The Universe and Invoking God(s)

[KrazyGlue]

On the subject of omniscience, if a being is able to see into the future, it would render such a being powerless. Such a being can only do, and will only do, what he sees himself doing in the future; he has no choices. This would mean that omnipotence and omniscience are mutually exclusive.

Dre, this is a good point, and I think it should be responded to.

Not exactly.

The Son in the Trinity is suppsoed to represent God's act in the world, or God acting in the world. The fact that merely 1/3 of His nature is merely the potency to act in the physical world means He is not a physical being.

Ok, this doesn't make sense. Bob is arguing that since God is non-physical, He can't effect the physical universe. Yet now you're arguing that God made Jesus (a physical being). Explain?

Also this brought an interesting thought to my head. What if, in some other place of the universe, there's another planet with human-like creatures there. Would Jesus have visited all of these planets? Fun to think about.

You're point about the complexity was valid until you started bringing science into the picture. The first cause will always be prior toscience, whether there is a God or not.

Ok, then you should respond to the first part:

However, if there is a part of God that is not necessary, ie. the Son, then God cannot be simple. He as described in the Trinity, is in three forms, that is not as simple as possible.

 

[Deleted member]

You don't need omnipotence and omniscience combined to find a contradiction. They are logically impossible by themselves. This is simply because they assume that something can be at infinity (the power and knowledge of god).

Omnipotence: The standard can god make a rock so heavy that 'he' cannot move it is an old one, but it points out the logical impossibility of infinite power.

Omniscience: The simple question "How does god know that 'he' knows everything" is enough to show the contradiction, not using the impossibility of infinity as obviously.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

You don't need omnipotence and omniscience combined to find a contradiction. They are logically impossible by themselves. This is simply because they assume that something can be at infinity (the power and knowledge of god).

Omnipotence: The standard can god make a rock so heavy that 'he' cannot move it is an old one, but it points out the logical impossibility of infinite power.

Omniscience: The simple question "How does god know that 'he' knows everything" is enough to show the contradiction, not using the impossibility of infinity as obviously.

I'm actually arguing that Dre's god is powerless and useless, and that he is not capable of creating the universe or doing anything for that matter. If he can't do anything, he can't create the universe, and therefore is redundant.

 

[Dre89]

You don't need omnipotence and omniscience combined to find a contradiction. They are logically impossible by themselves. This is simply because they assume that something can be at infinity (the power and knowledge of god).

Omnipotence: The standard can god make a rock so heavy that 'he' cannot move it is an old one, but it points out the logical impossibility of infinite power.

Omniscience: The simple question "How does god know that 'he' knows everything" is enough to show the contradiction, not using the impossibility of infinity as obviously.

This is actually based on a misunderstanding of the term "omnipotence".

Omnipotence doesn't mean that God can do absolutely everything, including contradicting Himself etc. (although some people do argue He can).

The definition of omnipotence that Christian theists go off is that God can create being, but can't create nothingness.

Bob- I don't see how you've proven that God is powerless and useless. I've never heard any atheist make that kind of argument. Are yo uactually making a positive atheist argument? That it is impossible for God to exist?

 

[Deleted member]

This is actually based on a misunderstanding of the term "omnipotence".

Omnipotence doesn't mean that God can do absolutely everything, including contradicting Himself etc. (although some people do argue He can).

The definition of omnipotence that Christian theists go off is that God can create being, but can't create nothingness.

If that's the definition used by Christian theists, then they need to use a different word. Omnipotence by proper definition (even by modern standards) is all-powerful.

I have heard though that some Christians (this seems like the more reasonable way) use it to mean that omnipotence refers to being able to do anything which is logically acceptable.

 

[Dre89]

But logically acceptable probably just means being able to create being. It's logically impossible to create nothingness.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

This is actually based on a misunderstanding of the term "omnipotence".

Omnipotence doesn't mean that God can do absolutely everything, including contradicting Himself etc. (although some people do argue He can).

The definition of omnipotence that Christian theists go off is that God can create being, but can't create nothingness.

Bob- I don't see how you've proven that God is powerless and useless. I've never heard any atheist make that kind of argument. Are yo uactually making a positive atheist argument? That it is impossible for God to exist?

"create being?" Explain. And yes, I'm trying to argue that the God your invoking would be unable to create the universe.

Furthermore, it would be great if you addressed the points that I raised earlier, especially the ones KG highlighted.