Let's say that God is omniscient and/or omnipotent. God knows all so He knows that in four days He'll drink a cup of water. Well, if He's omnipotent can't He choose not to drink that cup of water? If so wouldn't that prove His prior intelligence to be false?

On the other hand, if He cannot do anything but drink that cup of water, wouldn't that prove and show a lack of power/ability, thus making him non-omnipotent?

Even if He could take another action over drinking the water, it would still prove His non-omnipotence. Because having omniscience is a power and the lack of this power proves His non-omnipotence all over again.

Do you understand? As far as the bible, the tale of The Watchers proves that He's not omniscient. He didn't know what would be the actions of His angels who were programmed as well as instructed to never interfere with mankind and surely never to know our daughters.

So does the tale of Ezekial, God was all on this dudes nuts and thought highly of this guy(Ezekial) because of his...no, not intelligence, which we bitch about today...no not because he did something great...no not because he was an 'upright' man-but, because of the way he looked.

Yeah that's right, something we shun others in society for, something which God took part in. Who do ya really think He'll fling into hell??? JK (I don't believe in the modern lies of hell's depiction)

God lavished His effection upon this man who later tried to 'dethrone' God in the minds of others. God was deeply distressed by this and I think he killed him and/or made him ugly and all before hand.

God's omnipotence is also questionable when He tried dearly to make 'perfect' beings and failed these two known occasions. That is the making of angels, and then the making of man.

Well... omniscience means that He's all knowing... but your question is assuming that God's foresight is limited. For example, He initially knows that He will be wanting water, however, He suddenly desires not to. This doesn't challenge omniscience, because omniscience prescribes all-knowing, and God would have realised that He would change His mind and therefore not drink the water. Additionally, if He wants to act in opposition to His desires, He'll know that He's going to.

Omnipotence doesn't come into affecting omniscience in this scenario. The thing is, omniscience would prescribe Him already knowing what He'd make up His mind to be... and if He wants to change this end result, then He'd know the result of the internal debate, anyway.

Your question is flawed.

Anyways, I'll answer the other crap later.

quote:Originally posted by Metalligod:

Let's say that God is omniscient and/or omnipotent. God knows all so He knows that in four days He'll drink a cup of water. Well, if He's omnipotent can't He choose not to drink that cup of water? If so wouldn't that prove His prior intelligence to be false?

On the other hand, if He cannot do anything but drink that cup of water, wouldn't that prove and show a lack of power/ability, thus making him non-omnipotent?

Even if He could take another action over drinking the water, it would still prove His non-omnipotence. Because having omniscience is a power and the lack of this power proves His non-omnipotence all over again.

This is not the bible doing so, so it wont count as proof (in the other thread).

Moreover, this argument is made with the use of logic, something an omnipotent being, by definition, cannot be bound to.

In essence you're saying, "Lets say he's omnipotent" and then try to prove he can't do something, which is in and of itself illogical.

quote:

Do you understand? As far as the bible, the tale of The Watchers proves that He's not omniscient. He didn't know what would be the actions of His angels who were programmed as well as instructed to never interfere with mankind and surely never to know our daughters.

So does the tale of Ezekial, God was all on this dudes nuts and thought highly of this guy(Ezekial) because of his...no, not intelligence, which we bitch about today...no not because he did something great...no not because he was an 'upright' man-but, because of the way he looked.

Yeah that's right, something we shun others in society for, something which God took part in. Who do ya really think He'll fling into hell??? JK (I don't believe in the modern lies of hell's depiction)

God lavished His effection upon this man who later tried to 'dethrone' God in the minds of others. God was deeply distressed by this and I think he killed him and/or made him ugly and all before hand.

God's omnipotence is also questionable when He tried dearly to make 'perfect' beings and failed these two known occasions. That is the making of angels, and then the making of man.

Could you quote the passages? I'm not going to do your work for you.

Until I see the passages I won't give a full answer. But, I can saw this: that he was distraught of the angel's actions, does not mean he is not omniscient. He can show any emotion he wants, that doesn't show he isn't omniscient.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 07-27-2004).]

quote:Originally posted by Durell:

Well... omniscience means that He's all knowing... but your question is assuming that God's foresight is limited. For example, He initially knows that He will be wanting water, however, He suddenly desires not to.

Actually, you need to learn how to read, ok? Don't put words in my mouth it'll do you good not to. I did not say that 'He'll desire water'. I said 'He'll drink water'.

There's a big fuckin difference. One speak of an action the other of a wanting, inner disscussional thing. Someone wanting to have sex and someone actually having sex is two vastly differn't think.

Secondly, how the fuck could the question be flawed? If someone does not like the question it is in no way flawed. It's just that a person does not like the question. Plz explain how a question, no, my question is flawed?

Justbe-fuckin-cause the answer is not in your favor, don't fuckin change what I say to conform to the answered the way you wish to answer. Don't try and waste my time, because the next time I see some lame and blatantly decietful crap like that I won't even dignify it with a response. Hell no I won't acknowledge it not even an infinitesimal

This doesn't challenge omniscience, because omniscience prescribes all-knowing, and God would have realised that He would change His mind and therefore not drink the water. Additionally, if He wants to act in opposition to His desires, He'll know that He's going to.

Omnipotence doesn't come into affecting omniscience in this scenario. The thing is, omniscience would prescribe Him already knowing what He'd make up His mind to be... and if He wants to change this end result, then He'd know the result of the internal debate, anyway.

Your question is flawed.

Anyways, I'll answer the other crap later.[/QUOTE]

Desire comes into it, since He'll drink the water due to an inclination. Now if He doesn't want to drink it, He'd have already known that He wouldn't want to drink it, and therefore his omniscience would have shown that He wouldn't drink it in four days.

Edit:

The trigger behind drinking the water is important... because action needs a trigger. I thought desire would be a fairly logical rationale. I mean... are you saying that God is just drinking water in four days and doesn't realise why?

You're limiting omniscience. Basically you're saying that He can see far enough to know that He's going to drink a glass of water, but not far enough to know that He won't want to.

quote:Originally posted by Rust:



Moreover, this argument is made with the use of logic, something an omnipotent being, by definition, cannot be bound to.



This arguement is made with the use of logic?!? WHERE!?!

[This message has been edited by Durell (edited 07-27-2004).]

quote:Moreover, this argument is made with the use of logic, something an omnipotent being, by definition, cannot be bound to.

How so?

quote:Could you quote the passages? I'm not going to do your work for you.

Until I see the passages I won't give a full answer. But, I can saw this: that he was distraught of the angel's actions, does not mean he is not omniscient. He can show any emotion he wants, that doesn't show he isn't omniscient.

Yeah, I will, and BTW it wasn't in Ezekiel that's a about Lucifer, whom many confuse with Satan. My mistake I'm too tired right now but I'll sure have what I need to morrow. Nighters.

quote:Originally posted by Metalligod:

How so?

Because an omnipotent being cannot be bound, hampered, controlled, impeded, (etc.) by anything. If he is, then he wasn't omnipotent in the first place.

In other words, you're saying:

He is omnipotent, but can't do this, which is illogical in the first place.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 07-27-2004).]

Your talking about a God that lays the foundations of reality, he she it can do whatever the fuck it wants http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

I don't mean to be a dick, metalligod, but the question IS somewhat flawed. I'm an atheist and I can see this.

You're trying to make a case of "what happens when an irresistible force meets an immovable object" with the question, but it just doesn't work. God's omniscience, as an imaginary being, may not be limited to one timeline, and to boot, being omnipotent, he may divide in two and both drink and not drink the water. God's power stretches to the very edges of the imagination where he was born.

Seems to be yet another "can god make a rock so heavy he can't lift it" type thread. if I'm not mistaken.

This is just one of those "If a tree falls in the woods and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?" questions that should just be accepted for what they are and left alone.

It's stupid, we know it's stupid, but there's no way to prove it's stupid so we rehash it over and over again until someone starts killing people.

*cocks gun*

Cheers,

Lost

MetalliGod!!! Wherefore art thou, MetalliGod?!

Are you too offended to address my arguement?