omnipotence AND omniscience, the paradox

this is more of a philosophical question than anything else. i'm not actually questioning a specific deity, i'm questioning the IDEA of a deity.

and eating my own face is a stupid comparison, if i claimed omnipotence it would be relevant, but it's just pointless to add right here.

this is actually questioning the very nature of omniscience and omnipotence, not saying something as childish as "could god make a hamburger so big that he couldn't eat it?" (though that child does have a point about the ridiculous nature of omnipotence)

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
let us say that god is all knowing and all powerful.

if god is all powerful, god can interfere in world events in the future
if god is all knowing, god already knows how god will intervene in future world events

Why does 'all powerful' and 'all knowing' automatically mean 'all-controlling?' How can we assume God will intervene in future events? Especially if you throw 'free will' into the mix. To intervene is to remove our free will.

therefore, god cannot change god's mind without losing omniscience
but if god cannot chage god's mind, god loses omnipotence

How does the ability to change one's mind reduce one's power? Does not the human mind have the power to change it's own self? And still retain the power it has in being a human mind?

so, how can god exist with this obvious paradox as an inherent part of god's existence?

My dear, i don't see a paradox. I don't think that being all-powerful behooves an entity to exercise said power.

The wisdom inherent in my God is the same wisdom my own mother and father demonstrated in my upbringing:

Either one of them, at any time, had the power to allow or disallow anything for which I asked permission of them. They more or less allowed me to use my own 'best judgment.'

Sometimes my judgment was astoundingly beyond my years...although, more often than not, it wasn't all that great - with varying degrees of wisdom/foolishness sprinkled with self-will and selfish orientation (wanting what I wanted...not heeding the possible effects upon myself and others).

Either way...mistakes I made taught me far more valuable lessons than just being told 'NO.' I have little doubt that my parents knew exactly what trouble I headed myself for, when I did, in DEED, head myself toward self-made disaster.

They knew and had sight farther than mine...they had authority to dictate to me as their ward...however they were not compelled to control me just based on those two things. And they did not. In so choosing, they neither lost any authority nor did they lose the wisdom of their years as people and as parents.

Alright then. Even though its pointless to answer your paradox and you're just going to say that I'm wrong like you always do, here I go.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
let us say that god is all knowing and all powerful.

if god is all powerful, god can interfere in world events in the future
if god is all knowing, god already knows how god will intervene in future world events

therefore, god cannot change god's mind without losing omniscience
but if god cannot chage god's mind, god loses omnipotence

so, how can god exist with this obvious paradox as an inherent part of god's existence?

You're saying that if God wants to alter something in the future, He cannot because He might want to change His mind after the alteration has already taken place. This is stupid. If God is omniscient, then He wouldn't have to change His mind because His previous alteration was already perfect, meaning that He would have no need to change anything back.

The second part of your... *cough*... paradox, is that God would lose His omnipotence because He does not have the power to change His own mind. Your paradox has a big hole in it. God would have no need to change His own mind because He is omniscient, meaning that His decision was already perfect and would need no change. Therefore, God can still retain His omnipotence and omniscience because they work in harmony with one another.

Even if you can find another... *cough* ... paradox, it does not disprove the existence of God. Like I said, my paradox of "Can you eat your own head?" disproves the existence of humans, but we still exist don't we?

------------------------------- Pwned -------------------------------

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
let us say that god is all knowing and all powerful.

if god is all powerful, god can interfere in world events in the future
if god is all knowing, god already knows how god will intervene in future world events

therefore, god cannot change god's mind without losing omniscience
but if god cannot chage god's mind, god loses omnipotence

so, how can god exist with this obvious paradox as an inherent part of god's existence?

I see no paradox. I see a lack of vision. I see a truth that lies outside the realm of one's expectations.

queenannie38, i meant alter future events it could be as simple as wanting a tuna sandwich on rye instead of whitebread.

TheB1ueSoldier, the hole you think you've found isn't there. free will is in a place you see a hole. as long as humans have free will, that hole is filled. then again, some would argue that we don't have free will.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
queenannie38, i meant alter future events it could be as simple as wanting a tuna sandwich on rye instead of whitebread.

Ok, a sandwich analogy... not quite like the kind of parables you find Jesus speaking about but fine. My point is that if God is omniscient, his choice of whitebread would be correct and perfect. Meaning that any other choice or any other kind of bread would be insufficient and pointless to choose. There's the hole in your paradox.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoulTheB1ueSoldier, the hole you think you've found isn't there. free will is in a place you see a hole. as long as humans have free will, that hole is filled. then again, some would argue that we don't have free will.

No, I'm pretty sure I see a hole, and I never mentioned free will.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
this is more of a philosophical question than anything else. i'm not actually questioning a specific deity, i'm questioning the IDEA of a deity.

(First, let me say that my tone of thought is entirely friendly as I write this, and I feel a need to add this only because we are not speaking directly and cannot hear inflections, voice tone, etc...Whatever...please just don't read it as a lecture...'cause it's not...I'm re-exploring my own thoughts as I write it)

And, I admit to being a Christian in the sense that I believe in Jesus as the Messiah.

Yes, in my opinion, what you have brought up is a philosophical question phrased as a problem of Logic. As others in this thread have noted, Logic depends upon what we are able to comprehend. In some sense, I guess it depends on whether you take a stricly Materialist view of things.

But there is a problem; the Jewish and Christian scriptures are dependant upon human language to express concepts which can't always be addressed as a function of pure Logic. I am pretty sure you have heard all of this before, so I'm not sharing anything new with you, in fact, it has been voiced in this thread already.

I believe that the omniscient/omnipotent thing (as expressed in the Hebrew and Christian scriptures) really has nothing to do with God's abilities conflicting with each other, per se, in terms of pure Logic.
I think the writer's are trying to tell us that God:

1. "Is all knowing": A reassurance that what I don't understand, He does.

and

2. "Is all powerful": A reassurance that, in the end, His perfect existence for us will come to pass, and that the questions I have about the present (and they are many) will be answered in a way I can understand.

Can these two concepts be twisted and abused and used to control others, or to "justify" harm to others? You betcha'; history, past and present, is full of examples of this. The Christians I know are quite aware of that, and condemn it outright. But that is just the group I run with, the news demonstrates that not everyone thinks this way.

I think most Christians who have really familiarized themselves with the Bible, and thought very much about what it says, have had their share of trouble with both these ideas. I can only speak for myself, and the Christian and non-Christian friends I have talked with about it, so I'll keep it to that. How can a God who is omniscient/omnipresent/omnipotent allow such suffering as exists in the world? Easy.

The hard part comes when you include characteristics of Pure Goodness, Pure Love, Pure Justice, Pure mercy, etc. etc. I'm pretty sure you know the list, and there is a whole branch of theology which attempts to grapple with these things, and it's called Theodicy.

I have my own answers for the questions Theodicy deals with (and sometimes the answer is a much less-than-satisfying "I don't know). And the answers I do have would probably only pass the Logic test if you accepted the overarching storyline as I understand it.

This much I believe: Paul says that "Now we see things imperfectly as in a poor mirror, but then we will see everything with perfect clarity. All that I know now is partial and incomplete, but then I will know everything completely, just as God knows me now. There are three things that will endure--faith, hope, and love--and the greatest of these is love" 1 Cor.13:12-13. NLT

This is what I look to when Pure Logic won't answer all of my questions.

I combine it with Jesus' teachings in the Sermon on the Mount regarding how we are supposed to treat everyone we come into contact with, this is my safeguard from falling into the snare of using religious belief to justify violence or inhumanity against others...it simply isn't allowed.

As for the suffering and evil I see in the world...I do what I can (it isn't enough, and many people still suffer). However; I believe that if everyone lived according to that sermon delivered on a mountainside, the amount of suffering in the world would be a great deal less. It wouldn't solve everything, there are still big questions there, but I reckon it tells you where I think a lot of the responsibility for the sufferings of humankind find their locus.

That, and a healthy respect for the Separation of Church and State, will usually get me through my day.

But it doesn't answer all of the questions, and certainly not in any purely Logical sense.

This post has gone long and off-topic; I apologize in advance to the Mods.

Just explaining how I see it, madnessinmysoul.

Bests to you.

There is no paradox, omnification is the ability to do anything and every thing including to fail. Omnification is every thing, omni meaning all. The Existence has no expectations where humans do, thus a human chooses to think a thing has failed where as another human sees the same occurence as success, well Existence sees it no ways and both ways which causes a third way: neutrality, that is omnification, it is beyond the precepts of current human preconceptions.

When the supposition of the human mind is lost true love will be found.

A never ending mitosis of what Earth has come to know as the "universe" would morph it to be known as the "omni-verse". Expressions of all, or verse of omni, or Eternal-verse - endless expressions

[edit on 19-3-2007 by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal]

Originally posted by thehumbleone
there is no such thing as past or future for God, all things are happening for him all at once, he is outside the concept of "past" and "future," he is outside time.

Yes, I know it is difficult for our puny minds to understand this.

Trust me, don't think about concepts like this too hard, you'll lose your mind.

[edit on 17-3-2007 by thehumbleone]

Well if thats the case and our puny minds have trouble understanding, whats make you so sure that YOU are correct if even you dont understand??? Who told you??? - a HUMAN (but aren't humans to puny minded???) It must have been god itself that told you eh????? But as we dont understand god (according to you) how would you determine whether what god told you was real or if the god of which you speak is real or not??????

G

Well if thats the case and our puny minds have trouble understanding, whats make you so sure that YOU are correct if even you dont understand??? Who told you??? - a HUMAN (but aren't humans to puny minded???) It must have been god itself that told you eh????? But as we dont understand god (according to you) how would you determine whether what god told you was real or if the god of which you speak is real or not??????

G

55 Though you do not know him, I know him. If I said I did not, I would be a liar like you, but I do know him and keep his word. JOHN 8:55

And what's with the excessive punctuation??????????? :shk::shk::shk:


[edit on 19-3-2007 by thehumbleone]

Originally posted by thehumbleone

55 Though you do not know him, I know him. If I said I did not, I would be a liar like you, but I do know him and keep his word. JOHN 8:55

And what's with the excessive punctuation??????????? :shk::shk::shk:


[edit on 19-3-2007 by thehumbleone]

see, you don't even answer the question posed to you, that's a typical 1 line response.

why can't you just answer shi's questions?

see, you don't even answer the question posed to you, that's a typical 1 line response.

why can't you just answer shi's questions?

I answered it perfectly, maybe you're to blind to see?

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
queenannie38, i meant alter future events it could be as simple as wanting a tuna sandwich on rye instead of white bread.

Well, then makes us all gods, right?

Maybe I'm just not getting it...

Originally posted by thehumbleone

see, you don't even answer the question posed to you, that's a typical 1 line response.

why can't you just answer shi's questions?

I answered it perfectly, maybe you're to blind to see?

you answered questions about the reliabilty of humans if we cannot truely understand the god hypothesis with a bible quote that didn't answer the question

i'm not blind to see, i happen to see this situation quite clearly

Just give up... Madnessinmysoul.

Your paradox is flawed and it does nothing to disprove God. A few other members and I have already pointed out the holes in your paradox. Admit it and lets get on with our lives.

Originally posted by TheB1ueSoldier
Just give up... Madnessinmysoul.

Your paradox is flawed and it does nothing to disprove God. A few other members and I have already pointed out the holes in your paradox. Admit it and lets get on with our lives.

i already showed that the one "hole" you found was filled by humanity's free will. unless god already knows how we're going to excersise that free will, which would be an nullification of free will.

the only other argument i've seen is the "god is beyond comprehension" cop-out.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
i already showed that the one "hole" you found was filled by humanity's free will. unless god already knows how we're going to excersise that free will, which would be an nullification of free will.

No, actually you haven't shown me. And we're not talking about humans here or free will. We are talking about your sandwich analogy in which God makes the decision, NOT humans.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
the only other argument i've seen is the "god is beyond comprehension" cop-out.

Oh okay, so you haven't seen thehumbleone's, queenannie38's, LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal's, apocalypticon's, somedude's, Esoteric Teacher's, KingLizard's, GreatTech's, Paresthesia's, Herman's, and my argument against your paradox? You just so happened to skip over ELEVEN of your critics' critiques? I believe the motto of this website is deny ignorance, not embrace ignorance.

You have voted TheB1ueSoldier for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have two more votes this month.

Please notice that "ignore" is right in the word ignorance.

Originally posted by Madnessinmysoul
... the only other argument i've seen is the "god is beyond comprehension" cop-out.

Then stop copping out. It seems apparent others can comprehend what seems to be some illusive paradox or uncomprehensible definition to you, personnally at times.



[edit on 20-3-2007 by Esoteric Teacher]

Thank you Esoteric_Teacher. That's only the second time I've been voted for that, but hey, I'm getting closer to being WATS!

i think the problem we're having here is in communication, mainly because you're adding a postulate to my initial assertion, i never said ANYWHERE that this hypothetical deity has a perfect will. you're projecting your own personal bias onto the problem.

this is a hypothetical deity, not based on any specific religion's deity.