Hostility. Right. Well, to answer your list:
Omnipotent, by definition means that god can do all things. If there is something that he can not do, then he is not omnipotent.
Sure, subject to the question of logical inconsistencies like "can God make a square circle?"
And I say CASE CLOSED, because that's an absolute fact. If the definition of something doesn't match something in reality, then the something in reality does not equal the thing in definition. I don't see how you say this is unjustified. It's perfectly justified, because if A does not = B... well, it's just the rule of the game. The equivalency principle. I didn't make this up. It's standard fare, at the base of mathematics, the scientific method, and philosophy.
I didn't say that was unjustified. I said that you were unjustified in claiming that omniscience implied omnipresence.
I never said that god must do this, or god can not do this.
Yes, you did. Emphasis by bolding mine:
In order to control everything, said god would have to KNOW of everything.
In order to assess the universe into god's "mind", it would have to interact with the entire universe, in order to get an image so that it can "know" the entire universe.
A god that is equally distributed amongst all constituents of a universe CAN NOT show any part of the universe more attention than any other part.
See?
If, however, either of the two applies to your god, then he can not be omnipotent.
What does "the two" refer to?
Once again, I say CASE CLOSED, because it is logically proven that if the definition of something does not match up with that something in reality, then they can not be equivalent. I don't see how you can say this is unjustified.
Again, that's probably because I didn't say it was unjustified. For clarity's sake, let's back up a bit.
In my last post, I mentioned that there you made unjustified leaps in your argument. I only mentioned one explicitly: the claim that omniscience implies omnipresence. For the record, here's the list of I see as unjustified leaps in your previous post:
- the claim that the Christian God is omnipotent and omniscient as you define those terms.
- the claim that omnipotence requires omniscience.
- the claim that omniscience implies omnipresence.
- the claim that omnipresence implies equal distribution.
- the claim that an omnipresent God would be indistinguishable from the universe.
So far, I don't believe you've given any real logical basis for any of these claims.
Now then, IF your god is omnipotent and omniscient, then BY YOUR OWN definition, he 1) knows everything, and 2) can do everything.
Hold up - I didn't define either of those terms; you did. Don't put words in my mouth.
God's future actions are a thing. I, once again, say CASE CLOSED, because the word "thing" applies to EVERY"THING". If something is not a "THING", then it is "NO"THING, and thus does not exist. If god's future actions were not a "THING", then they would be nothing, and thus, would not exist. I, once again, say CASE CLOSED, because this is not open to interpretation. "thing" "omniscience" and "omnipotence" are all very well defined. And the assertions I am making are all tautalogies in logic. CASE CLOSED.
Okay... I'll bite: "thing", "omniscience" and "omnipotence" are all very well defined. What are their definitions as you see them?
So, God's future actions are a "thing". That means that God would "know" of them. But then we have a contradiction. IF, IF, IF, god knows his future actions, then he can not change them. BECAUSE IF, IF, IF, god changes his future actions, then he could not have "known" that he would do so, otherwise, he would not have changed his future actions, but just acted them. But that would mean that god did not know everything. IN order to maintain that he knows everything, god would have to refrain from changing his future actions, then. But that would impose a limit on God's omnipotence. Thus, he would NOT BE omnipotence.
Ah... I see where you're going. This is just an attempt at a fancier version of the "could God create a rock so heavy He couldn't lift it" argument.
However, there's one big problem: say this hypothetical god exercises his omnipotence. Since he's omniscient, he also knew beforehand that he was going to do this. How is this a contradiction? I don't think it is.
This is why I say CASE CLOSED. Because I have not assumed anything other than what someone who believes in an omnipotent and omniscient god would assume. And thus, by using only tautologies, have realized an inherent contradiction.
I disagree. I think you say "CASE CLOSED" because you haven't really thought through the scenario you present.
It has long been said, since the 1700's that logical statements must be free of contradictions. If there is a contradiction, then the statement can not stand. This is not a tautology. But if you want to question it, you're in uncharted territory, have nothing to go by, and most likely erasing the distinction between logic and the illogical, which, by definition, is a statement that realizes a contradiction.
And since the early 1900s and the advent of quantum physics, contradictions have been acknowledged and embraced by science.
This is why I say CASE CLOSED. No assumptions. Everything is defined. The argument is reduced to a tautology. In mathematics, philosophy, science, ect, an argument reduced to a tautology is considered a "proof". It is a "proof". A "PROOF". Not a theory. Not evidence. I do not assert this blindly. Ask any mathemitician.
It seems whenever someone says something is a fact on these forums( I could be wrong. I don't mean THIS to be a fact), that the standard response is "not neccessarily" or, "assertion doesn't mean proof." I agree that assertion doesn't mean proof. That's why I've taken the time to define what someone might mean by "god", and logically follow the results of the statement "there is an omnipotent and omniscient god".
I have not just asserted this. I have taken the time to reason in tautologies. If you think that I havent, then tell me where. Note, for this to be possible, you must be well versed in what it means to have a tautological argument. I would appreciate it if you would define what a "tautological proof" is before trying to see if my tautological proof in reality matches the definition of tautological proof. CASE CLOSED.
Hmm. You did take the time to build a rather elaborate straw man, stake him down and beat him silly, but you still didn't manage to kill the thing you constructed to be killed, for the reasons I outlined earlier.
On a side note. I did say that I didn't want anybody talking any more about an omniscient or omnipotent god. That's a fact. But since the universe often does not align with what we humans "want", I will not be so selfish as to get upset or angry if someone continues to discuss this. True, I don't want it to happen. But since when does anyone give a rat's a** about what anyone ELSE wants?
Well, that's just silly. You do realize that you're visiting a religious discussion forum, right? I think it'd be just as reasonable to walk into your local Olive Garden and shout
"That's it! No more linguine for anyone!" and expect people to obey.
