Free will vs Omniscience

That's kindof a non-question, but...An omnipotent god could create a rock so heavy that he could not move it while simultaneously being able to move it, existing in logical contradiction, and not, forever and instantly, in the past and the future.I mean, how far(ridiculous) do we have to take this?What's the point?

If my example is illogical, how can the belief itself be "believable"Is it simply because God is beyond Logic ? But if he is, then how can we ever understand his teaching ?

Catholic ScientistHow about Omnipotent and powerless at the same time?

Why not?That's the same question. What's your point? Let's cut to the chase...

Catholic Scientist Actually it is not since non omnipotence can be any level up to but falling short of omnipotence itself.Anyway we need to resolve how a God can engage in the logical impossibilities if he is powerless and how such a state{ Omnipotence and impotence} can been considered achievable even in a world without rules of logic.

You're right, I overlooked that. The reason I would say that he could is becuase if I said that he couldn't then it wouldn't be omnipotence in the first place. If it is omnipotence then everything is acheivable. Why do we have to come up with how its possible?

Dear Kader,Have you ever heard of theoligical determinism and compatibilism?There are many possible positions one could take on the issue of free will.The one used by Judeo-Christian religions is the above.To explain, God is omniscient, period. We have free will, period. They do not cancel each other out.It is not hard to grasp, really. There have been examples in court cases where a lawyer has argued determinism as a way to exonerate a prisoner. If all things are naturally GOING to happen, are they predetermined by NATURE? Or do we dictate to an extent what DOES happen? We don't need to even bring God into the picture to see that this type of reasoning will probably not get the guilty pardoned.Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.

Catholic Scientist Because while the omnipotence side of the equation works at the same time we have powerlessness which negates the ability so it now becomes a case concerning what it means to allow for logical impossibilities.Can we indeed allow for logical impossibility while at the same time maintaining a definition of Omnipotence and powerlessness whose states depend upon logical structures in order to define them?

Honestly, I don't think it means very much.It might even be meaningless. Ummmmmmm........no?I don't really know.I'd say that you can't really maintain the definition of omnipotence if you not going to allow it to include logical impossibilities.

My point is how rediculous god is starting to sound.

Becuase of the omnipotence, which I admitted was ridiculous in Message 7.

omnipotent and powerless?
God and Man?

quote:

---

According to Hume, free will should not be understood as an absolute ability to have chosen differently under exactly the same inner and outer circumstances. Rather, it is a hypothetical ability to have chosen differently if one had been differently psychologically disposed by some different beliefs or desires.

---

What a nice way to make everything fit
comptabilism just change the definition a bit to make it so the new definition of free will is now compatible with Omniscience Yet in my example, how can the guy who shoots have free will ?
If its easy to grasp, it must be easy to explain ?Edited by Kader, : No reason given.

You will need to give me your example again. I did not get it the first time around.

quote:

---

I'd say that you can't really maintain the definition of omnipotence if you not going to allow it to include logical impossibilities.

---

Well, just about every major theologian disagrees with you.The problem is that you cannot escape the logical implications in the definition of "omnipotence"."Omnipotence" as a concept is inescapably subject to logic.It is simply incoherent and meaningless to say that god is powerless and omnipotent at the same time.