The definition of GOD

Someone has to bring this point up so i may as well be the one to do it as I have been involved in this kind of discussion before on these forums.I contend that it is impossible from a purely logical standpoint for any being (god or otherwise) to be both omnipotent and omniscient.Of course we first need to establish the definitions of these two terms in order to lay the groundwork for the logical premises.The definitions I use in this are the following which i think are pretty much the same as in your OP. Please tell me if they are not.Omniscient = Always knowing everything, past present future with absolute infalibility. i.e. can NEVER be wrong about even the minutest detail.
omipotent = Can do absolutely anything. NO LIMITS.Using the premises that God is Omniscient and Omnipotent (as defined here) we can explore the consequences and see if it is possible to disqualify either of them or whether the argument stands.God is omniscient therefore he knows precisely what I will be doing at 3:04Pm this coming Saturday.
Given that he KNOWS (omniscience) what I will be doing, does he have the power (omnipotence)to make me do something else?
If YES then that means that he may well be omnipotent but he cannot be simultaneously omniscient since he has now been demonstrably wrong about what I would be doing.
If NO then he cannot be omnipotent since I have just found something that he cannot do.There is really no wiggle room in this conundrum if you stick to the rules of pure logic.In the past it has been argued that God could turn off his omniscience at will. This is really just self defeating though as with the power turned off, he is no longer omniscient by my definition above.Different time lines have been suggested in which God has knowledge of all possible outcomes and in which every outcome is true.
If this is the case then I contend that I am also omniscient since I can tell you what will happen in the future and in one of the infinite possible futures, I WILL be right. It's a non starter.Either way you look at it, omnipotence overturns omniscinece every time. In a nutshell, Omnipotence gives God the power to be wrong. If he can never be wrong then he is, by definition, not omnipotent since he is limited.It's like the old adage. Can God make a boulder so big that he can't lift it? I know that is a bit cliche but nevertheless it is a valid point.

That also is one of the arguments that I have heard before.I don't see a flaw in the logic.
The point is that if God were to force everything to come out the way he chooses and then claim that he knew all along that it was going to come out that way then it isn't true omniscience in the sense of what I defined.
All it would take to falsify his omniscience is if he decides to make something happen one way (i.e. he knows it will come out that way, then he changes his mind. Therefore he was wrong. Omniscience doesn't allow wrong as an option. Therefore omniscience doesn't allow him to change his mind. And that, in turn, falsifies Omnipotence since this is yet another limit on his power.The only thing that God would truly know under these circumstances is that he has the power to force any outcome he chooses. Omnipotence? Yes. Omniscience? not in any way that is really meaningful.

Hey Phat Logic is a human convention so God obviously cannot be constrained by it.
In fact nothing is really constrained by it. logic has no real power. It is just a tool that we use to help us to figure stuff out.
My only argument as far as logic is concerned is that we cannot define God with it or we come out with some pretty serious contradictions. This isn't about humans though. We know we aren't perfect, omnipotent or omniscient. No idea. Can God create something greater than himself? maybe. Who can tell? It's a little beyond the bounds of this discussion i think. As for free will, That is another subject that we have also been through a few times before. I still contend that any universe in which omniscience (on the part of any being) is even possible, implies that every event that will ever happen throughout all time is carved in stone and therefore freewill is an illusion. That's why I don't buy into omniscience as a possibility. But that's OT as well BTW. Edited by PurpleYouko, : No reason given.

Hi Ruleroftheuniverse No I don't believe my reasoning is faulty at all. I think it more likely that you are missing my point to some degree. It is a kind of tricky concept that I am trying to get across.
Knowing and seeing all possibilities certainly sounds like omniscience.
However, in the realm of infinite alternate realities in which a new reality branches off for each decision made by each person, EVERY possibility is true somewhere and all universes are equally real. How do you define THIS universe when this universe will branch into a massive number of alternates before the foreknown event comes to pass. From our present point, ALL of those possibilities are THIS universe. Only down certain branches have been made will the different potential outcomes become limited.
The problem comes when the act of KNOWING (with absolute certainty) what WILL happen down each and every one of these pathways, fixes them in stone and makes them unchangeable. If they can be changed then they are not knowable. The point being that in this kind of multiverse, all possibilities already ARE in existence so your God wouldn't even need to make it real. No actually that would be true omnipotence
And again the problem you have is that if God were to manipulate all of the possible outcomes to be the same then no other possibilities exist any more. Since you already stated that he previously knew all the other possibilities then that means that he had to have been wrong in his knowledge.in a nutshell nobody can know, with absolute certainty, that 2+2=4 and also know (with absolute certainty)that it will be that way for all eternity, then go and change the universe so that 2+2=5 and then still be right.Logically you can have either one or the other but omniscience and omnipotence are mutually exclusive Are you talking voluntary limits? i.e. choosing not to do certain things. kind of like i choose not to cause the nuclear reactor that I work at, to melt down and kill everybody around it?
Yeah i choose that but It would still be within my power (hypothetically) to make it happen.
Or are you talking about absolute limits such as armed guards that would stop me doing it?
If the latter then God would have completely removed his omnipotence by making it impossible for himself to do something. Not voluntarily restricted by an act of will but totally IMPOSSIBLE.

Hi Chiroptera That was kind of my point.
I actually said as much in the following lines.My only point here is that you can't use logic to determine what God is like since logic is our own tool and really has no power over the real world.

Completely agreed.
That's why you can't define the guy with logic.
Any attempt to do so just results in defining him out of existence.
As Douglas Adams puts it, "God promptly disappeared in a puff of logic"

Hehe.
I thought I was getting that point across all along but obviously i failed.The God who actually exists (if one indeed does) is highly likely to be so far beyond our comprehension that the application of logic is utterly pointless.
All logic is capable of doing is determining if something makes sense in our own frame of reference.
In this respect, our definition of Omniscient is incompatible with our definition of Omnipotence
That does not limit God.
It limits our understanding of him
It proves that logic cannot be the correct tool to define him.Since logic was proposed in the OP as a way to determine God's qualities, I am simply arguing that it can't since it is woefully inadequate to do so.Edited by PurpleYouko, : No reason given.

yes I was saying that, but not to limit God.
I was just saying that the logical inference is that he cannot have both of these things as we understand them
You could read that as limiting God
or you could read that as limiting our understanding of the terms omnipotence and omniscience.
Since we are neither, we are allowed to be wrong.
Logically, by our definitions, God can't be wrong, even if he wanted to be.
And that is the dilemma. Either God is wrong or WE are.
If God does exist then it is way more likely that it is us and our logic that is wrong, don't you think? Logic is just the wrong tool for the job of proving or disproving anything related to God.

Good point.
A bigger problem, as I see it, would be that once you can prove God scientifically, then God becomes measurable and would therefore be subject to our science and all it rules and logic and stuff.Talk about limiting God.Proving he exists scientifically would do exactly that.A bit self defeating if you ask me. <_<

Yeah that is true.
But if he isn't then he probably shouldn't be in this thread since we are obviously talking about a different God than Rulerofthisuniverse is talking about

Anyway, let's ignore the infinite possible realities for the moment. I don't think that line of reasoning is going to get us anywhere anyway. Of course you can define god in any way you like and there is nothing I or anyone can do about it.
Unless, that is, you attempt to use science or logic to get there. At that point you have to abide by the rules and structures that are defined in those constructs. Yup probably would be useful. OK I don't have aproblem with that.
How about my definitions as posted earlier? Do you agree with these?
It would be a bit pointless to move onwards with a logical sequence unless we have the starting assumptions agreed upon.
You didn't tell me if this agrees with your own definitions before.
I don't want to stand here beating on a strawman that doesn't accurately represent your position.

No he isn't!
He is a young boy playing with a life simulator program that he made on his dad's 3-D Megatronic Compu Brain Computer.I have the proof right here.
无码国产精品一区二区vr_亚洲欧美自拍小说区_44分钟欧美人与禽交片mp4_偷窥女人蹲下露出毛茸茸

Meh!!It was an alternate reality. That universe ended with the clicking of the Holy OFF Switch.

Ok then. From what you are saying plus the dictionary definitions of omnipotent I would say we are on the same page with that one.
"Absolute, unlimited power" sounds pretty much the same as the way I put it. This, however, does not agree in any way with the definition that I gave as omniscient.
And that is fine because with the definition that I gave, having both is a logical impossibility.
If your Omnipotent being can do anything it likes because of its power, no problem.
If your omnipotent being knows exactly what will happen because, and only because, it is capable of forcing that outcome due to its omnipotence, then that is not omniscience by any definition that I understand.Dictionary definitions always say something like "All Knowing" or having "all possible knowledge". here is a good example that illustrates my point. Knowledge of the future is usually included in the definition and this is where my issue begins.
Knowing the future and then being able to change the future negate each other.
If you can change it then it is potentially fluid and therefore not knowable.
If it is knowable then it is set in stone and therefore not changeable.It kind of looks like you are not using that definition though so I as long as we use a definition where omnipotence is really the important one and omniscience is somewhat diluted to mean nothing more than...

quote:

---

God knows precisely what will happen at 2:37 next Friday morning because he has the power to (in the words of Captain Picard of Star Trek) "Make it so"

---

Then we have no issue.
I still say that isn't omniscience but what the heck. It's your thread so let's do it your way.Would you agree that this is the same God you are defining?
or do we still need to do some work to get on the same page. These are voluntary limits though and can just as easily be removed so they aren't really limits to his actual omnipotence. Just choices really. No problems here.If we are in agreement then the next thing you need t do is to lay out the logical premises that make this definition of God, the only possible one. Without these premises, you can't show that it is a logical outcome.Your ball ROTU

Hi ROTU That is pretty much the same definition that I used earlier I think. But does your God know which route I will take?
Does he know which possible future i will follow between point A and B?
Does he know every thought process that will occur to me during my journey, every car that will hinder my progress and every school bus that will pull out in front of me on the actual route that I will take?
that would be Omniscience (All knowing)
What you seem to be describing seems more like an application of Omnipotence (All Powerful) to make sure that I take one of those possible routes to reach point B.Again, I have no problem with your God working that way. I just don't believe that the God you are defining is truly All Knowing otherwise there could only ever be ONE road that he knows I will take. He would know every twist and turn of it, every pothole and twig that I would drive through, The exact speed at every point, even the total number of revolutions my engine would go through during the trip.It is a little like the example I gave a few posts back. I don't know if it slipped past you. here it is again. A simple thought exercise.God knows that 2 + 2 = 4 and that it always will be the same in all possible universes (All knowing and so on)
God changes the universe so that 2 + 2 = 73 in all possible universes(all powerful and so on)
it is Logically impossible (with our logic) that both of these statements are simultaneously true.of course it may still be that both statements ARE true and that God IS both all knowing and all powerful but the point is that if that is the case then he is beyond our logic so any logical definition is impossible.
Do you see my point? Yes your post made a lot of sense.
I don't have an issue with your definition. Although it still does seem to me that the God you are defining (through examples) is NOT all knowing in the sense that I am describing and that our agreed upon definition describes.My only real problem is that a God that fully meets the definitions, falls outside of Human logic so it becomes somewhat tricky to prove it.