Omniscience vs Omnipotence (special for Jonathan)

Ted C · Post by **Ted C** » 2003-04-21 05:07pm

This particular conflict amuses me because Jonathan typically refers to God as both All-Knowing and All-Powerful, but the two states are mutually exclusive.

Being omnipotent requires the ability to change things. Being omniscient requires knowing everything, including the future (and Jonathan has more than once claimed that God knows the future).

But if you know the future, you can't change it, so you're not omnipotent. On the other hand, if you can change the future, you don't really know it, so you're not omniscient.

So I'd love to see him reconcile these two attributes in God.

Jonathan · Post by **Jonathan** » 2003-04-21 05:19pm

Ted C wrote:This particular conflict amuses me because Jonathan typically refers to God as both All-Knowing and All-Powerful, but the two states are mutually exclusive.

Being omnipotent requires the ability to change things. Being omniscient requires knowing everything, including the future (and Jonathan has more than once claimed that God knows the future).

But if you know the future, you can't change it, so you're not omnipotent. On the other hand, if you can change the future, you don't really know it, so you're not omniscient.

So I'd love to see him reconcile these two attributes in God.

Your problem is that you are too linear in your tihnking. God is outside of time, which reconciles the problem. And being omniscient means you will know how you will use your all powerful abilities if you are stuck within time.

Sektor31 · Post by **Sektor31** » 2003-04-21 05:32pm

Jonathan wrote:
Ted C wrote:This particular conflict amuses me because Jonathan typically refers to God as both All-Knowing and All-Powerful, but the two states are mutually exclusive.

Being omnipotent requires the ability to change things. Being omniscient requires knowing everything, including the future (and Jonathan has more than once claimed that God knows the future).

But if you know the future, you can't change it, so you're not omnipotent. On the other hand, if you can change the future, you don't really know it, so you're not omniscient.

So I'd love to see him reconcile these two attributes in God.
Your problem is that you are too linear in your tihnking. God is outside of time, which reconciles the problem. And being omniscient means you will know how you will use your all powerful abilities if you are stuck within time.

I expected this.

Thinking five-dimensionally, being outside of time does not resolve the issue. That would only go back to the same paradox. It's really hard to explain, but adding a spiritual dimension isn't a reason to be both omnipotent and omniscient.

Ted C · Post by **Ted C** » 2003-04-21 05:33pm

Jonathan wrote: Your problem is that you are too linear in your tihnking. God is outside of time, which reconciles the problem. And being omniscient means you will know how you will use your all powerful abilities if you are stuck within time.

How does that resolve the problem? If you are "outside of time" but you "know how you will use your all powerful abilities if you are stuck within time", how is that any different from being "inside of time" and knowing the future?

In effect, if God is omniscient, he can't even change his mind. If God knows the future, everything is set in stone, and free will does not exist.

If free will does exist, God is not omniscient, because he can't know for sure what choices people will make.

InnerBrat · Post by **InnerBrat** » 2003-04-21 05:37pm

*hand up*

Can't one be omniscient and know the outcome of every action you will make, and omnipotnet in being able to do anything?

Ted C · Post by **Ted C** » 2003-04-21 05:48pm

innerbrat wrote:*hand up*

Can't one be omniscient and know the outcome of every action you will make, and omnipotnet in being able to do anything?

As I noted, if you really know everything that's going to happen, you can't change your own mind. Since there is something you can't do, you're not omnipotent. An omniscient is really just going through predetermined motions and has no free will.

You can be omnipotent and know everything about the past and present; it's knowing the future that really limits you.

Kuroneko · Post by **Kuroneko** » 2003-04-21 06:03pm

What about a sort of 'multi-world' scenario, where God could know every possibility that's going to happen, but can select which one via omnipotence.

It's not 'complete' omniscience (since God wouldn't necessarily know his own choice, but would instead know the consequences of every possible choice), but since there is no complete omnipotence anyway (we suppose it is still bound by logic), it is the next best thing.

Edit: Oh, it still seems to contradict Jonathan's position. I can't see any possible way to resolve it.

aphexmonster · Post by **aphexmonster** » 2003-04-21 06:13pm

Or you can just go back to the original theory. Which is " Hey, its god.... he can do whatever the hell he wants. " No questions asked

I think he sets the course and knows where it will go, but if something unexpected comes up ( not likely ) she has the power to change things, but he doesn't. Hence no real " miricles " happening in the last hundreds of millions of years. He started the Fuse a long time ago... theres no reason for her to change it... but he could if she wanted.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2003-04-21 06:18pm

Jonathan wrote:Your problem is that you are too linear in your tihnking. God is outside of time, which reconciles the problem. And being omniscient means you will know how you will use your all powerful abilities if you are stuck within time.

How does it reconcile the problem? You just state that as if it was a fact. Even if he's outside of time, we're talking about events that are inside time. His state of existence is irrelevant.

Rye · Post by **Rye** » 2003-04-21 06:55pm

What if this "God" character knows all possible futures and just chooses one?

EDIT:oops, kuroneko already did this. i had the same page from before i played counterstrike till after when i posted.

Korvan · Post by **Korvan** » 2003-04-21 07:33pm

Rye wrote:What if this "God" character knows all possible futures and just chooses one?

EDIT:oops, kuroneko already did this. i had the same page from before i played counterstrike till after when i posted.

But since god already knows what future he's going to choose he really isn't making a choice, he's just doing what's been ordained for him to do. I think Omniscience = Impotence. So there you have it, god is impotent.

Grand Admiral Thrawn · Post by **Grand Admiral Thrawn** » 2003-04-21 07:40pm

Being omnipotent itself it a paradox. Heavy Rock and such. Just like Unmovable vs. Unstopable and Changing the past.

The Dark · Post by **The Dark** » 2003-04-21 08:29pm

*ahem* When saying God knows everything, Ted, you're assuming the future exists, and thus is knowable. I don't agree with this. The future does not yet exist, and as a non-existent concept, the actions that will be taken in the future are not knowable. Omniscience entails knowing everything that it is possible to know, and knowledge of the future (definite, certain knowledge, not just likelihoods) is not possible to know.

Kuroneko · Post by **Kuroneko** » 2003-04-21 08:36pm

The Dark wrote:*ahem* When saying God knows everything, Ted, you're assuming the future exists, and thus is knowable. I don't agree with this. The future does not yet exist, and as a non-existent concept, the actions that will be taken in the future are not knowable. Omniscience entails knowing everything that it is possible to know, and knowledge of the future (definite, certain knowledge, not just likelihoods) is not possible to know.

It IS a way out (and what is essentially the same counter-argument has been given to defeat a certain determinist argument), but it still contradicts Jonathan's position, which is pretty much the topic of this thread.

The Dark · Post by **The Dark** » 2003-04-21 08:54pm

Kuroneko wrote:
The Dark wrote:*ahem* When saying God knows everything, Ted, you're assuming the future exists, and thus is knowable. I don't agree with this. The future does not yet exist, and as a non-existent concept, the actions that will be taken in the future are not knowable. Omniscience entails knowing everything that it is possible to know, and knowledge of the future (definite, certain knowledge, not just likelihoods) is not possible to know.
It IS a way out (and what is essentially the same counter-argument has been given to defeat a certain determinist argument), but it still contradicts Jonathan's position, which is pretty much the topic of this thread.

Ah. *nod* I understand. I had forgotten that Jonatahn follows the relatively newly conceived literalist view, rather than the traditional Trinitarian viewpoint proposed by Origen, Ambrose, and Augustine, with Luther, Calvin, and Wesley adapting portions of it for their own theologies. Before the publication of the Origin of Species, there were no literalists.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-04-21 08:57pm

The funniest thing about all this is that one of Jonathan's first posts during his triumphant return to the board this weekend was to insinuate that it was unfair of me to slap a "fundamentalist moron" title on him. Since then, he has conveniently proven to the satisfaction of every observer, religious or not, that the title is absolutely deserved.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2003-04-21 08:58pm

Darth Wong wrote:The funniest thing about all this is that one of Jonathan's first posts during his triumphant return to the board this weekend was to insinuate that it was unfair of me to slap a "fundamentalist moron" title on him. Since then, he has conveniently proven to the satisfaction of every observer, religious or not, that the title is absolutely deserved.

You missed the "Boyd vs. The Jehovah's Witnesses" spectacle on ASVS. It was very amusing.

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2003-04-21 09:16pm

Omnipotence is self-conflicting. Theres an old question that goes somewhat like this:

"Can the All Powerful God create a stone that not even he can lift?"

If the answer is yes, then god can't lift the stone and therefore CAN'T do anything. If the answer is no, then he can't do "anything".

There's also proof that god doesn't exist in the fact that the babel fish does. :p

Ted C · Post by **Ted C** » 2003-04-21 10:14pm

The Dark wrote:*ahem* When saying God knows everything, Ted, you're assuming the future exists, and thus is knowable.

That's an acceptable explanation, but Jonathan has specifically made the claim that God knows the future, so it's not acceptable for him.

[BL]Phalanx · Post by **[BL]Phalanx** » 2003-04-21 10:18pm

However, in theory shouldn't it be possible to generate the set of all possible future outcomes, like plotting out all possible future moves in a chess game? Not practical and we can't do it, but theoretically that set exists, yes?

Of course, if everything's fated there's only one possible course, so only 1 course in that set.

Jonathan · Post by **Jonathan** » 2003-04-21 10:22pm

The Dark wrote:Ah. *nod* I understand. I had forgotten that Jonatahn follows the relatively newly conceived literalist view, rather than the traditional Trinitarian viewpoint proposed by Origen, Ambrose, and Augustine, with Luther, Calvin, and Wesley adapting portions of it for their own theologies. Before the publication of the Origin of Species, there were no literalists.

You're quite simply wrong about that. This is about as silly as the claim that there were no homosexuals before the 19th centruy.

Jonathan · Post by **Jonathan** » 2003-04-21 10:24pm

Grand Admiral Thrawn wrote:Being omnipotent itself it a paradox. Heavy Rock and such. Just like Unmovable vs. Unstopable and Changing the past.

No, omnipotence is being able to do everything that can possibly be done. Everything that is not intrinsically impossible. The heavy rock is not something that comes into consideration because it is an intrinsically impossible situation. It is a nonsense scenario. It makes no sense. It is the paradox and contradiction, not omnipotence.

Jonathan · Post by **Jonathan** » 2003-04-21 10:25pm

Durandal wrote:You missed the "Boyd vs. The Jehovah's Witnesses" spectacle on ASVS. It was very amusing.

It's still going. I'm waiting for Enigma's next reply. I think we've each written a doctoral thesis by this point. Mine's better of course.

Jonathan · Post by **Jonathan** » 2003-04-21 10:26pm

Darth Wong wrote:The funniest thing about all this is that one of Jonathan's first posts during his triumphant return to the board this weekend was to insinuate that it was unfair of me to slap a "fundamentalist moron" title on him. Since then, he has conveniently proven to the satisfaction of every observer, religious or not, that the title is absolutely deserved.

Good to see you're putting your telepathy to good use their Mike. Or did you conduct a poll? I trust you took sampling errors into consideration and all that?

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-04-21 10:33pm

Jonathan wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:The funniest thing about all this is that one of Jonathan's first posts during his triumphant return to the board this weekend was to insinuate that it was unfair of me to slap a "fundamentalist moron" title on him. Since then, he has conveniently proven to the satisfaction of every observer, religious or not, that the title is absolutely deserved.
Good to see you're putting your telepathy to good use their Mike. Or did you conduct a poll? I trust you took sampling errors into consideration and all that?

The fact that you're being pummelled by everyone present and no one, including the Christians on the board, is defending your points ought to be a subtle clue

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Omniscience vs Omnipotence (special for Jonathan)

Omniscience vs Omnipotence (special for Jonathan)

Re: Omniscience vs Omnipotence (special for Jonathan)

Re: Omniscience vs Omnipotence (special for Jonathan)

Re: Omniscience vs Omnipotence (special for Jonathan)

Re: Omniscience vs Omnipotence (special for Jonathan)