Your arguing with Storm piqued my interest Nade, so I thought I'd go back and find your original post;
I don't believe this makes any logical sense. I don't see any reasoning in your argument why a God that knows everything could not also do anything - you seem to think that omniscience would in some way prevent a God from doing certain things, why is that?
Oh goodness, I neglected to explain that part! Let me see if I can help. The simple answer is that an omniscient god would, in addition to knowing everything outside of itself, would also know it's future actions. If it knew it's future actions, however, it could never change them, as that would mean that there was something it hadn't planned for, or that some new information has come to the fore, or that the actions that replace the old actions were unknown until it had changed its mind. Do you see? A god that can never change its mind is a god that can never do something. But an omnipotent god would have to be able to do everything. All I am arguing, is that the definitions of both omnipotence and omniscience produce a contradicting clash that would make neither possible, if that makes sense.
I don't think this makes an awful lot of sense either, I can't pinpoint in your arguement any reason why an omniscient God could not be transcendent and simply have its awareness cover the totality of the universe. It would not be the universe because it would be beyond the universe.
I see, you have pointed out a flaw in my argument. Now I realize something. But let me explain: to have knowledge of something, you must have an idea in your head of that something, so that when you run into that something, you will be able to recognize it. to "know" it. Where does that idea come from? some say that ideas could come directly from his conciousness. Unfortunately, if human experience is anything to show, anything we "know" of, we have experienced, and anything that comes up in our head "might" exist, but things don't pop into existence just because we think of them. Rather, in order to "know" everything that exists, we would have to interact with all that exists, in order to possess that mental image of everything that exists.
There's something I want to say: Omnipotence, and omniscience are two very human qualities. The act of "knowing" something, or of "doing" something, includes a LOT of assumptions, namely, however, that whatever is "knowing" or "doing" is very similar to humans. To ascribe these two qualities two a "god" is to give him a whole mess of other qualities that are more or less human. That is why I say that the god would have to interact with everything in the universe in able to "know" of everything in the universe.
However, it is possible that God possesses a whole slew of other atributes that change the game. The thing is, however, is that there are too many variables. I wouldn't even know where to begin to find out which properties a god may have, other than human properties, that also lead to omnipotence and omniscience. If we assume that God is very similiar in mindset to humans, like Zeus or something, the task becomes relatively easy. But that is an unwarranted assumption, and one I will not make.
However, there is one thing I will say. To define your god in any way allows it to be tested for truth or falsehood. I truly believe that if you define god as an omnimax
being, then you can prove it's truth or falsehood by determining if the properties of an omnimax god are plausible. If it is plausible, then you have to determine whether there is a 100% chance of interacting with it someday for truthhood, or if there is a 0% chance of interacting with it, for a proof of falsehood. I believe that it is possible, with a definition of god, to logical ascertain it's falsehood, validity, or plausability.
The truth is, however, that many religions, most of them, really, do not wish to define god. Many common definitions of god seem to include the idea that one can not access him in any way. That he is outside the reaches of science.
It is all too apparent to me that this is a cowardly argument that stems from no evidence at all. There is no evidence that there even IS an "outside" of the universe. After all, if you could go, "outside" the universe, you would be in a location. But since the universe encompasses all locations, you wouldn't be outside the universe, as much as you would be expanding it. This is because "outside" is a spacial dimension, one that is readily testable and scientific. To base your notion of a god outside of science on a concept that is readily examinable by science is, to me, the biggest evidence that can be found that the religious mind is desperate to believe in something that simply isn't there.
Many minds, like storm for example, have readily subscribed to the idea of an unfalsifiable god. They do this, I hope, because of the growing weariness of the intellect of arguing about something so intangible. The truth is, however, that the failure to find an answer not because of an inherent quality in that which people are arguing about, but rather because of an unwillingness on one side to define the terms of the argument, and a willingness on the other side to let it happen.
Atheists, or anyone seeking to enter the debate of the existence of god, in my opinion, should be brave enough to demand that all parties define what they mean by "god", so that a suitable answer may be found. They should not take no for an answer, and should issue the ultimatum that says without a definition of god, the religious mind has no authority to make any statements about the world at all. All arguments by the religious mind, I hope, would be dismissed out of hand and considered proven false without any malleability, at least until the religious mind can find the balls to man up, and put forth a definition of that which they believe exists so earnestly.
