Omniscience and omnipotence are inherently contradictory

[Uccisore]

Without claiming to know if there is a God, or what the qualities of such a God might be, we can use only reason to propose an entity that is outside of human understanding, perhaps in the way that you describe. It's very simple!

Well as they say, of that we know nothing about, we must remain silent. So yeah, if you propose some entity or concept that is by definition beyond human understanding, then I've nothing to say on the matter.

If we are entirely clueless about many things, then entities that make absolutely no sense to us, such as you describe above, are entirely possible, indeed probable.

This I don't agree with. I don't think you can speculate as to the likelihood of things we know nothing about without contradicting your principles. There may be any number of things completely unknowable to us out there, and then again there may not be. The Christian God is not one of those things, regardless.

Ok. No problem here either. In the end, I have no basis upon which to debate your beliefs.

Well, now hold on a second. We began this discussion with you saying we can't apply reason to the big questions of religion. Now it seems that point doesn't apply to Christianity. Well, that's a third of the world's population. May as well add the Muslims and the Jews, they believe much the same about God, so that's another quarter. Buddhists and Taoists and such I don't think are in any conflict with you, that's what... a sixth of the world?
So when you were saying what you were about the futility of reason in examining religious questions, did you in fact just mean the religious questions of Hindus, atheists, and a few Christian mystics? If so, then it seems we're in pretty much perfect agreement- Hinduism and Mysticism have always seemed pretty incoherent to me for basically the reasons you've described, and the strident atheist makes a fool of himself whenever he tries to precisely define that which he insists there is no-such-thing-as.
But an indictment of reason and religion that applies to maybe 20% of religious people seems odd to me, especially when you won't find that 10% here.

[Uccisore]

Just for the record, an insult is only an ad hominem if it's used to refute or make a point in an argument. Example:

"Socrates wouldn't have approved of Marx because you're an asshole."

ad hominem.

"Socrates wouldn't have approved of Marx because he believed philosophy shouldn't be written down, you asshole. "

Not an ad hominem.

Helandhighwater is guilty of insulting people (and of being a coward who can't back up his mouth when called to task, it would seem), but not of ad hominem. At least, not in the stuff of his I've looked at.

Quite glad to see you understand what an ad hominem is.

I have insulted absolutists of any faith or creed or lack there of. But not any individual.

I am a coward, I am scared of you, I would hate to get into a debate with you because I am shaking in my boots.

That said, like I give a fuck, I have my reasons, I don't need to explain them to you but I did out of courtesy, chalk that one up how you see fit.

It's funny, the first time you quoted that post of mine, you immediately accused me of making an ad hominem in it. Now you quote it again to congratulate me in a patronizing way about my understanding of ad hominem, according to which I did no such thing.
So now that an apologist has completely schooled you about the nature of a logical fallacy, are you still going to go away from this thread declaring that apologists lack a basic understanding of logic? Of course you are.

[Mutcer]

You may believe you've put to bed much of what I've said. But in reality you haven't. When you can convince me that your God is real with some quantifiable evidence, then I will concede you have one-upped me. Short of that, you are simply arguing for something for which there is no evidence.

Great! You keep raising grade-school level questions, I'll keep revealing that that's what they are, and we can both come away happy. Keeping 'em coming, Mutcer!

It is my belief that my questions aren't grade school level. But even if they are, they are reasonable questions - especially when considering the Christian definition of God.

[Typist]

So yeah, if you propose some entity or concept that is by definition beyond human understanding, then I've nothing to say on the matter.

Not being a God myself, I don't know if there is some entity such as a God.

However, if there is an entity that say, created billions of galaxies, it seems reasonable to propose such an entity would likely be beyond human understanding. Fair enough? It seems reason can take us this far.

You have nothing to say on the matter. Ok. There are different ways to go about that.

Some people will say, if there's nothing we can know, let's forget the whole thing. For this group, if the subject can't be turned in to some kind of knowing, they're not interested. For these people, the experience of reason and knowing were the ends they were seeking. Denied these ends, they understandably call off the project.

Other people will conclude there's little to nothing they can really know about the ultimate big picture questions, but they're still interested in exploring further. For these people, reason, faith and knowing were just tools, means to an end. Their end is to investigate the source of religion as deeply as they can. This group reasons, if one set of tools isn't working, continue the exploration by some other method.

Each group has used reason to explore reality, and their investigation has brought them face to face with their ignorance. One group sets the ignorance down and walks away. Another group picks up the ignorance and attempts to continue the investigation.

Well, now hold on a second. We began this discussion with you saying we can't apply reason to the big questions of religion.

We've been applying reason throughout the entire discussion. Of course we can apply reason, but can reason yield answers?

Now it seems that point doesn't apply to Christianity. Well, that's a third of the world's population. May as well add the Muslims and the Jews, they believe much the same about God, so that's another quarter. Buddhists and Taoists and such I don't think are in any conflict with you, that's what... a sixth of the world?

You got me, sorry don't know.

So when you were saying what you were about the futility of reason in examining religious questions, did you in fact just mean the religious questions of Hindus, atheists, and a few Christian mystics?

As best I can tell, none of us are in a position to arrive at credible answers to questions of infinite scale.

I realize the label religion is appropriate here, but to me it's really a human issue. Even ardent atheists are examining the infinite scale questions, right?

[Typist]

Hey guys, any chance the ad hominem discussion might be relocated to a thread dedicated to the exploration of ad hominem philosophy?

By the powers vested in me as a self appointed official nobody, I hereby anoint all members of all threads with the holy blessings of a generic all purpose ad hominem, so that we can all share in this glorious victim experience equally and together, and then get back on something closer to a relevant topic.

[Helandhighwater]

Just for the record, an insult is only an ad hominem if it's used to refute or make a point in an argument. Example:

"Socrates wouldn't have approved of Marx because you're an asshole."

ad hominem.

"Socrates wouldn't have approved of Marx because he believed philosophy shouldn't be written down, you asshole. "

Not an ad hominem.

Helandhighwater is guilty of insulting people (and of being a coward who can't back up his mouth when called to task, it would seem), but not of ad hominem. At least, not in the stuff of his I've looked at.

Quite glad to see you understand what an ad hominem is.

I have insulted absolutists of any faith or creed or lack there of. But not any individual.

I am a coward, I am scared of you, I would hate to get into a debate with you because I am shaking in my boots.

That said, like I give a fuck, I have my reasons, I don't need to explain them to you but I did out of courtesy, chalk that one up how you see fit.

It's funny, the first time you quoted that post of mine, you immediately accused me of making an ad hominem in it. Now you quote it again to congratulate me in a patronizing way about my understanding of ad hominem, according to which I did no such thing.
So now that an apologist has completely schooled you about the nature of a logical fallacy, are you still going to go away from this thread declaring that apologists lack a basic understanding of logic? Of course you are.

Like I give a shit what you think.

I think I sad that already, I think I might have to keep saying like I give a shit what you think.

Like I give a shit what you think.

You want to go off on a rant against imagined slights do it on your own time. Here I suggest you do it in a manner that befits a moderator or bother not at all. You might not think you are but as an arbiter you are held to higher standards than the posters that post. If you can't live up to that, GTFO, and don't bother coming back, Is my suggestion. File it under all the other suggestions you will ignore because you are just better than everyone else. Hope that works out for you.

Now there that was an ad hominem. Are you getting it yet? An example of one.

"You hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of your own eye; and then shall you see clearly to cast out the speck out of your brother's eye.."

It's not a hard point to understand, but it does take a deal of time to make you realise what you did was way beyond what any other poster would of been warned for. Don't abuse your position, and I wont abuse mine.

[Uccisore]

Now there that was an ad hominem. Are you getting it yet? An example of one.

Yeah, actually no it wasn't. :/ You'll get the hang of the difference eventually though, no doubt.

[Uccisore]

However, if there is an entity that say, created billions of galaxies, it seems reasonable to propose such an entity would likely be beyond human understanding. Fair enough? It seems reason can take us this far.

We were just over this- the Christian God did the things you described above, and is not beyond human understanding- at least not in the way you mean. You seemed ok with that when I pointed it out at the time.

I mean yeah, if all we knew was that there was a universe full of junk and no idea where it came from, it's likely that the origin of it would be way beyond our ability to figure out or understand. But the three big monotheisms are all revealed religions, which is to say, the Big Beyond Human Understanding Guy came and described Himself and the point of all this (at least, insofar as it's relevant to our interests) in a way purposefully such that we can understand it. I think that's pretty much the major endorsement of revealed religion, is the point you make above- that without revelation, there's no point in trying to figure it out on your own.
My auxiliary point was that revealed religions are so common that your argument is left not really applying to the way many people think - atheists, mystics, and MAYBE Hindus, I don't know if their religion is revealed or not.
So I guess the big question would be, does revelation deal with your problem in any useful way? Suppose you're right that a Being that did what God did is beyond our understanding. Could said Being just explain itself to us (to some useful degree) if it was so inclined?

[Helandhighwater]

Now there that was an ad hominem. Are you getting it yet? An example of one.

Yeah, actually no it wasn't. :/ You'll get the hang of the difference eventually though, no doubt.

Lol

Another troll moderator.

Yeah it was I challenged our ability to moderate on the basis of you being a dick. Unless of course you agree you were being a dick, in which case I withdraw the accusation. I am saying that you are bad at what you do, because of everything you say and do.

Add it to the pile.



trolol.

Like I give a shit.

You want to go on abusing your position go on doing so, but I would suggest your time is short, if you choose to do so.
You are immune from sanctions I am not, it's you that are the coward. You can troll ad hom and do whatever you want, and you will get away with it, I would love to see you ousted soon, not my decision to make but please stop trolling.

"A wizard should know better."

This is a constructive criticism: if you carry on going as you are, you will oust yourself, when people who employed realise you are what you are: a troll, and a bad one at that.

Grow the hell up, get over yourself, and then, maybe then someone will care what you think oh crusader of righteous justice. Of course I will withdraw this accusation as well on the basis you admit you are just trolling, and hence I was just winding you up for shits and giggles.

Man you guys shouldn't employ trolls as mods. It tends to encourage trollers as posters, it's a really bad idea.

Fuck me, I am in the wrong here. I fart in your general direction. Reign in your troll plebs.

[felix dakat]

Guys---

Tone down the rhetoric. I don't want to have to intervene here.

[Typist]

We were just over this- the Christian God did the things you described above, and is not beyond human understanding- at least not in the way you mean.

Assuming there is a Christian God, where is the evidence that we understand it?

What we do know is that there are many people who claim to understand the Christian God, and that their understandings quite often differ. And then the next step is, centuries of debate that goes round and round and round eternally, leading to no resolution.

But the three big monotheisms are all revealed religions, which is to say, the Big Beyond Human Understanding Guy came and described Himself and the point of all this (at least, insofar as it's relevant to our interests) in a way purposefully such that we can understand it.

Again, more speculative theories that quite often are in argument with each other.

I think that's pretty much the major endorsement of revealed religion, is the point you make above- that without revelation, there's no point in trying to figure it out on your own.

Revelation requires the acceptance of some authority whose credentials are entirely unknown.

My auxiliary point was that revealed religions are so common that your argument is left not really applying to the way many people think - atheists, mystics, and MAYBE Hindus, I don't know if their religion is revealed or not.

I entirely accept and agree that very many people, believers and non-believers, feel that they KNOW, according to some authority they have chosen to embrace on faith. Them feeling that they know, is not proof that they do indeed know.

So I guess the big question would be, does revelation deal with your problem in any useful way?

Not for me personally, but it may for others of course.

Suppose you're right that a Being that did what God did is beyond our understanding. Could said Being just explain itself to us (to some useful degree) if it was so inclined?

I would counter this by suggesting that said Being might very well be explaining itself, and we simply refuse to hear the answer being provided.

Here's what, for me, is a key point.

Surely at some point you've been working on some problem, say fixing your car, and the solution that seems obvious to you just doesn't work. You try over and over and over again, you triple check all your facts, you work very very carefully, and it still just doesn't work.

At some point you will stand back from the whole problem, and begin to suspect you may be thinking about the problem in some fundamentally wrong way.

The investigation by both believers and non-believers is built upon a rarely examined assumption that the investigation is about answers, about knowing, about understanding facts about the situation etc.

If this key underlying assumption is incorrect, then we are on the wrong track, and centuries of endless discussion can be discarded.

It's possible that our feverish attempt to know, and our huge collection of fantasy knowings by all parties, is the obstacle preventing us from actually listening.

Like in any conversation, when I don't really hear what you're saying, because I'm too busy thinking of what I'm going to say next. Like that.

[omar]

Uccisore
I was catching a few of your responses to Typist. Couple of thoughts if you're interested. Reason cannot help you with God. All three major monotheists religion do agree that God has revealed himself to us, yet reason cannot rule out that perhaps it is man that created god and as such seems reasonable.
As for intuition they can be wrong. That the earth is flat or stationary seems on its face intuitive. The truth is often counter intuitive.

I believe that God is, a concept that can be rendered reasonable, but that is the concept- is reality as reasonable as our concepts? Is God? Felix spoke about how a Christ on the cross spoke to him anew when he imagined the caption below it: "The problem of evil". I have heard apologist clever theodicies but some, like Ehrman, did not agree. That's one difficulty that our idea of a reasonable God faces.
The other difficulty is the capacity of reason to judge about such things. While it is our best and only tool, the subject at hand reasonably exceeds our reason. How so? Well imagine that you are abraham or Paul or Mohammad: what reason do you possess that makes you so confident that you are being addressed by God rather than by the devil, or a hallucination? The methodology carries with it the standard of reason, sure, but the origin of the method is arbitrary. It is at best a guess.
Reason is what we are good at. They say that when all you have is a hammer then everything begins to look like a nail. And I think that characterization is true of our reason. It is also true that reason has a complicated relation to theism. We would all prefer it if truths and facts could be deduced about God just as we do about other things using formal tools of reason like math and logic. However while everyone who ponders about God has some rational capacity not everyone has reached the same conclusions. Reason can deliver a multitude of hypotheses that cannot be verified. One book- several interpretations.

Wittgenstein began with a very precise system for the deduction of facts. Later he came to the belief that facts were cultural items. That is what seemed reasonable. Of course that brings the problem of the liar. Yet it is the one response that acknowledges the multiplicity and rationality of all the hypotheses thrown around at the edges of what can be known.

In my opinion reason can edge at best the rathe unimaginable concept of God. But within what is reasonably thought rest a center of what cannot be thought but felt, beyond a picture but within an emotion.

[V-OutOfTheWilderness]

Well, technically I'm both, I just think reason is the 'authority' as you put it that guides me to belief in the Bible. I won't defend religion or the Bible as authorities because I don't think they are, independent of reason.

Bro Uccisore I come bearing good news ; some cheerful friendly advice ... of possible relief.

Authorizing religion and the Bible using reason draws a lot of current. And can cause wires in our head to overheat. This might explain why you comport your self out here, often, like an angry young man ; a Grump-osaurus rex ...

So I think, because you seem serious about authorizing religion and the Bible with reason, you are bearing a Mr. Universe size load of cognitive dissonance. This is why you act so tough ... cuz you have to be tough to carry such a load, and tough you are (we're out of your league) ... and why you claim to be an apologist. Apologist have a long angry history. They too, many of them, are reacting from within, from the cognitive dissonance pressure-cooker built up inside them.

So all you have to do, to become more compassionate, and light-hearted, maybe even chipper, is to let go of the burden of authorizing religion and the Bible thru reason. Just consider that an impossible task, and let it go. Unless, of course, you can turn it into money or a means to make a living. Then the heavy current draw on the electrical gird in yer head might be worth it ... and grumpy will just have to remain who you are.

And in love, we'll just factor that about you ... and still love you like a bro ...

Many of us have been in your shoes ... or something like it ... Felix has been in similar shoes as yours.

[Uccisore]

Uccisore
I was catching a few of your responses to Typist. Couple of thoughts if you're interested. Reason cannot help you with God. All three major monotheists religion do agree that God has revealed himself to us, yet reason cannot rule out that perhaps it is man that created god and as such seems reasonable.

There is a sense in which a parallel argument could be made that reason can't help us with ANYTHING- our senses agree that we live in a world full of trees and rocks and bugs and so on, but we can't rule out that perhaps we are disembodied brains in jars.
Do you think the doubt you raise there is stronger than the example I gave? What's the difference between your example of skepticism and general skepticism?

The other difficulty is the capacity of reason to judge about such things. While it is our best and only tool, the subject at hand reasonably exceeds our reason. How so? Well imagine that you are abraham or Paul or Mohammad: what reason do you possess that makes you so confident that you are being addressed by God rather than by the devil, or a hallucination? The methodology carries with it the standard of reason, sure, but the origin of the method is arbitrary. It is at best a guess.

I think the Abrahams and Pauls of the world that deal with God in a 'miraculous vision' context probably are stuck in that sort of predicament, and monastic legends are full of stories of demons appearing to monks in the guise of angels to lead them into one thing or another. I don't think that situation is at all parallel to, say a philosopher discussing the divine attributes, though.

However while everyone who ponders about God has some rational capacity not everyone has reached the same conclusions. Reason can deliver a multitude of hypotheses that cannot be verified. One book- several interpretations.

I feel like I'm about to repeat myself, but what you say here could be, it seems to me, said about pretty much every endeavor in philosophy. I don't mean or need to suggest that religious truths can be known like I know I have 2 feet or that 3 x 5 = 15. I just think they are penetrable by reason to the same degree that other big questions in philosophy are- epistemology, ethics and so on*. What that degree is would be an interesting discussion, and I bet we'd probably be in broad agreement.

* - as evidence I site the rather large number of philosophers of religion that appear to be doing so.

[Uccisore]

Bro Uccisore I come bearing good news ; some cheerful friendly advice ... of possible relief.

Authorizing religion and the Bible using reason draws a lot of current. And can cause wires in our head to overheat. This might explain why you comport your self out here, often, like an angry young man ; a Grump-osaurus rex ...

7,000 posts and 10 years of interacting with skeptics questioning my basic cognitive functions because it's easier than actually discussing the subject matter is also a piece of the puzzle. Bro.

[Typist]

There is a sense in which a parallel argument could be made that reason can't help us with ANYTHING- our senses agree that we live in a world full of trees and rocks and bugs and so on, but we can't rule out that perhaps we are disembodied brains in jars.

This is actually pretty close to the truth, imho. Well, not the disembodied brains part.

Our brains tell us we live in a world full of trees, rocks and bugs. That is, our brains tell us we live in a world full of separate objects. Conceptually this is a useful device, but the dividing lines are the inventions of thought, not an accurate representation of the real world.

When does air become you? When does water become you? You can pick any dividing line you wish, but they're all arbitrary conventions, useful, but not really accurate.

Some people feel that this is part of the God problem. We go looking for something separate, and we say we don't find it. This could be because reality is all one big thing, and there isn't anything that is separate, except in our heads.

[omar]

Hello Uccisore
--- There is a sense in which a parallel argument could be made that reason can't help us with ANYTHING- our senses agree that we live in a world full of trees and rocks and bugs and so on, but we can't rule out that perhaps we are disembodied brains in jars.
Do you think the doubt you raise there is stronger than the example I gave? What's the difference between your example of skepticism and general skepticism?
O- I suggest being sceptics even of an untempered scepticism. But you highlight the problem well. It is a rational doubt. Now I would agree with Ockham but that is a suggestion which doesn't add to the accuracy of a more moderate scepticism.
The problems with a rational theology is that it is exposed to the same problems faced by rationalism. I am not saying that doubts raised disqualify reason but that they give us, because they are reasonable, reason to pause and take stock of just what can we know, what we might meaningfully relay.
What it all comes down to is that the most reasonable argument will rest in propositions that are accepted as self evident. This is what philosophers since Plato have been attempting and for which sceptics critique them. Because of this Nietzsche reduced the entire philosophical tradition as attempts to promote a particular morality. The truth of such systems were not effects of reason but the cause of rationalizations. Now if this can be said of philosophy in general, why not about theology?

--- I think the Abrahams and Pauls of the world that deal with God in a 'miraculous vision' context probably are stuck in that sort of predicament, and monastic legends are full of stories of demons appearing to monks in the guise of angels to lead them into one thing or another. I don't think that situation is at all parallel to, say a philosopher discussing the divine attributes, though.
O- Divine attributes might be correspondent to what we believe them to be but there is no basis for certainty or to believe that our consistent idea is nothing else but an idea. I can create a rational explanation of God but nothing within assures me that it is more than just an elegant idea of what might be the case.

--- I feel like I'm about to repeat myself, but what you say here could be, it seems to me, said about pretty much every endeavor in philosophy. I don't mean or need to suggest that religious truths can be known like I know I have 2 feet or that 3 x 5 = 15. I just think they are penetrable by reason to the same degree that other big questions in philosophy are- epistemology, ethics and so on*. What that degree is would be an interesting discussion, and I bet we'd probably be in broad agreement.

* - as evidence I site the rather large number of philosophers of religion that appear to be doing so.
O- We can explore such things but I advise against too much faith in what is in the end one degree removed from reality. I believe that the contents of our discourse can be separated between what we can think and what we believe in, and while we can discuss the contents of the former and how we arrive at the, we do so by virtue of the latter, which is independent of the other. We live in our beliefs, root beliefs that we don't even need to think about but which regulate what we think. This we can say of philosophy and theology.

[Ichthus]

The original post:

I've run this by a number of Christians and non-Christians and none can reconcile it. A number of them state that this doesn't apply to a being that is outside of time. However, the scenario doesn't play out any differently when applied to an outside of time being than when applied to a being that is subject to time.

Most Christians say God can do anything (omnipotence) and knows everything (omniscience). If God can do anything, then he can make choices(example, can choose A instead of B); If God knows everything, then he'll know what choices he'll make for decisions which haven't been made. (example, he knows he's going to choose A instead of B); If God can do anything, then he can choose either A or B, meaning he could choose B even though his knowledge when the state of the choice was "unmade" was such that he would choose A; Therefore, if God cannot choose B because his foreknowledge told him he would choose A, then he cannot do anything or lacks omnipotence; And if God does choose B, as an all-powerful being could, then his prior knowledge that he would choose A was wrong, in which case he is not all-knowing or lacks omniscience.

This is dealing with a given/granted omnipotent and omniscient being so there is no need to go off on a tangent about whether or not one actually exists.

Such a being can only do the logically possible (the logically impossible is meaningless nonsense tantamount to nothing). If it is not logically possible to choose both A and B, then he cannot choose both. Though he can freely choose either, he cannot choose both. He freely chooses one over the other, always knowing that is the one he would choose, always knowing he was free to choose the other but would never choose it. From his perspective the choice was always made, and always freely made.

You want to go into Scripture on this I recommend Geisler's "Chosen but Free".

[V-OutOfTheWilderness]

Bro Uccisore I come bearing good news ; some cheerful friendly advice ... of possible relief.

Authorizing religion and the Bible using reason draws a lot of current. And can cause wires in our head to overheat. This might explain why you comport your self out here, often, like an angry young man ; a Grump-osaurus rex ...

7,000 posts and 10 years of interacting with skeptics questioning my basic cognitive functions because it's easier than actually discussing the subject matter is also a piece of the puzzle. Bro.

Maybe so. Maybe after all these years you're just exasperated ...

But the topic here is Omniscience and omnipotence are inherently contradictory ... which makes little sense to me ... and hasn't been shown to be so.

I could see where Omnibenevolence and Omnipotence are contradictory ... that makes sense to me ..

[James S Saint]

But the topic here is Omniscience and omnipotence are inherently contradictory ... which makes little sense to me ... and hasn't been shown to be so.

I could see where Omnibenevolence and Omnipotence are contradictory ... that makes sense to me ..

Speaking of things that don't make sense... ??

[Mutcer]

Bro Uccisore I come bearing good news ; some cheerful friendly advice ... of possible relief.

Authorizing religion and the Bible using reason draws a lot of current. And can cause wires in our head to overheat. This might explain why you comport your self out here, often, like an angry young man ; a Grump-osaurus rex ...

7,000 posts and 10 years of interacting with skeptics questioning my basic cognitive functions because it's easier than actually discussing the subject matter is also a piece of the puzzle. Bro.

Maybe so. Maybe after all these years you're just exasperated ...

But the topic here is Omniscience and omnipotence are inherently contradictory ... which makes little sense to me ... and hasn't been shown to be so.

I could see where Omnibenevolence and Omnipotence are contradictory ... that makes sense to me ..

Contrary to what you're saying, I've already shown that omniscience and omnipotence are inherently contradictory.

[Typist]

I've already shown that omniscience and omnipotence are inherently contradictory.

If true, what does that have to with an entity usually defined as being the creator of everything? Why would an entity that created everything, be limited by anything?

In other words, if your statement is true, who cares? What's it got to do with gods?

[V-OutOfTheWilderness]

Contrary to what you're saying, I've already shown that omniscience and omnipotence are inherently contradictory.

Not to my satisfaction. God can be omnipotently omniscient if He wants to. All you've proven is that human logic can be contrived and confounded when speaking in absolutes. Like asking what happens when an unstopped forced meets an immovable object ... using logic of absolutes to confound the mind ... You've proven the limitation of logic ... and produced a slight of mind ... like using the Jedi mind trick on us ..

But yours is a cute argument, nonetheless .... I like mind games

[Uccisore]

Contrary to what you're saying, I've already shown that omniscience and omnipotence are inherently contradictory.

Why ARE atheists so evasive?

[Ichthus]

Responding to V and Uccisore, Mutcer replies:

Contrary to what you're saying, I've already shown that omniscience and omnipotence are inherently contradictory.

...completely ignoring my reply:

Such a being can only do the logically possible (the logically impossible is meaningless nonsense tantamount to nothing). If it is not logically possible to choose both A and B, then he cannot choose both. Though he can freely choose either, he cannot choose both. He freely chooses one over the other, always knowing that is the one he would choose, always knowing he was free to choose the other but would never choose it. From his perspective the choice was always made, and always freely made.