)
False. He is not limited. He can do whatever He wants tomorrow. He just knows the full consequences of each action. Once He makes up His mind, though, there is no reason for Him to change it.
P5: If God doesn't possess the ability to do a logically possible action (especially one that a human can choose to do), then he is not omnipotent. (P2, P4)
He possesses the ability, just like you possess the ability to throw your life savings down a chimney. It's just that He won't bother with it.
Conclusion: It is impossible for God to exist.
A conclusion is only as strong as its weakest premesis.
Cliff.Stamp
Posts: 2,169
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2011 9:24:48 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/11/2011 8:31:18 PM, mongeese wrote:

Incorrect. Omniscience does not mean that God knows what will occur tomorrow, period. It means that God knows what will happen given each of his avaliable choices.

Mongeese does it make sense to use this language to refer to God? Just consider what exactly are you doing when you are making a choice, you are thinking about what will happen, trying to figure out if it is right or wrong, what is best/worst, how it will effect you/others and trying to sort all of this out and make some kind of best action. Now imagine that you know everything and second you have to, as per your nature, be most benevolent/moral etc., does the word choice have any meaning?
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2011 9:28:15 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/11/2011 9:24:48 PM, Cliff.Stamp wrote:
At 4/11/2011 8:31:18 PM, mongeese wrote:


Incorrect. Omniscience does not mean that God knows what will occur tomorrow, period. It means that God knows what will happen given each of his avaliable choices.

Mongeese does it make sense to use this language to refer to God? Just consider what exactly are you doing when you are making a choice, you are thinking about what will happen, trying to figure out if it is right or wrong, what is best/worst, how it will effect you/others and trying to sort all of this out and make some kind of best action. Now imagine that you know everything and second you have to, as per your nature, be most benevolent/moral etc., does the word choice have any meaning?

If one's nature is one's choice, then yes. God chose to be benevolent, so all of His benevolent actions are of His choice.
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2011 9:33:39 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I fail to see how omnipotence and omniscience conflict.

You guys are arguing determinism and free will again, which has little if nothing to do with God knowing everything and being all powerful.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2011 9:35:17 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
God's omnipotence and omniscience make a lot more sense from a deterministic view though.

>.>

And actually, don't mind me, my posts are retarded. I'm a fool wabble wabble wabble

*hides*
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp